The Lima News & the Editor’s Note 4/19/12

Pardon me while I snicker. You may have noticed that the Lima News published my last Talking Points entry here as a letter to the editor (though cutting the last sentence.) The great part is that my letter got sufficiently under their skin that they added an Editor’s Note. “The editorial merely pointed out that, given the Congressional Budget Office revision and the additional Medicare costs – which the letter seems to agree are coming – the overall cost will be far higher than the public was originally led to believe.” Really, that is all you were doing? Then the title “Obamacare darkens US fiscal outlook” and the first two-thirds of the editorial talking about Blahous’s claim that it would add $530 billion to the federal budget deficit were just filler leading up to the single paragraph on the report from the Congressional Budget Office. So they didn’t make a logical blunder by trying to defend Blahous against his critics by pointing out that congress has consistently supported and expanded Medicare, which as I pointed out in fact, far from defending Blahous, actually shows how foolish Blahous’s assumption is. No they didn’t make a logical blunder because they weren’t trying to defend Blahous, they were just killing time until they could mention the Congressional Budget Office Report. Of course they had no time to point out that the new estimate was higher because we are two years closer to the 2014 full implementation of the Affordable Care Act so the standard ten year estimate drops off the two low cost years that have passed and adds two high cost years after full implementation. They also had no time to point out that the report they were citing specifically said that it did not include the reductions in cost due to the Act nor did they have time to point out that the Congressional Budget Office has not changed its estimate that the Affordable Care Act will actually reduce the deficit. No they had no time to do that because of all time they spent on their filler on Blahous and then they had to spend some more time after the paragraph which made their point laughing about the fact that the Supreme Court Justices weren’t going to bother to read the Affordable Care Act. They are going to rule on whether the Act is within the Constitution, but they can’t be bothered to read it. Scalia said that reading it would be “cruel and unusual punishment.” What a card that Scalia is. Well I’ve read it. I’ve read every word of it and of the version of the legislation originally passed by the House, including the manager’s amendments to each. I’ve read all 5000 or so pages. I can tell you it’s good legislation and I wish more people would read it. But now that the Editors have explained to me what they were trying to say in the editorial, I can see that they weren’t guilty of bad logic after all. It was simply a matter of an incredibly badly organized essay. The editors don’t need a logic course. They just need a freshman writing course.