Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
he was the IRS head when DIRTY DEEDS were done, his wife is head of a DIRTY DEED company, the number of visits so dwarf all others
SOMETHING SMELLS
Look a SQUIRRELWhat happened to all of the doom and gloom economic threads?
- Thread starter Ulaven_Demorte
- Start date
- Status
he was the IRS head when DIRTY DEEDS were done, his wife is head of a DIRTY DEED company, the number of visits so dwarf all others
SOMETHING SMELLS
Look a SQUIRREL
JohnnySavage
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2008
- Posts
- 44,467
he was the IRS head when DIRTY DEEDS were done, his wife is head of a DIRTY DEED company, the number of visits so dwarf all others
SOMETHING SMELLS
Whoopty do.
richard_daily
Slut Whisperer
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2006
- Posts
- 36,898
Their soul purpose in life is talking about Obama. What's new, Richard?
Lots more is new than with busybody and the rest of the wingnuts... that's for sure.
Hi Ver!
Sean Renaud
The West Coast Pop
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Posts
- 58,265
The number of visits to the White House is absolutely vital. 157 would be more visits than all prior presidents combined.
IrezumiKiss
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2007
- Posts
- 72,580
Tell him to wear a hoodie and to carry the cans in his pocket with his hands stuffed inside them to appear like he's packing something and walking menacingly. If we're lucky, he'll come across an armed neighborhood watchperson on his return who doesn't listen to police orders to stay in his car.
RobDownSouth
Never Banhammered
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2002
- Posts
- 72,135
Ever notice the RWCJ obsession with numbers?
"Oh Noe! The ACA is 20,000 pages!'
"Oh Noe! The IRS code is 80,000 lines!'
"Oh Noe! A bureaucrat made 157 visits!'
...as if the unspoken conclusion was nefarious intent.....
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
Issa Talks IRS Targeting Investigation, Previews Thursday’s IRS Conference Spending Hearing on CNN SOTU
WASHINGTON – House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) revealed new testimony from IRS employees in Cincinnati involved with the IRS’s political targeting today on CNN’s State of the Union.
The Committee released excerpts from bipartisan transcribed interviews between Committee Investigators and Cincinnati IRS employees. In these interviews Cincinnati IRS employees reject the White House’s claim that the targeting was merely work of “rogue” agents and say targeting of conservative political groups came from Washington, D.C.
“As late as last week, the administration was still trying to say the [IRS targeting scandal] was from a few rogue agents in Cincinnati, when in fact the indication is that they were directly being ordered from Washington,” Issa told CNN.
Below is an excerpt from the transcribed interviews between Committee Investigators and Cincinnati IRS employees:
One Cincinnati IRS employee interviewed by the Oversight Committee rejects the White House assertion and points to Washington as being responsible for targeting effort:
Q: In early 2010, was there a time when you became aware of applications that referenced Tea Party or other conservative groups?
A: In March of 2010, I was made aware.
******
Q: Okay. Now, was there a point around this time period when [your supervisor] asked you to do a search for similar applications?
A: Yes.
Q: To the best of your recollection, when was this request made?
A: Sometime in early March of 2010.
******
Q: Did [your supervisor] give you any indication of the need for the search, any more context?
A: He told me that Washington, D.C., wanted some cases.
******
Q: So as of April 2010, these 40 cases were held at that moment in your group; is that right?
A: Some were.
Q: How many were held there?
A: Less than 40. Some went to Washington, D.C.
Q: Okay. How many went to Washington, D.C.?
A: I sent seven.
******
Q: So you prepared seven hard copy versions of the applications to go to Washington, D.C.?
A: Correct.
******
Q: Did he give you any sort of indication as to why he requested you to do that?
[…]
A: He said Washington, D.C. wanted seven. Because at one point I believe I heard they were thinking 10, but it came down to seven. I said okay, seven.
Q: How did you decide which seven were sent?
A: Just the first seven.
Q: The first seven to come into the system?
A: Yes.
*****
Q: Did anyone else ever make a request that you send any cases to Washington?
A: [Different IRS employee] wanted to have two cases that she couldn't ‑‑ Washington, D.C. wanted them, but she couldn't find the paper. So she requested me, through an email, to find these cases for her and to send them to Washington, D.C.
Q: When was this, what time frame?
A: I don't recall the time frame, maybe May of 2010.
******
Q: But just to be clear, she told you the specific names of these applicants.
A: Yes.
Q: And she told you that Washington, D.C. had requested these two specific applications be sent to D.C.
A: Yes, or parts of them.
******
Q: Okay. So she asked you to send particular parts of these applications.
A: Mm‑hmm.
Q: And that was unusual. Did you say that?
A: Yes.
Q: And she indicated that Washington had requested these specific parts of these specific applications; is that right?
A: Correct.
******
Q: So what do you think about this, that allegation has been made, I think as you have seen in lots of press reports, that there were two rogue agents in Cincinnati that are sort of responsible for all of the issues that we have been talking about today. What do you think about those allegations?
[…]
A: It's impossible. As an agent we are controlled by many, many people. We have to submit many, many reports. So the chance of two agents being rogue and doing things like that could never happen.
******
Q: And you've heard, I'm sure, news reports about individuals here in Washington saying this is a problem that was originated in and contained in the Cincinnati office, and that it was the Cincinnati office that was at fault. What is your reaction to those types of stories?
[…]
A: Well, it's hard to answer the question because in my mind I still hear people saying we were low‑level employees, so we were lower than dirt, according to people in D.C. So, take it for what it is. They were basically throwing us underneath the bus.
******
Q: So is it your perspective that ultimately the responsible parties for the decisions that were reported by the IG are not in the Cincinnati office?
A: I don't know how to answer that question. I mean, from an agent standpoint, we didn't do anything wrong. We followed directions based on other people telling us what to do.
Q: And you ultimately followed directions from Washington; is that correct?
A: If direction had come down from Washington, yes.
Q: But with respect to the particular scrutiny that was given to Tea Party applications, those directions emanated from Washington; is that right?
A: I believe so.
And another more senior IRS Cincinnati employee complained about micromanagement from D.C.:
Q: But you specifically recall that the BOLO terms included "Tea Party?"
A: Yes, I do.
Q: And it was your understanding ‑‑ was it your understanding that the purpose of the BOLO was to identify Tea Party groups?
A: That is correct.
Q: Was it your understanding that the purpose of the BOLO was to identify conservative groups?
A: Yes, it was.
Q: Was it your understanding that the purpose of the BOLO was to identify Republican groups?
A: Yes, it was.
******
Q: Earlier I believe you informed us that the primary reason for applying for another job in July [2010] was because of the micromanagement from [Washington, DC, IRS Attorney], is that correct?
A: Right. It was the whole Tea Party. It was the whole picture. I mean, it was the micromanagement. The fact that the subject area was extremely sensitive and it was something that I didn't want to be associated with.
Q: Why didn't you want to be associated with it?
A: For what happened now. I mean, rogue agent? Even though I was taking all my direction from EO Technical [Washington, D.C], I didn't want my name in the paper for being this rogue agent for a project I had no control over.
Q: Did you think there was something inappropriate about what was happening in 2010?
A: Yes. The inappropriateness was not processing these applications fairly and timely.
******
Q: You have stated you had concerns with the fairness and the timeliness of the application process. Did you have concerns with just the fact that these cases were grouped together and you were the only one handling them?
A: I was the only one handling the Tea Party's, that is correct.
Q: Did that specifically cause you concern?
A: Yes, it did. And I was the only person handling them.
Q: Were you concerned that you didn't have the capacity to process all of the applications in a timely manner?
A: That is correct. And it is just ‑‑ I mean, like you brought up, the micromanagement, the fact that the topic was just weirdly handled was a huge concern to me.
******
Issa also discussed the Committee’s Thursday, June 6 hearing entitled “Collected and Wasted: The IRS Spending Culture and Conference Abuses.” The hearing will focus on the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration report on excessive IRS conference spending and abuses of taxpayer dollars. Issa sent a letter about excessive spending to then-IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman in April, 2012. Between 2010 and 2012, the IRS held at least 220 conferences, which cost approximately $50 million.
In one example, the IRS spent $4 million dollars on a manager’s conference for 2,600 people in Anaheim, Calif. in August, 2010. Contrary to established government contracting practices, the outside event planners did not negotiate lower room rates and instead focused on “perks” for IRS employees. Several IRS employees stayed in presidential suites, which rate at $1,500-$3,500 per night. Moreover, 15 outside speakers were paid $135,000 – including one speaker who lectured on “leadership through art” for $17,000.
Additionally, multiple videos were produced for the conference. A previously unreleased video, referred to as the “cupid shuffle,” and featured employees learning the popular dance as part of preparation for the Anaheim management conference.
WASHINGTON – House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) revealed new testimony from IRS employees in Cincinnati involved with the IRS’s political targeting today on CNN’s State of the Union.
The Committee released excerpts from bipartisan transcribed interviews between Committee Investigators and Cincinnati IRS employees. In these interviews Cincinnati IRS employees reject the White House’s claim that the targeting was merely work of “rogue” agents and say targeting of conservative political groups came from Washington, D.C.
“As late as last week, the administration was still trying to say the [IRS targeting scandal] was from a few rogue agents in Cincinnati, when in fact the indication is that they were directly being ordered from Washington,” Issa told CNN.
Below is an excerpt from the transcribed interviews between Committee Investigators and Cincinnati IRS employees:
One Cincinnati IRS employee interviewed by the Oversight Committee rejects the White House assertion and points to Washington as being responsible for targeting effort:
Q: In early 2010, was there a time when you became aware of applications that referenced Tea Party or other conservative groups?
A: In March of 2010, I was made aware.
******
Q: Okay. Now, was there a point around this time period when [your supervisor] asked you to do a search for similar applications?
A: Yes.
Q: To the best of your recollection, when was this request made?
A: Sometime in early March of 2010.
******
Q: Did [your supervisor] give you any indication of the need for the search, any more context?
A: He told me that Washington, D.C., wanted some cases.
******
Q: So as of April 2010, these 40 cases were held at that moment in your group; is that right?
A: Some were.
Q: How many were held there?
A: Less than 40. Some went to Washington, D.C.
Q: Okay. How many went to Washington, D.C.?
A: I sent seven.
******
Q: So you prepared seven hard copy versions of the applications to go to Washington, D.C.?
A: Correct.
******
Q: Did he give you any sort of indication as to why he requested you to do that?
[…]
A: He said Washington, D.C. wanted seven. Because at one point I believe I heard they were thinking 10, but it came down to seven. I said okay, seven.
Q: How did you decide which seven were sent?
A: Just the first seven.
Q: The first seven to come into the system?
A: Yes.
*****
Q: Did anyone else ever make a request that you send any cases to Washington?
A: [Different IRS employee] wanted to have two cases that she couldn't ‑‑ Washington, D.C. wanted them, but she couldn't find the paper. So she requested me, through an email, to find these cases for her and to send them to Washington, D.C.
Q: When was this, what time frame?
A: I don't recall the time frame, maybe May of 2010.
******
Q: But just to be clear, she told you the specific names of these applicants.
A: Yes.
Q: And she told you that Washington, D.C. had requested these two specific applications be sent to D.C.
A: Yes, or parts of them.
******
Q: Okay. So she asked you to send particular parts of these applications.
A: Mm‑hmm.
Q: And that was unusual. Did you say that?
A: Yes.
Q: And she indicated that Washington had requested these specific parts of these specific applications; is that right?
A: Correct.
******
Q: So what do you think about this, that allegation has been made, I think as you have seen in lots of press reports, that there were two rogue agents in Cincinnati that are sort of responsible for all of the issues that we have been talking about today. What do you think about those allegations?
[…]
A: It's impossible. As an agent we are controlled by many, many people. We have to submit many, many reports. So the chance of two agents being rogue and doing things like that could never happen.
******
Q: And you've heard, I'm sure, news reports about individuals here in Washington saying this is a problem that was originated in and contained in the Cincinnati office, and that it was the Cincinnati office that was at fault. What is your reaction to those types of stories?
[…]
A: Well, it's hard to answer the question because in my mind I still hear people saying we were low‑level employees, so we were lower than dirt, according to people in D.C. So, take it for what it is. They were basically throwing us underneath the bus.
******
Q: So is it your perspective that ultimately the responsible parties for the decisions that were reported by the IG are not in the Cincinnati office?
A: I don't know how to answer that question. I mean, from an agent standpoint, we didn't do anything wrong. We followed directions based on other people telling us what to do.
Q: And you ultimately followed directions from Washington; is that correct?
A: If direction had come down from Washington, yes.
Q: But with respect to the particular scrutiny that was given to Tea Party applications, those directions emanated from Washington; is that right?
A: I believe so.
And another more senior IRS Cincinnati employee complained about micromanagement from D.C.:
Q: But you specifically recall that the BOLO terms included "Tea Party?"
A: Yes, I do.
Q: And it was your understanding ‑‑ was it your understanding that the purpose of the BOLO was to identify Tea Party groups?
A: That is correct.
Q: Was it your understanding that the purpose of the BOLO was to identify conservative groups?
A: Yes, it was.
Q: Was it your understanding that the purpose of the BOLO was to identify Republican groups?
A: Yes, it was.
******
Q: Earlier I believe you informed us that the primary reason for applying for another job in July [2010] was because of the micromanagement from [Washington, DC, IRS Attorney], is that correct?
A: Right. It was the whole Tea Party. It was the whole picture. I mean, it was the micromanagement. The fact that the subject area was extremely sensitive and it was something that I didn't want to be associated with.
Q: Why didn't you want to be associated with it?
A: For what happened now. I mean, rogue agent? Even though I was taking all my direction from EO Technical [Washington, D.C], I didn't want my name in the paper for being this rogue agent for a project I had no control over.
Q: Did you think there was something inappropriate about what was happening in 2010?
A: Yes. The inappropriateness was not processing these applications fairly and timely.
******
Q: You have stated you had concerns with the fairness and the timeliness of the application process. Did you have concerns with just the fact that these cases were grouped together and you were the only one handling them?
A: I was the only one handling the Tea Party's, that is correct.
Q: Did that specifically cause you concern?
A: Yes, it did. And I was the only person handling them.
Q: Were you concerned that you didn't have the capacity to process all of the applications in a timely manner?
A: That is correct. And it is just ‑‑ I mean, like you brought up, the micromanagement, the fact that the topic was just weirdly handled was a huge concern to me.
******
Issa also discussed the Committee’s Thursday, June 6 hearing entitled “Collected and Wasted: The IRS Spending Culture and Conference Abuses.” The hearing will focus on the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration report on excessive IRS conference spending and abuses of taxpayer dollars. Issa sent a letter about excessive spending to then-IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman in April, 2012. Between 2010 and 2012, the IRS held at least 220 conferences, which cost approximately $50 million.
In one example, the IRS spent $4 million dollars on a manager’s conference for 2,600 people in Anaheim, Calif. in August, 2010. Contrary to established government contracting practices, the outside event planners did not negotiate lower room rates and instead focused on “perks” for IRS employees. Several IRS employees stayed in presidential suites, which rate at $1,500-$3,500 per night. Moreover, 15 outside speakers were paid $135,000 – including one speaker who lectured on “leadership through art” for $17,000.
Additionally, multiple videos were produced for the conference. A previously unreleased video, referred to as the “cupid shuffle,” and featured employees learning the popular dance as part of preparation for the Anaheim management conference.
richard_daily
Slut Whisperer
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2006
- Posts
- 36,898
Everybody with even half a brain realized that the economy was going to get better a year or two after the election. In that regard, It wouldn't have mattered if Obama or Romney had been elected.
Very few people want to admit that simple fact.
Sean Renaud
The West Coast Pop
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Posts
- 58,265
I think. . .I think you're confused about who ran for president when.
Even if you weren't that's NOT a simple fact. Europe went the route of austerity and is currently back in a recession. Is there any reason to think that McCain (you know, the guy who ran for president in 08?) wouldn't have taken the US down the same path and gotten the same results?
richard_daily
Slut Whisperer
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2006
- Posts
- 36,898
Do you actually believe that austerity measures were taken to fix the recession? They were taken to give rich people more money.
McCain, Obama, Romney, the results in terms of whether we're in a recession or not now would be the same other than the small details.
There are differences between the three candidates, but not all that much. All are moderate right wingers who are friendly to business.
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
RobDownSouth
Never Banhammered
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2002
- Posts
- 72,135
I think both Richard and Sean make valid points.
McCain, Romney and Obama are basically center to center-right on economic issues, and all three have pursued business-friendly agendas.
And yes, the business cycle began its upswing when Obama took office, it would have swung upwards (eventually) no matter who was in the Oval Office.
The cynic in me believes that most Republicans knew this too, and went out of their way to prevent a meaningful recovery in order to make Obama a one-term president.
Sean is right, though, on the different approach a Republican president might have chosen had they been elected. Let's face it, "austerity" (aka "let grandma eat cat food") was a very trendy hip solution, despite the lack of a successful track record. Keynesian Theory was old and tired.
Nevertheless, President Obama pursued a tepid, lukewarm embrace of Keynesian response to the Great Recession (via the Stimulus bill), and....it worked. Years from now, when cooler heads prevail, historians will look back at the 2009-2010 recession and point out that Keynesian deficit spending during a recession really does work. Period. End of discussion.
And let's not delude ourselves: both Romney and McCain would have given in to expediency and embraced austerity, and America would be in the disasterous straits that Europe currently is in.
America dodged a bullet.
McCain, Romney and Obama are basically center to center-right on economic issues, and all three have pursued business-friendly agendas.
And yes, the business cycle began its upswing when Obama took office, it would have swung upwards (eventually) no matter who was in the Oval Office.
The cynic in me believes that most Republicans knew this too, and went out of their way to prevent a meaningful recovery in order to make Obama a one-term president.
Sean is right, though, on the different approach a Republican president might have chosen had they been elected. Let's face it, "austerity" (aka "let grandma eat cat food") was a very trendy hip solution, despite the lack of a successful track record. Keynesian Theory was old and tired.
Nevertheless, President Obama pursued a tepid, lukewarm embrace of Keynesian response to the Great Recession (via the Stimulus bill), and....it worked. Years from now, when cooler heads prevail, historians will look back at the 2009-2010 recession and point out that Keynesian deficit spending during a recession really does work. Period. End of discussion.
And let's not delude ourselves: both Romney and McCain would have given in to expediency and embraced austerity, and America would be in the disasterous straits that Europe currently is in.
America dodged a bullet.
richard_daily
Slut Whisperer
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2006
- Posts
- 36,898
I agree with you except on one point... the sequester IS austerity. Do you think that those programs are all of a sudden going to become funded?
Sean Renaud
The West Coast Pop
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Posts
- 58,265
That's the story we were told. We can debate whether or not the creators of it intended to help rich people or not later since it really doesn't matter. The fact is the austerity DID happen.
Yes, the three candidates have quite a bit in common. I'll even agree with you that they are moderate right wingers but that doesn't change the fact that McCain MIGHT have given in to austerity and we can see the results of that right now. Obviously we'll never know for sure though.
Yes, the sequester is austerity. It's however four years later than it might otherwise have hit and is far smaller than could have happened with different leadership. Just like we'll never know for sure if McCain/Romney would have let the Bush tax cuts end or if they would have ended the stimulus sooner. Without a time machine it's impossible to know so we can only take them at their word. We have to assume that given the chance Romney would have enacted the Ryan budget because we don't really have a choice.
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
JACKPOT BROTHER!… Obama Deputy Campaign Manager: I Attended White House Meetings With IRS Chief – “I Was In Them” (Video)
Yesterday, Stephanie Cutter, Deputy campaign manager for President Barack Obama’s 2012 reelection campaign, appeared on Jake Tapper’s show The Lead on CNN.
During the segment Stephanie Cutter admitted she had attended meetings with then IRS Chief Douglas Shulman at the White House:
“A couple of facts here that I think are important for us to stick by, number one, the only reason we know about these visits is because the president makes everything public. Number two, what we’re really looking at some of these visits… What we are looking at the number of times that Mr. Shulman was cleared into the White House. It doesn’t necessarily mean he went to a meeting. Number three, many of those meetings were for healthcare implementation. I was in them with him. So there’s nothing nefarious going on.”
Jackpot brother.
Stephanie Cutter became Barack Obama’s deputy campaign manager in September 2011.
Douglas Shulman, a Democratic donor, was IRS commissioner from March 24, 2008 to November 9, 2012.
Of course, if Obama’s top campaign manager was sitting in meetings with the controversial head of the IRS, this is a very serious development.
They musta been discussing how to save HOSTESS TWINKIES
Yesterday, Stephanie Cutter, Deputy campaign manager for President Barack Obama’s 2012 reelection campaign, appeared on Jake Tapper’s show The Lead on CNN.
During the segment Stephanie Cutter admitted she had attended meetings with then IRS Chief Douglas Shulman at the White House:
“A couple of facts here that I think are important for us to stick by, number one, the only reason we know about these visits is because the president makes everything public. Number two, what we’re really looking at some of these visits… What we are looking at the number of times that Mr. Shulman was cleared into the White House. It doesn’t necessarily mean he went to a meeting. Number three, many of those meetings were for healthcare implementation. I was in them with him. So there’s nothing nefarious going on.”
Jackpot brother.
Stephanie Cutter became Barack Obama’s deputy campaign manager in September 2011.
Douglas Shulman, a Democratic donor, was IRS commissioner from March 24, 2008 to November 9, 2012.
Of course, if Obama’s top campaign manager was sitting in meetings with the controversial head of the IRS, this is a very serious development.
They musta been discussing how to save HOSTESS TWINKIES
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
Obamacare To Double Cost Of Insurance For Average Californian
Last week, the state of California claimed that its version of Obamacare’s health insurance exchange would actually reduce premiums. But, as Forbes reports, the data that the executive director of California's 'exchange' released tells a different story: Obamacare, in fact, will increase individual-market premiums in California by as much as 146 percent. The exuberance that Peter Lee exclaimed over the 'savings' is a misleading comparison. He was comparing apples - the plans that Californians buy today for themselves in a robust individual market-and oranges - the highly regulated plans that small employers purchase for their workers as a group. If you're a 25 year old male non-smoker, buying insurance for yourself, the cheapest plan on Obamacare’s exchanges is the catastrophic plan, which costs an average of $184 a month; but in 2013, on eHealthInsurance.com, Forbes explains, the median cost of the five cheapest plans was only $92. In other words, for the typical 25-year-old male non-smoking Californian, Obamacare will drive premiums up by between 100 and 123 percent. The desperate spin of the PR disaster is incredible as talk of a 'rate shock' is now very prescient, "these extraordinary increases are up to 15 times faster than inflation and threaten to make health care unaffordable for hundreds of thousands of Californians."
Via Forbes,
Last week, the state of California claimed that its version of Obamacare’s health insurance exchange would actually reduce premiums. “These rates are way below the worst-case gloom-and-doom scenarios we have heard,” boasted Peter Lee, executive director of the California exchange. But the data that Lee released tells a different story: Obamacare, in fact, will increase individual-market premiums in California by as much as 146 percent.
...
“The rates submitted to Covered California for the 2014 individual market,” the state said in a press release, “ranged from two percent above to 29 percent below the 2013 average premium for small employer plans in California’s most populous regions.”
That’s the sentence that led to all of the triumphant commentary from the left. “This is a home run for consumers in every region of California,” exulted Peter Lee.
Except that Lee was making a misleading comparison. He was comparing apples—the plans that Californians buy today for themselves in a robust individual market—and oranges—the highly regulated plans that small employers purchase for their workers as a group. The difference is critical.
...
If you’re a 25 year old male non-smoker, buying insurance for yourself, the cheapest plan on Obamacare’s exchanges is the catastrophic plan, which costs an average of $184 a month.
... But in 2013, on eHealthInsurance.com (NASDAQ:EHTH), the median cost of the five cheapest plans was only $92.
In other words, for the typical 25-year-old male non-smoking Californian, Obamacare will drive premiums up by between 100 and 123 percent.
...
Obamacare’s impact on 40-year-olds is steepest in the San Francisco Bay area, especially in the counties north of San Francisco, like Marin, Napa, and Sonoma. Also hard-hit are Orange and San Diego counties.
...
How did Lee and his colleagues explain the sleight-of-hand they used to make it seem like they were bringing prices down, instead of up? “It is difficult to make a direct comparison of these rates to existing premiums in the commercial individual market,” Covered California explained in last week’s press release, “because in 2014, there will be new standard benefit designs under the Affordable Care Act.” That’s a polite way of saying that Obamacare’s mandates and regulations will drive up the cost of premiums in the individual market for health insurance.
But rather than acknowledge that truth, the agency decided to ignore it completely, instead comparing Obamacare-based insurance to a completely different type of insurance product, that bears no relevance to the actual costs that actual Californians face when they shop for coverage today. Peter Lee calls it a “home run.” It’s more like hitting into a triple play.
...
So, Forbes' Avik Roy summarizes:
Supporters of Obamacare justified passage of the law because one insurer in California raised rates on some people by as much as 39 percent. But Obamacare itself more than doubles the cost of insurance on the individual market.
I can understand why Democrats in California would want to mislead the public on this point.
But journalists have a professional responsibility to check out the facts for themselves.
Last week, the state of California claimed that its version of Obamacare’s health insurance exchange would actually reduce premiums. But, as Forbes reports, the data that the executive director of California's 'exchange' released tells a different story: Obamacare, in fact, will increase individual-market premiums in California by as much as 146 percent. The exuberance that Peter Lee exclaimed over the 'savings' is a misleading comparison. He was comparing apples - the plans that Californians buy today for themselves in a robust individual market-and oranges - the highly regulated plans that small employers purchase for their workers as a group. If you're a 25 year old male non-smoker, buying insurance for yourself, the cheapest plan on Obamacare’s exchanges is the catastrophic plan, which costs an average of $184 a month; but in 2013, on eHealthInsurance.com, Forbes explains, the median cost of the five cheapest plans was only $92. In other words, for the typical 25-year-old male non-smoking Californian, Obamacare will drive premiums up by between 100 and 123 percent. The desperate spin of the PR disaster is incredible as talk of a 'rate shock' is now very prescient, "these extraordinary increases are up to 15 times faster than inflation and threaten to make health care unaffordable for hundreds of thousands of Californians."
Via Forbes,
Last week, the state of California claimed that its version of Obamacare’s health insurance exchange would actually reduce premiums. “These rates are way below the worst-case gloom-and-doom scenarios we have heard,” boasted Peter Lee, executive director of the California exchange. But the data that Lee released tells a different story: Obamacare, in fact, will increase individual-market premiums in California by as much as 146 percent.
...
“The rates submitted to Covered California for the 2014 individual market,” the state said in a press release, “ranged from two percent above to 29 percent below the 2013 average premium for small employer plans in California’s most populous regions.”
That’s the sentence that led to all of the triumphant commentary from the left. “This is a home run for consumers in every region of California,” exulted Peter Lee.
Except that Lee was making a misleading comparison. He was comparing apples—the plans that Californians buy today for themselves in a robust individual market—and oranges—the highly regulated plans that small employers purchase for their workers as a group. The difference is critical.
...
If you’re a 25 year old male non-smoker, buying insurance for yourself, the cheapest plan on Obamacare’s exchanges is the catastrophic plan, which costs an average of $184 a month.
... But in 2013, on eHealthInsurance.com (NASDAQ:EHTH), the median cost of the five cheapest plans was only $92.
In other words, for the typical 25-year-old male non-smoking Californian, Obamacare will drive premiums up by between 100 and 123 percent.
...
Obamacare’s impact on 40-year-olds is steepest in the San Francisco Bay area, especially in the counties north of San Francisco, like Marin, Napa, and Sonoma. Also hard-hit are Orange and San Diego counties.
...
How did Lee and his colleagues explain the sleight-of-hand they used to make it seem like they were bringing prices down, instead of up? “It is difficult to make a direct comparison of these rates to existing premiums in the commercial individual market,” Covered California explained in last week’s press release, “because in 2014, there will be new standard benefit designs under the Affordable Care Act.” That’s a polite way of saying that Obamacare’s mandates and regulations will drive up the cost of premiums in the individual market for health insurance.
But rather than acknowledge that truth, the agency decided to ignore it completely, instead comparing Obamacare-based insurance to a completely different type of insurance product, that bears no relevance to the actual costs that actual Californians face when they shop for coverage today. Peter Lee calls it a “home run.” It’s more like hitting into a triple play.
...
So, Forbes' Avik Roy summarizes:
Supporters of Obamacare justified passage of the law because one insurer in California raised rates on some people by as much as 39 percent. But Obamacare itself more than doubles the cost of insurance on the individual market.
I can understand why Democrats in California would want to mislead the public on this point.
But journalists have a professional responsibility to check out the facts for themselves.
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
Its ok
Obama plays golf and has lavish parties and spends $2 billion on overseas junkets
Welcome to the Recovery: Year Five
The lack of product innovation might help explain our Long Bust.
By James Pethokoukis
Happy fourth anniversary, America. June 2009 marked the official end of the Great Recession — as reckoned by the National Bureau of Economic Research — and the beginning of the current recovery. So, how are we doing? Well, if the generation-long period of steady growth and low inflation from 1982 through 2007 was the Long Boom, this current expansion is more like the Long Bust.
Yes, the U.S. economy is growing and adding jobs. Better than the opposite, of course. But it’s an awfully low standard of success. Annual U.S. GDP growth, adjusted for inflation, has averaged an anemic 2.1 percent for the 15 full quarters of recovery, versus 5.1 percent during the same span after the severe 1981–82 recession. As a result, the economy has yet to return to anywhere near its pre–Great Recession growth trend. No wonder this recovery has seen the weakest increase in real disposable income of any of the seven most recent recoveries, according to ITG Market Research. To make matters worse, the average U.S. household has recovered a mere 45 percent of the wealth lost during the Great Recession, according to the St. Louis Fed.
The “growth gap,” not surprisingly, has been more than matched by a “jobs gap.” The economy has 2 million fewer jobs than it did at the January 2008 peak. We are getting there: If average monthly job gains remain close to the last twelve months’ average of 180,000, then private-sector payrolls will hit an all-time high in just under one year. But even then, job levels will still be far below where they would be if the trend from 1990 through 2007 had continued, a shortfall equaling nearly 12 million missing workers. If not for a collapse in the labor-force participation rate — mostly due to weak labor demand rather than demographics, according to Goldman Sachs — the unemployment rate would be at least 9 percent, not 7.5 percent.
Perhaps even more worrisome are the 4.4 million Americans — a whopping 37 percent of the total unemployed population — who’ve been unemployed for 27 weeks or longer. This group, given skills erosion and hiring bias, could become a large permanent pool of jobless Americans.
So what’s gone wrong? At this point, there’s a powerful temptation for conservatives simply to blame Obamanomics, full stop: Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, the tax hikes, the debt. Those on the left blame too little fiscal stimulus and too much GOP budget cutting, as well as the aftermath of the financial crisis. Certainly I favor the conservatives’ explanations, but I would also toss in a too-tight Fed. But consider that each of the jobs recoveries after the past three downturns has been weak, with employment growth lagging GDP growth and corporate profits. This time around, stocks are at record highs while wages are flat. So maybe there are broader forces at play here.
Here’s one possible suspect: This jobless recovery is the result of an economy now better at generating process innovation (creating cheaper, more efficient ways to make existing consumer goods and services) than what business consultant Clayton Christensen has termed “empowering innovation” (creating new consumer goods and services). For a variety of reasons — including how we educate kids and tax capital — efficiency innovations are liberating capital that’s now being mostly reinvested in still more efficiency innovation, rather than in empowering innovation as in the past. And it’s the jobs in sectors experiencing more process than product innovation, explains banker and entrepreneur Ashwin Parameswaran, that are more susceptible to automation.
When Fed chairman Ben Bernanke mentioned “robotics” in a recent commencement address, he was the first U.S. central-bank boss to use the word in a speech since Alan Greenspan in 2000. Expect the challenging impact technology has on middle-income workers to be a more frequent theme in the months and years ahead. Policymakers across Washington need to recognize that the challenges in the current economy run counter to our comfortable assumptions (faster economic growth is a universal salve) and familiar talking points (the wealthy are undertaxed).
Obama plays golf and has lavish parties and spends $2 billion on overseas junkets
Welcome to the Recovery: Year Five
The lack of product innovation might help explain our Long Bust.
By James Pethokoukis
Happy fourth anniversary, America. June 2009 marked the official end of the Great Recession — as reckoned by the National Bureau of Economic Research — and the beginning of the current recovery. So, how are we doing? Well, if the generation-long period of steady growth and low inflation from 1982 through 2007 was the Long Boom, this current expansion is more like the Long Bust.
Yes, the U.S. economy is growing and adding jobs. Better than the opposite, of course. But it’s an awfully low standard of success. Annual U.S. GDP growth, adjusted for inflation, has averaged an anemic 2.1 percent for the 15 full quarters of recovery, versus 5.1 percent during the same span after the severe 1981–82 recession. As a result, the economy has yet to return to anywhere near its pre–Great Recession growth trend. No wonder this recovery has seen the weakest increase in real disposable income of any of the seven most recent recoveries, according to ITG Market Research. To make matters worse, the average U.S. household has recovered a mere 45 percent of the wealth lost during the Great Recession, according to the St. Louis Fed.
The “growth gap,” not surprisingly, has been more than matched by a “jobs gap.” The economy has 2 million fewer jobs than it did at the January 2008 peak. We are getting there: If average monthly job gains remain close to the last twelve months’ average of 180,000, then private-sector payrolls will hit an all-time high in just under one year. But even then, job levels will still be far below where they would be if the trend from 1990 through 2007 had continued, a shortfall equaling nearly 12 million missing workers. If not for a collapse in the labor-force participation rate — mostly due to weak labor demand rather than demographics, according to Goldman Sachs — the unemployment rate would be at least 9 percent, not 7.5 percent.
Perhaps even more worrisome are the 4.4 million Americans — a whopping 37 percent of the total unemployed population — who’ve been unemployed for 27 weeks or longer. This group, given skills erosion and hiring bias, could become a large permanent pool of jobless Americans.
So what’s gone wrong? At this point, there’s a powerful temptation for conservatives simply to blame Obamanomics, full stop: Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, the tax hikes, the debt. Those on the left blame too little fiscal stimulus and too much GOP budget cutting, as well as the aftermath of the financial crisis. Certainly I favor the conservatives’ explanations, but I would also toss in a too-tight Fed. But consider that each of the jobs recoveries after the past three downturns has been weak, with employment growth lagging GDP growth and corporate profits. This time around, stocks are at record highs while wages are flat. So maybe there are broader forces at play here.
Here’s one possible suspect: This jobless recovery is the result of an economy now better at generating process innovation (creating cheaper, more efficient ways to make existing consumer goods and services) than what business consultant Clayton Christensen has termed “empowering innovation” (creating new consumer goods and services). For a variety of reasons — including how we educate kids and tax capital — efficiency innovations are liberating capital that’s now being mostly reinvested in still more efficiency innovation, rather than in empowering innovation as in the past. And it’s the jobs in sectors experiencing more process than product innovation, explains banker and entrepreneur Ashwin Parameswaran, that are more susceptible to automation.
When Fed chairman Ben Bernanke mentioned “robotics” in a recent commencement address, he was the first U.S. central-bank boss to use the word in a speech since Alan Greenspan in 2000. Expect the challenging impact technology has on middle-income workers to be a more frequent theme in the months and years ahead. Policymakers across Washington need to recognize that the challenges in the current economy run counter to our comfortable assumptions (faster economic growth is a universal salve) and familiar talking points (the wealthy are undertaxed).
mercury14
Pragmatic Metaphysician
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2009
- Posts
- 22,158
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
Krugman is full of shit
koalabear
~Armed and Fuzzy~
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2001
- Posts
- 101,964
U
unregistered
Guest
- Status
