Dear John Boehner: Where are the jobs?

[Kulindahr]

I know this is a thread about jobs and the political "ha, ha" game.

BUT

On Jan 1st the limits for insured individuals has no limits. NONE. While in utopia-ville that may sound wonderful.

Do you not think limitless coverage will cause insurance companies to raise rates so they can anticipate the bills they will be paying?

Everyone says 2014.... what the fuck ever. It is a staggered implementation and there are effects occurring this January. Believe it or not there ripley....

Hold on, there.

My pastor had already on hand, saved from before, a graph of lifetime pay-outs for individuals on our insurance plan, and less than 2% hit it. Most people never even get close. And according to the company already so far, the projected cost of the removal of the ceiling pales in comparison to raising the definition of "child" to 26.

 

[Kulindahr]

Whoa --

I was watching a show on the History Channel about building the road to Prudhoe Bay for the oil fields there. If my eyes weren't playing tricks on me, one of the truck drivers was "John Boener".

 

[JayHawk]

Hold on, there.

My pastor had already on hand, saved from before, a graph of lifetime pay-outs for individuals on our insurance plan, and less than 2% hit it. Most people never even get close. And according to the company already so far, the projected cost of the removal of the ceiling pales in comparison to raising the definition of "child" to 26.

Honestly Kuli i have no idea the actuals but these companies that should be paying benefits dont....so i have no doubt that the insurance and bureaucratic apparatus that adds so much cost to the health care system are not efficient or beneficiary to the customer. However they will no doubt use that requirement to raise rates. As pointed out in the health care thread states can enact health care cost commissions to reduce rates. However when is the last time you saw a government agency actually perform in a fiscally efficient manner All it will lead to is the wholesale purchase of those commissions by the industry.

And rates will rise. As has been pointed out earlier the rates have been rising ridiculously for a time now, however now businesses are seeing that those cost will be directly placed on their balance sheet as a federal law not a nice perk.

THAT means no new hires until I understand what it means for my bottom line.

Health care is needed and i fully support its implementation but we need a functioning economy first not Utopian European idealistic social services.

 

[BostonPirate]

specifically, mazda, what rates have been rising and how has that done what you are saying...

as to the rest...

there will be no new jobs. Nothing substantial until a new sector is created.

Boehner and the asshats that made promises to make them and anyone with an R in front of their names will rue the day they made the promise.

Unemployment wont drop below 8 percent for almost a decade, and now that the republicans have skin in the game, they are going to have to pay the piper as well.

that means raising taxes and cutting spending.

you remember

like Clinton did?

 

[JayHawk]

The rates referred to are insurance rates. The whole thread is pretty interesting if you give it a read.

One can only hope that cutting and balancing are the number one topic du jour for the next two years.

As for jobs? Only a complete fool thought that we weren't going to extend the recovery over many many years. Every attempt by modern economies to spend their way out of depression/recession has resulted in a long long road to full recovery instead of one fell swoop. Just ask japan how it worked out for them?

 

[BostonPirate]

The rates referred to are insurance rates. The whole thread is pretty interesting if you give it a read.

One can only hope that cutting and balancing are the number one topic du jour for the next two years.

As for jobs? Only a complete fool thought that we weren't going to extend the recovery over many many years. Every attempt by modern economies to spend their way out of depression/recession has resulted in a long long road to full recovery instead of one fell swoop. Just ask japan how it worked out for them?

I read the entire thing, thanks.

In Massachusetts we have universal healthcare, and it works for the most part. It went much farther than the one that the feds enacted, but this was a Romney program. It has everything the republican party fought to keep out of it. Our rates havent risen here. You seem to be forgetting that the insurance companies are going to be making money on the young healthy people that may not otherwise have been paying a premium, and are also going to get lower catastrophic payouts because people will now have the ability to get a doctors visit without having to go through the emergency room.

That was a corporate racket that we ended here in Massachusetts thank god. Now not only are we healthier, but we get covered care without the one thousand minimum at the emergency room.

There are countless nations with countless productive and successful healthcare systems.

Business is just taking profits while they can. Its like the little fat kid grabbing all the candy out of the last bowl on halloween night.

would you like to show any documentation on this rise in insurance rates, when they started, and some sort of reasoning that the healthcare bill is the reason?

 

[Kulindahr]

Honestly Kuli i have no idea the actuals but these companies that should be paying benefits dont....so i have no doubt that the insurance and bureaucratic apparatus that adds so much cost to the health care system are not efficient or beneficiary to the customer. However they will no doubt use that requirement to raise rates. As pointed out in the health care thread states can enact health care cost commissions to reduce rates. However when is the last time you saw a government agency actually perform in a fiscally efficient manner All it will lead to is the wholesale purchase of those commissions by the industry.

And rates will rise. As has been pointed out earlier the rates have been rising ridiculously for a time now, however now businesses are seeing that those cost will be directly placed on their balance sheet as a federal law not a nice perk.

THAT means no new hires until I understand what it means for my bottom line.

Health care is needed and i fully support its implementation but we need a functioning economy first not Utopian European idealistic social services.

You could hire me part-time on a contract basis. I'll write nice reports you won't even have to print to file, and I'll be a much better bargain for your money than the new bureaucrats.

 

[JayHawk]

10 Myths (& Facts) About the Massachusetts Healthcare Model

The link supports Mass Health care.

I lived up there for a bit and the coverage appears excellent. How do you think the two health care bills compare? Fed and Mass that is?

Massachusetts Faces Costs of Big Health Care Plan

This link doesnt sound very encouraging for the Mass healthcare program. So when you translate that across all the states that dont enjoy the GDP of Mass or the fiscal responsibility of Mass then how does it work?

As far as proof in the current plan, my SO maintains coverage and it rose to double his premium this year. Strangely enough.

Returning to the original comment, do you think the benefits and or possible downfalls have been responsibly communicated to business leaders so they know how to proceed?

 

[Kulindahr]

specifically, mazda, what rates have been rising and how has that done what you are saying...

as to the rest...

there will be no new jobs. Nothing substantial until a new sector is created.

Boehner and the asshats that made promises to make them and anyone with an R in front of their names will rue the day they made the promise.

Unemployment wont drop below 8 percent for almost a decade, and now that the republicans have skin in the game, they are going to have to pay the piper as well.

that means raising taxes and cutting spending.

you remember

like Clinton did?

"A new sector". If we're dependent on that, we're screwed -- new sectors come along when some brilliant new technology pops up, and that can't be predicted.

I'm beginning to think an idea of my dad's isn't as daft as it sounded five years ago: 'prosperity' zones on the border with Mexico where U.S. companies are freed of a lot of the regulations that tie them down. It might get us new factories, and manufacturing is essential: as the U.S. share of the invention and production of new technology continues to shrink, there's no way we can export enough high-tech stuff to keep the balance of trade from tipping into a precipice. We have to manufacture things domestically, or just accept being a has-been with 'third world' infrastructure.

 

[JayHawk]

I read the entire thing, thanks.

If you had then questioning "what rates" wouldnt have come up unless the comprehension isnt there.

 

[Kulindahr]

The rates referred to are insurance rates. The whole thread is pretty interesting if you give it a read.

One can only hope that cutting and balancing are the number one topic du jour for the next two years.

As for jobs? Only a complete fool thought that we weren't going to extend the recovery over many many years. Every attempt by modern economies to spend their way out of depression/recession has resulted in a long long road to full recovery instead of one fell swoop. Just ask japan how it worked out for them?

Actually it worked well for Japan so long as they were spending on needed infrastructure. Benefits began to fade when they got into the "Oh, heck, let's make it better" category and pretty much disappeared altogether before they reached the "Wouldn't this be nice?" realm.

They also learned that if you spend too fast, you get shoddy work -- something evident in the rebuilding of US 101 here, fortunately caught before it was finished... by a local farmer who got a bad paving job for his equipment shed and knew what had been done wrong. So dumping, for example, $200 billion into the highway system would bring problems, because there aren't that many workers with the skills to do the work.

But anything other than infrastructure shows no benefit at all -- and I think Obama was being silly when he called refurbishing government buildings an infrastructure item.


Just a thought: given the difference in average population density between Japan and the U.S., there's almost certainly going to be a difference in the benefits derived from infrastructure spending. I can think of aspects that would send it in either direction.

 

[BostonPirate]

10 Myths (& Facts) About the Massachusetts Healthcare Model

The link supports Mass Health care.

I lived up there for a bit and the coverage appears excellent. How do you think the two health care bills compare? Fed and Mass that is?

Massachusetts Faces Costs of Big Health Care Plan

This link doesnt sound very encouraging for the Mass healthcare program. So when you translate that across all the states that dont enjoy the GDP of Mass or the fiscal responsibility of Mass then how does it work?

As far as proof in the current plan, my SO maintains coverage and it rose to double his premium this year. Strangely enough.

Returning to the original comment, do you think the benefits and or possible downfalls have been responsibly communicated to business leaders so they know how to proceed?

your proof is anecdotal, not statistical then... well I can't work with that.

I can say that massachussets enjoys a substantial ammount of quality of life that most states don't but we do pay for them. We also have a higher state minimum wage than national to insure that people are not AS poor here. Some call the state taxachussets, because we love our taxes. We just voted to KEEP the alcohol tax in place in the state a week ago.

If you want a higher quality of life and a higher earning wage, you have to pay for it.

The reason that healthcare works here is because we have a Kennedy program called community healthcare. Its a one stop place to go for all your medical needs that are not emergency. Everyone finds one and stays put there. You can see the Doc there, get your eyes checked, go to the dentist, get prescriptions filled see therapists... and all these people share the medical file so there is no duplication of action, test, or procedure, and there are huge savings there as well.

Lets not be coy here. Business was VERY active in the shaping of this healthcare bill. McConell wouldn't make a vote without first meeting with them on the issue. It seems to me that if business is screaming then they are unhappy that the gravy train is over. Insurance companies nearly brought down our entire economy just two years ago.

They need to be told how to mind their business or they need to be told to go out of business. The only death panels that ever existed in america were at healthcare companies. The adjustors got to decide who lived and died.

Now fucking really... DO we need to have pencil pushers telling granny whether or not she gets her kidney? Fuck that crap.

I will lastly say this... there are times when great people do great things for the doing of them, not the cost. Conversely there are times when small people try to stop the progress for personal and political gain.

If a business is big enough to be affected by the new law, they have corporate lawyers that can help them figure it out. That used to be how america worked, when it was still we the people and not we the servants of the corporations.

If you had then questioning "what rates" wouldnt have come up unless the comprehension isnt there.

I was making sure you weren't talking about tax rates in reference to healthcare. There are taxes included in the healthcare legislation to help cover the costs.

smarmy britches

 

[JayHawk]

My main point is that yes it appears from a few different perspectives to be working. However the NY Times did not shed a very flattering light on the program. Granted the NYT article was older than the we love our program piece but I simply dont know what the sustainability of the program is based on what i can read and see.

To answer my own question posed to you.... the Obama Health care reform was nearly identical to Romney's Mass Care. Obama thought he could garner R support.

The other question I still can't put my hands around is how a state like West Virginia pays for it with no GDP and no tax base to rely on....lets face it they are poor. Likewise how a state like California affords implementation when it cant sustain its current tree of entitlement.

The fact that NO effort was made to explain these issues is evident. now if Obama hopes to derail House repeal of the planned reform he has got some 'splainin to do lucy'

 

[Kensei]

LOL

thinking that they have not yet reported for duty

and are incapable of doing anything just yet

you will have plenty of time to shit on them

and i'm sure you will

but you've exposed yourself badly here

gonna be tough to take you seriously from here on in

Who is that in your avatar? I always wanted to know.

 

[Kulindahr]

The other question I still can't put my hands around is how a state like West Virginia pays for it with no GDP and no tax base to rely on....lets face it they are poor. Likewise how a state like California affords implementation when it cant sustain its current tree of entitlement.

I wonder how the flow of money in California goes -- might it be good economics for the 'Free State of Jefferson' to give it a go?

 

[BostonPirate]

My main point is that yes it appears from a few different perspectives to be working. However the NY Times did not shed a very flattering light on the program. Granted the NYT article was older than the we love our program piece but I simply dont know what the sustainability of the program is based on what i can read and see.

To answer my own question posed to you.... the Obama Health care reform was nearly identical to Romney's Mass Care. Obama thought he could garner R support.

The other question I still can't put my hands around is how a state like West Virginia pays for it with no GDP and no tax base to rely on....lets face it they are poor. Likewise how a state like California affords implementation when it cant sustain its current tree of entitlement.

The fact that NO effort was made to explain these issues is evident. now if Obama hopes to derail House repeal of the planned reform he has got some 'splainin to do lucy'

the house repeal wont pass the senate and it wont get a veto override.

so that would mean its not going anywhere

Sowwy chawwie

 

[JayHawk]

You dont get it do you? They dont have to repeal it...they can simply fail to fund it. Yeah it is law but there aint no cash Sowwy Chawwie

No there will be movement. Just sit back and watch.

 

[BostonPirate]

You dont get it do you? They dont have to repeal it...they can simply fail to fund it. Yeah it is law but there aint no cash Sowwy Chawwie

No there will be movement. Just sit back and watch.

no thats not true.

The program is funded by taxes that have already passed, and the process was passed with reconciliation. that means it wont be up for funding reconsideration for ten more years.

 

[JayHawk]

Weird no cuts and no tax increases until Jan first IF that doesnt get obliterated first (and it will); yet it is already paid for as a program.

I wonder what happens when they dont pass a budget?

 

[BostonPirate]

Weird no cuts and no tax increases until Jan first IF that doesnt get obliterated first (and it will); yet it is already paid for as a program.

I wonder what happens when they dont pass a budget?

when newt tried that it backfired on him and that was the beginning of the end.

If they dont pass a budget then they will seal their image as the party of NONONO

it will be in the budget and healthcare will be funded. They can talk all they want, but they cant do what they are promising and when that reality hits home to bubba and billy joe in little rock, the lying bastards are going to be back out on their asses.

The senate will stay in the dems hands, and the presidency will remain with Obama.

Does that bother you?