Thoughts on the 2014 "Obamacare" changes to health benefits.

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**sourclams**

Rented Tritium wrote:
See, your first step was production increasing. That's not the problem. There is enough good investment money in the system that production can increase any time it needs to. The problem is that consumer emand for goods and services is too low to warrant increasing production.?

Yeah, I don't think your POV is syncing up with what we've already seen develop in the broader markets. Production did increase. Demand for that production also increased, as evidenced by general rise in prices (notably home values/housing starts). There is enough liquidity and credit that reinvestment in physical production and manufacturing that it can rebound, and there's more than enough money circulating that the services sector (speaking primarily to financial services, not fast food restaurants) is not creating a bottleneck.

The way in which production has increased, however, has come by increasing productivity per person on the existing headcount. Overtime is increased and automation is increased, reinvestment in process and allowing the same person to do things 'better' has increased. This is how headcount/hiring increase has been largely skipped over to-date. Businesses have adopted more up-front costs (overtime, training, equipment and process purchases) to avoid hiring another full-timer. That is a completely rational behavior.

So the economy is doing much better, but it is doing so in a way that amplifies the gap between 'haves' and 'have-nots'.

**daedalus**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Rented Tritium wrote:
Yeah, ACA is undeniably having impacts on hiring patterns.

At BEST, these changes in patterns will make the recovery difficult to predict and track.

At WORST they will slow it down.

Around here a lot of employers aren't offering full time employment, just part time to reduce the impact of the ACA.

Are you talking professional jobs, or are you talking retail/food services?

Name and shame.

**whembly**

daedalus wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Rented Tritium wrote:
Yeah, ACA is undeniably having impacts on hiring patterns.

At BEST, these changes in patterns will make the recovery difficult to predict and track.

At WORST they will slow it down.

Around here a lot of employers aren't offering full time employment, just part time to reduce the impact of the ACA.

Are you talking professional jobs, or are you talking retail/food services?

Name and shame.

Practically any hourly jobs daedalus...

Darden Restaurants for one...

If business are going to cut overhead expenses in order to maintain competitiveness... what did you expect?

**Rented Tritium**

It's RAMPANT in food service/retail. Less so in sectors which already offered insurance as a matter of course.

**daedalus**

Frankly? That IS what I expected, and have been screaming about to anyone who will listen.

Apparently that's very republican of me, and occasionally makes me a randist.

I was just hoping for specific mention of the places he had noticed actually doing this already so that I can feel self-righteously smug.

**Dreadclaw69**

daedalus wrote:
Are you talking professional jobs, or are you talking retail/food services?

Name and shame.

No names, but many jobs, including a recent interview with a Fortune 500 company

**sourclams**

Rented Tritium wrote:
Less so in sectors which already offered insurance as a matter of course.

Yes, less so, but the 'professional' sectors are doing the same. In the intermediate term, 'not hiring' will amount to the same as 'reduction in force' given the size of the inactive labor pool and slight population growth.

**whembly**

Did some readings on the ACA and general HHS functions...

I'm now convinced this move is perfectly illegal. The law does not allow any discretion whatsoever in its timetables.

Should I hold my breath until the traditional media challenges the Whitehouse on ths?

**Rented Tritium**

whembly wrote:
traditional media

**whembly**

Rented Tritium wrote:
whembly wrote:
traditional media

Okay boyo... under what criteria is the whitehouse able to do this?

**Rented Tritium**

whembly wrote:
Rented Tritium wrote:
whembly wrote:
traditional media

Okay boyo... under what criteria is the whitehouse able to do this?

No idea. Maybe none. I just roll my eyes at "traditional media" histrionics.

**whembly**

Rented Tritium wrote:

No idea. Maybe none. I just roll my eyes at "traditional media" histrionics.

Okay... I'm willing to hold my "outrage" at bay until we get more information.

But, humor me for a moment...

Let's say that there's nothing in the ACA bill or there's no existing government function that would allow the WH to delay the implementation.

Don't you see this as a potential problem? At the very least, a showdown between Congress and the WH?

The whole irony about this thing is that nothing will be done. I mean, is the GOP going to sue the WH to actually implement this thing? o.O

-if the GOP was smart, they'd use this to hammer their Democratic opponents. (but, they'll likely feth that up)

-if this does go uncontested, what does that mean for future presidents?

**Rented Tritium**

whembly wrote:
Rented Tritium wrote:

No idea. Maybe none. I just roll my eyes at "traditional media" histrionics.

Okay... I'm willing to hold my "outrage" at bay until we get more information.

But, humor me for a moment...

Let's say that there's nothing in the ACA bill or there's no existing government function that would allow the WH to delay the implementation.

Don't you see this as a potential problem? At the very least, a showdown between Congress and the WH?

The whole irony about this thing is that nothing will be done. I mean, is the GOP going to sue the WH to actually implement this thing? o.O

-if the GOP was smart, they'd use this to hammer their Democratic opponents. (but, they'll likely feth that up)

-if this does go uncontested, what does that mean for future presidents?

Only court cases create precedent. If someone doesn't get challenged in court and upheld, then it doesn't really create a precedent, so you don' t have to worry much about that.

As for strategy, the republicans are going to use it in attack ads a la "obamacare was so bad that the democrats won't even enforce it themselves"

**daedalus**

whembly wrote:

The whole irony about this thing is that nothing will be done. I mean, is the GOP going to sue the WH to actually implement this thing? o.O

Wonder if that's by design.

**sebster**

sourclams wrote:
One of the ways this economic recovery differs significantly from... every other economic recovery is that decline in unemployment did not 'lead' increases in corporate profits. The typical order of a recovery is 1. Production increases, 2. Unemployment declines, 3. Profits increase. This leads back to 1. and the virtuous cycle gains traction.

Huh?

It's been said so many times during and since the recession that it's gotten to be a cliche, but I'll repeat it for you here - there is no typical recovery. It's like Tolstoy said, "Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way"... well happy economies are all alike, every unhappy economy is unhappy in its own way. There is no regular pattern to recovery, and the bigger the economic shock, the more that holds true.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

sourclams wrote:
What 'supply' are you referencing?

Seriously? I thought you were trained and worked in economics?

Anyhow, recessions can be supply side driven or demand driven.

A supply side recession involves a shock to production, typically a sudden ramp up in the costs of production, so that formerly profitable production is no longer profitable, and stops. The classic example is the late 70s double whammy of massive increases in the price of oil and wage inflation.

A demand driven recession involves inadequate aggregate demand. Typically this is due to increased sensitivity to balance sheet risk, people and firms looking to reduce debt and increase savings through reduced consumption/investment. Unfortunately, of course, what works for the individual doesn't work well for the economy as a whole, producing an overall reduced level of aggregate demand.

**sourclams**

sebster wrote:
It's been said so many times during and since the recession that it's gotten to be a cliche, but I'll repeat it for you here - there is no typical recovery. It's like Tolstoy said, "Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way"... well happy economies are all alike, every unhappy economy is unhappy in its own way. There is no regular pattern to recovery, and the bigger the economic shock, the more that holds true.

That's fine that you feel that way, but it really doesn't change that unemployment remains high and part-time positions have a disproportionate share of unemployment decline. When we look at the broad trends, the US economy is doing well. It is doing well in a way that is largely leaving the bottom quintile earners in the US utterly in the dust. Part of the reason is the ability for employers to figure out how to fulfill the needs of their business while circumventing headcount. This is a big deviation from historical norm. So the question to truly begin to understand recent events is 'what exactly is disincenting businesses from hiring more people?'. There is, of course, no one issue to wag your finger at there but you're nuts if you don't think Obamacare and the regulatory uncertainty that still years-later surrounds it, isn't a big contributor.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

sourclams wrote:
What 'supply' are you referencing?

Seriously? I thought you were trained and worked in economics?

Anyhow, recessions can be supply side driven or demand driven.

A supply side recession involves a shock to production, typically a sudden ramp up in the costs of production, so that formerly profitable production is no longer profitable, and stops. The classic example is the late 70s double whammy of massive increases in the price of oil and wage inflation.

A demand driven recession involves inadequate aggregate demand. Typically this is due to increased sensitivity to balance sheet risk, people and firms looking to reduce debt and increase savings through reduced consumption/investment. Unfortunately, of course, what works for the individual doesn't work well for the economy as a whole, producing an overall reduced level of aggregate demand.

**whembly**

More UNIONS against Obamacare... Now it's the IEBW Union.

http://www.acawhitepaper.org/The%20Affordable%20Care%20Act%20FINAL.pdf

Hey, whatever happened to “if we like our plans, we can keep them”?

**Relapse**

whembly wrote:
More UNIONS against Obamacare... Now it's the IEBW Union.

http://www.acawhitepaper.org/The%20Affordable%20Care%20Act%20FINAL.pdf

Hey, whatever happened to “if we like our plans, we can keep them”?

I have no sympathy for the unions or anyone who caused this crap to be foisted on us and are now looking for ways around it.

**Dreadclaw69**

whembly wrote:
More UNIONS against Obamacare... Now it's the IEBW Union.

http://www.acawhitepaper.org/The%20Affordable%20Care%20Act%20FINAL.pdf

Hey, whatever happened to “if we like our plans, we can keep them”?

Aren't those unions some of the most vocal supporters of the ACA? Now why would you campaign for something that is not actually in your interests......

**sebster**

sourclams wrote:
That's fine that you feel that way, but it really doesn't change that unemployment remains high and part-time positions have a disproportionate share of unemployment decline. When we look at the broad trends, the US economy is doing well. It is doing well in a way that is largely leaving the bottom quintile earners in the US utterly in the dust. Part of the reason is the ability for employers to figure out how to fulfill the needs of their business while circumventing headcount. This is a big deviation from historical norm. So the question to truly begin to understand recent events is 'what exactly is disincenting businesses from hiring more people?'. There is, of course, no one issue to wag your finger at there but you're nuts if you don't think Obamacare and the regulatory uncertainty that still years-later surrounds it, isn't a big contributor.

It doesn't really matter how I feel, that economic downturns and the subsequent recoveries differ wildly is pretty broadly understood piece of economic history. Read about it, if you're interested.

As such, your argument that this recovery is somehow strangely jobless in a way that's never happened before simply doesn't work. And that's before we get on to the 'and therefore Obamacare' bit at the end.

I appreciate your jumping in straight from the textbook, but 'Supply' and 'Demand' are not distinct separate variables here.

Of course they are. There's no situation in which people's tendency to consume and people tendency to supply can be the same thing. They are always related, but very much not the same thing. Talking about this current recession in terms of supply issues just makes no sense, because it simply isn't driven by rising costs of supply. Obamacare may make certain types of employment more expensive, but against that you have four years of flat wages growth, and falling commodity prices.

The problem is that we are still in the midst of deleveraging, with companies and private building up assets to reduce their indebtedness. This keeps aggregate demand down, which in turn gives businesses no reason to expand and employ new staff.

Since the bit that you quoted is without context, I'll remind you that it was a previous poster who used the 'supply' word, and in an effort to carry on the discussion I queried in which capacity he was using the term. I didn't think he was using it in the broadest sense of definition because the conversation had largely carried beyond that point. Pulling out textbook definitions would have been like responding to a 'how do I tweak my Space Wolves Drop Pod list' thread with 'Hey, Space Marines have a 3+ armor save but no invul, so they're resilient but can still die pretty easy'.

No, the puzzle was someone asking 'how do I tweak my Space Wolves Drop Pod list' and you replying 'please clarify what you mean by Drop Pod'.

**whembly**

Relapse wrote:
whembly wrote:
More UNIONS against Obamacare... Now it's the IEBW Union.

http://www.acawhitepaper.org/The%20Affordable%20Care%20Act%20FINAL.pdf

Hey, whatever happened to “if we like our plans, we can keep them”?

I have no sympathy for the unions or anyone who caused this crap to be foisted on us and are now looking for ways around it.

Yep.

Remember, we all didn't know the full bill... but, we just had to pass it in order to see it.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Aren't those unions some of the most vocal supporters of the ACA? Now why would you campaign for something that is not actually in your interests......

Yep... makes you wonder huh?

**Relapse**

whembly wrote:
Relapse wrote:
whembly wrote:
More UNIONS against Obamacare... Now it's the IEBW Union.

http://www.acawhitepaper.org/The%20Affordable%20Care%20Act%20FINAL.pdf

Hey, whatever happened to “if we like our plans, we can keep them”?

I have no sympathy for the unions or anyone who caused this crap to be foisted on us and are now looking for ways around it.

Yep.

Remember, we all didn't know the full bill... but, we just had to pass it in order to see it.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Aren't those unions some of the most vocal supporters of the ACA? Now why would you campaign for something that is not actually in your interests......

Yep... makes you wonder huh?

I like that Illinois Senate candidates summation of the bill since it seems pretty much on the mark. Too bad more people hadn't listened to her about it so we wouldn't be in the mess that's currently going on because of it and heading into the bigger gak storm coming.

**Dreadclaw69**

Having to pass it before we knew what was in it, more unions jumping ship, staff in political offices wanting exemptions, and deferring large parts of the Bill until after the election..... not a single part of that screams "Good idea"

**whembly**

Yeesh... the (D)s are going to get hammered in the '14 election for Obamacare...

The Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee will later today release the following chart, detailing the rising projected cost of President Obama's signature legislation, Obamacare:

The latest estimate, as the chart details, is that Obamacare will cost $2.6 trillion dollars in its first real decade. The bill does not fully go into effect until 2014, therefore the estimate begins with that year.

"President Obama promised a joint session of Congress in 2009 to spend $900 billion over ten years on his health care law: 'Now, add it all up, and the plan that I’m proposing will cost around $900 billion over 10 years.' Adding up all the different spending provisions in the health care law, however, (including closing the Medicare 'donut hole,' implementation costs, and other spending) total gross spending over the FY 2010–19 period is about $1.4 trillion, based on CBO estimates," the Senate Budget Committee Republican staff explains. "And most of the major spending provisions in the law do not even take effect until 2014. Congressional Democrats delayed these provisions in order to show only six years of spending under the plan in the original 10-year budget window (from FY2010-19) used by CBO at the time the law was enacted. Therefore, the original estimate concealed the fact that most of the law’s spending only doesn’t even begin until four years into the 10-year window. A Senate Budget Committee analysis (based on CBO estimates and growth rates) finds that that total spending under the law will amount to at least $2.6 trillion over a true 10-year period (from FY2014–23)—not $900 billion, as President Obama originally promised."

The chart is being released now to coincide with the House vote later today to repeal Obamacare.

**Relapse**

whembly wrote:
Yeesh... the (D)s are going to get hammered in the '14 election for Obamacare...

The Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee will later today release the following chart, detailing the rising projected cost of President Obama's signature legislation, Obamacare:

The latest estimate, as the chart details, is that Obamacare will cost $2.6 trillion dollars in its first real decade. The bill does not fully go into effect until 2014, therefore the estimate begins with that year.

"President Obama promised a joint session of Congress in 2009 to spend $900 billion over ten years on his health care law: 'Now, add it all up, and the plan that I’m proposing will cost around $900 billion over 10 years.' Adding up all the different spending provisions in the health care law, however, (including closing the Medicare 'donut hole,' implementation costs, and other spending) total gross spending over the FY 2010–19 period is about $1.4 trillion, based on CBO estimates," the Senate Budget Committee Republican staff explains. "And most of the major spending provisions in the law do not even take effect until 2014. Congressional Democrats delayed these provisions in order to show only six years of spending under the plan in the original 10-year budget window (from FY2010-19) used by CBO at the time the law was enacted. Therefore, the original estimate concealed the fact that most of the law’s spending only doesn’t even begin until four years into the 10-year window. A Senate Budget Committee analysis (based on CBO estimates and growth rates) finds that that total spending under the law will amount to at least $2.6 trillion over a true 10-year period (from FY2014–23)—not $900 billion, as President Obama originally promised."

The chart is being released now to coincide with the House vote later today to repeal Obamacare.

This just gets better and better with each new revelation.

**Jihadin**

Pelosi said there's no delay in ACA/Obamacare though.....

**whembly**

Jihadin wrote:
Pelosi said there's no delay in ACA/Obamacare though.....

Why do the Californian re-elect her?

**Relapse**

whembly wrote:
Jihadin wrote:
Pelosi said there's no delay in ACA/Obamacare though.....

Why do the Californian re-elect her?

Same reason Frank kept getting re elected in Mass. when you find that out, let me know.

**Grey Templar**

whembly wrote:
Jihadin wrote:
Pelosi said there's no delay in ACA/Obamacare though.....

Why do the Californian re-elect her?

I'm trying, but there's just too many of em!

Too much stupid over here. I think it has something to do with the sun, and all the drugs. Its gotta be the drugs.