Someone Should Start a Thread on the Obamacare "Bailout"...

....So I can tear that apart too. That is your next echo chamber talking point isn't it? I'm just trying to get ahead of the nonsense. You can call this a pre-trashing.

 

You already have. You were just too ignorant to realize it.

 

It's merely a question of who gets the bailout!
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-obamacare-patients-20140205,0,5417742.story#axzz2sSjp2lPq


**for the record, I think the next BO bailout/takeover will be in the area of those student loans you peddle!!

 

Come on! Play along and start attacking this "bailout". I want to shred you again. Whaaaaaaaaa!

Come on!
View attachment 2291

 

The potential student loan bailouts?

 

Those that suffer the most.

 

And who would that be?

 

Here is my take, phony Right-wing bailout nonsense aside... Why would Republicans care about a bailout for their insurance company buddies when they have all along been on the side of the insurance companies that have been getting fat off of the American consumer all along? Kind of makes you wonder why they would object to these insurance companies being bailed out doesn't it?

Here is their strategy. The corridor (or bailout according to the GOP) in the ACA basically covers the insurance companies costs if they fall below a certain financial level for the first three years of the implementation of the law. This was put in place because it was unknown how many people would have what health care cost issues. The law also says that if they make over a certain amount, they have to pay the federal government the excess for the first three years hence a corridor.

Here is the rub. The CBO estimates that the government will make 8 billion dollars because not only are insurance companies not losing money below a prescribed level, they will spend far less than previously estimated on health care costs. If the Republicans pass a law to eliminate this corridor and call it a bailout, the insurance companies will get out of paying the 8 billion dollars. So if you thought the Right was changing sides, you have nothing to worry about, they are still firmly sucking the tit of the insurance industry.

 

BTW This corridor was also put into the Republican Medicare Part D law and it wasn't for 3 years, it was permanent and they eliminated the government's ability to negotiate drug prices at the same time. Another couple of gifts to their buddies in the health care business at our expense.

 

And here is the lengths they are willing to go to in order to make sure that their buddies in the insurance industry get their 8 billion dollars and we the tax payers get screwed.

House GOP Abandons Plans To Tie Debt Ceiling To Keystone, Obamacare 'Insurance Bailout'

Posted: 02/05/2014 12:42 pm EST Updated: 02/05/2014 1:59 pm EST

WASHINGTON -- House Republicans are abandoning plans to link a debt ceiling increase to the approval of the Keystone XL pipeline or a repeal of the risk corridors provision in the Affordable Care Act, a GOP leadership aide confirmed to The Huffington Post.
"Following informal conversations with a broad range of members, it is clear we cannot get 218 Republican members to support a debt limit increase along with either Keystone or the insurance company bailout," the aide said. "We're exploring a range of other options."
While a formal offer had not been made in which a debt ceiling hike was tied to Keystone or Obamacare's risk corridors provision, those were two of the more popular proposals to emerge from a House Republican retreat last week. The latter was dealt a significant blow Tuesday when a Congressional Budget Office report found that a repeal of the risk corridors piece of Obamacare would actually increase the deficit by $8 billion over three years.
In general, congressional Republicans seem wary of pursuing another showdown over the debt limit after last fall's government shutdown, when the GOP saw its poll numbers plummet to record lows. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) reportedly told his members in a private meeting Tuesday that there was "no sense picking a fight" they couldn't win.
While there aren't 218 Republican votes for a clean debt limit either, even some of the House's most conservative members said they didn't want to put up a fight for nothing.
"I don't want a ruse, I don't want us to just claim we're fighting for something and then capitulate in the end," Rep. Raul Labrador (R-Idaho) said at a "Conversations with Conservatives" event Wednesday.
Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) also said that while he hoped for something substantive out of the debt limit debate, it was best to "avoid the theater and just move on with it," according to NBC's Frank Thorp.

 

Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh!!!!!!!!!

 

View attachment 2294

 

Call it FTEs, voluntary reductions or whatever you want but but what it really is - 5 billion annual labor hours removed from the economy that business does not intend to replace.

 

A. Going with this line of nonsense now that the other line has been debunked eh?
B. What makes you think any employer wouldn't hire a replacement if one of their workers quit?
C. Wouldn't this help the unemployment situation and help the American laborer leverage hirer wages?
D. How do you know that businesses do not intend to replace these employees?

 

A. Going with this line of nonsense now that the other line has been debunked eh?
B. What makes you think any employer wouldn't hire a replacement if one of their workers quit?
C. Wouldn't this help the unemployment situation and help the American laborer leverage hirer wages?
D. How do you know that businesses do not intend to replace these employees?

The estimated reduction stems almost entirely from a net decline in the amount of labor that workers choose to supply, rather than from a net drop in businesses' demand for labor, so it will appear almost entirely as a reduction in labor force participation and in hours worked relative to what would have occurred otherwise rather than as an increase in unemployment (that is, more workers seeking but not finding jobs) or underemployment (such as part-time workers who would prefer to work more hours per week).

 

A. Only in your head
B. They probably do. But the rest also have "disincentive for people to work".
C. It probably will, but it will lower the participation rate.
D. Mexico, China, Korea, etc. have lots of workers.

 

Please! The adults are talking now. Go sit down and be still.

 

Great post there. Even calling the CBO liars. So just what part of their report do you believe? Only those fitting your mantra?

 

Those. That. Suffer. The. Most.

 

I really am impressed with Elizabeth Warren. I can see her as President someday.

Checking Wiki, I see she was born in OKC.

Hmmmm....I guess I can forgive that, for the greater good and all that.