Next up, ObamaCare Thought Police

[Clocker]

Under the latest administration delay in the struggle to implement ObamaCare, the employer mandate for companies with 50-99 full time employees will be deferred to 2016. To qualify for the exemption, employers must certify under penalty of perjury that they have less than 99 employees, and that they did not in anyway change their head count or hours worked in order to arrive at less than 99 employees.

Treasury officials said Monday (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/11/administration-announces-another-delay-in-obamacare-employer-mandate/) that businesses will be told to "certify" that they are not shedding full-time workers simply to avoid the mandate. Officials said employers will be told to sign a "self-attestation" on their tax forms affirming this, under penalty of perjury.

This is pure intimidation by the administration. There is nothing in the law allowing this extension, and there is nothing in the law requiring purity of thought in hiring practices. Apparently, the administration has redefined hate crimes to include a poor attitude about ObamaCare.

[Mike at A+]

You are thinking bad thoughts ...

[Clocker]

You are thinking bad thoughts ...

You can't prove that. I am wearing my tin foil hat.

[wisconsin]

You are thinking bad thoughts ...

Don't make any noise when the music's playing...

[Saratoga_Mike]

Under the latest administration delay in the struggle to implement ObamaCare, the employer mandate for companies with 50-99 full time employees will be deferred to 2016. To qualify for the exemption, employers must certify under penalty of perjury that they have less than 99 employees, and that they did not in anyway change their head count or hours worked in order to arrive at less than 99 employees.



This is pure intimidation by the administration. There is nothing in the law allowing this extension, and there is nothing in the law requiring purity of thought in hiring practices. Apparently, the administration has redefined hate crimes to include a poor attitude about ObamaCare.

They're making it up as they go along. If this were GWB, the left would be going nuts. But it's fine if Obama acts as dictator.

[Clocker]

They're making it up as they go along. If this were GWB, the left would be going nuts. But it's fine if Obama acts as dictator.

Hey, this insurance stuff is hard, you know. Even for a top community organizer. It's not like there is anyone in the administration that knows anything about it.

But Obama said that he could run a campaign better than his own campaign manager, and he could write a speech better than his own speech writer. So he is just going to have to step up and run ObamaCare better than Sebelius. No problem.

[davew]

so they are telling people how to run their business? maybe they should just buy all the businesses in the country, and give jobs to all the people who do not want to work.

[tucker6]

so they are telling people how to run their business? maybe they should just buy all the businesses in the country, and give jobs to all the people who do not want to work.
Hey you, be quiet!! Don't give them any ideas.

[Robert Goren]

so they are telling people how to run their business? maybe they should just buy all the businesses in the country, and give jobs to all the people who do not want to work.Where the Hell have you been? They have been doing that for over 200 years. Perhaps Lincoln was the worst. He told business that they could no longer use slaves. A huge new cost to businesses at the time. How dare he!

[newtothegame]

Where the Hell have you been? They have been doing that for over 200 years. Perhaps Lincoln was the worst. He told business that they could no longer use slaves. A huge new cost to businesses at the time. How dare he!

Typical reaction....what you meant to say was "Obama is justified because.....blah blah blah did it".

[Clocker]

Typical reaction....what you meant to say was "Obama is justified because.....blah blah blah did it".

"But Mom, all the other kids' moms let them do it."

[newtothegame]

Ohhh,
But I so can't wait.......
Once the dems lose the WH (and they will at some point),
EVERYTHING the left complains about (and they will)...my response will be ....

But in the past.....yada yada yada did it!!!

[goatchaser]

But you only whine when a Democrat does it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcxYwwIL5zQ

[NJ Stinks]

so they are telling people how to run their business? maybe they should just buy all the businesses in the country, and give jobs to all the people who do not want to work.


A rational person would be happy to know they are working to improve the new healthcare law that will make good health insurance more affordable to millions of Americans. Including Americans with pre-existing conditions. Plus we may just get rid of the uniquely dumb American condition whereby you can't leave a job you hate because you and your family will lose your health insurance coverage if you go.

[LottaKash]

Where the Hell have you been? They have been doing that for over 200 years. Perhaps Lincoln was the worst. He told business that they could no longer use slaves. A huge new cost to businesses at the time. How dare he!

Yes, it is true, about the slavery issue, still, even you have to admit it tho, that this was a "moral" issue, and not in common with this issue in this thread...

Weak example imo, unless of course you disagree with Lincoln, and you believe that he was "in fact", the worst...

[rastajenk]

Plus we may just get rid of the uniquely dumb American condition whereby you can't leave a job you hate because you and your family will lose your health insurance coverage if you go.
This notion of job-locking, or freedom to pursue one's dreams, is the dumbest thing to come down the pike in my lifetime of following politics. I don't know anyone, never met anyone, doubt more than a handful exist from coast to coast, border to border, that are in that spot. It was never a selling point for ACA; it is pure spin coming from a devastating report that goes against everything the American Dream is based on: if you work hard and are willing to overcome obstacles, you will be rewarded. I don't think one of the obstacles was ever having health insurance from a company you hate working for. Makes no sense whatsoever.

[Mike at A+]

This notion of job-locking, or freedom to pursue one's dreams, is the dumbest thing to come down the pike in my lifetime of following politics. I don't know anyone, never met anyone, doubt more than a handful exist from coast to coast, border to border, that are in that spot. It was never a selling point for ACA; it is pure spin coming from a devastating report that goes against everything the American Dream is based on: if you work hard and are willing to overcome obstacles, you will be rewarded. I don't think one of the obstacles was ever having health insurance from a company you hate working for. Makes no sense whatsoever.
Today's Democrat party is all about deception. Even though no one with more than two brain cells is deceived by this nonsense. It's basically lying and demonizing anyone who dares to see that they are lying.

[davew]

Today's Democrat party is all about deception. Even though no one with more than two brain cells is deceived by this nonsense. It's basically lying and demonizing anyone who dares to see that they are lying.

When I hear Obama's speeches, I am not sure he is lying - he seems to believe what is spewing out of his mouth, as do many of his admirers.

[hcap]

Today's Democrat party is all about deception. Even though no one with more than two brain cells is deceived by this nonsense. It's basically lying and demonizing anyone who dares to see that they are lying.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/colbert-and-paul-krugman-settle-the-obamacare-cbo-report-score-once-and-for-all/

[Robert Goren]

Yes, it is true, about the slavery issue, still, even you have to admit it tho, that this was a "moral" issue, and not in common with this issue in this thread...

Weak example imo, unless of course you disagree with Lincoln, and you believe that he was "in fact", the worst...It is always a "moral issue" when government regulates business. Whether it is forcing it to treat its workers and customers fairly or stop polluting. The ACA is a moral issue. Maybe not in the same league as slavery, but certainly the largest one of this still young century. Government never regulates business to make it more profitable although that happens sometimes. It always does because of morality. You may or not agree with the morality in question, but that doesn't change the reason.

[Mike at A+]

“There’s a little bit of redistributing from people who’ve been lucky to people who’ve been unlucky,”

TRANSLATION: Steal from people who took their education seriously, people who developed a work ethic, people who obeyed the laws, people who didn't feel entitled to something just for breathing AND redistribute to people who flunked out of school, people who didn't work hard, people who broke laws and got a criminal record and people who think they are too good to take an entry level job and move up through hard work. Granted SOME people are lucky and SOME people are unlucky but NOT NEARLY of the scale this communist piece of crap wants people to believe.

[Clocker]

It is always a "moral issue" when government regulates business. Whether it is forcing it to treat its workers and customers fairly or stop polluting.

Please show me where morality is mentioned in the Constitution, or where the enumerated powers of the government in Article 1, Sect. 8, say anything about morality.

Stopping pollution is a valid function of government because the government is charged with protecting the basic rights of people, the rights of life, liberty and property. Pollution violates those rights because it harms life and destroys property.

If lawmakers are such paragons of morality, why did so many blue dog democrats compromise their moral opposition to abortion to vote for ObamaCare?

[Clocker]

This notion of job-locking, or freedom to pursue one's dreams, is the dumbest thing to come down the pike in my lifetime of following politics.

You know it is insanity when it is one of the stupidest things that Nancy Pelosi, the Queen of Kool Aid, has ever said. And Harry Reid wakes up for a moment from his cloud of senility to compare it to sports free agency, and nods back off. If we can't get term limits, we at least need a mandatory retirement age, and those two are the poster oldsters for it.

Employer provided health insurance can be a consideration in taking or staying with a job. It might cause some people to have to forego following their passion. Paying the rent might cause you to forego following your passion. Paying the rent and providing health care for you and your family are your responsibility. You forego some passions when you accept responsibilities. Welcome to adulthood.

However much someone wants to follow his passion, it is not the responsibility of society to fund it. And it is certainly not the proper function of society to force one person to fund another's search for passion or the meaning of life.

[Clocker]

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman is one of many who have pointed out that the reduction in labor predicted by the CBO does not count as “killing jobs” because it will come almost entirely from workers who voluntarily choose to work less.

Krugman gets the facts right but the policy wrong. Both sides misunderstood the facts of the CBO report. As Krugman said, ObamaCare does not kill 2.5 million jobs. It allows, even encourages, people who would normally have to work additional hours equivalent to 2.5 million jobs to opt out of dong so. It does not affect the number of jobs available (i.e., the demand for labor) it affects the supply of labor. As the head of the CBO testified before Congress, the exchange subsidies are a tax on the supply of labor.

The ignored consequences are two-fold. First, that means the economy loses the productivity of that labor, including the production, the demand for products and services, and the taxes paid. Second, someone has to foot the bill to support those people who opt to work less. There is no free lunch. Third, if there is a demand for that labor, and people do not supply it, business will purchase it elsewhere. Like off shore.

[ArlJim78]

This notion of job-locking, or freedom to pursue one's dreams, is the dumbest thing to come down the pike in my lifetime of following politics. I don't know anyone, never met anyone, doubt more than a handful exist from coast to coast, border to border, that are in that spot. It was never a selling point for ACA; it is pure spin coming from a devastating report that goes against everything the American Dream is based on: if you work hard and are willing to overcome obstacles, you will be rewarded. I don't think one of the obstacles was ever having health insurance from a company you hate working for. Makes no sense whatsoever.
Yes it's dumb but in a way somewhat more honest. at least now they are admitting that they don't believe that work is a good thing and that their policies lead to people working less. I think they should run with this campaign "We're democrats and our version of the American dream is to liberate you from having to work"

[LottaKash]

. The ACA is a moral issue. Maybe not in the same league as slavery, .

Imo, the ACA is not a moral issue, but a political one, as in, a stepping stone to a more tyrannical, in your face, all day long, gov't...

[mostpost]

Under the latest administration delay in the struggle to implement ObamaCare, the employer mandate for companies with 50-99 full time employees will be deferred to 2016. To qualify for the exemption, employers must certify under penalty of perjury that they have less than 99 employees, and that they did not in anyway change their head count or hours worked in order to arrive at less than 99 employees.



This is pure intimidation by the administration. There is nothing in the law allowing this extension, and there is nothing in the law requiring purity of thought in hiring practices. Apparently, the administration has redefined hate crimes to include a poor attitude about ObamaCare.
There doesn't have to be anything in the law allowing the extension. There are already enough laws and court decisions that establish the right of government agencies to reasonably delay enforcement of parts of laws. The Administrative Procedures Act of 1946 gives agencies such as the IRS and others discretion in the enforcement and timing of new laws as long as such discretion is not intended to permanently delay such enforcement.

The APA also provides guidelines for courts to use when deciding if an agency is delaying for the purpose of fixing problems or simply to not enforce a law.

Obviously in the case of the Affordable Care Act, the Obama administration is not trying to avoid enforcing a law which it fought so hard to pass. It is trying to make the law work with the least difficulty for all concerned.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Obviously in the case of the Affordable Care Act, the Obama administration is not trying to avoid enforcing a law which it fought so hard to pass. It is trying to make the law work with the least difficulty for all concerned.

Why is there difficulty? Is the law harmful to job creation? Let's get the law implemented! This is a great law! No more delays!!!

[mostpost]

Typical reaction....what you meant to say was "Obama is justified because.....blah blah blah did it".
I do not know who blah blah blah is, but George W. Bush did it. In 2006 Bush delayed a portion of the Medicare Part D Act because-wait for it-the website where people could compare plans was not functioning properly. And this does not even address the many times regulatory agencies under Bush's direction simply neglected to enforce rules they were mandated to enforce.

But all of that has nothing to with whether or the Obama administration is justified in its actions. It is justified because the law says it is justified; because numerous court decisions say the government has the right to implement new laws in the most efficient, fair ways possible.

[mostpost]

Why is there difficulty? Is the law harmful to job creation? Let's get the law implemented! This is a great law! No more delays!!!It is a complex law. The purpose of the delay is to allow businesses to better understand it and better comply with it, without the worry of being subject to fines and penalties.

I would like it better if we could implement it expeditiously. Maybe that would finally shut the Republicans up.

[Clocker]

but George W. Bush did it.

The standard retort of a 6 year old. But Georgie did it, why can't I?

Why does a Bush screw up excuse a worse Obama screw up?

[classhandicapper]

The odds of me eventually leaving this country keep falling with every passing year of this administration. Good thing there are term limits or I'd create a minus pool. ;)

[Clocker]

Why is there difficulty? Is the law harmful to job creation? Let's get the law implemented! This is a great law! No more delays!!!

Honest to god. How many people were dying in the streets every day that the bill was not passed? How many people today are stuck with worthless policies foisted upon them by bad apple insurance companies? Oh, the humanity! Will the horror never end? :eek:

[Clocker]

The odds of me eventually leaving this country keep falling with every passing year of this administration. Good thing there are term limits or I'd create a minus pool. ;)

The number of people formally renouncing American citizenship last year was the highest ever. It wasn't a really big number, but I suspect that most people just leave without formalizing it.

[hcap]

Krugman gets the facts right but the policy wrong. Both sides misunderstood the facts of the CBO report. As Krugman said, ObamaCare does not kill 2.5 million jobs. It allows, even encourages, people who would normally have to work additional hours equivalent to 2.5 million jobs to opt out of dong so. It does not affect the number of jobs available (i.e., the demand for labor) it affects the supply of labor. As the head of the CBO testified before Congress, the exchange subsidies are a tax on the supply of labor.

The ignored consequences are two-fold. First, that means the economy loses the productivity of that labor, including the production, the demand for products and services, and the taxes paid. Second, someone has to foot the bill to support those people who opt to work less. There is no free lunch. Third, if there is a demand for that labor, and people do not supply it, business will purchase it elsewhere. Like off shore.Nonsense. Workers will now have a greater choice of working or not working. I thought you gents were all for individual choices?

You know if you wish to encourage workers to work more, set all wages at $6 an hour and lower the minimum age to 14. Might as well increase company health care costs 30% and require a mandatory 10 year enrollment period in order to be eligible :rolleyes: .

[Clocker]

Nonsense. Workers will now have a greater choice of working or not working. I thought you gents were all for individual choices?



Why is having a greater choice of working or not working a benefit to society if it is at the cost of fewer choices for those subsidizing that choice?

I don't presume to speak for other "gents". I am all for individual choices and individual responsibility.

[hcap]

Why is having a greater choice of working or not working a benefit to society if it is at the cost of fewer choices for those subsidizing that choice?

I don't presume to speak for other "gents". I am all for individual choices and individual responsibility.How we pay for this program is a very different issue than killing jobs as you gents have been whining about since it was first misrepresented by cons on this board and out there in lala con land.

We have had your countless whining about costs on countless threads. I just thought I would address all the nonsense about killing jobs on this thread. The fact that enrollment is mandatory is typical of many insurance programs and has been discussed many times.

[Clocker]

We have had countless whining about costs on countless threads. I just thought I would address all the nonsense about killing jobs on this thread.

You haven't addressed anything about killing jobs here. The CBO released a study showing that exchange subsidies provide a disincentive to work. Many people confused that with job killing until the director of the CBO cleared it up.

The fact that the latest CBO report was not about job killing does not mean that ObamaCare does not kill jobs. The fact that some people were wrong about this particular study does not mean that ObamaCare does not kill jobs.

ObamaCare kills jobs by giving employers incentives to keep head counts low and to cut hours of many jobs to under 30 per week. The CBO did not address that in this report, and you did not address this in this thread.

[hcap]

You haven't addressed anything about killing jobs here. The CBO released a study showing that exchange subsidies provide a disincentive to work. Many people confused that with job killing until the director of the CBO cleared it up.

The fact that the latest CBO report was not about job killing does not mean that ObamaCare does not kill jobs. The fact that some people were wrong about this particular study does not mean that ObamaCare does not kill jobs. ObamaCare kills jobs by giving employers incentives to keep head counts low and to cut hours of many jobs to under 30 per week. The CBO did not address that in this report, and you did not address this in this thread.What makes to assume that simply because some marginal groups of workers have decided to not work, this will influence employers to keep head counts low? Much too early at this point. Under the ACA an older employee will be able to cut free of his employer plan and buy a policy on the exchange for his wife who was barred in the past by a serious pre-existing condition. The result of the older employee's opportunity to retire easily might be a younger man 45 yrs his junior who was without a job was able to step into his position. Does this mean by rethug standards the older man gave up on his "work ethic"? I guess a man 45 years in the work force is now some kind of worthless taker laggard who should have worked 'til he keeled over?

Your interpretation is "disincentive" Mine is choice. In fact only certain groups will be affected, and my guess is that corporations will not face a shortage of workers forcing them to send jobs overseas, but other domestic groups will replace those that choose to drop out. Still early.

CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf reiterates with Rep. Chris Van Hollen says

/euGHP_VRfrs?f

" On page 124, the report estimates that the ACA will "boost overall demand for goods and services over the next few years because the people who will benefit from the expansion of Medicaid and from access to the exchange subsidies are predominantly in lower-income households and thus are likely to spend a considerable fraction of their additional resources on goods and services." This, the report says, "will in turn boost demand for labor over the next few years."

"When you boost demand for labor in this kind of economy, you actually reduce the unemployment rate, because those people who are looking for work can find more work, right?" Van Hollen asked Elmendorf.

"Yes, that's right," Elmendorf said.

Elmendorf added that the factor Van Hollen had identified was something CBO thinks "spurs employment and would reduce unemployment over the next few years."

[Clocker]

What makes to assume that simply because some marginal groups of workers have decided to not work, this will influence employers to keep head counts low?

There are two entirely different issues in that sentence. Are you really confusing them, or are you just trying to confuse others?

First, some marginal workers decide not to work, or not to work more hours, because with the ACA subsidy they don't need to work to provide their needs, and because if they do work and make more income, they lose the subsidy.

Second, employers keep head counts low because the head count determines whether or not they have to provide health insurance to their employees. They also keep hours worked below 30/week for many because they don't have to provide insurance to part timers. And many employers are just not hiring because Obama keeps changing the rules, and they don't want to hire until they know.

Those two things are different, and affect different people.

[Mike at A+]

They could have built a thousand clinics and hired ten thousand doctors to staff them and given free services to the poor and it would have cost a hell of a lot less than the money that has already been wasted on this train wreck.

But noooooooooooooooo, they had to f*** up something that was working fine for the overwhelming majority of Americans.

[Clocker]

Your interpretation is "disincentive" Mine is choice.

CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf called it a disincentive. People with exchange subsidies who work more hours or make more money can lose their subsidies and end up worse off financially than they would not working more. That is a disincentive to work.

You call it choice. It is a choice for someone receiving government subsidies. It is not a choice for those paying for that subsidy, it is a restriction on choice. How can you argue that giving someone a choice about working justifies eliminating the choices of a lot of people that have to pay for that person's choice?

Individual choice has to be based on individual responsibility.

[hcap]

He said much more than that.

So you choose to ignore the larger picture that Van Hollen and Elmendorf spoke of. No matter if I call it choice, I said it is your and con nonsense about killing jobs.

Spare me your equivocating and drop this "disincentive" talking point
Putting emphasizes on that only is disingenuous. Go back and watch the video listen to Van Hollen and Elmendorf, and debate honestly. They said improve the job situation. If you think not, FINE, but don't claim they said the the very opposite as what they really said.

[HUSKER55]

If we can't solve unemployment how is adding more people going to make a difference?

[Ocala Mike]

They could have built a thousand clinics and hired ten thousand doctors to staff them and given free services to the poor and it would have cost a hell of a lot less than the money that has already been wasted on this train wreck.



True, and that's what should have happened. Of course, we all would need new eardrums as a result of the shouts from the right about some "ism" or other.

[Mike at A+]

True, and that's what should have happened. Of course, we all would need new eardrums as a result of the shouts from the right about some "ism" or other.
Not really. But that depends on how "the poor" is defined. I (like many on the right) believe in a safety net for the most vulnerable and am willing to have a portion of my taxes go toward paying for it. But I also believe that far too many able bodied people are gaming the system and breeding children who are being taught those skills (how to game the system). The disabled (especially veterans) and the elderly below the poverty line should be taken care of until the day they die. The ones who can push a broom should go out and support themselves. I did it when I was 14 and I see no reason why others cannot.

[Clocker]

drop this "disincentive" talking point

Putting emphasizes on that only is disingenuous.

I didn't realize you were the moderator of this debate.

I am not talking about that issue only, but you refuse to address that one. I talk about the real job loss issue, and you refuse to address that.

I talk about who is going to pay for "choice', and you refuse to address that.

I am going to go address some chicken parmesan and a glass of wine. I'm sure that will be a higher level of discourse.

[mostpost]

The standard retort of a 6 year old. But Georgie did it, why can't I?

Why does a Bush screw up excuse a worse Obama screw up?
Perhaps you could take some lessons in reading comprehension. I clearly explained why Bush could do it and why Obama could do it.

Naturally you ignored those explanations so you could make a sarcastic response.

[mostpost]

The odds of me eventually leaving this country keep falling with every passing year of this administration. Good thing there are term limits or I'd create a minus pool. ;)
So go already. What makes you think we will care. Here are some helpful hints.
Walk north and you will reach Canada. They speak the same language we do-more or less-unless you end up in Quebec. You can drink the water there. Walk south and you will reach Mexico. The water is not good and the language is different, but everything is cheap.

[Mike at A+]

So go already. What makes you think we will care. Here are some helpful hints.
Walk north and you will reach Canada. They speak the same language we do-more or less-unless you end up in Quebec. You can drink the water there. Walk south and you will reach Mexico. The water is not good and the language is different, but everything is cheap.
There's a line to leave. He's behind Alec Baldwin and has to wait his turn.

[incoming]

True, and that's what should have happened. Of course, we all would need new eardrums as a result of the shouts from the right about some "ism" or other.

Those clinics were already built and well staffed and payed for by government and insurance companies. I think they were called hospitals. Instead of ironing out the wrinkles in the already in place (gov.) system SOME politician chose to implement something insane.

[Mike at A+]

Those clinics were already built and well staffed and payed for by government and insurance companies. I think they were called hospitals. Instead of ironing out the wrinkles in the already in place (gov.) system SOME politician chose to implement something insane.
I would propose clinics outside of the current hospital system to keep the paying customers separate from those getting the free health care. It makes sense purely from a logistics point of view. There should be at least SOME responsibility for those getting the free stuff. Why degrade services for those who pay through the nose?

[incoming]

I would propose clinics outside of the current hospital system to keep the paying customers separate from those getting the free health care. It makes sense purely from a logistics point of view. There should be at least SOME responsibility for those getting the free stuff. Why degrade services for those who pay through the nose?


I would call this a wrinkle and not a mountain.

[Mike at A+]

I would call this a wrinkle and not a mountain.
The problem is that liberals would call it "degrading" and "segregation" and the mainstream media would jump on that bandwagon. Then you'd have the whole song and dance about how Republicans want to push grandma off the cliff. The stupid people are usually the loudest.

[incoming]

The problem is that liberals would call it "degrading" and "segregation" and the mainstream media would jump on that bandwagon. Then you'd have the whole song and dance about how Republicans want to push grandma off the cliff. The stupid people are usually the loudest.

I can't see that far ahead.

[Mike at A+]

I can't see that far ahead.
You don't have to. Look at the "Past Performances".

[Clocker]

I clearly explained why Bush could do it and why Obama could do it.



You offered an unsubstantiated opinion that what Bush did could have been legal, and that what Obama did was very similar in nature.

[rastajenk]

" On page 124, the report estimates that the ACA will "boost overall demand for goods and services over the next few years because the people who will benefit from the expansion of Medicaid and from access to the exchange subsidies are predominantly in lower-income households and thus are likely to spend a considerable fraction of their additional resources on goods and services." This, the report says, "will in turn boost demand for labor over the next few years."
Like, booze, lottery tickets...maybe pari-mutuel handles will rise slightly. I seriously don't think the spending habits of lower-income folks are going to outweigh the considerably less fraction that the middle class footing the bill for this will have to spend on "goods and services." There's just not enough ceteris paribus there for me to take that at face value.

[Clocker]

I seriously don't think the spending habits of lower-income folks are going to outweigh the considerably less fraction that the middle class footing the bill for this will have to spend on "goods and services." There's just not enough ceteris paribus there for me to take that at face value.

Right. Proponents of stimulating demand can't seem to grasp that in the short run, it is a zero sum game unless you borrow the money from outside the system. If you tax individuals to fund transfer payments, those individuals have less money to spend on consumption. If you tax businesses, those businesses have less money to spend on investment that creates jobs. If you borrow money domestically, those funds are not available to lend to businesses for investment to create jobs.

[hcap]

Like, booze, lottery tickets...maybe pari-mutuel handles will rise slightly. I seriously don't think the spending habits of lower-income folks are going to outweigh the considerably less fraction that the middle class footing the bill for this will have to spend on "goods and services." There's just not enough ceteris paribus there for me to take that at face value.Bullshit! How the hell did you arrive at this wasted lifestyle of the poor? Which conservative source of trash did you use to find out about alcohol, gambling and poor lifestyle choices of the poor? Try this out instead. From NPR

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/08/01/157664524/how-the-poor-the-middle-class-and-the-rich-spend-their-money

http://www.npr.org/news/graphics/2012/07/pm-richpoorspending/pm-gr-richpoorspending-462.gif

.. poor families spend a much larger share of their budget on basic necessities such as food at home, utilities and health care. Rich families are able to devote a much bigger chunk of their spending to education, and a much, much bigger share to saving for retirement. (The retirement line includes contributions to Social Security and to private retirement plans, by the way.)"

Under "entertainment", the poor spend the least. For some reason, things like booze and lottery tickets do not create statistical separate categories :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :lol: :lol:

Over the next 10 years, some workers will voluntarily leave their jobs or reduce their numbers of hours worked by their own free choice. Social Security did the same thing when introduced and I am sure conservatives bitched then. Many seniors stopped working when social security began because their SS benefits allowed them to do so. That also reduced the number of hours worked. The same thing with outlawing child labor---fewer hours worked because of that as well.

You are also assuming that on balance the ACA will bleed the middle class in order to subsidize the poor. And they will have less to spend. Anytime any notion resembling a Keynesian approach is suggested, conservatives are ready to kill. There is no proof your assertion that "lower-income folks are going to outweigh the considerably less fraction that the middle class footing the bill for this will have to spend on "goods and services." There's just not enough proof for this. Everything so far shows moderately Keynesian programs like the Stimulus helped.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/congressional-budget-office-defends-stimulus/2012/06/06/gJQAnFnjJV_story.html

Did the stimulus work?

Certainly not according to Republicans, who regularly blast President Obama’s “failed” economic policies on the campaign trail.

..But on Wednesday, under questioning from skeptical Republicans, the director of the nonpartisan (and widely respected) Congressional Budget Office was emphatic about the value of the 2009 stimulus. And, he said, the vast majority of economists agree.

[Robert Goren]

Perhaps you could take some lessons in reading comprehension. I clearly explained why Bush could do it and why Obama could do it.

Naturally you ignored those explanations so you could make a sarcastic response.Mosty, you should know by now that when the right doesn't have logic and facts on their side, they resort to sarcasm. They are very good at it because they are forced to resort to it so often.

[rastajenk]

Well, hcap, you tell me what "goods and services" that lower-income types will spend their extra money on that will drive the economy. Used cars vs. new cars? Eating out at finer restaurants than fast-food joints? Sports and recreation (equipment, tickets etc)? Other disposable, electable options...tell me what they are. Maybe they'll spend more on utilities and transportation after the EcoNazis succeed in raising energy costs; what are the multiplier effects of that?

I don't have a problem with any of the numbers in your chart; they all look reasonable enough to me. And I don't care how many cloistered economists agree on stimulus theory, and I don't research conservative sources of trash to support my real-world observations. But I have worked at racetracks off and on for over 25 years.

[hcap]

Your "real world" observations are nonsense. Being poor and therefore all MUST be pieces of Sh*t , is not an excuse to parade out your prejudicial talking points denying well know and accepted economic observations that the poor spend more and save less. Or that priming the pump in a Keynesian manner just does not work.

[hcap]

But I have worked at racetracks off and on for over 25 years.Maybe you are correct when it comes to POOR drinking gambling, lottery ticket buying horse players?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :D :D

[rastajenk]

I didn't say they were pieces of shit; didn't even mean to infer that. But many are poor because they have made poor choices, and having a little extra money is not going to make them begin making better choices, either to help themselves or to drive the economy. That's the part I'm keying on: how does it drive the economy, in the manner expressed in your embedded clip? It seems so far removed from reality that it cannot possibly be the basis for good public policy.

[Robert Goren]

But I have worked at racetracks off and on for over 25 years.After going to race tracks for over 40 years, I have found both rich and poor there in the hopes making money. The poor go to the windows and the rich go to the sale barn. The race track may be a poor place to make money, but it does offer a chance. Isn't that why we all go?

[Mike at A+]

I didn't say they were pieces of shit; didn't even mean to infer that. But many are poor because they have made poor choices, and having a little extra money is not going to make them begin making better choices, either to help themselves or to drive the economy. That's the part I'm keying on: how does it drive the economy, in the manner expressed in your embedded clip? It seems so far removed from reality that it cannot possibly be the basis for good public policy.
Ah but in the liberal mindset, you were THINKING that they are all pieces of sh!t. But here's the REAL issue. What are "choices"? Liberals seem incapable of defining making trouble in school as a "bad choice". Liberals seem incapable of defining committing crimes as a "bad choice". Liberals seem incapable of defining failure to develop a work ethic as a "bad choice". Liberals seem incapable of defining taking drugs as a "bad choice". Liberals seem incapable of defining the single parent household as a "bad choice". To liberals, these are all "unlucky breaks".

[rastajenk]

After going to race tracks for over 40 years, I have found both rich and poor there in the hopes making money. The poor go to the windows and the rich go to the sale barn. The race track may be a poor place to make money, but it does offer a chance. Isn't that why we all go?Depends on who "we" is. Here in PA Land, probably; out there in the bigger, real world, not as much.

[Clocker]

Did the stimulus work?

Certainly not according to Republicans, who regularly blast President Obama’s “failed” economic policies on the campaign trail.

..But on Wednesday, under questioning from skeptical Republicans, the director of the nonpartisan (and widely respected) Congressional Budget Office was emphatic about the value of the 2009 stimulus. And, he said, the vast majority of economists agree.

From the same article:

In the same February survey, only 46 percent of economic experts agreed that “the benefits of the stimulus will end up exceeding its costs” — including “the economic costs of raising taxes to pay for the spending.”

It worked just like Cash for Clunkers worked by shifting future demand into the present. The overall effect eventually zeroed out.

[goatchaser]

I would propose clinics outside of the current hospital system to keep the paying customers separate from those getting the free health care. It makes sense purely from a logistics point of view. There should be at least SOME responsibility for those getting the free stuff. Why degrade services for those who pay through the nose?

Why Degrade people? Maybe your doing ok Mike. I just want you to think about a child ...Maybe yours....and your in one line and he or she are in the other line...How would you feel?

Can you honestly say you wouldn't feel something knowing your getting better care than your child?

[Mike at A+]

Why Degrade people? Maybe your doing ok Mike. I just want you to think about a child ...Maybe yours....and your in one line and he or she are in the other line...How would you feel?

Can you honestly say you wouldn't feel something knowing your getting better care than your child?
As a parent, I would MAKE SURE - I would DO WITHOUT - to ensure that my child got the best I could afford regardless of my income level. And as it turns out, I HAVE done without by taking care of my obligations before paying myself.

[Boris]

Over the next 10 years, some workers will voluntarily leave their jobs or reduce their numbers of hours worked by their own free choice.

I believe that is true. I'm sure you can see that the same is true with raising the top income tax brackets and taxing capital gains at regular income rates. Some people will reduce their investments by their own free choice and put their money in a safe place to live out the rest of their life.

[hcap]

From the same article:

In the same February survey, only 46 percent of economic experts agreed that “the benefits of the stimulus will end up exceeding its costs” — including “the economic costs of raising taxes to pay for the spending.”

You are a real piece of work. Crawl back under the rock that has obviously is distorting your reading skills

I*n full *context * .... Economists are less unified, however, on the question of whether the short-term benefits of the stimulus were worth the long-term cost. In the same February survey, only 46 percent of economic experts agreed that “the benefits of the stimulus will end up exceeding its costs” — including “the economic costs of raising taxes to pay for the spending.”

Twenty-seven percent of the respondents said they were not certain, while 12 percent said the costs far outweighed the benefits.

One more time...

46% Agreed benefits will exceed costs

27$ Not certain

12% Costs far outweighed benefits

MORE:

In a survey conducted by the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, 80 percent of economic experts agreed that, because of the stimulus, the U.S. unemployment rate was lower at the end of 2010 than it would have been otherwise.

“Only 4 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed,” CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf told the House Budget Committee. “That,” he added, “is a distinct minority.”

...Most economists not only think it should have worked; they think it did work, Elmendorf replied. CBO’s own analysis found that the package added as many as 3.3 million jobs to the economy during the second quarter of 2010, and may have prevented the nation from lapsing back into recession.

.................................................. ........................................

Amazing that you show up here as some sort of expert on economics. You are making a fool of yourself. We all are entitled to differ, but none are privileged to misrepresent the facts of the same article we all can read.

[hcap]

I believe that is true. I'm sure you can see that the same is true with raising the top income tax brackets and taxing capital gains at regular income rates. Some people will reduce their investments by their own free choice and put their money in a safe place to live out the rest of their life.I would have to research that. Maybe. But they surely would suffer less either way than the bottom of the ladder without a pot to pee in.

All of these issues are also moral issues. Making choices in terms of who pays how much, cannot be done in a vacuum.

[goatchaser]

As a parent, I would MAKE SURE - I would DO WITHOUT - to ensure that my child got the best I could afford regardless of my income level. And as it turns out, I HAVE done without by taking care of my obligations before paying myself.
Then you would be the one standing in the other line. The one you want to make seperate. But Kudos to you for handling your Obligations as I have done the same.

[Mike at A+]

I would have to research that. Maybe. But they surely would suffer less either way than the bottom of the ladder without a pot to pee in.

All of these issues are also moral issues. Making choices in terms of who pays how much, cannot be done in a vacuum.
Oh, now I see the light. It's a moral choice for bureaucrats to determine how much people give up from what they have earned but when it comes to how much people have failed to do for themselves it's hard luck.

[Clocker]

You are a real piece of work. Crawl back under the rock that has obviously is distorting your reading skills


You are making a fool of yourself. We all are entitled to differ, but none are privileged to misrepresent the facts of the same article we all can read.

Thank you. I appreciate that you keep the discussion objective and on a high level, not dragging it down into the gutter with personal attacks.

First of all, that article was written too soon after the stimulus to allow any objective measure of the long term impacts of the spending. Later analysis, even by liberal economists, showed that the effects of the stimulus quickly petered out and had little long term impact on the economy.

Secondly, if the stimulus was so effective, why is the economy still in the toilet, and why does this president have to pivot back to a laser-like focus on jobs every other month?

[hcap]

Oh, now I see the light. It's a moral choice for bureaucrats to determine how much people give up from what they have earned but when it comes to how much people have failed to do for themselves it's hard luck.Oh, now I see the light. You want to get rid of all "bureaucrats" to prevent the necessity of any governmental bureaucrats from making governmental decisions.

Morality has to enter in to such decisions or the bottom line is devoid of the concept of the common good. Commonwealth even according to Adam Smith is an admirable moral calculus.

http://www.adamsmith.org/moral-sentiements

..The Theory Of Moral Sentiments was a real scientific breakthrough. It shows that our moral ideas and actions are a product of our very nature as social creatures. It argues that this social psychology is a better guide to moral action than is reason. It identifies the basic rules of prudence and justice that are needed for society to survive, and explains the additional, beneficent, actions that enable it to flourish.

Self-interest and sympathy. As individuals, we have a natural tendency to look after ourselves. That is merely prudence. And yet as social creatures, explains Smith, we are also endowed with a natural sympathy – today we would say empathy – towards others. When we see others distressed or happy, we feel for them – albeit less strongly. Likewise, others seek our empathy and feel for us. When their feelings are particularly strong, empathy prompts them to restrain their emotions so as to bring them into line with our, less intense reactions. Gradually, as we grow from childhood to adulthood, we each learn what is and is not acceptable to other people. Morality stems from our social nature.

Justice and beneficence. So does justice. Though we are self-interested, we again have to work out how to live alongside others without doing them harm. That is an essential minimum for the survival of society. If people go further and do positive good – beneficence – we welcome it, but cannot demand such action as we demand justice.***



**We cannot demand but we can vote on it. Unfortunately bureaucrats are needed for elections which gives rise to and generate politics.

[hcap]

Thank you. I appreciate that you keep the discussion objective and on a high level, not dragging it down into the gutter with personal attacks.

First of all, that article was written too soon after the stimulus to allow any objective measure of the long term impacts of the spending. Later analysis, even by liberal economists, showed that the effects of the stimulus quickly petered out and had little long term impact on the economy.

Secondly, if the stimulus was so effective, why is the economy still in the toilet, and why does this president have to pivot back to a laser-like focus on jobs every other month?I called you out on lying about the article in plain sight one---that we could all read. Address that first and we can discuss the rest of your points. You did lie, and my post was not a personal attack except I did point out your lie, and did say something about you crawling back under a rock. Oops! My bad.

Not the first time you have come on here in the guise of a conservative know it all and tripped badly over your own tongue.

[mostpost]

Krugman gets the facts right but the policy wrong. Both sides misunderstood the facts of the CBO report. As Krugman said, ObamaCare does not kill 2.5 million jobs. It allows, even encourages, people who would normally have to work additional hours equivalent to 2.5 million jobs to opt out of dong so. It does not affect the number of jobs available (i.e., the demand for labor) it affects the supply of labor. As the head of the CBO testified before Congress, the exchange subsidies are a tax on the supply of labor.

The ignored consequences are two-fold. First, that means the economy loses the productivity of that labor, including the production, the demand for products and services, and the taxes paid. Second, someone has to foot the bill to support those people who opt to work less. There is no free lunch. Third, if there is a demand for that labor, and people do not supply it, business will purchase it elsewhere. Like off shore.
How many different ways do we have to explain this before you get it? It is really becoming tiresome. The production is not lost because someone else will take those jobs. We have over ten million unemployed in this country right now-actually a lot more since that figure is based on the 6.6% rate. When those 2.5 million decide they no longer need to work, there will be four people in line for each of those jobs.

The demand for products and services will not decline, it will increase. The 2.5 million are not indigent They are people who have sufficient family or individual income to satisfy their needs and desires. Plus we have the additional 2.5 million who will take those jobs when they become available. Those people will now have the money to purchases goods and services which they were not able to purchase before.

Our problem right now is not a deficit in the supply of labor. It is a deficit in the supply of jobs. That is why we have ten million unemployed.

[Clocker]

I called you out on lying about the article in plain sight one

So in your world, quoting from an article is lying about it?

'When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.’

How is the weather through the looking glass? It's summer there now, isn't it?

[Mike at A+]

Oh, now I see the light. You want to get rid of all "bureaucrats" to prevent the necessity of any governmental bureaucrats from making governmental decisions.
Wow, was it you or mostie (or both) I keep hearing complaining about lack of reading comprehension skills? I don't recall supporting the removal of all bureaucrats. I DO believe in personal responsibility. You say "we again have to work out how to live alongside others without doing them harm". I argue that increasing dependency on the nanny state DOES them harm. But it's also a great way to keep large demographic blocs of voters in line.

[Tom]

The production is not lost because someone else will take those jobs.

That is what we said when GM was going under.
you guys said we had to save those jobs.

Which is it?

[Clocker]

That is what we said when GM was going under.
you guys said we had to save those jobs.

Which is it?

Consistency is not important to the collective.

Resistance is futile.

[Clocker]

The production is not lost because someone else will take those jobs.

People whose consumption is subsidized by others represent negative production. That is expected of people that can't produce for legitimate reasons, and we plan for that. People that voluntarily opt not to produce and have their consumption subsidized by others are a drag on the economy.

[hcap]

People whose consumption is subsidized by others represent negative production. That is expected of people that can't produce for legitimate reasons, and we plan for that. People that voluntarily opt not to produce and have their consumption subsidized by others are a drag on the economy.You lose badly on the details, lying through your teeth, and then revert desperately to more generalities that can not be backed up, and that sound good only to you an the other Ayn Randians here.

Makers, takers blah, blah, blah.
Makers, takers blah, blah, blah.
Makers, takers blah, blah, blah.

How many times will we here the same bull over and over again?

All you Randian repetitious right wingers are beginning to sound like this....

Ah-One, and Ah-Two!....

/7sx4FWOjpH8? :lol: :lol:

[mostpost]

CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf called it a disincentive. People with exchange subsidies who work more hours or make more money can lose their subsidies and end up worse off financially than they would not working more. That is a disincentive to work.
I do not see how that is true. Did Elmendorf actually say that or is that something you are interpreting? Or someone else is interpreting for you. It might be a disincentive if the amount you lose is in your subsidy is egual to or greater than the amount you lose in additional pay. That is not the case-not even close

http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator/

The following figures are for a family of four with two adults aged 37 and two children. The plan is a generic silver plan; the annual earnings are a USA average. Different states would vary. The basic premium is $9,497/yr.

A family earning $25,000/yr receives a subsidy of $8,997 and pays $500
A family earning $30,000/yr receives a subsidy of $8,897 and pays $600
Hardly a disincentive to make more money or an incentive to work less.

A family earning $40,000/yr receives a subsidy of $7,532 and pays $1965
A family earning $45,000/yr receives a subsidy of $6,846 and pays $2650
This family earns $5,000 more and pays $685 more for its premiums. The family gets to keep 86.3% of the additional income.

As the family earns more the percentage it must pay for insurance goes up and the percentage of the extra income goes down, until the family reaches a point where it is paying 9.5% of its income for health insurance or it is no longer eligible for subsidies.

[mostpost]

That is what we said when GM was going under.
you guys said we had to save those jobs.

Which is it?
Do you really not understand the difference? Jobs are not workers? Workers are not jobs. When the CBO said 2.5 million people would choose not to be worker, that did not mean 2.5 milllion jobs would be lost. Those jobs would still be there, waiting to be filled. Who would fill them? Some of the ten million plus currently unemployed.

If GM had been allowed or forced to shut down, all of those jobs would have ceased to exist. Where would those workers have gone for jobs? None of the auto companies were doing all that well at the time. Even if they had been hiring, many of their plants were far removed from where the displaced workers would have been.

[mostpost]

Consistency is not important to the collective.

Resistance is futile.
You're talking consistency to a guy who thinks the CBO report and the GM bankruptcy are equivalent? Really?

[Clocker]

Did Elmendorf actually say that or is that something you are interpreting? Or someone else is interpreting for you.

I asked my mommy, and she said it was so.

Why do you keep insisting without proof that anyone that says something that conflicts with your view of reality must be made up or distorted?


ELMENDORF: The effect is principally on the labor supply of lower wage workers. The reason is what the Affordable Care Act does is provide subsidies focused on lower and more middle income people to buy health insurance, and in order to encourage sufficient number of people to buy an insurance like health insurance the subsidies are fairly large in dollar terms. Those subsidies are then withdrawn over time for people as their income rises. By providing heavily subsidized health-insurance to people with very low income and withdrawing those subsidies as income rises, creates a disincentive for people to work,

And in case you think I made up that quote, here is video of him saying it (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/02/05/cbo_director_obamacare_creates_a_disincentive_for_ people_to_work.html).

[mostpost]

I asked my mommy, and she said it was so.

Why do you keep insisting without proof that anyone that says something that conflicts with your view of reality must be made up or distorted?




And in case you think I made up that quote, here is video of him saying it (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/02/05/cbo_director_obamacare_creates_a_disincentive_for_ people_to_work.html).
You left out a part;
. By providing heavily subsidized health-insurance to people with very low income and withdrawing those subsidies as income rises, creates a disincentive for people to work, relative to what would have been the case in the absence of that act.
But even that is not accurate. Let's take our family of four as described in my previous post. Their current income is $30,000. The buy the aforementioned silver plan and receive a subsidy of $8897. Someone in the family gets a part time job, or perhaps the breadwinner gets a offer of a better job, which raises their income to $40,000. This reduces their subsidy to $7532. You are going to tell me this family is going to turn down $10,000 in extra income to save $1365 in subsidies? I seriously doubt it.

[Saratoga_Mike]

You left out a part;
. By providing heavily subsidized health-insurance to people with very low income and withdrawing those subsidies as income rises, creates a disincentive for people to work, relative to what would have been the case in the absence of that act.
But even that is not accurate. Let's take our family of four as described in my previous post. Their current income is $30,000. The buy the aforementioned silver plan and receive a subsidy of $8897. Someone in the family gets a part time job, or perhaps the breadwinner gets a offer of a better job, which raises their income to $40,000. This reduces their subsidy to $7532. You are going to tell me this family is going to turn down $10,000 in extra income to save $1365 in subsidies? I seriously doubt it.

Shouldn't you calculate the impact on the earned income tax credit and child tax care credits in your analysis? I don't know if those items would decline in your example, but I'm interested to find out.

[Clocker]

You left out a part;
. By providing heavily subsidized health-insurance to people with very low income and withdrawing those subsidies as income rises, creates a disincentive for people to work, relative to what would have been the case in the absence of that act.

That doesn't change the fact that the subsidy is a disincentive to work, which is what I said and what you disputed.

But even that is not accurate.

Then you should explain that to the Director of the CBO. I am sure that he would appreciate the benefit of your insight.

[Mike at A+]

You left out a part;
. By providing heavily subsidized health-insurance to people with very low income and withdrawing those subsidies as income rises, creates a disincentive for people to work, relative to what would have been the case in the absence of that act.
But even that is not accurate. Let's take our family of four as described in my previous post. Their current income is $30,000. The buy the aforementioned silver plan and receive a subsidy of $8897. Someone in the family gets a part time job, or perhaps the breadwinner gets a offer of a better job, which raises their income to $40,000. This reduces their subsidy to $7532. You are going to tell me this family is going to turn down $10,000 in extra income to save $1365 in subsidies? I seriously doubt it.
One would think that the desire of these "low income" folks to enter the middle class someday would outweigh any "disincentive" to work. Then again they are probably well aware that 0bama has declared war on the middle class and have no desire to move up the food chain only to get screwed like the rest of us.

[davew]

One would think that the desire of these "low income" folks to enter the middle class someday would outweigh any "disincentive" to work. Then again they are probably well aware that 0bama has declared war on the middle class and have no desire to move up the food chain only to get screwed like the rest of us.

I have known some "low income" people whose main incentive/goal is money for nothing. They try to get the best free food, free housing, and hand outs with as little effort as possible. It is true if you give them more cash, they will spend more cash on the stuff they sell at a gas staion convenience store.

They also are teaching their kids this great skill. A 'lady' who had 4 kids from 4 fathers by the time she was 23, almost as if she felt kids were commodities that helped her 'earn' more hand-outs. The kids get shuffled between her and her mom, as they both milk a couple states probably getting credit for the kids in both places....

[Tom]

Consistency is not important to the collective.

Resistance is futile.

a61fPIgJfgs

[Tom]

If GM had been allowed or forced to shut down, all of those jobs would have ceased to exist.

They would have ceased to exist at GM.
they would have become available at other companies, MOST of then non-union shops. People would not have stopped buying cars - they would buy them from someone else. Those car would still be built, but not by GM.

[newtothegame]

Tom,
Mosty does not understand business well enough. You are speaking to someone who does not hear you.

Hey motless, let me help.....

If there are 10,000 cars sold annually....by 4 different companies ....and for arguments sake lets keep them all equal. 2500 per.

One company goes out of business....the demand for cars does not dry up you silly guy.....

There are still going to be 10,000 cars sold ( and we are not even going to go into price increases etc etc).....just by three companies instead of four.

The increase in demand on the remaining three will require those three to increase their staffing levels...ie to produce the cars needed to accommodate the market (10,000 cars).

So, those jobs don't go away, they just go to a different company.

Now, if a company was a monopoly and it went under, the jobs could temporarily disappear until another producer filled the niche left by the company that went out. Keep in mind needs will always be filled.

[classhandicapper]

This is a second hand story, but it was told to me by someone I have no reason to doubt. He was getting a haircut and the guy next to him tells the stylist that his girl is quitting her job because she's getting Obamacare "free" now. Apparently he makes some money and they also collect welfare and food stamps. That's enough to subsist on.


The barber tells him it's not "free" and that other people are paying for it. The guy was puzzled. It had to be explained to him.

[Clocker]

The barber tells him it's not "free" and that other people are paying for it. The guy was puzzled. It had to be explained to him.

The guy is just following his passion. That apparently doesn't include education.

[newtothegame]

Ohhh but see, that is the incentive that has been spoken about in detail here....

It is "free" to that guy getting his haircut......just not everyone else who doesn't receive those "subsidies". lol

I believe there was a video running around of a woman who was absolutely fine with it all...till she found out SHE had to pay for it lol

[Clocker]

I believe there was a video running around of a woman who was absolutely fine with it all...till she found out SHE had to pay for it lol

Haven't seen a video, but there is this from the L.A. Times:

Pam Kehaly, president of Anthem Blue Cross in California, said she received a recent letter from a young woman complaining about a 50% rate hike related to the healthcare law.

"She said, 'I was all for Obamacare until I found out I was paying for it,'" Kehaly said.


http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-health-sticker-shock-20131027,0,2756077.story#ixzz2tNAfc0hA

[newtothegame]

that's the one!! :lol:

[davew]

Here is a good one - community organizer paid demonstration


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XK7m4PtyA8I

[Saratoga_Mike]

Shouldn't you calculate the impact on the earned income tax credit and child tax care credits in your analysis? I don't know if those items would decline in your example, but I'm interested to find out.

Most,

When you're re-working your math on the $30k vs $40k income issue, please include the potential impact from reduced earned income tax credit/child tax credits/reduced food stamp benefits (if applies) and the reduction in the ObamaCare subsidy? I look forward to your analysis (I have no idea what it will look like - might not change your point).

[fast4522]

It is a shell game, we are being played as fools.

[LottaKash]

It is a shell game, we are being played as fools.

Ya got that right....:eek:

Imo, one of the "BIGGEST SCAMS" ever perpetrated upon the Amerikan People... !!!!!

[CryingForTheHorses]

Ya got that right....:eek:

Imo, one of the "BIGGEST SCAMS" ever perpetrated upon the Amerikan People... !!!!!

Im not sure what you mean by a scam,My wife and I signed up and I was surprised at how little it was costing us per month, Will the healthcare be what we signed,We will have to wait and see..

[JustRalph]

Im not sure what you mean by a scam,My wife and I signed up and I was surprised at how little it was costing us per month, Will the healthcare be what we signed,We will have to wait and see..

You can thank thousands of others who are paying your way

I worked up a policy with one of my wife's employees the other day. Thru the website

For $8 bucks a month he can get a bronze plan with $6500 deductible and $50 co pays. Based on his 30 hour a week he gets subsidies etc

He is going to buy the top tier plan for $99 a month and $30 co pays with $1500 out of pocket max a year

He is very happy. He left his full time job for a lesser paying job six months ago.
He is also now only working 30 hours or so a week, sometimes more, but has more money in his pocket because he doesn't have to pay $400 a month for insurance.

Someone is picking up the slack............there's no free lunch......

[newtothegame]

Im not sure what you mean by a scam,My wife and I signed up and I was surprised at how little it was costing us per month, Will the healthcare be what we signed,We will have to wait and see..

I am not at all sure how the enrollment or plans work but, you have to WAIT AND SEE if the healthcare will be what you signed????

This is a page straight from Nancy herself....!

[Clocker]

Im not sure what you mean by a scam

Individually, some people are better off, some people are worse off. If you signed up and paid for a policy, you will get what you signed up for. But you might find shortages and delays in getting care due to limited networks.

It is a scam because all of the lies that were told to get it passed. Like if you liked your old plan, you could keep it. Like if you liked your doctor, you could keep him. Like the average family would save $2500 a year on health insurance.

And all the things that were not mentioned at all. Like the high co-pays and deductibles. Like people that thought they were going to get ObamaCare got Medicaid. Like people that thought that they were going to get insurance from their employer found that the individual mandate went into effect immediately, but the employer mandate keeps getting delayed a year at a time.

[CryingForTheHorses]

You can thank thousands of others who are paying your way

I worked up a policy with one of my wife's employees the other day. Thru the website

For $8 bucks a month he can get a bronze plan with $6500 deductible and $50 co pays. Based on his 30 hour a week he gets subsidies etc

He is going to buy the top tier plan for $99 a month and $30 co pays with $1500 out of pocket max a year

He is very happy. He left his full time job for a lesser paying job six months ago.
He is also now only working 30 hours or so a week, sometimes more, but has more money in his pocket because he doesn't have to pay $400 a month for insurance.

Someone is picking up the slack............there's no free lunch......


Not sure what you mean by "paying my way"..I file my taxes each year and pay my quarters on time....WHO is paying my way??

[hcap]

Someone is picking up the slack...........

there's no free lunch......

Nobody rides for free. Everything costs but not all costs are equal
per capita

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/health-costs-how-the-us-compares-with-other-countries/

NewsHour: Let’s start broadly. Where does the U.S. health care spending stand relative to other OECD countries?

Pearson: Whether measured relative to its population or its economy, the United States spends by far the most in the world on health care.

The U.S. spent $8,233 on health per person in 2010. Norway, the Netherlands and Switzerland are the next highest spenders, but in the same year, they all spent at least $3,000 less per person. The average spending on health care among the other 33 developed OECD countries was $3,268 per person.

The U.S. is a very rich country, but even so, it devotes far more of its economy — 17.6 percent of GDP in 2010 — to health than any other country. The Netherlands is the next highest, at 12 percent of GDP, and the average among OECD countries was almost half that of the U.S., at 9.5 percent of GDP.

http://pgpf.org/Chart-Archive/0006_health-care-oecd

Americans spend over twice as much per capita on healthcare as the average developed country - See more at: http://pgpf.org/Chart-Archive/0006_health-care-oecd#sthash.BIjlHrSG.dpuf

http://pgpf.org/sites/default/files/sitecore/media%20library/PGPF/Chart-Archive/0006_health-care-oecd-crop.gif
SOURCE: Data from OECD, Health Data 2013, June 2013. Compiled by PGPF.
NOTE: Per capita health expenditures are for the year 2011, except Japan and Australia, for which 2010 data are the latest available. Data adjusts exchange rates to account for cost of living differences between countries. - See more at: http://pgpf.org/Chart-Archive/0006_health-care-oecd#sthash.BIjlHrSG.dpuf



.

[davew]

hcap, that is interesting data


I wonder what percent of that is

- gouging by hospitals to cover the people who can not / do not pay
- gouging of insured by doctors to cover lowball by cash only customers
- extra charges related to malpractice insurance required cuz of lawyers suing
- end of life measures to keep a virtually dead person alive in a coma a few more
days/weeks/months...
- unnecessary tests in
- procedures they wouldn't bother with in many countries like 'heart transplant'

[hcap]

Why don't you tell us instead of wondering

Bottom line is per capita costs

[HUSKER55]

Hcap, do your graphs factor in the cost of the test? For example, I got billed this last time $85 for a "regular" exray. The xrays with the die ran $1250. My room was $1000 per day. Granted I had a lot of monitors.

A merchant is our local mall is from India. He needed to have bariatric bypass done. In the USA the cost is $60000 and then you have to deal with the cosmetic part. He had it done in India for $35000 cash.

I am not sold those graphs tell the whole story. Where do you want your surgury done?

[hcap]

Hcap, do your graphs factor in the cost of the test? For example, I got billed this last time $85 for a "regular" exray. The xrays with the die ran $1250. My room was $1000 per day. Granted I had a lot of monitors.

A merchant is our local mall is from India. He needed to have bariatric bypass done. In the USA the cost is $60000 and then you have to deal with the cosmetic part. He had it done in India for $35000 cash.

I am not sold those graphs tell the whole story. Where do you want your surgury done?Two items. We do a piss poor job of controlling heth care expenses and by using a socialized medicine approach other countries wind up spending substantially lrss than we do per capita. Go here for cost comparisons. I already linked to two articles and per capita costs. One graph among many as far as CT scans

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/11/an_insurance_industry_ceo_expl.html

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/assets_c/2009/11/ctprices-thumb-454x324.jpeg

and

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/02/health/colonoscopies-explain-why-us-leads-the-world-in-health-expenditures.html