ObamaCare redistributes wealth from middle class

[Clocker]

A study by the Brookings Institution (http://washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-obamacare-will-reduce-incomes-of-most-americans/article/2543390), a liberal think tank, found that ObamaCare will redistribute income from the middle classes to the very lowest class.

A new study finds that Obamacare's redistribution will be stunningly lopsided. Scholars at the liberal Brookings Institution have discovered that Obamacare will increase the income of Americans in the lowest 20 percent of the income scale, and especially in the lowest ten percent. But all other income groups -- even people who make very modest incomes in the $25,000 to $30,000 range, as well as all income brackets above that -- will experience a decline in income because of Obamacare.

In other words, Obamacare is going to cost some of the very people it was designed to help.

[classhandicapper]

Wait, you mean someone is going to have to pay to insure all the uninsured and for any incremental administrative costs and regulatory burdens it adds?

I thought this was a free lunch. ;)

It's not like this wasn't obvious, but one time I wish they would actually tell people the truth and THEN figure out whether the people want it instead of lying to them, implementing it, and then blaming the other guy for its failures and costs.

[DRIVEWAY]

A study by the Brookings Institution (http://washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-obamacare-will-reduce-incomes-of-most-americans/article/2543390), a liberal think tank, found that ObamaCare will redistribute income from the middle classes to the very lowest class.

It sounds like the community organizer delivers the goods to his CORE constituency at everyone elses expense.

[Clocker]

It's not like this wasn't obvious

It wasn't obvious to the politicians who were strong-armed, lied to, and bribed to get them to vote for a bill without knowing what was in it.

And it wasn't obvious to the low information voters who believed their president when they were promised that ObamaCare would cut their insurance bills by $2500 a year for an average family. And that they could keep their plan and their doctor.

It was obvious to anyone that gets the basic principle of TANSTAAFL: there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

[Clocker]

It sounds like the community organizer delivers the goods to his CORE constituency at everyone elses expense.

It's not clear that things are all that rosy for the base. That article is just a rough summary of the Brookings study, but I see nothing in it about the impact on the job market for the lower class as a result of full time jobs being cut to part time, and businesses keeping head counts below 50 because of the law.

[forced89]

I recently read the rules (taken from the Irs.Gov website) regarding who is subject to the Individual Mandate and has to buy insurance or pay the penalty.

There are 9 classes of people exempt from the requirement. Many appear legitimate but two caught my eye: (1) people not in the country legally, and (2) those who are not required to file an Income Tax Return. What this tells me is that a lot of illegals and the very poor will just ignore the whole thing and keep using the Emergency Room as their family doctor.

[Mike at A+]

A study by the Brookings Institution (http://washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-obamacare-will-reduce-incomes-of-most-americans/article/2543390), a liberal think tank, found that ObamaCare will redistribute income from the middle classes to the very lowest class.
Now who was saying this several years ago? Oh right, it was ME.

[Clocker]

Now who was saying this several years ago? Oh right, it was ME.

How could you know that before they passed the bill so you could see what was in it? :confused:

[Mike at A+]

How could you know that before they passed the bill so you could see what was in it? :confused:
Because I knew the INTENTIONS of the bill. Because I know 0BAMA'S intentions in general. The rich keep their riches, the lower classes get increased handouts in return for their votes and the middle class gets hosed. Simple math.

[dartman51]

Something else that was touted by the right, on this board and elsewhere, only to be told how stupid, racist and uninformed we were.

The Congressional Budget Office on Tuesday said that the Affordable Care Act will contribute to the equivalent of 2 million workers out of the labor market by 2017, as employees work fewer hours or decide to drop out of the labor force entirely.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/cbo-obamacare-lead-2-million-154956476.html

[Mike at A+]

For years now, I have been saying that all this demonization of the so called 1% is nothing but a smoke screen and that the real damages caused by 0bamacare and other whacked out progressive policies will be absorbed by America's middle class. You know, the poor slobs that get up every morning and go to work. The ones who put off purchasing expensive non-essential goods until they are able to afford them. The ones who understand the concept of prioritization. The ones who pay their bills on time. If you believe (as I do) that 0bama is a racist, it all begins to make sense what he is doing. Look who he takes care of. Besides the ever increasing handouts to the lower classes in return for their vote, he has appointed a very disproportionate percent of unqualified and under qualified blacks to high political positions. He talks about the fat cats on Wall Street but pals around with millionaire black athletes, hypocritical Hollywood elites and anyone with lots of money to contribute to his party. Speaking about "parties", this guy really knows how to spend taxpayer dollars to entertain himself, his family and his mostly black friends. If you consider the racial makeup of the lower class and the middle class, it is no surprise that what I suspected several years ago is now becoming evident to those who pooh poohed the idea that he may be a racist. Of these 2.3 million fewer full time workers noted in the CBO report, they will be predominantly white middle class folks. Mission accomplished. What Glenn Beck identified as "back door reparations" about 5 years ago is now coming through your front door. The "race card" has been played so often by the left, it's now time to throw it right back in their faces with numbers to back it up.

[FantasticDan]

If you believe (as I do) that 0bama is a racist, it all begins to make sense what he is doing. Look who he takes care of. Besides the ever increasing handouts to the lower classes in return for their vote, he has appointed a very disproportionate percent of unqualified and under qualified blacks to high political positions. He talks about the fat cats on Wall Street but pals around with millionaire black athletes, hypocritical Hollywood elites and anyone with lots of money to contribute to his party. Speaking about "parties", this guy really knows how to spend taxpayer dollars to entertain himself, his family and his mostly black friends. If you consider the racial makeup of the lower class and the middle class, it is no surprise that what I suspected several years ago is now becoming evident to those who pooh poohed the idea that he may be a racist. Of these 2.3 million fewer full time workers noted in the CBO report, they will be predominantly white middle class folks. Mission accomplished. What Glenn Beck identified as "back door reparations" about 5 years ago is now coming through your front door. The "race card" has been played so often by the left, it's now time to throw it right back in their faces with numbers to back it up.
kK-2E4MTc3Y

[Mike at A+]

kK-2E4MTc3Y
Ignore the obvious and reply with a stupid video clip. That is the M.O. of too many people afraid of the evidence.

[Clocker]

The Congressional Budget Office on Tuesday said that the Affordable Care Act will contribute to the equivalent of 2 million workers out of the labor market by 2017, as employees work fewer hours or decide to drop out of the labor force entirely.



The White House says that's not a bug, it's a feature. ObamaCare will ALLOW people to voluntarily work fewer hours because with all the welfare benefits they will be getting, they won't have to work so much. Reminds me of Nancy Pelosi touting ObamaCare allowing 20-somethings to remain on their parents policy would give them all the opportunity to become musicians and poets.

The White House responded aggressively Tuesday in the hours after a Congressional Budget Office report on the effects of Obamacare on the economy led to gloating from Republicans. In a statement and conference call featuring top administration officials, the White House tried to beat back an emerging narrative that the CBO report supported claims made by health care reform critics. The CBO report says the Affordable Care Act could lead to a reduction of 2 million full-time workers between 2017 and 2024. The CBO says the reduction would not come via fewer available full-time jobs (as critics of the law have alleged) but “almost entirely from a net decline in the amount of labor that workers choose to supply.”



Full story. (http://www.buzzfeed.com/evanmcsan/white-house-on-obamacare-report-if-there-was-no-medicare-95)

[LottaKash]

Remember this issue, just before "The One" got elected....How prophetic...:eek:

It explains much about the current and continuing, "Hollowing Out of Amerika", imo....

Hey, I didn't write it...


http://i405.photobucket.com/albums/pp137/lottakash/time_magazine-obama_zps3dcad089.jpg (http://s405.photobucket.com/user/lottakash/media/time_magazine-obama_zps3dcad089.jpg.html)

[mostpost]

A study by the Brookings Institution (http://washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-obamacare-will-reduce-incomes-of-most-americans/article/2543390), a liberal think tank, found that ObamaCare will redistribute income from the middle classes to the very lowest class.
Link to the Brookings study.
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2014/01/potential%20effects%20affordable%20care%20act%20in come%20inequality%20aaron%20burtless/potential%20effects%20affordable%20care
As is typical for him, Byron York has focused on one aspect of the Brookings study while ignoring other, more positive aspects. Not only that, but he is misrepresenting that one aspect. Go to the link above. Scroll down almost to the bottom to chart 5b.
Chart 5b. Percent Change in Money + Fungible Insurance Income
Following ACA Implementation, 2016 Projection
As Mr. York says the middle class loses income as a result of ACA. In the case of the 4th decile they lose .9%, just as Byron York says. But there is more to chart 5b.
The tan bars are "Sorted on ACA rank" “ACA rank” is the person’s
income rank after implementation of the ACA. The blue bars are "Sorted on no ACA rank." . “No-ACA rank” is the person’s income rank in the pre-reform regime.

If we look again at the 4th decile we find the tan bar indicating a predicted loss of .9% income, but we also find the blue bar indicating a predicted loss of 1.0 income. For the math challenged that means that the loss of income would have been greater had we not passed the ACA. The same-or greater-rations hold true across the middle class deciles.

The differences are even more stark if you look at chart 5A, Percent Change in Size-Adjusted Money Income Following
ACA Implementation, 2016 Projection


Mr. York ignores other positive results of this study such as Chart number four which shows that nearly thirty percent of persons in the lower fifth of income earners will receive subsidies as the result of Obamacare.

Or chart 2 which shows that numbers of uninsured declines across income distributions as a result of Obama care.

All in all, more positives than negatives.

[mostpost]

Ignore the obvious and reply with a stupid video clip. That is the M.O. of too many people afraid of the evidence.
I think Fantastic is trying to say you are full of something. I leave it to you to figure out what that something is. Hint: It's an anagram of this or hits.

[FantasticDan]

Didn't write what? A fake Time magazine cover? :confused:

Remember this issue, just before "The One" got elected....How prophetic...:eek:

It explains much about the current and continuing, "Hollowing Out of Amerika", imo....

Hey, I didn't write it...


http://i405.photobucket.com/albums/pp137/lottakash/time_magazine-obama_zps3dcad089.jpg (http://s405.photobucket.com/user/lottakash/media/time_magazine-obama_zps3dcad089.jpg.html)

[Saratoga_Mike]

More work for you Most - why are these CBO numbers wrong? I haven't read the CBO study yet - will later....

"The new healthcare law will cost the nation the equivalent of 2.5 million workers in the next decade, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated in a report released Tuesday.

The nonpartisan agency found the reform law’s negative effects on the economy would be “substantially larger” than what it had previously anticipated.


It said the equivalent of 2.3 million workers would be lost by 2021, compared to its previous estimate of 800,000, and that 2.5 million workers would be lost by 2024.

It also projected that labor force compensation would be reduced by 1 percent from 2017 to 2024 — twice its previous estimate — and that declining economic growth would add $1 trillion more to deficits."

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/197365-cbo-o-care-slowing-growth#ixzz2sOWZOOOx

[Mike at A+]

I think Fantastic is trying to say you are full of something. I leave it to you to figure out what that something is. Hint: It's an anagram of this or hits.
I don't give a flying "this" about what he or you have to say. I live in the real world and when something is as obvious as 0bama's hatred for the white middle class for being semi-successful, educated and able to adapt to almost anything, I will speak my mind on it. I am convinced that he is a racist. Sure he puts forth the facade of being a caring compassionate president when the cameras are rolling. But behind the scenes where the real decisions are made, he is a ruthless, racist piece of trash. And if you are a white middle class conservative, you exist to be fleeced and to finance the lifestyles of the people whose votes he bought with our tax dollars.

[Saratoga_Mike]

I don't give a flying "this" about what he or you have to say. I live in the real world and when something is as obvious as 0bama's hatred for the white middle class for being semi-successful, educated and able to adapt to almost anything, I will speak my mind on it. I am convinced that he is a racist. Sure he puts forth the facade of being a caring compassionate president when the cameras are rolling. But behind the scenes where the real decisions are made, he is a ruthless, racist piece of trash. And if you are a white middle class conservative, you exist to be fleeced and to finance the lifestyles of the people whose votes he bought with our tax dollars.

Why do you think this has never leaked? I mean if he's this big-time racist behind the scenes, you'd think some former aide along the way would have ratted him out, no? Honestly you sound like the white version of some black "activist" who unnecessarily injects race into every matter.

[burnsy]

I got news for all the "political wizards". Many of our policies redistribute money from the middle class. Why do think the middle class is suffering and has been for decades? The wages got screwed when we diverted jobs to other countries and accepted millions of undocumented workers. This goes back to the 80's and 90's. All these so called "conservatives" that kiss Regan's ass...well he should be called "President Amnesty". Clinton never saw a trade agreement he didn't like....and we got screwed the way it was implemented. The tax breaks for the wealthy, who pays the difference?,......its sure is not poor people or rich people. The wars, who ends up paying for that?.......Mitt Romney? The guy on welfare? I kind of doubt it. The "bail outs"? Wait..... rich management still got bonuses for tanking the banks and markets..meanwhile, middle class folks saw their 401 k's shit the bed overnight....hope you did not plan on retiring in 2007-2010. The bond market and savings, who uses that? Oh yeah, the middle class. I'm sure they live comfortably off their 3%...:lol: or whatever "rip off" they offer. Of course these days it will cost you a fee to "visit " your own money. In a way the middle class deserves this, they are a very large voting block.....they are just too naïve to realize that the Democrats and Republicans......piss their hard earned money away at every corner......different shitty "causes" and "projects"...exact same results.

[hcap]

i don't give a flying "this" about what he or you have to say.Actually Jeff Daniels looked like he was about to do just that :lol:

[Saratoga_Mike]

I got news for all the "political wizards". Many of our policies redistribute money from the middle class. Why do think the middle class is suffering and has been for decades? The wages got screwed when we diverted jobs to other countries and accepted millions of undocumented workers. This goes back to the 80's and 90's. All these so called "conservatives" that kiss Regan's ass...well he should be called "President Amnesty". Clinton never saw a trade agreement he didn't like....and we got screwed the way it was implemented. The tax breaks for the wealthy, who pays the difference?,......its sure is not poor people or rich people. The wars, who ends up paying for that?.......Mitt Romney? The guy on welfare? I kind of doubt it. The "bail outs"? Wait..... rich management still got bonuses for tanking the banks and markets..meanwhile, middle class folks saw their 401 k's shit the bed overnight....hope you did not plan on retiring in 2007-2010. The bond market and savings, who uses that? Oh yeah, the middle class. I'm sure they live comfortably off their 3%...:lol: or whatever "rip off" they offer. Of course these days it will cost you a fee to "visit " your own money. In a way the middle class deserves this, they are a very large voting block.....they are just too naïve to realize that the Democrats and Republicans......piss their hard earned money away at every corner......different shitty "causes" and "projects"...exact same results.

It's Reagan. Thank you.

[Mike at A+]

Why do you think this has never leaked? I mean if he's this big-time racist behind the scenes, you'd think some former aide along the way would have ratted him out, no? Honestly you sound like the white version of some black "activist" who unnecessarily injects race into every matter.
It has never leaked because he manages to subtly work it into his policies under the guise of something else. But the math is there no matter how you slice and dice it. And yes, I realize it's a touchy subject for some to consider but I am not one to be "politically correct" for the sake of getting along. I call it as I see it. And I acknowledge that others see it differently but I also am aware that others see it and can't bring themselves to admit it.

Nutshell:
1 - Racism exists
2 - There are racists who are not white
3 - It isn't politically correct to acknowledge (2)
4 - There will always be more than 0% who think ANYONE is a racist

[Greyfox]

Mr. York ignores other positive results of this study such as Chart number four which shows that nearly thirty percent of persons in the lower fifth of income earners will receive subsidies as the result of Obamacare.

.

Eh, who, in the long run, pays for those subsidies Mostie?

[hcap]

Remember this issue, just before "The One" got elected....How prophetic...:eek:

It explains much about the current and continuing, "Hollowing Out of Amerika", imo....

Hey, I didn't write it...


http://i405.photobucket.com/albums/pp137/lottakash/time_magazine-obama_zps3dcad089.jpg (http://s405.photobucket.com/user/lottakash/media/time_magazine-obama_zps3dcad089.jpg.html)

Putin did not either. Mad Magazine? Or a hilarious right wing email going around the crowd. The same crowd that loves to yuck it up to the the "57 states" of Obama land theme song?

[hcap]

For years now, I have been saying that all this demonization of the so called 1% is nothing but a smoke screen and that the real damages caused by 0bamacare and other whacked out progressive policies will be absorbed by America's middle class. You know, the poor slobs that get up every morning and go to work. The ones who put off purchasing expensive non-essential goods until they are able to afford them. The ones who understand the concept of prioritization. The ones who pay their bills on time. If you believe (as I do) that 0bama is a racist, it all begins to make sense what he is doing. Look who he takes care of. Besides the ever increasing handouts to the lower classes in return for their vote, he has appointed a very disproportionate percent of unqualified and under qualified blacks to high political positions. He talks about the fat cats on Wall Street but pals around with millionaire black athletes, hypocritical Hollywood elites and anyone with lots of money to contribute to his party. Speaking about "parties", this guy really knows how to spend taxpayer dollars to entertain himself, his family and his mostly black friends. If you consider the racial makeup of the lower class and the middle class, it is no surprise that what I suspected several years ago is now becoming evident to those who pooh poohed the idea that he may be a racist. Of these 2.3 million fewer full time workers noted in the CBO report, they will be predominantly white middle class folks. Mission accomplished. What Glenn Beck identified as "back door reparations" about 5 years ago is now coming through your front door. The "race card" has been played so often by the left, it's now time to throw it right back in their faces with numbers to back it up.Wow!

Looks to me like income has shifted from the bottom and the middle to the top. Byron York is complaining about pennies, instead of the dollars of income inequality. The graphs go up to '07 before Obamacare

http://www.motherjones.com/files/images/lossgain_0.jpg

http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2011/inequality-p25_averagehouseholdincom.png

http://www.motherjones.com/files/images/lossgain_0.jpg

[Mike at A+]

Wow!

Looks to me like income has shifted from the bottom and the middle to the top. Byron York is complaining about pennies, instead of the dollars of income inequality. The graphs go up to '07 before Obamacare

http://www.motherjones.com/files/images/lossgain_0.jpg

http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2011/inequality-p25_averagehouseholdincom.png

http://www.motherjones.com/files/images/lossgain_0.jpg
In case you need further explanation, I DON'T CARE how much the 1% make. I congratulate them for being successful AND improving as time goes by. Smart people breed more smart people and despite the Democrat effort to "level the playing field", stupid lazy people breed MORE stupid lazy people. So that gap is going to keep increasing as long as the stupid lazy people keep breeding. It's difficult for a kid to rise from the ashes when his parents wallow in those ashes and depend on government for food and shelter. It promotes an attitude of minimal existence with no incentive to move up. That is the Democrat Party platform. You are stupid and incapable of providing for yourself and you will breed stupid incapable children who won't have the incentive to graduate to the next level.

[burnsy]

It's Reagan. Thank you.

Yeah, I misspelled it...oh wow. Of course, everything else I said was accurate....so the best the geniuses can do here is correct one misspelled word...that's why they waste time correcting spelling..because the rest of the "truth" struck a nerve....sorry..."political minds". I didn't misspell President Amnesty...did I ?

[mostpost]

]More work for you Most - [/COLOR]why are these CBO numbers wrong? I haven't read the CBO study yet - will later....

"The new healthcare law will cost the nation the equivalent of 2.5 million workers in the next decade, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated in a report released Tuesday.

The nonpartisan agency found the reform law’s negative effects on the economy would be “substantially larger” than what it had previously anticipated.


It said the equivalent of 2.3 million workers would be lost by 2021, compared to its previous estimate of 800,000, and that 2.5 million workers would be lost by 2024.

And you say there are no jobs under Obama.
The numbers aren't wrong, they just do not represent what you think they represent. Workers aren't jobs. Workers perform jobs, but they are not jobs. The CBO is saying in the next decade the equivalent of 2.5 million workers will choose to not work or to work less hours. These are people who are working full time primarily because they want to have health insurance
which they get from their employer.

With the enactment of the ACA, they will be able to obtain affordable coverage through the exchanges. Mothers will now be able to stay home to be with their kids or at least be able to be home when the kids come home from school. Seniors may be able to retire before 65 or work part time.

Remember, there is a difference between workers and jobs.

In dartman 51's post #10 there is a link to the CBO study. Go to table G1 on page 152. That table gives projections for various economic indicators. Here is what it says as far as payroll employment and unemployment rate.
In 2014 we will add 2,000,000 jobs and the U3 will average 6.8%.
In 2015 we will add 2,000,000 jobs and the U3 will average 6.5%
In 2016 we will add 1,600,000 jobs and the U3 will average 6.1%
In 2017 we will add 1,500,000 jobs and the U3 will average 5.9%
After that we will continue to add jobs and the U3 will continue to drop but at a slower rate.

Of course all of this also changes the dynamic of the labor market. Currently we have a lot of potential workers chasing a few jobs. We will be adding jobs over the next several years while reducing the number of workers seeking those jobs. That can only mean that wages will go up. More workers making more money means an improving economy. It's called demand side economics

[hcap]

In case you need further explanation, I DON'T CARE how much the 1% make. I congratulate them for being successful AND improving as time goes by. Smart people breed more smart people and despite the Democrat effort to "level the playing field", stupid lazy people breed MORE stupid lazy people. So that gap is going to keep increasing as long as the stupid lazy people keep breeding. It's difficult for a kid to rise from the ashes when his parents wallow in those ashes and depend on government for food and shelter. It promotes an attitude of minimal existence with no incentive to move up. That is the Democrat Party platform. You are stupid and incapable of providing for yourself and you will breed stupid incapable children who won't have the incentive to graduate to the next level.[/QUOTThink you are gonna need a hell of lot more toilet paper

ps: while you are spending SO MUCH time on the john, suggestion; read uip on Hitlers' concept of eugenics. Always good conversation at parties when the topic of stupid lazy people comes up
:rolleyes:

[Mike at A+]

Think you are gonna need a hell of lot more toilet paper

ps: while you are spending SO MUCH time on the john, suggestion; read uip on Hitlers' concept of eugenics. Always good conversation at parties when the topic of stupid lazy people comes up
:rolleyes:
Not a very coherent reply. Address the facts that poverty and lack of incentive breeds more of the same while success and drive produces children who want to exceed the accomplishments of their parents. The gap widens - NATURALLY. We imitate our parents and we do what they encourage us to do. Bringing Hitler into the equation is nothing but background noise. Let's talk about what we ALL want. A lower class that TRIES to get into the middle class. A lower class that eventually realizes that crime isn't the way to a better life. It may take generations to accomplish this feat but it has to start somewhere. Give a man a fish and ... you know the rest.

[Clocker]

Wow!

Looks to me like income has shifted from the bottom and the middle to the top. Byron York is complaining about pennies, instead of the dollars of income inequality. The graphs go up to '07 before Obamacare

Wow! Let's ignore the Brookings Institution finding that "The ACA may do more to change the income distribution than any other recently enacted law", because that's only a small part of the problem.

And let's ignore the president's promise that the cost of health insurance would decline $2500 a year for an average family under ObamaCare.

And let's ignore the fact that Obama has called income inequality the defining challenge of our time, but has made zero effort to do anything about it in the 5 years of his presidency.

Let's just nitpick a rightie journalist for reporting the facts of a liberal think tank study.

[Hank]

For years now, I have been saying that all this demonization of the so called 1% is nothing but a smoke screen and that the real damages caused by 0bamacare and other whacked out progressive policies will be absorbed by America's middle class. You know, the poor slobs that get up every morning and go to work. The ones who put off purchasing expensive non-essential goods until they are able to afford them. The ones who understand the concept of prioritization. The ones who pay their bills on time. If you believe (as I do) that 0bama is a racist, it all begins to make sense what he is doing. Look who he takes care of. Besides the ever increasing handouts to the lower classes in return for their vote, he has appointed a very disproportionate percent of unqualified and under qualified blacks to high political positions. He talks about the fat cats on Wall Street but pals around with millionaire black athletes, hypocritical Hollywood elites and anyone with lots of money to contribute to his party. Speaking about "parties", this guy really knows how to spend taxpayer dollars to entertain himself, his family and his mostly black friends. If you consider the racial makeup of the lower class and the middle class, it is no surprise that what I suspected several years ago is now becoming evident to those who pooh poohed the idea that he may be a racist. Of these 2.3 million fewer full time workers noted in the CBO report, they will be predominantly white middle class folks. Mission accomplished. What Glenn Beck identified as "back door reparations" about 5 years ago is now coming through your front door. The "race card" has been played so often by the left, it's now time to throw it right back in their faces with numbers to back it up.

Please get help sir,you have completely lost touch with reality.

[Clocker]

The CBO is saying in the next decade the equivalent of 2.5 million workers will choose to not work or to work less hours.


So none of those reduced hours are attributable to inability to find a job? Or to having hours cut back to 29 hours a week because of ObamaCare. All of those reduced hours will be voluntary, and in the Wonderland of Nancy Pelosi, all those folks can now become writers or photographers or poets.

Even in the Wonderland of ObamaCare, if all of that reduction is voluntary, it is possible only because those people are getting subsidies, benefits, and transfer payments that make up the difference so that they can afford to reduce their hours. Who pays for all that? That's a full time equivalent of 2.5 million people not working, not producing, and not paying taxes.

What the hail, let's just borrow it from China and let the grandkids worry about it.

[Clocker]

If you believe (as I do) that 0bama is a racist, it all begins to make sense what he is doing. Look who he takes care of.

He sure isn't taking care of blacks. They are getting hosed just as badly as the middle class whites.

[Mike at A+]

He sure isn't taking care of blacks. They are getting hosed just as badly as the middle class whites.
The cost effectiveness of what he's giving them compared to the voting power they give HIM makes it a good political strategy. A few more crumbs is a few more than before.

[Mike at A+]

Please get help sir,you have completely lost touch with reality.
I think you'd do yourself a service if you explained your opinions instead of attacking the messenger.

Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of shit by the clean end.

[LottaKash]

All of those reduced hours will be voluntary, and in the Wonderland of Nancy Pelosi, all those folks can now become writers or photographers or poets.



Ahhh, finally, the "American Dream" becomes a reality....:jump:

To think that I wasted all those years working OT and such, trying to get stuff....:(

[LottaKash]

Of course all of this also changes the dynamic of the labor market. Currently we have a lot of potential workers chasing a few jobs. We will be adding jobs over the next several years while reducing the number of workers seeking those jobs. That can only mean that wages will go up. More workers making more money means an improving economy. It's called demand side economics


New jobs from where ?....Even David Copperfield couldn't do it...You really believe that chit ?

All the jobs have left or are leaving....To other lands...

Oh waiter, I'll have what he's smoking....make it a double...:jump:

[Mike at A+]

Here is the basic difference between conservatives and liberals as it relates to financial status:

Conservatives want the lower classes to graduate to the middle class by working at a meaningful job that provides a wage proportional to the skills they bring to the table and increasing with work ethic and ability to improve.

Liberals want the lower classes to believe that the deck is stacked against them and that there is no way for them to get their piece of the pie so it's best to stay on the couch and collect a taxpayer provided check.

If they prefer the improvement they can realize through work ethic and dedication, they eventually move up and start to realize that they don't want higher taxes and bigger government. They BECOME more conservative. They GROW UP! And of course, that threatens liberals and their prospect to remain above the unwashed masses.

[mostpost]

So none of those reduced hours are attributable to inability to find a job? Or to having hours cut back to 29 hours a week because of ObamaCare. All of those reduced hours will be voluntary, and in the Wonderland of Nancy Pelosi, all those folks can now become writers or photographers or poets.

Even in the Wonderland of ObamaCare, if all of that reduction is voluntary, it is possible only because those people are getting subsidies, benefits, and transfer payments that make up the difference so that they can afford to reduce their hours. Who pays for all that? That's a full time equivalent of 2.5 million people not working, not producing, and not paying taxes.

What the hail, let's just borrow it from China and let the grandkids worry about it.
If you read the CBO report-or even skimmed it you would know the answer to that question. From page 117:
The estimated reduction stems almost entirely from a net decline in the amount of labor that workers choose to supply rather than from a net drop in businesses' demand for labor.

It can't be much clearer than that. You insist on interpreting this as jobs going away. On the other hand you are merely emulating the brain dead Republicans in Congress. The jobs are still there and there are more than 2.5 milllion people out there looking for jobs.

Look at page 152 of the CBO report. You can find the link in post #10. We will add 7.1 million jobs over the next four years. That is in addition to the equivalent 2.5 million jobs that will become available due people deciding-voluntarily-to work less.

This has everything to do with people having available, affordable healthcare without having to be employed. It has nothing to do with benefits or transfer payments. Those people will not be leaving their jobs because they plan to go on welfare or food stamps.

[Mike at A+]

The estimated reduction stems almost entirely from a net decline in the amount of labor that workers choose to supply rather than from a net drop in businesses' demand for labor.
What a great model for progress!

[Clocker]

The estimated reduction stems almost entirely from a net decline in the amount of labor that workers choose to supply rather than from a net drop in businesses' demand for labor.



That's what I said in my previous post. I don't happen to believe that finding by the CBO, but assuming it is true, those people are able to supply less labor because they are getting income from other sources. Those sources are subsidies and transfer payments. The economy is in the toilet now. How can the government come up with the resources to fund the equivalent of 2.5 million workers dropping out? And the economy not only has to pay those people, it has to do so with 2.5 million fewer people producing and paying taxes. Explain that one to the class, Lord Keynes.

[mostpost]

Wow! Let's ignore the Brookings Institution finding that "The ACA may do more to change the income distribution than any other recently enacted law", because that's only a small part of the problem.
What does that even mean? Define recently. Then tell us what other laws "recently" passed have had an effect on income distribution.

And let's ignore the president's promise that the cost of health insurance would decline $2500 a year for an average family under ObamaCare.
I keep seeing this statement about $2500, but I have never seen a link or reference to where and when Obama made the statement. If he did make it, what was he referring to and was the statement relevant to the ACA as passed or did it refer to a plan long obsolete.

And let's ignore the fact that Obama has called income inequality the defining challenge of our time, but has made zero effort to do anything about it in the 5 years of his presidency.

Let's just nitpick a rightie journalist for reporting the facts of a liberal think tank study.
Byron York is the one who is nitpicking. And falsifying the nits he picks.

[boxcar]

I don't give a flying "this" about what he or you have to say. I live in the real world and when something is as obvious as 0bama's hatred for the white middle class for being semi-successful, educated and able to adapt to almost anything, I will speak my mind on it. I am convinced that he is a racist. Sure he puts forth the facade of being a caring compassionate president when the cameras are rolling. But behind the scenes where the real decisions are made, he is a ruthless, racist piece of trash. And if you are a white middle class conservative, you exist to be fleeced and to finance the lifestyles of the people whose votes he bought with our tax dollars.

And I might add, ol' Reverend Jeremiah Wright and his horse manure racist BLT that is passed off as biblical theology that Obama sucked in through a straw for all those years he sat under him played no small role in shaping what a good little Marxist he has become.

Boxcar

[Clocker]

Let's ignore the Brookings Institution finding that "The ACA may do more to change the income distribution than any other recently enacted law", because that's only a small part of the problem.
What does that even mean? Define recently. Then tell us what other laws "recently" passed have had an effect on income distribution.

That quote is from the authors of the Brookings report. You are claiming to be an authority on its content, you tell us what it means.

I keep seeing this statement about $2500, but I have never seen a link or reference to where and when Obama made the statement. If he did make it, what was he referring to and was the statement relevant to the ACA as passed or did it refer to a plan long obsolete.

Please. I'm not a reference librarian. He repeated it dozens of times in speeches on TV. It was repeated thousands of times on forums like this. If you didn't hear it, you must have dozed off for a couple of years. I don't know what he was referring to because he rarely knew what he was referring to. Even after the bill became law, he still didn't know what was in it.

[Clocker]

Ahhh, finally, the "American Dream" becomes a reality....:jump:

To think that I wasted all those years working OT and such, trying to get stuff....:(

You are a man ahead of your time. Nancy in Wonderland (http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dc/2014/02/pelosi-cbo-report-shows-obamacare-gives-americans-freedom-to-follow-their-passion) weighs in on today's inspiring news from the CBO:

“What we see is that people are leaving their jobs because they are no longer job-locked,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told reporters after House votes Tuesday afternoon. “They are following their aspirations to be a writer; to be self-employed; to start a business. This is the entrepreneurial piece. So it’s not going to cost jobs. It’s going to shift how people make a living and reach their aspirations.”

Pelosi said she hadn’t “fully” seen the report, but, “this was one of the goals. To give people life, a healthy life, liberty to pursue their happiness. And that liberty is to not be job-locked, but to follow their passion.”

Thank goodness the Democrats are doing all they can to see that more and more Americans are not job-locked.

[davew]

There will be many new jobs that will be made that are not being accounted for - jobs for people like past ACORN employess. I will just call them distribution and implementation jobs.

Over 70% afro-americans that are being born from first time mothers are from parents that are not married. There will need to be (hundreds of?) thousands of people to help these first time mothers implement the maze of getting IRS to send them money for child credits, and ACA. Learn how to get free food and housing from federal and state, and raise these children to be productive members of the country...

[Clocker]

There will be many new jobs that will be made that are not being accounted for - jobs for people like past ACORN employess.

Many former ACORN people are already working as ObamaCare Navigators.

[davew]

Many former ACORN people are already working as ObamaCare Navigators.

Thank goodness, I thought most were just getting unemployment insurance.

[Clocker]

Thank goodness, I thought most were just getting unemployment insurance.

They probably are. Many ObamaCare Navigators are not government employees. They are working with or for "non-profit" community service organizations. Those organizations are funded by grants from the Department of Health and Human Services to provide the services for ObamaCare. The government has no direct control over the Navigators. And as Secy. Sebelius admitted, they are not screened and have no background checks for any criminal activity.

[newtothegame]

They probably are. Many ObamaCare Navigators are not government employees. They are working with or for "non-profit" community service organizations. Those organizations are funded by grants from the Department of Health and Human Services to provide the services for ObamaCare. The government has no direct control over the Navigators. And as Secy. Sebelius admitted, they are not screened and have no background checks for any criminal activity.

Geeze, you are asking for A LOT! Next thing you know, someone will ask for identification to vote!!! :lol:

[Clocker]

Of course all of this also changes the dynamic of the labor market.

That is correct. And what the CBO said is “exchange subsidies effectively constitute a tax on labor supply for a broad range of workers”, incentivizing the unemployed not to seek work and the part timers not to seek full time work because they would lose subsidizes by working.

As workers transition from part time work (without benefits) to full time work (with health benefits) many workers will actually lose income in the form of the subsidies that they will have to forgo (and the additional fact that lower wage workers, who are in lower tax brackets, won’t benefit as much from the implicit subsidy they will get from the special tax treatment of health benefits bought at work). CBO seems to focus mostly on people who are out of the labor force for a period of time and transitioning back to full time work, which suggest its estimates may be low.

CBO states, in reference to these impacts, that the “exchange subsidies effectively constitute a tax on labor supply for a broad range of workers.” CBO focuses mostly on those transitioning to full time work (with benefits). But the same disincentives apply to workers on Obamacare who are already employed full time, and looking to grow their income.

Translation? The old employer sponsored system forced people to stay in jobs they didn’t like because they needed the health insurance coverage. The new Obamacare system will force people to stay out of jobs they do want because they need the subsidies. And this is social progress?



The congressional actuaries go on to state that forgoing Obamacare subsidies and returning to full time work with health benefits (for lower wage and middle class workers) amounts to an average, implicit tax of about 15% paid by each worker. CBO does note that these considerations only affect a segment of the workforce – specifically the middle class and working class who earn annual incomes that put them below 400% of the Federal poverty level (about $95,000 for a family of four). But that represents a large portion of the labor market.


Source: those evil, lying capitalist pigs at Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottgottlieb/2014/02/04/cbo-explains-how-obamacare-will-tax-low-wage-workers/)

[FantasticDan]

And as Secy. Sebelius admitted, they are not screened and have no background checks for any criminal activity."Half true":

http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2013/dec/20/pete-sessions/obamacare-law-didnt-mandate-background-checks-navi/

And your earlier Acorn Obamacare navigator comment? Yeesh...

http://youtu.be/pXpzxHJE5MM

[Clocker]

A group formed from the ruins of ACORN is hard at work signing people up for ObamaCare, and may be collecting taxpayer cash for their work despite Congress' efforts to cut the organization and its affiliates off from government funding, a watchdog group charged.

The United Labor Unions Council Local 100, a New Orleans-based nonprofit, announced last month it would take part in a multi-state "navigator" drive to help people enroll in President Obama's health care plan. The labor council was established by ACORN founder Wade Rathke after his larger group was broken up amid scandal in 2009 and banned from receiving taxpayer funds.



Source (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/10/15/ex-acorn-operatives-collecting-taxpayer-money-to-push-obamacare/)

[hcap]

Byron York is the one who is nitpicking. And falsifying the nits he picks.This $2500 story is blown way out of proportion.

Politifact rates a half truth...
Under President Obama’s health-care reforms, the premium for "an average plan for a family didn't go down by $2,500 per year, it's gone up about $2,500 per year."

Ron Johnson on Thursday, December 5th, 2013 in an interview
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2013/dec/15/ron-johnson/obamacare-health-insurance-premiums-havent-gone-do/

Wisconsin Republican U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson

.."Under Obamacare, health insurance premiums haven't gone down, they've gone up, Ron Johnson says"

But the Wisconsin Republican wasn’t pointing to any charts (that we could see) on Dec. 5, 2013 when he did a Fox News Radio interview about one of the federal laws he most likes to skewer:

The Affordable Care Act.

"It’s not affordable," Johnson stated on "Kilmeade and Friends" before making this claim about health insurance premiums.

"An average (annual) plan for a family didn't go down by $2,500, it's gone up about $2,500."

..When Johnson said premiums didn’t go down, he was referring to a promise made by candidate Barack Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign. Obama pledged to sign a health care bill into law that would "cut the cost of a typical family's premium by up to $2,500 a year."

So, Johnson is saying that premiums are $2,500 more in 2013 than when Obamacare became law in 2010, and linking the law to the increase.

....Johnson policy advisor Patrick McIlheran told us the senator was merely observing in the radio interview that premiums had risen in spite of Obama's promise.

But implicit in Johnsons' claim is that Obamacare, to some extent, is responsible.

..The Kaiser figures show a premium increase of 9 percent in 2011, about a year after the health reform law was adopted. But one could argue that the longer the law has been in effect, the lower the premium increases have been (under 5 percent in 2012 and under 4 percent in 2013).


....Johnson said that under Obama’s health-care law, the premium for "an average plan for a family didn't go down by $2,500 per year, it's gone up about $2,500 per year."

And...

Kaiser says that based on the way its survey of employers is done, it rounds when referring to percentages. For example, Kaiser would say the increase from 2004 to 2005 was 9 percent.)
.................................................. .............

I reworked the numbers from the article in Excel to illustrate how dumb this claim is.

Year Avg Fam Prem Perc Difference

2004 $9,950 --
2005 $10,880.......9.35% $930
2006 $11,480.......5.51% $600
2007 $12,106.......5.45% $626
2008 $12,680........4.74% $574
2009 $13,375........5.48% $695
2010 $13,770........2.95% $395
2011 $15,073........9.46% $1,303
2012 $15,745........4.46% $672
2013 $16,351........3.85% $606

So yes, the diff between 2013 and 2009 is $2,976 big deal.
...And if we look further back from 2004 to 2008 is $3,820
Bush years go up more!

So, as Johnson indicated, the average annual premium was $2,581 higher in 2013 than when the Affordable Care Act was adopted in 2010.
And as Johnson, York, and Clocker babble from 2013 to 2010 it is $2,581
BFD! Meaningless pablum
.................................................. .....
But premiums rose each year before Obamacare, too.

Johnson is correct that by 2013, three years after the Affordable Care Act became law, the total average premium for employer-provided family insurance had risen by $2,500 per year. But experts say there is little or no evidence that Obamacare is responsible.


So first Byron York is full of it, then Mike at Z- minus, and now of course our resident financial genius Clocker. A blatant misrepresentation.

[hcap]

Source (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/10/15/ex-acorn-operatives-collecting-taxpayer-money-to-push-obamacare/) A group formed from the ruins of ACORN is hard at work signing people up for ObamaCare, and may be collecting taxpayer cash for their work despite Congress' efforts to cut the organization and its affiliates off from government funding, a watchdog group charged.

And so Fox--That wellspring of objectivity, or let's say objectivism, (Ooops Ayn Rand pops up ) again, reports and we decide---if the photo at ther top of Clockers' link is in fact a vintage photo, not of any current "group formed from the ruins of ACORN"

Another blatant misrepresentation not corrected in the article, except a small caption under the photo says "ACORN branches all over the country disbanded in disgrace in 2010, but have come back under new names"

http://a57.foxnews.com/global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/U.S./876/493/acorncop.jpg?ve=1&tl=1

Bull. Another exaggeration like the new black panther party.

[Clocker]

..When Johnson said premiums didn’t go down, he was referring to a promise made by candidate Barack Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign. Obama pledged to sign a health care bill into law that would "cut the cost of a typical family's premium by up to $2,500 a year."



Obama didn't say "up to $2500", he said "$2500".

You Tube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15E7goj7Fmohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15E7goj7Fmo)

All of this is more nitpicking. It was obviously a nonsense campaign promise, and he didn't have a clue what he was talking about. And any one with an IQ above room temperature knew from the beginning that you cannot provide "free" health care to 30 million more people and simultaneously cut costs.

[Clocker]

And so Fox--That wellspring of objectivity, or let's say objectivism, (Ooops Ayn Rand pops up ) again, reports and we decide---if the photo at ther top of Clockers' link is in fact a vintage photo, not of any current "group formed from the ruins of ACORN"

More nitpicking to dodge the point.

Fox News said;

The United Labor Unions Council Local 100, a New Orleans-based nonprofit, announced last month it would take part in a multi-state "navigator" drive to help people enroll in President Obama's health care plan. The labor council was established by ACORN founder Wade Rathke after his larger group was broken up amid scandal in 2009 and banned from receiving taxpayer funds.

That is true or not true, without regard to who reported it.

[hcap]

That is true or not true, without regard to who reported it.
From your Fox News article THE SO-CALLED WATCH DOG.....

At a time when our government has ceased functioning due to an appropriations gap, it is ironic that America’s tax dollars are being doled out to an entity whose poor stewardship of our funds was well-established by Congress,” said Dan Epst``ein, executive director of Cause of Action, a nonpartisan watchdog group based in Washington.


http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Cause_of_Action

Cause of Action

Cause of Action, formerly known as Freedom Through Justice Foundation, according to its website, is a non-profit organization claiming to use "public advocacy and legal reform tools to ensure greater transparency in government, protect taxpayer interests and promote economic freedom." [1] In June 2013, the organization altered its website to add that it "uses investigative, legal and communications tools" to achieve this mission. It received just shy of a million dollars in funding from the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity, a national journalism organization, earmarked "for journalism," in 2011.[2]

Cause of Action received $994,000 from the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity (including under its former name, the Freedom Through Justice Foundation) to "support journalism" in 2011.[14]

Franklin Center Funding

Franklin Center Director of Communications Michael Moroney told the Center for Public Integrity (CPI) in 2013 that the source of the Franklin Center's funding "is 100 percent anonymous." But 95 percent of its 2011 funding came from DonorsTrust, a spin-off of the Philanthropy Roundtable that functions as a large "donor-advised fund," cloaking the identity of donors to right-wing causes across the country (CPI did a review of Franklin's Internal Revenue Service records).[20] Mother Jones called DonorsTrust "the dark-money ATM of the conservative movement" in a February 2013 article.[21] Franklin received DonorTrust's second-largest donation in 2011.[20]

It seems obvious the watch dog needs watching :lol:

[Clocker]

Johnson is correct that by 2013, three years after the Affordable Care Act became law, the total average premium for employer-provided family insurance had risen by $2,500 per year. But experts say there is little or no evidence that Obamacare is responsible.



http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-laughing025.gif

[hcap]

Obama didn't say "up to $2500", he said "$2500".

You Tube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15E7goj7Fmohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15E7goj7Fmo)

All of this is more nitpicking. It was obviously a nonsense campaign promise, and he didn't have a clue what he was talking about. And any one with an IQ above room temperature knew from the beginning that you cannot provide "free" health care to 30 million more people and simultaneously cut costs.Hey Mr brilliant I.Q...

You took 20 seconds of one CAMPAIGN SPEECH speech done 2/088/08
He blew the talking points that one time, but .....

/_o65vMUk5so?

[Saratoga_Mike]

Yeah, I misspelled it...oh wow. Of course, everything else I said was accurate....so the best the geniuses can do here is correct one misspelled word...that's why they waste time correcting spelling..because the rest of the "truth" struck a nerve....sorry..."political minds". I didn't misspell President Amnesty...did I ?

Yes, none of us had ever thought about any of your points before. What "nerve?" I criticize Reps and Dems (Dems much more so) all the time.

[hcap]

Johnson is correct that by 2013, three years after the Affordable Care Act became law, the total average premium for employer-provided family insurance had risen by $2,500 per year. But experts say there is little or no evidence that Obamacare is responsible.You took only part of the story from my earlier post

I reworked the numbers from the article in Excel to illustrate how dumb this claim is. (look at difference per year to check how premiums faired each year)

Year Avg Fam Prem Perc Difference

2004 $9,950 --
2005 $10,880.......9.35% $930
2006 $11,480.......5.51% $600
2007 $12,106.......5.45% $626
2008 $12,680........4.74% $574
2009 $13,375........5.48% $695
2010 $13,770........2.95% $395
2011 $15,073........9.46% $1,303
2012 $15,745........4.46% $672
2013 $16,351........3.85% $606

So yes, the diff between 2013 and 2009 is $2,976 big deal.
...And if we look further back from 2004 to 2008 is $3,820
Bush years go up more!

[Saratoga_Mike]

You took only part of the story from my earlier post

I reworked the numbers from the article in Excel to illustrate how dumb this claim is. (look at difference per year to check how premiums faired each year)

Year Avg Fam Prem Perc Difference

2004 $9,950 --
2005 $10,880.......9.35% $930
2006 $11,480.......5.51% $600
2007 $12,106.......5.45% $626
2008 $12,680........4.74% $574
2009 $13,375........5.48% $695
2010 $13,770........2.95% $395
2011 $15,073........9.46% $1,303
2012 $15,745........4.46% $672
2013 $16,351........3.85% $606

So yes, the diff between 2013 and 2009 is $2,976 big deal.
...And if we look further back from 2004 to 2008 is $3,820
Bush years go up more!

Realize plan construction has a lot to do with the moderation over the past 5 yrs or so. I wouldn't blame or credit Obama for any of these historical numbers.

[mostpost]

Obama didn't say "up to $2500", he said "$2500".

You Tube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15E7goj7Fmohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15E7goj7Fmo)

All of this is more nitpicking. It was obviously a nonsense campaign promise, and he didn't have a clue what he was talking about. And any one with an IQ above room temperature knew from the beginning that you cannot provide "free" health care to 30 million more people and simultaneously cut costs.
You found one campaign speech in which Obama said "$2500 in health care premiums." There are others but there are also many times when he used the phrase health care costs. You can find examples of both in the politifact article that hcap linked to in #46.

But let's look at the Genesis of that $2500 figure. Where did it come from and why might have quoting it not been the best idea.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/23/us/23health.html?_r=3&
From that article.
The original arithmetic was somewhat basic. In May 2007, three Harvard professors who are unpaid advisers to the Obama campaign — Mr. Cutler, David Blumenthal and Jeffrey Liebman — produced a memorandum offering their “best guess” that a menu of changes would produce savings of at least $200 billion a year (it has since been revised to $214 billion). That would amount to about 8 percent of the $2.5 trillion in health care spending projected for 2009, when the next president takes office.

The memorandum attributed specific savings to several broad initiatives, with the numbers plucked from recent studies. Investments in computerized medical records would save $77 billion a year, the advisers wrote. Reducing administrative costs in the insurance industry would yield up to $46 billion. Improving prevention programs and chronic disease management would be worth $81 billion.

The total savings were then divided by the country’s population, multiplied for a family of four, and rounded down slightly to a number that was easy to grasp: $2,500.

I don't think the problem is in the numbers themselves, if the reforms have all been initiated. We are still in the process of implementing the ACA. And the report assumes that the savings would be passed on to the consumer, not used to swell the profits of the insurance companies.

Saying that Obamacare will save the average family $2500 a year is a nice sound bite and it may be true if you mean compared to what they would have been paying absent the new law. Or if all the savings had been passed on. Or if they reforms have all been implemented at this time. The problem is campaign speeches are not designed for detailed analysis of policy.

[hcap]

You found one campaign speech in which Obama said "$2500 in health care premiums." There are others but there are also many times when he used the phrase health care costs. You can find examples of both in the politifact article that hcap linked to in #46. Check out my #64 :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Saratoga_Mike]

The memorandum attributed specific savings to several broad initiatives, with the numbers plucked from recent studies. Investments in computerized medical records would save $77 billion a year, the advisers wrote. Reducing administrative costs in the insurance industry would yield up to $46 billion. Improving prevention programs and chronic disease management would be worth $81 billion.


.

In reality, the opposite has happened. Why? The new EMRs allow for more accurate coding at acute-care hospitals, which in turn increases the case-mix index (i.e., increasing avg payments). I'm not taking a shot at Obama or anyone here, just making an observation.

[davew]

the 2014 numbers for 'family insurance' may be a shocker


what will people say if they average over $20K?

[JustRalph]

HCAP, you re-worked the numbers huh?

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2013/dec/15/ron-johnson/obamacare-health-insurance-premiums-havent-gone-do/

you really should make it known if you are going to take it from another place, that way the data can be evaluated based on the source........ not that it ever really matters..........

[Clocker]

You found one campaign speech in which Obama said "$2500 in health care premiums."

Thank you for so graciously acknowledging that I was correct.

[Clocker]

(More attacks on the messenger)

...and continuing to dodge the fact that former ACORN people are working as ObamaCare navigators. Without background checks.

[Clocker]

HCAP, you re-worked the numbers huh?



Nothing wrong with a little recalibration to get the data to fit the theory.

Although I don't think that he had this one peer-reviewed. :eek:

But then again, he is without peer. :rolleyes:

[Saratoga_Mike]

HCAP, you re-worked the numbers huh?

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2013/dec/15/ron-johnson/obamacare-health-insurance-premiums-havent-gone-do/

you really should make it known if you are going to take it from another place, that way the data can be evaluated based on the source........ not that it ever really matters..........

He's bold with his plagiarism

[FantasticDan]

...and continuing to dodge the fact that former ACORN people are working as ObamaCare navigators. Without background checks.I was wondering if you could explain to me the distinction between the Obamacare navigators, and the very similar system Bush used to help seniors enroll in the Medicare Part D program when it was introduced..

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/11/12/1255114/-O-Keefe-and-GOP-allies-forget-Bush-s-Medicare-Navigators-like-ACORN

[Mike at A+]

Ah yes, it always comes back to Bush. I'm wondering if the Bush "navigators" were accused of voter fraud? Did Mickey Mouse register to vote Republican?

[FantasticDan]

The Bush navigators helped people enroll in Medicare D. The Obama navigators help people enroll in the ACA. Simple stuff for simple minds. :ThmbUp:

[Mike at A+]

And ACORN was found complicit in voter fraud FOR 0bama.

[Clocker]

I was wondering if you could explain to me the distinction between the Obamacare navigators, and the very similar system Bush used to help seniors enroll in the Medicare Part D program when it was introduced..

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/11/12/1255114/-O-Keefe-and-GOP-allies-forget-Bush-s-Medicare-Navigators-like-ACORN

One difference is that the legal and ethical problems now known about ACORN were not known at the time. And the Bush administration, in retrospect, should have done a much better job of checking out the groups they were funding.

But if the Bush administration screwed up at the time, that does not excuse the Obama administration for an even bigger screw up, since they know about ACORN now.

Another difference is that, as far as I know, ObamaCare navigators have access to much more personal information, since full financial information about an applicant is needed to determine the applicant's eligibility for subsidies.

[FantasticDan]

And ACORN was found complicit in voter fraud FOR 0bama.Since that's not true, could you elaborate? Always interested to read more of your fevered ravings.. :ThmbUp:

[hcap]

HCAP, you re-worked the numbers huh?

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2013/dec/15/ron-johnson/obamacare-health-insurance-premiums-havent-gone-do/

you really should make it known if you are going to take it from another place, that way the data can be evaluated based on the source........ not that it ever really matters..........Go back to sleep :rolleyes: I took the numbers from exxctly where I said. What I also said was
"I reworked the numbers from the article in Excel to illustrate how dumb this claim is." (look at difference per year to check how premiums faired each year)

Year Avg Fam Prem Perc Difference

2004 $9,950 --
2005 $10,880.......9.35% $930
2006 $11,480.......5.51% $600
2007 $12,106.......5.45% $626
2008 $12,680........4.74% $574
2009 $13,375........5.48% $695
2010 $13,770........2.95% $395
2011 $15,073........9.46% $1,303
2012 $15,745........4.46% $672
2013 $16,351........3.85% $606"

Look and you will see there is only one column added to show the difference of yearly premiums. All the info came from EXACTLY WHERE I SAID IT DID

He's bold with his plagiarismYou live down to expectations once again. Prove plagiarism or shut up. A "brilliant" numbers guy like you should be able to see that column for what it is and not altering data.

So let's see

1-Mike at Z-the eugenics guy
2-Clocker the IQ guy
3-Saratoga Hack the numbers guy.

:bang: :bang:

[hcap]

Thank you for so graciously acknowledging that I was correct.You were wrong

Hey Mr brilliant I.Q...

You took 20 seconds of one CAMPAIGN SPEECH speech done 2/088/08
He blew the talking points that one time, but .....

/_o65vMUk5so?

[Saratoga_Mike]

I was wondering if you could explain to me the distinction between the Obamacare navigators, and the very similar system Bush used to help seniors enroll in the Medicare Part D program when it was introduced..

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/11/12/1255114/-O-Keefe-and-GOP-allies-forget-Bush-s-Medicare-Navigators-like-ACORN

Scope and scale - however, I opposed both programs, so I see little difference.

[Saratoga_Mike]

HCAP - Ralph already explained to you that you need to source something if you're going to cut and paste. Is that so hard to comprehend? Typical liberal - want live off other's labor! Once again, I will let you have the last word...I don't take you very seriously. I seem to get under your skin, which is great!

[Clocker]

You were wrong

I said that something happened, and I provided video evidence that it happened.

Which part of that do you not understand?

[hcap]

HCAP - Ralph already explained to you that you need to source something if you're going to cut and paste. Is that so hard to comprehend? Typical liberal - want live off other's labor! Once again, I will let you have the last word...I don't take you very seriously. I seem to get under your skin, which is great!You obviously are not paying attention. I did and JR is totally wrong and so are you. Right after

Politifact rates a half truth...

Ron Johnson on Thursday, December 5th, 2013 in an interview

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin...havent-gone-do/


Here is my entire post #58
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1577453&postcount=58

You are losing it. I once told you you were one of the few conservatives here I respect.

However :rolleyes:

[Mike at A+]

Since that's not true, could you elaborate? Always interested to read more of your fevered ravings.. :ThmbUp:
It's actually voter registration fraud. I guess that makes it all cool.

[hcap]

I said that something happened, and I provided video evidence that it happened.

Which part of that do you not understand?You are wrong to take one campaign speech out of many many more that clearly showed the exact opposite. Many times on the campaign, tired candidates can drop a few words out of a prepared set of talking points.

The phrase "Up to" or "about"--- missing once or twice out of 20 + is placing emphasis on what you would like to hear. It was a well known campaign promise written up here:

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/factsheet_healthcare.pdf

Under the Obama plan, the typical family
will save up to $2,500 every year through:
Health IT investment, which will reduce unnecessary
and wasteful spending in the health

What part of misrepresentation do you not understand? Probably if Obama pulled a bushism out of his hat regularly, instead of dropping a word or two, you might cast aspersions that Obama screwed up as much as you know who....

/JhmdEq3JhoY?

[FantasticDan]

It's actually voter registration fraud. I guess that makes it all cool.It doesn't make it anything. It's irrelevant. Bush gave money to Acorn and many other community groups to facilitate enrollment in Part D, and the Obama admin did likewise for ACA. If some former Acorn workers are now trained navigators.. so what? Becuz a miniscule handful of Acorn workers admitted to falsifying registrations to meet quotas in 2004 and 2007? Big whoop.

From wiki:

Following the publication of the videos and withdrawal of funding, four different independent investigations by various state and city Attorneys General and the GAO released in 2009 and 2010 cleared ACORN, finding its employees had not engaged in criminal activities and that the organization had managed its federal funding appropriately, and calling the videos deceptively and selectively edited to present the workers in the worst possible light.

[Mike at A+]

It doesn't make it anything. It's irrelevant. Bush gave money to Acorn and many other community groups to facilitate enrollment in Part D, and the Obama admin did likewise for ACA. If some former Acorn workers are now trained navigators.. so what? Becuz a miniscule handful of Acorn workers admitted to falsifying registrations to meet quotas in 2004 and 2007? Big whoop.

From wiki:

Following the publication of the videos and withdrawal of funding, four different independent investigations by various state and city Attorneys General and the GAO released in 2009 and 2010 cleared ACORN, finding its employees had not engaged in criminal activities and that the organization had managed its federal funding appropriately, and calling the videos deceptively and selectively edited to present the workers in the worst possible light.
There is nothing you (or Wiki) could say that would convince me that ACORN isn't (A) rife with corruption, (B) an extension of the Democratic Party and (C) full of shady individuals.

[Clocker]

You are wrong to take one campaign speech out of many many more that clearly showed the exact opposite. Many times on the campaign, tired candidates can drop a few words out of a prepared set of talking points.

The phrase "Up to" or "about"--- missing once or twice out of 20 + is placing emphasis on what you would like to hear.

I posted the first video I found. I proved what I stated. If you state that he said "up to" more than not, you prove your statement. :p

All of this is pointless nitpicking as usual, to deflect from the real issue. For the sake of argument, I'll grant you your "up to". The real issue is that Obama said that the average family would see their insurance premiums go down, which is an absurd claim. The claim that it would go down by any amount is laughable. Especially as a candidate who did not have a plan at the time, let alone a plan that would reduce insurance by up to $2500.

More specifically, he never had a plan or a bill. The bill was written by revolving door lobbyists from the insurance industry, and neither Obama nor Pelosi nor Reid had a clue what was in the bill. Obama was clueless about the law as he signed it.

[hcap]

I posted the first video I found. I proved what I stated. If you state that he said "up to" more than not, you prove your statement.


Maybe I should take everything Bush befuddles as what he actually meant to say? You cherry picked your one video. Of course from some collection of nonsense on or linked to one of your conservative blogs. Why didn't you back of as soon as I posted my video which has tons of the very opposite wordsn and phrases? One 15 second clip vs a few minutes. Yes, you proved what you stated by doing.......

http://s3.amazonaws.com/rapgenius/see+no+evil.jpg

[mostpost]

And ACORN was found complicit in voter fraud FOR 0bama.
You truly are Mike at F minus. Not that you ever actually think, but what you think was voter fraud by ACORN was the exact opposite.

ACORN conducted voter registration drives. They hired people to go out and register people to vote. A few of those people brought in fraudulent or duplicate registrations. By law, ACORN is required to turn over all the registrations they receive to the election authorities. ACORN did this but they also flagged all the suspicious registrations. None of those imaginary voters ever made it on to the voter rolls.

[Clocker]

Why didn't you back of as soon as I posted my video which has tons of the very opposite wordsn and phrases? One 15 second clip vs a few minutes.

Because it was more fun to jerk your chains and watch you guys scramble like a cat trying to bury shite on a frozen pond to prove a meaningless point. "Up to" is as inane a thing to argue about as what the meaning of "is" is.

And you did deflect, ignoring the real point that whatever dollar figure Obama promised, it was pure BS. The only question was whether Obama believed his own BS or was lying, as he is wont to do.

I'm guessing that he believed most of his campaign BS. Now that he is in office and sees how incompetent he is, he has had to switch to lying about stuff.

[Clocker]

None of those imaginary voters ever made it on to the voter rolls.

Not true. I actually saw Mickey Mouse at my polling place. They didn't let him vote because he didn't have a picture I.D.

[Mike at A+]

You truly are Mike at F minus.
And you are a hopeless piece of crap. Stay in Chicago where your kind is commonplace.

[davew]

You truly are Mike at F minus. Not that you ever actually think, but what you think was voter fraud by ACORN was the exact opposite.

ACORN conducted voter registration drives. They hired people to go out and register people to vote. A few of those people brought in fraudulent or duplicate registrations. By law, ACORN is required to turn over all the registrations they receive to the election authorities. ACORN did this but they also flagged all the suspicious registrations. None of those imaginary voters ever made it on to the voter rolls.

I few is less than 20-30 million in socialists eyes (only a few with bad insurance will lose their insurance) so the few mentioned in the following website is trivial.
http://www.rottenacorn.com/activityMap.html

How much of a lying crook do you have to be before you are a lying crook?

[JustRalph]

And you are a hopeless piece of crap. Stay in Chicago where your kind is commonplace.


Huzzah!!

[Clocker]

so the few mentioned in the following website is trivial.

The numbers don't matter. The point is that some people at ACORN were breaking the law. And some people that were at ACORN are now ObamaCare navigators with access to personal financial data of the citizens they are advising. And that no one in the administration has done anything to make sure that none of the people in the first group (law breakers) are now in the second (navigator) group.

[chrisl]

Hey Hcap: Good looking family pic. Nice