ObamaCare cost expectation drops 7%

[AggregateDemand]

FTFY. No one really likes the individual mandate, but it's there for a really, really good reason.

Every idea you mentioned above, except for 3 (which is trivial) and 2 (which isn't that important to the goal of universal coverage), would cripple any approach to widening coverage.

It's there so health insurance companies can force people to buy their products. And now that everyone knows the Democratic Party is the true party of corporate handouts, let's move on.

[AggregateDemand]

Essentially the Supreme Court ruled that you can force someone to buy something.

No. They ruled that they have the right to tax you, if you refuse to buy something.

[AggregateDemand]

Here's the thing: Number six in your correction is the deliberate goal of the Republicans.

Sometimes I think the entire GOP is just political theater to facilitate the upper class's looting of America.

If you have a machine that doesn't work properly, and it routinely harms innocent people, only an old fool would cling to it, rather than throwing it on the scrap heap.

Democrats tell themselves that Republicans have no plans to replace the machine because it allows Democrats to continue living their comfortable LBJ dream world, without any adverse reactions from their own conscience.

Congratulations, you are less horrible than you imagine Republicans to be. You can hang your hat on that accomplishment.

[AggregateDemand]

Analogies aren't actually arguments, and bad analogies (ACA has been very successful) are doubly useless.

ACA has been very successful by what measure? An overwhelming majority of the increase in coverage was caused by employment rebound, which is not closely related to any Obama policy.

In fact, ACA performance has been so lukewarm, Democrats are trying to weasel out of enforcing the law (again), now that they know the tax consequences for the average lower-middle class family.

ACA has done virtually nothing, but bury us in bureaucratic forms. Just wait until the 1095s and 8962s and so on start arriving this year and next. People are going to love it!!

[AggregateDemand]

By the measure that having an individual and employee mandate for healthcare was predicted by Very Serious Economists to destroy full time work but, instead, an employment rebound happened.

The very fact that we can have a law that mandates insurance, that prevents denial of insurance, that expands risk pools and still have a growing economy proves it to be worthwhile.

There is no employment rebound. We had a bump after the petroleum economy hit its stride and slashed the deficit. The "rebound" is actually people dropping out of the labor force.

Furthermore, you don't know anything about the law. In the past, employers could reimburse employees for buying their own plans. Now, reimbursing employees for healthcare premiums carries a $36,500 fine. We are just now getting these rulings for tax year 2014, which is hilarious because no one can remedy any inadvertent wrong-doing in 2014. But the best part of all is that the IRS and DOL have issued conflicting rulings about what triggers the fines. No one knows what the hell this stupid law is, least of all the people in charge of implementing it. How many S-Corps and partnerships do you think are now dealing with the ramifications of Obama's impudence? If they had refused to provide their employees with any health insurance assistance, they would have been better off.

Regardless of what the people at DOL and IRS negotiate, it appears many more people will be arbitrarily screwed out of their income tax exemption for health insurance premiums, which merely underlines that this bill is a pointless cluster with an arcane system for shifting healthcare costs and tax burdens. This is the kind of stuff people voted for? A patently unjust crap shoot that leaves mega-corps to their own devices while punishing the people on main street?

ACA is even more worthless and dangerous than we previously imagined, and we're all beginning to learn why Obama refused to implement the mandates. Just wait until you hear the vitriol aimed at Obama and the Democrats when Americans learn they will be taxed, not rewarded, for taking care of their broke-ass dependents who can't find work and can't afford to be a full-time student (therefore no health coverage for 2014).

If I were Obama, I'd be on Air Force One with my family, and I wouldn't land until I had asylum somewhere in the Eastern Hemisphere.

[AggregateDemand]

Stop running in circles.  Ignoring the spike in between, the insured rate among adults fell from 14.6 in pre-crash 2008 to 13.4 in 2015. Either more people have jobs than 7 years ago or more people have health insurance than 7 years ago. Either way, you're going to have to say this bill has done something positive to something. You can't have it both ways

I can have it both ways. It's called Medicare. You stop working, and then you sap healthcare from everyone else. Amusingly, this makes Americans die sooner than other developed nations at much higher costs than anywhere else on earth. But let's not fix anything.

We've been through the data numerous times. The Obamacare contribution is 1%-1.5%. That's the transformative outcome of these fines, forms, and mandates. 1% of the population has signed up.

We're saved. Time to build a monument for President Obama.

[AggregateDemand]

Ah yes. The retiring baby boomers who are affecting the insurance rate while simultaneously having nothing to do with labor force participation rate falling. Your most favorite doublespeak.

And, of course, 1-1.5% of the US population is a "small" number, as opposed to when labor force participation, or debt as a % of GDP, or tax receipts as a % of GDP changes by a "large" number like .1%.

Classic, AD. Simply classic.

I understand that the LFP discussion is beyond the intellect of the average individual, who gets bogged down in whether or not it should be falling. I'm not interested in making valid excuses for the failure of our nation or our social state. LFP cannot fall, if we are going to pay for most of the promises we've made.

Furthermore, I'm not sure how many more times I'm going to have to explain why Republican "spending" and Democratic spending have disparate impact on revenues. Republicans refund the money to certain demographics before a bureaucracy touches it (not counting the IRS), and Democrats send the money back to the people after a bureaucracy touches it. Therefore, the bump in tax revenues and transfer payments is not accurately recorded in revenues when Republicans cut taxes with refundable credits.

[AggregateDemand]

ACA has been very successful by what measure? An overwhelming majority of the increase in coverage was caused by employment rebound, which is not closely related to any Obama policy.

There is no employment rebound.

LOL, hack.

If I made a distinction between the rebound in money velocity/supply and the "rebound" in employment, would you understand it anyway?

Probably not.

We are recovering. It's still a jobless recovery. Maybe that will change, but Democrats don't seem to bothered by the consequences of ACA.

[AggregateDemand]

If we're all too stupid to understand AD's arguments, one needs to wonder why he keeps wasting his time sharing his superior intellect with us.

Because people eventually get tired of being clueless about the workings of the world, and they start to learn.

[AggregateDemand]

Trade deficit widened 17% in December (6% for 2014) as imports jumped 2.2%. Meanwhile, unemployment rate rises as discouraged and detached workers try to regain employment.

Gee, who could have known this was coming?