Obama to name critic Warren to consum...

Obama to name critic Warren to consumer job

There are 44 comments on the WLLR-FM Davenport story from Sep 16, 2010, titled Obama to name critic Warren to consumer job. In it, WLLR-FM Davenport reports that:

President Barack Obama plans to name Wall Street critic Elizabeth Warren to a special advisory role helping to set up the new U.S. consumer financial watchdog, Democratic sources said on Wednesday.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at WLLR-FM Davenport.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last

“Truth to Power!”

Since: Apr 07

Canton, OH

#1 Sep 16, 2010
Another nut from Academia. Mistake. Need real world people.

“Truth to Power!”

Since: Apr 07

Canton, OH

#2 Sep 16, 2010
“[She] has gotten major criticism in the way she’s carried out her duties,” said Zywicki.“There are serious concerns about her impartiality and that she uses these jobs as a platform for self promotion.”

A bankruptcy attorney who worked with Warren on the National Bankruptcy Review Commission, but did not want to be identified by name, told TheDC by phone that working with the professor was anything but easy. He even recounted two examples to illustrate why.

At one point, an official in the Justice Department was invited to speak at a panel for the commission. The guest traveled across the country only to find out he had been disinvited at the last minute, and was never informed. The person behind the situation? Elizabeth Warren.“She just didn’t want him there,” Warren’s former colleague said.

On another occasion, while the commission was working on their report, Warren altered some already agreed-upon language, completely changing its meaning.

The source also pointed out that three commission members who objected to the writing process for the report wrote a dissent. The dissent listed several reasons for their displeasure, including the fact that draft versions “for the most part, were not given to the Commissioners for their review,” that Warren included “many interpretations and characterizations which often do not reflect the Commission’s work,” and the report failed to reflect the polarizing views and divide between the commission members.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/09/09/working-wit...

“Truth to Power!”

Since: Apr 07

Canton, OH

#3 Sep 16, 2010
Similar episodes have been characteristic of Warren’s tenure as chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel (COP) for TARP. In December 2008, when COP released its first report, the lone Republican on the panel, Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas, was very critical of the process leading up to the report’s publication. Hensarling said he received the finished product only eight minutes before he was supposed to vote on it.

“Unless the majority is willing to empower members of that panel to have the right to call witnesses to receive documents as opposed to asking for her [Warren’s] good graces, it’s a sham and I won’t participate,” Hensarling said at the time.“I am not going to sit around and be the Republican window-dressing.”

Hensarling’s spokesperson also called the panel a “partisan PR circus by its chairwoman.”

“Have you ever seen a chair of a government oversight committee act the way she has the last two years?” asked Zywicki.

But as TheDC previously reported, Warren’s temperament and work ethic are not the only reasons some think her nomination deserves more than a little deliberation. Some of her scholarly credentials have come into question and those in the banking industry worry Warren doesn’t understand all the nuances of small banking.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/09/09/working-wit...

“Truth to Power!”

Since: Apr 07

Canton, OH

#4 Sep 16, 2010
The Twenty Reports of Elizabeth Warren

Reports have circulated widely this week about unease in senior administration and Democratic Party circles – unease about the possibility of Elizabeth Warren heading the new Consumer Financial Protection Agency.

Senator Chris Dodd has wondered publicly and aloud about her confirmability by the Senate;
and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geitner, when given an opportunity to support her possible nomination, visibly declined to take it.
He chose to name instead other suitable candidates.

http://www.davidcoates.net/2010/07/24/the-twe...

“Truth to Power!”

Since: Apr 07

Canton, OH

#5 Sep 16, 2010
Geithner Refuses To Say Whether He'd Be Happy With Warren Leading Consumer Agency

07-22-10

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner conspicuously stopped short of endorsing Elizabeth Warren to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Thursday morning. And while he praised her for her effective advocacy on behalf of consumers, he also refused to say whether he would be happy if she got the job.

"I think she would be a very effective leader of that institution," he said.

At a breakfast meeting with reporters hosted by the Christian Science Monitor, Geithner said he has not yet made his recommendation to President Obama about who should be nominated for the post.

Asked who else might be in the running, Geithner noted that his "colleagues in the White House have put out two other names." Those are Michael Barr, the assistant treasury secretary for financial institutions, and Gene Kimmelman, chief counsel for competition policy in the Justice Department's antitrust division.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/22/geit...

“Truth to Power!”

Since: Apr 07

Canton, OH

#6 Sep 16, 2010
JUDY WOODRUFF: And what’s your understanding of why the government — why the administration, why the Treasury Department isn’t doing more?

ELIZABETH WARREN: It is — it’s as if we had a boat that’s taking on gallons of water, and they’re trying to bail it with a teaspoon.

LOL!

“Truth to Power!”

Since: Apr 07

Canton, OH

#7 Sep 16, 2010
JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, let me ask you about the home mortgage foreclosures. You had a very animated exchange with the secretary over that question.

ELIZABETH WARREN: We did.

JUDY WOODRUFF: He says the success, as we heard him say, can be measured family by family, that it was never intended to help everybody.

ELIZABETH WARREN: Well, you know, no one disputes that. Of course it was never intended to help everybody. But it was intended to help somebody.

The problem we have got — let me put it this way.

This is a program that is saving a tiny number of people, ultimately, by getting them into affordable mortgages that the estimates are they will be able to sustain over time. And for every one of those families that goes in, there are many, many more families who never make it. And the kinds of numbers we’re looking at, we’re looking at mortgage foreclosures that stay well over a million families this year, next year, the year after that, the year after that. That has implications, not only for those families, but for the financial institutions that are holding those mortgages, for the construction industry, for our overall economy.

We have a serious problem and a limited amount of time to get ahead of it. HAMP is not getting ahead of it.

http://www.davidcoates.net/2010/07/24/the-twe...

Since: Nov 08

Paris

#8 Sep 16, 2010
THE OBAMA’S TAKE OFF ON ANOTHER PARIS VACATION………….AFTER THREE PARTIES.....JUST WORE THE POOR SOULS OUT....

BARACK AND MICHELE SNUB FRENCH PRESIDENT....AGAIN

Barack and Michelle Obama decline dinner with the Sarkozys
Charles Bremner in Paris
The Obamas turn up in Paris this evening, but have declined a dinner invitation from the couple next door: the Sarkozys.

President Obama’s reluctance to spend more than minimum time with the French leader on his visit for the D-Day anniversary has come as an embarrassment to the Elysée Palace.
America’s First Family will not be dining with President Sarkozy and his wife, Carla Bruni, even though they are staying at the residence of the US Ambassador, yards from the Elysée apartments where the Sarkozys spend their weekends. OH YES FROM THE MAN THAT EUROPE LOVES, AND WAS GOING TO MAKE THE WORLD LOVE US..........Yep if you're Chaves or Castro they do.

MICHELLE IN 'HELL':'CAN'T STAND' FIRST LADY JOB, If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen……and take your 24 servants with you. Must have ran out of lobster.

“Truth to Power!”

Since: Apr 07

Canton, OH

#10 Sep 16, 2010
Ralph Nader: Letter to President Obama on Professor Elizabeth Warren

July 21st, 2010
Ralph Nader at Nader.org :

Dear President Obama:

It is time for you to give taxpayers, consumers, and investors a reason to believe that you are truly interested in consumer protection by nominating Professor Elizabeth Warren to be the Director of the much-anticipated Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).
Professor Warren combines rigorous scholarship, a superb sense of needed change and clear ways to communicate those needs to families and individuals around the country. Consumer leaders know that Professor Warren has been a strong and talented Chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel (COP) reviewing the current state of financial markets and the regulatory system.

In addition, Professor Warren had the vision and good sense to propose and advocate for the creation of an entity much like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

It is troubling that Shahien Nasiripour, Huffington Post business reporter, wrote in a July 15, 2010 article:“Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has expressed opposition to the possible nomination of Elizabeth Warren to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, according to a source with knowledge of Geithner’s views.”

It is equally troubling that on NPR’s Diane Rehm Show, Senator Christopher Dodd, Chairman of the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee attempted to further undermine Professor Warren. Today’s National Journal Online reports that when “Asked about Warren, who is chairing a special commission created to oversee the bank bailouts, Dodd said that ‘no idea is terribly creative if it can’t sell’ and he asked rhetorically about Warren,‘Is she confirmable?’”

With Senator Dodd showing a lack of leadership or willingness to fight for Professor Warren, and with Treasury Secretary Geithner seemingly preferring someone who is more willing to fight for Wall Street speculators with other peoples’ money than consumers and investors on Main Street, it is imperative that you issue a strong and clear statement of support for Professor Warren now.

Wall Street’s “picks” for high positions in your administration have met with your concurrence again and again. Now it is time for the overwhelming choice of Professor Warren by consumer groups in Washington and all the country to be respected.

If you wish to make this an adverse political issue for November, you can. Or you can be a responsive leader and secure Senate confirmation for the peoples’ choice.

Sincerely,
Ralph Nader

“Truth to Power!”

Since: Apr 07

Canton, OH

#11 Sep 16, 2010
Cindy Sheehan Says Stop Voting for Either Wing of the War Party, Calls for Impeaching Obama

July 21st, 2010

During the campaign, many colleagues and friends of mine, assured me that Obama was just saying this hostile crap to “get elected” and once he was elected that he would “do the right thing.”

Well, first of all, why support such a pandering Jackwagon, and secondly, how has that ever worked?

Three days after Obama swore to uphold and defend the Constitution, he drone-bombed a “target” in Pakistan killing 3 dozen civilians—and since that day he has elevated the art of drone bombings to new heights, while the so-called antiwar movement looks on in silent complacency and while Democratic operatives disguised as antiwar groups are hoping against hope that Obama comes out strong with a new antiwar marketing campaign to assure his “re-election.”

Even though not one progressive issue has been propagated during his term, these war supporters are looking forward to another four years of the dance of death. Right foot kill—left foot torture—spin around for environmental devastation—allemande left for health care fascism—and shimmy right for bankster bailouts.

Wasn’t eight years of this crap during the Bush stain enough for y’all?

Many antiwar groups and people who claim they are for peace lose their minds during election season thinking that the razor-thin difference between the Democrat and Republican is enough to go ape-shit crazy in working for the Democrat. Just take the last two Democratic candidates, for example. Kerry and Obama both supported more war. An “antiwar” movement de-legitimizes itself when it works hard for a candidate who does not promise total and rapid withdrawal of troops from wherever they happen to be at the time AND does not promise to end war as an imperial tool of corporate conquest.

The majority of the so-called antiwar movement, in fact, voted for a candidate that PROMISED to contract one war only to be able to profoundly EXPAND another. Obama all along said that he is not against all war, just “dumb wars.” If there existed an antiwar movement that had integrity—it would have said that “all wars are dumb,” and we withhold our support for just another dyed-in-the-wool warmonger.

http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/201...

“Truth to Power!”

Since: Apr 07

Canton, OH

#12 Sep 16, 2010
Is TARP Working? Warren: Who Knows?

June 09, 2009

Professor Elizabeth Warren, the chair of the oversight panel that Congress created to monitor the Troubled Asset Relief Program, was asked today if the group she heads has revealed to the American public whether TARP was actually working.

Warren's answer was sobering: "We can't disclose what isn't known.

We've disclosed as much as we can, we've addressed this in our various reports. The Secretary of the Treasury says there are some positive indicators and there some negative indicators still in the economy. And that's the best we can do.”

"We can see changes, we try to document those and we try to point out where their continue to be weaknesses,” she continued. "You know this isn't resolved yet, congressman. I'm sorry, it's just not. We're still in mid-crisis and there are both up arrows and down arrows."

Warren was more positive about the stress tests used to measure the health of bank holding companies, but said they should be repeated as long as the banks continue to hold large amounts of toxic assets on their books.

"The good news is that the stress test was designed to bring the off-balance sheet vehicles back and include them. I think that that the stress test without that would have been a non-starter," she testified.

But then she cautioned, "I hope that everything has been included. I have to say these are self-reported numbers.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/06/is-t...

“Truth to Power!”

Since: Apr 07

Canton, OH

#13 Sep 16, 2010
The Coming Collapse of the Middle Class

A 57 Minute lecture by Elizabeth Warren

&fe ature=player_embedded

“Truth to Power!”

Since: Apr 07

Canton, OH

#14 Sep 16, 2010
Why Elizabeth Warren Should be Rejected

by Jon Henke,
07/26/2010

I have generally argued that the Senate should only withhold confirmation approval for manifestly corrupt or unqualified appointments. Otherwise, a President should get his nominees.

Megan McCardle makes a compelling case that Elizabeth Warren - a leadering candidate to run the new consumer financial protection agency - is an utterly incompetent academic.

I can understand why the Democrats would promote somebody who panders to their prejudices, but it is genuinely hard to understand how Harvard - or the academic journals that published her - could stand by while she has used their reputation to peddle propaganda as academic research.

If Elizabeth Warren is appointed, the Senate should not confirm her.

“Truth to Power!”

Since: Apr 07

Canton, OH

#15 Sep 16, 2010
Considering Elizabeth Warren, the Scholar

Jul 22 2010,

(Part one of a two-part series)

The progressives seem to have made Elizabeth Warren their cause-du-jour. I have a long and complicated history with Elizabeth Warren, so allow me a moment to offer my long and complicated thoughts on her. Really long. So long that I had to break it into two parts--scholarship and public life--in order to prevent the nausea, daytime sleepyness, and intracranial bleeding that might otherwise result. Consider yourselves warned.

I first encountered Elizabeth Warren in the early part of the decade, when I read her book, The Two Income Trap. The thesis is innovative and, I think, at least partly correct: that in many ways, two income families have made households less financially stable, not more so. Among higher income families, much of the extra income has simply been poured into a bidding war with other higher income families for homes in good school districts. Among lower income families, much of the extra income has gone to replacing home production with market production: convenience meals, work clothes, second cars, child care, and so forth.

Because the extra income is being fully consumed, the result is that if one partner loses their job, the family is not more insulated from economic shock, but less so. In the 1950s, if Dad lost his job, Mom could pick up extra work to make up at least some of the loss. In the Mean Teens, Mom's already got a full time job.

But while I found the thesis compelling, there were some problems with the book. The first is that Warren simply fails to grapple with what her thesis suggests about the net benefits of the two-earner family. Admittedly, I don't quite know what to say either, but at least I can acknowledge that it's a pretty powerful problem for the current family model; Warren kind of waves her hands and mumbles about social programs and more supportive work environments. There is no possible solution outside of a more left-wing government.

But the deeper problem is that some of her evidence doesn't really support her thesis, and can be made to appear to support her thesis only by making some very weird choices about what metrics to use...

Read More:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2...

“Truth to Power!”

Since: Apr 07

Canton, OH

#17 Sep 16, 2010
...These are obvious issues she should have dealt with.(I'll add that Ed Glaeser's work indicates a strong role for zoning and other sorts of NIMBYism, but it wasn't particularly famous at the time, so there's no reason she should have known about it.) But they considerably weaken her thesis, and she doesn't have a good answer for them.

That's a pattern I see over and over in her work.

In her (in)famous paper on medical bankruptcies in 2001, Warren and her co-authors defined anyone with $1000 worth of medical bills as having a medical bankruptcy, and used that figure to imply that rising medical bills were pushing people over the financial edge.

Now maybe they are, but you sure couldn't prove it with that metric. I hope to hell that no lawyer (Warren is a law professor) would advise a client with no debt but $1,000 worth of medical bills to declare bankruptcy, because doing so would be malpractice*.

If $1,000 worth of medical bills can push you into bankruptcy, you already had a major problem, either on the spending side or on the income side.

There is simply no reason for using this metric as a proxy for anything. As a side note, this would make the bankruptcy of Edmund Andrews' wife a "medical bankruptcy", since she had thousands in bills to some sort of cosmetic practice (I believe a dermatologist)...

“Truth to Power!”

Since: Apr 07

Canton, OH

#18 Sep 16, 2010
Considering Elizabeth Warren, the Scholar (cont.)

I blogged about her latest paper here. This one also looked at medical bankruptcies, this time in 2007, and was supposed to improve on the problems of the previous paper. These were the conclusions they came to:

WARREN: In 2007, before the current economic downturn, an American family filed for bankruptcy in the aftermath of illness every 90 seconds; three quarters of them were insured.

Since 2001, the proportion of all bankruptcies attributable to medical problems has increased by 50%. Nearly two thirds of all bankruptcies are now linked to an illness...(blah, blah, blah...)

This paper was deeply, deeply flawed, and all in ways that suggested--as this discussion does--that rising medical bills were causing an increase in bankruptcies. I'll try to hit the highlights:

1. I'm pretty sure that the metric they used this time around--10% of income or $5,000 would still make Patty Barreiro's bankruptcy a "medical bankruptcy", something which has never been asserted by anyone. The proximate cause of that bankruptcy was (according to Andrews) a lawsuit and an income crunch; the medical bills were simply added in.

2. The response rate on their survey was only 20%. Given the deep shame surrounding bankruptcy, you have to worry that they got an unrepresentative sample. And how is that sample most likely to be unrepresentative? Well, one pretty likely way is that people who went bankrupt through no fault of their own--folks who got whacked by large and unpayable medical bills or a business closure--were more likely to respond than the people with drug or alcohol problems, profound depression that left them unable to work, compulsive gambling issues, and so forth.

3. The authors have an odd tendency to ignore what the respondents themselves say. 32% of those surveyed about their 2007 bankruptcies--not 62%--reported that "medical problem of self or spouse was reason for bankruptcy." If anything, I would expect this to be overreported, since this is one of the few reasons for bankruptcy that does not trigger shame in our society; there should be a tendency for people to overemphasize the role that illness played in bankruptcies, which are often multifactorial and involve many different kinds of bills.

Warren, et al argue that they need to correct for the fact that someone may mortgage a home to pay for an illness, and then report the reason for their bankruptcy as "unable to pay for mortgage". Fair enough, but if you are going to try to correct for that sort of thing, you also need to try to correct for bias in the other direction. They only make adjustments that ratchet the results upwards.

More troubling, when you look at the percentage of people who self report that illness played a role in their bankruptcy, it hasn't changed that much. In the 2001 study, "illness or injury" is cited causally in just over 28% of cases. In the 2007 study, it's 32%. That's about a 10% increase, far less dramatic than they claim, and given how small their sample is, not particularly compelling. This should have induced far more caution in describing the changes than they claim.

4. Their methodology is quite explicitly designed to capture every case where medical bills, or medical loss of income, coexist with some other causal factor--but the medical issues are then always designated as causal in their discussion. As the case of Patty Barreiro indicates, this is simply not correct...

Read More:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2...

“Truth to Power!”

Since: Apr 07

Canton, OH

#19 Sep 16, 2010
Allow me to channel one of last year's commenters:

First, she redefines medical-related bankruptcy as having debts of $5000 or 10% of family income. She packages this as conservative, but for dual-unemployed families (income zero), ANY medical debt is therefore medical-related. She has a series of OR conditions which are likely to inflate cases where a person has been sick but where it ISN'T related to their bankruptcy.

Then she runs logistic regression to predict medical bankruptcy (at least as she defines it). It's not totally clear to me what variables she used or the order they were entered-- forward stepwise basically leaves it to the computer. All those other predictors that were skipped need to be declared. There are tricks with collinearity you can pull with stepwise (or, really any regression) to inflate or deflate coefficients. I also don't see a test for homoscedasticity.

Most importantly, though, we don't see the questionnaire she used. I don't see any checks for common methods bias, and not knowing her operationalizations, we have to basically take them on faith. She also doesn't establish comparability with her 2001 study, which is the whole point of her paper.

With flaws like this, I'm surprised that the study made it through peer review. I don't see a fatal flaw, but the reviewers would be sure to demand these kinds of methodological checks, and at six pages, there's plenty of room for that last half-page.

She seems to define medical-related as "bankruptcies which occur due to medical conditions, have an impact on medical conditions, or occur adjacent to medical conditions". If I calculate "medical-related sunspots", would I get a similar high percentage of the population? This limits its utility for anything other than a stat that can be pasted out of context into a flyer or campaign mailing.

...

I should point out that by collecting three very different kinds of "medical-related" bankruptcy into one predictor, she makes it totally meaningless. People teetering on the edge of bankruptcy have ALL sources of debt very high. Delinquent housing debts, credit card debts, mall boutique debts, and utility bills. That's why they're filing for bankruptcy.

You're supposed to use controls and good operationalizations to eliminate those problems. That's why we use regression in the first place. But she doesn't use it that way, in fact she goes out of her way to avoid using it; and where she does use it, she employs stepwise regression, which explicitly doesn't help with this problem. We also don't know her questionnaire because she didn't include it, even in an appendix.

So the real litmus test for this is: if I go back to her sample and use her methodology to find the proportion of credit card debt-related bankruptcy, I would probably ALSO get 80% or 90%. Then, I could go back again and show that automobile-related bankruptcy is another 40%-60% of bankruptcies.

When you strip out the statistical obfuscation, you end up with a couple simple correlations between year and another variable that can best be described as "we don't know what this is".

“Truth to Power!”

Since: Apr 07

Canton, OH

#20 Sep 16, 2010
Considering Elizabeth Warren, the Scholar (cont.)

5. As I discussed at the time, early 2007 is a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad time to do any sort of study on bankruptcy. In 2005, Congress passed a bankruptcy reform bill that (among other things) tightened up the procedures for filing Chapter 7, the kind of bankruptcy where you just liquidate all your debts and don't have to go on a payment plan.

This tightening was real, but rather exaggerated in the popular press (the overwhelming majority of people who need to file bankruptcy will have no problem qualifying for a Chapter 7). Perhaps for that reason, even bankruptcy experts were stunned by the number of people who rushed to file before the six month grace period in the law was up. They were also stunned by the magnitude of the decline, and how long bankruptcies took to start trending back towards previous levels.

This graph from Credit Slips shows what it looked like:
http://assets.theatlantic.com/static/mt/asset...

The study by Warren et. al. was done in early 2007, just as the rebound was gaining steam. There's quite a lot of reason to think that the sample was badly skewed. Many bankruptcies are long slow train-wrecks, the problems accumulating over a number of years as spending persistently outpaces income. A pretty convincing paper argues that the single best predictor of bankruptcy is simply how much debt you've accumulated--not income, job loss, divorce, or what have you. People who declare bankruptcy tend to have nicer stuff than others at the same income level.

But that paper also shows that medical events have independent predictive power. And medical events are much less of a foreseeable problem. If you're a plumber who has a stroke, you may well end up in bankruptcy simply because you lose income while you can't work (the medical bills may or may not play a large causal role).

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2...

“Truth to Power!”

Since: Apr 07

Canton, OH

#21 Sep 16, 2010
More on Warren:

...The paper they cite doesn't actually say what they imply; it addresses unsecured debt and income, not medical debt specifically.

All bankruptcy is highly correlated with the level of unsecured debt, because that's the kind of debt you can most easily discharge in bankruptcy.

Its major finding is that consumers who file bankruptcy have a higher level of absolute debt than in the past--something they cite as "consistent with the view" of a lengthier struggle (as is a modest rise in the percentage of people citing that they struggled with bills for at least two years before filing). Moreover, they specifically argue that their data challenges the thesis of the 2001 paper:

Yet the Sullivan-Warren-Westbrook model also cannot explain our findings on its own. It does not predict the sharp decline in bankruptcy filings we see in our data. Because there have been no dramatic improvements in health care delivery, employment prospects or family stability, their model would predict constant, not diminished, rates of filing.

6. Bringing me to my next point: the paper thoroughly obscures the point that by their own calculations, the number of medical bankruptcies fell quite dramatically between 2001 and 2007. This is, to put it mildly, sort of a problem for the thesis that exploding medical bills are shoving people into bankruptcy. They avoid dealing with this problem by citing only proportions, never absolute numbers--even thought they use absolute numbers freely whenever they are eye-popping.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2...

“Truth to Power!”

Since: Apr 07

Canton, OH

#22 Sep 16, 2010
7. The authors (Warren) dramatically underweight the role of income loss resulting from illness in their discussion. They also sort of failed to mention it when talking to the media. When I wrote my rather fiery critique last year, a lot of people said I should really criticize the media for screwing up the story.

But every interview I read of the authors, particularly Woolhandler and Himmelstein of Physicians for National Health Care, basically put all the emphasis on medical bills. If the press got it wrong, it's because the authors went out of their way to put an extreme spin on their findings.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

US Treasury Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Obama's own administration now fighting back Thu THINKEROO 3
News New U.S. sanctions concession to Iran may be in... Apr '16 Sammy 2
News Senate Bill Would Block IRS from Collecting Soc... (Dec '15) Dec '15 private guy 1
News US deficit now lowest since 2007 (Oct '15) Oct '15 private guy 74
News Debt ceiling deadline is now November 5 (Oct '15) Oct '15 Elite slavery mat... 17
News No checks, please: IRS no longer takes checks f... (Sep '15) Sep '15 Larry Craig s WC ... 3
News Which woman should be on $10 US bill? Treasury ... (Jun '15) Jul '15 Agents of Corruption 101
More from around the web