Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Mandate Upheld! (Page 5)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   
Author Topic: Mandate Upheld!
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Man, the whole municipal bond bubble that's going to pop in a couple years is going to hit you hard. I've been moving out of munis for a while now.
Posts: 21368 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm also heavily into munis. I don't think it's a bubble because the rates are effectively capped. I think there will be fallout at the "B" level from communities that tried to turn munis into a piggybank. I think they will remain a good investment if you shop wisely. Given how much Cherry has put into them, perhaps he can share some wisdom about how he does it.
Posts: 7509 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You can reduce your interest rate, inflation, and re-investment rate risks (all basically tied together) by laddering your bonds, kind of like dollar cost averaging except instead of buying in at different times to smooth out the market fluctuations you buy bonds of different expiration dates so that you are reinvesting again every two years or so.

All of mine are AAA rated and FBIC insured but still pay from 4-4.7%. Some are in nuclear power projects and those seemed to pay higher than most. Some are in California so cross your fingers, and some are actually in Illinois. Others are just all over the place, just looking for the highest rates at the maturity dates needed to spread the risk out. If you are buying them ten years out and more you can usually get a good rate because of the interest rate risk that far out, but then if you are spacing them two years apart over twenty years of maturity dates you are pretty much doing about the best you can do to mitigate your risks. So far with interest rates just going down it's been great. As they kick back up you want some bonds expiring so you can reinvest them in new issues at what should be higher interest rates.

Posts: 7438 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Al, that would be terrible but I haven't found a good insurance policy that's really going to help us. When you look at the policy caps, both annual and lifetime and all the exclusions and you read the fine print, they aren't really that helpful. If someone has a normal health insurance policy that they buy as a private individual, how much will that really cover?

I do have car insurance but as you might expect that doesn't cover very much either, maybe up to 25,000 or so. I'd expect a normal health insurance policy to cover up to maybe 50,000 or so. For most people they need that but for me I could basically self insure that much. If it's care that's going into the hundreds of thousands of dollars even with health insurance people are usually long since bankrupt so I suppose I'd be doing whatever they do. But for the most part I'd do what I've been doing which is to shop around and pay cash. It's been a gamble that's paid off so far. Maybe Obamacare comes at just the right time for me to step away from the table before I lose what I've won so far, meaning it might be a good time to buy health insurance now. I always figured I'd get it when I started working, but buying it on your own seems like a losing proposition when you don't have your company helping with the payments and their lawyers hopefully helping you with the insurance company.

Posts: 7438 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That's pretty much my approach, so if you and I stay out of politics we might find common ground. One difference is that I have focused on municipalities that are investing in their communities, like building schools, parks or upgrading municipal buildings. In other words, I'm investing in them and betting that they will thrive because their priorities have long term merit. They typically return about 5%. My laddering isn't as extensive as yours, but that's the right way to go.

And my other question? [Edit, you did respond, so...]

"But for the most part I'd do what I've been doing which is to shop around and pay cash. It's been a gamble that's paid off so far."

That's the point of insurance, of course. And your answer avoids the important cases that I tossed at you. Who cares if you spend $1000 or $1200 for a procedure? You might be able to find a doctor who will do it for less, but you also might be finding the lesser doctor.

The much bigger problem that you have to solve is what will you do if someone in your family needs urgent or long term care that could literally cost $100's of $1000's or even $MM to treat? My company insurance plan will handle it.

Since you have taken on the burden of making the hard choices in order to save money, what are you going to do when you have no choice but to pick either your family or your money? That's a brutal question, but a fair one.

[ July 03, 2012, 07:30 AM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 7509 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
PS, my wife was self-insured before we got married last year. She paid about $4K/yr and had almost no out-of-pocket charges for OV or prescription copays. There was no annual cap but there was a lifetime $1M cap on some things. She was just insuring herself, and she was pretty healthy, so you could argue that she paid a lot more into the system than she got out of it, ignoring whatever peace of mind she had thinking about what might have happened but didn't.

It would most likely cost you more to insure your family. If we assume it would cost you $10K/yr to get the same coverage she had for your entire family, why is that not a good thing?

I'm not attacking you, but I'm skeptical of what you're doing. If Grant will allow some leeway I'll try to avoid making rash statements.

Posts: 7509 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here is a local report from an individual excited about the mandate being upheld but who may still have to learn a little bit more about what it really means.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxuypHXaIFw

Posts: 7438 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Don't get your hopes up but now they are saying that the healthcare bill is unconstitutional because all tax bills must originate in the House of Representatives and this one originated in the Senate. I'm not hopeful but we shall see.
Posts: 7438 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The number of people effected by the penalty, as an estimate published in Forbes:
quote:
The Urban Institute’s Health Policy Center estimates that if the law were in effect today, only about 7 percent of the non-elderly, or about 18 million people, would be faced with the choice: Get insurance or pay the tax. To put it another way, 93 percent, or 250 million, would not—either because they already have insurance or because the ACA explicitly exempts them from the levy.

But that doesn’t mean that 18 million will owe the tax. Many will buy insurance rather than pay the fee. About 11 million, or about 60 percent of those subject to the tax, will be eligible for government subsidies to buy their own coverage.

I do not know whether the Urban Institute is right, but Forbes is not a source especially friendly to this legislation.
Posts: 4376 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
When you look at the policy caps, both annual and lifetime and all the exclusions and you read the fine print, they aren't really that helpful.
Lifetime caps are no longer legal, as per Obamacare.

The other problem of not having insurance is that you get some buying power advantage going through your insurance company. My sons three epidural steroids for his herniated disks would have cost $18,000 if he had no insurance; with insurance, our insurer paid about $4,000-5,000 and he/we paid about $1,000.

Posts: 3695 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Doing away with lifetime caps and maybe even the annual caps is a good reason to buy into the benefits of Obamacare but it also illustrates why, depending on the policy, health insurance coverage up until now wasn't necessarily all it was cracked up to be. Obamacare may turn out to be a blessing in disguise even for those most opposed to it up until now. I actually find it to be very favorable in many ways, perhaps too favorable to the people at the expense of the insurance companies which makes me wonder if the rates and the tax penalty will have to skyrocket before very long.
Posts: 7438 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Doing away with lifetime caps and maybe even the annual caps is a good reason to buy into the benefits of Obamacare but it also illustrates why, depending on the policy, health insurance coverage up until now wasn't necessarily all it was cracked up to be."

Do I possibly see that you finally understand WHY a national health care policy is a good thing? [Smile]

It will be fought tooth and nail (red of, as it were) every step of the way, and the people fighting it will take every benefit it gives them at each juncture. Let's see what the people of Louisiana and some other states have to say when their Governor turns down those benefits on their behalf. Less health care is more freedom may resonate, but it is not a great policy.

[ July 04, 2012, 07:38 AM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 7509 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Obamacare may turn out to be a blessing in disguise
Maybe you meant "a blessing as marketed"? Not as catchy, but it takes quite a bit of cynicism (or partisan blinders [Razz] ) to believe that the benefits that the government was so loudly trumpeting were really just a smokescreen to hide... those very same benefits.
Posts: 10295 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
"Doing away with lifetime caps and maybe even the annual caps is a good reason to buy into the benefits of Obamacare but it also illustrates why, depending on the policy, health insurance coverage up until now wasn't necessarily all it was cracked up to be."

Do I possibly see that you finally understand WHY a national health care policy is a good thing? [Smile]

It will be fought tooth and nail (red of, as it were) every step of the way, and the people fighting it will take every benefit it gives them at each juncture. Let's see what the people of Louisiana and some other states have to say when their Governor turns down those benefits on their behalf. Less health care is more freedom may resonate, but it is not a great policy.

Yay! Go Al! Substance really can work here!
Posts: 41983 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Now Romney seems confused, or at least his message does. His campaign was insisting that Obama's penalty was not a tax, but now Romney himself has said "if the SC says it's a tax, it's a tax." Perhaps it's a case of lying eyes or lying ears, but perhaps it's just a garden variety case of say anything. Even the WSJ (not the Grey Lady [Wink] ) has a problem with his pirouetting on this.

[ July 05, 2012, 06:01 AM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 7509 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Except that the SC didn't actually say it *is* a tax, but that it is *like* a tax. I didn't know there is a difference, nor apparently does Romney. Look here for some discussion on this point if you have nothing better to do (I guess I didn't just now).
Posts: 7509 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
An interesting narrative about the Robert's decision from CBS News.

Basically, it says that Roberts initially decided to vote down the mandate, along with the rest of the law, but then changed his mind. He tried to bring Kennedy over, but was unable to convince him.

Posts: 8160 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Roberts probably deserves credit for judicial restraint. Before the ruling, experts in constitutional law seemed to be divided about 60% to 40% against the mandate, which suggested it would be struck down. But the Supreme Court is supposed to uphold legislation passed by Congress and the President unless it clearly violates the Constitution, and a 60/40 split is far from clear. So maybe that made the difference.
Posts: 4376 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The interesting battle over narratives concerns whether his first or second decision was what he truly thought was justice (he might have been swayed with politics or personal concerns either originally or in making a change, and without knowing his mind, there is no way to distinguish between the two alternatives)
Posts: 3695 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Before the ruling, experts in constitutional law seemed to be divided about 60% to 40% against the mandate, which suggested it would be struck down
The data I can find indicates that over 90% (19 of 21 contacted by Bloomberg) of the experts in Constitutional Law believed that the mandate should have been upheld. The only place where there was less than near unanimity was in predicting what the Court was likely to do, not in what was Constitutionally required. I would like to see your source as to the 60/40, as there is a huge difference between believing that 60% of experts think it is unconstitutional and what appears to be the truth that less than 10% of experts hold that belief. One way to unfairly attack Obamacare would be to generate false or misleading data that wrongly indicates that legal experts are evenly divided or actually favoring the unconstitutional interpretation. I suspect that your source was lying, but if you can provide the backup, I am very willing to reconsider.

Here's what I found:

quote:
The individual mandate is constitutional and should be upheld by the Supreme Court, according to a survey of experts conducted by Bloomberg News. However, only a minority believe this is what the court will do when they hand down a ruling on the health care law next week.

In a broad consensus, 19 of the 21 respondents said that the mandate should be upheld. The survey was emailed last week to constitutional law professors at the U.S. News & World Report’s top 12 law schools. There was less agreement on how exactly the opinion would come down. Five said that the Court is likely to strike down the individual mandate anyway while 8 believed it as a toss-up.”

link

[ July 07, 2012, 01:37 AM: Message edited by: Greg Davidson ]

Posts: 3695 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The U.S. News & World Report’s research was probably better than mine, Greg, which consisted of checking a dozen professors of constitutional law whose names were known to me. Maybe I was wrong because I tend to be more familiar with conservatives, on the theory I have more to learn from those who disagree with me. On the other hand, U.S. News & World Report so far as I saw did not reveal how many law professors were emailed and how many responded, and a low percentage of response from obscure respondents can really skew such results. Of course some who did respond are recognized authorities, but more were unknown to me. Anyway, if the constitutional question was in fact clear, Roberts can hardly be criticized for agreeing with it.
Posts: 4376 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The WSJ for the second time in a week has come out with an article challenging Romney, and this time the entire GOP establishment position against health care reform. This one subtly makes the case for "death panels". An excerpt:
quote:
A primary goal of the 2010 health-care overhaul that the Supreme Court upheld last week is to slow the growth of costs. Even so, the law does little to address a simple fact: A sliver of the sickest patients account for the majority of U.S. health-care spending. In 2009, the top 10% of Medicare beneficiaries who received hospital care accounted for 64% of the program's hospital spending, the Journal's analysis found.

Posts: 7509 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Death panels are totally cool compared to life panels where the black helicopter lefties sit in a panel and decide whether each potential person should be allowed to live.
Posts: 41983 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
With apologies to G3 and to everyone who didn't realize that I was poking fun of G3 in the last post.

[Razz]

[Razz]

[Razz]

Posts: 41983 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
edgmatt
Member
Member # 6449

 - posted      Profile for edgmatt   Email edgmatt       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Update on Obamacare: It's going to cost more than predicted.

quote:
Earlier this week, the Congressional Budget Office released its revised estimates of what Obamacare will cost, now that the Supreme Court has weighed in......Today, the CBO believes that Obamacare will spend more money, raise more tax revenue, and reduce the deficit less than the agency thought in 2010. And things could get worse.

In 2010, the CBO estimated that Obamacare’s spending on new programs would amount to $929 billion from 2013-2019, and a ten-year cost of $944 billion. Those figures increased to $956 billion and $1,442 billion respectively in 2011, and $1,053 billion and $1,856 billion in 2012.

In 2010, the CBO estimated that Obamacare’s tax increases would amount to $626 billion from 2013-2019, and $631 billion over ten years. In 2011, the CBO estimated totals of $624 and $968 billion, respectively.

In the most recent report, the CBO projected a 2013-2019 total of $672 billion, and a ten-year total of $1,221 billion.

Here’s what we don’t know: how will the CBO’s estimates change next year? Will we see a continuation of the trend toward higher spending, higher taxes, and more deficit spending? We might. And that is exactly what the law’s skeptics have feared all along.


Posts: 1428 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Once it is implemented, I look forward to the skeptics fixing any flaws. [Smile]
Posts: 8160 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by edgmatt:
Update on Obamacare: It's going to cost more than predicted.

The deuce you say! No one, and I mean no one, could have foreseen this.

A ten-year total of $1,221 billion and we still haven't gotten the final total.

Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
Once it is implemented, I look forward to the skeptics fixing any flaws. [Smile]

Once it is implemented, I look forward to the supporters being forced to use it. Poor bastards.
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Today, the CBO believes that Obamacare will spend more money, raise more tax revenue, and reduce the deficit less than the agency thought in 2010. And things could get worse.
The taxes need to be taken on a case by case basis to see whether the increase is due to an expected increase in undesirable behavior or from misplaced disincentives, but overall that's good news for future economic growth potential.
Posts: 10157 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Once it is implemented, I look forward to the supporters being forced to use it. Poor bastards.
Given that everyone falls into the category of already having insurance and therefore continuing with the status quo, or not having insurance and now being able to get care, I don't see that as a step down for anyone. The only ones with cause to complain are those who don't want insurance and don't want to pay for it, but I don't see how "forced to use it" applies to them.
Posts: 3462 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MattP:
quote:
Once it is implemented, I look forward to the supporters being forced to use it. Poor bastards.
Given that everyone falls into the category of already having insurance and therefore continuing with the status quo, or not having insurance and now being able to get care, I don't see that as a step down for anyone. The only ones with cause to complain are those who don't want insurance and don't want to pay for it, but I don't see how "forced to use it" applies to them.
You think that's all there is to it? Yeah, it's also gonna cost only $929 billion. Did you really believe that too? C'mon, really?

Do you think, maybe, I dunno, that all those that already have insurance will be able to keep it? Yeah, it's also gonna cost only $929 billion and not one penny more.

Bookmark this thread Matt, let's come back here in a few years.

Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No need to check back here. I've already said on the board that I thought the program would be more expensive than stated long before the CBO did. But what do you think is going to happen to cause people to start losing their existing private insurance?

[ July 27, 2012, 04:04 PM: Message edited by: MattP ]

Posts: 3462 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MattP:
No need to check back here. I've already said on the board that I thought the program would be more expensive than stated long before the CBO did. But what do you think is going to happen to cause people to start losing their existing private insurance?

Things like this:
quote:
A new survey, released by Deloitte, says that around one in 10 employers are considering plans to drop coverage as the bulk of the federal Affordable Care Act comes into effect. Those companies represent only 3 percent of the total workforce. The bulk of employers, around 80 percent, were planning to continue providing benefits, and the remainder weren’t sure.
Do you think that number will change as the actual requirements of the law are developed? Last March, the regulations are up to 5,931 pages and it's still going and will continue to go. How many companies can invest in that maze of compliance knowing it can and will change, as it already has, at whim?

I dare anyone to go pick up those nearly 6000 pages, read it and understand how it applies to your company. Good luck with that.

In the unlikely you think you have it figured out (you're wrong BTW), realize it is continually morphing. How much will your compliance efforts cost your company? You think you can afford to spend all the money and time on that or will it be far cheaper and simpler to just dump coverage and pay the penalty? I think you know the answer to that - just as the companies representing 3 percent of the total workforce know and 17 percent are about to calculate. That remaining 80% .... gonna go up or down?

Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Yeah, it's also gonna cost only $929 billion and not one penny more.
that's $929 billion more in people's pockets than we have today, with any luck that'll push it's way up more till it's enough to actually drive some real growth, rather than continuing to try to figure out the best way to starve our economy like we are now.
Posts: 10157 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh yeah, if we could get it up to $5 trillion it would be magical ponies for everyone! Seriously dude ..
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wait -- are we being serious now, G3?
Posts: 21368 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
A new survey, released by Deloitte, says that around one in 10 employers are considering plans to drop coverage as the bulk of the federal Affordable Care Act comes into effect. Those companies represent only 3 percent of the total workforce.
Yeah, and that 3/100 companies probably represent those that have minimal insurance. You know, the type where if you have anything worse than a cold, it doesn't cover it.

And this 3% is the best you can come up with? [Smile] Wow, Obamacare is better than I thought!

Bring it on!!! [Big Grin]

Posts: 8160 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Stop it, you're making g3 ill.
Posts: 7509 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Correction: "Yeah, and that 1/10 companies probably represent those that have minimal insurance."

Misread that they represent those that employ 3/100 of the workforce.

While 10 percent of the companies is a noticeable number, 3 percent of the workforce is insignificant.

[ July 28, 2012, 12:22 AM: Message edited by: Wayward Son ]

Posts: 8160 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
edgmatt
Member
Member # 6449

 - posted      Profile for edgmatt   Email edgmatt       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wow. Things sure went fast from "Everyone deserves healthcare." to "3 percent of the workforce is insignificant."
Posts: 1428 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1