In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On October 06 2013 10:28 Derez wrote: You can argue for austerity from a neo-classical perspective instead of an austrian perspective, Rogoff . As for Germany, the government isn't following Austrian economic policies, just a mix of neo-classical and neo-liberalism, the reputation they get for being so focused on austery is for forcing it on other countries, not at home. The germans in no way advocate market solutions for every problem, at least not in their own country. For the germans, one of the main driving forces for austerity in the south is the way their own electorate sees the south as 'lazy' and underserving of aid because they caused their problems themselves (which is at least partially true).
The greek government didn't choose austerity, it was forced on them by the troika, the EU (dominated by germany) and shaped by the IMF, the opinions of which have always been extremely pro-market.
On October 06 2013 10:16 Nevuk wrote: This gets more into world politics but if the Austrian School is basically irrelevant why did every European (+US) government randomly become so pro-austerity after 2008? I know there are neo-classical economists arguing for the movement but it's weird to get a grasp on mentally. Was it mostly just the Germans? (I've seen them blamed more than any other country). The 2010 Rogoff paper we were discussing can't have been the entire reason considering the austerity movement was already well-under way before that paper was published.
edit - Also, I miss the old ridiculous presidential convention nomination format where we got stuff like William Jennings Bryan's Cross of Gold speech.
Austerity is a fiction, real gdp spending has gone up in each country. The growth has stalled somewhat, but thats not austerity by any stretch of the imagination. No matter how much feverish socialists may like to pretend.
Tell that to the people in Greece afflicted by malaria because they don't have the money to spray anymore.
You'd see a similar picture in plenty of european countries.
The Republican Party could be in danger of losing control of the House in 2014, new polls on Sunday show.
In a survey of 24 seats, Republicans fall behind in 17 head-to-head matches against “generic Democrat candidates” among registered voters and lag in an additional four districts when respondents are told the Republican candidate supported the shutdown, according to the surveys by Public Policy Polling which were funded by the liberal group, MoveOn.org
Democrats would need to pick up 17 seats to take over the House — something the polling reveals could be within reach. One district that shows a favorable position for a Democratic challenger is New York 19, the high-profile contest in which Sean Eldridge, the husband of Facebook co-founder and New Republic owner Chris Hughes, is looking to unseat the Republican incumbent, Chris Gibson. However, Eldridge’s name does not appear on the survey as the challenger.
The other 16 House Republicans who trailed even without the shutdown being mentioned to those polled: California’s Gary Miller, Colorado’s Michael Coffman, Florida’s Steve Southerland and Bill Young, Iowa’s Tom Latham and Steve King, Illinois’ Rodney Davis, Kentucky’s Andy Barr, Michigan’s Dan Benishek,Tim Walberg and Kerry Bentivolio, New York’s Chris Gibson, Ohio’s David Joyce, Pennsylvania’s Pat Meehan and Mike Fitzpatrick and Wisconsin’s Sean Duffy.
The poll also found that a majority of respondents opposed the government shutdown as a means to “to stop the health care law from being put into place.”
Yeah, I keep wondering at what point the American public will actually begin to start punishing lawmakers for crazy shit. Each time I think "maybe this time" but it never happens.
On October 07 2013 15:31 Funnytoss wrote: Yeah, I keep wondering at what point the American public will actually begin to start punishing lawmakers for crazy shit. Each time I think "maybe this time" but it never happens.
Those times are over. In my country, half of what any government have made in the last 15 years would have caused a revolution 40 years ago.
On October 07 2013 15:31 Funnytoss wrote: Yeah, I keep wondering at what point the American public will actually begin to start punishing lawmakers for crazy shit. Each time I think "maybe this time" but it never happens.
Doesn't legal gerrymandering pretty much guarantee tenure for a lot of these politicians? Congress as a whole has such low approval ratings, but they keep getting voted back in. Either that, or voters like 'their' guy. It's everyone else that they disapprove so strongly.
On October 07 2013 15:31 Funnytoss wrote: Yeah, I keep wondering at what point the American public will actually begin to start punishing lawmakers for crazy shit. Each time I think "maybe this time" but it never happens.
Doesn't legal gerrymandering pretty much guarantee tenure for a lot of these politicians? Congress as a whole has such low approval ratings, but they keep getting voted back in. Either that, or voters like 'their' guy. It's everyone else that they disapprove so strongly.
Pretty much, and it's likely to stay this way for almost another decade, since the next census and redrawing isn't going to take place for quite some time...
On October 07 2013 15:31 Funnytoss wrote: Yeah, I keep wondering at what point the American public will actually begin to start punishing lawmakers for crazy shit. Each time I think "maybe this time" but it never happens.
Doesn't legal gerrymandering pretty much guarantee tenure for a lot of these politicians? Congress as a whole has such low approval ratings, but they keep getting voted back in. Either that, or voters like 'their' guy. It's everyone else that they disapprove so strongly.
Pretty much for the House of Representatives. There are maybe 50 districts at play in any election. Probably even less.
On October 04 2013 14:18 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]
Also Republican Presidential candidates already said they would turn down a deal for $10 in spending cuts for every additional $1 in spending why would there be any reason to believe that the rest of the party would be any more reasonable? Or that they would have lesser expectations for any other negotiations?
Clarify (and cite) what you mean. So do you mean a $9 cut in spending?
I'm going to guess you mean a $ in taxes. To which I suppose the reply would be that they already raised taxes recently with no cuts.
lol, that's actually pretty funny. I think reality shows it differently however, Boehner is normally quite the caver. That was just debate talk, as sad as it is to say. But, as I said, taxes WERE just raised the last time a fight came up. So it's time to cut, imo.
There have been cuts
Furthermore, President Obama has proposed and signed into law the elimination of 77 government programs and cut another 52 programs, saving more than $30 billion annually. This includes taking a hard look at areas he thinks are very important to see what programs are not working, duplicative or no longer needed—which is why the Administration has eliminated 16 programs in the Department of Education, 10 programs at Health and Human Services, and 4 programs at the Department of Labor.
In addition, President Obama has cut or eliminated entitlements including cutting out the middleman in the student loan program to save $19 billion, reducing payments for abandoned mine land reclamation by almost $1 billion and eliminating the Telecommunications Development Fund, and a range of other policies.
Under President Obama’s watch, spending—including the emergency measures in the Recovery Act—grew at the slowest pace since Eisenhower, and far lower than President Reagan’s first term. In the President’s time in office, federal spending has grown at 1.4 percent per year, the slowest pace since Eisenhower, and far lower than the 8.7 percent in President Reagan’s first term.
This analysis has been confirmed by other fact checkers. On May 22, 2012, responding to claims that spending under President Obama had accelerated rapidly, PolitiFact wrote that “Obama has indeed presided over the slowest growth in spending of any president using raw dollars, and it was the second-slowest if you adjust for inflation.”
Admittedly, though, the numbers you've given us in your post (I would like that PolitiFact link) give us percent increases. Spending was higher at the beginning of Obama's first term than it was at, say, Reagan's first OR second terms. So a growth of 500 billion dollars in spending under Obama would be a lower % increase than it would be under Reagan. He could have raised spending by more actual dollars than Reagan and still have a smaller % because the initial spending was higher.
Here is the politifact story make sure to read all of it or you may get the wrong impression
"You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter."- Dick Cheney.... I forgot how Republicans were so quick to condemn deficits when they had the Presidency. Can't forget he was handed a deficit bigger than anyone has seen since WWII. And thankfully he didn't make it worse.
In fact he has been decreasing it at an impressive rate.
ah, one more thing before bed (I have work in the morning TT)
The budget adopted before he comes into office is the largest deficit in history at that time. (which he supported as a senator). So yes, you went from the largest increases in history to the smallest, because RIGHT BEFORE he got into office, it was MASSIVE.
There is a reason it was massive. Can you think of something pretty important that happened in 2008-2009? Here's a hint: it affected the economy.
Spending is spending. It hasn't payed off and and is still adding to the debt (that "stimulus"? Yea, we still pay that every year.) Combine that with the fact that Obama does NOT want to cut spending, and you can't blame this all on 2008. We are spending more than we take in with no plan to stop, and it CANNOT continue. Yet Obama wants it to continue. That is my point. It's just Obama spin when he says he cut it by such and such %. He OPPOSED the sequester, which was a (small) cut in increases (most of which came from military spending). It wasn't even a real cut, and it exempted mandatory spending. Obama doesn't give two you-know-whats about the deficit.
You have absolutely no idea of what you're talking about.
1. It has paid off. Plenty of studies have shown the positive impact on jobs and the economy of the 2009 stimulus. 2. Obama has cut spending. 3. It can very well continue. Debt is a long-term problem which is best addressed by improving the economy, and since monetary policy is already doing all that it can, this should be done through further budgetary expansion. By improving the economy through the latter, deficits and the debt would then be easier to address due to the government getting more revenue in taxes and having to spend less due to more people working. 4. The sequester wasn't "small". It's projected to cost up to 1.6 million jobs, and has crippled crucial programs that were helping the most vulnerable. Its full effects simply haven't been felt yet simply because the most drastic cuts will happen in 2014. 5. Obama is much more concerned about the deficit than he currently should be, based on what I said in 3.
On October 07 2013 15:31 Funnytoss wrote: Yeah, I keep wondering at what point the American public will actually begin to start punishing lawmakers for crazy shit. Each time I think "maybe this time" but it never happens.
Doesn't legal gerrymandering pretty much guarantee tenure for a lot of these politicians? Congress as a whole has such low approval ratings, but they keep getting voted back in. Either that, or voters like 'their' guy. It's everyone else that they disapprove so strongly.
Pretty much, and it's likely to stay this way for almost another decade, since the next census and redrawing isn't going to take place for quite some time...
Thats why Obama fucked up so badly in 2010. It wasnt losing Congress, it was losing so many governorship and state legislatures.
On October 07 2013 15:31 Funnytoss wrote: Yeah, I keep wondering at what point the American public will actually begin to start punishing lawmakers for crazy shit. Each time I think "maybe this time" but it never happens.
Doesn't legal gerrymandering pretty much guarantee tenure for a lot of these politicians? Congress as a whole has such low approval ratings, but they keep getting voted back in. Either that, or voters like 'their' guy. It's everyone else that they disapprove so strongly.
Pretty much, and it's likely to stay this way for almost another decade, since the next census and redrawing isn't going to take place for quite some time...
Thats why Obama fucked up so badly in 2010. It wasnt losing Congress, it was losing so many governorship and state legislatures.
Are state and federal elections so closely tied? Our provincial and federal elections have pretty much nothing to do with each other.
On October 07 2013 15:31 Funnytoss wrote: Yeah, I keep wondering at what point the American public will actually begin to start punishing lawmakers for crazy shit. Each time I think "maybe this time" but it never happens.
Doesn't legal gerrymandering pretty much guarantee tenure for a lot of these politicians? Congress as a whole has such low approval ratings, but they keep getting voted back in. Either that, or voters like 'their' guy. It's everyone else that they disapprove so strongly.
Pretty much, and it's likely to stay this way for almost another decade, since the next census and redrawing isn't going to take place for quite some time...
Thats why Obama fucked up so badly in 2010. It wasnt losing Congress, it was losing so many governorship and state legislatures.
Are state and federal elections so closely tied? Our provincial and federal elections have pretty much nothing to do with each other.
I don't have statistics on this so someone please correct me if I'm wrong. However, I believe that in the US people tend to vote for a party rather than specific candidates. As a result, if people are upset with a Democratic president they will tend to vote for Republican governors, Reps, Senators, judges, etc. I think this is one of the big problems with having a system with only two parties. People don't research specific candidates, and instead just vote down the party line.
On October 07 2013 15:31 Funnytoss wrote: Yeah, I keep wondering at what point the American public will actually begin to start punishing lawmakers for crazy shit. Each time I think "maybe this time" but it never happens.
Doesn't legal gerrymandering pretty much guarantee tenure for a lot of these politicians? Congress as a whole has such low approval ratings, but they keep getting voted back in. Either that, or voters like 'their' guy. It's everyone else that they disapprove so strongly.
Pretty much, and it's likely to stay this way for almost another decade, since the next census and redrawing isn't going to take place for quite some time...
Thats why Obama fucked up so badly in 2010. It wasnt losing Congress, it was losing so many governorship and state legislatures.
Are state and federal elections so closely tied? Our provincial and federal elections have pretty much nothing to do with each other.
I don't have statistics on this so someone please correct me if I'm wrong. However, I believe that in the US people tend to vote for a party rather than specific candidates. As a result, if people are upset with a Democratic president they will tend to vote for Republican governors, Reps, Senators, judges, etc. I think this is one of the big problems with having a system with only two parties. People don't research specific candidates, and instead just vote down the party line.
One of the major selling points with the US system is that people are supposed to get involved with their representative. If what you're saying is true then I can't really find a single redeeming quality about the system if compared to the better alternatives.
It's a batting average that won't land the federal marketplace for Obamacare into the Healthcare Hall of Fame.
As few as 1 in 100 applications on the federal exchange contains enough information to enroll the applicant in a plan, several insurance industry sources told CNBC on Friday. Some of the problems involve how the exchange's software collects and verifies an applicant's data.
"It is extraordinary that these systems weren't ready," said Sumit Nijhawan, CEO of Infogix, which handles data integrity issues for major insurers including WellPoint and Cigna, as well as multiple Blue Cross Blue Shield affiliates.
Experts said that if Healthcare.gov's success rate doesn't improve within the next month or so, federal officials could face a situation in January in which relatively large numbers of people believe they have coverage starting that month, but whose enrollment applications are have not been processed.
"It could be public relations nightmare," said Nijhawan. Insurers have told his company that just "1 in 100" enrollment applicants being sent from the federal marketplace have provided sufficient, verified information. ...
Yeah, and that article is the equivalent of asking NCSoft for an opinion on World of Warcraft. Of course Sumit Nijwahan sees folly, his company manages data for companies like BC and BS that stand to have their influence decline with Obamacare.
On October 08 2013 02:54 farvacola wrote: Yeah, and that article is the equivalent of asking NCSoft for an opinion on World of Warcraft. Of course Sumit Nijwahan sees folly, his company manages data for companies like BC and BS that stand to have their influence decline with Obamacare.
Insurers are going to have more customers. Isn't good for Infogix and their customers?
In August 2009, WellPoint’s Anthem Blue Cross unit, the largest for-profit insurer in California, contacted its employees and urged them to get involved to oppose the Democratic Party-led Congress' plan for health care reform. "Regrettably, the congressional legislation, as currently passed by four of the five key committees in Congress, does not meet our definition of responsible and sustainable reform", Anthem said in a company e-mail. The proposals would hurt the company by "causing tens of millions of Americans to lose their private coverage and end up in a government-run plan." Consumer Watchdog, a nonprofit watchdog organization in Santa Monica, has asked California Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown to investigate its claim that WellPoint Inc. pushed workers to write their elected officials, attend town hall meetings and enlist family and friends to ensure an overhaul that matches the firm’s interests. According to Consumer Watchdog, California's labor code directly prohibits coercive communications, including forbidding employers from "tending to control or direct" or "coercing or influencing" employees' political activities or affiliations. "WellPoint has not been contacted by the California attorney general and has not seen any complaint; therefore, we cannot respond to any questions at this time,” a company spokesperson said.[15] The former Vice President for Public Policy and External Affairs at WellPoint, Elizabeth Fowler, is currently the Senior Counsel to Max Baucus, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and leading opponent of the "public option" in health care reform.[16] Through 2010 and into 2011, WellPoint senior executives have been meeting monthly with executives of other major health insurers to blunt the effect of the health care reform law.[17] In March 2010, WellPoint announced it was reclassifying some of its administrative costs as medical care costs in order to meet new loss ratio requirements under the health care law. (The law requires insurers to spend at least 80% or 85% of customer premiums on health care services, depending on the type of plan.)[18]
On October 08 2013 03:12 farvacola wrote: Check this wiki out, specifically the parts about how Wellpoint opposed and opposes healthcare reform. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WellPoint
In August 2009, WellPoint’s Anthem Blue Cross unit, the largest for-profit insurer in California, contacted its employees and urged them to get involved to oppose the Democratic Party-led Congress' plan for health care reform. "Regrettably, the congressional legislation, as currently passed by four of the five key committees in Congress, does not meet our definition of responsible and sustainable reform", Anthem said in a company e-mail. The proposals would hurt the company by "causing tens of millions of Americans to lose their private coverage and end up in a government-run plan." Consumer Watchdog, a nonprofit watchdog organization in Santa Monica, has asked California Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown to investigate its claim that WellPoint Inc. pushed workers to write their elected officials, attend town hall meetings and enlist family and friends to ensure an overhaul that matches the firm’s interests. According to Consumer Watchdog, California's labor code directly prohibits coercive communications, including forbidding employers from "tending to control or direct" or "coercing or influencing" employees' political activities or affiliations. "WellPoint has not been contacted by the California attorney general and has not seen any complaint; therefore, we cannot respond to any questions at this time,” a company spokesperson said.[15] The former Vice President for Public Policy and External Affairs at WellPoint, Elizabeth Fowler, is currently the Senior Counsel to Max Baucus, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and leading opponent of the "public option" in health care reform.[16] Through 2010 and into 2011, WellPoint senior executives have been meeting monthly with executives of other major health insurers to blunt the effect of the health care reform law.[17] In March 2010, WellPoint announced it was reclassifying some of its administrative costs as medical care costs in order to meet new loss ratio requirements under the health care law. (The law requires insurers to spend at least 80% or 85% of customer premiums on health care services, depending on the type of plan.)[18]
I would think that most of the insurance companies and brokers send out communications urging people to resist Obamacare being enacted. I remember seeing a bunch of communications from my broker.
The point is that while there are some out there proclaiming that insurance companies in general stand to benefit from the ACA, there remain large portions of the healthcare market that stand to lose a degree of their ability to manipulate premiums, BC/BS being one example. In other words, different insurers have different interests, but the interests of the companies Nijwahan represents fall squarely into the anti-healthcare reform category, regardless of whether or not there is a government option in the ACA.
On October 08 2013 03:23 farvacola wrote: The point is that while there are some out there proclaiming that insurance companies in general stand to benefit from the ACA, there remain large portions of the healthcare market that stand to lose a degree of their ability to manipulate premiums, BC/BS being one example. In other words, different insurers have different interests, but the interests of the companies Nijwahan represents fall squarely into the anti-healthcare reform category, regardless of whether or not there is a government option in the ACA.
Does BC/BS oppose the ACA? They sided with the government in the Supreme Court case (friend of the court brief).
Regardless, would Infogix care if BC/BS wasn't able to manipulate premiums? I would think that Infogix would get paid more simply if BC/BS had more customers, more applicants and more regulatory data to manage.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8tOqKP3.jpg)
