Obama: Worst President Ever? Topic

bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/15/2014 11:48:00 AM (view original):
Not sure how being able to not work is a check in the plus column.   Seems to me that people working is the foundation of the economy.
There's a difference between not having to work and not being able to work.

But, you know, you thought the government could reduce the deficit by issuing more bonds.
10/15/2014 1:00 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18996 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 154 32 129
Prospect
Aren't you the guy who thought Kenny Lofton was worthy of a HOF conversation?
10/15/2014 1:26 PM
The Taint
Posts: 12612 (1)
Hall of Famer
997 3
Hall of Famer
It's called job-lock, something that republicans have called a terrible thing in the past and was specifically mentioned in past GOP health care plans as a problem for the nation. Of course now alleviating job lock costs jobs because it's a democratic plan that gets rid of it. These are older people and couples who are forced to work just for insurance purposes. Those 2.5 million jobs will be filled by the unemployed according to the CBO. Dropping the unemployment rate.
10/15/2014 1:29 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
He's also the guy who said there were no atheist organizations.    I don't think he has a search engine. 
10/15/2014 1:30 PM
The Taint
Posts: 12612 (1)
Hall of Famer
997 3
Hall of Famer
Dropping premium rates and unemployment. What a terrible thing.
10/15/2014 1:31 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Posted by The Taint on 10/15/2014 1:29:00 PM (view original):
It's called job-lock, something that republicans have called a terrible thing in the past and was specifically mentioned in past GOP health care plans as a problem for the nation. Of course now alleviating job lock costs jobs because it's a democratic plan that gets rid of it. These are older people and couples who are forced to work just for insurance purposes. Those 2.5 million jobs will be filled by the unemployed according to the CBO. Dropping the unemployment rate.

Let's look at it from a different viewpoint:

1.  Works in order to have company health insurance.
1a.  Pays taxes

2.  No longer works because ACA made health insurance affordable without having to work.
2a.  No longer pays taxes because no job.
2b.  Why is health insurance now affordable without a job?  Subsidies.
2c.  Where do they subsidies come from?  Tax money.
2d.  See 2a.
2e.  How is this good for the economy?

10/15/2014 1:37 PM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
Posted by tecwrg on 10/15/2014 1:26:00 PM (view original):
Aren't you the guy who thought Kenny Lofton was worthy of a HOF conversation?
Fo shizzle.

His career merits at least a discussion. I'd probably vote no, though. 
10/15/2014 1:49 PM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/15/2014 1:37:00 PM (view original):
Posted by The Taint on 10/15/2014 1:29:00 PM (view original):
It's called job-lock, something that republicans have called a terrible thing in the past and was specifically mentioned in past GOP health care plans as a problem for the nation. Of course now alleviating job lock costs jobs because it's a democratic plan that gets rid of it. These are older people and couples who are forced to work just for insurance purposes. Those 2.5 million jobs will be filled by the unemployed according to the CBO. Dropping the unemployment rate.

Let's look at it from a different viewpoint:

1.  Works in order to have company health insurance.
1a.  Pays taxes

2.  No longer works because ACA made health insurance affordable without having to work.
2a.  No longer pays taxes because no job.
2b.  Why is health insurance now affordable without a job?  Subsidies.
2c.  Where do they subsidies come from?  Tax money.
2d.  See 2a.
2e.  How is this good for the economy?

So you're saying that paying taxes helps the economy?
10/15/2014 1:51 PM
The Taint
Posts: 12612 (1)
Hall of Famer
997 3
Hall of Famer
The 2.5 million people who are replacing those who are job-locked start paying taxes and presumably/hopefully come off the unemployment payroll, which could also take them off other government assistance programs. Win-win.
10/15/2014 2:34 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
So we're taking 2.5m off the unemployment books but replacing them with 2.5m who are no longer working because they can get health insurance subsidies meaning they no longer have to work because of health insurance.    Huh?

My point is pretty simple.   We're removing 2.5m capable workers from the work force by providing them with HI subsidies.   We're not removing wealthy folks who don't have to work, we're removing healthy folks who are working for HI coverage.    This isn't a "win".   At best, it's a push.  Of course, the powers that be will say "Look at the unemployment numbers!!!!  They're better!!!!"   But it's because 2.5m just stopped working/looking.   It's not an economic gain.
10/15/2014 2:48 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Of course, if you don't consider health insurance subsidies a part of a govt assistance program, I can see how you see what you see. 
10/15/2014 2:50 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
I'll add if you think that 2.5m will mostly be comprised of new stay-at-home moms, you might have a "better for the country" argument I'll buy.   
10/15/2014 2:51 PM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/15/2014 2:48:00 PM (view original):
So we're taking 2.5m off the unemployment books but replacing them with 2.5m who are no longer working because they can get health insurance subsidies meaning they no longer have to work because of health insurance.    Huh?

My point is pretty simple.   We're removing 2.5m capable workers from the work force by providing them with HI subsidies.   We're not removing wealthy folks who don't have to work, we're removing healthy folks who are working for HI coverage.    This isn't a "win".   At best, it's a push.  Of course, the powers that be will say "Look at the unemployment numbers!!!!  They're better!!!!"   But it's because 2.5m just stopped working/looking.   It's not an economic gain.
We're not removing them. They are removing themselves now that they no longer have to work just to get coverage.

By your logic, we should end social security because of all the people voluntarily retiring when they qualify.
10/15/2014 3:52 PM
DougOut
Posts: 43802 (0)
Hall of Famer
123
Prospect
Posted by The Taint on 10/15/2014 11:45:00 AM (view original):
ACA saves 5.7 billion dollars in uncompensated hospital costs in 2014.

Average rate increase of premiums adjusted down to six percent from 8.2 percent.

Estimate of 2.5 million people over the next decade will be able to retire/quit working to raise families due to not having to work job just for medical insurance. So sayeth the CBO.
Which ACA document are you talking about?  The original one which was passed by congress while they were still writing it in the back room or the latest one that I have access to.  July 18th of this year.  The 48th change to the law which is ever-changing.  Which law is the CBO basing it's estimate on? 

Being a conservative demagogue myself who never gives liberals the benefit of the doubt or says anything good about them…eVar…I must tell you a few of the changes seem to be common sense and good.  Others have been horrible and destructive and certain parties have been given an out,  however temporary.  Which ones have been instituted by which clan remains a mystery to me.  I chose to get to the website and gloss over it because it doesn't warrant my time or effort to do any kind of serious investigation.  I elect and pay people to do it for me.  And there's the rub.

None of us blind people can do our job or pin a tail on a donkey when the jack-*** keeps moving around.  And so none of these numbers mean anything.  The only certain thing at this point is uncertainty.

One thing is certain.  There is an election coming.  After said election things will change.  Regardless of who wins, one other thing is certain to change.  The current healthcare law will change.  Again.  And so projections made on some conservative blog or by the CBO or directly from the White House mean nothing.  To paraphrase Nancy Pelosi, we won't know what the law is until we know what the law is.  Right now it's a crapshoot.  Emphasis on Crap!
10/15/2014 4:08 PM
mchales_army
Posts: 523 (0)
Prospect
1
Rookie
Posted by The Taint on 10/15/2014 11:45:00 AM (view original):
ACA saves 5.7 billion dollars in uncompensated hospital costs in 2014.

Average rate increase of premiums adjusted down to six percent from 8.2 percent.

Estimate of 2.5 million people over the next decade will be able to retire/quit working to raise families due to not having to work job just for medical insurance. So sayeth the CBO.
I am leery of this "news".

I must go by what I am seeing "on the ground".

MANY MANY Doctors are now wanting an upfront payment before they will even look at you. Same with Dentists.

If it is working so well why is this the case?

Additionally I just received news of another degradation of my health care insurance offered at my place of employment.

Went from one of the best in the area, to a 90-10 plan to avoid the "Cadillac Tax" last year, now this year they are going to an 80-20 plan.

So, for example, the guy at work who has a wife with diabetes and needs two prescriptions per month USED to pay $50 a month. 
He now pays $150 per month, and that number will get even bigger next year. AWESOME!

These are middle class people who are having their premiums rise and their out of pocket expenses triple and still rising to pay for all the "previously uninsured".

They also want to charge an upfront fee to keep your spouse on their insurance now if she/he works someplace that offers health insurance. So they are basically forcing both people to pay single rate cost instead of the cheaper "family plan". 

Another step in the direction of the REAL ULTIMATE GOAL of having a single payer system, that WILL NOT BE very affordable for most Americans.

Interestingly the AHCA does not keep records of how many of their "new enrollees" USED to have insurance before this clusterfvck was forced down our throats. They just tout the number of people signing up, and the number isn't that great so far either. Nor do they report how many are not paying for it yet. There may be a lot of these people signing up to avoid the penalty, and then not paying, because they really can't afford it.

The cheapest of the ACHA plans only covers 60% anyway, so good luck actually using it without going bankrupt, as most of these "previously uninsured" can't afford to buy any better than the cheapest so how in the world could they afford to pay 40% of any medical bill? 
10/16/2014 3:48 AM
◂ Prev 1...248|249|250|251|252...462 Next ▸
Obama: Worst President Ever? Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.