I'd be very interested in an article about problems and solutions in American healthcare from an actuarial perspective. I'm siginificantly less interested in reading apologetics about the ACA. The article started out like the former and ended up like the latter.
It's not controversial that there are similarities between the ACA and Romney plans. Bringing it up serves no purpose outside of making political points, which was my point.
I am very interested in discussing healthcare. I just don't think this article advances the discussion. Again, a well-written actuarial perspective would probably be more interesting.
Are you arguing that the inclusion of political opinions negates the value of the author's actuarial discussions? If so, why would that be the case? If the author's statements about actuarial science are incorrect, why not just say so?
Or is it that you don't trust the author, so you suspect the factual claims underlying his argument are false? If that's the case, then why not cite outside sources to demonstrate as much?
It's not about negating his points or trusting the author.
I actually liked the piece. Until I reached the part of the article that started talking about how the free market failed. Characterizing the pre-ACA health insurance system as a free market is not a given and deserves much more discussion. I've already commented on the other issues I had with the end of the article, but at the end I felt that the real conclusion of the article (ACA! With exclamation points!) was at the end and that the points earlier served to support that conclusion.
As far as facts go, I don't have much factual issue with the piece except for the reliance on anecdote and his errors in omission.
It's not controversial that there are similarities between the ACA and Romney plans. Bringing it up serves no purpose outside of making political points, which was my point.
I am very interested in discussing healthcare. I just don't think this article advances the discussion. Again, a well-written actuarial perspective would probably be more interesting.