IN SEARCH OF THE USA 9400: Conspiracy dooms current health care reporting!


Part 1—American group disappeared:
Six days ago—it was Wednesday, March 14—the New York Times published an editorial about American health care.

On the whole, the editorial wasn't half bad. Still and all, a highly important group was ruthlessly disappeared.

We refer to the USA 9400, whose very existence is constantly kept from public awareness or view. First, though, let's recall the most interesting part of the editorial the New York Times published that day.

The editorial was an attack on the current Republican health plan, or Ivankacare for short. On the whole, the editorial was basically and pretty much essentially right on the money.

The editors savaged the GOP plan. Headline included, this is the way they began:
NEW YORK TIMES EDITORIAL (3/8/17): No Wonder They Hid the Health Bill

Republican House leaders have spent months dodging questions about how they would replace the Affordable Care Act
with a better law, and went so far as to hide the draft of their plan from other lawmakers. No wonder. The bill they released on Monday would kick millions of people off the coverage they currently have. So much for President Trump's big campaign promise: ''We're going to have insurance for everybody''—with coverage that would be ''much less expensive and much better.''

More than 20 million Americans gained health care coverage under the A.C.A., or Obamacare. Health experts say most would lose that coverage under the proposal.
Yesterday, the CBO released a more detailed estimate of the number of people who would lose coverage (or something like that) under the GOP plan. Some journalists have published accurate accounts of that CBO estimate. Other scribes, not so much.

Whatever! The New York Times editorial was right in the ballpark last week. That said, we thought the most interesting part of the editorial occurred in the highlighted passage shown below, in which the editors spoke to Jason Chaffetz:
NEW YORK TIMES EDITORIAL: House Speaker Paul Ryan and Tom Price, the secretary of health and human services, have railed against high premiums and deductibles for plans sold on the health exchanges, but that problem would only worsen under their proposal because insurers would almost certainly raise their prices as the pool of the insured shrank. Republican lawmakers seem to think that people who can't afford insurance are simply irresponsible. Representative Jason Chaffetz of Utah, for instance, told CNN that people should invest in their health care, ''rather than getting that new iPhone.'' Word to Mr. Chaffetz: Health insurance costs more than $18,000 a year for an average family; an iPhone costs a few hundred dollars.
Word up! "Health insurance costs more than $18,000 a year for an average family," the editors said.

More than $18,000 per year, possibly for a family of four? To the demographic now known as "the losers," that's a lot of dough!

Health insurance costs more than $18,000 a year for an average family? We're going to assume that the editors were right in that somewhat murky assertion. Having made that assumption, we're going to say that their statement leads to two obvious questions:
Two obvious questions:
1) Why does insurance cost so much?
2) Why does it cost so little?
We'll unpack those equal-but-opposite questions as the week continues. For today, let's establish the absence of that constantly disappeared group, the so-called USA 9400.

Modern American history involves quite a few numbered groups. Two prominent examples:

Through their determination and their courage, the Little Rock Nine played a key role in civil rights history. Meanwhile, in a way which was heinous and stupid even by his own standards, Donald J. Trump aggressively semi-urged the execution of the falsely-convicted Central Park Five.

This leads us to the story of the USA 9400, a group whose very existence is constantly disappeared.

Over the next few days, we're going to ask you to ponder the meaning of this mandated disappearance. For today, our point of departure is this:

At the present time, we're seeing tons of journalism about American health care. We're seeing news reports, editorials and opinion columns. We're even seen some cable stars try to discuss this topic!

Within that body of work, you're going to see endless accounts of the costs of American health care. And yet, we can issue a strange guarantee:

You'll never see the USA 9400 mentioned. You won't see that disappeared group mentioned even once!

You won't see this essential group mentioned in the New York Times. They won't be mentioned by Rachel Maddow as she mugs, clowns, minces, grins her weird, consultant-ordered grins and histrionically chuckles.

You'll hear about the white working class. You'll hear about effects on Trump voters.

But you won't hear a single word about the USA 9400. We issue that as a guarantee, and we offer this question:

Why is that?

Tomorrow: The poet has said that "Momma tried." Way back in 2005, so did our most valuable journalist.

Concerning that murky claim: "Health insurance costs more than $18,000 a year for an average family?"

How many people are in that family? The New York Times didn't say.

We assigned our Click Research Team to follow the trail of the murky claim. The editorial's link took them here, where the number of dollars was precisely nailed down but our question remained unexplained, at least at the point where they grimaced, moaned, tore their and sulkingly gave up.


  1. An advantage of having Republicans in power is that the Times criticizes their unsound actions.

    ...high premiums and deductibles for plans sold on the health exchanges, but that problem would only worsen under their proposal because insurers would almost certainly raise their prices as the pool of the insured shrank. Republican lawmakers seem to think that people who can't afford insurance are simply irresponsible.

    The Times is right. And, as they implicitly acknowledge, the ACA had the same problem, although the collapse would be slower. Unfortunately for us all, there was no warning from the Times when the Dems passed a Plan guaranteed to collapse.

    1. Go fuck yourself Comrade David, you voted for that. The only satisfaction I will have is to see you get royally fucked with the huge increases in costs for seniors.

    2. It's the ACA that put American healthcare on a bad track, from which IMHO it will never recover. The trouble is, no replacement plan can produce what the ACA promises. The ACA can't fulfill its promises either. But, any new proposal will look bad in comparison with the promises of the ACA

    3. Mm you better try a little harder pal.

    4. And they campaigned on repealing it without even having a fucking plan to replace.

      Yes, and the Democrats enacted ACA without even reading or knowing how it worked. In terms of health care planning, both parties suck.

    5. mm -Even Democrats regret the passage of ObamaCare which nourishes the irrationality of hierarchical exploitation and repression. Because of the alternative minimum tax and human's huge capacity to carry pain and sadness YOU once again have proven yourself fucked and stupid when the Democrats like you demonstrate historical thought has after all forgotten and lost itself, that Medicare's conclusions are negated, but at the same time the validity of your method are confirmed where Obmamcare is concerned in comparison with the times that didn't go so well. So please pull your head out and lament the complexity of the bill. The Omamcare planned left millions in the dust.

    6. 9:35,
      Yes. Universal Care is much better (easier to administer and less costly) than ObamaCare.
      Unfortunately, it is also easier to see how some benefits go to minorities, so for Conservatives it's a non-starter.

    7. Once again, you're full of shit Comrade DinC.

      The ACA bill was debated for a full fucking year. Town halls were held all around the country with President Obama personally appearing and inviting leading Republican Congressmen and others to debate. You're just fucking full of shit you lying bastard. What your just did was fucking vomit your FOX NEWZ perversion of what Nancy Pelosi said, distorting completely the meaning of her remark taken out of context. You ought to be familiar with how the right wing media has a habit of doing that since you fucking read this blog.


      Pelosi: People won’t appreciate reform until it passes

      Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Tuesday that people won’t appreciate how great the Democrat’s health plan is until after it passes.

      “You’ve heard about the controversies, the process about the bill…but I don’t know if you’ve heard that it is legislation for the future – not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America,” she told the National Association of Counties annual legislative conference, which has drawn about 2,000 local officials to Washington. “But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it – away from the fog of the controversy.”

      During a 20-minute speech, she touted benefits she thinks will be tangible to the audience’s employers. She said there’s support for public health infrastructure and investments in community health centers that will reduce uncompensated care that hospitals now need to deliver.

      “You know as well as anyone that our current system is unsustainable,” said Pelosi (D-Calif.). “The final health care legislation, which will soon be passed by the Congress, will deliver successful reforms at the local level.”

      Almost immediately, though, the conservative media seized on the quote, and perverted it into an indictment of the law’s complexity. The meaning that was so perfectly plain to an objective reporter on that day has been completely lost.

      You wrote, "the ACA that put American healthcare on a bad track"

      Defend that, you mendacious warped bastard.

    8. mm, you didn't say the word fuck enough to get your point across, try a few more fucks next time so people can understand

    9. Anon 1:41, let me know if you are having any trouble understanding anything I write.

  2. So DavidinCal has seen the error of his ways, and now supports Universal Healthcare (like the rest of the modern world). Any other takers?

    1. I think a limited single provider plan would make sense. THe UK has something like this, and it works fairly well. That is, have government employees provide health care to all, but not include every possible expensive procedure. Also, the government should allow private healthcare plans to compete without too much regulation.

      However, as the VA scandal showed, the government is capable of screwing up even this straightforward approach.

    2. The problem is, at least a penny of your tax dollars would benefit a minority. Get rid of that little kink, and we'd have Universal Care since the 1970s.

  3. These are a bit dated, but I don't think they are completely out of date. The facts are there, and were compiled in real time.

    For those that claim ACA was cobbled together, it was. It's hard to build a first-class edifice in the middle of a battlefield.

  4. Life is good when you have your love ones around you, I am saying this because when i had issues with my lover i never seen life as a good thing but thanks to Dr. AGBAZARA of AGBAZARA TEMPLE, for helping me to cast a spell that brought my lover back to me within the space of 48hours. My husband left me for another woman after 7YEARS of marriage,but Dr.AGBAZARA help me cast a spell that brought him back to me within 48hours. I am not going to tell you more details about myself rather i will only advise those who are having issues in there relationship or marriages to contact Dr.AGBAZARA TEMPLE through these details via; ( or call him on WHATSAPP: +2348104102662?