Michael F. Cannon 🇮🇪 🇺🇸
@mfcannon.bsky.social
1.5K followers 220 following 1.2K posts
“An influential health care wonk at the libertarian Cato Institute“ – Washington Post. “A pleasant discovery” – Capitalism magazine. Washingtonian’s “Most Influential People” in DC 2021-present.
Posts Media Videos Starter Packs
mfcannon.bsky.social
Senate intern on my book: "it was a killer price for Prime Day."
mfcannon.bsky.social
I’m doing none of those things, but rather:

E) great goal going to the moon, stop confusing that with arm-flapping and let’s get there
mfcannon.bsky.social
If I say pepperoni and broken glass pizza is unpopular, and you say I’m wrong because pepperoni pizza is popular, that is not a serious argument.
mfcannon.bsky.social
Not for nothing, @Mark_J_Perry, but I think I might be able to explain your "hospitals" line:

www.nationalaffairs.... @NationalAffairs @AEI
mfcannon.bsky.social
I’ve got a piece up this morning @NRO explaining the only defensible deal Republicans could strike on extending Obamacare subsidies for the wealthy is one that frees people to choose better, more affordable health insurance.
mfcannon.bsky.social
Nowhere did I or would I say that voters do not want the benefits of a Obamacare.

My only claim was that when you ask voters about all the costs and all the benefits, even Democrats don’t like Obamacare.
mfcannon.bsky.social
That point is such an obvious area of agreement, I wonder what you and I have been arguing about.

I think the disagreement may stem from you conflating “giving sick people health care“ with “Obamacare“ in a way that I do not.
mfcannon.bsky.social
Can you say in whose mouths I am putting words, and what those words are?
mfcannon.bsky.social
The reason you stated is that you want to ignore trade-offs. Yes?
mfcannon.bsky.social
Laws requiring insurers to subsidize preexisting conditions are not popular: www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/f.... If you can find a poll that presents all tradeoffs and still finds majority support, lemme know.

You criticize inegalitarian preferences, no?
Health Affairs Journal
www.healthaffairs.org
mfcannon.bsky.social
Most disagree with you about the reasonableness of those tradeoffs. I suspect you may not be aware of all the tradeoffs. www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/f...

And yes. In large part because it would result in less deprivation (read: minimizes the tradeoffs).
Health Affairs Journal
www.healthaffairs.org
mfcannon.bsky.social
Did you see the piece to which I linked?
mfcannon.bsky.social
“at the group level” = denying tradeoffs

“any process” = question-begging

“doesn’t let people die” = nirvana fallacy

“you would be much better off”: thanks

supply-side: true
mfcannon.bsky.social
I confess again, I’m not following.

My plan is not ready for a response? And you’re not asking about it?
mfcannon.bsky.social
That’s quite a phrase, “not true at the group level.”

Your claim that an establishment of religion violates religious freedom is not true at the group level.

Fella could whitewash all sorts of abuses with phrase like that.
mfcannon.bsky.social
Democrats who once counted on the stupidity of the American voter are now banking on the stupidity of Republican lawmakers — all because they won’t acknowledge that Obamacare is an unaffordable failure.

www.washingtontimes....
mfcannon.bsky.social
Answered the former questions previously.

The latter part misstates my criticism.
mfcannon.bsky.social
For most in the individual market, Obamacare doubles their premiums. Without it, their premiums would be far less.

?
mfcannon.bsky.social
Please define what you mean by all this stuff and loss ratios.
mfcannon.bsky.social
I apologize because I’m not following what you’re not following.