happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,931
|
Post by happyhoix on Apr 23, 2014 12:22:44 GMT -5
Had a conversation with my SIL over Easter.
She's 54, her DH is 60 and plans to retire within 2 - 5 years. For 30 years SIL has had part time jobs with the school system, never had health insurance coverage, was always covered by DH. Now SIL has to find a job that covers her health insurance, because she'll lose hers when her DH retires.
SIL has always been a very conservative, far right person. She hates Obama and denounces Obamacare. She insists if people need health insurance, they need to buy their own coverage, government should not be involved at all, everyone ought to be responsible for themselves.
She's trying to find an admin type position, but it's hard because she's 54 and because her last office job was 30 years ago. Every full time job she is technically qualified for with the school system (she has a HS degree but no college) ends up going to a college graduate.
So I'm curious to see what she will do. Stick firmly to her beliefs and pay directly for a health care policy if she can't find a job that provides coverage? Or will she suck it up and try to get coverage through the exchanges if she can't find a job?
Of course I would never SAY anything - I love my BIL and we have an unspoken agreement never to discuss politics, but she's been such an outspoken opponent of obamacare, it would be amusing to see her actually benefit from it. I wonder how many other previous opponents are in her same position.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 23, 2014 12:27:45 GMT -5
Had a conversation with my SIL over Easter. She's 54, her DH is 60 and plans to retire within 2 - 5 years. For 30 years SIL has had part time jobs with the school system, never had health insurance coverage, was always covered by DH. Now SIL has to find a job that covers her health insurance, because she'll lose hers when her DH retires. SIL has always been a very conservative, far right person. She hates Obama and denounces Obamacare. She insists if people need health insurance, they need to buy their own coverage, government should not be involved at all, everyone ought to be responsible for themselves. She's trying to find an admin type position, but it's hard because she's 54 and because her last office job was 30 years ago. Every full time job she is technically qualified for with the school system (she has a HS degree but no college) ends up going to a college graduate. So I'm curious to see what she will do. Stick firmly to her beliefs and pay directly for a health care policy if she can't find a job that provides coverage? Or will she suck it up and try to get coverage through the exchanges if she can't find a job? Of course I would never SAY anything - I love my BIL and we have an unspoken agreement never to discuss politics, but she's been such an outspoken opponent of obamacare, it would be amusing to see her actually benefit from it. I wonder how many other previous opponents are in her same position. here is how i view this situation in it's entirety. the worst problems with the ACA were always going to be acceptance, the rollout (including initial enrollment) and insurers getting on board with the programme. as of 4/1, the peak of those problems are now in the rear view mirror. what is ahead is stories like the one above: people who need the the ACA will have it. and i think the slow dribble of good stories will eventually overcome the hue and cry over the past. but, as two other posters have told me in the last two days: we'll see.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 23, 2014 14:53:24 GMT -5
I was talking to a lady about Obamacare, she was no way, no how, touching that piece of crap. She was taking insurance through ACA, I tried telling her it was the same thing, well no way, she knew better, it was not the same thing. I walked away laughing to myself. I wonder what she will say when she finally figures out they are one and the same. People are amazing! People are amazingly ignorant. this has been polled. people support the ACA by a 3:2 margin, and they are opposed to ObamaCare by about the same margin.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 23, 2014 18:14:33 GMT -5
Everyone needs health coverage.Justify this statement. It's a matter of statistical fact that the premiums paid in by this demographic will significantly exceed the value of the medical care they'll require. I've given analyses before demonstrating how much money a 21-year-old would save if insurance premiums were instead invested at 5% interest in a personal healthcare account. There is of course some marginal risk of catastrophic injury or illness that would overrun this account and necessitate borrowing, but a) the risk is tiny to begin with and can be eliminated entirely over time, and b) insurance against unlikely risks isn't "needed" by any reasonable definition. What's wrong with that? What should government spend money on?National infrastructure, education, eliminating deficits, funding existing unfunded liabilities, protecting and upgrading the archaic power grid, and upgrading the US's near-archaic Internet backbone would top my list. Could be. Eventually we will figure out how to cover our people, like every other civilized country does.The ACA does that. You've got the last of everyone covered. It hasn't done a thing to curb your ridiculous healthcare costs, but at least you're now doling out $130 billion a year to insure a few million previously uninsurable people. It just seems to me that the Republicans despise the ACA so much that they've attacked it on a totally wrong basis, and that the Democrats are so happy Americans love their government-subsidized healthcare that they haven't once stopped to think whether inducting people onto yet another hulking federal benefits program is a good idea.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 23, 2014 18:24:13 GMT -5
Everyone needs health coverage.Justify this statement. It's a matter of statistical fact that the premiums paid in by this demographic will significantly exceed the value of the medical care they'll require. I've given analyses before demonstrating how much money a 21-year-old would save if insurance premiums were instead invested at 5% interest in a personal healthcare account. There is of course some marginal risk of catastrophic injury or illness that would overrun this account and necessitate borrowing, but a) the risk is tiny to begin with and can be eliminated entirely over time, and b) insurance against unlikely risks isn't "needed" by any reasonable definition. What's wrong with that? What should government spend money on?National infrastructure, education, eliminating deficits, funding existing unfunded liabilities, protecting and upgrading the archaic power grid, and upgrading the US's near-archaic Internet backbone would top my list. Could be. Eventually we will figure out how to cover our people, like every other civilized country does.The ACA does that. You've got the last of everyone covered. It hasn't done a thing to curb your ridiculous healthcare costs, but at least you're now doling out $130 billion a year to insure a few million previously uninsurable people. It just seems to me that the Republicans despise the ACA so much that they've attacked it on a totally wrong basis, and that the Democrats are so happy Americans love their government-subsidized healthcare that they haven't once stopped to think whether inducting people onto yet another hulking federal benefits program is a good idea. do you find that hyperbole helps your arguments? because generally speaking, i find it hurts mine. 1) we are talking about 50M people who are uninsured, not "a few million". or were you referring only to the ones getting subsidies? 2) not all Republicans despise the ACA, and not all Democrats love it. in fact, most are lukewarm on it. 3) i am not sure that 3% of the federal budget passes as "hulking". i am still thinking about that. other than that, i love the spirit, Virgil.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 23, 2014 19:14:56 GMT -5
It just seems to me that the Republicans despise the ACA so much that they've attacked it on a totally wrong basis, and that the Democrats are so happy Americans love their government-subsidized healthcare that they haven't once stopped to think whether inducting people onto yet another hulking federal benefits program is a good idea. do you find that hyperbole helps your arguments? because generally speaking, i find it hurts mine. 1) we are talking about 50M people who are uninsured, not "a few million". or were you referring only to the ones getting subsidies? I'm referring to the subset of the 8 million Americans who have thus far signed up for the exchanges who either i) will qualify for subsidies, or ii) were previously uninsurable.2) not all Republicans despise the ACA, and not all Democrats love it. in fact, most are lukewarm on it. Do you find my generalizations to be inaccurate representations of the official party positions? 3) i am not sure that 3% of the federal budget passes as "hulking". i am still thinking about that. Firstly, I expect it will go up by as much as 100 or 200% as more companies their plans and Americans flock to the subsidized exchanges. Secondly, 3% of $3.5 trillion per year is still "hulking", especially when you pile it onto existing deficits.other than that, i love the spirit, Virgil. It's the long-dead spirit of fiscal conservatism.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 23, 2014 20:31:37 GMT -5
do you find that hyperbole helps your arguments? because generally speaking, i find it hurts mine. 1) we are talking about 50M people who are uninsured, not "a few million". or were you referring only to the ones getting subsidies? I'm referring to the subset of the 8 million Americans who have thus far signed up for the exchanges who either i) will qualify for subsidies, or ii) were previously uninsurable.2) not all Republicans despise the ACA, and not all Democrats love it. in fact, most are lukewarm on it. Do you find my generalizations to be inaccurate representations of the official party positions? i find them to be exaggerations. i think the official position of the Democratic party is that the ACA is the best plan that could be put through and a necessary first step. i doubt any would think that it needed no fixing. the opposition position is repeal and replace, i think. the replacement would look a lot like the ACA, in my guestimate. 3) i am not sure that 3% of the federal budget passes as "hulking". i am still thinking about that. Firstly, I expect it will go up by as much as 100 or 200% as more companies their plans and Americans flock to the subsidized exchanges. Secondly, 3% of $3.5 trillion per year is still "hulking", especially when you pile it onto existing deficits.other than that, i love the spirit, Virgil. It's the long-dead spirit of fiscal conservatism. hahaha. as long as the deficits keep going down, i am not too worried. but like you, i do worry about them never going past zero to positive, so i share that concern.
|
|
truthbound
Familiar Member
Joined: Mar 1, 2014 6:01:51 GMT -5
Posts: 814
|
Post by truthbound on Apr 24, 2014 3:51:49 GMT -5
Seeing as our economy operates on a deficit they can't go below zero so.....
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 24, 2014 10:58:48 GMT -5
Seeing as our economy operates on a deficit they can't below zero so..... not sure what you mean by this. the "economy" includes all incomes and outflows, and is therefore inherently balanced. different parts of the economy are imbalanced. generally government runs a deficit and the private sector runs surpluses.
|
|
truthbound
Familiar Member
Joined: Mar 1, 2014 6:01:51 GMT -5
Posts: 814
|
Post by truthbound on Apr 24, 2014 16:37:55 GMT -5
It means our whole economy is based on debt. That is why there will always be a deficit.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 24, 2014 18:17:59 GMT -5
It means our whole economy is based on debt. That is why there will always be a deficit. hmmm. okay. has it always been based on debt? if not, for how long?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 24, 2014 22:12:19 GMT -5
It means our whole economy is based on debt. That is why there will always be a deficit. hmmm. okay. has it always been based on debt? if not, for how long? Since Nixon killed the gold standard once and for all in... 1972 I think it was. It was an acknowledgement that the US could never and would never pay off its debts or reverse its trade imbalances. The problem didn't reach critical mass until the credit explosion of the Greenspan era, and there was a period prior to the GLB Act in 1999 where brutal reforms might have righted the ship. Hence you might say that 1999 was the point of no return.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 24, 2014 23:19:35 GMT -5
hmmm. okay. has it always been based on debt? if not, for how long? Since Nixon killed the gold standard once and for all in... 1972 I think it was. It was an acknowledgement that the US could never and would never pay off its debts or reverse its trade imbalances. The problem didn't reach critical mass until the credit explosion of the Greenspan era, and there was a period prior to the GLB Act in 1999 where brutal reforms might have righted the ship. Hence you might say that 1999 was the point of no return. i would. however, i might also never have guessed that the 6% GDP deficit we ran in 1986 would go to 0% by 2000. i won't say anything optimistic right now. wouldn't want to spoil the mood.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Apr 24, 2014 23:27:35 GMT -5
That mean Obama is off the hook?
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,931
|
Post by happyhoix on Apr 25, 2014 13:10:26 GMT -5
Actually, I think it might be interesting to discard insurance companies completely and give everyone a catastrophic injury/illness policy through the federal government.
Then employers could stop paying so much for healthcare insurance for their employees, and pay them a higher salary (one of the reasons salaries have stagnated for the last decade is the increasing costs of providing healthcare insurance). Employees would pay cash for whatever non-emergency medical treatment they needed, which would make them far better consumers of healthcare, and cause the prices for healthcare to drop.
However, the insurance lobby in this country is enormous. They would stop any regulations that would try to kill their golden goose.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 3, 2014 11:43:08 GMT -5
the nbc poll which showed obama at -14 approval (which appears to be an outlier. most polls have him in the single digits negative, and around 44% approval) was interesting. had a lot of data on other matters. one of the tables was a likability table. it had Hillary "Benghazi" Clinton in it, as well as Obama, so i thought i would post it: SUMMARY TABLE OF IMAGES – BY D/S (POSITIVE – NEGATIVE) TOTAL POSITIVE TOTAL NEGATIVE D/S Hillary Clinton ..................................................... 48 32 16 Barack Obama ................................................... 44 41 3 The Democratic Party ........................................ 36 37 -1 General Motors, orGM ...................................... 27 29 -2 Rand Paul .........................................................23 26 -3 Michael Bloomberg ............................................ 18 26 -8 Jeb Bush ............................................................ 21 32 -11 The Koch brothers, David and Charles Koch ..... 10 21 -11 Mitch McConnell ................................................ 8 23 -15 The Republican Party ......................................... 25 44 -19 The Tea Party Movement................................... 22 41 -19 msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/A_Politics/14271_APRIL_NBC_WSJ_Poll.pdf
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 3, 2014 11:47:48 GMT -5
also noted from that survey that the "neutral" vote has been steadily rising for a long time. it is now upwards of 1/4 of some surveys. the strong positives and negatives with most surveyed items are steadily dropping.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 9, 2014 11:21:34 GMT -5
Update 5/9/14: www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_bush_first_term_job_approval.htmlBush approval on May 9th of his 5th year was -25.6% Obama approval at the same point is -8.1% difference = +17.5% Obama. the current Senate prediction is 50/50 with the tying vote going to Biden. the biggest question marks are Michigan and Kentucky. i am presuming they will be split. the GOP will only control the Senate if they win BOTH, imo. _END_
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 30, 2014 21:06:37 GMT -5
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on May 30, 2014 22:57:03 GMT -5
Cheney and Hannity- my go-to guys when I need the truth
The world just loved us during the Bush years. Obama's a wimp- we are just not involved in enough conflicts. The only way to earn respect is a foot on the neck.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 31, 2014 0:28:03 GMT -5
see, that is precisely it. under Bush we got used to simply throwing our weight around. emphasis on "simply" because it doesn't take much intelligence to use your overwhelming strength to get your way- a lesson well learned on elementary school playgrounds everywhere. i could see being enamored with that idea if it had actually worked, but it doesn't. Obama has been arguably more effective without nearly as much pompous aggressive bluster, which suits me just fine.
i really don't get then "Obama is a wimp" contingent. he has shown very little restraint, imo, and i loathe him for it. but he has also shown a marked inclination to bring troops home that W never showed. unless you are the sort that believes in empire, perpetual war (and clearly, the PNAC contingent believes that sort of thing precisely), and the nearly incalculable moral and fiscal cost associated with both, i don't really see how you can NOT view Obama's foreign policy as an improvement.
diplomacy might not be the centerpiece of US foreign policy YET, but it is at least being DISCUSSED, now. i call that a welcome change.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 10, 2014 15:24:39 GMT -5
Obama's approval numbers, and those of the ACA have turned south in the last month. unless they reverse themselves, the GOP is going to take over in the Senate this fall.
interestingly, the disapproval numbers have not really risen. so what has happened is that some that were saying they approved of the ACA and Obama are no longer saying that. they are now undecided (aka "up for grabs").
parallel story: Alison Grimes is down 7% in the latest polling in KY. Democrats really need to win that one to retain the Senate.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 30, 2015 15:03:52 GMT -5
it took a LONG TIME, but Obama's approval just hit a 2 year high: www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.htmlagain, just like with the ACA, there are more disapprovals than approvals, but he is currently running about even on both (50/50). edit: OH, and just in case you are wondering, Obama is now 20% ahead of where Bush was at this point in his term: www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_bush_first_term_job_approval.htmlof course, that is expected, since Bush was the worst president in 3 generations, and Obama is kinda average. edit2: this approval level is higher than 2010 and 2014 election cycles, but lower than 2012.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 30, 2015 15:30:54 GMT -5
He just had one the best weeks of his presidency. Sometimes success feeds on itself. He's had a lot of PR showing him as a successful executive celebrating his victories this past week- as well as a heartfelt eulogy of course.
As soon as people remember that he is a 'merica hating godless jihadist from Kenya the ratings will go down again. he will get a lot of punishing abuse during the upcoming election season. the GOP is going to run as "not Obama", and that may or may not work out for them, depending on the economy. right now, if i were to guess, i would say that the bloom will still be on the economy, which has still not kicked into third gear, imo. but, of course, this thing in Greece or any other number of things could change all of that.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 30, 2015 15:36:02 GMT -5
Obama will likely be 30% ahead of where Bush was by the 4th of July (16% more approval, 16% less disapproval). Bush was at 29% that weekend in 2007, which is about where he ended up the day Obama got elected.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 6:33:52 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2015 20:01:07 GMT -5
He got a serious boost from that eulogy. That doesn't mean they approve of him overall.. just that they support him in what has happened over the past week or so.
Heck... I give him "props" for his eulogy, and I "approve" of him (overall... I'm still pissed that SCOTUS screwed the pooch on their Obamacare ruling... and it's named after him... so he loses points for that) for the past week.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 30, 2015 20:40:32 GMT -5
He got a serious boost from that eulogy. That doesn't mean they approve of him overall.. just that they support him in what has happened over the past week or so. Heck... I give him "props" for his eulogy, and I "approve" of him (overall... I'm still pissed that SCOTUS screwed the pooch on their Obamacare ruling... and it's named after him... so he loses points for that) for the past week. i already stated that he has more disapproval than approval, Richard.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 6:33:52 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2015 21:10:01 GMT -5
He got a serious boost from that eulogy. That doesn't mean they approve of him overall.. just that they support him in what has happened over the past week or so. Heck... I give him "props" for his eulogy, and I "approve" of him (overall... I'm still pissed that SCOTUS screwed the pooch on their Obamacare ruling... and it's named after him... so he loses points for that) for the past week. i already stated that he has more disapproval than approval, Richard. But your point (and my agreement) was that he got a boost in approval. I said I'D give him (overall) an approval for this past week (or so). It not unreasonable that his ratings increased, is all I'm saying. ANY president's ratings would have increased had they acted the way he did.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 30, 2015 21:15:13 GMT -5
i already stated that he has more disapproval than approval, Richard. But your point (and my agreement) was that he got a boost in approval. not really. at least i don't remember saying that. i am simply reporting his polling numbers. i DID say that they are about the same as the ACA numbers, and that has been the case since the law was actually enacted. when the rollout went badly, his numbers plummeted. every time it was tested in the SCOTUS, his numbers fell before hand and rose after the law survived the test. so, yes, i think his numbers are very much influenced by public opinion of the law. if that is what you meant, i agree.I said I'D give him (overall) an approval for this past week (or so). It not unreasonable that his ratings increased, is all I'm saying. ANY president's ratings would have increased had they acted the way he did. probably true. and any president who didn't accomplish anything whatsoever would continue seeing his numbers fall.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Jul 1, 2015 7:19:02 GMT -5
They both suck.
|
|