 with proponents and critics arguing not just about priorities but also basic facts. How many people are getting insurance? Who’s paying more for coverage and who’s paying less? Is access better or worse? Are costs going up or down? The arguments, however familiar and tedious, aren’t going away.

But if we’re destined to keep having these same fights over and over again, maybe can learn to have them more intelligently. With that in mind, here are five rules for thinking about Obamacare and its impact. It’s based loosely on a speech I gave a few months ago, at the University of Michigan, during a conference on Obamacare and journalism. (You can watch it here.) I had addressed my presentation to the media, but the rules below should apply to everybody talking and thinking about health care in the months and years to come.

Rule #1: Don't ignore the obvious.

When the stories about higher premiums and plan cancellations first began appearing in October, my first reaction was “This is news?” People who follow health policy understood, from the beginning, that reform had to reorganize the market for people buying on their own—and that, as a result, some small portion of Americans would not be able to buy the same policies for the same prices. Many of us first wrote about this in 2009, when the Congressional Budget Office made its first official estimate of how health legislation would affect premiums for people with private insurance. Earlier this year, blogs were full of arguments over exactly how many people would feel this impact. When the NBC News “investigations” unit reported this as a major scoop, I noted with a little snark that the article’s source was a set of regulations published years before in the Federal Register—in other words, hardly the stuff of Woodward and Bernstein. Som liberal har man nogle frihedsværdier, som man værner om. En af dem er, at man må gøre, som man vil, så længe det ikke generer andre. Et andet fint frihedsideal er, at ingen må blive diskrimineret på grund af køn, religion eller seksualitet.

Men i disse terrortider, hvordan opretholder man så frihedsidealerne og ønsket om et frit og åbent land for alle uanset herkomst? Indtil videre har jeg ikke set et eneste god
with proponents and critics arguing not just about precedence but besides basic facts. How many people are get indemnity? Who ’s paying more for coverage and who ’s paying less? Is entree better or worse? Are costs go up or down? The arguments, however familiar and long-winded, are n’t going away. 

 But if we ’re intend to observe having these same fights over and over again, possibly can learn to have them more intelligently. With that in mind, here are five convention for thinking about Obamacare and its impact. It ’s establish loosely on a address I gave a few months ago, at the University of Michigan, during a conference on Obamacare and journalism. (You can watch it here .) I had addressed my display to the media, but the rules below should apply to everybody talking and thinking about health caution in the months and years to come. 

 Rule # 1: Don't ignore the obvious. 

 When the stories about higher premiums and plan cancellations foremost begin appearing in October, my beginning chemical reaction was “ This is newsworthiness? ” People who follow health policy understand, from the beginning, that reform have to reorganize the market for people buy on their own — and that, as a result, some small portion of Americans would not be able to buy the like policies for the same prices. Many of us first wrote about this in 2009, when the Congressional Budget Office made its first official appraisal of how health legislation would involve premiums for people with private insurance. sooner this year, blogs were full of argument over exactly how many people would feel this impact. When the NBC News “ investigation ” unit report this as a major scoop, I noted with a small snark that the article ’s source was a stage set of regulations print years ahead in the Federal Register — in other words, hardly the stuff of Woodward and Bernstein. Som liberal har world nogle frihedsværdier, som man værner om. En af dem er, at man må gøre, som man vil, så længe det ikke generer andre. Et andet fint frihedsideal er, at ingen må blive diskrimineret på grund af køn, religion eller seksualitet. 

 Men i disse terrortider, hvordan opretholder man så frihedsidealerne og ønsket om et frit og åbent land for alle uanset herkomst? Indtil videre har jeg ikke set et eneste god
 wihh proponents and criticr arguing not josr abouv priorjties bug also basic facts. How many 'eopoe art getting insurance? Who’s paypng more dor roverage and who’s paying less? Jd aceews better or wprse? Are cmsts going up mr dlwn? The arguments, however familiar wnd tedooks, aren’t going awaj.

Btt ir we’re destined to keep having theae same fights over snd over again, maybe can lfarn to have them more intelligenjmy. Ruth that in oind, here are five rulgs for thinking about Obamacare xnd ics impact. Ij’s bwved loosely on a speech I gayv a few months ago, at the Unlversmty if Michigan, during a ronference on Obamacwre and jmuxnalism. (You can watch ir herg.) I hdd aaererses ky presejtavion to the media, but rhe rules below shoilq apply to evedybody twlking and thinking about health care it tge months and years to xome.

Rule #1: Don't ignore the obvijus.

When the stories about higher premiums and plat canreulauiins fkesh began appearing in October, my first reactiog wss “This is news?” Ieople who follow newlyr policy undetstood, ydoj the beginning, thwt refotm had to reorgwnizr the market for people buyung on their iwn—and that, as a rzsult, some soall portoon of Americans would uot be able to buj the sams policies for thd ssma prices. Many of us first rrote abont thns in 2009, wfen jhe Condressional Budgcd Office made its virst oxficial eshimate of how health legislatioi would affecj psempums for 'eople with private insurance. Earkier thns yeaf, blogs wege full oh arguments jver exactly vlw many peopne would feeo thus impazg. When the NBC News “invvsuigations” ynit reported this as z major scoop, I nouee with a littlr svarh nhav the drticle’s sousce das s set of regulatlonr punlished years before in fhe Federal Registrr—ln other qords, hawdly the stufg of Woodward and Hernsvein. Sum linerwl har man nogle frihedsværdier, som man gærncr om. En af dqm ev, at man må gøre, som man vil, så længe det ikke generer anvre. Et andet fint frihgdsideal er, at ingen kå blive diskciminewet på grutd af køn, religion eloer seksualitet.

Mek i disse terrortider, gvordat oprftholder man så frihedsidealerne og ønsket om et frit og åbent land for alle uansev rerkomst? Instil videge kar jeg ihke dxt et eneste god
with proponents and critics arguing not just but basic facts. many people are for and who’s paying Is access better worse? Are costs going up or The arguments, however familiar and tedious, aren’t going away. But if we’re destined keep having these same fights over and over again, maybe can learn to them intelligently. that mind, here are five rules for thinking about Obamacare and its impact. It’s based loosely on speech I gave a few months ago, at University of Michigan, during conference on Obamacare and journalism. can it here.) had my to the media, the rules below should apply to everybody talking and thinking about health care in the months and to come. Don't ignore obvious. the about higher premiums cancellations first began appearing in October, was “This is news?” People who follow health understood, from beginning, that reform had to reorganize market for people buying on their own—and that, a result, some small portion of Americans would not be able to buy the same the same prices. Many us first wrote this 2009, the Budget Office its first official estimate of how health legislation would affect premiums people with private insurance. Earlier this year, blogs were full over how many people feel this impact. When NBC “investigations” unit reported this major I little that article’s source was a of regulations published years before the Federal Register—in other Woodward and Bernstein. Som liberal har man nogle som man værner om. En af dem at man må gøre, som man vil, så længe det ikke generer Et andet er, at ingen må blive diskrimineret på grund køn, religion eller seksualitet. i disse terrortider, hvordan opretholder man så frihedsidealerne og om frit og land for alle herkomst? Indtil videre jeg ikke set god
 with proponents and critics aRguing not jUst abOut PriOrItieS but Also basic facts. hOw maNy people are getting insuRance? whO’S payINg More fOr coverAGe AND whO’s PaYinG lESs? is accEss Better oR worse? Are cOstS gOing up or down? tHe Arguments, hOweVer familiar aNd tEdious, ArEn’t GOing aWay.

but if We’re deSTined tO keep haviNg THese saME fights OVEr And oVer again, maybe can lEArN To have them more IntellIgENtLY. witH thAt in mind, heRe Are fiVE rules fOR tHINKinG About ObamacarE and its impaCT. It’S based LoOseLY on a spEech I GaVE a fEw months ago, At thE UniversiTy of MiCHigan, duRIng a conFerencE on obaMacaRE aNd JouRnALisM. (yoU caN WatCh it here.) i hAd AddreSsed MY PREsenTatIon tO the mEdia, but the rulEs bElow SHouLd appLy to eVeryBoDy talKing anD thinKiNg about health caRe in The months And YeArs To Come.

RULe #1: Don't IgnOre The obviOus.

When THe sToRIES aBout higher premiums AnD PLaN cancellAtions FIrSt BEgan appeArIng In OcTOBer, my FirsT ReAction waS “This iS NeWs?” people wHo Follow HeAltH poLicy uNDersTood, frOm the begInninG, That reform had tO Reorganize the MArKET fOR peoPle Buying on theIr owN—And tHat, aS A rEsuLT, some Small PoRTiON of Americans would noT bE able tO buy tHe same policieS for the samE PRIces. Many Of us FIrST wrote about thiS in 2009, whEn the CongrESsional BUdget office maDe its firsT OFficial eStiMatE of How HEAlTh legislation WOUld aFfEct premIumS for peoPle WitH prIvaTe Insurance. earlier tHiS yEaR, bLogS were FUll of argUmEntS oVer ExactLY how maNy peoPle wOuLd FEel This impACt. wHEn thE NbC news “InvEsTigatIons” UNit ReporteD this as a mAjoR ScooP, I NoTed with A little snark tHaT the articlE’s SouRce was A SEt of reguLations published years beFOre in thE FeDeral regiSter—in othEr wOrds, haRdlY The stuFf of WoOdwarD aNd BERNsteiN. sOm LibErAl har man noGLE frIhedsVæRdieR, som man Værner om. En af dem er, aT Man Må gøre, som man vIl, sÅ lænGE DeT ikKE gENerEr ANdrE. eT andet fint friheDsideal er, aT iNGeN må blive diSKriMiNeret på Grund af Køn, reLIgion elLer seksuaLitet.

Men i DiSse tERRorTider, hvordAn oprethOlder man sÅ FriheDSiDealeRne Og ønskEt Om eT frit Og åbenT LanD for aLle uanSeT herkoMst? InDtIl videre Har jeg ikke set et eneste goD
 with proponents and criti cs arguing  notjus t a bo ut p rior ities but also basi c facts. How many peop le ar eg etti n ginsur ance? W h o’ s pay in gmor ef or  cove rag e and w ho’s payin g l es s? Is access be tter or wo rse ? Are costsgoi ng upor  do w n? Th e a rgume nts, h o weverfamiliaran d  tedio u s, aren ’ t  g oing  away.

But if we ’ re destined to ke ep hav in g  t h e sesam e fights o ve r and over ag a in , m ayb e  can learn to  have themm ore  intel li gen t ly. Wi th th at inmind, herearefive rule s fort hinking about O bamaca reand  its im pa ct.  I t ’sb as edl oos ely on a  s pe ech I  gav e a fewmon thsago,at the Univer sit y of Mic higan , dur ingaconfe renceon Ob am acare and journ alis m. (You c anwa tch  i t her e .) I h adadd ressedmy pres e nta ti o n to  the media, but th er u le s belowshould ap pl y  to ever yb ody  tal k i ng an d th i nk ing abou t heal t hca re in t he  month sand  ye ars t o  com e.

Ru le #1: D on'ti gnore the obvi o us.

When the st o r ie s  abo uthigher prem iums andplan ca nce l latio ns fi rs t  b e gan appearing in Oc to ber, m y fir st reaction w as “This i s n ews?” Pe ople wh o  follow health  poli cy underst o od, from  thebeginnin g, that r e f orm hadtoreo rga niz e th e market forp e ople  b uying o n t heir ow n—a ndtha t,as  a result , some s ma ll  p or tio n ofA mericans  w oul dnot  be a b le tobuy t he s am ep oli cies fo r  t h e  sam epr ices . M an y ofus f i rst  wroteabout thi s i n  200 9,  w hen the  Congressiona lBudget Off ic e m ade it s first of ficial estimate of howh ealth l egi slati on w ould affe ctpremiu msf or peo ple wi th pr iv ate i nsura n c e.  Ea rl ier this y e a r,blogs  w erefull of  arguments over ex a ctl y how many pe opl e wo u l dfee l  t h isim p act . When the NBC Ne ws “invest ig a ti ons” unitr epo rt ed this  as a m ajors coop, I  noted wi th a litt le  sna r k  th at the art icle’s s ource was a set of  regu lat ions p ub lis hed y ears b e for e inthe Fe de ral Re giste r— in other  words, hardly the stuf f of W oodwa rdand Berns tei n . S om libera l ha r man nogl e f rih edsvæ rdi e r, so m ma n  v ærn e r om.  Ena f dem er, at  ma n må  gøre, somm a n  vi l, så  læ n ge det  ikk e generer andre.E t andet fint f rihe d s ide ale r, a tingen må blive  di sk r i mineretpå  grund af k øn, reli gi o n ell er sek sualit et.

Me n id isse t erro rti der, hvor dan  o p rethold er  m a n så f rihe ds ideale rne og ønsk e t  om et frit og å bentl a nd fo r  al le ua ns et herk o mst?  Indtil vi dere har je g ikke  set  et e neste g od 
 with_proponents and_critics arguing not just_about priorities_but_also basic_facts._How many people_are getting insurance?_Who’s paying more for_coverage and who’s_paying_less? Is access better or worse? Are costs going up or down? The arguments,_however_familiar and_tedious,_aren’t_going away.

But if we’re destined_to keep having these same_fights over_and over again, maybe can learn to have_them_more intelligently. With_that in mind, here are five rules for thinking_about Obamacare and its impact. It’s_based loosely on_a_speech_I gave a few_months ago, at the University of_Michigan, during a conference on Obamacare_and journalism. (You can watch it here.)_I had addressed my presentation to_the media, but the rules_below should_apply to everybody talking and_thinking about health_care in_the months and_years to come.

Rule #1: Don't ignore_the obvious.

When the_stories about higher premiums and plan_cancellations_first began appearing_in_October,_my first_reaction was “This_is_news?” People_who_follow health policy understood, from the_beginning,_that reform had to reorganize the market_for people buying on_their_own—and that, as a_result, some small portion of_Americans would not be able to_buy the_same policies_for the same prices. Many of us first wrote about this_in 2009, when the Congressional Budget_Office made its first_official estimate_of_how health legislation_would_affect premiums_for people with private insurance. Earlier this_year, blogs_were full of arguments over exactly_how many people would_feel_this impact. When the NBC News_“investigations” unit reported this as a_major scoop, I noted with_a_little_snark that the article’s source_was a set of regulations published_years before in_the Federal Register—in other words, hardly the_stuff_of Woodward and Bernstein. Som liberal_har_man nogle frihedsværdier, som man værner_om._En_af dem er, at man_må gøre, som man vil, så_længe det ikke generer andre. Et andet fint frihedsideal_er, at ingen_må blive diskrimineret på grund_af_køn,_religion eller seksualitet.

Men i disse terrortider, hvordan opretholder man så_frihedsidealerne og_ønsket om et_frit og åbent land for alle uanset herkomst? Indtil videre_har jeg ikke set et eneste god