Didn't work out well for us? The CBO said this will result in a higher deficit than expected from ACA. It hasn't worked out well for anyone.
Fun fact. Had an ekg last week and my part was something like 25 bucks. The doctor told me medicare pays 18 total.
You still are making the same mistakes 1. The CBO report said that most of this would come from people working fewer hours not going on the government dole and sitting in a hammock all day - you aren't the first to make this mistake. 2. You should not care - what they do with their spare time, other than to assume that people have an idea of what their preferences are. If you're making an argument that people don't know their own preferences, that's a whole different ballgame - but this isn't what you're doing, instead you're buying into the idea that there's a right choice and a wrong choice. There isn't, from an economic standpoint. I'm making no argument about GDP at all - I'm making a microeconomic argument that is very fundamental that you keep skipping over. It has absolutely nothing to do with GDP maximizaiton - nice of you to bring up the welfare state and all the negative connotatoins that that implies in this country, which, once again, is not relevant. They voiced the same garbage you're talking here - and for the 55th time "more productivity" or "autmatic job filling" aren't really necessary here - though they are implied consequences if you have any sort of faith in markets at all. You still don't have hte faintest clue what this is about, even after all this - it's not 2.5 million people "leaving the work force" - but anyway - yes, I have considered it - and am confident that the answer is no. You can attempt to conjure a scenario in which it is - if you want to do taht, go ahead and read your predecessors here, and see how well that went.
I think we can safely assume that people working part time instead of full time will be earning less but at the same time likely still consuming health care and other resources. I don't find people working less than full time hours automatically a good thing either it still represents a loss of productivity. Or to be more precise in this situation a loss of potential productivity. Where have said right or wrong choice? I'm talking about the possibility of whether overall lost productivity can be made up because we still have to pay for such things as providing health care. And this what I find troubling about your argument. You are acting as though the overall economy which is needed to fund such programs doesn't matter. I don't know if you are just proposing continued deficit spending but then again I thought the ACA was supposed to be deficit neutral. And yes I did deliberately use the term "welfare state" as that seems to be what you are arguing. That there are no potential problems from people choosing not to work. I don't know if you brought up the point but Major has that job mobility will lead to greater productivity and that lost jobs will be filled. That might very well be the case but that does seem rather overly optimistic. Honestly this is the kind of smug certainty that has caused a lot of the problems that we face now. I am not ruling out that things will be just great but we've seen plenty of rosy predictions, and dire ones, not pan out. I think these numbers are something that should be looked at. Some of you don't but that is why we have Debate and Discuss.
^ this is classic s.c. at his absolute worst. Pathological Solomonism resulting in an acrobatic yoga stretch of massive panty pretzeling - why? Because one side can't be right. Briefly: Loss of "productivity" is irrelevant. The point of economics is not production maximization. Just like your focus on GDP - try again. Try actually reading a single thing Major or I or others wrote. Also resource consumption- this not an RTS, buddy. The overall economy does matter - of course you'd have to actually make a case that this supply reduction would affect it substantially - which you 1.have not done 2. have not tried to do 3. would not be able to do because it won't . Anyway I really respect your opinion here! I'm still too busy laughing at how my "smug certainty" is responsible for our nonspecified problems to even bother to come up with a suitably funny response. Res IPSA loquitor? Maybe that works.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Saw this at my gym just now. Obama taxing the healthy now? Are you kidding me? <a class="hashtag" action="hash" title="#Obamacare">#Obamacare</a> <a class="hashtag" action="hash" title="#tcot">#tcot</a> <a href="http://t.co/s75vdjR2AQ" title="http://twitter.com/AshPratte/status/432618573522300928/photo/1">pic.twitter.com/s75vdjR2AQ</a></p>— Ashley Pratte (@AshPratte) <a href="https://twitter.com/AshPratte/status/432618573522300928" data-datetime="2014-02-00T20:54:40+00:00">February 0, 2014</a></blockquote> <script src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
This is because of the unlimited tanning. The tax is .60 per month. It reflects the expected future increase in healthcare costs associated with participating in an activity proven to cause cancer.
the news simply keeps getting worse Millions Trapped in Health-Law Coverage Gap http://finance.yahoo.com/news/millions-trapped-health-law-coverage-034100534.html BIRMINGHAM, Ala.—Ernest Maiden was dumbfounded to learn that he falls through the cracks of the health-care law because in a typical week he earns about $200 from the Happiness and Hair Beauty and Barber Salon. Like millions of other Americans caught in a mismatch of state and federal rules, the 57-year-old hair stylist doesn't make enough money to qualify for federal subsidies to buy health insurance. If he earned another $1,300 a year, the government would pay the full cost. Instead, coverage would cost about what he earns. "It's a Catch-22," said Mr. Maiden, an uninsured diabetic. Without help, he said, he must "choose between paying the bills and buying medicine." Bob Miller for The Wall Street Journal Hair stylist Ernest Maiden doesn't make enough money to qualify for federal subsidies to buy health insurance but also is ineligible for Medicaid. The 2010 health law was meant to cover people in Mr. Maiden's income bracket by expanding Medicaid to workers earning up to the federal poverty line—about $11,670 for a single person; more for families. People earning as much as four times the poverty line—$46,680 for a single person—can receive federal subsidies.
Yes, this is the direct result of the conservative governor of Alabama's refusal to participate in the Medicaid expansion. I love it when you get hoisted by your own petard!
As GladiatoRowdy rightly pointed out. Too bad this guy lives in a ****ty state that refused to expand Medicaid because....OBAMA.
Am I missing something with that story? $200 a week is less than $11k which should qualify him for Medicaid.
It's ok. He's just choosing not to get insurance. Just like all these other people "choosing" to work less.
Srs q brah - Are you just trolling or are you truly so dense as to be really unable to tell the difference between the two situations? If you gonna troll, at least be funny about it.
Depends on the State. I personally know of a family of 4 in Louisiana that also fall through the crack with an income of ~17k. Good thing the two young kids qualify for Medicare but the parents do not on their income which fall below the level where they would qualify for a subsidy but above the level that would qualify them for state medicare (LA didn't take the medicare expansion that would cover them). These Governors that didn't take the expansion (free now and largely free in the long run to the state) know that it would leave a lot of folks out in the cold. Why? I can't think of any other good reason other than pure idiotic ideology.
So in states where governors chose not to participate, citizens are not eligible for federal subsidies? I'm sure 17k would qualify for the max federal subsidy.
Obamacare expanded Medicaid's upper limit eligibility, and then gave subsidies for people to get private insurance above that limit through a higher limit. The Supreme Court made Medicaid expansion voluntary. So now certain states didn't expand Medicaid - but the subsidies only exist for the people above the expanded Medicaid level. So people between the original Medicaid level and the intended expanded one don't get subsidies even though their states didn't expand Medicaid.
Obama should have thought through a healthcare plan that didn't require additional steps from the states to succeed. He didn't. And now this failure.
