You ignore those 15% of people who are opposed to ACA because it does NOT go far enough. That leaves opposition to Obamacare on economic grounds in the minority.
That's true. Why is that distinction important with respect to a one-year delay for the individual mandate, which the Repubicans want to delay for a year to match the 1-year delay of the employer mandate recently decreed by Obama?
Moreover, another 20 % of those opposed do not know what is actually in ACA, except that Fox has told them it is bad law.
It doesn't take Fox to tell people that it's a bad law. All it takes is evidence like the repeal of the 1099 provision, exposure of the effects of the medical device tax (see Sen. Al Franken), a dislike of the individual mandate, Obama's imperial delay of the employer mandate, the poor performance of Exchange websites, the lack of background checks for Obamacare "navigators," etc.
Yes, the average over 8 years. What was unemployment when he left office and the few months following his exit?
Start: 4.2 percent. End: 7.3 (Dec. 2008). Peak unemployment 10 percent in Oct. 2009. Unemployment during the Obama administration's "Recovery Summer" (2010): 9.4 percent.
That's like saying, Bush drove the bus 10,000 miles before he ran it into the ditch and left it there for Obama to pull it out and get it repaired before it was able to go on the road to recovery.
Perhaps it's like that through your Democrat-Blue colored glasses, but the reality is different. And it's easy to test. Tell me what Bush did to mess up the economy and explain why Obama hasn't been able to fix it yet despite a congressional supermajority in Congress during his first year in office.
And if you don't know what Bush did to mess up the economy, then what business do you have placing blame except as a knee-jerk defense of your political ideology?
BTW, I do love how you rush past my request that you explain your claim about the reduction in federal jobs to get to this all-important topic. I hope to never see you accuse somebody else of dodging questions.
Yes, the average over 8 years. What was unemployment when he left office and the few months following his exit?
Start: 4.2 percent. End: 7.3 (Dec. 2008). Peak unemployment 10 percent in Oct. 2009. Unemployment during the Obama administration's "Recovery Summer" (2010): 9.4 percent.
That's like saying, Bush drove the bus 10,000 miles before he ran it into the ditch and left it there for Obama to pull it out and get it repaired before it was able to go on the road to recovery.
Perhaps it's like that through your Democrat-Blue colored glasses, but the reality is different. And it's easy to test. Tell me what Bush did to mess up the economy and explain why Obama hasn't been able to fix it yet despite a congressional supermajority in Congress during his first year in office.
a) Used the Clinton budget surplus to give tax breaks, primarily benefitting the very rich.
b) Entering an "unfunded war", which still had to be paid for.
c) 700,000,000 bank bail-out without any specific targeted goals, except to keep the economy from tanking altogether.
And if you don't know what Bush did to mess up the economy, then what business do you have placing blame except as a knee-jerk defense of your political ideology?
Are you claiming Bush left a healthy thriving economy?
BTW, I do love how you rush past my request that you explain your claim about the reduction in federal jobs to get to this all-important topic. I hope to never see you accuse somebody else of dodging questions.
It is true, not all these were federal jobs, but if you want smaller government in general, here are the figures.
Since Obama took office, 636,000 state and local jobs have been cut. In 2011 alone, 113,000 jobs were cut in local schools, 68,000 jobs were cut in local government administration, and 78,000 jobs were cut in state government administration, according to a Commerce Department report.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/06/government-jobs-loss-president-obamas-catch-22/
But of course the Republicans argued that these cuts contributed to the slow economic recovery, because public service jobs add to the economy. Which then is it that you want? You can't have it both ways.
It took Bush 8 years to tank a thriving economy and you expect Obama to "fix" it in ONE year? Get real Bryan. And after that one year, the Republicans had a majority in the House, and even the Democratic majority in the Senate was prevented from doing anything by Republican obstructionism. It is remarkable that Obama was able to get anything done, but he did.
But if you want to see the Republican tactics used to discredit Obama, have a peek at this.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/rulings/pants-fire/
You ignore those 15% of people who are opposed to ACA because it does NOT go far enough. That leaves opposition to Obamacare on economic grounds in the minority.
That's true. Why is that distinction important with respect to a one-year delay for the individual mandate, which the Repubicans want to delay for a year to match the 1-year delay of the employer mandate recently decreed by Obama?
Moreover, another 20 % of those opposed do not know what is actually in ACA, except that Fox has told them it is bad law.
It doesn't take Fox to tell people that it's a bad law. All it takes is evidence like the repeal of the 1099 provision, exposure of the effects of the medical device tax (see Sen. Al Franken), a dislike of the individual mandate, Obama's imperial delay of the employer mandate, the poor performance of Exchange websites, the lack of background checks for Obamacare "navigators," etc.
Yes Obamacare has failed because the website had some glitches because it was not prepared to handle the overwhelming interest by the public.
I already answered the reason for delaying the employer mandate for 2% of all the 50+ employers, because it does affect the overall economic recovery at this very time.
But a 2.5 % tax on medical manufacturers was explained by Bill Maher, where the actual manufacturing cost of say, a hip replacement may cost about 350 dollars to manufacture, which is then marked up to a retail price of 16,000 dollars and by the time the insurance co gets the bill it is 24,000 dollars, the cost of which is passed on to the policy holders or the tax payers.
To delay the individual mandate (for people over 26) would offer no incentive for an insurer to offer competitive prices. But insurers would love to sign up millions of younger people who pay premiums while they require minimal healthcare and absorb the costs of having to insure pre-existing conditions. You cannot expect a competitive atmosphere in the market if there are no customers.
And by the initial response it would seem that there are a lot of potential customers who would like to have some form of health insurance. This has already resulted in lower insurance rates, in spite of the pre-existing clause, which I am sure is not very well received by the Insurance industry.
The primary objective of ACA, aside from insuring 40 million currently uninsured people, is cost control and greater efficiency in providing Healthcare services at every level, while using the open market place.
Personally, I would like to see that only non-profit organizations would handle the administration of health care services. I see an inherent conflict of interest in this for-profit/healthcare relationship. Similar to the situation created by for profit prisons, who will profit from keeping prisoners incarcerated as long as possible. Tricky stuff that.
Bryan,
Start: 4.2 percent. End: 7.3 (Dec. 2008). Peak unemployment 10 percent in Oct. 2009. Unemployment during the Obama administration’s “Recovery Summer" (2010): 9.4 percent.
So unemployment went up under Bush. Good, Bad?
And what is it today?
United States Unemployment Rate
Unemployment Rate in the United States decreased to 7.30 percent in August of 2013 from 7.40 percent in July of 2013. Unemployment Rate in the United States is reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. From 1948 until 2013, the United States Unemployment Rate averaged 5.8 Percent reaching an all time high of 10.8 Percent in December of 1982 and a record low of 2.5 Percent in May of 1953. In the United States, the unemployment rate measures the number of people actively looking for a job as a percentage of the labour force. This page contains - United States Unemployment Rate - actual values, historical data, forecast, chart, statistics, economic calendar and news. 2013-10-07
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate
So unemployment went down under Obama. Good, Bad?
Tell me what Bush did to mess up the economy and explain why Obama hasn't been able to fix it yet despite a congressional supermajority in Congress during his first year in office.
a) Used the Clinton budget surplus to give tax breaks, primarily benefitting the very rich.
b) Entering an "unfunded war", which still had to be paid for.
c) 700,000,000 bank bail-out without any specific targeted goals, except to keep the economy from tanking altogether.
Seriously, you think some combination of those three reasons tanked the economy? The third one was a response to a financial crisis already underway, and Obama went along with it. Quite a bit of TARP spending occurred under Obama. Regardless of what you think of Bush's decisions about TARP funds, his loans have been repaid to a greater extent than Obama's. The unfunded wars, by the way, did not push the debt as a percentage of GDP outside generally acceptable levels. That didn't happen until the recession but a damper on government revenues.
And Obama has fixed each of those problems, right? So now we're flying high again? If not, what's the problem? Is Bush still working behind the scenes to keep the economy in the doldrums?
And if you don't know what Bush did to mess up the economy, then what business do you have placing blame except as a knee-jerk defense of your political ideology?
Are you claiming Bush left a healthy thriving economy?
Are you serious? The if/then statement is pretty clear. I'm saying that if you don't know how Bush messed up the economy then it makes no sense to blame him. Your three reasons look like rationalizations rather than reasons. Why would tax cuts benefiting the very rich tank the economy? Why would an "unfunded war" tank the economy (do you have any idea the kind of debt we took on for WW2)? Why would the bailout for the tanked economy cause the tanked economy the required the bailout? Are you claiming Bush engaged in reverse causation?
BTW, I do love how you rush past my request that you explain your claim about the reduction in federal jobs to get to this all-important topic. I hope to never see you accuse somebody else of dodging questions.
It is true, not all these were federal jobs, but if you want smaller government in general, here are the figures.
Since Obama took office, 636,000 state and local jobs have been cut. In 2011 alone, 113,000 jobs were cut in local schools, 68,000 jobs were cut in local government administration, and 78,000 jobs were cut in state government administration, according to a Commerce Department report.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/06/government-jobs-loss-president-obamas-catch-22/
But of course the Republicans argued that these cuts contributed to the slow economic recovery, because public service jobs add to the economy. Which then is it that you want? You can't have it both ways.
I can have it both ways if you have it both ways, I think. You want Obama to have credit for cutting government jobs at the state level. Isn't that your argument?
It took Bush 8 years to tank a thriving economy and you expect Obama to "fix" it in ONE year? Get real Bryan.
You listed three things that you believe caused the economy to crash. Depending on what they were, I expected Obama to be able to address each problem within a year. I'd give him a pass on ending the wars, since blaming the recession on wars is so spectacularly silly. We might still be in the Great Depression if not for WW2. ;-)
And after that one year, the Republicans had a majority in the House,
Incorrect. The balance in the House shifted in 2011 after Obama had two years in office. Election winners in 2010 take office in 2011, generally speaking.
and even the Democratic majority in the Senate was prevented from doing anything by Republican obstructionism. It is remarkable that Obama was able to get anything done, but he did.
No amount of Republican obstructionism could excuse Obama from addressing the supposed causes of the recession during the time Democrats pulled all the legislative levers with supermajorities while also controlling the executive branch. The point is, if Obama knows what to do to fix the economy then he ought to do it without delay--in the first year. That's when he should have passed all the key legislation he needed to fix the things Bush made go wrong. Instead we got the health care reform law.
But if you want to see the Republican tactics to discredit Obama, have a peek at this.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/rulings/pants-fire/
PolitiFact has even less credit with me than it has with Rachel Maddow.
Bryan,
Start: 4.2 percent. End: 7.3 (Dec. 2008). Peak unemployment 10 percent in Oct. 2009. Unemployment during the Obama administration’s “Recovery Summer" (2010): 9.4 percent.
So unemployment went up under Bush. Good, Bad?
It went both up and down under Bush. It's silly to engage in cherry-picking.
And what is it today?
United States Unemployment Rate
Unemployment Rate in the United States decreased to 7.30 percent in August of 2013 from 7.40 percent in July of 2013. Unemployment Rate in the United States is reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. From 1948 until 2013, the United States Unemployment Rate averaged 5.8 Percent reaching an all time high of 10.8 Percent in December of 1982 and a record low of 2.5 Percent in May of 1953. In the United States, the unemployment rate measures the number of people actively looking for a job as a percentage of the labour force. This page contains - United States Unemployment Rate - actual values, historical data, forecast, chart, statistics, economic calendar and news. 2013-10-07
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate
So unemployment went down under Obama. Good, Bad?
It's better for it to go down a tick than to keep going up. In that respect, it's good. The problem is that a high unemployment rate provides presidents a terrific opportunity to create jobs. If you start with a low unemployment rate, as Bush did, it makes generating a net job increase trickier. He could have ended his term with the same unemployment rate at which he started and he'd have added a modest number of jobs since the increase would simply keep pace with the increase in population. Unemployment at 7.3 percent is high. Take a look at how it come down under Reagan. How did Reagan do it without sending the debt nearly as high as did Obama? And yet some want to credit Reagan's success to Keynesian economics. So why isn't it working for Obama, who's spent a great deal more in terms of the percentage of GDP?
No, I am not going to engage in cherry picking as you do.
I used these 3 examples for illustrative purposes and I have no desire to spend all my time in research to disclaim your disclaimers.
The rest of your post is so filled with contradictions, that again I am going to refrain from “cherry picking” them apart, as you are so fond of doing yourself. Watch the current Bill Maher show and learn who did what and why in regard to “shutting down” the Federal Government, to get something which is as yet “unknown” according to a TEA party congressman.
Tortured logic! IMHO.
Yes Obamacare has failed because the website had some glitches because it was not prepared to handle the overwhelming interest by the public.
Sarcasm noted, as is your choice to focus on one out of several reasons to think the ACA is bad law. Because you don't cherry-pick like I do (or something).
I already answered the reason for delaying the employer mandate for 2% of all the 50+ employers, because it does affect the overall economic recovery at this very time.
So it's a great idea to do this health care reform for the economy.
But a 2.5 % tax on medical manufacturers was explained by Bill Maher, where the actual manufacturing cost of say, a hip replacement may cost about 350 dollars to manufacture, which is then marked up to a retail price of 16,000 dollars and by the time the insurance co gets the bill it is 24,000 dollars, the cost of which is passed on to the policy holders or the tax payers.
Bill Maher? Seriously? What about Jon Stewart? Or some other hack partisan who does comedy for a living? Which reminds me: Al Franken.
Did Maher explain how the tax applies to gross sales? So a company pays the tax even if the company isn't profitable. Great idea.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/medical-device-etf-soars-despite-173056748.html
To delay the individual mandate (for people over 26) would offer no incentive for an insurer to offer competitive prices.
The opposite's true. Mandating insurance coverage creates a monopolistic market in some ways. If people don't have to buy insurance then the only way insurance companies can get their business is to offer competitive prices to lure them into the market.
But insurers would love to sign up millions of younger people who pay premiums while they require minimal healthcare and absorb the costs of having to insure pre-existing conditions. You cannot expect a competitive atmosphere in the market if there are no customers.
There are still customers without an individual mandate. I'm having trouble making sense of your reply.
And by the initial response it would seem that there are a lot of potential customers who would like to have some form of health insurance. This has already resulted in lower insurance rates, in spite of the pre-existing clause, which I am sure is not very well received by the Insurance industry.
Delaying the individual mandate for a year does not get rid of MLR rules or the state or federal exchanges. Insurance rates are higher in most states, though some states that had already instituted ACA-like rules on insurance are experiencing slightly lower rates. I'm having extraordinary difficulty making sense of your reply.
The primary objective of ACA, aside from insuring 40 million currently uninsured people, is cost control and greater efficiency in providing Healthcare services at every level, while using the open market place.
And central planning will get you there every time!
The goal of the ACA is to get the United States one step closer to a single-payer system. That admission has come from a number of Democratic Party leaders, including Harry Reid. The system takes a big step toward eliminating insurance as insurance (voluntary sharing of risk) and moves toward collectivist healthcare irrespective of risk (insurance can only charge more for a very limited number of risk factors).
Personally, I would like to see that only non-profit organizations would handle the administration of health care services.
You're not alone. Many of the Democrats who voted for the ACA feel the same way. And it's imperative that you drag the rest of us along by whatever means necessary.
No, I am not going to engage in cherry picking as you do.
What's your example of me cherry-picking? Telling you the average unemployment under Bush? Averages are among the least cherry-pickable numbers out there. Go ahead. Give an example.
I used these 3 examples for illustrative purposes and I have no desire to spend all my time in research to disclaim your disclaimers.
What do you illustrate by picking the start and end points of a presidential term, along with the unemployment rate not long after Obama took office? It looks like you're trying to hint that Obama's not responsible for the unemployment rate he inherits from Bush. That's true to a point. But when is the unemployment rate *ever* Obama's responsibility? It's been in the toilet for his first term and now well into the second. If Romney was president and the numbers were the same would you give him credit? The point is this: The start and end points of an administration are arbitrary with respect to economic cycles. You don't learn much about the effects of policy by looking at the beginning and end points. What are you illustrating? You're illustrating how to cherry-pick.
The rest of your post is so filled with contradictions, that again I am going to refrain from "cherry picking" them apart, as you are so fond of doing yourself.
Right. Filled with contradictions. So many that you can't choose one as an example.
That's an empty argument, Write4U.
Watch the current Bill Maher show and learn who did what and why in regard to "shutting down" the Federal Government, to get something which is as yet "unknown" according to a TEA party congressman.
Tortured logic! IMHO.
Ever look up Bill Maher's PolitiFact ratings? ;-)
Oh, right. Those only mean something when they agree with whatever it is you're in favor of.
It looks like the GOP have devolved to the point where they are just looking for a way to come out of this
with a token concession.
I hope nobody throws Boehner a bone.
And the Tea Party is hoping Boehner doesn’t take any bones thrown at him.
So it looks like a win-win situation for those of us watching and waiting to see these irresponsible, rookies crash and burn!
“Mr. President, I rise today to talk about America’s debt problem.
The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies.”
"Mr. President, I rise today to talk about America's debt problem.
The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies."
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/debtlimit.asp
Hunhh....Interesting.
This offers some good insight as to how Obama has caved so many times to GOP Tax and spending cut demands.
Obama has always been too centrist for me.
I see that Sarah Palin has recently called on Republicans to "Woman up." and "Fight like a girl." in their efforts to defund the Healthcare Act by holding the funding of the Federal Government hostage. Perhaps Boehner is taking his marching orders from her.
If they were to "woman up" and "Fight like a girl," they wouldn't be against the ACA--unless, of course, they are anything like Sarah Palin who wouldn't know what it means to think like an intelligent and compassionate woman.
Lois