Export thread

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20029065-503544.html

This article made me think a little.
I feel that the government should focus more on how to turn this economy around instead of trying to kill a bill and "put in" new one that would probably take up most of Obama's presidency. I think it is a "stalling" tactic so when the next president is elected, then congress will "fix" the country.

I also think that anything that the republican can use to fix the country now may "spill over" toward the president and make him look good and thus fear for 2nd term.

That is my conspiracy theory for today
Added at: 14:08
correction: ARE the Republicans stalling.... how do I change title?

Just because one thing isn't the most important task at hand doesn't mean you shouldn't pursue it.

The cost of the health care bill is astronomical, so one consideration is that by focusing on it, they are working on fixing the economy.

It is quite possible that the health care bill will actually hurt job growth.

Yup, the initial cost of the health care bill is high. It wasn't supposed to be an instant fix (and nothing is).

How is the bill supposed to hurt job growth? Everything I've seen says that those "job losses" are actually early retirements for people who otherwise couldn't because they wouldn't have health insurance with out the bill being in place.

Some companies which under the old rules didn't have to supply health insurance options for their employees will now be required to do so. This additional cost will make them less able to hire new people, due to the cost of each employee rising.

... and the cost of uninsured people in the ER? Wouldn't that offset the other costs/job losses?

First Lady Puffinstuff said:

Some companies which under the old rules didn't have to supply health insurance options for their employees will now be required to do so. This additional cost will make them less able to hire new people, due to the cost of each employee rising.

Click to expand...

Just like it did back when they weren't allowed to hire children anymore and had to pay minimum wage...

@Li3n said:

Just like it did back when they weren't allowed to hire children anymore and had to pay minimum wage...

Click to expand...

Ah, so which route are you taking today:

- HEALTHCARE IS A HUMAN RIGHT!

or the ever popular

- WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?

Wow, that's what you got out of that?

Huh.

Krisken said:

Wow, that's what you got out of that?

Huh.

Click to expand...

Well the assertion that once factory conditions were forced to improve employers simply raised their prices for their customers and kept all their workers/positions and, indeed, hired more adults because of the changes to the laws is absurd, but at minimum would require citation. IIRC a lot of companies chose to shut down completely and fire their employees rather than comply with the regulations. So I'm not sure why one would use this as an example of when changing industry regulations caused lower unemployment, or even where the unemployment rate stayed the same.

Therefore I simply skipped to the next two popular reasons one might post such an assertion.

But if there's another meaning, I'm blissfully unaware of it, so perhaps you would kindly enlighten me?

Why would I explain what I thought he was saying? Wouldn't that be up to him?

Or maybe we should just make absurd and trite postulations and assume that is where he was going with it.

First Lady Puffinstuff said:

- WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?

Click to expand...

You know that if actual children are being badly affected by something that's an actual legitimate thing to say, right!


Anyhow, the point was that those things had long term benefits that far outweighed some companies shutting down or even scaling down their workforce in the short term (once they wanted to expand again they did need to hire new adults).
Added at: 14:23

Krisken said:

Or maybe we should just make absurd and trite postulations and assume that is where he was going with it.

Click to expand...

Light that bitch and call it a day!

@Li3n said:

Anyhow, the point was that those things had long term benefits that far outweighed some companies shutting down or even scaling down their workforce in the short term (once they wanted to expand again they did need to hire new adults).

Click to expand...

I don't disagree. I thought people were telling me that my original statement was wrong:

First Lady Puffinstuff said:

It is quite possible that the health care bill will actually hurt job growth.

Click to expand...

Well "hurt job growth" is kinda generic...

Krisken said:

Yup, the initial cost of the health care bill is high. It wasn't supposed to be an instant fix (and nothing is).

Click to expand...

Actually a great amount of the costs are being deferred. A lot of the voodoo math used to snake this stinker past (on christmas eve, no less) was that it balances 6 years of benefits against 10 years of money.

Now why would a bipartisan CBO fudge numbers? The CBO really has nothing to gain from that.

Edit: Thought I'd do some research and this is what I came up with: Politifact says it is a half truth.
Some benefits are indeed happening right away, while yes some benefits are delayed 4 years. Now was it so hard to say that instead of make it sound like nothing happens in the first 4 years but we're paying for it anyways?

The CBO doesn't need to fudge numbers, they work with the numbers given to them. All you have to do is tweak the numbers and wording in the bill.

Covar said:

The CBO doesn't need to fudge numbers, they work with the numbers given to them. All you have to do is tweak the numbers and wording in the bill.

Click to expand...

Yeah, go back and read what I wrote, along with the Politifact article. Then get back to me.

I'll even save you some time.

Politifact said:

Cantor is correct that the bill's biggest expansions in coverage do not happen until 2014, including the exchanges, the subsidies and the Medicaid expansion. He's also right that some taxation begins well before that. But several of the bill’s most popular provisions -- including no cancelation of health insurance for pre-exisitng conditions and guaranteed coverage of dependents to age 26 -- have taken effect and other components will be implemented before 2014. And only 10 percent taxes that come with health care reform will be levied in the first four years.

Click to expand...

Krisken said:

Now why would a bipartisan CBO fudge numbers? The CBO really has nothing to gain from that.

Edit: Thought I'd do some research and this is what I came up with: Politifact says it is a half truth.
Some benefits are indeed happening right away, while yes some benefits are delayed 4 years. Now was it so hard to say that instead of make it sound like nothing happens in the first 4 years but we're paying for it anyways?

Click to expand...

My point is, in 2021 we can't go repeating 4 years off 6 years on... and it's absolutely manifest that the budget for any federal program never, ever decreases. Compare what we thought Medicare would cost, with what we thought it would cost.

Your point is wrong because you didn't read what I wrote or the article. I think I'm done here.

If you think mandating insurance for dozens of millions of previously uninsured and adding hundreds of layers of federal bureaucracy to the health care system will decrease medical costs and the deficit, you definitely are "done"

Sad.

Funny.

Yes, I think they are being too 'toe the party line' when they should be 'do things we don't like in order that the People may survive.' Mind you, I think the Democrats are a little bit guilty of this, too.

--Patrick

PatrThom said:

Mind you, I think the Democrats are a little bit guilty of this, too.

--Patrick

Click to expand...

Heh, 'a bit'...