The Republican Thread

[Jenksismyhero]

Sigh, we're so f***ed.

[NorthSideSox72]

LOL, I love how they equate laundry-folding robots with solar power.

 

The government does spend way, way, way too much money. But that nice little video doesn't want you to know that the fun little discretionary bits are only a tiny portion of the problem, and that most GOP'ers even are unwilling to attack the monstrosities that are social security, medicare, historically low tax rates for businesses and the rich, and the military. Those together are 90% of the problem.

 

[Balta1701]

LOL, I love how they equate laundry-folding robots with solar power.

 

The government does spend way, way, way too much money. But that nice little video doesn't want you to know that the fun little discretionary bits are only a tiny portion of the problem, and that most GOP'ers even are unwilling to attack the monstrosities that are social security, medicare, historically low tax rates for businesses and the rich, and the military. Those together are 90% of the problem.

Actually they are fully willing to attack Medicare. They have a plan in place to effectively end it and leave seniors responsible for a much larger share of their health care dollars in the private market within a decade.

[NorthSideSox72]

Actually they are fully willing to attack Medicare. They have a plan in place to effectively end it and leave seniors responsible for a much larger share of their health care dollars in the private market within a decade.

Well first, only some of "they" are willing to do that. Second, that's not actually fixing a problem, that's replacing one with another. But even that is still better than doing nothing with it, at this point.

 

I'd like someone other than Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich to be willing to cut the monster military money muncher. I'd like someone to use some of the vast financial brain power we have in this country to find a way to unwind us from social security. I'd like someone to tell me whey the richest 1% of the country are paying less taxes then ever, in the midst of the deepest economic downturn since the depression (and then raise their taxes - yeah I said it).

 

Then, if you have the balls to do that, and the brains, maybe you are smart enough to realize that discretionary cuts can be done smartly, instead of lumping towel robots and alternative energy into the same bucket.

 

[Balta1701]

Well first, only some of "they" are willing to do that. Second, that's not actually fixing a problem, that's replacing one with another. But even that is still better than doing nothing with it, at this point.

 

I'd like someone other than Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich to be willing to cut the monster military money muncher. I'd like someone to use some of the vast financial brain power we have in this country to find a way to unwind us from social security. I'd like someone to tell me whey the richest 1% of the country are paying less taxes then ever, in the midst of the deepest economic downturn since the depression (and then raise their taxes - yeah I said it).

 

Then, if you have the balls to do that, and the brains, maybe you are smart enough to realize that discretionary cuts can be done smartly, instead of lumping towel robots and alternative energy into the same bucket.

The ENTIRE House and Senate Republican Caucus save 1 or 2 senators voted for it. "Some".

 

It's also not better than nothing, because we hand away the extra money in tax cuts, then 5 years later wind up reestablishing the program at much greater cost when we realize that no private company wants to provide basic health insurance to the U.S.'s population of seniors.

 

And that financial brainpower would love to help you hand over social security to it.

[StrangeSox]

Well first, only some of "they" are willing to do that.

hmm, I seem to remember nearly unanimous support in the House and Gingrich having to backpedal at record-speed after criticizing the plan.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/...op-reps-vote-no

 

 

Second, that's not actually fixing a problem, that's replacing one with another. But even that is still better than doing nothing with it, at this point.

No, massive cuts in social spending to fund massive cuts in taxes for the wealthy to magically spur unrealistic economic growth projections is much, much worse than doing nothing.

[southsider2k5]

The ENTIRE House and Senate Republican Caucus save 1 or 2 senators voted for it. "Some".

 

It's also not better than nothing, because we hand away the extra money in tax cuts, then 5 years later wind up reestablishing the program at much greater cost when we realize that no private company wants to provide basic health insurance to the U.S.'s population of seniors.

 

And that financial brainpower would love to help you hand over social security to it.

 

Ah yes, the whole basis for Obama-care, Step One.

[StrangeSox]

I'd like someone to use some of the vast financial brain power we have in this country to find a way to unwind us from social security.

 

Why? It's prevented millions of seniors from entering into poverty.

[Balta1701]

Ah yes, the whole basis for Obama-care, Step One.

Obamacare shifted people from Medicare into the private market?

[southsider2k5]

Obamacare shifted people from Medicare into the private market?

 

Destroy the system as it exists. Then shift everyone onto the government plan.

[StrangeSox]

Obamacare shifted people from Medicare into the private market?

 

No, the conservative claim that PPACA will drive all private insurers out of business and leave only the exchanges.

[StrangeSox]

Destroy the system as it exists. Then shift everyone onto the government plan.

 

The system as it exists is pretty terrible and worse than all of those government-run ones, so I don't see the problem.

[southsider2k5]

No, the conservative claim that PPACA will drive all private insurers out of business and leave only the exchanges.

 

yeah, crazy, right?

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...=googlenews_wsj

 

A report by McKinsey & Co. has found that 30% of employers are likely to stop offering workers health insurance after the bulk of the Obama administration's health overhaul takes effect in 2014.

 

The findings come as a growing number of employers are seeking waivers from an early provision in the overhaul that requires them to enrich their benefits this year. At the end of April, the administration had granted 1,372 employers, unions and insurance companies one-year exemptions from the law's requirement that they not cap annual benefit payouts below $750,000 per person a year.

 

But the law doesn't allow for such waivers starting in 2014, leaving all those entities—and other employers whose plans don't meet a slate of new requirements—to change their offerings or drop coverage.

{if djIsFlashPossible}

The version of Adobe Flash Player required to view this interactive has not been found. To enjoy our complete interactive experience, please download a free copy of the latest version of Adobe Flash Player here

{else}

This content can not be displayed because your browser does not support the Adobe Flash player required to view it.

{/if}

 

Previous research has suggested the number of employers who opt to drop coverage altogether in 2014 would be minimal.

 

But the McKinsey study predicts a more dramatic shift from employer-sponsored health plans once the new marketplace takes effect. Starting in 2014, all but the smallest employers will be required to provide insurance or pay a fine, while most Americans will have to carry coverage or pay a different fine. Lower earners will get subsidies to help them pay for plans.

 

In surveying 1,300 employers earlier this year, McKinsey found that 30% said they would "definitely or probably" stop offering employer coverage in the years after 2014. That figure increased to more than 50% among employers with a high awareness of the overhaul law.

 

Behind the expected shift is the fact that the law will give Americans new insurance options outside the workplace, and carriers will no longer be allowed to deny people coverage because they have been sick. McKinsey found that reduced the moral obligation employers may feel to provide coverage.

 

The Obama administration says it is working to encourage employers to retain coverage. An administration official, Nick Papas, described the McKinsey report as an outlier amid other research suggesting that employers overwhelmingly would keep coverage.

 

"History has shown that reform motivates more businesses to offer insurance," he said. "When Massachusetts enacted health reform, the number of individuals with employer-sponsored insurance increased."

 

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, in a March 2010 report, found that by 2019, about six million to seven million people who otherwise would have had access to coverage through their job won't have it owing to the new law. That estimate represents about 4% of the roughly 160 million people projected to have employment-based coverage in 2019.

 

However, the CBO estimated that the overall number of Americans with coverage will rise by 32 million because of new subsidies and other steps.

 

The law contains a disincentive for employers to drop coverage. It requires all employers with more than 50 employees to offer health benefits to every full-time worker or pay a penalty of $2,000 per worker, though it doesn't apply to the first 30 workers. Health-policy experts have questioned whether that is high enough to discourage companies from health coverage.

 

McKinsey found at least 30% of employers would gain economically from dropping coverage even if they completely compensated employees through other benefits or higher salaries. The study suggests the fallout would be minimal, with more than 85% of employees remaining in their jobs even if their employer stopped coverage.

 

Nearly half the employers said they would consider alternatives to their current plan after 2014. Besides dropping coverage, those included weighing a switch to a defined-contribution model of insurance, in effect offering coverage only to certain employees.

 

Write to Janet Adamy at [email protected]

[StrangeSox]

yeah, crazy, right?

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...=googlenews_wsj

 

LOL I was hoping you'd use that!

 

It's a pretty suspect study since they won't discuss their methodologies at all. It's not a citeable study. Other studies that actually show their methodologies have found far, far less impact.

 

http://swampland.time.com/2011/06/08/some-...oyer-insurance/

 

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersec...lthcare-report/

 

Multiple sources both within and outside the firm tell TPM the survey was not conducted using McKinsey’s typical, meticulous methodology. Indeed, the article the firm published was not intended to give the subject matter the same authoritative treatment as more thorough studies on the same topic — particularly those conducted by numerous think tanks, and the Congressional Budget Office, which came to the opposite conclusion. And that’s created a clamor within the firm at high levels to set the record straight.

“This particular survey wasn’t designed in away that would allow it to be peer review published or cited academically,” said one source familiar with the controversy…

Another keyed-in source says McKinsey is unlikely to release [the study's] survey materials because “it would be damaging to them.”

 

It was, essentially, a push-piece.

Edited June 14, 2011 by StrangeSox

[Balta1701]

I was so soooooooo hoping we wouldn't have to go through that study, considering that they won't let anyone go through how it was done. But alas, here we go.

But multiple sources both within and outside the firm tell TPM the survey was not conducted using McKinsey's typical, meticulous methodology. Indeed, the article the firm published was not intended to give the subject matter the same authoritative treatment as more thorough studies on the same topic -- particularly those conducted by numerous think tanks, and the Congressional Budget Office, which came to the opposite conclusion. And that's created a clamor within the firm at high levels to set the record straight.

 

"This particular survey wasn't designed in away that would allow it to be peer review published or cited academically," said one source familiar with the controversy.

 

 

.....

Another keyed-in source says McKinsey is unlikely to release the survey materials because "it would be damaging to them."

 

Both sources disagree with the results of the survey, which was devised by consultants without particular expertise in this area, not by the firm's health experts.

 

A third source speculates that the firm may have reached its outlying conclusion by basing its questions on the firm's own advice to clients on how best to arbitrage the new reforms. Specifically, under the law, employers could devise their benefits packages in ways that makes them unappealing to lower-income employees, who would then have to enter the exchanges. Though TPM could not confirm this, the conclusion is supported by a disclosure within the McKinsey study itself.

[StrangeSox]

Balta, ninja'd

[southsider2k5]

LOL I was hoping you'd use that!

 

It's a pretty suspect study since they won't discuss their methodologies at all. It's not a citeable study. Other studies that actually show their methodologies have found far, far less impact.

 

http://swampland.time.com/2011/06/08/some-...oyer-insurance/

 

I know it is easy to say that, but it makes perfect sense. Force businesses into making a business decision, and they are going to go for the cheapest option. If cutting plans is cheaper than paying a fine, which it is, they will cut. It is also obvious that this was completely on purpose since they couldn't get what they wanted if they were obvious about getting government health car.

[Balta1701]

I know it is easy to say that, but it makes perfect sense. Force businesses into making a business decision, and they are going to go for the cheapest option. If cutting plans is cheaper than paying a fine, which it is, they will cut. It is also obvious that this was completely on purpose since they couldn't get what they wanted if they were obvious about getting government health car.

"Sure the survey is B.S., but its heart is in the right place. So I'm right."

[southsider2k5]

"Sure the survey is B.S., but its heart is in the right place. So I'm right."

 

"I found a blog, I can't be wrong!"

[Balta1701]

I know it is easy to say that, but it makes perfect sense. Force businesses into making a business decision, and they are going to go for the cheapest option. If cutting plans is cheaper than paying a fine, which it is, they will cut. It is also obvious that this was completely on purpose since they couldn't get what they wanted if they were obvious about getting government health car.

Now, I'll lay off the sarcasm. The thing you're missing of course is that the Health Care tax credit still exists. Which means that if an employer stops paying health benefits to its employees and just pays the fine, it looses a huge government assist on paying those benefits...which is really the only reason employers provide health care at all today anyway. Stopping paying for those benefits is a pay cut of several thousand dollars a year for the employees without any additional profits for the company...it's the equivalent of just deciding not to claim a tax deduction.

[StrangeSox]

I know it is easy to say that, but it makes perfect sense. Force businesses into making a business decision, and they are going to go for the cheapest option. If cutting plans is cheaper than paying a fine, which it is, they will cut. It is also obvious that this was completely on purpose since they couldn't get what they wanted if they were obvious about getting government health car.

 

Yeah but the "study" is irrelevant first of all. Just want to emphasize that.

 

There's no support for those conclusions. Businesses don't have to offer any health insurance right now, yet they do in order to entice better employees. Why will they suddenly be motivated to drop insurance benefits, which will likely cause a lot of dissent and dissatisfaction among current employees and lower the attractiveness to new employees, because now they'll have to pay a fee? Why not just say "f*** you employees, I got mine, good luck with $5k+ annual premiums!" right now?

 

BTW, if your claim is correct here, it's a pretty strong argument against unbridled capitalism and for a social safety net for basic human needs.

[StrangeSox]

"I found a blog, I can't be wrong!"

 

This doesn't work when you're citing a study that refuses to disclose it's methodology. That's actually worse than a blog.

[Balta1701]

This doesn't work when you're citing a study that refuses to disclose it's methodology. That's actually worse than a blog.

The sad thing is...calling repeatedly when a dubious study refuses to explain how it got its unique results (which also don't square with the results seen in Massachusetts) is supposed to be the job of actual media. Instead, it's pretty much only done by blogs today...the mainstream job is to report the study and that's it. No evaluation of quality. Anything else is too much work.

[southsider2k5]

Now, I'll lay off the sarcasm. The thing you're missing of course is that the Health Care tax credit still exists. Which means that if an employer stops paying health benefits to its employees and just pays the fine, it looses a huge government assist on paying those benefits...which is really the only reason employers provide health care at all today anyway. Stopping paying for those benefits is a pay cut of several thousand dollars a year for the employees without any additional profits for the company...it's the equivalent of just deciding not to claim a tax deduction.

 

It is also not paying a major expense. A great equivilant is moving jobs out of the US. Companies get all kinds of credits and the like for staying in the US. In the end it is still cheaper to go overseas. Health care seems to be the same way. If companies are paying more out of pocket, than the fine they will get, it is an easy decision to drop coverage. Insurance is like 10k a year. Fines are no where close to that, and neither are the credits.

[southsider2k5]

Yeah but the "study" is irrelevant first of all. Just want to emphasize that.

 

There's no support for those conclusions. Businesses don't have to offer any health insurance right now, yet they do in order to entice better employees. Why will they suddenly be motivated to drop insurance benefits, which will likely cause a lot of dissent and dissatisfaction among current employees and lower the attractiveness to new employees, because now they'll have to pay a fee? Why not just say "f*** you employees, I got mine, good luck with $5k+ annual premiums!" right now?

 

BTW, if your claim is correct here, it's a pretty strong argument against unbridled capitalism and for a social safety net for basic human needs.

 

Because now they have a cheap alternative to dump them on.