Politics Obama - Actually doing a good job?

I am not going really debate this question. But if 20% of the whole is under-performing it is very difficult for the remaining 80% to make up for it. In addition when we measure the 20% it does not take into consideration how the 20% benefits the remaining 80% - there is a synergy affect. For example, a percentage of China's economic activity is directly related to US consumer spending. So, the US is 20% of the world economy in terms of GDP, not in terms of global economic impact.

I do concede that in general high performing economies can compensate for under performing economies.
--- merged: Aug 30, 2013 at 1:00 PM ---

Outside of your statement being true or not - the logic is flawed. The lack of a study says something is not true????

My understanding (and this could be part of the problem because many share my understanding) is that part-time employees need not be covered by an employer plan under Obamacare. And further, an employer is under no obligation to offer coverage for a family only the employee - meaning that if costs increase, saving can be realized by dropping family coverage. Again, uncertainty! That is the point, that is the real problem.

Is this the best most efficient way?

Isn't single payer the real objective? Why do we have to go through all this chaos!

 

I appreciate that you are admitting that you really dont understand the ACA but it is unfortunate that you are willing to jump to conclusions and make baseless claims based on that lack of understanding and even before the law is fully implemented.

 

Dude, the administration is changing the rules almost every day. The IRS is making administrative decisions almost every day. Exceptions are being granted almost every day. companies are interpreting the rules and regs every day. Insurance companies are making decisions about involvement in the exchanges and what and where they will offer coverage every day - so if you want to pretend there is clarity have fun with that fantasy.

Part-time workers need not be covered under an employer plan. As it stands to day a company can have 1 full-time employee and thousands of part-time employees and they only have to cover one employee. And they do not have to extend spousal or family coverage if that coverage is otherwise available. and they do not need to subsidize it!

 

Ace...we're still back to you mischaracterizing the ACA on numerous occasions (see your recent defense of "death panels" as just one example) either through ignorance or ideology...not to mention your unwillingness to even acknowledge the fact that tens of millions of Americans, with or without insurance, have already benefited or the fact that in most of the Exchanges that have posted their rates, most uninsured will have access, not only to greater competition in selecting an insurance provider, but lower premiums than presently available.

I have acknowledged that the law is complex and will requiring tweeking as in the case of most major legislation that so significantly change the status quo. You, on the other hand, have written it off even before it has been fully implemented and given a chance to succeed (with the above suggested need for tweeking).

 

It would be nice.

Here is the question. To what degree does Canadian economic growth, as measured by Canadian GDP, depend on US economic activity, i.e. strong US consumer consumption or increases in capital goods consumption, or industrial demand of some specific natural resources? Canada to a large degree depends on export activity - seems to me China and the US are the two key players in this regard. then if we ask the same question regarding China then how do you measure that secondary impact on Canada? And so it goes.

Economic potential? Economic growth in percentage terms? Economic growth in absolute terms? There are different ways of looking at this and they can lead to different conclusions.

As illustrated above I look at the important direction as other nations exporting their goods and services to the US. I doubt I will live to see the day when the US has a trade surplus - or net exports to other nations.
--- merged: Sep 2, 2013 at 12:38 PM ---

If there are inaccurate characterizations - who needs to get them fixed? Why let confusion persist? this legislation was a mess form the beginning, the people who voted for it and the President did not understand it and I would argue still don't. Many of the things Obama promised about the legislation are not even close to being true. Yes, 26 year-old adults can stay on their parents policies, and a few won't be impacted by life-time caps or preexisting conditions, etc. but at what cost?

 

Nearly 15 millions young adults are now on their parents health plan as a result of the ACA.....not a small number, ace.

Currently there are between 80-100 million Americans with pre-existing conditions....again, not a small number....and in order to cover these people, the risk needs to be spread (simple risk managment), thus the individual mandate requiring healthy people to buy insurance.

Over 6 million seniors saved over $7 billion on prescriptions as a result of the ACA closing the medicare donut hole - not a small number, ace

Recent Rand study that supports a recent CBO study:

 

I don't know exactly how it works, but it looks like there is a mistake in how the part-time worker health insurance is covered.

I think it should be:
40 hours = 100%
35 hours = 87.5%
30 hours = 75%
20 hours = 50%

And if they have two or three jobs, than the companies get to share how much they contribute.

 

How many would have had coverage anyway? How many have other options available? Many in this category have parents who have "Cadillac" plans, what is going to happen to these plans in the next 12 months?

I believe there are better market based approaches to addressing this issue and I believe true single payer would be a better way to address this issue. In the Obamacare system we are going to end up with an adverse selection situation that will cause private market and exchange plan costs to skyrocket, while many healthy people will simply pay relatively small penalties - knowing catastrophic care will still be available if they need it.

Assuming you don't support real free market reform, why don't you support true single payer? why do you support this hybrid Obamacare mess rather than advocating for something that will actually work?
--- merged: Sep 3, 2013 4:08 PM ---

I do not dispute the potential with China. I also understand that China is not an open market. So, based on your point of view, I have my head in the sand. China's market has been around for a long, long time - I believe change is occurring (the market is opening), but at a slow pace and this change can easily start going in the opposite direction.. I know my statement is subjective, I am not going to track down hard numbers at this time.

I have been hearing about the potential of the China market since the Nixon administration. Perhaps some day we will have a real trade agreement that minimizes China stealing intellectual property and excessive tariffs on goods being imported into China.

But, of course I have my head in the sand...nothing to really think about. Why not put all your money into a Canadian company that is going to tap into that China market - think you may want to ask some questions first about that China potential?
--- merged: Sep 3, 2013 4:13 PM ---

I think a person's healthcare coverage has nothing to do with their employer. People should be fully paid for their work and buy their own insurance or we should have a single payer (i.e. - medicare for all) system.

 

There you go again, Ace. Being disingenuous and minimizing the benefits of the ACA to millions of Americans even before being fully implemented...attempting to rationalize your opposition, not based on the clear merits to date that you refuse to acknowledge but by pointing to a single payer system despite the fact that a single payer system was not politically feasible by any measure. It would certainly have no support of Republican members of Congress who view single payer as socialism.

And again, you are making baseless assumptions of the Insurance Exchanges and demonstrating your lack of understanding of how they will work (with a short open enrollment period each year, thus the notion that uninsured can simply pay a fine and then signup for insurance when they face a need for catastrophic care) along with data coming in from many states that the competition through the Exchanges will offer cheaper options than currently available to most uninsured, along with subsidies to nearly half of those uninsured.

In the long run, I hope we move to a single payer system. In the short term, an alternative to the status quo that has been in place for 50+ years was needed and the ACA is far better than anything proposed by Republicans when they had the opportunity.

It will provide affordable insurance to most (but not all) of the 40+ million of uninsured through greater competition combined with subsidies, numerous new consumer protections for the majority of Americans in employer-based plans, and significant investments in health care technology to make the system more productive.
--- merged: Sep 3, 2013 at 4:41 PM ---
Please also explain how your market based approaches would work with your support for a single payer system.

 

Paul Krugman explains how the ACA will result in real market competition and drive down the cost of premiums.

Sometimes it does take a government to make a market.

 

A step in the right direction....from a new Robert Wood Johnson Foundation report:

The advances in coverage come as a result of simplifying the enrollment process, including several provisions in the ACA. The law has established a single streamlined application, decreased the paperwork burden, and awarded grants to community organizations tasked with enrolling eligible populations in the safety net programs.

 

Obama pushes FCC for a "stay out of jail card" for unlocking your cell phone

 

In another small but significant action by the Obama administration, home health care workers will no longer be treated as babysitters and will be subject to federal minimum wage and overtime requirements.

 

I had no idea this was the case. You know much like wanting my food server/handler to have decent access to health care I prefer the person entering my mother home to help her with personal tasks to be paid a living wage.