workpublic
Junior Associate
Catch and release please
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 14:01:48 GMT -5
Posts: 5,551
Favorite Drink: Heineken
|
Post by workpublic on Dec 2, 2013 11:31:13 GMT -5
why would you want to hurt a vastly larger number of hourly workers to "help" the min wage ones then?
that would create more "min wage" workers(i doubt i'd get an increase if the "new" min wage equaled what I already make). and after the markets reset there would be more people on govt assistance because they make the new min wage.
apparently under our existing capitalist(which ever flavor we have) min wage is not meant to or able to support adults or families.
unless there is a massive seachange where taxes, food, gas, housing, education, healthcare, etc costs come (way)down.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,496
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 2, 2013 11:37:13 GMT -5
why would you want to hurt a vastly larger number of hourly workers to "help" the min wage ones then? how would the rest of us be "hurt"? that would create more "min wage" workers(i doubt i'd get an increase if the "new" min wage equaled what I already make). and after the markets reset there would be more people on govt assistance because they make the new min wage. assistance is not measured against FMW. there is a completely different set of standards.apparently under our existing capitalist(which ever flavor we have) min wage is not meant to or able to support adults or families. it supported families fine in 1973.
|
|
workpublic
Junior Associate
Catch and release please
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 14:01:48 GMT -5
Posts: 5,551
Favorite Drink: Heineken
|
Post by workpublic on Dec 2, 2013 11:46:47 GMT -5
I make $17 an hour presently. I don't want to be a minimum wage worker. If the min wage was raised to $17. like i said once the markets reset to deal with the increase i'd be a min wage worker who would have to now be on assistence. taxes and costs were much lower. govt caused inflation(debasing the currency) has to be dealt with before we can tweak wages. links? or did you already verify this in previous posts? i remember making $1.90(as a teen) an hour in the 70s. don't think i could have supported myself on that then or when they raised it to $2.10. i remember low rents being around $200(Riverside Motel Efficiencies, Brewster NY) a month back then.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,496
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 2, 2013 13:21:25 GMT -5
I make $17 an hour presently. I don't want to be a minimum wage worker. If the min wage was raised to $17. nobody is talking about doing that. $10/hr is the number i was thinking of. like i said once the markets reset to deal with the increase i'd be a min wage worker who would have to now be on assistence. i am not following your logic. why? it supported families fine in 1973. taxes and costs were much lower. govt caused inflation(debasing the currency) has to be dealt with before we can tweak wages. no, taxes were much HIGHER in 1973. and inflation is much lower now than it was then, as well.links? or did you already verify this in previous posts? i remember making $1.90(as a teen) an hour in the 70s. don't think i could have supported myself on that then or when they raised it to $2.10. i remember low rents being around $200(Riverside Motel Efficiencies, Brewster NY) a month back then. REAL minimum wages are much lower now than 1973.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 8, 2024 7:38:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2013 13:47:01 GMT -5
patstab, I think you should probably go to a better source for information. The exchanges are what most states opted out of, and those that did simply use the Federal exchange. It has never been expected that anywhere near 100% of people will participate in the exchanges. I seriously doubt the accuracy of what you heard from some random lady on a talk show. It doesn't even make sense.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 8, 2024 7:38:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2013 13:49:55 GMT -5
I make $17 an hour presently. I don't want to be a minimum wage worker. If the min wage was raised to $17. nobody is talking about doing that. $10/hr is the number i was thinking of. like i said once the markets reset to deal with the increase i'd be a min wage worker who would have to now be on assistence. i am not following your logic. why? it supported families fine in 1973. taxes and costs were much lower. govt caused inflation(debasing the currency) has to be dealt with before we can tweak wages. no, taxes were much HIGHER in 1973. and inflation is much lower now than it was then, as well.links? or did you already verify this in previous posts? i remember making $1.90(as a teen) an hour in the 70s. don't think i could have supported myself on that then or when they raised it to $2.10. i remember low rents being around $200(Riverside Motel Efficiencies, Brewster NY) a month back then. REAL minimum wages are much lower now than 1973. Yeah, but when you factor in things like the Bush tax cuts, tax credits, etc, I'm sure that the poor are still doing better. And honestly, since it is only the poor that have been left behind from an income standpoint, what's wrong with simply helping them out with tax policy? That way we avoid unintended consequenses from messing up free markets. And price controls ALWAYS have unintended consequenses.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Dec 2, 2013 13:52:50 GMT -5
REAL minimum wages are much lower now than 1973. Yeah, but when you factor in things like the Bush tax cuts, tax credits, etc, I'm sure that the poor are still doing better. And honestly, since it is only the poor that have been left behind from an income standpoint, what's wrong with simply helping them out with tax policy? That way we avoid unintended consequenses from messing up free markets. And price controls ALWAYS have unintended consequenses. Precisely my response- EITC is welfare in the form of a wage supplement. It was part of welfare reform and designed to reward work. We can argue about the effectiveness of the program, but we can't simply ignore its existence.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Dec 2, 2013 14:08:14 GMT -5
The bottom line is that while we can go 'round and 'round about a wide variety of topics, they're all distractions from the main point of this thread: ObamaCare is a catastrophic failure. It is the single worst public policy disaster in 50 years. Obama and the Democrats who passed this Senate-originated law using a procedural trick along straight party lines in the middle of the night against the will of a vast majority of Americans promised us more than a website. And they assured the people over and over again that what we liked about healthcare- our plans, and our doctors- would NOT CHANGE- period. But the ObamaCare Ponzi-scheme can't possibly work this way, so later, through regulation the Obama regime arbitrarily changed the language of the bill that grandfathered in some plans. And the website is still not secure. 30% to 40% of the back-end of the website isn't even built out yet The communication between the exchanges and the insurance companies that transmits the information so that it can be verified-- in other words, so you can sign up for insurance-- doesn't work. AND... The website still doesn't work properly. So, the website- which is basically the sign-up mechanism and the easiest part of ANY transaction (signing up) doesn't work- and we haven't even gotten into the the product itself- the rest of this law, which is, by any objective assessment, an abject failure. And next year the full scope of the disaster is revealed when somewhere between 93,000,000 and 160,000,000 who are either employed and get benefits through their employers, or are the dependent beneficiaries of those individuals lose their health coverage. We've gone from 15 million uninsured to 20,000 SO FAR, and we're effectively going to from 15 million uninsured- to, for all practical purposes, 100% of Americans losing their coverage. And that's before you get into the other more "minor" problems like the disparity between different counties within states because rather than solve the problem of no competition across state lines due to convoluted government regulations in place prior to ObamaCare, ObamaCare exacerbates the problem by restricting competition from outside your COUNTY... www.pnj.com/article/20131126/NEWS01/131126014/www.tallahassee.com/article/20131128/NEWS01/311280043/Health-premiums-vary-by-countyThis law is screwing people- and they're not just going to sit on their hands. Democrats have a very limited period of time left to face facts, and take responsibility for their own mess-- or the people will fix it for them.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 8, 2024 7:38:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2013 14:12:26 GMT -5
I finally heard what happened with obamacare today. I could not figure for the life of me how more people being served was going to cause hospitals to close and doctors to leave. But I kept hearing that without an explanation.
The lady on this talk show said its a decision and parts of the law no one has talked about and she is correct.
The law was set up so everyone would participate in the program and if they did not they would be penalized with lower reimbursement rates. Ok, in the beginning it was not an issue. All hospitals getting federal funds would participate all doctors would be reimbursed.
But then it was challenged by the red states and the supreme court said ok, its voluntary if your state wants to opt out. At that time none of the ones that would have received the free coverage from the federal government and not charged by the state would have had more people eligible for coverage also.
But after the supreme court decision and 25 states opted out, it changed it all. Now those states are going to receive a lower rate of payment to their hospitals and to their doctors as that part of the law kicked in. You don't participate you get paid less. Now the states that have opted out are going to have to close hospitals and lose doctors that will accept Medicaid. I'm not sure if that includes medicare, they didn't go into that. The law had been designed like it needed to be to get 100% participation. When the repubs started fighting it and got the supreme court involved then it screwed up the whole funding part.
I've read that if they don't participate states like Georgia will lose 4 out of 5 hospitals in one area poorly served now.
I also read that Indiana tried to set up some type of deal on their own with IBM for either snap or Medicaid and its totally nonfunctional and they have sued IBM and right now are in the middle of that. Odd how you only hear what certain folks want you to hear. So that's why the state will lose funding, they chose that route and now they are trying to blame everything else. They do think because of the consequences even some of the red states will now go ahead and take it or totally ruin their healthcare delivery system. I understand why it had to be that way. So this is the why and if the law is followed nothing is lost and Medicaid adds people so its a choice and is happening because of party lines only. Sad, sad, like I said before republicans will kill the whole system before they will work within it to make it better.
and now for the rest of the story, as Paul Harvey used to say i believe you are referring to opting in /out of the medicaid portion....correct? why did so many states opt out? did you read the law? imo and based on what i have read, it is because the 100% federal funding doesnt stay at 100% so as time goes on, and by 2020, the states will only get 90% reimbursement now take a look at your state's budget....how much of it is devoted to medicaid/medicare so whatever your state is spending now....increase it....and then figure out who is supposed to pay for it
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,496
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 2, 2013 14:23:25 GMT -5
REAL minimum wages are much lower now than 1973. Yeah, but when you factor in things like the Bush tax cuts, tax credits, etc, I'm sure that the poor are still doing better. i am NOT sure. but i will admit that i have to rely on other stats to support that POV.And honestly, since it is only the poor that have been left behind from an income standpoint, what's wrong with simply helping them out with tax policy? That way we avoid unintended consequenses from messing up free markets. And price controls ALWAYS have unintended consequenses. i think this question has already been answered. if the minimum wage is such that a person can't survive on it, then the state will generally have to step in to fix that. whether they step in with subsidies or with the FMW is kinda immaterial. it only decides who will pay, and how the costs will be distributed. the smallest government is one where there IS NO POVERTY, imo.
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on Dec 2, 2013 14:27:24 GMT -5
I have a plan that would solve this whole problem for Obama... Just get on television and demand ask everyone who voted for him to please go to the website and sign up for Obamacare. He would immediately exceed his long term sign up goal numbers by almost 1000%. He could be a hero again, save the 2014 election for his party and the voters would get what they deserved. Actually if only one out of ten Obama voter would just sign up he could hit his long term goal of 7 million enrollees right away. So forget the rest. Why aren't even a small percentage of his own voters signing up for this mess?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,496
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 2, 2013 14:27:25 GMT -5
I finally heard what happened with obamacare today. I could not figure for the life of me how more people being served was going to cause hospitals to close and doctors to leave. But I kept hearing that without an explanation.
The lady on this talk show said its a decision and parts of the law no one has talked about and she is correct.
The law was set up so everyone would participate in the program and if they did not they would be penalized with lower reimbursement rates. Ok, in the beginning it was not an issue. All hospitals getting federal funds would participate all doctors would be reimbursed.
But then it was challenged by the red states and the supreme court said ok, its voluntary if your state wants to opt out. At that time none of the ones that would have received the free coverage from the federal government and not charged by the state would have had more people eligible for coverage also.
But after the supreme court decision and 25 states opted out, it changed it all. Now those states are going to receive a lower rate of payment to their hospitals and to their doctors as that part of the law kicked in. You don't participate you get paid less. Now the states that have opted out are going to have to close hospitals and lose doctors that will accept Medicaid. I'm not sure if that includes medicare, they didn't go into that. The law had been designed like it needed to be to get 100% participation. When the repubs started fighting it and got the supreme court involved then it screwed up the whole funding part.
I've read that if they don't participate states like Georgia will lose 4 out of 5 hospitals in one area poorly served now.
I also read that Indiana tried to set up some type of deal on their own with IBM for either snap or Medicaid and its totally nonfunctional and they have sued IBM and right now are in the middle of that. Odd how you only hear what certain folks want you to hear. So that's why the state will lose funding, they chose that route and now they are trying to blame everything else. They do think because of the consequences even some of the red states will now go ahead and take it or totally ruin their healthcare delivery system. I understand why it had to be that way. So this is the why and if the law is followed nothing is lost and Medicaid adds people so its a choice and is happening because of party lines only. Sad, sad, like I said before republicans will kill the whole system before they will work within it to make it better.
and now for the rest of the story, as Paul Harvey used to say i believe you are referring to opting in /out of the medicaid portion....correct? why did so many states opt out? did you read the law? imo and based on what i have read, it is because the 100% federal funding doesnt stay at 100% so as time goes on, and by 2020, the states will only get 90% reimbursement now take a look at your state's budget....how much of it is devoted to medicaid/medicare so whatever your state is spending now....increase it....and then figure out who is supposed to pay for it penny wise, pound foolish, imo. but we shall see in 3-5 years........ either way, states are paying for their uninsured. they can either do it in an ORDERLY way, where the costs are accounted for, or they can pay for it in higher premiums.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,496
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 2, 2013 14:28:51 GMT -5
I have a plan that would solve this whole problem for Obama... Just get on television and demand ask everyone who voted for him to please go to the website and sign up for Obamacare. He would immediately exceed his long term sign up goal numbers by almost 1000%. He could be a hero again, save the 2014 election for his party and the voters would get what they deserved. Actually if only one out of ten Obama voter would just sign up he could hit his long term goal of 7 million enrollees right away. So forget the rest. Why aren't even a small percentage of his own voters signing up for this mess? for the same reason my son didn't get his book report done that was due today, i would presume.
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on Dec 2, 2013 14:45:08 GMT -5
"for the same reason my son didn't get his book report done that was due today, i would presume"
What reason do you think that is?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,496
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 2, 2013 14:49:49 GMT -5
"for the same reason my son didn't get his book report done that was due today, i would presume" What reason do you think that is? people tend to put off stuff until the last minute, unless it is something they HAVE to do. nobody is going to drive a spike through my son's forehead if he doesn't get his book report done. ditto for ObamaCare applicants. edit- i would add something additional for the ACA folks tho. the longer they wait, the more robust the system will be. waiting has a BENEFIT to them, unlike my son's procrastination, which is just lazyness, pure and simple.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Dec 2, 2013 14:58:52 GMT -5
Smart money says those of us uninsured in the Federal-exchange states, all 36 of them, stand a decent chance that one of several cases making their way to the Supreme Court will invalidate both the subsidies that might make our bronze-level plan premiums affordable (while still shafting us on the 40% coinsurance.... honestly, a 60/40 hospital plan is awful insurance) and the penalties that the IRS would inflict on us for continuing to not buy insurance in a more expensive market than the one out of which we were already opting.
I'd be pretty sanguine about the threat of a 1%-of-income reduction in my tax return in 2015, all things considered.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Dec 2, 2013 15:07:56 GMT -5
I agree with your conclusion, but by an exactly opposite route of reasoning. The longer this dreadful implementation continues, the better the chances get that its further continuation becomes politically untenable. We've got a little swell of "yay, the website works" stories today, but even they have caveats about "of course, this may mean that the insurance you think you've got, you don't actually have" and "the subsidy you think you qualify for, you may not actually qualify for." And every counterexample that makes waves in the national media reinforces the perception of a lying, incompetent administration. They could put forward a hundred smiling faces a day now, and one frown will wipe them out. The best estimates of the Obama camp suggest there are going to be several million losers, mostly in the affluent and aspirational middle classes, mostly in other words suburban Americans - the people who win and lose statewide elections. And these people are disproportionately more likely to get their grievances into the media. And that negative drumbeat has had two months to get into a good rhythm, and every new cheerful assertion out of this administration invites satirical responses. It's a Baghdad Bob presidency, and if Obama is not furious to find himself an impotent laughing-stock I'll be very surprised. Elections have consequences, Mr. President. You won - and your prize, it turns out, includes the rollout of - I'll be kind - PPACA. But take comfort from this thought, sir: you didn't build it.
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on Dec 2, 2013 15:10:32 GMT -5
But doesn't it seem crazy that not even 10% of Obama's best supporters can't find it in their hearts to save his day, his legacy and possibly their parties majority in the senate in 2014 to get off of their butts and get signed up today?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 8, 2024 7:38:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2013 15:22:24 GMT -5
the website is the LEAST of their concerns right now
the employer mandate was delayed a year
instead of 15-20 million folks getting pissed off at the numbers for their insurance, this time next year add another 60-80 million
lots of employers do not have insurance that meets the "good enough and cheap enough" criteria
this is an albatross that is choking the democrats.....
and not sure how much longer it will be swallowed
they will abandon Obama and his signature legislation if they think it will sink them in the upcoming elections
going to be an interesting political year.....
government shut down....no one will remember it in a few months
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Dec 2, 2013 15:26:00 GMT -5
They'd have to go in shifts.
The shaky untested assumption is that the website can - 90% of the time, not counting unspecified hours designated for maintenance, allegedly - manage a payload of 50,000 users hourly. A mere 140 hours work to reach the magic 7 million (which, cutely, includes the numbers displaced from non-grandfathered plans - a population, dj's rationalization notwithstanding, have considerable incentive to reinsure themselves by Dec 23rd), to be sure, but more and more Democrats are coming round to the idea that it's not All About Obama - it is, in fact, once again All About Clinton. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss...
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Dec 2, 2013 15:32:30 GMT -5
I can think of a number of people running for re-election next year who will want it remembered: it will be a positive plank of their anti-Obamacare campaign.
"This is how seriously I took the threat of the Unaffordable Care Act. I'm glad the President decided I was right - I'm just sorry he waited two months and chose to acknowledge me being right by ignoring the laws he was supposed to uphold..."
I personally hope that the GOP doesn't get so enamored of this gift horse that they fail to offer solid proposals, not just on healthcare but on immigration, education, entitlements, trade, job creation, tax reform - a whole host of things this President has inadequately addressed - and earn a positive mandate for a legislative agenda. I know that there are dozens and dozens of Congressmen who won't have to lay out a positive agenda, and potentially some freshmen Senators too. But it would be nice if they did.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 8, 2024 7:38:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2013 15:40:47 GMT -5
Yeah, but when you factor in things like the Bush tax cuts, tax credits, etc, I'm sure that the poor are still doing better. i am NOT sure. but i will admit that i have to rely on other stats to support that POV.And honestly, since it is only the poor that have been left behind from an income standpoint, what's wrong with simply helping them out with tax policy? That way we avoid unintended consequenses from messing up free markets. And price controls ALWAYS have unintended consequenses. i think this question has already been answered. if the minimum wage is such that a person can't survive on it, then the state will generally have to step in to fix that. whether they step in with subsidies or with the FMW is kinda immaterial. it only decides who will pay, and how the costs will be distributed. the smallest government is one where there IS NO POVERTY, imo. It's not immaterial. One impacts the functionality of free markets more than the other. And it is next to impossible to control (i.e. they cannot pick the specific groups of people that they want to help).
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Dec 2, 2013 15:44:52 GMT -5
I had missed this gem.
The smallest government correlates with the theoretical acme of wealth redistribution? Are you envisioning the stateless Utopia of Marx and Engels? Or is Parkinson's Law more of a guideline for you?
|
|
usaone
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 9:10:23 GMT -5
Posts: 3,429
|
Post by usaone on Dec 2, 2013 17:11:07 GMT -5
Trouble... This is all happening a year to early. What was on the cover of Time magazine last Fall? No one remembers without googling it. The Website is already much improved and all the insurance companys have TV ads ready to bombard people to get insurance. The problem is the insurance companys and AARP love the law. The insurance companys are getting 30 million new customers.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 8, 2024 7:38:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2013 17:22:28 GMT -5
no.....they think they are getting 30 million new customers
what they are getting is 30 million new headaches and a few million new customers
more people will opt out....and pay the 1% penalty
and they will let their congressman know they arent freaking happy about it
and the politicians will be answering for the higher premiums, and the higher deductibles
and the delay is perfect for the GOP
it keeps this in the news through the whole cycle....unless they dismantle it
and then....well....do you think that would be good for the left?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,496
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 2, 2013 17:36:03 GMT -5
Smart money says those of us uninsured in the Federal-exchange states, all 36 of them, ho ho.stand a decent chance that one of several cases making their way to the Supreme Court doubtful, imo. what leads you to conclude otherwise?will invalidate both the subsidies that might make our bronze-level plan premiums affordable (while still shafting us on the 40% coinsurance.... honestly, a 60/40 hospital plan is awful insurance) and the penalties that the IRS would inflict on us for continuing to not buy insurance in a more expensive market than the one out of which we were already opting. I'd be pretty sanguine about the threat of a 1%-of-income reduction in my tax return in 2015, all things considered. nice to know "where" you are coming from.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,496
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 2, 2013 17:37:33 GMT -5
I agree with your conclusion, but by an exactly opposite route of reasoning. The longer this dreadful implementation continues, the better the chances get that its further continuation becomes politically untenable. on what basis do you draw this conclusion. i know it is not optimism, since you routinely criticize that aspect of my personality.We've got a little swell of "yay, the website works" stories today, but even they have caveats about "of course, this may mean that the insurance you think you've got, you don't actually have" and "the subsidy you think you qualify for, you may not actually qualify for." And every counterexample that makes waves in the national media reinforces the perception of a lying, incompetent administration. They could put forward a hundred smiling faces a day now, and one frown will wipe them out. The best estimates of the Obama camp suggest there are going to be several million losers, mostly in the affluent and aspirational middle classes, mostly in other words suburban Americans - the people who win and lose statewide elections. And these people are disproportionately more likely to get their grievances into the media. And that negative drumbeat has had two months to get into a good rhythm, and every new cheerful assertion out of this administration invites satirical responses. It's a Baghdad Bob presidency, and if Obama is not furious to find himself an impotent laughing-stock I'll be very surprised. Elections have consequences, Mr. President. You won - and your prize, it turns out, includes the rollout of - I'll be kind - PPACA. But take comfort from this thought, sir: you didn't build it. yawn. (pours cup of coffee and reads)
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,496
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 2, 2013 17:38:45 GMT -5
i think this question has already been answered. if the minimum wage is such that a person can't survive on it, then the state will generally have to step in to fix that. whether they step in with subsidies or with the FMW is kinda immaterial. it only decides who will pay, and how the costs will be distributed. the smallest government is one where there IS NO POVERTY, imo. It's not immaterial. One impacts the functionality of free markets more than the other. And it is next to impossible to control (i.e. they cannot pick the specific groups of people that they want to help). so, you are advocating socialism? i am not teasing you here, ib- that is what you APPEAR to be doing.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,496
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 2, 2013 17:39:23 GMT -5
But doesn't it seem crazy that not even 10% of Obama's best supporters can't find it in their hearts to save his day, his legacy and possibly their parties majority in the senate in 2014 to get off of their butts and get signed up today? no
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,496
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 2, 2013 17:40:32 GMT -5
the website is the LEAST of their concerns right now the employer mandate was delayed a year instead of 15-20 million folks getting pissed off at the numbers for their insurance, this time next year add another 60-80 million lots of employers do not have insurance that meets the "good enough and cheap enough" criteria this is an albatross that is choking the democrats..... and not sure how much longer it will be swallowed they will abandon Obama and his signature legislation if they think it will sink them in the upcoming elections going to be an interesting political year..... government shut down....no one will remember it in a few months at one point in time i entertained your predictions........
|
|