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.
2016/02/05 12:53:50
Subject: If you want to live the American Dream....you better move to Australia (or Denmark, or Germany)!
Conclusion #1: There is substantial cross-national variation in poverty and inequality.
"When the stork drops a newborn child into his or her new home, the location of that drop has profound implications for the amount of inequality the child will see and experience."
Conclusion #2: The U.S. is an outlier.
"the U.S. has the lowest overall ranking among our 10 well-off countries, a result that arises in part because it brings up the rear of the pack in three of the six domains covered here (safety net, income inequality, wealth inequality)."
"...even relative to this benchmark the U.S. has a distinctively anemic safety net and a distinctively unequal distribution of wealth."
"It is noteworthy that the U.S. performs poorly in domains that have historically been regarded as its strengths. Within the labor market domain, it has long been argued that the U.S. is a great “jobs machine,” indeed the distinctive benefit of its flexible and “unregulated” labor market was supposed to be the jobs that such deregulation delivered. [...] The “highly regulated” labor markets of Germany, Denmark, or Norway would appear, by contrast, to be the real job-delivering machines."
"The U.S. likewise fails to deliver on its long-standing commitment to running a high-mobility regime. The stylized story here has long been that, however unequal its income distribution may be, the U.S. at least runs a fair and open competition in which everyone has a legitimate shot at getting ahead. The data presented in Ch. 7 indicate that in fact the birth lottery matters more in the U.S. than in most well-off countries. The intergenerational earnings elasticity, which speaks to the payoff that accrues to being born into higher-earning families, is substantially larger in the U.S. than in many countries that are not routinely featured as the “land of opportunity.”
Conclusion #3: There is nonetheless some good news.
"The good news, however, is that the high U.S. rate is attributable to a very anemic safety net rather than to problems with the market itself. When market income is instead used to calculate the absolute poverty rate, the U.S. in fact has the second lowest rate (among the 10 well-off countries in Table 1), with only Australia having a yet lower rate. Because the weak U.S. safety net fails to reduce the market rate by all that much, the U.S. ends up with a disposable-income rate that is very high."
"Why is this good news? It is good news because in principle it is much easier to ramp up the safety net than to revamp the economy and labor market in ways that deliver higher market
incomes."
Why do all bad things come together?
There are two complementary answers to this question. The first is that, by virtue of running the consummate liberal welfare regime, the U.S. has chosen a set of institutions and commitments that are tailor-made for producing just this constellation of outcomes (see Figure 1). The U.S. tends to default, for example, to the presumption that grossly unequal market outcomes are the result of competitive processes, thus allowing rent-based outcomes at the top (e.g., excessive CEO pay) to flourish unchallenged.
Likewise, because market outcomes are viewed as the legitimate outcome of competitive processes, the U.S. is loath to engage in too much “market-distorting” and incentive-destroying redistribution. This commitment accounts, for example, for our famously anemic safety net and ongoing political efforts to render it yet more anemic.
Finally, because liberalism supports the relentless commodification of everything (e.g., health care, schooling, neighborhood amenities), the poor are not only disadvantaged because they have less money but also because money is increasingly needed to buy goods, services, and even opportunities for their children.
In a deeply commodified regime, parents are left to purchase high-quality childcare, high-quality primary and secondary schooling (if only by moving into expensive neighborhoods), and high-quality college training, all of which means that opportunity itself has been commodified. But it is not just opportunity that has been commodified. This commitment to commodification also leads to unusually large health disparities (via, for example, the “sale” of health), unusually large income-based disparities in test scores, and many of the other results featured in this report."
(Red Highlight by myself.)
So, what do the USAmericans say to this? How do they see their living reality? Do you agree with what Stanford Uni says? Do you think it misses the point?
If not: How to turn this around? Is it even possible to turn this around? To me, it sounds pretty deterministic, seeing how a big part of America sees market regulation reforms & social security schemes (i.e. socialism=communism=tyranny of the state=the apocalypse=from my cold dead hands!)
- From a German perspective I am surprised to have the German labour market called "most open", seeing how difficult it is a) for non-Germans and Germans with an immigration background to get good jobs and b) how difficult it is to get your business up and running.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/09 09:38:24
Currently playing: Infinity, SW Legion
2016/02/05 17:07:07
Subject: If you want to live the American Dream....you better move to Australia (or Denmark, or Germany)!
But at least I got to see it presented in a new way. The data was interesting and I'd never thought of the idea of 'commodifying' opportunity (at least not in those terms). Very intriguing. Unfortunately I doubt much will be done about it for awhile. The political will simply isn't there to resolve our anemic social systems. Even on the political left, the things that politicians are prepared and willing to do falls short I think of what we really need. There's something of a gulf between moderate liberals in the US and Bernie Sanders and his like, that gulf being the difference between moderate policy making and unrealistic policy making with little 'radical' policy makers in between.
inb4#EuropesucksMuricaisbestMurica!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/05 17:07:40
'Murrica is great. But, really it's all about perspective. Other ex-pat dakkanaughts can chime in to give a better "American" vs "my homeland" perspective.
Do you agree with what Stanford Uni says?
At it's conclusion? Can't say as it's just an Executive Summary... I'd be interested in reading the full report with raw data and their methods.
Do you think it misses the point?
Again, really can't answer that until I read their source and methods. This is an extremely complex subject and there are people who spends most of their lives trying to identify/promote changes.
If not: How to turn this around? Is it even possible to turn this around? To me, it sounds pretty deterministic, seeing how a big part of America sees market regulation reforms & social security schemes (i.e. socialism=communism=tyranny of the state=the apocalypse=from my cold dead hands!)
I don't believe more Socialism™, nor copying our European friend's model is the solution.
I believe incrementalism should be embraced, rather than some large "one size fits all" policy to address some system failings. Obamacare is one such disaster.
- From a German perspective I am surprised to have the German labour market called "most open", seeing how difficult it is a) for non-Germans and Germans with an immigration background to get good jobs and b) how difficult it is to get your business up and running.
I wouldn't know how to validate how easy/hard it is to "move around in the labor market" in other countries. I can only give my opinion in US labor markets in my industry.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/02/05 18:06:29
Subject: If you want to live the American Dream....you better move to Australia (or Denmark, or Germany)!
whembly wrote: I believe incrementalism should be embraced, rather than some large "one size fits all" policy to address some system failings. Obamacare is one such disaster.
Obamacare would be an example of incrementalism All it really changed were some of surface practices of the industry to give more people insurance, while otherwise leaving it mostly exactly as it was.
As a filthy socialist, this all seems pretty obvious to me.
And as an EU migrant in Germany, I haven't had a problem finding work, much better paying than I would have got at home with much greater security.
I imagine it's a bit harder for non-EU migrants who need visas and so on, but then, the same is true in all countries. Germany does have a lot of red tape around qualifications and standards though, mostly to protect it's native apprenticeships and so on, but living here and seeing the success of the model I can't say I blame them overmuch, even if it is a little annoying that they flaunt EU regs in that way pretty regularly (especially the Bavarians).
whembly wrote: I believe incrementalism should be embraced, rather than some large "one size fits all" policy to address some system failings. Obamacare is one such disaster.
Obamacare would be an example of incrementalism All it really changed were some of surface practices of the industry to give more people insurance, while otherwise leaving it mostly exactly as it was.
It is not.
Incrementalism would be:
-pass a law that forbids insurance companies from using pre-existing conditions as a disqualifying a buyer and then watch how the industry adjusts.
Not the current bloatware we have today.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/02/05 19:24:55
Subject: If you want to live the American Dream....you better move to Australia (or Denmark, or Germany)!
whembly wrote: Incrementalism would be:
-pass a law that forbids insurance companies from using pre-existing conditions as a disqualifying a buyer and then watch how the industry adjusts.
So... Obamacare?
Obamacare offered no sweeping changes to the healthcare system. It really only did two things; establish a minimum standard for health insurance, and provide means for millions who were uninsured to become insured. There was no sweeping changes to the system itself, just a remapping of the surface of the system to make it more accessible. That it took such a massive bill just to achieve that end alone doesn't make it not incrementalist. (if anything that's kind a showcase of the innate pros and cons of Incremental reform from a policy stand point). It just showcases that 'tiny' changes on a national level are still very very big in a relative sense, and that people throw words like 'incrementalism' around while having put no real thought into them.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/05 19:25:15
whembly wrote: Incrementalism would be:
-pass a law that forbids insurance companies from using pre-existing conditions as a disqualifying a buyer and then watch how the industry adjusts.
So... Obamacare?
Obamacare offered no sweeping changes to the healthcare system. It really only did two things; establish a minimum standard for health insurance, and provide means for millions who were uninsured to become insured. There was no sweeping changes to the system itself, just a remapping of the surface of the system to make it more accessible. That it took such a massive bill just to achieve that end alone doesn't make it not incrementalist. (if anything that's kind a showcase of the innate pros and cons of Incremental reform from a policy stand point). It just showcases that 'tiny' changes on a national level are still very very big in a relative sense, and that people throw words like 'incrementalism' around while having put no real thought into them.
No sweeping changes?
Dude, I workin this industry and you couldn't be so far off the mark.
We're in thread derailment mode, so I'll stop.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/02/05 20:04:07
Subject: If you want to live the American Dream....you better move to Australia (or Denmark, or Germany)!
Nope. Healthcare is still ludicrously expensive (which Obamacare did nothing to really resolve despite advertisement), still in many ways unavailable to a lot of people (because health insurance is great and all but our hospital network is still something of a mess), and still exploitative (because there is no competition in a market where living and not living is all speaking with your wallet achieves). But hey, now everyone gets to join in being price gouged for crappy insurance coverage
Dude, I work in this industry and you couldn't be so far off the mark.
That doesn't really mean anything to me. I worked in the distribution industry and I'm not even remotely an expert on distribution (I got pretty good at Tetris and filing though). Further, I'd point out you do this every time this discussion comes up. Reminding us over and over you work in the industry isn't an argument. Sweeping changes don't exist because you appeal to some abstract authority, especially not when the biggest criticism that can be leveled against Obamacare without descending into partisan bs, is that it didn't really change much of anything because our healthcare system still sucks.
We're in thread derailment mode, so I'll stop.
Someone pointed out you claimed support for a policy model at the same time as calling the most stand out example of that policy model not that policy model, in a thread about policy making. That's completely on topic (though arguably this entire thread should have been in the US Politics thread ).
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/02/05 20:05:26
Nope. Healthcare is still ludicrously expensive (which Obamacare did nothing to really resolve despite advertisement),
Just because its more expensive now or that it didnt' fix anything... doesn't mean that's a "little" change.
still in many ways unavailable to a lot of people (because health insurance is great and all but our hospital network is still something of a mess),
Primarily because it's a preverse incentive... meaning that, it's cheaper to pay the fething fine (tax) than it is to pay for "a still expensive" insurance plan even after the subsidies.
and still exploitative (because there is no competition in a market where living and not living is all speaking with your wallet achieves). But hey, now everyone gets to join in being price gouged for crappy insurance coverage
Which having the exchange was touted as a means to increase competition... which now we see that many opponents were right.
Dude, I work in this industry and you couldn't be so far off the mark.
That doesn't really mean anything to me. I worked in the distribution industry and I'm not even remotely an expert on distribution (I got pretty good at Tetris and filing though). Further, I'd point out you do this every time this discussion comes up. Reminding us over and over you work in the industry isn't an argument. Sweeping changes don't exist because you appeal to some abstract authority, especially not when the biggest criticism that can be leveled against Obamacare without descending into partisan bs, is that it didn't really change much of anything because our healthcare system still sucks.
It's a massive overhaul as it didn't 'simply' just compel everyone to participate, and oh by the way, here's some $$$ to setup the exchange markets.
It created an enormous distortion to the market on top of all that.
We're in thread derailment mode, so I'll stop.
Someone pointed out you claimed support for a policy model at the same time as calling the most stand out example of that policy model not that policy model, in a thread about policy making. That's completely on topic (though arguably this entire thread should have been in the US Politics thread ).
True, hence why I just jumped backed in.... I just don't want this to turn into a "hurr, hurr Obamacare sucks... nu uh... it's better now" cycle as this thread is whether or not the American Dream* is still alive.
*maybe that term needs to be redefined.
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2016/02/05 20:17:29
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/02/05 20:46:22
Subject: If you want to live the American Dream....you better move to Australia (or Denmark, or Germany)!
whembly wrote: Just because its more expensive now or that it didnt' fix anything... doesn't mean that's a "little" change.
It's been increasing at about the same rate as it has been since the 80s;
So yeah. Obamacare did nothing to address healthcare costs in the US. It just established a system under which more people get to join in the fun, and really addressing the rising healthcare costs of Americans should probably have been a higher priority, but incremental reform being incremental reform, it's a lot easier to get support for "lets get the uninsured insured" than it is to get support for "we need to reform the healthcare industry, it's too expensive."
Primarily because it's a preverse incentive... meaning that, it's cheaper to pay the fething fine (tax) that it is to pay for "a still expensive" insurance plan even after the subsidies.
So? AS pointed out in my last post, the only thing speaking with your wallet achieves in healthcare is the living and not living. People will buy insurance when they can afford it;
Regardless of penalty for not having it, because unsurprisingly, people generally like living. That there are still millions without coverage parts of the year, or any part of the year, would suggest Obamacare didn't go far enough, likely because it would be impossible to make health insurance any more available in this moment without sweeping reforms that didn't happen under Obamacare.
a]Which having the exchange was touted as a means to increase competition... which now we see that may opponents were right.
They would be, if Obamacare had ever promised to reduce costs over night, which it never did. Being incremental in nature, it sought to establish a marketplace that would reduce costs in the long haul. Of course, incremental reform has a tendency to not do well in the long haul when it comes to spending, but it's not like premiums were going down or anything.
It's a massive overhaul as it didn't 'simply' just compel everyone to participate, and oh by the way, here's some $$$ to set the exchange markets.
And? That doesn't mean anything... Unless we're going to overhaul the health industry, which Obamacare didn't do, the only way to get more people covered by insurance (the chief stated goal of the bill), was to pass a bill that would work in the current health system. Because that's what an incremental reform law does. We're just back to my first point;
That it took such a massive bill just to achieve that end alone doesn't make it not incrementalist... It just showcases that 'tiny' changes on a national level are still very very big in a relative sense...
Small, incremental change, is a relative thing. We're talking about a $3 trillion dollar industry and a bill that was targeted at getting 18% of the population that wasn't involved involved. Turns out, it costed a gak ton of money, and didn't really resolve any underlying problems because it made no attempt to fix any underlying problems.
I just don't want this to turn into a "hurr, hurr Obamacare sucks... nu uh... it's better now" cycle as this thread is whether or not the American Dream* is still alive.
Well, American Dream aside, Obamacare would be one of the best topics for this thread, simply because it represents the most significant/recent attempts by US governance to improve the social welfare, something the OP article identifies as a significant weakness in US policy. That it was such a lackluster attempt, just gets to the OP articles point. US social welfare systems/safety nets are anemic. We don't really do anything around here as much as we talk about doing things (and then don't do them).
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/02/05 20:55:15
This is consistent with plenty of internal studies which show that class is increasingly inherited in the US. For example, one study showed that people with no college, including high school drop outs, born into the top 20% of families go on to earn more than college graduates that had born into the bottom 20%.
We've worked very hard to allow family wealth to carry over generation to generation, which is great for the 20-30% of families that leave significant wealth for the next generation. For everybody else, it's becoming tougher and tougher.
2016/02/05 22:17:35
Subject: If you want to live the American Dream....you better move to Australia (or Denmark, or Germany)!
Yes the conclusion is true. It also has some very good insights on why its true.
That said, I would say it missed a very important part in the optimism section, which is that while the US may be pretty low among first world nations there are still many many countries with worse (often far worse) standards of living. This isn't a license to excuse the US of its deficiencies, particularly because we have a wealth of means to deal with our problems in this area (where many 3rd world countries simply cannot on their own), but it is a reason to be optimistic rather than doom-and-gloom. Put differently, while the US may do an inexcusably poor job of bettering its citizens given the resources it has to do so, that doesn't mean things are outright terrible.
Whenever I start to get too pessimistic about the US I think about the simple things; I turn on the faucet and get clean drinkable water, I flip a switch and the electricity works, I can expect that the local roads and traffic systems will be intact, I can call 911 and the police/ambulance/fire department will show up in minutes. And if any of these things aren't working as normal I can trust that I will probably know about it and they will be fixed up in a reasonable amount of time. There are a lot of people in the world that can't say those things.
Or to put it more musically, see collegehumor's 'America sucks less' video.
Unless you are comparing it to Europe. Then America sucks a huuuuge lot more. We Europeans are just better at everything, not to mention we have actual culture and history, as well as better food. God bless Europe!
Error 404: Interesting signature not found
2016/02/05 22:58:58
Subject: If you want to live the American Dream....you better move to Australia (or Denmark, or Germany)!
whembly wrote: Incrementalism would be:
-pass a law that forbids insurance companies from using pre-existing conditions as a disqualifying a buyer and then watch how the industry adjusts.
So... Obamacare?
Obamacare offered no sweeping changes to the healthcare system. It really only did two things; establish a minimum standard for health insurance, and provide means for millions who were uninsured to become insured. There was no sweeping changes to the system itself, just a remapping of the surface of the system to make it more accessible. That it took such a massive bill just to achieve that end alone doesn't make it not incrementalist. (if anything that's kind a showcase of the innate pros and cons of Incremental reform from a policy stand point). It just showcases that 'tiny' changes on a national level are still very very big in a relative sense, and that people throw words like 'incrementalism' around while having put no real thought into them.
No sweeping changes?
Dude, I workin this industry and you couldn't be so far off the mark.
We're in thread derailment mode, so I'll stop.
It wrecked the insurance of most people I know. Anticdotal, I admit, but nobody I am acquainted with likes it.
2016/02/05 23:18:17
Subject: If you want to live the American Dream....you better move to Australia (or Denmark, or Germany)!
whembly wrote: I believe incrementalism should be embraced, rather than some large "one size fits all" policy to address some system failings. Obamacare is one such disaster.
Obamacare would be an example of incrementalism All it really changed were some of surface practices of the industry to give more people insurance, while otherwise leaving it mostly exactly as it was.
The problem with developing Obamacare is that the USA clearly needs a properly organised national health insurance scheme like any other modern developed pluralistic liberal democracy such as France, Canada, Japan, and so on.
Americans currently spend a much higher proportion of GDP on healthcare than these other countries and get worse results in terms of epidemiological standards such as life expectancy, infant death rate, and so on. There are various ways the system could be re-organised, using the experience of these other countries to develop a really good new model.
But, there is such massive opposition that instead of completely re-organising everything, that it seems to be impossible to do.
Kilkrazy wrote: the USA clearly needs a properly organised national health insurance scheme like any other modern developed pluralistic liberal democracy such as France, Canada, Japan, and so on.
We don't do anything useful or modern, this is America! /flex
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
2016/02/06 18:39:34
Subject: If you want to live the American Dream....you better move to Australia (or Denmark, or Germany)!
Something something what works in Europe will never work here because we have a unique situation... something something if you think America's system is broken then go see what it's like living in Communist-slav-land or Africa... something something immigrants and hand-outs.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/06 18:40:46
2016/02/06 22:33:32
Subject: If you want to live the American Dream....you better move to Australia (or Denmark, or Germany)!
The work in the original article is very good, and extremely important. And not just because it’d be nice if income was shared a little more evenly, but because it improves everyone’s lives when a society moves closer to a true meritocracy.
It’s just obviously better if the person working in the most important and most challenging jobs in society, say in medicine, will be the absolute best people available, the smartest and hardest working. But in a society where opportunities are heavily determined by birth, you shut out many of your smartest and hardest working.
Can anyone claim with any honesty that there aren’t very smart, very hard working people out there, who would have made great doctors if they’d had have been given more opportunities? And can anyone argue that if that person had been given the opportunity, and then pushed out a less gifted, less hardworking person, wouldn’t he be the better doctor?
Incrementalism would be:
-pass a law that forbids insurance companies from using pre-existing conditions as a disqualifying a buyer and then watch how the industry adjusts.
Okay, for probably the fifteenth time I’ll explain this to you. If you simply deny insurance companies from banning pre-existing conditions, then no-one will bother to get insurance until they’re sick. That’s the infamous death spiral. So you have to make healthy people get insurance, you need the individual mandate. But lots of people simply can’t afford insurance, so you also need subsidies so that everyone can afford insurance.
And that three part system is what ACA is. The incremental change to stop denial for pre-existing condition, with the two other system elements needed to make that change work.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/09 01:47:18
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2016/02/09 01:44:08
Subject: If you want to live the American Dream....you better move to Australia (or Denmark, or Germany)!
Incrementalism would be:
-pass a law that forbids insurance companies from using pre-existing conditions as a disqualifying a buyer and then watch how the industry adjusts.
Okay, for probably the fifteenth time I’ll explain this to you. If you simply deny insurance companies from banning pre-existing conditions, then no-one will bother to get insurance until they’re sick. That’s the infamous death spiral. So you have to make healthy people get insurance, you need the individual mandate. But lots of people simply can’t afford insurance, so you also need subsidies so that everyone can afford insurance.
And that three part system is what ACA is. The incremental change to stop denial for pre-existing condition, with the two other system elements needed to make that change work.
And my sixteenth response, the industry can adjust. The exchange is crashing and burning man...
The sad thing, this is exactly what's happening now. It's MUCH cheaper to not get insurance and simply pay the tax.
It's the preverse incentive thing...
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/02/09 01:58:30
Subject: If you want to live the American Dream....you better move to Australia (or Denmark, or Germany)!
whembly wrote: And my sixteenth response, the industry can adjust.
No, it can't. You can't just put a death spiral on a system and say 'you adjust to fix this'.
That was actually attempted, by the way, in a few states before ACA. New York was the one I know about, but others did it too. The results were exactly what should be expected. Without any need for insurance until you were sick, people steadily dropped off. And with less healthy people on the system, premiums went up, causing more healthy people to leave (knowing they could just come back if they got sick). The classic death spiral everyone claimed would happen to ACA.
The exchange is crashing and burning man...
Keep saying it. Say it enough and maybe you'll just make it true.
The sad thing, this is exactly what's happening now. It's MUCH cheaper to not get insurance and simply pay the tax.
It's the preverse incentive thing...
It's not what's happening now. Insurance pools have actually been younger and healthier than was estimated. The mandate is cheaper, but it is still there, and it is getting pricier. The tax is cheaper, but it still exists, and the tax is steadily increasing. That's enough to dissuade more than enough people from dropping out.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2016/02/09 02:05:35
Subject: If you want to live the American Dream....you better move to Australia (or Denmark, or Germany)!
whembly wrote: The exchange is crashing and burning man...
No, it's not.
The sad thing, this is exactly what's happening now. It's MUCH cheaper to not get insurance and simply pay the tax.
This has nothing to do with anything Sebster said. Everyone knows the penalty is cheaper than insurance. You make this 'point' every time this subject comes up as if it means something. There are less uninsured now than before the ACA. Given that, it seems evident that people don't give a damn about the penalty being cheaper. Most people value their lives over their wallets and unsurprisingly choose to buy insurance when they can afford it. Anyone too poor to afford insurance on their own should qualifies for subsidies, making the penalty as meaningless to them as it is to every discussion you've ever brought this faux point up in.
Google uses your past browsing habits into account when presenting you with search results, which will skew anything you google into "Obama Sucks" territory.
Googling "Obamacare Failure" is just the cherry on the "crappy Google result sundae".
I wonder if you get different results if you google "Obamacare Success" or "ACA Success". Maybe, but until technology catches up we will probably never know.
2016/02/09 02:43:44
Subject: Re:If you want to live the American Dream....you better move to Australia (or Denmark, or Germany)!
This is a country where Donald Trump has filed for Bankruptcy four times and managed to remain a billionaire. I don't know why this needs to be explained; businesses go under all the time. Why would the Obamacare co-ops, being non-profit entities in a profit driven market, be any different? And let's be honest. It's not like a fair game is being played to begin with. It's the same crap that happened to Social Security. it's really easy to say something is failing when certain parties have gone out of their way to make it fail.