Support NeoGAF

[Ignatz Mouse]

I dont think you can have an economy with sky high profits when your consumers dont have disposable income to buy your products. And when those sky high profits come from firing people to pad the numbers, thats even worse - see ESPN firing 400 to pad profit lines.

Thanks to globalization, there's plenty of profits to be had around the world.

 

[zargle]

Just wanted to say that the exchanges for the ACA are going to be much better than many folks think. I work in health care and though the plans I've seen aren't finalized, I was pleasantly surprised. Also talk about A LOT of transperancy and info being provided for the shoppers. The process from what I have seen is quite streamlined and intuitive. I'm much more optimistic today than a week ago.

Can you elaborate a little bit about this, particularly about why they will be better? I work in a Legal Aid office in Ohio and at one of our last monthly meetings the lawyers who deal mostly with health/health law related cases were discussing a lot of this stuff, although mostly in the context of how our State house is screwing everything up and our poor with it. I'm interested in knowing more about the exchanges and such.

 

[The Librarian]

Looking towards MA Sen:
1. Gomez is flailing in your daily edition of LOL: Pond Scum
2. Boston Mayor will endorse Markey today.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

Problem is liberals wouldn't go as far as to end the violence entirely, they don't mind drones because Obama uses them they just want regulations and limits. So many huffpost liberals that comment 'better drones than soldiers', as if you HAVE to have one of them. As if Sweden is putting everything into their military to fight 'imminent threats' against freedom. Is downsizing America and it's place in the world not an option you guys would advocate? Or it doesn't matter how many civilians die as long as we remain #1 super duper empire?

If slavery was still going on modern day liberals would just ask for certain regulations. "Can you treat them a bit better?" "How about 12 hours per day instead of 16?" "Maybe we can get some kind of oversight board committee to determine if these slaves are being fed well enough?"

Combat Liberalism!

 

[AndyD]

Can you elaborate a little bit about this, particularly about why they will be better? I work in a Legal Aid office in Ohio and at one of our last monthly meetings the lawyers who deal mostly with health/health law related cases were discussing a lot of this stuff, although mostly in the context of how our State house is screwing everything up and our poor with it. I'm interested in knowing more about the exchanges and such.

It all varies by state. I work in healthcare related law in Tennessee and we also anticipate a rough future because the state is not taking the Medicaid money or setting up exchanges. So we will see how the federal exchange pans out.

 

[StopMakingSense]

Looking towards MA Sen:
1. Gomez is flailing in your daily edition of LOL: Pond Scum

Classy.

 

[The Librarian]

Classy.

And Markey's campaign fires back!

"After spending the past week leveling completely baseless attacks against Ed Markey that were thoroughly debunked by Massachusetts newspapers and nonpartisan fact checkers, Gabriel Gomez has reached a new low," Zucker said in a statement provided to TPM. "Unfortunately for Gomez, his desperate attack will do nothing to distract from his opposition to an assault weapons ban and limits on high-capacity magazines, or his refusal to release his 2005 tax return that would reveal how much he pocketed from taking a questionable $280,000 tax break on his Cohasset home."

This is getting more sad a lot faster than Brown v. Warren. Oh, Gomez...

 

[I am Michael Bolton]

It all varies by state. I work in healthcare related law in Tennessee and we also anticipate a rough future because the state is not taking the Medicaid money or setting up exchanges. So we will see how the federal exchange pans out.

Good point. I should have clarified. I'm on the west coast and the few states I'll be working with all have accepted the aid. For states that refused the medicaid assistance it will be tougher. Nevertheless, the 85% requirement being spent on premiums will help. Transperancy will be key. From what I've seen, for the first time in history, insurers will be forced to actually compete for new members in a state.

One thing I will say is insurance companies don't do a really good job of publicizing the actual cost of health care in this country. It's simply ridiculous. Providers, fraud, overuse of the ER and doctors by members, and insurers obviously are reaponsible for the problem we're in.

Also, it's going to be interesting to watch how the insurance commissioners of all the states handle rate increase requests going forward.

Btw, how do you folks feel about owners being fined if they DO offer their employees insurance but the employees choose to reject it and instead go through the exchange? IMO it seems that the end goal is to separate insurance from our jobs and IMO it's a good goal.

 

[RoninChaos]

I wonder if the bridge collapse in Skagit County, Washington will prompt congressional action on investing in infrastructure repairs?

70K structurally deficient bridges. Stuff like this is only a matter of time.

Nope. They'll keep spending their time trying to appeal the ACA

 

[The Librarian]

I wonder if the bridge collapse in Skagit County, Washington will prompt congressional action on investing in infrastructure repairs?

70K structurally deficient bridges. Stuff like this is only a matter of time.

Infrastructure spending has plummeted since 2008.

 

[The Librarian]

#DemsInDisarry: Markey has a 12 point lead over Gomez in a new poll.

 

[speculawyer]

Infrastructure spending has plummeted since 2008.

It is far more important to give rich people tax cuts and start wars.

 

[speculawyer]

Who was the lady that interrupted Obama at his press conference?

Code Pink

 

[GaimeGuy]

Infrastructure spending has plummeted since 2008.

It is far more important to reduce the deficit (Despite the fact that we can literally print $20 trillion dollars right now, pay off every creditor, and have a surplus) than to take care of our needs.

 

[pigeon]

Stock prices are always based on the future, never the past. A market of 16,000 today means an expectation that record profits will continue to increase.

I mean, by that metric, every stock market is a bubble, because past performance is no guarantee of future returns.

Here's Neil Irwin making mostly the same point as Gotchaeye:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-stock-market-is-booming-no-it-isnt-a-bubble/

Basically, stocks have been underpriced this whole time because of the recession, but since corporate earnings have risen while we all went broke, they should actually be trading at a much higher rate, as indeed they now are.

 

[GaimeGuy]

I mean, by that metric, every stock market is a bubble, because past performance is no guarantee of future returns.

Here's Neil Irwin making mostly the same point as Gotchaeye:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-stock-market-is-booming-no-it-isnt-a-bubble/

Basically, stocks have been underpriced this whole time because of the recession, but since corporate earnings have risen while we all went broke, they should actually be trading at a much higher rate, as indeed they now are.

Personally, I find the levels of profits reprehensible.

Profits are essentially unused revenues. When a company re-invests into growing itself, those are expenses that are deductible from taxes.

Revenues minus expenses = profit.

As profit increases, it means that there is a wider gap between the money a company is taking in, and the money a company is spending on personnel, operations, and new business opportunities.

When a recession hits, you would expect profits, operating margins, etc to FALL, not rise. That companies have sacrificed the welfare of their employees in order to not make any sacrifices themselves as part of the economic downturn is downright reprehensible.

Corporations have forgotten where they owe their successes to, and that's the hard work and labor of their employees. Without employees, a company is just a piece of paper that doesn't produce anything.

I really wish investors would factor this into their transactions and financial metrics included changes in # of employees, and employee experience, payroll, benefits, morale, and productivity. A company that significantly reduces employment levels by cutting younger employees (and increasingthe average age/experience of its pool of workers) while still experiencing increases in profit (but due to tightened expenses rather than increased revenues) can be interpreted to be a company that is decreasing its potential for long term growth while increasing its potential for short term stability on the balance and income statements.

This should be reflected in metrics and have a stabilizing effect on the stock price (or decrease it), even if profits may increase.

 

[empty vessel]

Here's Neil Irwin making mostly the same point as Gotchaeye:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-stock-market-is-booming-no-it-isnt-a-bubble/

Just an observation on the article. He has this weird paragraph:

Stock investments and mutual funds only amount to about 20 percent of Americans’ assets, according to data from the Federal Reserve; much more of their money is tied up in their houses, other physical assets like cars, bank accounts, life insurance policies, and the like. Yet between 2008 and the third quarter of 2012, they accounted for 59 percent of the $10.6 trillion rise in American households’ assets. Americans—at least those with significant savings—are feeling wealthier, and the booming market is a big part of the reason. Household real estate, by contrast, is still worth less than it was in 2008 even after edging up recently.

It is strange that this paragraph talks about "Americans." Almost all Americans own only marginal amounts of stock at most. Most own no stock at all. Seems weird to talk in these broad terms in light of those facts (although he does throw in one minor caveat). It's not clear that he's really only talking about a very tiny sliver of American society.

 

[Fenderputty]

Infrastructure spending has plummeted since 2008.

I remember reading about the perilous state of the systems that bring water to our cities. MOst of the pipes and valves are all 50+ years old and the systems weren't designed to last long though. I don't remember where I was reading this, but the old systems are responsible for loosing a lot of water each year as well as degrading water quality as the pipes continue to corrode.

 

[The Librarian]

I know I've said this before, but I love how sarcastic Chait can be:

The basic way to understand McCain is that neoconservative foreign policy is his ideological core. Everything else about his ideology can shift radically depending on his ambitions, circumstances, and whom he’s most angry with at any given moment.

 

[B-Dubs]

I know I've said this before, but I love how sarcastic Chait can be:

I don't think he's being sarcastic there, he just telling it how it is.

 

[The Librarian]

I don't think he's being sarcastic there, he just telling it how it is.

Point is he's funny! There are a lot of political reporters out there that are really, really funny. Funnier than some television comedians.

Spoiler

Like Conan

.

 

[Link]

It all varies by state. I work in healthcare related law in Tennessee and we also anticipate a rough future because the state is not taking the Medicaid money or setting up exchanges. So we will see how the federal exchange pans out.

Ita going to be hilarious when all the states that refused to take the money or set up exchanges are struggling and Republicans will be screaming "See?! Obamacare is terrible!"

 

[pigeon]

So. Healthcare. I thought competition didn't work? Why is it working now?
1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...4/wonkbook-some-very-good-news-for-obamacare/
2. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...iums-no-rate-shock-here/?wprss=rss_ezra-klein

The healthcare market is noncompetitive for specific reasons -- people buy it in huge chunks at moments of urgent need instead of buying a little bit all the time, and they have a lot of trouble knowing what to buy and what a good price is. Obamacare specifically attempts to make sure people will buy it all the time and that the "grades" of healthcare are commoditized, so that one silver plan is basically like another silver plan. These changes are specifically designed to increase competition. (From the insurance company's side, as well, having more consistent customers, and being forced to spend on care, should hopefully make them more inclined to negotiate with providers rather than with customers.)

Btw, how do you folks feel about owners being fined if they DO offer their employees insurance but the employees choose to reject it and instead go through the exchange? IMO it seems that the end goal is to separate insurance from our jobs and IMO it's a good goal.

It seems like kind of a mishmash to me. If I were to do an Obamacare "patch," it would be something like:

* Lose the employer mandate, but not the individual mandate.
* Lose the deduction on employer-provided healthcare.
* Use the money to increase subsidies.
* Maybe cut the cadillac plan tax.

The system we're heading towards is basically healthcare as utility, which I think is at least potentially functional.

 

[Particle Physicist]

I don't think he's being sarcastic there, he just telling it how it is.

Yeah, that sounds about right

 

[Particle Physicist]

So. Healthcare. I thought competition didn't work? Why is it working now?
1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...4/wonkbook-some-very-good-news-for-obamacare/
2. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...iums-no-rate-shock-here/?wprss=rss_ezra-klein

That is excellent news. My baby sister (28yo lol), lives in Cali and has an awful insurance right now because she lapsed on a payment and due to a preexisting condition, her premiums shot up sky high. She had to downgrade to a pretty crappy plan hopefully this exchange will allow her to get something better.

When do the exchanges go into effect?

EDIT

Never mind. Found my answer: Jan 1 2014: http://www.coveredca.com/

 

[StopMakingSense]

That is excellent news. My baby sister (28yo lol), lives in Cali and has an awful insurance right now because she lapsed on a payment and due to a preexisting condition, her premiums shot up sky high. She had to downgrade to a pretty crappy plan hopefully this exchange will allow her to get something better.

When do the exchanges go into effect?

October

 

[Particle Physicist]

October

Oh? This site says Jan 2014. Are they ahead of schedule?

http://www.coveredca.com/

 

[StopMakingSense]

Oh? This site says Jan 2014. Are they ahead of schedule?

http://www.coveredca.com/

Oh, my bad, I could have sworn it was October. Maybe that's when applications open.

 

[Atenhaus]

Why does the right hate public transportation?

Truly *good* public transit only exists in urban areas, which happen to vote Democratic. Such is life.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Oh, my bad, I could have sworn it was October. Maybe that's when applications open.

Yeah, you know, the WaPo articles say October. Hmm..

 

[pigeon]

Oh, my bad, I could have sworn it was October. Maybe that's when applications open.

October is when people will be able to start signing up, but they won't actually start providing services until January. Or something.

 

[The Librarian]

bwahaha https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/337993476450942976

 

[B-Dubs]

bwahaha https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/337993476450942976

OK, that's a good one.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Ita going to be hilarious when all the states that refused to take the money or set up exchanges are struggling and Republicans will be screaming "See?! Obamacare is terrible!"

The exchanges still get set up... they're just managed by the feds instead of the states.

Which is hilariously ironic, as the people who talk about "state rights" are simply empowering the feds by refusing to take care of the exchanges themselves. It's up to each state to decide whether the federal government or the state government will run things within that state.

 

[Fenderputty]

So. Healthcare. I thought competition didn't work? Why is it working now?
1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...4/wonkbook-some-very-good-news-for-obamacare/
2. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...iums-no-rate-shock-here/?wprss=rss_ezra-klein

As a resident of California, this is amazing news.

 

[spandexmonkey]

Just found out today that the government furloughs for our area will kick in July 8th. 20% pay cut across the board, 4 day work weeks. This particular base processes deployments and benefits so if veterans thought the process was taking long before...

 

[Link]

The exchanges still get set up... they're just managed by the feds instead of the states.

Which is hilariously ironic, as the people who talk about "state rights" are simply empowering the feds by refusing to take care of the exchanges themselves. It's up to each state to decide whether the federal government or the state government will run things within that state.

I know, but like the WaPo article says, with no state exchanges, there are less options, and likely higher premiums.

 

[Jack Remington]

So. Healthcare. I thought competition didn't work? Why is it working now?
1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...4/wonkbook-some-very-good-news-for-obamacare/
2. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...iums-no-rate-shock-here/?wprss=rss_ezra-klein

Short answer: it works in some cases and doesn't work in others.

There are some market failures that regulation could eliminate (lack of price information), other market failures that require major government intervention (adverse selection in an insurance market with guaranteed issue), and some inherent problems that require us to treat healthcare as a public good (lack of ability of some people to pay for services or even to pay for insurance premiums).

Interestingly enough, some health policy experts did a multiyear survey in 2006 and 2008, and they found that a significant majority of Americans do think of healthcare as a public good. Only something like 20% of Americans thought that it should be a completely private good like cell phones or vacuum cleaners. So basically our default public opinion on healthcare is more or less in line with the civilized world. The problem arises when you get the political team-sport mentality and politicians/media figures on the right telling their base what to think. This was actually confirmed empirically, as the percentage of Republican respondents who favored a larger government role in healthcare dropped precipitously between 2006 and 2008. In 2006, no one had told a lot of these people how evil government run healthcare is (at least not since 1993).

 

[AndyD]

The exchanges still get set up... they're just managed by the feds instead of the states.

Which is hilariously ironic, as the people who talk about "state rights" are simply empowering the feds by refusing to take care of the exchanges themselves. It's up to each state to decide whether the federal government or the state government will run things within that state.

It will empower them to complain even more though, "look what the feds are doing in our state!" and "why cant we control it" when it reality they had the chance to and refused.

Here in TN, the governor is floating a plan/request to Washington to still get the Medicaid money but instead of expanding Medicaid, use it to subsidize private plans. Interesting but from what I read about it essentially funneling tax payer money to private industries without the same levels of benefits being provided.

 

[Oblivion]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-may-23-2013/the-only-unfair-thing-ever

Can't watch this while at work, but I asked cause I saw teatard on yesterday's episode who seemed totally oblivious to the correspondent (I forget his name) making fun of him for whining about being profiled.

 

[zargle]

Can't watch this while at work, but I asked cause I saw teatard on yesterday's episode who seemed totally oblivious to the correspondent (I forget his name) making fun of him for whining about being profiled.

My favorite part was his seeming belief that they would go along with his retakes. "3, 2, 1.."

 

[The Librarian]

PoliGAF, y'all been slow this past two weeks. Do we need to start talking about Zelda again? (Hint: it's boring).

Markey released his tax returns today.

 

[Link]

PoliGAF, y'all been slow this past two weeks. Do we need to start talking about Zelda again? (Hint: it's boring).

Markey released his tax returns today.

How are people allowed to collect Social Security while making $160k/year? Ridiculous.

EDIT - Actually, this was a stupid brainfart on my part. Social Security is paid into. stands to reason you'd start collecting it, whether you're still working or not.

Spoiler

Also, Zelda rules!

 

[ClassyPenguin]

It's friday dax, not srs business time.

 

[Metaphoreus]

How are people allowed to collect Social Security while making $160k/year? Ridiculous.

EDIT - Actually, this was a stupid brainfart on my part. Social Security is paid into. stands to reason you'd start collecting it, whether you're still working or not.

Spoiler

Also, Zelda rules!

Well, "paid into." The money paid by current workers goes to current recipients. I think there should be income limits for who actually gets money "back" out of Social Security. I know one guy who makes several hundred thousand a year yet still gets Social Security. There's no reason for that.

 

[B-Dubs]

PoliGAF, y'all been slow this past two weeks. Do we need to start talking about Zelda again? (Hint: it's boring).

Markey released his tax returns today.

That whole race is a clusterfuck from the looks of it.

 

[The Librarian]

That whole race is a clusterfuck from the looks of it.

How so? Markey has been steadily increasing his lead and Gomez has been floundering. There may be some bad things in Markey's tax returns, but at least he's released them, and I'll bet you he voted to increase taxes on the wealthy. Gomez hasn't released his because it'll reveal how he benefited from that home of his.

 

[B-Dubs]

How so? Markey has been steadily increasing his lead and Gomez has been floundering. There may be some bad things in Markey's tax returns, but at least he's released them, and I'll bet you he voted to increase taxes on the wealthy. Gomez hasn't released his because it'll reveal how he benefited from that home of his.

I can't say I've been following it very closely, but every time I hear something about it there's something dumb going on. Usually from Gomez though, so I guess it isn't as bad as I first figured.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Political wire says Michelle Nunn, daughter of former sen. Sam Nunn, is entering the Georgia Senate race.

It's certainly possible Democrats could pick this one up. Nunn performed the best of any Democrat in internal polling per the DSCC, so this is good news.

 

[Black Mamba]

hai guys, check this out

The federal budget sequester may be dampening a rise in economic optimism: Nearly four in 10 Americans now say sequestration has hurt them personally, up substantially since it began in March – and they’re far less sanguine than others about the economy’s prospects overall.

Thirty-seven percent in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll say they’ve been negatively impacted by the budget cuts, up from 25 percent in March. As previously, about half of those affected say the harm has been “major.”


Those who are hurt, holler. Among people who report no personal impact of the sequester, 66 percent say economic recovery is under way, and six in 10 are optimistic about the economy’s prospects in the year ahead. Among those who report major harm from the cuts, by contrast, just 36 percent see recovery, and optimism drops to 40 percent.

As reported earlier this week, optimism about the economy is advancing; 56 percent of Americans now say it’s begun to recover, up by 20 percentage points in the past year and a half to the most since ABC and the Post first asked the question in late 2009. Results on the sequester suggest that could be better still had the cuts not taken effect.

More Americans continue to disapprove than approve of sequestration, now by 56-35 percent – again, a view influenced by experience of the cuts. Eight in 10 of those who report serious harm oppose the cuts, as do about two-thirds of those slightly harmed. But the majority, which has felt no impacts, divides exactly evenly – 46 percent favor the cuts, vs. 46 percent opposed.

Further, this poll, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates, finds that 39 percent overall “strongly” disapprove of the cuts – but that soars to 66 percent of those who say they’ve been harmed in a major way. (Just 16 percent overall strongly approve.)

Experience of the cuts even trumps partisanship and ideology: Among Republicans, conservatives and Tea Party supporters who’ve been harmed by the cuts, most oppose them. Support is far higher among those in these groups who haven’t felt an impact of sequestration.

GROUPS – Perhaps surprisingly, given the partisan nature of the debate, views of the cuts don’t divide sharply along party lines. Majorities of Democrats and Republicans alike oppose the cuts – 59 and 54 percent, respectively – as do a similar 58 percent of independents.

One reason: Republicans are 14 points more apt than Democrats to say they’ve been harmed by the sequester. And among Republicans who’ve been hurt by the cuts, 68 percent disapprove of them. Among those unhurt, disapproval drops to 42 percent.

Ideology has an effect: Forty-seven percent of “very” conservative Americans approve of the cuts, as do 42 percent of those who call themselves “somewhat” conservative. It’s 36 percent among moderates and 24 percent among liberals. But again, impacts of the cuts are a bigger factor in views on the issue. Among conservatives hurt by the cuts, 65 percent disapprove of them; among those unhurt, just 34 percent disapprove.
Similarly, 66 percent of Tea Party supporters who’ve been damaged by the cuts disapprove, vs. 44 percent of those who report no personal impact.

While Barack Obama has been a sharp critic of sequestration, he only runs 43-38 percent against the Republicans in Congress in trust to handle the budget deficit, not a significant difference. He’s done much better on the issue, but also worse; the tables were turned as recently as two years ago, when Obama trailed the GOP in trust to handle the deficit by 8 points.

METHODOLOGY – This ABC News/Washington Post poll was conducted by telephone May 16-19, 2013, in English and Spanish, among a random national sample of 1,001 adults, including landline and cell-phone-only respondents. Results have a margin of sampling error of 3.5 points, including design effect. Partisan divisions are 33-22-38 percent, Democrats-Republicans-independents.

The survey was produced for ABC News by Langer Research Associates of New York, N.Y., with sampling, data collection and tabulation by Abt-SRBI of New York, N.Y.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/budget-cuts-get-personal-those-who-are-hurt-holler/

Republicans are 14 points more apt than Democrats to say they’ve been harmed by the sequester. And among Republicans who’ve been hurt by the cuts, 68 percent disapprove of them

Republicans are 14 points more apt than Democrats to say they’ve been harmed by the sequester. And among Republicans who’ve been hurt by the cuts, 68 percent disapprove of them

#supportsequester #winningstrategy

Spoiler

Remember, I predicted this