Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Boehner says "FUBO"Follow

#52 Sep 02 2011 at 6:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,004 posts
It's normal for companies to become more efficient in a downturn. They'll start rehiring once there's a good reason. The American public and several European governments are carrying a lot of debt right now, and there's a good deal of uncertainty and volatility in the midst of a economic downturn which has affected most of the world economy.

Give the debt-holders a chance to de-leverage and things a chance to shake out. Some certainty will arise again with investment opportunities becoming clearer; it's just not going to be fixed on the time-scale any of us would like.

Anyone who tells you that the USA raising or lower taxes is going to be like a magic bullet and revitalize the world economy is being overly-optimistic at best.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#53 Sep 02 2011 at 6:19 PM Rating: Good
Lol partisanship, It's not about politics, dummy. The people running the companies are getting more greedy. It is my opinion that they will gladly run the country into the ground simply to make a short term profit.

____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#54 Sep 02 2011 at 6:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,004 posts
Technogeek wrote:
Lol partisanship, It's not about politics, dummy. The people running the companies are getting more greedy. It is my opinion that they will gladly run the country into the ground simply to make a short term profit.



You say this like it's a new development. Smiley: wink
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#55 Sep 02 2011 at 7:03 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Technogeek wrote:
Lol partisanship, It's not about politics, dummy. The people running the companies are getting more greedy. It is my opinion that they will gladly run the country into the ground simply to make a short term profit.


They're getting more greedy? That's your response?


I'm sorry, but that's moronic! And even if it was true, which I totally disagree with, how does the Democrats proposed course of action help? If the problem is corporate greed, why would you think that increasing the cost of employing people and raising taxes on them would result in anything other than them sending more jobs overseas? You blame it all on greed, but then support a course of action which assumes that these greedy people will magically and meekly accept lower profits.


I just don't see the logic in your position even if your assumptions are correct. It makes no sense at all.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#56 Sep 02 2011 at 7:10 PM Rating: Good
You think the people running corporations are logical? You ever read Dilbert? Most of the stuff he puts in his comic comes from real businesses. Attributing logic to CEO's is very amusing.

Personally, I don't think it will get better until there's a real revolution. It won't be the "Tea Party" folks doing the revolting, it will be the poor. I'm guessing in 50 years or so.

Like you, I'm pulling numbers out of my ***, but at least I admit it...
____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#57 Sep 02 2011 at 7:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,923 posts
Credit Crunch.

Most businesses in the US were paying for their employees on rolling credit. They'd borrow the money, pay the employees, pay the bank off at the end of the month.

The Global Financial Crisis happened, and 1/3 of banks lost their ability to aquire credit themselves. They had no profits, and not enough deposits to loan out credit money to their usual business customers. Many many businesses credit came to a screaming halt, and they had to lay off workers as they desperately rejiggled their accounts so that they were paying employee wages out of net incoming revenue, instead of credit.

The laid off workers had less money to spend, so they bought less, and businesses lost more money and had to lay off more workers, in a classic recessionary downwards spiral, or negative feedback loop. Now you are waiting for the downturn to turn around enough for a positive feedback loop to get going. More demand/more jobs (chicken and egg situation), creating more spending, creating more jobs, creating more spending, creating more jobs.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#58 Sep 02 2011 at 7:32 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
Credit Crunch.

Most businesses in the US were paying for their employees on rolling credit. They'd borrow the money, pay the employees, pay the bank off at the end of the month.

The Global Financial Crisis happened, and 1/3 of banks lost their ability to aquire credit themselves. They had no profits, and not enough deposits to loan out credit money to their usual business customers. Many many businesses credit came to a screaming halt, and they had to lay off workers as they desperately rejiggled their accounts so that they were paying employee wages out of net incoming revenue, instead of credit.

The laid off workers had less money to spend, so they bought less, and businesses lost more money and had to lay off more workers, in a classic recessionary downwards spiral, or negative feedback loop. Now you are waiting for the downturn to turn around enough for a positive feedback loop to get going. More demand/more jobs (chicken and egg situation), creating more spending, creating more jobs, creating more spending, creating more jobs.


Sure. So let me ask a question: Do you think that increasing the health cost per employee and threatening to raise taxes on corporations and "the rich" helps us start that positive feedback process, or hurts it?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#59 Sep 02 2011 at 7:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,004 posts
gbaji wrote:
Aripyanfar wrote:
Credit Crunch.

Most businesses in the US were paying for their employees on rolling credit. They'd borrow the money, pay the employees, pay the bank off at the end of the month.

The Global Financial Crisis happened, and 1/3 of banks lost their ability to aquire credit themselves. They had no profits, and not enough deposits to loan out credit money to their usual business customers. Many many businesses credit came to a screaming halt, and they had to lay off workers as they desperately rejiggled their accounts so that they were paying employee wages out of net incoming revenue, instead of credit.

The laid off workers had less money to spend, so they bought less, and businesses lost more money and had to lay off more workers, in a classic recessionary downwards spiral, or negative feedback loop. Now you are waiting for the downturn to turn around enough for a positive feedback loop to get going. More demand/more jobs (chicken and egg situation), creating more spending, creating more jobs, creating more spending, creating more jobs.


Sure. So let me ask a question: Do you think that increasing the health cost per employee and threatening to raise taxes on corporations and "the rich" helps us start that positive feedback process, or hurts it?


Do I dare ask you how you want to lower healthcare costs? Smiley: smile
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#60 Sep 02 2011 at 9:01 PM Rating: Excellent
The real answer to that is let everyone buy into Medicare. However, the insurance lobbyists will never let that happen.
____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#61 Sep 02 2011 at 10:14 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,476 posts
Quote:
You do realize that consumer demand does not drive employment, right? Businesses do not look at aggregate demand and decide that there's too little for them to make a new product, or invest in some new venture. They do those things as a means of competing for existing demand. Aggregate demand as a whole has very very very little to do with business decisions or employment decisions. Future profit/cost estimates do.



So I assume the Auto Industry Collapse had nothing to do with people not buying cars.



My current employer went from making over 1 million frames for 7 years straight, to laying off nearly its full workforce, to making less than half that amount, and still have not reached pre Auto Industry bed sh*tting levels of employment.

That is 1 plant.

There is a Ford Plant shutting down in September. Been there for decades and decades.

We had a truck plant go to mexico, where it went under because no one is buying mexican made vehicles.

Lost a seat company, a bumper company, interior panneling company, electronics company....



http://www.lilithnews.com/2009/03/unsold-cars-piling-up.html

has neat photos of unsold cars.


But ya that has nothing to do with people not buying cars it is clearly companies diversifying their options.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/12/18/business/main1134746.shtml

We all saw how well that worked out.



Edited, Sep 3rd 2011 12:15am by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#62 Sep 03 2011 at 1:40 PM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,519 posts
We already have employees spending large amounts of their day websurfing because the amount of work we have is just enough to pay all the bills and keep the business running smoothly.

When small business taxes were lowered last year, my boss bought a lake house.

When our biggest client expanded and the number of IT issues they had doubled, we hired another person.

We're not hiring anyone else unless there is a significant need for them. So far, there hasn't been.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#63 Sep 04 2011 at 1:30 AM Rating: Good
Sage
**
649 posts
catwho wrote:
When small business taxes were lowered last year, my boss bought a lake house.


I don't know what you're smoking. When business taxes are lowered, that money is used to hire more employees. It doesn't go to the people in charge. Geez, don't you ever watch Fox News and the other talking heads? They would never lie about the economy.
#64 Sep 04 2011 at 6:33 AM Rating: Excellent
No, xantav, it goes to buying new equipment that the business has no need for, thereby creating new jobs in other sectors.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#65 Sep 04 2011 at 7:12 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,476 posts
Admiral Lubriderm wrote:
No, xantav, it goes to buying new equipment that the business has no need for, thereby creating new jobs in other sectors.


Oh I always thought it went into the upper upper managments pockets never to be seen again.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#66 Sep 04 2011 at 7:28 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,744 posts
catwho wrote:
We already have employees spending large amounts of their day websurfing because the amount of work we have is just enough to pay all the bills and keep the business running smoothly.
Awesome, you've got a boss that's decided to keep everyone working as opposed to maintaining his profits by laying off people and keeping only those he needs.


catwho wrote:
When small business taxes were lowered last year, my boss bought a lake house.
Nice to see a small business owner get something for themselves and reinvest in the economy at the same time.

____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#67 Sep 04 2011 at 11:27 AM Rating: Good
rdmcandie wrote:
Admiral Lubriderm wrote:
No, xantav, it goes to buying new equipment that the business has no need for, thereby creating new jobs in other sectors.


Oh I always thought it went into the upper upper managments pockets never to be seen again.
Yeah, that's what we were saying in a tongue and cheek way.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#68 Sep 06 2011 at 9:08 AM Rating: Excellent
******
30,643 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Aripyanfar wrote:
Credit Crunch.

Most businesses in the US were paying for their employees on rolling credit. They'd borrow the money, pay the employees, pay the bank off at the end of the month.

The Global Financial Crisis happened, and 1/3 of banks lost their ability to aquire credit themselves. They had no profits, and not enough deposits to loan out credit money to their usual business customers. Many many businesses credit came to a screaming halt, and they had to lay off workers as they desperately rejiggled their accounts so that they were paying employee wages out of net incoming revenue, instead of credit.

The laid off workers had less money to spend, so they bought less, and businesses lost more money and had to lay off more workers, in a classic recessionary downwards spiral, or negative feedback loop. Now you are waiting for the downturn to turn around enough for a positive feedback loop to get going. More demand/more jobs (chicken and egg situation), creating more spending, creating more jobs, creating more spending, creating more jobs.


Sure. So let me ask a question: Do you think that increasing the health cost per employee and threatening to raise taxes on corporations and "the rich" helps us start that positive feedback process, or hurts it?


Do I dare ask you how you want to lower healthcare costs? Smiley: smile


I think gbaji is in the "let everyone buy their own insurance if they want it, individual policies for all!" camp, but I could be wrong.

The problem with that, of course, is that the people who actually need health insurance wouldn't ever be able to afford it. Oh, unless you're rich, and that's the only people that the GOP and conservatives like gabji really care about anyway.
#69 Sep 06 2011 at 3:11 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:

Sure. So let me ask a question: Do you think that increasing the health cost per employee and threatening to raise taxes on corporations and "the rich" helps us start that positive feedback process, or hurts it?


Do I dare ask you how you want to lower healthcare costs? Smiley: smile


I think gbaji is in the "let everyone buy their own insurance if they want it, individual policies for all!" camp, but I could be wrong.

The problem with that, of course, is that the people who actually need health insurance wouldn't ever be able to afford it. Oh, unless you're rich, and that's the only people that the GOP and conservatives like gabji really care about anyway.


Actually, you've both deviated from the point completely. How I might think we could lower the cost of health care is irrelevant to the question I asked. I asked if increasing the cost of health care to the employer and raising taxes on business profits would help or hurt employment. The response I got was a sidetrack. One of the things Obamacare does is increase the mandated coverage levels for those with health insurance. That will, by necessity, increase the cost of health insurance. That cost will be born, in part or in full, by those employers who provide any form of health benefits to their employees.


The only way Obamacare does not increase the cost to employ someone is if the employer doesn't provide health benefits. So it's kind of a lose/lose situation.

Edited, Sep 6th 2011 2:11pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#70 Sep 06 2011 at 3:19 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
xantav wrote:
catwho wrote:
When small business taxes were lowered last year, my boss bought a lake house.


I don't know what you're smoking. When business taxes are lowered, that money is used to hire more employees. It doesn't go to the people in charge. Geez, don't you ever watch Fox News and the other talking heads? They would never lie about the economy.


It's funny how conflating small and big business allows people to continue to avoid realizing just how flawed their own positions are. Small businesses tend to pocket increased profits and spend them on themselves. That's because small businesses are generally directly owned by one person. Thus, every dollar of profits is that person's own property. They will then make decisions as to whether to spend that money building the business, or rewarding themselves for their success.

The money owned by big businesses is nearly always going to be in the form of a corporation. Meaning that the money does not go directly into someone's pockets when profits are up. The corporation's investors have to collectively decide what to do with them. The default condition is that the money is held in the corporation to be used to grow its business. They have to choose to direct profits to the owners for it to end out directly into anyone's pockets.


Not making a moral judgment about either. Just pointing out that in small businesses the profits go to the owner first and then he has to choose to take money out of his pocket to put back into the business, while in a corporation the profits go into the business first and the owners have to choose to take money out of the business and put it into their pockets. Both have positives and negatives, but it's interesting how people will apply them incorrectly when it suits the argument of the moment.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#71 Sep 06 2011 at 3:25 PM Rating: Excellent
******
30,643 posts
gbaji wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:

Sure. So let me ask a question: Do you think that increasing the health cost per employee and threatening to raise taxes on corporations and "the rich" helps us start that positive feedback process, or hurts it?


Do I dare ask you how you want to lower healthcare costs? Smiley: smile


I think gbaji is in the "let everyone buy their own insurance if they want it, individual policies for all!" camp, but I could be wrong.

The problem with that, of course, is that the people who actually need health insurance wouldn't ever be able to afford it. Oh, unless you're rich, and that's the only people that the GOP and conservatives like gabji really care about anyway.


Actually, you've both deviated from the point completely. How I might think we could lower the cost of health care is irrelevant to the question I asked.


So, in other words, I'm right?
#72 Sep 06 2011 at 3:32 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
gbaji wrote:

Actually, you've both deviated from the point completely. How I might think we could lower the cost of health care is irrelevant to the question I asked.


So, in other words, I'm right?


Did you say whether rising health care costs would hurt or help employment rates? If not, then you are wrong by default.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#73 Sep 06 2011 at 4:12 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:
You do realize that consumer demand does not drive employment, right? Businesses do not look at aggregate demand and decide that there's too little for them to make a new product, or invest in some new venture. They do those things as a means of competing for existing demand. Aggregate demand as a whole has very very very little to do with business decisions or employment decisions. Future profit/cost estimates do.



So I assume the Auto Industry Collapse had nothing to do with people not buying cars.


You failed to understand what I meant by "total aggregate demand". What this means is that businesses do not look at the total amount of consumption dollars in the economy and make decisions. They certainly do look at specific demand for their own products, but that's part of the "future profit/cost estimates".

The reason this matters is that the argument the left is using is that if we hand out foodstamps, this will increase total demand in the economy (because people will spend the foodstamps), and this will somehow magically make intel (or any other non-food related business) decide to hire more workers in the US. Certainly, you can artificially increase demand for a specific product, but if the cost of this is profits in other sectors, then the net effect is negative.


Which is what I've been saying all along.


Quote:
My current employer went from making over 1 million frames for 7 years straight, to laying off nearly its full workforce, to making less than half that amount, and still have not reached pre Auto Industry bed sh*tting levels of employment.


Yup. And no amount of handing out welfare checks or extending unemployment will change that, will it?

Quote:
But ya that has nothing to do with people not buying cars it is clearly companies diversifying their options.


Again, that's not what I said. I am debunking the theory that by increasing demand dollars *anywhere* in the economy, you can improve the economy *everywhere*. It simply doesn't work. ****, it should be obvious that this wont work. Yet some continue to pursue this economic theory anyway. Why you ask? Because it's not really about making the economy "better", but about putting the government more in control of the economy we have. But they can't get you to vote for them by saying "We're going to make everyone more poor in order to ensure that government is where everyone turns for food and shelter instead of the free market". So they sell you on the idea that if government intervenes, it can magically make the economy work better.


It doesn't work. It has never worked. All it does is destroy the parts of the economy the government doesn't control and force everyone into the parts of the economy that it does. The ultimate goal is to make you vote for your goods and services instead of work for them in a free labor market. Once you realize this, the pattern of behavior makes perfect sense.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#74 Sep 06 2011 at 4:34 PM Rating: Good
******
30,643 posts
gbaji wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
gbaji wrote:

Actually, you've both deviated from the point completely. How I might think we could lower the cost of health care is irrelevant to the question I asked.


So, in other words, I'm right?


Did you say whether rising health care costs would hurt or help employment rates? If not, then you are wrong by default.


So I did phrase your stance on health insurance correctly. That's all you had to say.
#75ThiefX, Posted: Sep 06 2011 at 4:50 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) For a second I though you were joking but sadly........
#76 Sep 06 2011 at 5:52 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
gbaji wrote:

Actually, you've both deviated from the point completely. How I might think we could lower the cost of health care is irrelevant to the question I asked.


So, in other words, I'm right?


Did you say whether rising health care costs would hurt or help employment rates? If not, then you are wrong by default.


So I did phrase your stance on health insurance correctly. That's all you had to say.


You're working really really hard to avoid discussing the issue at hand. Makes one wonder *why* you'd do this. Nowhere in this conversation are we discussing the effects of the implementation of any other form of health care reform. I'm only asking you to assess the direct effects of the one that was passed compared to not passing it. Why are you working so hard to avoid facing that?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#77 Sep 06 2011 at 6:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,004 posts
gbaji wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
gbaji wrote:

Actually, you've both deviated from the point completely. How I might think we could lower the cost of health care is irrelevant to the question I asked.


So, in other words, I'm right?


Did you say whether rising health care costs would hurt or help employment rates? If not, then you are wrong by default.


So I did phrase your stance on health insurance correctly. That's all you had to say.


You're working really really hard to avoid discussing the issue at hand. Makes one wonder *why* you'd do this. Nowhere in this conversation are we discussing the effects of the implementation of any other form of health care reform. I'm only asking you to assess the direct effects of the one that was passed compared to not passing it. Why are you working so hard to avoid facing that?


Blame me. Smiley: clown

I simply asked because there were two things being discussed as holding back the 'feedback' process: taxes and health care. I already knew your stance on taxes, so I asked about health care. Smiley: wink



Edited, Sep 6th 2011 5:36pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#78 Sep 06 2011 at 6:43 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
I simply asked because there were two things being discussed as holding back the 'feedback' process: taxes and health care. I already knew your stance on taxes, so I asked about health care. Smiley: wink


But the aspect of health care being discussed as holding back that feedback/recovery process was the passage of Obamacare. The question of passage of some other alternative health care reform is outside the scope of the discussion.

I'm *only* comparing the effects on employment from passing Obamacare versus not passing Obamacare. Period. Asking me what kind of health care system I'd prefer serves only to avoid the issue. Right now the answer is: "not passing Obamacare".

When we have a healthier economy, we can discuss alternative forms of health care reform. But in the context of the current lack of jobs creation, all that really matters is the impact the choice to pass Obamacare has had on that job creation. My assertion is that it has had a negative effect and thus is one of the problems affecting our economy.


Do you agree or disagree with that assertion?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#79 Sep 06 2011 at 6:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,004 posts
gbaji wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
I simply asked because there were two things being discussed as holding back the 'feedback' process: taxes and health care. I already knew your stance on taxes, so I asked about health care. Smiley: wink


But the aspect of health care being discussed as holding back that feedback/recovery process was the passage of Obamacare. The question of passage of some other alternative health care reform is outside the scope of the discussion.

I'm *only* comparing the effects on employment from passing Obamacare versus not passing Obamacare. Period. Asking me what kind of health care system I'd prefer serves only to avoid the issue. Right now the answer is: "not passing Obamacare".

When we have a healthier economy, we can discuss alternative forms of health care reform. But in the context of the current lack of jobs creation, all that really matters is the impact the choice to pass Obamacare has had on that job creation. My assertion is that it has had a negative effect and thus is one of the problems affecting our economy.


Do you agree or disagree with that assertion?


I'd imagine the program itself has probably had little effect so far, as most of it hasn't been implemented yet and the uncertainty over whether or not it'll survive the next election cycle may well trump any positive or negative effects on the economy. I.e. many companies are likely being conservative in planning for future health care costs until the controversy surrounds it dies down and they know what the USA's future health care system will look like.

Just my uninformed gut opinion. Smiley: wink

____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#80 Sep 06 2011 at 7:09 PM Rating: Good
******
30,643 posts
gbaji wrote:
You're working really really hard to avoid discussing the issue at hand. Makes one wonder *why* you'd do this. Nowhere in this conversation are we discussing the effects of the implementation of any other form of health care reform. I'm only asking you to assess the direct effects of the one that was passed compared to not passing it. Why are you working so hard to avoid facing that?


To me, this is the issue at hand, as I haven't been a part of the discussion at all. Why are you working so hard to answer the question at hand?
#81 Sep 06 2011 at 7:19 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:
But in the context of the current lack of jobs creation, all that really matters is the impact the choice to pass Obamacare has had on that job creation. My assertion is that it has had a negative effect and thus is one of the problems affecting our economy.


Do you agree or disagree with that assertion?


I'd imagine the program itself has probably had little effect so far, as most of it hasn't been implemented yet and the uncertainty over whether or not it'll survive the next election cycle may well trump any positive or negative effects on the economy. I.e. many companies are likely being conservative in planning for future health care costs until the controversy surrounds it dies down and they know what the USA's future health care system will look like.


Ok. But would that uncertainly exist if Obamacare hadn't passed?


It's like I have to lead you there step by step
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#82 Sep 06 2011 at 7:22 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You're working really really hard to avoid discussing the issue at hand. Makes one wonder *why* you'd do this. Nowhere in this conversation are we discussing the effects of the implementation of any other form of health care reform. I'm only asking you to assess the direct effects of the one that was passed compared to not passing it. Why are you working so hard to avoid facing that?


To me, this is the issue at hand, as I haven't been a part of the discussion at all. Why are you working so hard to answer the question at hand?


I'm trying to get an answer to the question I asked. I don't think that's too much to ask really. And I fully believe that the counter-questions are simply a means of avoiding answering that question.


If you asked me if I agreed that hitting someone over the head with a hammer would make them mad, you would be right to think I was avoiding the question if I responded by asking you what you would prefer to hit that person over the head with.

Edited, Sep 6th 2011 6:22pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#83 Sep 06 2011 at 7:24 PM Rating: Good
******
30,643 posts
gbaji wrote:
I'm trying to get an answer to the question I asked. I don't think that's too much to ask really. And I fully believe that the counter-questions are simply a means of avoiding answering that question.


If you asked me if I agreed that hitting someone over the head with a hammer would make them mad, you would be right to think I was avoiding the question if I responded by asking you what you would prefer to hit that person over the head with.

Edited, Sep 6th 2011 6:22pm by gbaji


I don't have an answer to your question. I honestly don't know the answer. I was simply trying to help another poster by offering what I thought your opinion on healthcare was. I am now curious if I was correct or not. That's really all. That's exactly how much I am invested in this conversation.
#84 Sep 06 2011 at 7:47 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I'm trying to get an answer to the question I asked. I don't think that's too much to ask really. And I fully believe that the counter-questions are simply a means of avoiding answering that question.


If you asked me if I agreed that hitting someone over the head with a hammer would make them mad, you would be right to think I was avoiding the question if I responded by asking you what you would prefer to hit that person over the head with.


I don't have an answer to your question. I honestly don't know the answer.


Don't you think that's kinda important though? Does this mean you have no position on job creation in the US? You'll have no opinion on Obama's speech this Thursday? That just seems a bit apathetic, especially considering you usually do have strong opinions on such things.


Quote:
I was simply trying to help another poster by offering what I thought your opinion on healthcare was.


Unwittingly or not, you were helping him avoid my question. My opinion regarding alternative methods of health care really does have zero bearing on the discussion we're having. He asked it as a means of avoiding answering my question. You jumping in and "helping" him change the subject isn't really helping at all IMO.


Quote:
I am now curious if I was correct or not. That's really all. That's exactly how much I am invested in this conversation.


Since you asked nicely!

The first part was more or less correct. The second part (where you expressed an opinion about the result) I clearly don't agree with. I believe that a health care system which does not depend on a middleman (or multiple middlemen) as the method of payment will result in higher availability of the most important basic medical services at a price that most everyone can afford. I believe that both insurance mechanisms *and* government provided health care create those artificial middleman conditions which drive costs up. And in the US we have *both*.

If you could just walk into a doctors office, get care, and then pay for the care directly it would be vastly less expensive. Insurance results in pricing health care out of reach for some people. To cover that gap, government steps into help pay for it for those people. But that results in even more costs. Which drives the price up. Which prices it out of reach of more people. Which necessitates the government stepping in to help more people. Repeat that cycle long enough and you have the ridiculous situation we find ourselves in right now.

And Obamacare didn't address a single part of that problem. All it did really was mandate higher coverage levels. Which means that it'll cost *more* to buy any health care at all. IMO, that's a step in the exact wrong direction. We should be removing mandates. We should let people buy only the health care they want or need instead of forcing them into an insurance model that covers everything. Do that, and costs will come down.


If we were talking about health care, that's what I would say. But we're not, are we? We're talking about factors affecting unemployment.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#85 Sep 06 2011 at 7:48 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,004 posts
gbaji wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:
But in the context of the current lack of jobs creation, all that really matters is the impact the choice to pass Obamacare has had on that job creation. My assertion is that it has had a negative effect and thus is one of the problems affecting our economy.


Do you agree or disagree with that assertion?


I'd imagine the program itself has probably had little effect so far, as most of it hasn't been implemented yet and the uncertainty over whether or not it'll survive the next election cycle may well trump any positive or negative effects on the economy. I.e. many companies are likely being conservative in planning for future health care costs until the controversy surrounds it dies down and they know what the USA's future health care system will look like.


Ok. But would that uncertainly exist if Obamacare hadn't passed?


It's like I have to lead you there step by step


Probably; I'm slow at times and not blessed with quick access to numbers. Smiley: wink

I couldn't tell you if a lack of action on a healthcare costs is worse than what we've been given. Extra planning for different outcomes certainly helps no one, on the other hand it's not like inaction on debt (you know all those upcoming health-care costs for the public and private sector) is beneficial either.

I would have liked to see a solution that was less likely to be undone by the opposing party honestly, but that didn't happen.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#86 Sep 06 2011 at 7:58 PM Rating: Good
******
30,643 posts
gbaji wrote:
The first part was more or less correct.


Thanks.
#87 Sep 06 2011 at 8:01 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:
But in the context of the current lack of jobs creation, all that really matters is the impact the choice to pass Obamacare has had on that job creation. My assertion is that it has had a negative effect and thus is one of the problems affecting our economy.


Do you agree or disagree with that assertion?


I'd imagine the program itself has probably had little effect so far, as most of it hasn't been implemented yet and the uncertainty over whether or not it'll survive the next election cycle may well trump any positive or negative effects on the economy. I.e. many companies are likely being conservative in planning for future health care costs until the controversy surrounds it dies down and they know what the USA's future health care system will look like.


Ok. But would that uncertainly exist if Obamacare hadn't passed?


It's like I have to lead you there step by step


Probably; I'm slow at times and not blessed with quick access to numbers. Smiley: wink



I'm curious: Why do you say "probably"? You directly said that the uncertainty is because of companies not knowing what the future health care system will look like. Um... if we hadn't passed Obamacare we wouldn't have that uncertainty, would we? Companies could accurately determine what the health care component of employment would cost them, and thus factor that into their business models.

It's just a bit strange that you clearly state that the passage of the act created the uncertainty, clearly state that it's because of the uncertainty that the companies are being conservative about hiring, yet still can't bring yourself to say that Obamacare is hurting employment. Even if you had no clue, there's no reason to "probably" assume one position or the other. But in this case, you've adopted the exact opposite conclusion to what your own statements indicate.

Quote:
I couldn't tell you if a lack of action on a healthcare costs is worse than what we've been given.


Then why say there "probably" would be uncertainty even if we hadn't passed Obamacare? I'm honestly curious why you'd say that.


Quote:
Extra planning for different outcomes certainly helps no one, on the other hand it's not like inaction on debt (you know all those upcoming health-care costs for the public and private sector) is beneficial either.


I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here, or how it relates to the question I asked.

Quote:
I would have liked to see a solution that was less likely to be undone by the opposing party honestly, but that didn't happen.


Be honest with yourself though. Is your reason why you want this because of social reasons, or economic ones? I'm asking about economic effects, but it really seems like your answers kinda circle around this broad "but it's better to do it that way!" idea. Even in the face of known or acknowledged increases in cost, you still support the idea of Obamacare. Am I wrong to assume that's because of the social good and not so much an assessment based on cost? It just sure looks like you don't really care about the cost at all, but don't want to acknowledge that.


Maybe I'm reading into your posts though. Who knows?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#88 Sep 06 2011 at 8:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,004 posts
gbaji wrote:
I'm curious: Why do you say "probably"? You directly said that the uncertainty is because of companies not knowing what the future health care system will look like. Um... if we hadn't passed Obamacare we wouldn't have that uncertainty, would we?


Well it takes two to tango. I blame the divided system in general more than any one party.

gbaji wrote:
Quote:

Extra planning for different outcomes certainly helps no one, on the other hand it's not like inaction on debt (you know all those upcoming health-care costs for the public and private sector) is beneficial either.



I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here, or how it relates to the question I asked.


I thought long term costs in medicare and medicaid were gloomy. Linky

gbaji wrote:
you still support the idea of Obamacare.


I never really supported Obamacare. I think the issue of whether or not you can make an citizen purchase goods from a private company is a sticky thorn that needs to be addressed sooner rather than later.

gbaji wrote:
Maybe I'm reading into your posts though. Who knows?


I usually ask questions more from curiosity then to back a political standpoint. I have better access to liberal ideas these days then conservative ones, so you get more questions then the liberal folks here. Lucky you. Smiley: wink

Edited, Sep 6th 2011 7:17pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#89 Sep 07 2011 at 1:18 AM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
gbaji wrote:
If you could just walk into a doctors office, get care, and then pay for the care directly it would be vastly less expensive.
Sometimes it really looks like you're incapable of looking past your own nose.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#90 Sep 07 2011 at 5:56 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The cash-and-carry model is already available in the "Quick Clinics" at some major drugstore chains and department stores. It costs about a hundred bucks for a nurse practitioner (not a doctor) to look at a minor cough or scrape. Anything worse than that and you'll be referred elsewhere. This is a service that doesn't accept insurance so they are doing exactly what Gbaji claims will be "vastly less expensive".

By "vastly less expensive", he means "the same cost as a typical uninsured office visit with a real doctor". Well, not counting the cost of the prescription without insurance. Some pharmacies practically give away general antibiotics as a goodwill gesture but God forbid you need a prescription painkiller or thyroid medication or heart medication or something.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#91 Sep 07 2011 at 7:06 AM Rating: Good
A doctor visit for me is billed at about $121. I don't even have a problem with a nurse practitioner, but the problem with a clinic is that they are probably only going to focus on what you are specifically there for. When I go to my doctor, he wants to keep me well in general, not just treat some specific problem.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#92 Sep 07 2011 at 7:51 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Earlier in the year, circumstances put us between insurance and, naturally, the baby got sick. The cash bill was something like $65, though I think we got a fairly substantial discount because we were long term patients of the doctor. The desk did make clear though that cash patients got charged less than the total bill for insurance since there's less administrative work.

Of course, with insurance, I'm paying $25 regardless of whatever squabbles the doctor and Blue Cross want to get into.

I don't have an issue with a nurse practitioner in that I don't think they're incapable of prescribing amoxicillin for strep. But it's not a bona fide doctor so to pay essentially the same cash bill to see either is paying a premium to see a less overall qualified professional at the clinic.

Edited, Sep 7th 2011 8:51am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#93 Sep 07 2011 at 8:04 AM Rating: Good
Gbaji is right about one thing. If we made the poor and elderly pay cash for care, supply and demand would dramatically decrease the cost of an office visit.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#94 Sep 07 2011 at 6:38 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Earlier in the year, circumstances put us between insurance and, naturally, the baby got sick. The cash bill was something like $65, though I think we got a fairly substantial discount because we were long term patients of the doctor. The desk did make clear though that cash patients got charged less than the total bill for insurance since there's less administrative work.

Of course, with insurance, I'm paying $25 regardless of whatever squabbles the doctor and Blue Cross want to get into.


Except for the cost of the insurance itself, right? You, I, and everyone else paying into the health care system pays for that extra cost. The fact that your copay is lower than it would cost to just walk in directly and pay cash is irrelevant when discussing the total cost of the care. And that total cost is necessarily higher because of the use of an insurance mechanism.


Um... And the cash and carry costs are higher as well, even if you don't see it directly. When the costs of a good or service go up, everything related to the good or service increases in price. So if the proliferation of pay by insurance results in ballooning costs, some of those costs will affect people who are not paying via insurance. The costs of the materials, medicine, and salaries are all based on an inflated industry cost for the end product.


The problem, as I've explained dozens of times in the past, is that once you create sufficient layers of middlemen between the buyer of a product and the seller of a product, the cost of that product will increase. The layers themselves will cause that to happen, but also inefficiency and pure human greed will as well. If it costs you $25 for a doctor visit regardless of what the doctor does, why not have him use the most expensive materials and perform the most expensive tests? And if the doctor gets paid the same amount from his employer, why not do those more expensive things as well? And if you're the company selling the testing equipment and the medicine to the hospital, why not charge more money for it? And if the hospital can pass that cost on to the insurer, why not pay those higher costs? And if the insurer can pass that cost on to the employer, why not pay it as well? And the employer? Well, he kinda takes it in the shorts, but he can treat is as a benefit and count it as part of his employees compensation.

The end result is that even though the buyer thinks he's getting a good deal, he's really getting screwed. But because in many cases the true cost of the insurance he's buying is hidden from him, he doesn't realize it. And this process most definitely inflates the cost of all the goods and services in the entire health care industry. And that absolutely affects the amount of money it will cost even a cash and carry health care consumer.


Insurance only makes sense if the thing you are insuring is rare and prohibitively expensive. Most of the health care the average person receives over the course of their life is neither of those things. By paying for them via insurance though, we grossly inflate the costs not just to ourselves, but to everyone else as well. That's why health care has gradually become priced out of reach of so many people when it didn't use to be. Obamacare basically doubles down on the same failed model. It mandates additional costs that insurers must bear and instead of giving people more freedom to not have to use insurance for their health care does exactly the opposite by requiring that *everyone* pay into the system.


The cost effects of this should be very predictable.

Edited, Sep 7th 2011 5:40pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#95 Sep 07 2011 at 6:47 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Admiral Lubriderm wrote:
Gbaji is right about one thing. If we made the poor and elderly pay cash for care, supply and demand would dramatically decrease the cost of an office visit.


Absolutely. Because the health care provider would be forced to price their product to the ability of those who need it to pay. What do you suppose would happen to the cost of #2 pencils if the government decided tomorrow that they are necessary for everyone to have and so mandated that everyone either buy pencil insurance or if they couldn't afford to buy it, the government would subsidize it for them? The sellers of #2 pencils would double or even triple the cost of their product, right? Because they can. No one will pay $20 for a pencil out of their pocket, but the government will if it's part of a program to ensure that people receive their needed pencils.

Same deal with health care. The second you remove primary payment from a cash for service agreement into an insurance methodology, you break the supply/demand process. This really isn't some bizarre out from left field statement. It's basic economics.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#96 Sep 07 2011 at 6:51 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
So if you could go to the doctor and pay in cash, it'd be way less expensive... Except for when you go to the doctor and pay in cash and it's not less expensive, except those times don't count. Gotcha.

And, yes, I'm aware that I'm paying for the insurance (duh?). I was shorthanding the experience. The insurance covers a wider range of things than that doctor's visit, for instance it meant that our bill for the recent childbirth and three days hospital stay was something like $250 or $500 (don't recall now) rather than the $13,000+ itemized on the hospital's bill.

Of course, what you dream about is a pipe dream anyway with no realistic means of implementing it (unless you're into some strict controls and regulations)
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#97 Sep 07 2011 at 7:05 PM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
Admiral Lubriderm wrote:
Gbaji is right about one thing. If we made the poor and elderly pay cash for care, supply and demand would dramatically decrease the cost of an office visit.


Absolutely. Because the health care provider would be forced to price their product to the ability of those who need it to pay. What do you suppose would happen to the cost of #2 pencils if the government decided tomorrow that they are necessary for everyone to have and so mandated that everyone either buy pencil insurance or if they couldn't afford to buy it, the government would subsidize it for them? The sellers of #2 pencils would double or even triple the cost of their product, right? Because they can. No one will pay $20 for a pencil out of their pocket, but the government will if it's part of a program to ensure that people receive their needed pencils.

Same deal with health care. The second you remove primary payment from a cash for service agreement into an insurance methodology, you break the supply/demand process. This really isn't some bizarre out from left field statement. It's basic economics.


Looks like another /whooosh for Gbaji.

If we make the poor and elderly pay cash, they won't get healthcare, and them they will die. I suppose that will reduce the demand.
____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#98 Sep 07 2011 at 7:06 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,314 posts
The sooner the old are in the ground, the sooner they can be converted to fossil fuels.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#99 Sep 07 2011 at 7:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
12,055 posts
I'm going to start calling Bachman Mrs Mcsillypants because she just promised $2 gas, a fence through Texas, and yet no government interference in private industry or taxes.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#100 Sep 07 2011 at 7:39 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Jophiel wrote:
So if you could go to the doctor and pay in cash, it'd be way less expensive... Except for when you go to the doctor and pay in cash and it's not less expensive, except those times don't count. Gotcha.


And how often is that? And why not just get insurance for those things that are more expensive? Wouldn't that make the total cost less?

The answer is: Yes, it would.

Quote:
Of course, what you dream about is a pipe dream anyway with no realistic means of implementing it (unless you're into some strict controls and regulations)


Removing strict controls and regulations really. You do understand that when the government mandates minimum coverage requirements for health insurance, and then mandates that employers with a certain number of full time employees must buy it, that this kinda does force people to buy that insurance, right?

It's amazing how often the correct solution is to simply *not* do things we're currently doing. Never occurs to you guys on the left though.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#101 Sep 07 2011 at 7:44 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Technogeek wrote:
Looks like another /whooosh for Gbaji.

If we make the poor and elderly pay cash, they won't get healthcare, and them they will die. I suppose that will reduce the demand.


No. I got what you were saying, but it works my way too! Smiley: nod
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 32 All times are in CST
Bijou, Prim, Anonymous Guests (30)