IDBillzFan Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Your tax dollars at work: Did Oregon fake the status on their website production to get their government funding??? Nothing to see here, folks. All is well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Your tax dollars at work: Did Oregon fake the status on their website production to get their government funding??? Nothing to see here, folks. All is well. Based on that article, it's abundantly clear what happened: management doesn't know **** about IT development, and now it's the IT manager's fault they don't have a !@#$ing clue. That's the worst analogy of "waterfall" vs. "iterative" lifecycles I've ever seen - and I guarantee you the gov't managers were equally confused on the two processes, to the point where they couldn't even understand the purpose of the gateway reviews or what they were being presented, and thus assumed progress that wasn't being made. I know, because it happens to me every !@#$ing day ("This is not a working web page, it's just a mockup so we can clarify some of your requirements." "Wow...you're already done with that? We're way ahead of schedule..." "No, no, NO, you !@#$ing morons! We're not done, we're not even started. We're still trying to get you to tell us what you want!") Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 except that it isn't: http://finance.yahoo...-202655235.html. it's a recurring theme: things are almost nerver as simple as you all make them out to be. That article is the worst piece of political analysis I've ever read. The man routinely loses his own argument, to himself, often in the same paragraph. The WH Chief Economist was rushed out to deal with this immediately today. Why? Again, forget the chatter: observe the behavior. Why would they do that if this is all no big deal? Yeah, yeah, rapid D reponse from Yahoo. That article is absurd: the Middle class ends up with less take home pay? And that's no big deal? Serriously: WTF? Again, conginitive dissonance appears to be a highly infectious disease amongst Ds. Since when is any winning D national strategy not based on saying "middle class" 5000 times? The Democratic party being on record as hurting every single middle class family, and doing it consistently with no plan to stop/curtail that behavior = no big deal....in an article where the author purports to be the voice of reason? Dissonance. "That’s one reason Obamacare is likely to be controversial for years to come." The man says "years to come", as if a long-standing, every American effecting, massive, loser political issue is something to be ignored, because we can just call it "controversial" and that makes it all better? Remind me not to hire this guy to do any abstract thinking, in any capacity. It's as I said: he loses his own argument to himself. It is entertaining to watch him struggle though. Here's reality: the big D donors and big wig Ds(like Hillary) will never allow Obamacare to bury them beyond Obama. As soon a Obama is gone, so is Obamacare. They will simply make the call one day, and that will be the end of it. Or, they are truly nuts/stupid, and in that case? I have not begun to laugh. I mean, hey birdog, you can always nominate Elizabeth Warren. Come on, you know you want to, you know Hillary is about Hillary, and not your idiotic views. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 (edited) Hey...remember when everyone was saying Obamacare was going to fail the very people it promised to help? Remember when you were promised you could keep your doctor? Yeah...not so much in the greatest example of Obamacare success...California. LA Times Reports: Ummmm...the doctor's WON'T see you now. The most telling part of the story is buried at the bottom. Berumen said she was seen by a neurosurgeon Thursday — after state regulators intervened on her behalf. I'm curious...will the the state intervene for everyone? If it doesn't, will people die at the hands of federal agency who turned thumbs down on them? Now where have we heard about this before...? Oh, I think it was that group trying to impose its will on the populace. Gitcher popcorn, folks...2014 is going to be brutal. Edited February 5, 2014 by LABillzFan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 unfortunately it's not ironic that you miss so many important points here. we don't have a shortage of labor. we have a shortage of jobs. and it will get worse as was so aptly pointed out in the "economist" article that gg recently linked. for all your sides whining about the bad parenting done by the poor, might having one parent at home caring for the kids be preferable to both parents away working to pay for health insurance. i know plenty of folks who work for nothing other than health insurance ( i personally used to employ several). wouldn't it be helpful to the unemployment rate to free up those jobs to heads of households that need the income more than the insurance? Leave it to you to misunderstand the article. The misallocation of jobs by technology was only one item that the Economist cited. Why do you ignore the other parts of the jobs crisis, where the current administration's policies are hurting the jobs market? The CBO report is fairly clear in that. Hey, congratulations on stumbling on something that people have been trying to hammer into your head for years. To an employer, there's virtually no difference in paying wages vs paying benefits. It's all dollars for compensation expense. So now you have a law that incentivizes employers to cut compensation because taxpayers will pick up the rest. It was a financial forecast in 2010 that was as bright as a 100' LED billboard, and only now you morons are waking up to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Leave it to you to misunderstand the article. The misallocation of jobs by technology was only one item that the Economist cited. Why do you ignore the other parts of the jobs crisis, where the current administration's policies are hurting the jobs market? The CBO report is fairly clear in that. Hey, congratulations on stumbling on something that people have been trying to hammer into your head for years. To an employer, there's virtually no difference in paying wages vs paying benefits. It's all dollars for compensation expense. So now you have a law that incentivizes employers to cut compensation because taxpayers will pick up the rest. It was a financial forecast in 2010 that was as bright as a 100' LED billboard, and only now you morons are waking up to it. since b man seems impressed by the number of articles on a subject here's another on the cbo report that argues directly against most of what you said here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/02/04/what-the-cbo-report-on-obamacare-really-found/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 since b man seems impressed by the number of articles on a subject here's another on the cbo report that argues directly against most of what you said here: http://www.washingto...e-really-found/ How about linking the CBO report directly and opining on that? "In addition, changes in people’s economic incentives caused by federal tax and spending policies set in current law are expected to keep hours worked and potential output during the next 10 years lower than they would be otherwise." Do you understand what the above says? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 (edited) since b man seems impressed by the number of articles on a subject here's another on the cbo report that argues directly against most of what you said here: http://www.washingto...e-really-found/ Watching progressives try to untwist their panties on the report issued by the very "non-partisan authority" they manipulated and strongarmed to pass this embarrassing law is one of the sweet juicy moments of Obama's second term. Progs like Waxman are dropping like flies over this burden your party has placed on the American people...and it gives me a bit of hope for the future. But you keep trying to tell everyone that all the headlines about the CBO report are wrong. Edited February 5, 2014 by LABillzFan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 NYT explains that people losing their jobs over Obamacare is a good thing. LInk here. Favorite Twitter post: The New York Times goes to Ludicrous Speed. The Congressional Budget Office estimated on Tuesday that the Affordable Care Act will reduce the number of full-time workers by 2.5 million over the next decade. That is mostly a good thing, a liberating result of the law. Of course, Republicans immediately tried to brand the findings as “devastating” and stark evidence of President Obama’s health care reform as a failure and a job killer. It is no such thing. The report estimated that — thanks to an increase in insurance coverage under the act and the availability of subsidies to help pay the premiums — many workers who felt obliged to stay in a job that provided health benefits would now be able to leave those jobs or choose to work fewer hours than they otherwise would have. In other words, the report is about the choices workers can make when they are no longer tethered to an employer because of health benefits. The cumulative effect on the labor supply is the equivalent of 2.5 million fewer full-time workers by 2024. Devastating video now making the rounds. http://youtu.be/ql3SXU82WyY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 CBO Head: Obamacare ‘Creates a Disincentive for People to Work’ A day after the Congressional Budget Office’s damning report on Obamacare, the agency’s director confirmed that the health-care law discourages people from working. “By providing heavily subsidized health insurance to people with very low income, and then withdrawing those subsidies as income rises, the act creates a disincentive for people to work relative to what would have been the case in the absence of that act,” Douglas Elmendorf told the House Budget Committee on Wednesday. “By providing a subsidy, these people are better off, but they do have less of an incentive to work.” Elmendorf’s comments reflect some of the findings of the CBO’s most recent report, which found the health-care law would reduce employment by the equivalent of about 2.5 million full-time jobs by the end of the decade. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Libs disincentivizing hard work? Whodathunkit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 (edited) My very favorite thing about the CBO? 31 million nonelderly residents of the United States are likely to be without health insurance in 2024, roughly one out of every nine such residents. Hmm we passed this thing....in order to end up 1 million people worse than it was in 2009? If we are generous, and include popluation growth, then, we are 85% of where we were in 2009. Explain what has been solved by this. I have no friggin clue. How do the "uninsured", the special class of people we just have to F everybody else over to help, benefit...by not being insured? Once again, sing it with me now, "I know that law! It is The Liberal Cleaver. The Biter! The law that slashed a thousand necks". Come on progressives, you know you wan to sing it. It's funny: "Bones will be shattered, necks will be wrung! You'll be beaten and battered, from racks you'll be hung! You will die down here and never be found, down in the deep of Obamacare Town" Edited February 5, 2014 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JuanGuzman Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 My very favorite thing about the CBO? 31 million nonelderly residents of the United States are likely to be without health insurance in 2024, roughly one out of every nine such residents. Hmm we passed this thing....in order to end up 1 million people worse than it was in 2009? If we are generous, and include popluation growth, then, we are 85% of where we were in 2009. Explain what has been solved by this. I have no friggin clue. How do the "uninsured", the special class of people we just have to F everybody else over to help, benefit...by not being insured? Once again, sing it with me now, "I know that law! It is The Liberal Cleaver. The Biter! The law that slashed a thousand necks". Come on progressives, you know you wan to sing it. It's funny: "Bones will be shattered, necks will be wrung! You'll be beaten and battered, from racks you'll be hung! You will die down here and never be found, down in the deep of Obamacare Town" Might as well post the full paragraph: " CBO and JCT estimate that the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA will markedly increase the number of nonelderly people who have health insurance—by about 13 million in 2014, 20 million in 2015, and 25 million in each of the subsequent years through 2024 (see Table B-2). Still, according to estimates by CBO and JCT, about 31 million nonelderly residents of the United States are likely to be without health insurance in 2024, roughly one out of every nine such residents. Of that group, about 30 percent are expected to be unauthorized immigrants and thus ineligible for most Medicaid benefits and for the exchange subsidies; about 20 percent will be eligible for Medicaid but will choose not to enroll; about 5 percent will be ineligible for Medicaid because they live in a state that has chosen not to expand coverage; and about 45 percent will not purchase insurance even though they have access through an employer, an exchange, or directly from an insurer." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Might as well post the full paragraph: " CBO and JCT estimate that the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA will markedly increase the number of nonelderly people who have health insurance—by about 13 million in 2014, 20 million in 2015, and 25 million in each of the subsequent years through 2024 (see Table B-2). Still, according to estimates by CBO and JCT, about 31 million nonelderly residents of the United States are likely to be without health insurance in 2024, roughly one out of every nine such residents. Of that group, about 30 percent are expected to be unauthorized immigrants and thus ineligible for most Medicaid benefits and for the exchange subsidies; about 20 percent will be eligible for Medicaid but will choose not to enroll; about 5 percent will be ineligible for Medicaid because they live in a state that has chosen not to expand coverage; and about 45 percent will not purchase insurance even though they have access through an employer, an exchange, or directly from an insurer." In other words, not a damn thing has changed. "But it'll cut costs!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JuanGuzman Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 In other words, not a damn thing has changed. "But it'll cut costs!" What could not possibly understand about: " The ACA will markedly increase the number of nonelderly people who have health insurance" Its like the exact opposite of not a damn thing has changed..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Wait, the prediction is that 13M non-elderly people will have health insurance who lacked it before this year? Sorry but I'll wait to see that before I just accept it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JuanGuzman Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Wait, the prediction is that 13M non-elderly people will have health insurance who lacked it before this year? Sorry but I'll wait to see that before I just accept it. Sure thats fine by me. One more point about the reduction it affects labour supply not demand: Yes some people are going to stop supplying labour because they no longer need to access to employer health insurance risk pool to get affordable health care. Oh and keep in mind unemployment is still pretty high in this country so if those people drop out of the labour force or reduce hours worked it means that other people currently looking for a job will have a better chance to get that job. I personally don't believe people should have to be chained to an employer to get health insurance. Without ACA that seemed to the case given how high rates were individual health insurance market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Sure thats fine by me. One more point about the reduction it affects labour supply not demand: Yes some people are going to stop supplying labour because they no longer need to access to employer health insurance risk pool to get affordable health care. Oh and keep in mind unemployment is still pretty high in this country so if those people drop out of the labour force or reduce hours worked it means that other people currently looking for a job will have a better chance to get that job. I personally don't believe people should have to be chained to an employer to get health insurance. Without ACA that seemed to the case given how high rates were individual health insurance market. What it does is create more part-time workers and more people on government assistance because their jobs aren't paying them enough. All so that they don't have to be "chained" to their full-time job. That's idiotic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 What could not possibly understand about: " The ACA will markedly increase the number of nonelderly people who have health insurance" Its like the exact opposite of not a damn thing has changed..... Elderly are people too Juan. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 I personally don't believe people should have to be chained to an employer to get health insurance. Without ACA that seemed to the case given how high rates were individual health insurance market. ...and you probably don't believe that people should be chained to an employer to get food, clothing, shelter, education or a cell phone. We're near the point in the U.S. (or maybe we are there) where people can simply choose to work or not and if they choose not, those that do choose to work will fund their needs. That reality is totally un-American and counter to the principles of most Americans. Oh, and it's a myth that people couldn't buy health insurance at a fair price without going through an employer before the ACA was passed. I've done it. What could not possibly understand about: " The ACA will markedly increase the number of nonelderly people who have health insurance" Heroin is good too because it lowers blood pressure. We'll ignore all of the bad effects it has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts