Controversial CBO Report - Last step into Political Bizzaro World
The gist of the new Congressional Budget Office, (CBO), report on the effects of Obamacare on the U.S. economy is that it will cause a reduction in works hours equivalent to about 2 million jobs by 2017.
Here is just one link from a Washington Post story: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plu … mployment/
The Republicans are dancing like it is Christmas again, and the Democrats are spinning like tops. (my opinion)
But quotes from the Post article seem to step into the reverse realities of Superman's Bizarro World.
Like this quote from the CBO director:
..."Under questioning today before the House Budget Committee from Dem Rep. Chris Van Hollen, CBO director Douglas Elmendorf confirmed that in reality, his report suggests Obamacare will reduce unemployment:..."
"...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...."
Now, in plain-speak, isn't the director saying that instead of people using their own money to pay for something - the government will pay for it for them, so they can then spend that money buying other goods - boosting the demand for consumer goods and the economy?
And is Van Holland implying with "...this kind of economy..." that there are multiple versions of the U.S. economy? (or is he snidely admitting to the Bizarro World scenario, and daring folks to catch on?)
Gee, I can let the government pay for my healthcare, instead of me paying for it - and I can then use the money I would have spent on my healthcare to buy a 60" flat screen TV - and I will be patriotically boosting consumer demand and helping the economy too!
And then the director says that because folks will choose to work less - in order to meet premium subsidy guidelines, (again to let the government pay for something they were paying for), it will lower unemployment because there will be more work hours available for new workers.
So is he really saying that the government is reducing the unemployment rate by paying for something folks would have been paying for themselves, and since they don't have to pay for it now they can choose to work less? And that is a good thing?
I remember in Superman's Bizarro world every surface was cracked, and the logical became the illogical.
I'm going to wear a bio-suit to field these responses.
GAIf anyone is saying the government will pay for your health care they are lying through their teeth.
Yes, my obamacare insurance will be subsidized (heavily) by government, but by the time I pay my own share, there is nothing left for health care. Just worthless insurance that won't pay a penny of the first $5,000. While the insurance will be of value in a catastrophic illness, the total OoP price of $10,000 up for such an illness will bankrupt me whether insured or not.
So no, there is no help for health care, only profits for the insurance company.True, I should have said "healthcare premiums," but did that make the point of the post less clear? Or less pertinent?
It still boils down to saying government support, even at the cost of personal responsibility, is a good thing.
GAA good thing for some, as always, but not for the man in the street.
I'm sorry - been struggling for some way out of this particular catch-22 and not finding a thing. Our wondrous leader has just forced me to pay $4,000 for absolutely nothing but to add profit to insurance companies. I'm not a happy camper.You have my sympathy, and understanding. I am not an Obamacare supporter either, and for reasons that have nothing to do with partisan positions.
I try not to enter into Obamacare discussions that are purely partisan, but the Democrat spin on this CBO report was just too easy a target to pass up.
Although it was to be expected, to see the politicos brazenly declare black is really white was just too much of a red flag for me.
GABut...but...they will say that every time black comes up. And claim black when white comes up.
It really is rather sad when our brainless leaders decide FOR me that it is better that I spend my limited health care monies on a worthless insurance policy than on health care. Guess the level of care, already limited to maybe a minor procedure and a few office visits, just dropped again. It used to be fair, until Obamacare came into being, the employer insurance doubled in price in just one year and was dropped as a result.
Oh well. I'm pretty healthy for an old man - maybe I can hang on for a few more years without a doctor. Haven't been back to the cardiologist since the heart attack 4 years ago and it's worked so far.If I can buy my own health care coverage at a reasonable rate I can retire early at 62 and let my grandson have my barely above minimum wage job. I thought I'd have to work until I was 65 because I couldn't afford to pay what the insurance company quoted me because of pre-existing health problems. My grandson needs the entry level job more then I do, I just couldn't quit working because my job was the only way I would have health insurance. The ACA will free myself and millions of other slaves to deadend jobs, I can be a chimney sweep cut grass to help me live and add to my early retirement. The ACA is here to stay and I'm glad to be able to insure myself for less than I paid on the job.
Good luck with that. After hours of searching for a way out of the trap, I've come up blank - there is no "insurance" plan I can afford that will also leave some money left in the budget for actual health care. I suspect that when you dig into it you will find the same, at least if you are using a government subsidy.
And no, the ACA is NOT here to stay. Not as written; at best the country could only afford that fraudulent piece of crap for a handful of years before going bankrupt and the people being forced to pad the insurance company pockets won't allow even that.wilderness: The ACA if not here to stay it will be replaced by Socialize Medicine paid for by tax collection and reform, also regulation of Capitalism. Unregulated Capitalism has killed jobs in America and perpetually priced everything too high for the common man to pay without government handouts. Capitalism as is is unsustainable.
Agreed; Obamacare will be replaced with some other form of socialized medicine. In order to provide care for everyone, at the level they expect and demand, the county will have to give up tens of thousands of jobs in the health insurance industry, but so be it.
Unregulated capitalism has indeed killed jobs, but then so has over-regulated capitalism and most definitely the result of socialism has with it's share-the-wealth plans.
But capitalism as is is quite sustainable - you are looking at the "now" and forgetting that the country has been in this position (recession) before. The pendulum will swing, with workers again coming into power. Right now the common man cannot buy everything in sight (but can buy enough to support himself if he cares to), but that, too, will change and the "things" we buy will increase once more.wilderness: Because of unregulated Capitalism we lost tens of millions of manufacturing jobs offshore, but so be it. Unregulated Capitalism is unsustainable because perpetual price hike on everything will pile all the money in the capitalist accounts and the vast majority of people will be poor. Our money is literally made in America but, unless there is price stoppage, slowed, or rollback capitalism will cannibalize the US Economy
Unfortunately for that idea, no one knows how to produce a stable economy. Certainly the liberals pushing for socialism don't, not with half of Europe going down from the share-the-wealth concept.
Perpetual price hikes? You mean like the past half dozen years, when inflation hit lows not seen since the days of minuscule regulation? Price hikes come about primarily because regulation allowed artificial inflation of wages, requiring price hikes to stay in business, which produced more wage inflation. An endless circle, started with regulation allowing power to run a company to go to the unions. With the demise of unions the enormous inflation rates of the 70's and 80's has died, too, back to the figures seen when unions were nearly powerless.
If the ACA is replaced - which it will be - it will be replaced by a plan much like the one being discussed right now. The GOP plan. That plan moves us farther away from socialized medicine - not closer to it.
What do you mean when you say, "unregulated Capitalism has killed jobs?"
You might not understand that rewarding someone for not working - is what dumbs down people and creates pockets of poverty. That's what the ACA is set up to do.
Capitalism is the only sustainable form of government. Not PURE Capitalism, but Capitalism backed by a Constitution that guarantees individual rights.
Socialism is the failure, which has been proven time and again throughout the history of our world.Howard: Capitalism is not a sustainable form of government it is an economical concept. Socialism is a form of government but. not an economic concept. Americanism is our form of government and in it is socialism, communism and capitalism British French Spanish, African, and Roman examples of governments in Americanism. When farmers are (rewarded) not to farm are they dumb down?
I don't know where you got that, but Capitalism (historically) has been the only sustainable system. Granted, here in the US, we have a blended form of economy, but the basis is Capitalism. I'm not disagreeing that we need some regulations but we don't need to throw the baby out with the bathwater and follow Marx down the merry path. The thing about farmers - yes, in a sense they are dumbed down by being paid not to farm, and finally that's been acknowledged, which is why the current farm bill no longer will pay them. It was a mistake - we learned from it. I'm a farmer - I pulled out of the FSA system years ago because I refused to take money that wasn't due me.
The reason the ACA is failing is the same reason why all nationalist-type programs fail....they reward those who are non-productive. That is not progress or evolution - that is devolution. It's a giant step backwards.
When the US govt could spend a fraction of taxpayer money by just paying the health bills of indigents - yet it tries to enforce a system whereby we all support the very wealthy insurance industry - I think we can call it a failure.
What you're supporting creates a caste system. Those people who are so poor - now have a reason to stay poor. That's awful. That's a crime against humanity.Howard: You seem to be a reasonable farmer and man. There are tens of millions of Americans who are disabled, uneducated, illiterate, poor, unemployed, underemployed, and mental who at this time in space(2014 A.D.)depended on the government. It don't matter if its because of unprecedented governmentlessness or the Obama Presidency, there are more people wanting jobs and less jobs in America than ever before. What must be done with the 47%er's? We can't deport them nor ignore them, what will be the final solution? Can we afford to not help so many of our fellow Americans when times are oviously hard? The ACA is not the problem or the solution it's a distraction that justify Governmentlessness by far right Conservatives that don't want to Govern positively.
Capitalism rewards those who take risk and hard work to task. There is no reason why that should be disputed. It has been the basis of our economy since the colonial days until the present. Is capitalism regulated to restrict lobbying Congress and other government officials? To an extent yes. But is it the restrictions that guide them or is it greed that has crept in to be the determining factor in their purpose towards profits? It can be stated that the regulations impede profits but who is it they are designed to protect? The argument goes back and forth because one will not reason with the other. Rather than argue sentiment and thrust of the laws in a unbiased atmosphere the have nots will always argue with the haves and vice versa in order to hold fast to their platform.
When was the last time we had unregulated capitalism? IF you call this unregulated, I'd hate to see what you consider regulated.
Good point. Over regulation is smothering business and profits - it cannot be termed unregulated by any stretch of the imagination.
Yet the greatest increase in federal economic regulation (as per the CFR) was during the 40s and 50s which were the high points of American economic success.
While a little regulation might sometimes be good - more is not necessarily better. Take for instance Medicare. Medicare pays for one exam per year per person. Just recently, Medicare increased it regulations to include a higer degree of physician reporting. The red tape take physicians approximately two hours more to fill out for each patient. Physicians are countering that time loss by pushing patient exams back to 14 or 15 months instead of the 12 months allowed by Medicare.
When red tape increases, output decreases and the loss must be made up somewhere else. The 40's and 50's were also a time of strong fundamental Christian growth, yet I hesitate to use that as significant of the economic prosperity of the era.
We need fewer laws - not more of them.You clearly understand something the Left does not understand about conservatives, the fact that we are not opposed to all federal regulation.
The Left will say that you aren't compassionate.
Hi Gus, I am happy to have this chance to say hello.
By now, we all know that the early GOP statements about the ACA killing 2 million jobs were false.
As stated in the WP link you provided, “As noted here yesterday, Republicans went mad with glee at the new Congressional Budget Office report on deficits and the Affordable Care Act, with multiple GOP officials claiming it showed the law will kill over two million jobs. That was false.”{1} [Bold emphasis added.]
I see no reason to dwell on 2 million lost jobs because that is not a fact. However, I would like to skip over the unanswered hypothetical questions you created and just highlight a few facts found in the report.
Here is what the CBO report says sans all the partisan spin.
REDUCTION IN LABOR SUPPY
“The CBO report found that Obamacare — through subsidizing health coverage – would reduce the amount of hours workers choose to work, to the equivalent of 2.5 million full-time workers over 10 years. This was widely spun by Republicans as a loss of 2.5 million jobs.” This passage actually predicts a reduction in the labor supply.
INCREASE IN LABOR DEMAND
“Van Hollen cited the report’s findings on Obamacare’s impact on labor demand, rather than supply. On page 124, the report estimates that the ACA will “boost overall demand for goods and services over the next few years.” This actually predicts an increase in the demand for labor at a time when the supply declining.
LOWER UNEMPLOYMENT
An increase in demand for labor means a lower unemployment rate. Van Hollen noted, “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.”
RESULT IS HIGHER WAGES
When the reduction in the supply of labor intersects with an increase in the demand for labor, the result is higher wages and incentives.
The ACA in intended to provide access to healthcare insurance to millions of poorer Americans through online exchanges and government subsidies. This week’s CBO report confirms the ACA…
Is providing all Americans with access to healthcare insurance;
Will provide subsidies to less fortunate Americans to help them pay premiums;
Will reduce unemployment;
Will increase the demand for goods and services;
Will apply pressure for higher wages;
Thank you for your attention, Gus.
{1} http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plu … mployment/Quill, I'm a little confused. It sounds like the CBO is saying that giving people "free" money to buy health care will result in them choosing not to work to support their own needs, thus lowering unemployment and raising wages. And this is a GOOD thing.
I am at a total loss as to how to equate supporting able bodied people that could work with public funds and that "GOOD thing". The two simply do not match, will result in falling productivity rates and eventually a lower standard of living for all because of that.
You seem to have a handle on this - help me out?Quill, (as you would say, "May I call you "Quill?"), I must admit your response has puzzled me. It is not like you to ignore the context of a discussion, (which is how your response appeared to me), in order to rehash the foundational points of the link.
So the report says "equivalent to... full-time workers" and the Republicans say "jobs."
And I posed the questions as a difference in perceptions - not hypotheticals.
Are you just arguing semantics?
Yes, I quoted this part of the report too. But from my perspective, and further explanation from the Congressional questioning, it was explained as a boost in demand caused by folks spending money for consumer goods rather than healthcare premiums. Both the boost in demand for consumer goods and labor are facilitated by the government paying, (premium subsidies), something folks could/should, (and in CBO justifications - were), be paying for themselves.
Since I did not dispute the language of the report quote - would your response have been more relevant if you had included your perspective of the explanation?
Come on Quill, ...context, context, context. Of course that is a true statement, on its face. But in the context of the report, and this discussion, it is just a rationalization trying to avoid the reality that the cause and effect are directly related to government paying for something folks were paying for.
Is your furnished quote your way of saying you believe it is true - in the context of the original discussion?
Yes, yes, and yes, but how do you feel about this truism, as applied to to context of the discussion?
1) Yes, but as more than a few anecdotal examples have shown - access does not equate to affordable equivalent coverage for all Americans. *of course I understand this is a very subjective and debatable statement - but I think there is enough controversy to warrant qualifying the claim.
2) Once again, yes, even for a family of four with an income of a minimum of $78k, and perhaps as much as $94k, (depending on who is doing the talking) - Does not sound so "less fortunate" to me.
3, 4, 5) Baloney, all pure spin. In my opinion of course.
Since you force me to "read between the lines," - you just restated facts that I did not dispute - I disputed the spin put on them, and returning to the context of my OP, does your response represent that you believe the CBO explanations are valid? Or is this just a battle of semantics?
GAJesus Quill, you quoted WaPo? Come on, man. Then you had the nerve to claim those quotes were "sans all the partisan spin." Surely, you jest.
The best practice - if you want to get at the truth - is to go to the source. WaPo is as, or more, partisan than many other rags.
The bottom line is that even if people *choose* to work less in order to qualify for specific benefits, our nation STILL has a 2.5 million person job deficit. That translates into the poor becoming poorer (if they work more - they won't qualify) and reduced production.
It's not a good thing any way you look at it.
WaPo's spin is one of the most intellectually dishonest I've read, and I've read quite a few. The projected increase in the demand for goods and services only ensures higher prices, which will make it even harder for the poor to afford the things they need to survive.
Quill, you are deeply entrenched in a practice of calling evil - good. The only time a reduction in the workforce is beneficial is when there is a greater reduction in the population.
What the CBO alludes to will increase the span between the "haves" and the "have nots."
Anyone who still defends and supports this fiasco - simply isn't paying attention.
Fiscally, this plan cannot survive. As Wilderness said - its days are numbered.
As Abraham Lincoln said "you can please most of the people, most of the time, some of the people, some of the time, but none of the people all of the time". Obamacare can in no way provide for all conditions just as the law cannot provide for equal justice for all. The government with its corruption and pay offs to the slime bags who voted on it did not even know most of what was in it. With a track of history like that how could this mandate ever work?
The move the unproductive onto the roles of the freeloaders and open up new opportunities for those who would fill their place in the work force is a Ponzi Scheme at best. This is how we improve the economy? But then again we have the best government money can buy. The sheeple will just whimper and cower in the corner while their lives and country are sold down the river.
Term Limits, Publicly Financed Campaigns and Lobby Reform are our only hope.While your opinion of politicians is clear, the OP was about the interpretive "spin" (my description), of the report's conclusions, not on the ACA itself.
Do you think my perception of the Democrat response was wrong?
ps. the use of "sheeple" is, to me, a credibility killer. Buzzwords are seldom helpful when not preaching to the choir.
GAI thought it was clear that to try and interpret what is being offered by both parties is impossible as the spin is always focused to marginalize the others platform and does little to address the real problem. The real problem here is how can you make the unaffordable, affordable? The insurance lobby entrenched themselves in this to only get more customers and in the process insure less until they hit a spending plateau. This was the Ponzi Scheme as you get the younger healthy ones who don't need major medical coverage on average pay for the ones who are older and spending money of which they did not contribute enough. In the mean time the younger insured people don't have affordable medical insurance for basic maintenance unless they are in the poor category.
The spin is meant to confuse and exacerbate the argument so as usual nothing gets done while the corporations get richer from it.
As far as my credibility? That should not be biased by the vernacular I choose but by the context and content it displays. As far as preaching to the choir I don't know what we have in common so I can't speak to that.Of course the choice of words or "vernacular" one chooses will reflect on credibility. Does not a response consisting of buzzwords and talking points, (not implying yours did), typically convey a repetition of other's opinions, rather than your own?
"... preaching to the choir" was in reference to buzzwords appealing more to like-minded folks than to folks with differing opinions - not to whether you and I have any common perspectives.
GASometimes words can paint a picture that defies description. Grouping the word to others opinion would be a prejudice some may take offense to and judge the user I agree. But the word itself is explanatory of behavior that other descriptions fall short of. I happen to believe in the words validity and care not of the implication it may group me in. Sorry to offend or hurt the flavor of your post but expression never comes in a clear package.
Obviously if people have more money they can spend more money...
That inevitably boosts jobs...Glad to hear from you Josak,
Does your reply mean you agree with he Democrat interpretation of the report findings? And that you think the why and how they have more money to spend are unimportant?
GAHonestly I don't like to comment on things before I understand them properly. I have not read the complete Democrat opinion or the full debate so I will withhold judgement.
All I was pointing out is that there is no Bizarro in it.hmm... you have not read the full report, (neither have I, I responded to a Washington Post article), or digested the Democrat debate about what it means, and you say you feel unprepared to comment on it until you do - yet you can state there is no "Bizarro World" aspect to what I have described as bizarre democrat spin?
as a side note; days after this initial article and debate, another Democrat interpretation is making the news - it says the report shows that workers have been "liberated," (Democrat speaker's term), from the responsibility of having to continue working, or work more hours than they would like, to keep their healthcare.
or as - *shudder* - Rush Limbaugh says; "... liberated them from continuing the adult responsibility of working to pay their bills" *I am not a Rush fan, and I prefer not to make it a habit of quoting him, but in this case, is he wrong?
GAAgain just on the basis of what I know I agree with the Democrat statement. That is I don't believe people should have to be employed to have healthcare, should they lose their jobs that should not mean they have no medical protection.
So yeah I think it is a good thing that in these uncertain times for work people won't die for not having insurance. Something which tens of thousands die from every year previously.I understand that sentiment, but that is not the case. If they are unemployed, or lose their job, they will have access to healthcare through the Obamacare exchanges - exactly the same access they will have by quitting or reducing hours.
This topic has nothing to do with guaranteed access to healthcare. It has to do with people quitting or working less hours, on purpose, so they qualify to have their healthcare premiums subsidized by the government. Premiums they were currently paying themselves.
The article reports the CBO director's statements:
"The CBO report found that Obamacare — through subsidizing health coverage – would reduce the amount of hours workers choose to work, to the equivalent of 2.5 million full-time workers over 10 years. "
Then further states:
"Now, it’s true that elsewhere in his testimony — when questioned by Paul Ryan — Elmendorf confirmed that the subsidies from Obamacare would reduce the incentive to work, and that this would reduce economic growth. "
It was the Democrat spin that this is a "good" thing - relinquishing personal responsibility in exchange for government support that prompted my foray into Bizarro World.
Then that was compounded by the Democrat view that the folks leaving or reducing hours to qualify for subsidies was another good thing because it would make room for unemployed folks to get their jobs/hours and cease being unemployed...
So it would seem that the unemployed would already have access to subsidized healthcare - because they are unemployed. And if they are now employed, replacing someone else's reduced hours they will probably still qualify for subsidies.
So it seems like the employed number would still be the same, as it was just an employed worker swapping places with an unemployed worker. As they say a "zero-sum" exchange, except that now there are two subsidized people because the first one decided to quit or reduce hours in order to qualify for the government to pay their premiums.
At least that is how the report and the CBO director's statements read to me.
And it still feels like "Bizarro world" where black must really be white because someone says so.
Of course I could be the one with a bizarre perception of what is good or bad. Imagine believing that standing on your own is better than relying on government support.
GARight I see what you mean, still OK with it. People should not be forced to work a job which is abusive or exploitative because otherwise they might die if they get sick. Funnily enough I think that has a bigger impact on the free market than the entitlement.
You were too quick for me. I was editing to add this quote: (again from the same Washington Post link)
"Now, it’s true that elsewhere in his testimony — when questioned by Paul Ryan — Elmendorf confirmed that the subsidies from Obamacare would reduce the incentive to work, and that this would reduce economic growth. "
...where do you get the "abusive or exploitative" qualifiers? Nothing in the report or my comments used that description.
The report is just talking about reduced work hours. It has nothing to do with abusive or exploitative qualifiers. Or anything concerning work conditions.
But then again, you did say you weren't up to speed on the topic.So I shouldn't press it any more.
GAThe fundamental question is whether people should be forced to work certain hours to have health care. My fundamental answer is no.
As for abusive and exploitative it's a situation many workers are in.Would your statement mean the same to you if "afford" were substituted for "have?"
ie. "...work certain hours to afford healthcare..."
To me, the discussion wasn't about having healthcare, it was about who would pay the premiums. Healthcare insurance is now available to all - working or not, which is why I don't think the "have" part is germane to the question.
I see the "healthcare" part of your statement as interchangeable with other personal responsibilities. Such as; " work certain hours to be able to pay the electric bill, or the rent, or the car insurance.
Even knowing our difference in perspectives, I am still surprised by the Democrat interpretation of the situation. Where is the threshold for personal responsibility now? Pay for something if you want, but don't if you can get the government to pay for it?
GAAs previously noted I am of the view that in a capitalist or transitional system healthcare can be nothing less than a right. If you had a situation of guaranteed employment and guaranteed decent conditions that would be different but as it stands a whole lot of people (mostly not of their own fault) can't find decent labor that would allow them to pay for their healthcare and since the consequence of that is potentially death that is an unacceptable situation.
Unfortunately, I've found that your definition of "decent" means being paid far more than the job or labor justifies.
But in any case, if healthcare is a right, who is guaranteeing that right? Who is paying the price for your right to healthcare?Sure, our definition on fair treatment and fair wage differ, your view is exclusively based on market forces mine includes a component of human empathy. We can argue on the extent that is good but I think it's provably wrong to stand for market forces alone dominating wages for this reason which I listed on another thread:
The role of the market is to create prosperity and progress for humanity (the market in and of itself has no value without it's human consequences .) Yet under your rules (market forces alone dictate the value of labor) I could, given sufficient economic control of a market, create a scenario where every human being bar one starved to death while that one person used all the money made in hundred dollar bills to fill in a trench and this would be fine... Even though obviously this has a negative human impact and thus obviously fails to do what a market is supposed to do...
So obviously your rule is wrong and fundamentally flawed.
As for who guarantees that right it's the same people who guarantee your right to a fair trial and representation.That's why there are laws against nearly all monopolies, at least in the US. To keep competition alive and working.
And I find your system, just as fundamentally flawed, where empathy is allowed to set the value of a person's labor. I dare say that when it's a new small business it won't mean they can pay a pittance, just because they are teetering on bankruptcy, and have an empathic government force people to work for near nothing.
It is interesting, though, that you feel your neighbor is voluntarily paying for your healthcare - I think you would find a great deal of disagreement with that statement (that the neighbor is guaranteeing you free healthcare). They are guaranteeing you a fair trial, but there is nothing whatsoever in our constitution about buying healthcare for indigent peoples.
No, the general population isn't buying your healthcare, and they are not guaranteeing it, either. Not in the US, anyway.Monopoly laws are a lot weaker than you seem to think and they don't apply to some of the most crucial areas of the economy, banking for example, or healthcare.
Also your view noted nothing on anti monopoly laws (which explicitly are not market forces) you said that only the market determines the value of labor, evidently you have changed your mind.
I said that my take: "includes a component of human empathy" that is to say it plays a role in determining a wage thus you don't break a business to give a better wage but you do expect business to pay decent wages when it can afford to. In contrast to you now abandoned "only the market determines" stance.
As of ACA legislation (and in some ways before given free emergency care etc.) everyone underwrites the right to access to healthcare. Also forgive me if I don't consider a hundreds of years old document written by slave owners the be all and end all of governmental ethics, I happen to believe we have a lot of rights not listed in the constitution.
I happen to believe for example you have the right not to be jailed based on you ethnicity (WW2 Japanese camps) but not according to the constitution you don't so claiming something is not a right because it isn't in the constitution is just preposterous.Healthcare is exempt from anti-monopoly laws? The two large hospitals in my valley would be interested in that; one is being sued for buying a third, doctor owned, hospital because it made them to big and reduced competition too much. It's called anti-monopoly.
Yes, when business "can afford to". Which is, as near as I can tell, anytime there is one thin dime of profit. The worker's new car will always come before the business owner's table, from what I can see. I'm sorry, Josak, but empathy has some really great uses, and is the basis of charity, but does not belong in determining value of anything. Feeling sorry for someone doesn't make their product any more valuable.
Nope - Obamacare does NOT guarantee access to health care. Only that every person in the country will have insurance - insurance that is not healthcare. Healthcare comes from doctors, and when the insurance will not buy the time of a doctor that insurance guarantees nothing but profit for the insurance company. Which is apparently what all the subsidized plans will do - provide profit but no care and no protection the policyholder won't go bankrupt from being unable to pay for necessary care.
You may believe in all the rights you wish to, but until someone guarantees them they aren't rights at all. Just forlorn wishes that someone else would pick up the tab."Antitrust laws do not apply to, or are modified in, several specific categories of enterprise (including sports, media, utilities, health care, insurance, banks, and financial markets)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta … itrust_law
Nope your "near as I can tell" was really far off.
And now you are attempting to split hairs, get back to me when people with insurance can't get healthcare, until then the ACA does guarantee healthcare... because it's a right.
This effort is turning into as much of a struggle as trying to herd cats.
I understand your philosophy on healthcare, and your view of capitalism, but the topic was the Democrat explanation that it is a good thing, a benefit of Obamacare, that people are choosing to quit or work less in order to allow the government to pay their healthcare premiums instead of taking personal responsibility and paying their own way.
The tone of the report was that the people being referred to were able to pay their own premiums, but were consciously taking steps that would reduce their income to levels that would qualify for government subsidies of those premiums. We are not talking about folks that could not pay their premiums, they were already being helped
The question is, and has been, do you think that choice is a good thing too?
GASorry if I have been unclear.
I did answer that point.
"People should not be forced to work a job which is abusive or exploitative because otherwise they might die if they get sick. Funnily enough I think that has a bigger impact on the free market than the entitlement."
So to be clear I think it's good that people have the opportunity to leave or reduce their hours in a job while still receiving healthcare because otherwise people are often trapped economically in an exploitative situation (I was there myself once).
Separately I also am of the opinion (and you may call it generous and naive if you wish) that most people won't want to reduce their work hours or quit a job with all the other consequences of this (excluding healthcare now) without a good reason. (ie. abusive or exploitative)
Well, someone has to work for that health care. Doctors, nurses and the factory workers building beds and machinery if no one else.
Who do you think should work the hours?Doctors etc. aren't working for healthcare at all, they are working for a paycheck.
But in the broader sense whoever can find decent work has to pay for it. (Not that this is entirely a selfless act but rather part of an agreement that provides the same for you if you ever find yourself unemployed).
You don't seem to give people much credit. I've been in dead-end jobs. I made the choice to find other jobs that were better. Why do you think anyone is trapped, or forced, to work a specific job? No one is forcing them. They can look for other jobs. That's what we have the right to do in a free country. And, we do it.
+1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. The first thing is to obtain a qualitative education as to NOT having to take a dead-end job. The second thing is to make intelligent, lifestyle choices. The last thing if one by happenstance must take a dead-end job, DO ANYTHING POSSIBLE to get out of it. Hell, QUIT the dead end job, many people have done so. It is the difference between being proactive and being a passive victim.
Sure unless you say depend on your job for healthcare you need which was the whole point of the discussion.
Why do you think a person would not change jobs for better work conditions, salary and healthcare benefits? It's not like only one job offers healthcare benefits. And, many millions are self-employed and provide their own healthcare.
I don't see anyone holding a gun to anyone's else's head and telling them they have to stay in a dead end job just because it offers healthcare benefits.This is not a good time for most people to quit their jobs and go job hunting. Its a good to be reskilled or retrained. for 21st cencury jobs but they may need a hand-out or hand-up. Being able to afford health insurance with or without a job is what the people want, its rollback the cost of healthcare or deport the 47%ers.
There's an old saying that bears hearing:
Millionaires are made during the worst of times and people go bankrupt during the best of times.
The truth is - if someone does not have a job they like - it's always a good time to look for another. No one wants to deport anyone. I just think it would be nice if the democrats quit underestimating the 47%. Acting like they're too stupid to find their way out of a paper bag.
It does the 47% a great disservice.
It should be a crime.But what about the topic question... the decision to pay for your own healthcare insurance, or dropping the job, or hours - to let someone else pay for your health insurance?
The availability of healthcare insurance was not the topic - it is available - to all - now.
The affordability of the premiums is only part of the question - the discussion was about folks that were paying their premiums, and/or folks intending to sign-up to Obamacare, quitting their job, or reducing their hours/income in order to qualify for government subsidies that pay their health insurance premiums.
In other words - purposely manipulating their income to qualify for someone else to pay their premiums for them.
Do you still feel the same way about that question?
GAHoward: Democrats don't underestimate 47%ers, Far Right conservatives overestimate the availibility of jobs for job seekers They ignore the facts of public and private sector loss in an attempt to deny the Presidency any and all success. You're right " Millionaires are made during the worst of times" and many millions of middle class Americans join the ranks of the poor. Capitalism is a zero sum game.
We keep hearing that the unemployment rate is "plummeting" from the Left. Now, we hear that there aren't many jobs out there. Which is it?
This is not complicated stuff. If I need healthcare because I am sick (or someone in my family is) then I cannot quit my job without losing it and thus not have the healthcare I absolutely need.
Education Answer: "Jobs just don't exist in great supply under the Obama Administration and many people have been forced into underemployment when they can find a job" . That sounds like you understood a little over a year ago what you can't get a grip on today. My opening statement is a quoted statement written by you when you were blaming The President for unemployment. Which is it? Do you or don't you understand that the long long termed unemployed and the underemployed isn't counted in the latest unemployment rate?
Typically, employee group coverage does not discriminate because someone has been ill. If a person is in a dead-end job just because of coverage - it's very likely that they will get better coverage with another employer. And we've had gap things like COBRA for a long time. It's different from buying an individual policy where the insurer used to be able to turn you down.
That said - there are numerous charitable groups that pick the tabs for medical care for indigents all the time. Mennonite Aid and Catholic Charities are two of them."I care not how affluent some may be, provided that none be miserable in consequence of
it. But it is impossible to enjoy affluence with the felicity it is capable of being enjoyed, while so much misery is mingled in the scene.
Many on the right call for charity to help the poor rather than society. While it has it’s good intentions, it is simply not enough. There are, in every country, some magnificent charities established by individuals. It is, however, but little that any individual can do, when the whole extent of the misery to be
relieved is considered. He may satisfy his conscience, but not his heart. He may give all that he has, and that all will relieve but little. It is only by organizing civilization upon such principles as to act like a system of pulleys, that the whole weight of misery can be removed."
~Thomas Paine
Related Discussions
- 152
Obamacare increase the avability of healthcare in what ways?
by Judy Specht 7 years ago
I have been listening to how the government has a billion dollars for getting people to sign up for the Affordable Healthcare Act. Would that money have been better spent training more doctors and building new hospitals? New Jersey has closed how many community hospitals in the last few...
- 18
Healthcare Reform "Winners and Losers" (+ Unemployment Rates): Yahoo!
by fishskinfreak2008 14 years ago
Web-site/URL: http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20100326/ts … RoY2FyZXJlObviously, states with higher unemployment rates will need more help as far as insurance is concerned. WINNERSArizona (Unemployment Rate: 9.7%) Home state of REPUBLICAN Sen. JOHN MCCAIN; OK, 9.7% unemployment IS highDelaware...
- 22
What are the 6 ways Obama"care" is a total waste of time, energy, and money wher
by Grace Marguerite Williams 10 years ago
What are the 6 ways Obama"care" is a total waste of time, energy, and money where there arehospitals and/or other medical facilities that offer very low cost and/or free health care?The "purpose" that President Obama "intended" for his to be implemented...
- 259
Obamacare and my vote
by Holle Abee 11 years ago
I like most of Obamacare, although I still have reservations about the individual mandate. On one hand, I don't like the idea of people being forced to buy a product, but on the other hand, I don't like having to help pay for ER visits for those who don't purchase insurance. I like that more people...
- 19
Why hasn't America acknowledged that ObamaCare will help the unemployment rate?
by harmony155 11 years ago
Why hasn't America acknowledged that ObamaCare will help the unemployment rate?With a significant increase in insured individuals entering the health care market, there should be a corresponding increase in jobs available in the medical field. Do you agree?
- 159
Your suggestions for Fixing the Economy
by Jiberish 14 years ago
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 01900.htmlIn this Washington Post article it says that two-thirds of the stimulus went toward tax cuts, fiscal aid to states, and expanded unemployment benefits and food stamps. The stimulus also went to the $3 billion in National Science Foundation...