Reply With Quote
ain't only a nighmare to the Right but to everyone despite political stance or social class, a nightmare that I'd kill myself in order to wake up from.
Krugman: Obamacare Is the Right’s
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/201...orst-nightmareNews from New York: it looks as if insurance premiums on the individual market are going to plunge thanks to Obamacare. This shouldn’t come as a surprise; in fact, the New York experience perfectly illustrates why Obamacare had to look the way it does. And it also illustrates why conservatives should be terrified about this legislation, as it takes effect. Americans may have had a lot of misgivings in advance, thanks to vast, deliberately spread misinformation. But I agree with Matt Yglesias — unless the GOP finds even more ways to sabotage the plan, this thing is going to work, it’s going to be extremely popular, and it’s going to wreak havoc with conservative ideology.
To understand what’s happening in New York, you have to start with what almost everyone at least pretends to believe: Americans shouldn’t find it impossible to get health insurance because of pre-existing conditions that aren’t their fault. Two decades ago, New York tried to deal with this by imposing community rating: insurance is available to everyone, and the price doesn’t depend on your medical history.
The problem was that this created a death spiral: young, healthy people didn’t buy insurance, worsening the risk pool, driving up premiums, driving out more relatively healthy people, etc., until you were left with a rump of very ill people paying very high rates.
How do you deal with this? Well, ideally, Medicare for all. But since that wasn’t going to happen, you improve the risk pool by requiring everyone to buy insurance — the individual mandate. And since some people won’t be able to afford that, you also offer subsidies...Where does the money for the subsidies come from? Partly by reducing corporate welfare: reducing overpayments for Medicare Advantage, reducing tax breaks for very generous insurance plans; partly with new taxes on the wealthy.
- more -
He's right. Wait till those over 60 realize they can retire early Because they can join the exchanges for affordable health care until Medicare - which will open up tremendous job opportunities for Xers and Millenials, and nobody will want to turn back.
That's why the GOP is so desperate to kill it....
ain't only a nighmare to the Right but to everyone despite political stance or social class, a nightmare that I'd kill myself in order to wake up from.
Lower premiums are a nightmare to you?
It was the right's idea in the first place.
Health Care Costs Set to Fall 50%....NYT...
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/17/he...-50.html?_r=1&
Individuals buying health insurance on their own will see their premiums tumble next year in New York State as changes under the federal health care law take effect, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo announced on Wednesday.
State insurance regulators say they have approved rates for 2014 that are at least 50 percent lower on average than those currently available in New York. Beginning in October, individuals in New York City who now pay $1,000 a month or more for coverage will be able to shop for health insurance for as little as $308 monthly. With federal subsidies, the cost will be even lower.
Supporters of the new health care law, the Affordable Care Act, credited the drop in rates to the online purchasing exchanges the law created, which they say are spurring compe ion among insurers that are anticipating an influx of new customers. The law requires that an exchange be started in every state.
My premiums, as well as every one I know, have gone up i the past two years....dramatically.... I don't understand obamacare enough to say otherwise, but if they go down now, I will be grateful....an article that you're posting however, doesn't ring true.
Obamacare = Romneycare
LOL, "it’s going to wreak havoc with conservative ideology."
Obamacare is conservative ideology. Republican opposition is just Kabuki theater, and good politics. The Democrats took ownership of a bad Republican idea (mandate), Republicans are smart to punish them for it.
No surprise that hard-core Obamabot Krugman is trying to shine Obama's turds.
Obamacare cluster -- more -->>
the so-called Obamacare is just a picture of bread that Obama drew with his left hand and uses to kill people's hunger, it makes you feel better at first sight but at the end of day you'll realize you still have an empty stomach. My point is that the medical resources are limited in our society and if you make it affordable to more people, the quality of it will be dragged down supposedly.
Furthermore, Obamacare will only agravate the waste of medical resources, as opposed to what he desired and promised. Stupid people will beat the door and cram every hospital only to enjoy the right Obama grants them, leaving those who're really sick and in urgent need of care dying in the crowd. Like you only have enough bread for 3 people but you break it up and spread it among 10, and all 10 people will starve to death.
health care (including insurance) cost history since 1960
http://kff.org/slideshow/health-spending-trends-and-impact/
the US health care industry is nothing but another wealth-extractive strategy by capitalists.
It's impossible to blame all recent rises in health care costs on Obamacare because without doubt the insurance companies are lying that they have to raise premiums because of Obamacare. They've been raising premiums extractively for 40 years.
BigFood/BigAg: tiest possible , really cheap (and taxpayer subsidized)
Salt Sugar Fat: How the Food Giants Hooked Us on Deadly Junk
Food giants have used food science to train Americans for a lifetime of extra calories, pounds and health risks.
Salt Sugar Fat is as gripping as it is unappetizing, describing how the food industry has meticulously researched and orchestrated our cravings for food. In essence, the more sugar, salt, and fat you eat, the more the hedonist part of your brain insists you want. This cycle has contributed to our current, and concurrent, epidemics of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease, yet there’s a potential health benefit to discovering these grisly truths about how our taste buds—and our brains’ reward centers—have been systematically studied and manipulated.
http://www.alternet.org/food/salt-su...us-deadly-junk
if man made it, don't put it you mouth
if it's in package, don't eat it.
If it doesn't rot, don't eat it.
if man didn't eat it 12K+ years ago, don't eat it now
Last edited by boutons_deux; 07-18-2013 at 08:30 AM.
The WHOLE story on New York's "falling" rates....
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapoth...ce-rate-shock/
You can calculate how much money your family will save every year with the National Health Care calculator
http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/heal...cy/calculator/
And, in most cases, it WILL be pretty damned affordable. In the case of the top 1% it won't be, and for people who were just not buying insurance before (shifting the burden to higher premiums for everybody else) it won't be, but for everybody else it will be a lot cheaper.
That's why the GOP is going to throw everything but the kitchen sink into an attempt to kill the ACA before the exchanges come online, and everybody will find this out.
Republican Health Care Panic (iow, RomneyCare panic)
Leading Republicans appear to be nerving themselves up for another round of attempted fiscal blackmail.
With the end of the fiscal year looming, they aren’t offering the kinds of compromises that might produce a deal and avoid a government shutdown; instead, they’re drafting extremist legislation — bills that would, for example, cut clean-water grants by 83 percent — that has no chance of becoming law. Furthermore, they’re threatening, once again, to block any rise in the debt ceiling, a move that would damage the U.S. economy and possibly provoke a world financial crisis.
Yet even as Republican politicians seem ready to go on the offensive, there’s a palpable sense of anxiety, even despair, among conservative pundits and analysts. Better-informed people on the right seem, finally, to be facing up to a horrible truth: Health care reform, President Obama’s signature policy achievement, is probably going to work.
And the good news about Obamacare is, I’d argue, what’s driving the Republican Party’s intensified extremism.
Successful health reform wouldn’t just be a victory for a president conservatives loathe, it would be an object demonstration of the falseness of right-wing ideology. So Republicans are being driven into a last, desperate effort to head this thing off at the pass.
Some background: Although you’d never know it from all the fulminations, with prominent Republicans routinely comparing Obamacare to slavery, the Affordable Care Act is based on three simple ideas.
( scroteface tells us black Americans are actually better off as slaves, so why is scroteface against obamacare slavery?)
First, all Americans should have access to affordable insurance, even if they have pre-existing medical problems.
Second, people should be induced or required to buy insurance even if they’re currently healthy, so that the risk pool remains reasonably favorable.
Third, to prevent the insurance “mandate” from being too onerous, there should be subsidies to hold premiums down as a share of income.
Is such a system workable? For a while, Republicans convinced themselves that it was doomed to failure, and that they could profit politically from the inevitable “train wreck.” But a system along exactly these lines has been operating in Massachusetts since 2006, where it was introduced by a Republican governor. What was his name? Mitt Somethingorother? And no trains have been wrecked so far.
The question is whether the Massachusetts success story can be replicated in other states, especially big states like California and New York with large numbers of uninsured residents. The answer to this question depends, in the first place, on whether insurance companies are willing to offer coverage at reasonable rates. And the answer, so far, is a clear “yes.” In California, insurers came in with bids running significantly below expectations; in New York, it appears that premiums will be cut roughly in half.
So is this a case of something for nothing, in which nobody loses? No. In states like California, which have allowed discrimination based on health status, a small number of young, healthy, affluent residents will see their premiums go up. In New York, people who don’t think they need insurance and are too rich to receive subsidies — probably an even smaller group — will feel put upon by being obliged to buy policies. Mainly, though, those insurance subsidies will cost money, and that money will, to an important extent, be raised through higher taxes on the 1 percent: tax increases that have, by the way, already taken effect.
Over all, then, health reform will help millions of Americans who were previously either too sick or too poor to get the coverage they needed, and also offer a great deal of reassurance to millions more who currently have insurance but fear losing it; it will provide these benefits at the expense of a much smaller number of other Americans, mostly the very well off. It is, if you like, a plan to comfort the afflicted while (slightly) afflicting the comfortable.
And the prospect that such a plan might succeed is anathema to a party whose whole philosophy is built around doing just the opposite, of taking from the “takers” and giving to the “job creators,” known to the rest of us as the “rich.” Hence the brinkmanship.
So will Republicans actually take us to the brink? If they do, it will be crucial to understand why they would do such a thing, when their own leaders have admitted that confrontations over the budget inflict substantial harm on the economy. It won’t be because they fear the budget deficit, which is coming down fast. Nor will it be because they sincerely believe that spending cuts produce prosperity.
No, Republicans may be willing to risk economic and financial crisis solely in order to deny essential health care and financial security to millions of their fellow Americans. Let’s hear it for their noble cause!
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/07/26...are-panic.html
Repugs and Repug voters.
Boutons
ACA's gonna succeed, in spite of Repug/VRWC all-out efforts to sabotage it, and red state victims of Repug politics will start asking why blue state residents are benefitting while red state residents are getting Repug- ed, in yet another way.
270% increase for me
Is the Affordable Care Act a Hidden Jobs Killer?
There are two points that are striking. First, a very small share of the workforce falls into this group.
- Well under 1 million workers, roughly 0.6 percent of the labor force, typically work between 26-29 hours a week.
- It is also important to remember that many of these workers choose to work less than a full-time job. More than two-thirds of the workers who report working less than full-time jobs say that they are doing so by choice.
- If this ratio also applies to the workers who usually work between 26-29 hours it would mean that less than 300,000 workers, or roughly 0.2 percent of the workforce, are working this number of hours as a result of their employer’s decision.
The other striking aspect to the data in Table 1 is that the number and percentage of workers putting in between 26-29 hours per week was slightly lower in 2013 than in 2012.
- The average percentage of workers in this category for 2013 was 0.597 percent.
- That is down from 0.604 percent in 2012.
- While this drop is not close to being statistically significant, the change is in the wrong direction for the ACA as job-killer story.
While there may certainly be instances of individual employers carrying through with threats to reduce their employees’ hours to below 30 to avoid the sanctions in the ACA, the numbers are too small to show up in the data.
- It appears that in setting worker hours employers are responding to business considerations in much the same way as they did before the ACA took effect.
- While the sanctions in the ACA may provide some marginal incentive to reduce worker hours below the 30-hour cutoff, other considerations in setting worker hours appear to be far more important.\
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/...en-jobs-killer
iow, another REPUG BIG ING LIE is destroyed
16,500 say YOU LIE.
http://news.investors.com/070313-662...ate.htm?p=full
This is in it's infancy. A little early to be doing your touchdown dance.
16,500 workers, if true, is what %age of total workforce?
and of course, IBD
Editorials[edit]
Investors Business Daily also carries editorials and columns on topics from "economics and government to politics and culture".[5] It carries columns from writers it describes as "On The Left and On The Right",[6] including L. Brent Bozell, Richard Cohen, E. J. Dionne, Victor Davis Hanson,Charles Krauthammer, and Thomas Sowell. Pulitzer-winning cartoonist Michael Ramirez has worked for IBD since late 2005. Investors Business Daily also publishes editorials skeptical of peak oil and global warming, often proposing alternate solutions. The Times has characterized IBD as a "right-wing newspaper".[7]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investor's_Business_Daily
TB
Dumbass. You cite thinkprogress and have the stupidity to ridicule another source? gfy moonbat.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3210321.html
http://www.latimes.com/business/mone...,2333566.story
16,500 people don't give a what percentage of the workforce they are, shill.
Because this doesn't fit your demented binary solution set, I'll repeat:
This is in it's infancy. A little early to be doing your touchdown dance.
Which is precisely why I haven't started a thread one way of the other on this. It's not conclusive yet.
lol simpleton.
And just to demonstrate what intellectual honesty looks like, since you have no conception of it whatsoever, I'll repeat again.
It's not conclusive one way or the other, yet.
http://www.alternet.org/labor/compan...aten-cut-hours
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
