This Cure Violence campaign is pretty interesting. “Give a pass. And kiss your kids when you get a pass.”
The week before King v. Burwell was announced, I confidentially polled an elite group of health policy and legal experts to get their personally-assessed prior probability that the King plaintiffs challenging ACA subsidies would actually win this case. The somewhat-arbitrary group included leading health economists, political scientists, journalists covering the case. It also included several legal antagonists who had written briefs on the various sides.
I received more than forty responses. Not surprisingly, given my own liberal views, about three-quarters of the responses were from Democrats. Although Democrats and Republicans had wildly different views of who should win, the distribution of predicted probabilities of a plaintiff victory was surprisingly similar between the two groups. Amazingly, Cato’s Michael Cannon and I offered identical prior predictions—20% probability of plaintiff victory.
Among Democrats, the median predicted probability of plaintiff victory was 40%. Among Republicans, the median was 37.5%. The means showed a bit more of a difference between the two groups: 46% among Republicans, 37.5% among Democrats. Yet five of the six highest predicted probabilities of a plaintiff victory came from Democratic experts; two were 70% or higher.
The overall distribution is shown below.
Judging by my admittedly- clunky informal poll, the Obama administration’s emphatic victory surprised many close observers on both sides. Many Democrats reported that the plaintiffs had more than 0.5 probability of winning. Otherwise, why would the Supreme Court have jumped to take the case? We may never know the answer to that question.
We don’t merely know this from polls. Hospital Corporation of America stock rose 8% at the decision’s announcement. (See below from WSJ.com.) That is an amazing jump, which reflects hospitals’ strong stake in ACA’s effective national implementation.
Many states went to considerable trouble devising contingency plans, suggesting that they, too, took this case very seriously indeed.
After the ruling was announced, I tweeted that conservatives magnified their political and legal losses by tethering themselves to a preposterous legal case. I stand by that deep, 140-character argument. Yet it is definitely an ex post argument. The smart money believed that the plaintiffs might well have won.
We’re likely to see a huge amount of hindsight bias applied to this case. From the plaintiff’s perspective, this seems ex post like a more doomed tactical gambit than it actually was, when properly viewed from an ex ante perspective. From my opposing perspective, this is sobering. Fortunately, the same insights make the government’s emphatic victory appear more exhilarating and important than it would otherwise seem to be.
My short take for Politico on the King case.
The Supreme Court has finally spoken. It never really needed to speak at all. The Court’s 6-3 decision to uphold federal subsidies under the Affordable Care Act was simple and emphatic, written by Chief Justice Roberts, no less. Justice Antonin Scalia’s dyspeptic dissent indicates the extent of the administration’s legal victory. Stock prices for the Hospital Corporation of America jumped approximately 8 percent with this decision, providing some sense of the economic havoc that might otherwise have ensued.
I’m gratified by the outcome. But I remain saddened by the full history of this case….
It’s a shame that the best health policy minds in both parties spent many months battling over this preposterous thing. We could have been trying to make better policy. IBy tethering themselves to King and then suffering a comprehensive legal defeat, conservatives ironically set back their own efforts while further embedding ACA within the fabric of American life.
This isn’t a bad one.
— The White House (@WhiteHouse) June 26, 2015
Not a bad bit of speech-writing, either.
As a nation, out of this terrible tragedy, God has visited grace upon us, for he has allowed us to see where we’ve been blind. He has given us the chance, where we’ve been lost, to find our best selves. We may not have earned it, this grace, with our rancor and complacency, and short-sightedness and fear of each other — but we got it all the same. He gave it to us anyway. He’s once more given us grace. But it is up to us now to make the most of it, to receive it with gratitude, and to prove ourselves worthy of this gift.
The setting and circumstances of Charleston’s atrocity remind me of the many times that I’ve visited various African-American churches. As a white non-Christian, I’ve always been embraced as a valued guest. That Dylann Roof was accorded similar hospitality, and yet apparently went on to murder the very people who graciously welcomed him adds yet another incomprehensibly depraved element to this attack.
I am a love-hate reader of the New York Times’ “Wealth Matters” series. I find such articles embarrassingly addicting. Less focused on straight real estate porn than the Wall Street Journal’s “Mansion” section, Wealth Matters provides an interesting sociological window into the world of wealth. The section often reveals more than it intends, about both its subjects and its comfortable reading audience.
Consider one recent column by Paul Sullivan: “Millionaires Who Are Frugal When They Don’t Have to Be.” Continue Reading…
Today is Mother’s Day. I just want to give a shout-out to all of those family caregivers–usually though not always moms–who should be honored today, as well. Yeah, that is my wife and my brother-in-law in a fairly recent picture.
More than 800,000 Americans diagnosed with intellectual or developmental disabilities currently live with a caregiver over the age of sixty. That’s usually “Mom,” with spouses, daughters, or others helping out.
Props to all of them. They’re working some serious overtime, in more than one way.
Hitting Cornel West, issues in urban policing, Al Sharpton, white identity politics in the GOP. And I have a final gratifying announcement on a more personal front, too.