U
What happened to all of the doom and gloom economic threads?
- Thread starter Ulaven_Demorte
- Start date
- Status
mercury14
Pragmatic Metaphysician
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2009
- Posts
- 22,158
Because if it's Andrew McCarthy's quote-mining opinion piece, it must be a quality source, right Vette? High-information people like you know he tells it straight so you feel safe taking your opinion from him.
RobDownSouth
Never Banhammered
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2002
- Posts
- 72,245
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
U
unregistered
Guest
RobDownSouth
Never Banhammered
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2002
- Posts
- 72,245
Notice how Paul Krugman makes the RWCJ denizens here howl.
bra_man69
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2003
- Posts
- 7,410
Then move you fat ass to Detroit fat fuck.
pete
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2007
- Posts
- 10,169
krugman makes a lot of enemies because he's way more partisan than most high-profile economists. and also because he's completely full of himself.
that's not a bad article, though it doesn't really go into much detail as to why he thinks this happened, and offers no real substance on how to rectify it.
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
U
unregistered
Guest
pete
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2007
- Posts
- 10,169
i expected him to advocate federal bailout of detroit in that article, surprised he didn't.
RobDownSouth
Never Banhammered
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2002
- Posts
- 72,245
Most columnists are full of themselves, imho.
I disagree with your contention that he is partisan. He simply does not pull his punches, especially when dealing with glibertarians. This, of course, gets the glibertarians howling in anger and impotent rage.
His epic beatdown of lying shitsack Erick Erickson last month serves as a blue print for centrists and liberals dealing with the RWCJ here. Watching Erickson splutter that "facts don't matter, only people's interpretation of facts" exposed the soft white underbelly of wingnut conservatism.
Krugman's not perfect, of course, which conservatives take great delight in taking him to task for. He can and does use facts to back up his opinions, and in my opinion is one of the best economists out there.
mercury14
Pragmatic Metaphysician
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2009
- Posts
- 22,158
Krugman is what you say he is. But even more than that he's a pragmatist who makes ideologues look silly. And he's a pragmatist before he's a liberal.
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
IDIOT
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
What Could Possibly Go Wrong? White House Compiling Reams Of Personal Info To Provide To Community Organizers To Sell Obamacare…
Move over NSA.
Via National Review:
President Obama has had a poor record of job creation, but at least one small economic sector is doing well: community organizing.
The Department of Health and Human Services is about to hire an army of “patient navigators” to inform Americans about the subsidized insurance promised by Obamacare and assist them in enrolling. These organizers will be guided by the new Federal Data Hub, which will give them access to reams of personal information compiled by federal agencies ranging from the IRS to the Department of Defense and the Veterans Administration. “The federal government is planning to quietly enact what could be the largest consolidation of personal data in the history of the republic,” Paul Howard of the Manhattan Institute and Stephen T. Parente, a University of Minnesota finance professor, wrote in USA Today. No wonder that there are concerns about everything from identity theft to the ability of navigators to use the system to register Obamacare participants to vote.
HHS secretary Kathleen Sebelius wasn’t satisfied with the $54 million in public funds allocated for navigators this year, so she tried to raise money from health-industry executives for Enroll America, the liberal nonprofit group leading the PR push for Obamacare. She had to retreat under withering criticism that she was shaking down companies that were dependent on government, a clear conflict of interest.
Because 34 states have declined to set up their own insurance “exchanges,” the job of guiding exchange enrollees in those states has been left to Washington. The identity of the groups who will get the Sebelius grants isn’t yet known, but Politico reports they are likely to include Planned Parenthood, senior-citizen advocacy organizations, and churches.
Move over NSA.
Via National Review:
President Obama has had a poor record of job creation, but at least one small economic sector is doing well: community organizing.
The Department of Health and Human Services is about to hire an army of “patient navigators” to inform Americans about the subsidized insurance promised by Obamacare and assist them in enrolling. These organizers will be guided by the new Federal Data Hub, which will give them access to reams of personal information compiled by federal agencies ranging from the IRS to the Department of Defense and the Veterans Administration. “The federal government is planning to quietly enact what could be the largest consolidation of personal data in the history of the republic,” Paul Howard of the Manhattan Institute and Stephen T. Parente, a University of Minnesota finance professor, wrote in USA Today. No wonder that there are concerns about everything from identity theft to the ability of navigators to use the system to register Obamacare participants to vote.
HHS secretary Kathleen Sebelius wasn’t satisfied with the $54 million in public funds allocated for navigators this year, so she tried to raise money from health-industry executives for Enroll America, the liberal nonprofit group leading the PR push for Obamacare. She had to retreat under withering criticism that she was shaking down companies that were dependent on government, a clear conflict of interest.
Because 34 states have declined to set up their own insurance “exchanges,” the job of guiding exchange enrollees in those states has been left to Washington. The identity of the groups who will get the Sebelius grants isn’t yet known, but Politico reports they are likely to include Planned Parenthood, senior-citizen advocacy organizations, and churches.
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
Andrew Puzder is CEO of CKE Restaurants, which runs the Hardee’s and Carl Jr’s chains. He says of his employees:
Only about 6% of crew-level employees and 60% of general managers sign up for health-insurance coverage.
These low participation rates surprised me. So over the past couple of years I have asked CKE employees what motivated their decisions. Our crew-level workers tend to be younger, and perhaps unsurprisingly some told me they were unconcerned about illness or injury. Others already had insurance through a spouse or parent. A significant number said they declined coverage because they could get medical treatment “for free at the emergency room.” Among those who had signed up, many said it was because they were concerned about developing a medical condition (perhaps due to a family history of illness), and then being unable to get affordable coverage due to this pre-existing condition.
These kinds of responses are why I question the ACA’s viability.
Precisely. If O-Care can’t get young and healthy signing up for $2,500-or $3,000-a-year health insurance plans, then rates are going to skyrocket for the older and sicker.
I remember in my twenties, I didn’t usually bother to carry health insurance, except for a few years when I had a high-deductible catastrophic plan — the kind that ObamaCare has outlawed for anyone over 29. But that was enough for me, since in my 20s my health care needs, no joke, never exceeded a trips to the dentist, a couple bottles of aspirin, and a new pair of glasses each year. My friends were much the same way. Even now, after two bouts with Grave’s Disease, my medical expenses don’t justify a Cadillac plan.
But let’s go back to Puzder:
The ACA’s incentive for young workers to pay for coverage is a penalty (or tax) on uninsured individuals. The penalty in 2014 is $95 or 1% of household income, whichever is greater. It increases in 2016 to $695 or 2.5% of household income, whichever is greater.
A young kid in good health, making about $20,000 a year, will face the choice of buying a gold-plated insurance plan for 10-15% of his pre-tax income — or pay a “tax” of $695. Either way, he’s unlikely to buy much health care, so it makes a lot more economic sense to pay the penalty. The emergency room is still there, and pre-existing conditions will be covered.
Theoretically, wouldn’t it be better to get people paying some money for some coverage, rather than this perverse incentive to game the new system? I have a couple thoughts on that.
Economically, basic coverage simply doesn’t funnel enough money away from the young and healthy (and comparatively poorer) to pay for the subsidies for the older and sicker (and wealthier). That is to say, the subsidies require a bigger fleece.
But I believe there’s another reason, a political one.
Have you seen what even the most basic “bronze” plan is required to cover at “no cost?” Mammograms, vaccinations, cholesterol checks, and more. Also squeezed into your mandatory coverage:
•Ambulatory patient services, such as doctor’s visits and outpatient services
•Emergency services
•Hospitalization
•Maternity and newborn care
•Mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment
•Prescription drugs
•Rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices
•Laboratory services
•Preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management
•Pediatric services, including oral and vision care
Plus birth control, assuming that holds up to court challenges.
We’ll have young people paying for ambulatory services, gay men paying for maternity and newborn care, Scientologists paying for psychiatry, the healthy paying for chronic illness, infertile couples paying for pediatric services… well, you get the idea.
You don’t want or need all of that covered? Tough. ObamaCare hath spoken.
But larding up even the most basic plan with all this pork was just that: Pork. Obama and Pelosi and Reid were able to gin up medical professional support for the bill by promising more coverage for more services. Maybe I would never have seen a shrink before, but hey, now it’s so cheap!
What were once an indulgences are now benefits.
So on top of young people’s non-compliance, there’s one more way ObamaCare is set to explode costs.
And what is that drumbeat I hear in the distance? Ah, yes — the call for single-payer
Only about 6% of crew-level employees and 60% of general managers sign up for health-insurance coverage.
These low participation rates surprised me. So over the past couple of years I have asked CKE employees what motivated their decisions. Our crew-level workers tend to be younger, and perhaps unsurprisingly some told me they were unconcerned about illness or injury. Others already had insurance through a spouse or parent. A significant number said they declined coverage because they could get medical treatment “for free at the emergency room.” Among those who had signed up, many said it was because they were concerned about developing a medical condition (perhaps due to a family history of illness), and then being unable to get affordable coverage due to this pre-existing condition.
These kinds of responses are why I question the ACA’s viability.
Precisely. If O-Care can’t get young and healthy signing up for $2,500-or $3,000-a-year health insurance plans, then rates are going to skyrocket for the older and sicker.
I remember in my twenties, I didn’t usually bother to carry health insurance, except for a few years when I had a high-deductible catastrophic plan — the kind that ObamaCare has outlawed for anyone over 29. But that was enough for me, since in my 20s my health care needs, no joke, never exceeded a trips to the dentist, a couple bottles of aspirin, and a new pair of glasses each year. My friends were much the same way. Even now, after two bouts with Grave’s Disease, my medical expenses don’t justify a Cadillac plan.
But let’s go back to Puzder:
The ACA’s incentive for young workers to pay for coverage is a penalty (or tax) on uninsured individuals. The penalty in 2014 is $95 or 1% of household income, whichever is greater. It increases in 2016 to $695 or 2.5% of household income, whichever is greater.
A young kid in good health, making about $20,000 a year, will face the choice of buying a gold-plated insurance plan for 10-15% of his pre-tax income — or pay a “tax” of $695. Either way, he’s unlikely to buy much health care, so it makes a lot more economic sense to pay the penalty. The emergency room is still there, and pre-existing conditions will be covered.
Theoretically, wouldn’t it be better to get people paying some money for some coverage, rather than this perverse incentive to game the new system? I have a couple thoughts on that.
Economically, basic coverage simply doesn’t funnel enough money away from the young and healthy (and comparatively poorer) to pay for the subsidies for the older and sicker (and wealthier). That is to say, the subsidies require a bigger fleece.
But I believe there’s another reason, a political one.
Have you seen what even the most basic “bronze” plan is required to cover at “no cost?” Mammograms, vaccinations, cholesterol checks, and more. Also squeezed into your mandatory coverage:
•Ambulatory patient services, such as doctor’s visits and outpatient services
•Emergency services
•Hospitalization
•Maternity and newborn care
•Mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment
•Prescription drugs
•Rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices
•Laboratory services
•Preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management
•Pediatric services, including oral and vision care
Plus birth control, assuming that holds up to court challenges.
We’ll have young people paying for ambulatory services, gay men paying for maternity and newborn care, Scientologists paying for psychiatry, the healthy paying for chronic illness, infertile couples paying for pediatric services… well, you get the idea.
You don’t want or need all of that covered? Tough. ObamaCare hath spoken.
But larding up even the most basic plan with all this pork was just that: Pork. Obama and Pelosi and Reid were able to gin up medical professional support for the bill by promising more coverage for more services. Maybe I would never have seen a shrink before, but hey, now it’s so cheap!
What were once an indulgences are now benefits.
So on top of young people’s non-compliance, there’s one more way ObamaCare is set to explode costs.
And what is that drumbeat I hear in the distance? Ah, yes — the call for single-payer
mercury14
Pragmatic Metaphysician
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2009
- Posts
- 22,158
Lots of fast food workers get Medicaid. Others are on their parents' insurance, get coverage from their spouse's job, or choose to not have it.
jeninflorida
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2003
- Posts
- 22,463
well, thanks to the obama less American's actually want to work....awesome job! you have not only made America super fat, but now super lazy
long live the entitlements
long live the entitlements
IrezumiKiss
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2007
- Posts
- 72,660
jeninflorida
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2003
- Posts
- 22,463
wow, the endless stupidity.
only through welfare can we grow the GDP
maybe if someone didn't sit down on his ass all day there, Izzy, you would suffer from trickle down leakage. you do know that they have a male panty guard? that can help you with that trickle down thing you suffer from
only through welfare can we grow the GDP
maybe if someone didn't sit down on his ass all day there, Izzy, you would suffer from trickle down leakage. you do know that they have a male panty guard? that can help you with that trickle down thing you suffer from
- Status
