Ohio Chatter DEV

IggyPride00

In reference to the debt ceiling and government funding, did anyone see Boehner's ad today about the President being willing to negotiate directly with a despot like Putin, but not House Republicans?

[video=youtube;qbMqSjkxGm4][/video]

BGFalcons82

BoatShoes;1503931 wrote:Indeed and we should be telling our children and our children's children about how unfree we are now because of Medicare...blah blah blah. Only ten more days or so until the crippling blow to freedom occurs from being able to purchase subsidized individual health insurance.

Today's ObamaKare number is 20,000 from Home Depot. http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/19/home-depot-sends-20000-employees-into-obamacare/

At some point, Boat, you're going to have to admit this piece of shit law is starting to stink.

TedSheckler

You can tack on big numbers from the Cleveland clinic, also.

QuakerOats

Walgreens dumped ALL their employees. UPS dumped spouses. There are hundreds more just like them covering millions of employees.

But .........."you'll be able to keep your plan" ----- the biggest lie since "I did not have sex with that woman".

IggyPride00

QuakerOats;1504292 wrote:Walgreens dumped ALL their employees. UPS dumped spouses. There are hundreds more just like them covering millions of employees.

But .........."you'll be able to keep your plan" ----- the biggest lie since "I did not have sex with that woman".

He would tell you he told the truth.

Obamacare didn't force any company take coverage away, just gave them a good excuse to finally stop now that they had somewhere to dump the employees.

Everyone knew that would be the end result, but he figures he gave himself plausible deniability because no where in there did the law state companies had to stop. It was just designed so that they would.

jmog

IggyPride00;1504338 wrote:He would tell you he told the truth.

Obamacare didn't force any company take coverage away, just gave them a good excuse to finally stop now that they had somewhere to dump the employees.

Everyone knew that would be the end result, but he figures he gave himself plausible deniability because no where in there did the law state companies had to stop. It was just designed so that they would.

If you are right, and I think you are, that it was designed into the plan that companies would drop coverage. Then it was still a big lie since he was talking to individuals and telling them they could keep their coverage. Many people right now are losing their coverage they have and being forced into the exchanges.

QuakerOats

70 years ago certain people were told to board trains, that they were being relocated to work.

Sinister.

BoatShoes

jmog;1504372 wrote:If you are right, and I think you are, that it was designed into the plan that companies would drop coverage. Then it was still a big lie since he was talking to individuals and telling them they could keep their coverage. Many people right now are losing their coverage they have and being forced into the exchanges.

The ACA was not designed to get employers to drop coverage lol. In fact, we included a tax on large employers that don't provide coverage. It's just delayed. And, people have actually studied this issue and the evidence indicates that the ACA is going to have a minimal impact on causing firms to drop employer-sponsored coverage.

http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/32/9/1522.abstract

The review of the studies on that issue shows an aggregate 2% drop. On the other hand, in Massachusetts...more employers started offering insurance.

But either way....even if this disaster that isn't going to happen did happen....that employers were no longer in the business of providing health insurance....this should make conservatives happy. This is what they've wanted for years....individuals buying their own health insurance!

If this site is still around in 5 years I will never post again if <80% of firms with >50 employees are offering health insurance. The bill was not designed to eliminate employer coverage...rather it entrenched private, employer coverage in a huge way when we should've scrapped it altogether.

BoatShoes

QuakerOats;1504399 wrote:70 years ago certain people were told to board trains, that they were being relocated to work.

Sinister.

LOL

QuakerOats

BoatShoes;1504421 wrote:The ACA was not designed to get employers to drop coverage lol. In fact, we included a tax on large employers that don't provide coverage. It's just delayed. And, people have actually studied this issue and the evidence indicates that the ACA is going to have a minimal impact on causing firms to drop employer-sponsored coverage.
But either way....even if this disaster that isn't going to happen did happen....that employers were no longer in the business of providing health insurance....this should make conservatives happy. This is what they've wanted for years....individuals buying their own health insurance!

If this site is still around in 5 years I will never post again if <80% of firms with >50 employees are offering health insurance. The bill was not designed to eliminate employer coverage...rather it entrenched private, employer coverage in a huge way when we should've scrapped it altogether.

Apparently you are already into the pinot grigio. Nearly 10 million employees, just so far, are dealing with dropped/changed coverage. Once we get further along it will increase even more substantially. And there are some employers who will have employees sign up for coverage to avoid the exchanges and penalties, thus increasing their employer's costs, which of course will trigger more employer dumps, and millions more getting dumped.

Face it; it is a disaster of epic proportion .......and the prez and the rest of the marxist 'leaders' lied about like there was no tomorrow. OWN IT!!

QuakerOats

BoatShoes;1504422 wrote:LOL

I'm sure that is what the guy with the mustache did.

jmog

BoatShoes;1504421 wrote:The ACA was not designed to get employers to drop coverage lol. In fact, we included a tax on large employers that don't provide coverage. It's just delayed. And, people have actually studied this issue and the evidence indicates that the ACA is going to have a minimal impact on causing firms to drop employer-sponsored coverage.

http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/32/9/1522.abstract

The review of the studies on that issue shows an aggregate 2% drop. On the other hand, in Massachusetts...more employers started offering insurance.

But either way....even if this disaster that isn't going to happen did happen....that employers were no longer in the business of providing health insurance....this should make conservatives happy. This is what they've wanted for years....individuals buying their own health insurance!

If this site is still around in 5 years I will never post again if <80% of firms with >50 employees are offering health insurance. The bill was not designed to eliminate employer coverage...rather it entrenched private, employer coverage in a huge way when we should've scrapped it altogether.

You can choose to believe a study that was done years ago about what might happen.

I choose to believe what is actually happening right now.

Last I saw online, 8 million employees are losing their employer provided health care.

Currently, 63% of the labor force (159 million) is employed. That means 100 million have jobs.

Of that 100 million, 61% have insurance through their employer. That means 61 million have employer based insurance.

Currently, 8 million people are losing their insurance. That's above 13%.

So no, I don't count 13% and raising an insignificant amout, and it is MUCH higher (almost 7 times higher) than the 2% your "study" predicted.

BoatShoes

QuakerOats;1504447 wrote:I'm sure that is what the guy with the mustache did.

QuakerOats...comparing Romneycare/Obamacare/NewtCare/HeritageCare to Hitler...the manifestation of off the fails;

Ornstein and Mann, both widely respected as straight shooters, describe themselves as moderates and have had long careers working with both parties. In an interview this week, they expressed exasperation with the GOP’s behavior in the debt-limit and budget negotiations. Ornstein lamented that the title of the book today would be It’s Even Worse Than It Was.

Said Ornstein: “The bizarreness of this monomaniacal focus on Obamacare, given that it is fundamentally a Republican program from the 1990s mixed in with Romneycare,” says it all. “Obamacare relies on the private sector; there is no public option. That you are willing to bring the country to its knees to sabotage it … just shows this is a party that has gone off the rails.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/09/19/the-gop-is-threatening-murder-suicide-with-new-shutdown-warnings.html

jmog

BoatShoes;1504456 wrote:QuakerOats...comparing Romneycare/Obamacare/NewtCare/HeritageCare to Hitler...the manifestation of off the fails;

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/09/19/the-gop-is-threatening-murder-suicide-with-new-shutdown-warnings.html

It really sucks that the Rs are doing what Americans in general want huh?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/09/16/usa-today-pew-poll-health-care-law-opposition/2817169/

53% disapprove of ACA
42% approve

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html

What else do you need to know?

RCP has it 52% to 39%.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57575720/obamacares-3rd-anniversary-by-the-numbers/

I could keep going, every poll I have seen recently has the numbers vastly disapproving of the ACA.

BoatShoes

jmog;1504455 wrote:You can choose to believe a study that was done years ago about what might happen.

I choose to believe what is actually happening right now.

Last I saw online, 8 million employees are losing their employer provided health care.

Currently, 63% of the labor force (159 million) is employed. That means 100 million have jobs.

Of that 100 million, 61% have insurance through their employer. That means 61 million have employer based insurance.

Currently, 8 million people are losing their insurance. That's above 13%.

So no, I don't count 13% and raising an insignificant amout, and it is MUCH higher (almost 7 times higher) than the 2% your "study" predicted.

Oops...you're doing it wrong. Admit that you made an obvious mistake

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t17.htm

Because of that mistake I should just stop now. But I won't.

Do you have a source for your "last I heard" guess that 8 million people are losing their employer health insurance?? I provided a review of the availabe evidence from a paper in Health Affairs...it included projections from the CBO, Joint Committee on Taxation, The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Rand Corporation and the Urban Institute. They must have forgotten yours.

Notice, I made my bet with regard to firms with >50 employees. There's a reason.

BoatShoes

jmog;1504461 wrote:It really sucks that the Rs are doing what Americans in general want huh?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/09/16/usa-today-pew-poll-health-care-law-opposition/2817169/

53% disapprove of ACA
42% approve

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html

What else do you need to know?

RCP has it 52% to 39%.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57575720/obamacares-3rd-anniversary-by-the-numbers/

I could keep going, every poll I have seen recently has the numbers vastly disapproving of the ACA.

Are you really going to say that is in anyway analogous to Hitler and defend The Quacky One? Ok.

But anyway....Obamacare is way more popular when broken into parts...no doubt because of GOP/Conservative demagoguery.

For example...if you did a poll of Republicans and said..."Would you approve of the government subsidizing your ability to buy individual health insurance to make it more affordable in the event that your employer didn't provide it?" There's almost no doubt a plurality would say yes.

But if you're right...the subsidization for individual health insurance starts in 10 days or so and freedom begins to die because people will begin to die and we'll see how much more unpopular it gets.

Once it gets going it will end up being a popular mainstay of America just like Medicare and Social Security In My Humble Opinion.

QuakerOats

BoatShoes;1504466 wrote:Once it gets going it will end up being a popular mainstay of America just like Medicare and Social Security In My Humble Opinion.

Hardly.

Medicare and SS are headed for complete insolvency; I look forward to the smiles on everyone's face then ......................no doubt will be similar to that of the Greeks.

Only in the liberal world of denial can such folly exist, so long as they have access to other people's money.

BoatShoes

QuakerOats;1504470 wrote:Hardly.

Medicare and SS are headed for complete insolvency; I look forward to the smiles on everyone's face then ......................no doubt will be similar to that of the Greeks.

Only in the liberal world of denial can such folly exist, so long as they have access to other people's money.

Medicare and SS can never become insolvent as the U.S. can never become insolvent so long as they don't do something utterly stupid like the Greeks and give up their monetary sovereignty. But, hey, I suppose we could arm our soldiers with rubber bullets and have them fight with their shoe laces tied too. U.S. government doesn't need "other people's" money as, guess what, those dollars in your bank account are Federal Reserve Notes and had to first come from the government. Maybe you're just a moocher dependent on the gubmint because you use its currency? Hope this helps.

gut

BoatShoes;1504471 wrote:Medicare and SS can never become insolvent as the U.S. can never become insolvent

Ahhhh yes, the go-to-play of "we'll just print the money". It's not a problem worth addressing so long as we can always make the claim that we kept our promise, even if it's literally worth only the cost of a cup of coffee.

You've staked your entire philosophy/economic outlook around about 7-10 years or so of surprisingly "low" inflation (mainly because it has gone to assets, which we don't measure/quantify). This is the height of stupidity AND irresponsibility. Incredible as it seems, you are actually regressing. I can understand why liberals are going to extremes to justify a "new normal" of free money, but you're an idiot if you swallow that bs.

QuakerOats

gut;1504476 wrote:Ahhhh yes, the go-to-play of "we'll just print the money". It's not a problem worth addressing so long as we can always make the claim that we kept our promise, even if it's literally worth only the cost of a cup of coffee.

You've staked your entire philosophy/economic outlook around about 7-10 years or so of surprisingly "low" inflation (mainly because it has gone to assets, which we don't measure/quantify). This is the height of stupidity AND irresponsibility. Incredible as it seems, you are actually regressing. I can understand why liberals are going to extremes to justify a "new normal" of free money, but you're an idiot if you swallow that bs.

Swallow it; I think he invents it.

The liberal mind has become so wholly twisted that they are no longer capable of rational thought. It has become hopeless.

QuakerOats

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/20/20598822-obama-strikes-back-at-congress-theyre-focused-on-trying-to-mess-with-me?lite

The guy is a national embarrassment, on top of everything else.

BoatShoes

gut;1504476 wrote:Ahhhh yes, the go-to-play of "we'll just print the money". It's not a problem worth addressing so long as we can always make the claim that we kept our promise, even if it's literally worth only the cost of a cup of coffee.

You've staked your entire philosophy/economic outlook around about 7-10 years or so of surprisingly "low" inflation (mainly because it has gone to assets, which we don't measure/quantify). This is the height of stupidity AND irresponsibility. Incredible as it seems, you are actually regressing. I can understand why liberals are going to extremes to justify a "new normal" of free money, but you're an idiot if you swallow that bs.

Crediting bank accounts is more like it. It is not a matter of opinion. A currency issuer cannot be insolvent. It makes no sense to even say.

I have not said that inflation is impossible. In fact...that is one problem with Medicare is that we don't use its bargaining power to bargain for lower prices...hence the actual problem of inflation in healthcare costs.

Inflation is the constraint and it's nowhere on the horizon and demand-pull inflation is easy to control and the FED has the power to do it all by itself if it ever materializes.

Or, But, of course, if we didn't want to put it all on the FED, when we're at full employment because we've ran a sufficiently large budget deficit from, say, a sufficiently large tax cut...at that point that there begins to be inflationary pressure, if Congress is actually functioning and not full of a bunch of Tea Party loons who act like we're still on a Gold Standard....we could just cut spending or raise taxes...depending on your politics...to alleviate that inflationary pressure.

BoatShoes

QuakerOats;1504481 wrote:Swallow it; I think he invents it.

The liberal mind has become so wholly twisted that they are no longer capable of rational thought. It has become hopeless.

It is not a matter of debate. There is no solvency issue. Watch your fellow Republican who understands the monetary system of the U.S. smack down your fellow Republican who doesn't until you get it figured out.

[video=youtube;GdOsybbBVEU][/video]

Do we have the real resources??? That's the question...and there's no doubt we do....millions of people who are unemployed and want to work $200 trillion plus in real assets and growing every year. etc. etc. etc.

But we've got you folks going C3PO over numbers on a spread sheet.

QuakerOats

Put the unfunded liabilities on the effing spreadsheet, just like we have to. Sell the assets, fund the liabilities; otherwise your are indeed insolvent, already. Only a liberal would look at decades of deficits, 75 TRILLION dollars of unfunded liabilities, and a handy new $7 trillion in debt from the imposter in the WH, and act as if all is well in the world. Is the liberal mind that genetically different, and deficient?

gut

BoatShoes;1504512 wrote:Crediting bank accounts is more like it. It is not a matter of opinion. A currency issuer cannot be insolvent. It makes no sense to even say.

You're playing semantics. Technically we can't be insolvent because we can just print money. But harping on it makes you look completely ignorant to the challenges and risks that the statement alludes to. And in typical liberal fashion you dodge the real issue. You've bought into the free lunch "new paradigm", and it's ridiculous because it's a bedrock economic principle that there is no free lunch. You simply choose not to see all the structural stresses building in the economy and how it is hurting growth. And it's only highlighted by the horribly misguided faith you have in some obscure and extraordinary policy responses that we just flip a swtich on to fix it when the shit hits the fan.

But you're not worth debating. You don't even understand the fed funds rate and how it works. You're incapable of debating secondary, tertiary and long-term effects when you can't even grasp the fundamentals.

Archive

Disgusted with obama administration - Part II