Where is the US economy headed?

What Cyclops does not know, Okie,is that three Billion in 1960 multiplied by seven would equal a cost of 21 Billion--even if we double that because of population growth, the cost would be only 42 Billion. Note again that the cost was over 100 Billion in 1990

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Cyclo wrote:
Quote:
You do realize that the PO will be funded primarily through payments by those in it, just like traditional insurance? It has a revenue stream coming in independent of government funding...

You're trying to tell us there will be no government subsidy on premiums? You want to buy a bridge in Montana?

Too right! Another biggie that noone seems to be thinking of is the cost of each premiums. What is the minimum that every individual is going to have to pay, what kind of deductables and co-pays are they looking at? In other words, is it going to be anything like affordable in the individual and very personal sense? Sure, we will soak the rich again, begger the treasury, curtail services and save money, but will the beneficiaries be able to come up with the immediate costs?

1 Reply

@roger,

roger wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

Cyclo wrote:
Quote:
You do realize that the PO will be funded primarily through payments by those in it, just like traditional insurance? It has a revenue stream coming in independent of government funding...

You're trying to tell us there will be no government subsidy on premiums? You want to buy a bridge in Montana?

Too right! Another biggie that noone seems to be thinking of is the cost of each premiums. What is the minimum that every individual is going to have to pay, what kind of deductables and co-pays are they looking at? In other words, is it going to be anything like affordable in the individual and very personal sense? Sure, we will soak the rich again, begger the treasury, curtail services and save money, but will the beneficiaries be able to come up with the immediate costs?

Have you bothered to look at the actual proposals? At all?

You guys complain about not having information that you put zero effort into finding.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

Cyclops hasn't looked at the final results. No one has. There won't be a final bill until the Senate-House Conference. Cyclops, as usual, is intellectually suspect.

1 Reply

@MASSAGAT,

I see boarding school has let the children out for the holidays...

welcome back, troll.

1 Reply

@Rockhead,

Oh, Rockhead,you are too simple. Why waste your opportunities? You could have said a great many more things--for example:

You write like a demented chimpanzee--very poorly

or

Logic was never your strong point, was it?

or

When you post, it is like being washed with excrement from your puerile brain.

Now, these, Rockhead, sir, are some of the things you could have said if you had the wit or the letters to set them down.

But of wit, you never had an atom

And, of letters, you only need three to define you--A S * AN AS*

1 Reply

@MASSAGAT,

you're quite the bag of douche, buddy

0 Replies

MASSAGAT, you are refreshing breath of fresh air and common sense here on A2K.

Rock on with your bad self!

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Don't have to; many in congress and the OMB have said as much, and I've posted them here. I'm sure they've studied each revision carefully before they offered their opinions.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Don't have to; many in congress and the OMB have said as much, and I've posted them here. I'm sure they've studied each revision carefully before they offered their opinions.

You're sure about that? Why? You KNOW that half the politicians working on the health care bill haven't read it and make false statements about it all the time.

Why not just look at the proposal yourself?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

If they haven't read it, then it's up to you to prove that claim.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

If they haven't read it, then it's up to you to prove that claim.

Sigh, whatever.

The things you guys are complaining about are available out there if you'd bother to look, but people don't want to look, they want to complain. It's not my duty to provide you with every nugget of info you're looking for.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

This is what I bother to look at:

Quote:

. The CBO has also explicitly stated that if you include the legislative fix to the last round of failed reimbursement cuts"as House Democrats did in their original bill"the total effect on the deficit is decidedly not neutral.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

This is what I bother to look at:
Quote:
. The CBO has also explicitly stated that if you include the legislative fix to the last round of failed reimbursement cuts"as House Democrats did in their original bill"the total effect on the deficit is decidedly not neutral.

I already replied in the other thread, that it's sad that you've turned to the Wingnuts for your analysis of the bill.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

looking stuff up is for suckers

it's much easier to make up facts that support your position

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

If you do trust the CBO analysis and estimates, perhaps you would care to explain and defend this...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/08/million-lose-employer-coverage-senate-health-cbo-says/

Quote:

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that up to 10 million people could lose their employer-based insurance coverage under the Senate's health care reform bill.

In new figures out Monday, the nonpartisan office said the net loss would add up to about 5 million -- the anticipated loss of employer coverage on one end would be offset in part by the expectation that a new mandate would drive other employers to cover millions more workers who are not currently covered.

But the estimate assumes many employers, particularly small businesses with low-wage workers, would opt to pay the fine and drop their insurance plans. The CBO estimated this would affect between 9 million and 10 million workers.

(snip)

Quote:

Though some of those who lose their coverage would be eligible for government subsidies to buy insurance, some would not, according to the CBO.

For instance, a family of four making more than $88,000 would not qualify for subsidies and could face even higher premiums in the private market.

So, how is that good for everyone?

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

It's sad that you don't challenge their claim, but resort to ad hominems. "Wingnuts?'

0 Replies

THE PIPELINE. I came across this bit of news today, which I found interesting.
Background:
Manufacturers >>> Wholesalers >>> Retailers >>> Consumers.
That is the normal pipeline that goods travel through. Typically, the manufacturers hold 33% of the inventory of stuff, wholesalers have 25% and the retailers hold 37%.

In October data released today, wholesalers increased their share by .03% which isn't much but it is the 1st gain in 13 months. Retailers, for the 7th month in a row, also increased their share.

In theory, this will be good for the recovery of the U.S. economy, eventually allowing U.S. manufacturers to have enough demand for products to make more stuff.
I must admit I am skeptical:
1) The big question mark is the consumer. Will they actually be in a position to buy stuff?
2) If the manufacturers' in the equation are not in the U.S. the idea fails, doesn't it?
3) There is a 3rd issue, which involves the value of the dollar in the near future. But I won't talk about that unless asked.

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

Quote:

So, how is that good for everyone?

This is what the Public Option is for. The more people who enroll in it, the cheaper the premiums are for everyone and the more pressure it puts on private insurers to lower their prices and compete.

The CBO is projecting that businesses will REACT to the new bill in certain ways. That is beyond the control of the government; nobody can force businesses to act as good citizens, and many will try as hard as they can to screw us all over in the name of profits. It's nothing new for them.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@realjohnboy,

I'm also skeptical, and I'll give my reasons why. In the first place, more people are losing jobs, and those that have jobs fear of losing theirs. They're in no position to be spending when their job security is so unsure from one day to the next. Most have already seen their wages cut through shorter hours, and even jobs that once were pretty secure are no longer true.

People will definitely cut their spending.

1 Reply

Where is the US economy headed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know