Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
I partly agree with you. The Fed's policies have not been the best solution to our current economic problems. They have been a holding action in the face of the Republicans taking control of Congress in 2010 and pursuing austerity policies which have shrunk government, destroyed over 1 million government jobs, pulled money out of the economy and severely reduced economic activity. The best policy would have been continued government stimulus that could have put money into ordinary peoples pockets that they would have spent on goods and services. The only job creators are buyers. No one hires when no one buys.
Yes, the Fed's policies do not create demand. They do however put more money into circulation. The only problem is that this is a very inefficient way of doing it. However, it's the only way the government has available while Republicans control the purse strings.
You've let slip your true agenda behind the debt ceiling debacle...
I've been thinking about this future for a while but I'm not sure what the answer will be. The right wing nuts are just too blind to even consider what will happen if within 50 years 90% of all work can be done by machines. Will we devolve into a world where only the top 10% can enjoy a secure life and everyone else is poor or can we develop a new economics based on an equitable redistribution of wealth? I think the mass of society would rebel at the first option but how do you structure the latter?
I'd love to hear more thoughts on this.
From Salon.com 10/18/2013....
Inside the Fox News lie machine: I fact-checked Sean Hannity on Obamacare
UPDATE I re-reported a Fox News segment on Obamacare -- it was appallingly easy to see how it misleads the audience
By Eric Stern
I happened to turn on the Hannity show on Fox News last Friday evening. “Average Americans are feeling the pain of Obamacare and the healthcare overhaul train wreck,” Hannity announced, “and six of them are here tonight to tell us their stories.” Three married couples were neatly arranged in his studio, the wives seated and the men standing behind them, like game show contestants.
As Hannity called on each of them, the guests recounted their “Obamacare” horror stories: canceled policies, premium hikes, restrictions on the freedom to see a doctor of their choice, financial burdens upon their small businesses and so on.
“These are the stories that the media refuses to cover,” Hannity interjected.
But none of it smelled right to me. Nothing these folks were saying jibed with the basic facts of the Affordable Care Act as I understand them. I understand them fairly well; I have worked as a senior adviser to a governor and helped him deal with the new federal rules.
I decided to hit the pavement. I tracked down Hannity’s guests, one by one, and did my own telephone interviews with them.
First I spoke with Paul Cox of Leicester, N.C. He and his wife Michelle had lamented to Hannity that because of Obamacare, they can’t grow their construction business and they have kept their employees below a certain number of hours, so that they are part-timers.
Obamacare has no effect on businesses with 49 employees or less. But in our brief conversation on the phone, Paul revealed that he has only four employees. Why the cutback on his workforce? “Well,” he said, “I haven’t been forced to do so, it’s just that I’ve chosen to do so. I have to deal with increased costs.” What costs? And how, I asked him, is any of it due to Obamacare? There was a long pause, after which he said he’d call me back. He never did.
There is only one Obamacare requirement that applies to a company of this size: workers must be notified of the existence of the “healthcare.gov” website, the insurance exchange. That’s all.
Next I called Allison Denijs. She’d told Hannity that she pays over $13,000 a year in premiums. Like the other guests, she said she had recently gotten a letter from Blue Cross saying that her policy was being terminated and a new, ACA-compliant policy would take its place. She says this shows that Obama lied when he promised Americans that we could keep our existing policies.
Allison’s husband left his job a few years ago, one with benefits at a big company, to start his own business. Since then they’ve been buying insurance on the open market, and are now paying around $1,100 a month for a policy with a $2,500 deductible per family member, with hefty annual premium hikes. One of their two children is not covered under the policy. She has a preexisting condition that would require purchasing additional coverage for $600 a month, which would bring the family’s grand total to around $20,000 a year.
I asked Allison if she’d shopped on the exchange, to see what a plan might cost under the new law. She said she hadn’t done so because she’d heard the website was not working. Would she try it out when it’s up and running? Perhaps, she said. She told me she has long opposed Obamacare, and that the president should have focused on tort reform as a solution to bringing down the price of healthcare.
I tried an experiment and shopped on the exchange for Allison and Kurt. Assuming they don’t smoke and have a household income too high to be eligible for subsidies, I found that they would be able to get a plan for around $7,600, which would include coverage for their uninsured daughter. This would be about a 60 percent reduction from what they would have to pay on the pre-Obamacare market.
Allison also told me that the letter she received from Blue Cross said that in addition to the policy change for ACA compliance, in the new policy her physician network size might be reduced. That’s something insurance companies do to save money, with or without Obamacare on the horizon, just as they raise premiums with or without Obamacare coming.
If Allison’s choice of doctor was denied her through Obamacare then, yes, she could have a claim that Obamacare has hurt her. But she’d also have thousands of dollars in her pocket that she didn’t have before.
Finally, I called Robbie and Tina Robison from Franklin, Tenn. Robbie is self-employed as a Christian youth motivational speaker. (You can see his work here.) On Hannity, the couple said that they, too, were recently notified that their Blue Cross policy would be expiring for lack of ACA compliance. They told Hannity that the replacement plans Blue Cross was offering would come with a rate increase of 50 percent or even 75 percent, and that the new offerings would contain all sorts of benefits they don’t need, like maternity care, pediatric care, prenatal care and so forth. Their kids are grown and moved out, so why should they be forced to pay extra for a health plan with superfluous features?
When I spoke to Robbie, he said he and Tina have been paying a little over $800 a month for their plan, about $10,000 a year. And the ACA-compliant policy that will cost 50-75 percent more? They said this information was related to them by their insurance agent.
Had they shopped on the exchange yet, I asked? No, Tina said, nor would they. They oppose Obamacare and want nothing to do with it. Fair enough, but they should know that I found a plan for them for, at most, $3,700 a year, 63 percent less than their current bill. It might cover things that they don’t need, but so does every insurance policy.
It’s true that we don’t know for sure whether certain ills conservatives have warned about will occur once Obamacare is fully enacted. For example, will we truly have the same freedom to choose a physician that we have now? Will a surplus of insured patients require a scaling back (or “rationing,” as some call it) of provided healthcare services? Will doctors be able to spend as much time with patients? These are all valid, unanswered questions. The problem is that people like Sean Hannity have decided to answer them now, without evidence. Or worse, with fake evidence.
I don’t doubt that these six individuals believe that Obamacare is a disaster; but none of them had even visited the insurance exchange. And some of them appear to have taken actions (Paul Cox, for example) based on a general pessimistic belief about Obamacare. He’s certainly entitled to do so, but Hannity is not entitled to point to Paul’s behavior as an “Obamacare train wreck story” and maintain any credibility that he might have as a journalist.
Strangely, the recent shutdown was based almost entirely on a small percentage of Congress’s belief that Obamacare, as Ted Cruz puts it, “is destroying America.” Cruz has rarely given us an example of what he’s talking about. That’s because the best he can do is what Hannity did—exploit people’s ignorance and falsely point to imaginary boogeymen.
The "almost depression" was caused by George Bush and his Wall Street Republican cronies who were keen on reducing government regulation of bank loans and thought that would stimulate the economy in the face of his disasterous tax cuts that drove his huge deficits.
I do have facts. You should read what you reference. From your referenced article...
Have you ever read the constitution? Presidents can't spend a dime on their own. All government spending originates from the House, which in the last four years was controlled by Republicans. The problem isn't spending!!! Spending has been going down. The problem is getting the right balance of revenues. When over 40% of the income in this country is made by the top 1% and corporations are making record profits and not spending the money on jobs, there is plenty of room to raise revenues.
Read the post again. Unsubsidized insureds do not take a hit on their tax bill. PPACA is fully paid for outside of general income tax revenues.
Your talking as if this is something that affects all employers when it really applies to only a few. The number of employers with more than 50 employees is relatively small. Those with fewer than 50 employees can qualify for federal tax credits under ACA to make up for any increase in premium if they have employees with an average salary below $25,000. They also are not subject to the penalties.
Companies with more than 50 employees are relatively large and should be able to absorb the additional costs. Most of them are already contributing 85% or more. If they do drop their sponsored coverage because they have low wage workers then their workers will in most cases be better off getting ACA subsidized coverage. Then there's the not so small issue of all of these people with subsidized premiums having thousands of dollars more in disposable income to stimulate economic activity and increased employment.
You're grabbing at straws to make your argument to eliminate the ACA.
The governors of Wisconsin and Maine are Teabaggers. The Wisconsin legislature is controlled by Republicans. In New Hampshire although the governor is a Democrat, unlike in many other states in which Executive Councils are merely advisory, the Executive Council of New Hampshire has a strong check on the governor's power. The five-member Executive Council has a veto over many actions of the governor.
Congratulations! I'm ready to jump in too. I'm just waiting to get a list of which doctors will accept each plan here in California to see if I can keep the same medical team. The provider list should be available soon. Even if I can't use the same doctors, I'm willing to make the change since I'll be saving about $800/month with the subsidies.
One comment though. My income also varies from year to year. The income you report should be what you expect to make next year not necessarily what you made last year. Your income is compared to IRS records as a rationality check and you will be asked to confirm the number but since it's all reconciled when you file your 2014 taxes in 2015, nothing changes until then. At that time you will either owe back some of the credit you received if you underestimated your income or you will get an additional refund if you overestimated it.
You just made one of the best arguments for having a public option
Rates have been going up in double digits for most of the past ten years. If people have a choice of keeping their old plan and paying more to see their own doctor or paying less and joining the exchange, it's an economic decision on their part. Isn't this the workings of a free market that you teabaggers love so much?
If you want competition so much why are you guys so afraid of a public option? If private plans are so superior let them compete.
Yes we know, somehow the shutdown was all an Obama conspiracy.
I suppose this gives the Republicans a new excuse..."The Devil made me do it"
That was allegedly said while George Bush was keeping the cost of the Iraq war off the books and the debt was increasing due to his tax cuts. Since Obama took over the deficit has gone down every year from about $1.2 trillion in Bush's last budget year down to about $800 billion this year and an estimate around $600 billion next year. THERE IS NO SPENDING PROBLEM !!!!
If you want to balance the budget let's get some more tax revenue from the companies that are making record profits and not investing in American jobs.
A Republican with a heart? Now that's news!
I'm just sick of the Republican tactic of painting everyone with the same brush (i.e. since our politicians are ignorant rat bastards we have to convince the people that all politicians are, otherwise they might actually think their government can do something worthwhile for them - it also gives them permission to vote for our ignorant rat bastards since they're all going to be the same anyway).
I repeat, most of the money allocated to Congress goes to taking care of constituent problems and communications. How much do you think it should take to do customer service for 500,000+ people. I have a staff of 1 to take care of about 400 customers and we can barely keep up. Again, give us examples of actual Congress people that are misusing their funds.
Oh and yes, they are not in session half the year - more so since the Republicans took over and decided they didn't want to get anything done - however, don't think that they all spend that time sipping lattes or tanning at the pool. Most have to use that time raising money for their next campaign and attending political meetings and fundraisers at all hours when they are not meeting with disgruntled constituents. No matter whether you like it or not, it's work, and a large part of their jobs.
I agree with just about everything you listed except maybe the term limits. It doesn't lead to better government in my opinion. The only winners are the lobbyists who can take advantage of inexperienced legislators. I'd rather see a uniform US non-partisan redistricting rule. Force all states to use something like the California method where we have a non-partisan panel do the boundaries.
Here's a real life example for all of you Obamacare skeptics. I own a small insurance agency and work under contract to a large carrier that supplies my agents benefits plan. I'm 62 years old and single, although I live in a committed relationship with a wonderful woman. After paying my employee and business expenses I have barely enough left over to pay for my benefits. The rest of my taxable income of $38,000 last year came from investments.
I just got my agency benefits statement for next year. My medical premium on my $5,000 deductible policy will be raised to $975/month from $615/month. Since we're contractor's, not employees, the carrier has indicated that we're free to get coverage on the exchange since they are not contributing to our premium. Without subsidies, the same policy that costs $975/month through the carrier will cost $576/month via the Affordable Care Act (aka. Obamacare). Better yet, since I qualify for a subsidy, my premium will only be about $116/month. That's a saving of $10,308/year.
Without the ACA I'd be forced to discharge my employee and perhaps shut my business. And don't think that the increase in my agent benefit premium was all due to ACA. It's the kind of premium most people my age would pay in the individual market, although there would be a small effect from the additional coverage the ACA requires (e.g. a lower out of pocket maximum).