JuanGuzman

Rebuke means to give stern disapproval but it doesn't mean the argument was proved false. So I agree with you that this thread does contain many people with "the lowest intelligence" trying to rebuke me. Unless of course you were looking for the word "Refute". but then if that's the word you were looking for you would of used it.

I think the postponement of some Obamacare features is in the interest of Americans and the economy. Unfortunately Congress is so dysfunctional and the gerrymandering has made centerist compromises all but impossible. If the president went to congress and asked "can we extend the deadline for the individual market policies to become compliant so people don't lose their health insurance?" That reasonable question would be answered by congress: "Heck no, in fact just for even asking this question we are going to orchestrate a default on the national debt and take food stamps away from poor people". Hence Obama using his own discretion on what parts of the law should be enforced.

I couldn't agree any more. I just don't think forcing people to work so they can access the group market instead of the individual market for health insurance is the way to solve it. IMO if you wanted to reduce unemployment id increase the earned income tax credit, increase fiscal spending by building roads to ease congestion and new airports. I'd also be in conversation with the federal reserve trying to make sure the economy escapes slow growth mode. Only when unemployment dropped below 5% or inflation started to rise above 3 per cent. If you want to deal with the unemployment crises target it directly.

Durr krugman may be mean to you republicans be he is no hack. The article goes on to rightfully point out that impact on labour supply does have some costs to society: "Just to be clear, the predicted long-run fall in working hours isn’t entirely a good thing. Workers who choose to spend more time with their families will gain, but they’ll also impose some burden on the rest of society, for example, by paying less in payroll and income taxes. So there is some cost to Obamacare over and above the insurance subsidies. "

The director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, said the obvious: losing your job and choosing to work less aren’t the same thing. If you lose your job, you suffer immense personal and financial hardship. If, on the other hand, you choose to work less and spend more time with your family, “we don’t sympathize. We say congratulations.” Worth the read in full: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/02/07/opinion/krugman-health-work-lies.html?_r=0&referrer=

Hear, Hear

This in interesting thanks.

I was explaining the economic theory behind government involvement in health care, not trying to win an election. But if you want my election pitch here it: Obamacare means 30 million Americans will have access to good quality health insurance. The program is fully funded in part by a small tax increase on the wealthiest Americans. Obamacare means that losing your job doesn't mean losing your health insurance. It addresses flaws in the individual insurance market that has made health care prohibitively expensive for many Americans with pre-existing conditions.

There are industries where a completely free market produces the best results, health care is not one of them. Certain industries are prone to market failure and the government by means of power to coerce can actually improve efficiency. Basically Government regulation can be used as a policy to prevent market failureRegulatory constraints on monopoly sellers can contribute to a more efficient market place, requirements to provide adequate information can be used to protect citizen’s health and safety, and forcing factories to internalize costs from pollution can enhance social welfare. This is all economics 101 Anyway bud, the individual health insurance market is prone to market failure because of adverse selection. That is individuals have a better idea of their health status than the companies, so insurance companies that offer better plans see sick patients flock to them. The basic positive forces of competition don't work here and as a result insurance company spend more and more time creating administrative process to weed out the sick. That's why you see medicare and medicaid outperform private insurance companies when it comes to administrative costs. Like it or not health care is a system and government action can improve outcomes if done right. If left up to the private sector the the good will be underprovided.

I think you're almost there... you've made the connection that number of uninsured is falling good for you. Now consider that 30 per cent of that number are illegal residents who aren't eligibe. So reduce that number by 9.3 million unless you think obamacare should also cover illegal residents. Then consider that last measure of the number of american citizens without health care was some 50 million in 2011... so without even adjusting for population growth you have dropped the number of uninsured by 60%. Than give Obama a round of applause

haha oh man you lecture me on ignorance? In one sentence you argue that individual health insurance plans weren't prohibitively expensive and in the next you tell me that I ignore all the bad effects. One of the biggest issues in health care in the last 10 years has been how much its price has outpaced family income growth. I've been very clear on my ACA views, there are costs and there are benefits to it the plan, but the benefits outweigh the costs. The old system was broken buddy.

Sure thats fine by me. One more point about the reduction it affects labour supply not demand: Yes some people are going to stop supplying labour because they no longer need to access to employer health insurance risk pool to get affordable health care. Oh and keep in mind unemployment is still pretty high in this country so if those people drop out of the labour force or reduce hours worked it means that other people currently looking for a job will have a better chance to get that job. I personally don't believe people should have to be chained to an employer to get health insurance. Without ACA that seemed to the case given how high rates were individual health insurance market.

What could not possibly understand about: " The ACA will markedly increase the number of nonelderly people who have health insurance" Its like the exact opposite of not a damn thing has changed.....

Might as well post the full paragraph: " CBO and JCT estimate that the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA will markedly increase the number of nonelderly people who have health insurance—by about 13 million in 2014, 20 million in 2015, and 25 million in each of the subsequent years through 2024 (see Table B-2). Still, according to estimates by CBO and JCT, about 31 million nonelderly residents of the United States are likely to be without health insurance in 2024, roughly one out of every nine such residents. Of that group, about 30 percent are expected to be unauthorized immigrants and thus ineligible for most Medicaid benefits and for the exchange subsidies; about 20 percent will be eligible for Medicaid but will choose not to enroll; about 5 percent will be ineligible for Medicaid because they live in a state that has chosen not to expand coverage; and about 45 percent will not purchase insurance even though they have access through an employer, an exchange, or directly from an insurer."

is that a yes from you DC Tom? lets hear an answer... will ACA lead a higher number of americans across the country with health insurance or a lower amount?

Do you guys really believe that ACA is going to result in more people being uninsured, i.e., the number of uninsured Americans is going to rise from the 50 Million uninsured prior to ACA???

I begrudgingly voted for Wade. the guy can coach defense.... Like most fans i still hated his benching of Flutie but I imagine they will get over this if he coaches a top 5 defense. Is there any bad blood between Wade and the organization that would prevent from this getting the job?

Affordable Care will do a better job controlling costs then the statusquo. In fact a lot estimates seem to show the health cost curve is bending. Not only will care be more affordable but more people will be insured. Goodbye 50 million uninsured americans, hello health insurance for people working part time, waitresses, barbers, minimum wage workers etc. Obama care ain't perfect but its a step in the right direction for America.

Instead of getting into argument about how much precedure X cost versus procedure Y. Why don't we post per-capita health spending I think the high cost of health care in the U,S, is one of many reasons people seek health care outside the USA (experimental treatments can be another) Whatever a hip replacement costs, the point is its frieken expensive to get health care in the USA

I think its a useful distinction. Single payor to me means 1 insurance provider (generally the government) and private delivery of care services. Whereas in places like U.K. you have government both paying for and delivering health services, which in my mind is more akin to the traditional definition of socialism.

Serious question, based your logic, why would people even accept government work if it doesn't cover their cost? Why not just do all private work where they "charge more" according to you.

Is that what the evidence shows... maybe than actually back it up with evidence? You could easily say that American's are going to other countries because the cost of health care is cheaper and they can't afford the treament in the U.S. My guess is Canadian's are coming to the U.S. for a variety of reasons (to seek out treaments that aren't covered in Canada, to receive elective treatments, to see world renowned specialists) but the basic number of Canadians does not show a failures. 1 in 850 are leaving Canada, vs 1 in 450 in the U.S. I'm not arguing that you can't get first class medical care in the United States, the U.S. has some of the best doctors, health institutions in the world. what I am saying is that arguments should be backed by logic and facts. The article linked by the drudge report was not.

Haha oh man wow,it's like you can't even concede one argument despite evidence. Too me the Sun Times article pointed out that there is one medical tourist for every 414 people in the U.S., while in Canada, there is one for every 836 people. So American's are more likely than Canadians to "Flee" the country over its health system. Basically calling out the Drudge Report for linking to an abosultely B.S. article that wasn't properly fact checked. Morover where the American numbers come an independant largely trustworthy source, the Canadians come from a ThinkTank that gets paid to spout views of its donors. All It is basic math, if your argument is that because people seek health care out of country then their health care system is flawed? Well you need to check the numbers how many americans are leaving the system. Sure if you want to argue quality vs. affordability fine go do that. But again the data shows that Canadian's live longer than american and pay much less per-capita for health care. Everyone is insured.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/21/health/peace-of-mind-is-first-benefit-for-many-now-getting-medicaid.html?hp&_r=0

Honestly who cares about this? Is extending a deadline bad thing? Must all previous dates be set in stone even if your priors have changed. Enrollment got of to a shakey start no wonder they are extending deadlines to give people more time to sign up. Do you want governments to commit to arbitrary deadlines, to me the extension sounds like a good idea.