Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, February 06, 2014

E.J. Dionne: One of the best arguments for health-insurance reform is that our traditional employer-based system often locked people into jobs they wanted to leave but couldn't because they feared they wouldn't be able to get affordable coverage elsewhere. This worry was pronounced for people with pre-existing conditions but not limited to them. Consider families with young children in which one of the parents would like to get out of the formal labor market for a while to take care of the kids. In the old system, the choices of such couples were constrained if only one of the two received employer-provided family coverage.

Advertisement

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

726

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

More

By broadening access to health insurance, the Affordable Care Act ends the tyranny of "job lock," which is what the much-misrepresented Congressional Budget Office study of the law released on Tuesday shows. The new law increases both personal autonomy and market rationality by ending the distortions in behavior the old arrangements were creating.

But that's not how the study has been interpreted, particularly by enemies of the law.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

I think a law for preexisting conditions would have solved 80% of what this stupid law is doing. There was no need for an overhaul..

#1 | Posted by boaz at 2014-02-06 08:24 AM | Reply | Flag:

I want to know when a "career" became a bad thing, a burden that must be borne. I was happier than hell to move into a new career after I retired from the military. I expect you were, too, Boaz.

I said it yesterday and I'll say it again. I am deeply disappointed that we have raised an entire generation of shiftless candy-asses with zero initiative who don't want to be bothered with actually performing any labor to earn their pay because it robs them of valuable personal time.

#2 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2014-02-06 09:02 AM | Reply | Flag:

"But that's not how the study has been interpreted, particularly by enemies of the law"

Those who really hate Obama are not interested in a correct criticism, or a useful one. They are not making things better. By and large they aren't even interested in the subject to start with.

These are the people who spend their spare time thinking: "What would happen if I burn snow?" And then turn that into a world-wide conspiracy.

#3 | Posted by Zed at 2014-02-06 09:03 AM | Reply | Flag:

"I think a law for preexisting conditions would have solved 80% of what this stupid law is doing. There was no need for an overhaul.."

Yeah, without a way to make up the losses that would cause for insurance companies they could or would continue to provide healthcare insurance.

"I said it yesterday and I'll say it again. I am deeply disappointed that we have raised an entire generation of shiftless candy-asses with zero initiative who don't want to be bothered with actually performing any labor to earn their pay because it robs them of valuable personal time."

If they have the savings to live without working why do you care? what if they have worked two jobs for twenty years so they could retire early and only the availability of healthcare insurance keeps them working? That argument is just idiotic and proves E.J. Dione's point.

#4 | Posted by danni at 2014-02-06 09:06 AM | Reply | Flag:

If they have the savings to live without working why do you care?
Posted by danni

Maybe because this stupid law will provide them subsidies. Duh...

#5 | Posted by wisgod at 2014-02-06 09:13 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Those who really love Obama are not interested in a correct criticism, or a useful one. They are not making things better. By and large they aren't even interested in the subject to start with."

With Love,

Zed

#6 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-02-06 09:23 AM | Reply | Flag:

I'm getting inside your head, DALTON. Hope you like kittens and puppies.

#7 | Posted by Zed at 2014-02-06 09:25 AM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

When a full time job for most average workers can no longer provide food, shelter, housing, & transportation it's hardly the fault of the workers.
Businesses have been reducing benefits, both healthcare & retirement, for 30 years.
Part-time jobs have been on the increase for 30 years. Blaming Obama or the Democrats in general may make one feel better that there is a villain in the equation but the reality is we have more workers than we have living wage jobs.
Productivity gains, automation, off shoring of jobs, illegal immigration, the great recession, and the aging of the baby boomers have all played a role.

The ACA while certainly not perfect at least starts the desperately needed reform of our for profit healthcare system. Those that criticize it, either because of it's supposed government take over or that fact that it doesn't go far enough towards single payer simply deny the leverage of lobbyists and private money in our political system.

#8 | Posted by kingcuke at 2014-02-06 09:28 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

We are talking about a class of people that lie for a living. The ruling class in a fake Democracy.

#9 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-02-06 09:41 AM | Reply | Flag:

"You can be unemployed."

If that isn't a ringing endorsement for the ACA (or the entire Obama presidency, for that matter), I don't know what is.

#10 | Posted by JOE at 2014-02-06 09:42 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Maybe because this stupid law will provide them subsidies. Duh..."

OK, I understand your feeling about that but this will also open up a job for someone on the unemployment line so are we better or worse off in the long run?

#11 | Posted by danni at 2014-02-06 09:44 AM | Reply | Flag:

Saul Alinsky in "Rules for Radicals" said liberals can never win a debate on the facts with conservatives, so you must attack the character, and/or distract or deflect.

When u r intent to destroy a nation thru fabian socialism, facts never r ur friends.

RIP America 2008.

#12 | Posted by Jeffglobal at 2014-02-06 09:47 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Our entire economic system is based on lies, accepted by both parties in exchange for campaign contributions. The notion that Liberals can never win a debate on facts is absurd. Consider the recent debate between a creationist and evolutionist. Clearly Nye carried the day, because the truth was on his side. It should be obvious to those with even rudimentary education that the Bible is full of mythology, sadism and complete nonsense, intermingled with timeless wisdom.

More importantly and contrary to popular belief, our economic future our Capitalist system is inherently unstable. A fact which is Capitalized on by the rich to further impoverish the poor. The boom bust cycle is used to make the ruling class richer and richer. That cycle has persisted throughout our history and corrected only by the new deal and war on poverty. We are living in a period of extreme backlash against those successful programs. Gains in productivity realized through improvements in technology have not led to wage growth. All the extra profit has accrued to the benefit of the 1%. We are marching towards a "rentiers" society with fewer & fewer owners and lower & lower wages. It can be distinguished from Medieval economies by the fact that we are all generally better educated thanks to science and public debt does not die with the King.

#13 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-02-06 10:04 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Maybe because this stupid law will provide them subsidies. Duh..."
OK, I understand your feeling about that but this will also open up a job for someone on the unemployment line so are we better or worse off in the long run?
#11 | Posted by danni

Are you trying to say that this really bad train wreck has a silver lining?

I knew that the truth about ObamaCare was someday going to surface, but this truth about it is far worse than I originally thought it would be.

#14 | Posted by LastAmerican at 2014-02-06 10:08 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Those that criticize it, either because of it's supposed government take over or that fact that it doesn't go far enough towards single payer simply deny the leverage of lobbyists and private money in our political system."

I criticize aspects of Obamacare that will have negative consequences.

It's retarded to ignore them in an attempt to apologize for the system or to cheerlead those who passed.

Totally retarded. The system of lobbyists aren't my problem....it's the problem of the people who wrote and passed it. I am free to criticize it all day and night as well as point out the good aspects of it.

#15 | Posted by eberly at 2014-02-06 10:10 AM | Reply | Flag:

I've always supported the notion of going to carriers and striking a deal with them to allow them to start taking folks that have been uninsurable due to pre-existing conditions within a period of time. The trade off is that we will also help young/healthier folks get coverage by compelling them and subsidizing those that can't afford it.

In theory, there was nothing wrong with that. But Obamacare is way more complicated than that and it reaches too far past it. The worst part of it has been the reality that it has interfered too much with the current coverage people have and employers who were already providing group benefits.

#16 | Posted by eberly at 2014-02-06 10:22 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Are you trying to say that this really bad train wreck has a silver lining?"

Sounds more like you are pretending it is a train wreck but you are also acknowledging that there are some good things about it even you can't deny.

#17 | Posted by danni at 2014-02-06 10:25 AM | Reply | Flag:

It's futile to debate it. Let it collapse under its own weight. We can be sure that the feds are handling health care insurance with the same incompetence they handle their budget.

#18 | Posted by Ray at 2014-02-06 10:36 AM | Reply | Flag:

"One of the best arguments for health-insurance reform is that our traditional employer-based system often locked people into jobs they wanted to leave but couldn't because they feared they wouldn't be able to get affordable coverage elsewhere."

Lost me right there. The basic implication is that ACA is good because people no longer obligated to "do" something in order to recieve benefits. Now they can work less and still get the same coverage. Albeit at someone else's expense.

Is it me, or does this just get sillier and sillier. The argument may as well be that expanding or increasing welfare benefits is a good thing because it allows workers greater or equal benefit, while providing less labor in return for those benefits.

Am I understanding this correctly?

#19 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-02-06 10:36 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"A fact which is Capitalized on by the rich to further impoverish the poor."

???

Global poverty is is at it's lowest point. Ever. Like in the history of the planet. And it continues to decrease.

Not sure where you're getting your info from.

#20 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-02-06 10:39 AM | Reply | Flag:

Is it me, or does this just get sillier and sillier. The argument may as well be that expanding or increasing welfare benefits is a good thing because it allows workers greater or equal benefit, while providing less labor in return for those benefits.
Am I understanding this correctly?

#19 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

Sadly, you are understanding this correctly.

This 'notion' epitomizes left-wing economic thinking.

It's utterly retarded on any level, yet these clowns jump up and down and wave pompoms anyway.

#21 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-02-06 10:40 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 3

"Is it me, or does this just get sillier and sillier"

you're right.

This whole "locked into an employer" has a place but it's being taken too far. It's as if I can say, "I married this woman because she was sooooo good in bed. Now, I can't leave her because I'm trapped...afterall....she is soooooo good in bed".

The basis of this is grounded in the belief that everyone is entitled to healthcare (well, health insurance).....at someone else's expense.

#22 | Posted by eberly at 2014-02-06 10:44 AM | Reply | Flag:

"The basis of this is grounded in the belief that everyone is entitled to healthcare (well, health insurance).....at someone else's expense."

Healthcare insurance is provided by employers as part of a compensation package so it isn't really correct to say we receive it "at someone else's expense". It's not a gift.

#23 | Posted by danni at 2014-02-06 10:46 AM | Reply | Flag:

So this is 100% good Danni?

#24 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2014-02-06 10:48 AM | Reply | Flag:

#23

but when you leave, work less, earn less and then receive a subsidy to obtain coverage (a large subsidy in many cases) then what do you call it?

gift?
entitlement?

you can't argue they are working for it like when they were working for an employer who agreed to pay for a portion of the cost.

#25 | Posted by eberly at 2014-02-06 10:53 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"It's futile to debate it. Let it collapse under its own weight. We can be sure that the feds are handling health care insurance with the same incompetence they handle their budget."

They are already preparing for the "BOIC" (Bail out Insurance Companies) when it becomes obvious that the people they counted on to carry the freight aren't doing that. Now, let's see, we can raise taxes (Hurrah from danni) and we can borrow some more, if anyone will loan it to us (big deficits, rising national debt.) How do you spell "death spiral?" I just can't understand how ANYONE with an IQ above 50 can avoid seeing the consequences of this monstrosity of of a supposed healthcare "plan."

#26 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2014-02-06 10:55 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Am I understanding this correctly?"

I think so. It kinda goes along with their philosophy that we'll "reach prosperity by taxing, borrowing and spending."

#27 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2014-02-06 11:00 AM | Reply | Flag:

Best headline ever.

#28 | Posted by pragmatist at 2014-02-06 11:01 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Saul Alinsky in "Rules for Radicals" said liberals can never win a debate on the facts with conservatives

#12 | Posted by Jeffglobal at

I read Alinsky's book. I don't recall that he said that. You have to admit, that would be a pretty funny thing for him to say.

I'd like a page citation. If that isn't too much trouble, you factual conservative you.

#29 | Posted by Zed at 2014-02-06 11:21 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Elmendorf also noted that the ACA is actually expected to boost the economy in the near-term by making health insurance and medical care affordable for the poorest Americans, giving them the freedom to spend money in other areas of the economy.

"On balance, CBO estimates that the ACA will boost overall demand for goods and services over the next few years," states the report."

Not stupid.

#30 | Posted by Corky at 2014-02-06 11:27 AM | Reply | Flag:

" It kinda goes along with their philosophy that we'll "reach prosperity by taxing, borrowing and spending."

Works better than borrowing and spending while cutting taxes the way the Republicans did. Our deficit is much smaller now than when Obama became President.

#31 | Posted by danni at 2014-02-06 11:33 AM | Reply | Flag:

Our deficit is much smaller now than when Obama became President.

#31 | POSTED BY DANNI

Oh gee.

Come into office and jack up the deficit well over $trillion. Use that as a baseline and then reduce it but still keep it above the criminal levels of the Bush-era and proclaim the Dems are fiscally responsible.

That's retarded.

#32 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-02-06 11:36 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

"On balance, CBO estimates that the ACA will boost overall demand for goods and services over the next few years," states the report."

I would agree with this, the demand for healthcare services will go up, and it will be paid at a later date......

"Elmendorf also noted that the ACA is actually expected to boost the economy in the near-term by making health insurance and medical care affordable for the poorest Americans, giving them the freedom to spend money in other areas of the economy. "

I do find this statement interesting.

People that didn't have insurance (14million) are now burdened by a payment no matter how large.
Larger percentage of people that did have policies are paying more for insurance than before ObamaCare.
People that are getting subsidies to pay for healthcare will work less hours (ie less income) so they don't get taxed more,

So where does the excess money for the individual come from?

#33 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2014-02-06 11:39 AM | Reply | Flag:

"So where does the excess money for the individual come from?"

I'm asking that too.

if they really intend to take out policies (subsidized 100% even) they still have deductibles and other expenses.

It's my understanding that these same folks were not paying for anything....just going in for care and not paying. What "excess money" are they going to have?

I understand when someone like RCADE enrolls in an exchange and saves money...but the CBO isn't referring to RCADE....rather, it refers to "poorest Americans".

#34 | Posted by eberly at 2014-02-06 11:47 AM | Reply | Flag:

The CBO likes to call it, "math".

pollways.bangordailynews.com

#35 | Posted by Corky at 2014-02-06 11:47 AM | Reply | Flag:

At the end of the day ACA is a huge, central-planning scheme.

Central planning doesn't work. Never has, never will.

#36 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-02-06 11:49 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Central planning doesn't work. Never has, never will."

Every large corporation--bigger than many nation states--engages in central planning. And even under the Soviet Union, central planning turned them from an impoverished, war-devastated feudal economy into one of the world's two superpowers. And they did it with pen and paper, no computers. Ergo, your statement is nonsense.

#37 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-02-06 11:56 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

The Pentagon doesn't engage in central planning either. It uses the "invisible hand". lol

#38 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-02-06 12:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Come into office and jack up the deficit well over $trillion."

"Obama inherited deficits from Bush administration"

Mostly True.

www.politifact.com

#39 | Posted by danni at 2014-02-06 12:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

Chinese central planning and their economic boom went hand in hand.

#40 | Posted by Corky at 2014-02-06 12:08 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Every large corporation--bigger than many nation states--engages in central planning.

Yes they do. And when they plan wrong, they go out of business as so often happens.

And even under the Soviet Union, central planning turned them from an impoverished, war-devastated feudal economy into one of the world's two superpowers. And they did it with pen and paper, no computers. #37 | Posted by nullifidian

The last I heard, the Soviet Union went bankrupt out of business. The poverty was so bad, the people revolted.

Ergo, your statement is nonsense.

#41 | Posted by Ray at 2014-02-06 12:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

And even under the Soviet Union, central planning turned them from an impoverished, war-devastated feudal economy into one of the world's two superpowers. And they did it with pen and paper, no computers. Ergo, your statement is nonsense.

#37 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

Oh please.

They had to wait in extremely long lines just to acquire the basic staples to survive.

Are you actually suggesting that the Soviet Union was in any way successful?

Oh, and comparing the plans of a large corporation with a fairly narrow and specific purpose with centrally planning an entire economy is beyond foolish. One large corporations centralized plans will be completely different from another's.

#42 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-02-06 12:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Are you actually suggesting that the Soviet Union was in any way successful?"

The Soviet Union might have been successful if they had not wasted so much of their GDP building a huge military they couldn't afford. Someday others may be saying the same things about the U.S.

#43 | Posted by danni at 2014-02-06 12:15 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

The Soviet Union scared the hell out of the West by their industrial growth. They didn't do that with laissez-faire. Likewise, China is using a centrally-planned capitalist hybrid to kick ass.

#44 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-02-06 12:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

Sounds more like you are pretending it is a train wreck but you are also acknowledging that there are some good things about it even you can't deny.

#17 | Posted by danni
That is a real weak argument. That is about like saying you are just trying to pretend the holocaust was a train wreck but you acknowledge that there were some medical discoveries made from it.

#45 | Posted by freechoice at 2014-02-06 12:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Our deficit is much smaller now than when Obama became President."

Oh, wow. After four years of deficits over a trillion dollars, last year was the first year his deficit was less than Bush's last one.

"In 2008, George W. Bush ran a deficit of $485 billion. By the time the fiscal year started, on Oct. 1, 2008, it had gone up by another $100 billion due to increased recession-related spending and depressed revenues. So it was about $600 billion at the start of the fiscal crisis. That was the real Bush deficit.

But when the fiscal crisis hit, Bush had to pass the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) in the final months of his presidency, which cost $700 billion. Under the federal budget rules, a loan and a grant are treated the same. So the $700 billion pushed the deficit -- officially -- up to $1.3 trillion. But not really. The $700 billion was a short-term loan. $500 billion of it has already been repaid.

So what was the real deficit Obama inherited? The $600 billion deficit Bush was running plus the $200 billion of TARP money that probably won't be repaid (mainly AIG and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). That totals $800 billion. That was the real deficit Obama inherited."

So what was the real deficit Obama inherited? The $600 billion deficit Bush was running plus the $200 billion of TARP money that probably won't be repaid (mainly AIG and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). That totals $800 billion. That was the real deficit Obama inherited.

Then … he added $300 billion in his stimulus package, bringing the deficit to $1.1 trillion. This $300 billion was, of course, totally qualitatively different from the TARP money in that it was spending, not lending. It would never be paid back. Once it was out the door, it was gone. Other spending and falling revenues due to the recession pushed the final numbers for Obama's 2009 deficit up to $1.4 trillion.

So, effectively, Obama came close to doubling the deficit."

thehill.com

"WASHINGTON (AP) -- A new report released Tuesday says the government's budget deficit is set to fall to $514 billion for the current year, down substantially from last year and the lowest by far since President Barack Obama took office five years ago.

news.yahoo.com

When Bush left office the national debt was $10 trillion of which Bush was responsible for $5 trillion over eight years. The current debt is $17 trillion which means Obama added $7 trillion in FIVE years.

www.treasurydirect.gov

I don't know what math you're using when you make statements like you did above, but it appears to me Obama is making Bush look like a piker. Even though your statement is somewhat correct, looking at the big picture, he managed to increase the debt by $7 trillion in five years and that tells me by using MY math that 7 divided by 5 means it averages out to over a trillion dollars a year over the time he's been in office. (And I thought BUSH was a big spender, ha)

#46 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2014-02-06 12:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

The U.S. was a centrally planned economy during WWII. The government told the auto companies to build tanks, not cars. Can you imagine running the war on laissez-faire principles? We would all be speaking German. lol

#47 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-02-06 12:31 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 3

I think a law for preexisting conditions would have solved 80% of what this stupid law is doing. There was no need for an overhaul..

#1 | Posted by boaz

Why not have a 'high risk' deal like they have for car insurance?

By the way, the employer-based system came into effect because of the government wage/price controls. You gotta thank the government for most of the bad stuff we are stuck with.

#48 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-02-06 12:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

#47

NW post

#49 | Posted by Corky at 2014-02-06 12:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

-So, effectively, Obama came close to doubling the deficit."
thehill.com

Scribbled in crayon by none other than Dick "Toes" Morris.

Next, please.

#50 | Posted by Corky at 2014-02-06 12:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

The U.S. was a centrally planned economy during WWII. The government told the auto companies to build tanks, not cars. Can you imagine running the war on laissez-faire principles? We would all be speaking German. lol

#47 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

That's a gross simplification. Manufacturing shifted its product focus to meet a need/demand and it was temporary.

Central planners have no clue of the needs/wants/demands of the consumer and thus produce crap, just like they did in the USSR.

The Soviet Union scared the hell out of the West by their industrial growth. They didn't do that with laissez-faire.

Uh huh. Sure. The Soviet Union built a strong military and that was it. Please cite for me the plethora of products the Soviet Union exported into the global market. You may be able to cite commodities like oil but I am talking actual products. You don't see collectors spending huge sums of money acquiring Ladas. Yet a '67 Mustang in mint condition can fetch a pretty penny.


#51 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-02-06 12:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

The Soviet Union might have been successful...Danni

Even if the Soviet Union had ditched their military and remained intact, today they would resemble the economy of N. Korea.

#52 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-02-06 12:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The last I heard, the Soviet Union went bankrupt out of business. The poverty was so bad, the people revolted."

Coming to a neighborhood near us not too far in the future.

"Soon, when the Fed stops printing money and we have to borrow real funds from real lenders, the high deficit will send interest rates soaring, further retarding growth and creating a cost-push inflation.

The interest rate we are now paying for the debt -- about 3.5 percent -- is totally artificial and based on the massive injection of money supply created by the purchase of mortgage-backed securities by an obliging Federal Reserve. Once these injections of currency stop, the rate will more than double, sending our debt service spending into the stratosphere. Once we had to choose between guns and butter. Now we will have to choose between guns and butter on the one hand and paying our debt service on the other."

thehill.com

(Reuters) - The recent rout in emerging markets will not deter the U.S. Federal Reserve from trimming its monthly asset purchases in steps of $10 billion (6.07 billon pounds) at each upcoming policy meeting, shutting down the program by year-end, a Reuters poll showed.

All 70 economists in the latest survey - an extraordinary display of unanimity among forecasters - expect the Fed to maintain the pace of the taper and reduce the total by $10 billion at each of the seven remaining FOMC meetings this year....

With Wednesday's decision, however, the Fed made no reference to the turmoil in emerging markets that has hurt U.S. stocks over the past few days.

Although the cut announced at Wednesday's Fed policy-setting meeting was widely expected, a sell-off in emerging markets during the past week had given rise to some expectations the Fed might hold off on shaving the size of purchases.

Central banks from Turkey to South Africa to India have raised key benchmark rates this week to arrest the steep fall in their respective currencies as well as safeguard against high inflation."

uk.reuters.com

#53 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2014-02-06 12:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

You seem to be ignoring China, Jeff.

And if We the People of the US decide to pool our resources to get a better deal on health care, we have every right to do so, and no complaining about "central planning" abrogates that right nor the sensibility of it.

Rwing memes aside, of course.

#54 | Posted by Corky at 2014-02-06 12:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

#53 | thehill.com

lmao! Dick Morris the "economist" yet again.

You must plan not to be taken seriously.

#55 | Posted by Corky at 2014-02-06 12:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

#50 | POSTED BY CORKY AT 2014-02-06 12:40 PM | FLAG: Knows nothing of economics, shoots messengers instead.

#56 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2014-02-06 12:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

Messengers like Dick Morris don't deserve to be shot. Drawn and quartered would be more like it.

#57 | Posted by Corky at 2014-02-06 12:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

Jeff,

www.drudge.com

#58 | Posted by eberly at 2014-02-06 12:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

The U.S. industrialized by central planning, i.e., tariffs.

"Almost all of today's rich countries used tariff protection and subsidies to develop their industries. Interestingly, Britain and the USA, the two countries that are supposed to have reached the summit of the world economy through their free-market, free-trade policy, are actually the ones that had most aggressively used protection and subsidies.

Between the Civil War and the Second World War, the USA was literally the most heavily protected economy in the world."

www.paecon.net

#59 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-02-06 12:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yes, we know.....Morris turned your precious Hillary.

You can stop crying about it now.

#60 | Posted by eberly at 2014-02-06 12:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

Null is now conflating tariffs with state-controlled means of production.

As for ACA - I am not a gambling man but I'd be willing to bet that the ratio of healthy/unhealthy of exchange plans will be upside down. The law prohibits exclusion due to pre-existing conditions AND limits premium charges for high-risk customers and offsets that by WAY over-charging low-risk customers.

What is the result?

The high risk people sign up in droves and the low risk people opt out.

Like Eberly said: We'll see.

#61 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-02-06 01:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

Between the Civil War and the Second World War, the USA was literally the most heavily protected economy in the world."

Between the Civil War and the first World War the US was still growing within itself. A couple of decades after the frontiers hit the oceans, debacles like 'Smoot-Hawley' contributed to the Great Depression which lasted until WWII.

#62 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-02-06 01:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

" debacles like 'Smoot-Hawley'"

That's a myth.

"Once again, it's necessary to debunk the Globalist fairy tales about the "damage" caused by the Smoot-Hawley Tariff. Below is a copy of U.S. GDP from 1929 through 1939. These are official government figures from the US Bureau of Economic Analysis - See more at: www.thomhartmann.com

#63 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-02-06 01:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Messengers like Dick Morris don't deserve to be shot."

Everything in Morris' statement here is accurate. He's only repeating what many economists are saying.

"The interest rate we are now paying for the debt -- about 3.5 percent -- is totally artificial and based on the massive injection of money supply created by the purchase of mortgage-backed securities by an obliging Federal Reserve. Once these injections of currency stop, the rate will more than double, sending our debt service spending into the stratosphere. Once we had to choose between guns and butter. Now we will have to choose between guns and butter on the one hand and paying our debt service on the other."

Now, about that "injection of money supply..."Once these injections of currency stop, the rate will more than double, sending our debt service spending into the stratosphere."

Not just Dick Morris is saying that...I think you must have missed the part from Reuthers regarding QE3 being "tapered off" which means the "injections" will be stopped this year. But, maybe not...

"With Wednesday's decision, however, the Fed made no reference to the turmoil in emerging markets that has hurt U.S. stocks over the past few days.

Although the cut announced at Wednesday's Fed policy-setting meeting was widely expected, a sell-off in emerging markets during the past week had given rise to some expectations the Fed might hold off on shaving the size of purchases.

Central banks from Turkey to South Africa to India have raised key benchmark rates this week to arrest the steep fall in their respective currencies as well as safeguard against high inflation."

uk.reuters.com

Whether it ends this year or not, it's gotta end sometime, and when it does....well, look at what other countries are having to do.

#64 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2014-02-06 01:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

-He's only repeating what many rwing economists are saying.

ft

#65 | Posted by Corky at 2014-02-06 02:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

#65 | POSTED BY CORKY AT 2014-02-06 02:06 PM | FLAG: Won't have anything interesting to say until Hillary begins her run for 2016. Then he'll provide some excellent comedy.

#66 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2014-02-06 02:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Obama inherited deficits from Bush administration"

#39 | Posted by danni

True for every prfesident we have had for a very long time. "Bush inherited deficits from Clinton administration"

#67 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-02-06 03:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

#63 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

Null your off the deep end on that one. If you can find me one real economist that will back the dribble Hartman is spewing, I'll read it.
Smoot-Hawley was a disaster as have other similar schemes.

From the left leaning Economist.

The battle of Smoot-Hawley

A cautionary tale about how a protectionist measure opposed by all right-thinking people was passed

www.economist.com

#68 | Posted by paneocon at 2014-02-06 03:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Null your off the deep end on that one. If you can find me one real economist that will back the dribble Hartman is spewing, I'll read it.
Smoot-Hawley was a disaster as have other similar schemes."

I'm not sure why you wasted time responding to Nulli. He may as well have bee saying the earth was flat. Anyone with an ounce of economic knowledge knows that S-H was an utter ---- show.

I'm actually surprised Hartmann included something like this on his website. But then again, when it comes to promoting the progressive platform, being completely honest might become an unacceptable detriment.

Just ask Snoofy.

#69 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-02-06 04:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Anyone with an ounce of economic knowledge knows that S-H was an utter ---- show. "

You have less an ounce. Try reading the numbers in the link I provided.

#70 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-02-06 04:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

"In other words, the document-able "loss" from the Smoot-Hawley Tariff -- the "net export" loss -- contributed less than ½ of 1% of our our -46% GDP decline. Overall, the Smoot Hawley Tariff caused almost 0 damage to our economy during the Depression. -

See more at: www.thomhartmann.com

#71 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-02-06 04:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

Smoot-Hawley was a disaster as have other similar schemes.

The propaganda never dies, and it is very clear this young man has not made an effort to actually look back in time and educate himself on the subject.

The off loading of our labor and jobs to other nations have taken down this nation and it is strange to think people out there think this is a good thing. All products coming from foreign lands should be taxed in extreme for the benefit of our nation and its people, not benefit for our business's.

#72 | Posted by moneywar at 2014-02-06 04:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

It's my understanding that these same folks were not paying for anything....just going in for care and not paying.

Most people don't pay nothing. That would completely destroy their credit, result in court judgments against them and cause their wages to be garnished -- if they could get a job at all, since many prospective employers run your credit. Some collection agencies have even managed to find a way to get debtors thrown in jail.

www.huffingtonpost.com

Because of Obamacare, nobody has to see their life destroyed by enormous medical debts again. Buy insurance at whatever level you can afford and get subsidies if you qualify.

#73 | Posted by rcade at 2014-02-06 05:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

Must the Obamacare debate be stupid?
yes, it must; "stupid" is vital to our voter demographics.
-The GOTP-

#74 | Posted by e1g1 at 2014-02-06 05:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Because of Obamacare, nobody has to see their life destroyed by enormous medical debts again"

So I guess you have forgotten about all the bankruptcies previously blamed on unpaid medical bills for folks who actually had insurance. The deductibles, co-insurance requirements, etc were too much.

www.cnbc.com

And if you think only Americans without health insurance face financial troubles, think again. NerdWallet estimates nearly 10 million adults with year-round health-insurance coverage will still accumulate medical bills that they can't pay off this year.

The exchanges offer plans with higher out of pocket exposures than the plans folks were previously filing bankruptcy over.

But...now...their life won't be destroyed?

Tell me how Obamacare will address that problem I just referenced?

It won't...in fact, it will get worse as the out of pocket exposures inside the exchanges are pretty high......although it's being reported by Humana that most folks are taking the lowest deductible plans possible (because they are sick, naturally).

Bottom line, plenty of folks are going to continue to experience financial ruin even with coverage through obamacare.

#75 | Posted by eberly at 2014-02-06 05:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

What a load of __________

We have people lousing there jobs over this and being converted to part time and this is a good deal because some people didn't want to switch jobs before.

We have people with no jobs that are not going to get them because no new jobs are being created because of this law.

#76 | Posted by tmaster at 2014-02-06 06:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

...funny how you conveniently didn't mention the difference in what the plans cover, as if that has no relevance...

...apparently for ACA detractors, the debate must be stupid AND dishonest...

...LOL...

#77 | Posted by 1EyedMan at 2014-02-06 06:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

"no new jobs are being created because of this law"

...like I said, stupid and dishonest...

...LOL...

#78 | Posted by 1EyedMan at 2014-02-06 06:09 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

ThighMASTER:"We have people lousing there jobs..."

...not to be pick nits - but aren't you speaking for yourself...?

...LOL...

#79 | Posted by 1EyedMan at 2014-02-06 06:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

NerdWallet estimates nearly 10 million adults with year-round health-insurance coverage will still accumulate medical bills that they can't pay off this year.

Key words: "This year." That doesn't mean they won't ever pay them off or will be destroyed by the amount they owe.

When I couldn't pay a medical bill in full that hadn't been fully covered by insurance, I sent a letter explaining this and said I'd pay a fixed monthly amount -- such as $50 or $100 -- until I could pay more.

As long as a medical provider sees they're getting money regularly, they usually don't call the dogs on you.

#80 | Posted by rcade at 2014-02-06 06:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

rcade, then explain why so many insured people file bankruptcy and cite medical bills as the primary reason?

i agree that providers will accept payment plans but the left propped this group up as a poster child for the need for obamacare.

obamacare wont help these people.

#81 | Posted by eberly at 2014-02-06 07:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

rcade, then explain why so many insured people file bankruptcy and cite medical bills as the primary reason?

Because some people reach a point where they don't think they can ever catch up.

You're looking for simple answers to complex questions. Obamacare isn't a magic cure-all. It is just a major improvement to the bad old way of doing things.

For all the doom-saying about Obamacare here and elsewhere, I see no stories where people say how they specifically have been hurt by it. But I can tell my story of how I'm specifically helped by it. It is, and I'm not exaggerating here, a godsend for my family.

#82 | Posted by rcade at 2014-02-06 07:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

Regarding bankruptcy - a few things off the top of my head:

Annual and Lifetime limits - gone.
Maximum out of pocket - limited with a flat ceiling.
Ability to get health insurance when you have a pre-existing condition - especially when that pre-existing condition is something minor, and you get hit by a car or have a tragic accident, or a terminal illness.
The inability of Insurance companies to drop you when you get sick.

#83 | Posted by YAV at 2014-02-06 08:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

As long as a medical provider sees they're getting money regularly, they usually don't call the dogs on you.
#80 | Posted by rcade

Pretty much that way with any creditor. Heck, just calling them to say "sorry I can't pay this month" is far better than ignoring them. A known deadbeat is a less risky investment than an unknown credit score.

#84 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-02-06 08:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Obama inherited deficits from Bush administration"

#39 | Posted by danni

True for every prfesident we have had for a very long time. "Bush inherited deficits from Clinton administration"

#67 | Posted by Sniper

Factcheck rates that as NOT true.

When former president Bill Clinton left office in 2000 there was a $86.4 billion surplus. When former president George W. Bush left office in 2008 there was a $1.5 trillion budget deficit.

meetthefacts.com

#85 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-02-06 08:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

also at

www.factcheck.org

#86 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-02-06 08:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

Well I think these Obama minions better go back and look at something other than fact check, they have already lied for Obama and where called out about it so fact check is a worthless site for a source, it is politically motivated.

Also, just go to the Clinton and debt deficit at the end of his term there is no surplus what's so ever. And it is amazing these Obama minions are supporting such an idea because Clinton stole off the general accounting money from social security to make such a surplus claim.

Just political hacks from the Obama minions.

#87 | Posted by moneywar at 2014-02-06 08:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

#43 | POSTED BY DANNI Flag:NW

#88 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2014-02-06 08:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

Clinton ran deficits throught all 8 years of his term, and one can go to the US Treasury Department and looking through the history of the total outstanding debt through Clintons term.

Every year Clinton was in office, the total national debt continued to climb.

How Clinton managed to claim a surplus was that while the general operating budgets ran deficits but Clinton borrowed from numerous off budget funds to make the on budget fund a surplus.

For example, in 2000, Clinton claimed a $230B surplus, but Clinton borrowed
$152.3B from Social Security
$30.9B from Civil Service Retirement Fund
$18.5B from Federal Supplementary Medical insurance Trust Fund
$15.0B from Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund
$9.0B from the Federal Unemployment Trust Fund
$8.2B from Military Retirement Fund
$3.8B from Transportation Trust Funds
$1.8B from Employee Life Insurance & Retirement fund
$7.0B from others

Total borrowed from off budget funds $246.5B, meaning that his $230B surplus is actually a $16.5B deficit.
($246.5B borrowed - $230B claimed surplus = $16.5B actual deficit).

If there is ever a true surplus, then the national debt will go down.

the national debt did not go down one year during the Clinton administration.


wiki.answers.com

So stop lying this has been proven many many times.

#89 | Posted by moneywar at 2014-02-06 08:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?
A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not."

www.factcheck.org

#90 | Posted by danni at 2014-02-06 09:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken

Real issues are not discussed in the fascist media.

#91 | Posted by Shawn at 2014-02-06 09:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

on the evening news 2/5/14 : a doctor was on the local evening news in Shreveport. he's opting out of ACA and/or Medicare and taking only cash for services. 3 of his 4 long time employees getting the ax, & will be losing less affluent patients, some with him 35 yrs. he says he is doing this to survive because:

~ codes for every imaginable procedure are new & complex
~ doctors' offices must buy a very expensive computer to keep abreast of the codes
~ THE GOVT MUST APPROVE OF EVERY PROCEDURE PRIOR TO IT BEING PERFORMED

he is going to bypass all of that, but must keep his ACA certification intact to be able to practice medicine / perform a procedure at all (like the AMA or a new incarnation of it (?).
(will find story if i can & post blog about it)

#92 | Posted by kenx at 2014-02-06 09:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

#89 | POSTED BY MONEYWAR

An anonymous answer posted on Wiki Answers? Now that's an authoritative source!

#93 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2014-02-06 10:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

#92 | POSTED BY KENX

A doctor made a decision. The sky is falling! If doctors start wholesale refusing to take Medicare the program will get changed (like the "Doc fix"). People on Medicare vote and a whole lot of them vote Republican!

#94 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2014-02-06 10:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

(will find story if i can & post blog about it)

You've posted that same thing 3 times, starting at 7:16AM and still no more information. So I thought I'd do some research. Nothing came up on this Shreveport Doctor. However, some things did come up. For instance, there are some new codes for medical procedures, and the old codes are also in use. So no substantial changes in the coding, but there is reporting on the outcome of treatment. Perhaps that's why this Doctor isn't thrilled?

As to EHR (the computer) that's optional, but not using one can complicate things and cause issues.

On the "GOVT MUST APPROVE…." that's complete nonsense. That absolutely doesn't exist.

There certainly is an energy to your posting, but it appears this Doctor isn't being truthful as to his reasons for changing his practice.

#95 | Posted by YAV at 2014-02-06 10:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

An anonymous answer posted on Wiki Answers? Now that's an authoritative source!

Good on you for checking! Pghquest's profile was empty. Did you check the back-and-forth in the "Answer History" link? Pretty funny that Moneywar rebuts Factcheck.org with Wiki Answers.

#96 | Posted by YAV at 2014-02-06 10:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

Opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership -- dubbed 'NAFTA on steroids' -- is receiving unprecedented popular opposition and nearly no news coverage by major outlets

#97 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-02-06 11:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

#95 ~ reason it posted 3X is cause 2ndX it was supposed to be here. don't no if he's lying or not ~ just passing on some news =+= (HEY YAV!) !@

#98 | Posted by kenx at 2014-02-07 04:14 AM | Reply | Flag:

Pretty much that way with any creditor. Heck, just calling them to say "sorry I can't pay this month" is far better than ignoring them.

Another thing I learned about creditors, back when I was strugging financially after college, was that if you tell them to only contact you in mail they can't legally call you any more. Some disreputable ones will break that law anyway, but most won't as long as you respond to the mail.

#99 | Posted by rcade at 2014-02-07 07:21 AM | Reply | Flag:

"For all the doom-saying about Obamacare here and elsewhere, I see no stories where people say how they specifically have been hurt by it. But I can tell my story of how I'm specifically helped by it. It is, and I'm not exaggerating here, a godsend for my family."

of course you don't see the stories. First of all...it's too soon. Second, you can't cast the insurance company as the only bad guy in the room anymore.

But logic dictates the same things will happen that generated a ton of wailing and gnashing of teeth before.

What's funny is that it will come from the GOP who will blame it all on Obamacare when it will be illustrated that the problem was horrible before as well.

"Pretty much that way with any creditor. Heck, just calling them to say "sorry I can't pay this month" is far better than ignoring them. A known deadbeat is a less risky investment than an unknown credit score.

#84 | Posted by snoofy"

Wow, I knew it would happen. Obamabots would cast medical providers and their collection agencies as benevolent folks who listen and care. Just a few years ago, they were all the devil....now...not so much.

Partisan cheerleading is an extremely powerful thing.

#100 | Posted by eberly at 2014-02-07 09:04 AM | Reply | Flag:

Yep, Obummercare is just great, you get a 25% cut in your pay so you can tuck in your starving children. Or you take on another job to make ends meet and spend even less time at home. What stupid ass in the administration came up with this idiotic approach? I do not believe, with the exception of the lazy, it is going to wash with the voters. When the company supplied healthcare plans get thrown out this fall the democrats will take a blood bath bigger than the one in 2010.

At this rate glorifying sitting home doing nothing it will be but a few years, maybe a decade before this country collapses. Has any ever read anything about the collapse of the Roman Empire? When the Romans all felt somebody else could do the job better? History is not on our side, ususally every society collapses by the time it is 250 years old. We are there and it usually starts with paying people to do nothing, like we are doing.

#101 | Posted by gtjr at 2014-02-07 09:34 AM | Reply | Flag:

"You have less an ounce. Try reading the numbers in the link I provided."

Try reading the ones post by Pan in the Economist. A legitimate media source.

Since you like numbers, here are some from Dept of State:

"The Smoot-Hawley Tariff was more a consequence of the onset of the Great Depression than an initial cause. But while the tariff might not have caused the Depression, it certainly did not make it any better. It provoked a storm of foreign retaliatory measures and came to stand as a symbol of the "beggar-thy-neighbor" policies (policies designed to improve one's own lot at the expense of that of others) of the 1930s. Such policies contributed to a drastic decline in international trade. For example, U.S. imports from Europe declined from a 1929 high of $1,334 million to just $390 million in 1932, while U.S. exports to Europe fell from $2,341 million in 1929 to $784 million in 1932. Overall, world trade declined by some 66% between 1929 and 1934. More generally, Smoot-Hawley did nothing to foster trust and cooperation among nations in either the political or economic realm during a perilous era in international relations."

future.state.gov

#102 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-02-07 09:37 AM | Reply | Flag:

of course you don't see the stories. First of all...it's too soon.

It's not too soon for people to show how they personally were hurt by Obamacare. Is there a single user here who has done that?

#103 | Posted by rcade at 2014-02-07 10:33 AM | Reply | Flag:

"It's not too soon for people to show how they personally were hurt by Obamacare. Is there a single user here who has done that?"

I don't know, really. But that's not exactly what I'm talking about.

Bankruptcies will continue...if not increase and medical bills will continue to be reported as the main cause.

#104 | Posted by eberly at 2014-02-07 11:02 AM | Reply | Flag:

"What stupid ass in the administration came up with this idiotic approach?"

Um, I think his name was Mitt Romney.

#105 | Posted by danni at 2014-02-07 11:04 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Bankruptcies will continue...if not increase and medical bills will continue to be reported as the main cause. "

Funny thing about insurance, it prevents bankruptcies. In my daughter's case we struggled but we managed to pay everything we had to, without insurance both her and I would be in bankruptcy right now. As it is, neither of us are. There is no debate about this, Obamacare will prevent many bankruptcies.

#106 | Posted by danni at 2014-02-07 11:06 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Funny thing about insurance, it prevents bankruptcies"

Of course it does. More specifically, it prevents financial ruin.....that's the point of it.

But apparently it didn't do a very good job of preventing bankruptcy prior to Obamacare.....according to you.

You, among others, whined and cried about personal bankruptcies being filed in droves by folks with insurance.

Not anymore, even though the deductibles and out of pockets are higher for folks that what they had before.

But because it's obamacare written......you can't criticize that problem anymore, can you?

#107 | Posted by eberly at 2014-02-07 11:10 AM | Reply | Flag:

"There is no debate about this, Obamacare will prevent many bankruptcies."

you just want to ignore the issue, Danni.

Keep ignoring it and pretending "there is no debate about this".

Bankruptcies, with medical bills being the primary reason, will continue at the same pace. Including folks on Obamacare.

#108 | Posted by eberly at 2014-02-07 11:12 AM | Reply | Flag:

As we see with Humana they are going bankrupt and fortunately for them Obama's going to swipe the credit card again to bail them out.

#110 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-02-07 11:20 AM | Reply | Flag:

Whenever a complicated issue of policy becomes politicized the debate surrounding it is always rendered stupid. And there has been no more politicized policy debate in many years than the one surrounding the ACA.

#111 | Posted by moder8 at 2014-02-07 11:24 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Must the Obamacare Debate Be Stupid?"

Sadly yes.

#112 | Posted by Tor at 2014-02-07 11:26 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Some folks here can't point out anything negative even when it's painfully obvious. "

Some of us spend most of our time correcting those who spew nothing but negative about Obamacare and most of what they spew is either completely untrue or mostly untrue.

Perfect example:
"Bankruptcies, with medical bills being the primary reason, will continue at the same pace. Including folks on Obamacare."

Comletely illogical, more people will have insurance and thus will not need to declare bankruptcy in the case of serious illness. You apparently do not even believe in the benefits of having insurance.

#113 | Posted by danni at 2014-02-07 11:27 AM | Reply | Flag:

"When the company supplied healthcare plans get thrown out this fall "

If that happens, the companies damned well better make up the difference with direct salary. After all, that was part of the compensation. And often, that's why people took certain jobs.

113: Seems right to me. It wasn't INSURANCE costs that led to those bankruptcies. It was HEALTH-CARE BILLING not covered by insurance. That's how I always heard it anyway...

#114 | Posted by pragmatist at 2014-02-07 11:38 AM | Reply | Flag:

"When the company supplied healthcare plans get thrown out this fall "

If that happens, the companies damned well better make up the difference with direct salary. After all, that was part of the compensation. And often, that's why people took certain jobs.

Well, it appears that the Democrats changed all that. The companies will simply lay off if it becomes necessary and hire somewhere else.

#115 | Posted by LastAmerican at 2014-02-07 12:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Some of us spend most of our time spewing nothing but negative responses to Obamacare realities we read every day."

ft

#116 | Posted by eberly at 2014-02-07 03:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Bankruptcies, with medical bills being the primary reason, will continue at the same pace. Including folks on Obamacare."

fact. you heard it here first.

Now, a disclaimer here that explains my position. I have never accepted in the past that unpaid medical bills were truly the reason for bankruptcy filings. It's a self reporting statistic and people see the reasons on the form and the one that places the least amount of blame on themselves is the medical expense answer. So, they pretend they don't have 12 credit cards maxed out, too much house, way too expensive cars, and all of the other stuff they bought they didn't need nor could afford. I've known a lot of folks who have filed bankruptcy and it's never been primarily because of medical bills (but I'm sure that does happen)...it's been primarily because they made crappy choices (see thread about Affluenza).

But the obamabots couldn't help themselves on this and ran with this as though the hospitals, and insurance companies were forcing so many bankruptcies.....rather than place the blame where it belonged...on the heads of the idiots that I described above. Of course, there are exceptions and many folks couldn't have prevented their bankruptcy....but those are outliers.

Now, due to their obvious obamalove, they don't want to admit that problem anymore because they know bankruptcies will continue that will blame medical bills primarily (whether it's true or not).

#117 | Posted by eberly at 2014-02-07 03:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

"It wasn't INSURANCE costs that led to those bankruptcies. It was HEALTH-CARE BILLING not covered by insurance. That's how I always heard it anyway..."

Prag, Danni's going to have to forget she ever believed that. She will.

Because the significantly high out of pocket exposures on these plans are going to be harder to meet than what they had before.

#118 | Posted by eberly at 2014-02-07 03:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

Of course, there are exceptions and many folks couldn't have prevented their bankruptcy....but those are outliers.

Link?

Thanks in advance.

#119 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-02-07 03:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

....the previously uninsured, Eb...it will prevent bankruptcies for the PREVIOUSLY UNINSURED...

...or is that glaring obvious fact just too inconvenient for your flaccid argument...?

...LOL...

#120 | Posted by 1EyedMan at 2014-02-07 03:57 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

content.healthaffairs.org

Congressional Budget Office.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analyzed the 75 percent increase in personal bankruptcy filings between 1994 and 1998 by reviewing the "voluminous" literature on personal bankruptcy in a 2000 report.16 By all accounts, the period under review was one of flat to expanding health insurance coverage. The total health benefit cost per active employee rose less than 5 percent, and the cost of health benefits for active and retired workers actually declined in 1994 for the first time in memory.17 The fact that bankruptcy rates nonetheless rose sharply suggests that something besides medical factors was to blame.

The CBO review cites many factors that contribute to bankruptcy, including large medical bills, divorce, loss of income as a result of unemployment, and poor debt management. Legislative changes making it easier for people to recover from bankruptcy may also have been a factor. Even so, the CBO reports that "researchers have made little progress in judging the relative importance of the factors that lead people to file" (emphasis added).

I'm not trying to sell anybody on the idea that medical bills aren't a significant factor in bankruptcies. My point is that it was over sold as a justification for pushing health care reform.

It's hilarious that obamabots vomited all of the websites saying that folks with health insurance still represented most bankruptcies...but now, with obamacare, that won't happen anymore. Even though it's obvious that out of pocket exposures for folks are not going to get any better.

#121 | Posted by eberly at 2014-02-07 04:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

"the previously uninsured, Eb...it will prevent bankruptcies for the PREVIOUSLY UNINSURED...

...or is that glaring obvious fact just too inconvenient for your flaccid argument...?"

not at all. I believe it will, for the "previously uninsured".

But what I'm saying is way too inconvenient for the flaccid argument of believing that folks with $12-$15K in out of pockets won't face similar problems as they did before.

Keep in mind, I never accepted the notion that medical bills truly drove those stats as reported. So, why would I think that obamacare will be any different?

#122 | Posted by eberly at 2014-02-07 04:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

You think there won't be more bankruptcies because of healthcare under obamacare, you're being delusional.

The out of pocket deductible will bankrupt millions. Another thread we have 25% of the working population as the bread winner with minimum wage, the deductible is more than they make in 6 months.

#123 | Posted by moneywar at 2014-02-07 04:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

#121 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Thanks again.

#125 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-02-07 04:09 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

Next step for Obamacare is easy loan insurance for insurance.

people will have to get loans to pay for their deductible.

#126 | Posted by moneywar at 2014-02-07 04:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

#105

Unfortunately Danni Romney is NOT in the administration. In case you forgot he is on the other side. Are you having alzheimers???

#127 | Posted by gtjr at 2014-02-07 09:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

#114

Pragmatist

You are dreaming if you think you are going to get a raise to pay for cancelled healthcare. You see that is the beauty of Obummercare, the money that companies would pay their employees for loss of insurance, they get to send that the the government in the form of the "fine" aka tax. Just another screw job from the Obummer administration.

#128 | Posted by gtjr at 2014-02-07 10:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

128: I love how you think you understood my post and you understand the eeevil of this administration. It's so cute.

#129 | Posted by pragmatist at 2014-02-07 10:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

"It's hilarious that obamabots vomited all of the websites saying that folks with health insurance still represented most bankruptcies..."

Huh? Without, Eb. Without. And I never thought or heard that most US bankruptcies were the result of this, only that people went bankrupt for this reason. And isn't that a stupid reason?

There is an argument that health insurance simply is not the same as, say, car or fire insurance. Cars aren't all in accidents, but all people get sick, to some degree, some day. I'm oversimplifying, but it's an interesting argument that doesn't get talked about much... (At least not in my "hearing.")

#130 | Posted by pragmatist at 2014-02-07 10:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Keep in mind, I never accepted the notion that medical bills truly drove those stats as reported. So, why would I think that obamacare will be any different?"

No one said it would be but numbers like that can be managed by many people, I know because we did it and we're not exactly in high income brackets but you do what you have to do. Without insurance we would have been looking at $200,000 which would have put us in bankruptcy. I think many people who now have insurance will have much the same experience.

#131 | Posted by danni at 2014-02-08 08:21 AM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort