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

[joecct]

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!

[Kepler]

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

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.

[St. Clown]

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

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.

[Kepler]

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

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.

[FlagDUDE08]

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

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?

[FreshFish]

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

Uninsured rate at record lows:

That's a backhanded way of saying Medicaid rolls at record highs, eh?

[St. Clown]

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

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.

[DrDemento]

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?

[jerphisch]

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?

Unemployed doesn't necessarily mean the position was eliminated. Jobs created is new positions.

[unofan]

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.

[DrDemento]

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

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.

[Rover]

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

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?

[ScoobyDoo]

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

[Kepler]

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.

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).

[FlagDUDE08]

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.