Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Rover View Post
    Uninsured rate at record lows:

    http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare...are-poll-finds

    But....but...Obamacare is a job killer, right? Right?!?!?

    http://www.cnbc.com/2015/11/06/nonfa...nt-rate-5.html

    Read 'em and weep knuckledraggers!
    Premiums? Up Up and Awaayyyy!
    CCT '77 & '78
    4 kids
    5 grandsons (BCA 7/09, CJA 5/14, JDL 8/14, JFL 6/16, PJL 7/18)
    1 granddaughter (EML 4/18)

    ”Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
    - Benjamin Franklin

    Banned from the St. Lawrence University Facebook page - March 2016 (But I got better).

    I want to live forever. So far, so good.

    Comment


    • Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

      Originally posted by joecct View Post
      Premiums? Up Up and Awaayyyy!
      It's still way, way too early to tell what the effect on the overall cost trendline will be. We do know that more and more people are insured now, which hopefully everybody agrees is a good thing.

      At the end of the day, there are still systemic effects driving up the cost of health care, one of which is the way private insurance bakes in profit taking. Eventually the US will figure out what every other western Democracy did and stop handcuffing health insurance to employment, and just publicly fund it.
      Cornell University
      National Champion 1967, 1970
      ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
      Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

      Comment


      • Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

        Originally posted by Rover View Post
        Uninsured rate at record lows:

        http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare...are-poll-finds

        But....but...Obamacare is a job killer, right? Right?!?!?

        http://www.cnbc.com/2015/11/06/nonfa...nt-rate-5.html

        Read 'em and weep knuckledraggers!
        The current labor force participation rate: 62.4%.
        Average rate for the four years prior to 2009 was 66.08%. Ever since the PPACA passed in 2009, the yearly average rate has been in decline. Part of that is going to be the aging Boomers, though they're not retiring in droves as people predicted (that's what happens when an entire generation fails to prepare for retirement). Only 1 in 5 high school student has even entered the work force, much lower than when I was a kid, because the unemployment rate is 15.4%, much higher than when I was that age. That doesn't bode well for our future economic growth.
        "The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." George Orwell, 1984

        "One does not simply walk into Mordor. Its Black Gates are guarded by more than just Orcs. There is evil there that does not sleep, and the Great Eye is ever watchful. It is a barren wasteland, riddled with fire and ash and dust, the very air you breathe is a poisonous fume." Boromir

        "Good news! We have a delivery." Professor Farnsworth

        Comment


        • Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

          Originally posted by St. Clown View Post
          The current labor force participation rate: 62.4%.
          Average rate for the four years prior to 2009 was 66.08%. Ever since the PPACA passed in 2009, the yearly average rate has been in decline. Part of that is going to be the aging Boomers, though they're not retiring in droves as people predicted (that's what happens when an entire generation fails to prepare for retirement). Only 1 in 5 high school student has even entered the work force, much lower than when I was a kid, because the unemployment rate is 15.4%, much higher than when I was that age. That doesn't bode well for our future economic growth.
          Though as you point out this is really about demographics, not policy. All the western economies are getting destroyed by the adjustment to lower birth rates and longer life spans. The good news is this is a one-time transition from pre- to post-womens rights civilization. We only have to do this once. The bad news is, it takes about 50 years to roll through the whole economy.

          The great irony is we could dampen the worst of the effect with immigration reform (and in fact that is really what is actually happening), but the reactionaries are fighting that for obvious reasons.
          Last edited by Kepler; 11-06-2015, 11:57 AM.
          Cornell University
          National Champion 1967, 1970
          ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
          Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

          Comment


          • Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

            Originally posted by St. Clown View Post
            The current labor force participation rate: 62.4%.
            Average rate for the four years prior to 2009 was 66.08%. Ever since the PPACA passed in 2009, the yearly average rate has been in decline. Part of that is going to be the aging Boomers, though they're not retiring in droves as people predicted (that's what happens when an entire generation fails to prepare for retirement). Only 1 in 5 high school student has even entered the work force, much lower than when I was a kid, because the unemployment rate is 15.4%, much higher than when I was that age. That doesn't bode well for our future economic growth.
            It's not all mooching off parents/spouses/government, either; military and student do not count as labour force. Also, how many people are making a "career" out of the traditional high school grunt jobs?

            Comment


            • Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

              Originally posted by Candide View Post
              Uninsured rate at record lows:
              That's a backhanded way of saying Medicaid rolls at record highs, eh?
              "Hope is a good thing; maybe the best of things."

              "Beer is a sign that God loves us and wants us to be happy." -- Benjamin Franklin

              "Being Irish, he had an abiding sense of tragedy, which sustained him through temporary periods of joy." -- W. B. Yeats

              "People generally are most impatient with those flaws in others about which they are most ashamed of in themselves." - folk wisdom

              Comment


              • Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

                Originally posted by FlagDUDE08 View Post
                It's not all mooching off parents/spouses/government, either; military and student do not count as labour force. Also, how many people are making a "career" out of the traditional high school grunt jobs?
                It doesn't matter that they're not making a career out of their high school jobs. Those entry-level positions are often seen as character building jobs for when you're trying to get your first career position later in life. If I'm the hiring manager, and I see you have no work experience while your competition does, and all else being equal, I'm likely going to hire the competition. If I see two college grads from the same school, with similar academic information and the same majors, I'm likely to hire the person who worked his/her way through college than the one who lived off of student loans or mommy's and daddy's wallets. I was even asked how many hours I worked each week when interviewing for jobs fresh out of college. They liked hearing that my hours were around 20/week during school and more than 40 during summer breaks. It shows resolve and commitment.

                Also, students who hold part-time jobs count in the labor force statistics. They move the data. If they didn't count, then the BLS wouldn't be able to calculate participation and unemployment rates like they do.
                "The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." George Orwell, 1984

                "One does not simply walk into Mordor. Its Black Gates are guarded by more than just Orcs. There is evil there that does not sleep, and the Great Eye is ever watchful. It is a barren wasteland, riddled with fire and ash and dust, the very air you breathe is a poisonous fume." Boromir

                "Good news! We have a delivery." Professor Farnsworth

                Comment


                • Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

                  Serious question and only asking since i really have not yet received an answer that makes much sense to me. Every thursday i watch on CNBC as they announce the weekly unemployment claims. As i understand it, these are new people filing for unemployment. For as many years as i can remember, this number is always somewhere below or above the 300,000 mark. Assuming there are 4 weeks per month, we are looking at a total of 1,200,000 new claims per month.
                  The first friday of each month, they announce the new jobs report which includes the number of new jobs created for the entire month (previous to the current month). They get all excited when this number rises as it did this month to a total of 270,000. Now my question and I ask it in all seriousness as I do nto understand the mathematics involved. If we are seeing 1.2 million new unemployed in a month (filing new claims) and 279, new jobs created (and this seems to be just about every month), how is that the unemployment rate can drop given those two numbers. Should we not be seeing 5 times as many newly unemployed per month versus the new jobs created??? What am I missing in this simple set of numbers?
                  Take the shortest distance to the puck and arrive in ill humor

                  Comment


                  • Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

                    Originally posted by DrDemento View Post
                    Serious question and only asking since i really have not yet received an answer that makes much sense to me. Every thursday i watch on CNBC as they announce the weekly unemployment claims. As i understand it, these are new people filing for unemployment. For as many years as i can remember, this number is always somewhere below or above the 300,000 mark. Assuming there are 4 weeks per month, we are looking at a total of 1,200,000 new claims per month.
                    The first friday of each month, they announce the new jobs report which includes the number of new jobs created for the entire month (previous to the current month). They get all excited when this number rises as it did this month to a total of 270,000. Now my question and I ask it in all seriousness as I do nto understand the mathematics involved. If we are seeing 1.2 million new unemployed in a month (filing new claims) and 279, new jobs created (and this seems to be just about every month), how is that the unemployment rate can drop given those two numbers. Should we not be seeing 5 times as many newly unemployed per month versus the new jobs created??? What am I missing in this simple set of numbers?
                    Unemployed doesn't necessarily mean the position was eliminated. Jobs created is new positions.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by DrDemento View Post
                      Serious question and only asking since i really have not yet received an answer that makes much sense to me. Every thursday i watch on CNBC as they announce the weekly unemployment claims. As i understand it, these are new people filing for unemployment. For as many years as i can remember, this number is always somewhere below or above the 300,000 mark. Assuming there are 4 weeks per month, we are looking at a total of 1,200,000 new claims per month.
                      The first friday of each month, they announce the new jobs report which includes the number of new jobs created for the entire month (previous to the current month). They get all excited when this number rises as it did this month to a total of 270,000. Now my question and I ask it in all seriousness as I do nto understand the mathematics involved. If we are seeing 1.2 million new unemployed in a month (filing new claims) and 279, new jobs created (and this seems to be just about every month), how is that the unemployment rate can drop given those two numbers. Should we not be seeing 5 times as many newly unemployed per month versus the new jobs created??? What am I missing in this simple set of numbers?
                      Not everyone on unemployment is due to jobs being cut. Lots and lots of people get fired and replaced. It's part of the normal churn, and is one reason why "full employment" is generally thought to be around 5% nationwide.

                      The jobs report is net new positions nationwide

                      Tl;dr - one is gross, the other is net.

                      Comment


                      • Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

                        Originally posted by unofan View Post
                        Not everyone on unemployment is due to jobs being cut. Lots and lots of people get fired and replaced. It's part of the normal churn, and is one reason why "full employment" is generally thought to be around 5% nationwide.

                        The jobs report is net new positions nationwide

                        Tl;dr - one is gross, the other is net.
                        Appreciate the answers. Unfortunately I only took one economics class ever and all my expertise was sciences and math. I knew there had to be a simple way to explain it all.
                        Take the shortest distance to the puck and arrive in ill humor

                        Comment


                        • Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

                          Originally posted by FreshFish View Post
                          That's a backhanded way of saying Medicaid rolls at record highs, eh?
                          Umm.....since part of the law was to expand Medicaid, that's a surprise because....

                          Are you able to sit down yet after what Roberts did to you?
                          Legally drunk???? If its "legal", what's the ------- problem?!? - George Carlin

                          Ever notice how everybody who drives slower than you is an idiot, and everybody who drives faster is a maniac? - George Carlin

                          "I've never seen so much reason and bullsh*t contained in ONE MAN."

                          Comment


                          • Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

                            This is the funniest article I've ever read. Kentucky votes to eliminate their AWESOME Obamacare Health Exchange that is by all reports better than everyone else's. And now their crying cause the guy they elected might actually get rid of it.

                            What a bunch of complete morons.

                            https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...2a7_story.html
                            **NOTE: The misleading post above was brought to you by Reynold's Wrap and American Steeples, makers of Crosses.

                            Originally Posted by dropthatpuck-Scooby's a lost cause.
                            Originally Posted by First Time, Long Time-Always knew you were nothing but a troll.

                            Comment


                            • Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

                              Originally posted by ScoobyDoo View Post
                              This is the funniest article I've ever read. Kentucky votes to eliminate their AWESOME Obamacare Health Exchange that is by all reports better than everyone else's. And now their crying cause the guy they elected might actually get rid of it.

                              What a bunch of complete morons.
                              Darwin* writ large.

                              Even better is that by age and obesity the people most hurt will tend to be the type of mouthbreather who voted for the new Governor.

                              There is no herd immunity for stupidity. In fact, anything but.

                              (* except not really, because unfortunately they'll live long enough to reproduce, and they also tend to have bigger families -- c.f. Idiocracy).
                              Cornell University
                              National Champion 1967, 1970
                              ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
                              Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

                              Comment


                              • Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

                                State exchanges are going bankrupt. Even in the vampire state. They're money pits. Makes sense to eliminate it from a standpoint of fiscal responsibility.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X