McConnell and Reid may have just set a 51-vote threshold for passing Obamacare repeal

[evince]

you gave no proof of any lie

 

[boedicca]

you gave no proof of any lie

Are you related to Truthmattersnot?

 

[ChrisL]

TBH, I haven't seen any changes in my health insurance. We've had a similar plan as this implemented in MA for years and years now though. That might be why. Don't really know.

 

[pinqy]

Oh my goodness. I see that you don't understand the stats from the BLS (unsurprising given your Lo Info Voter status).

No, you really don't.

No, you really don't. It's clear you don't even know what the BLS is.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

From their data, if the LFRP were at the same levels now as when Obama took office, the unemployment rate would be 9.76%, an increase of 1.94 pts. The Labor Force would be 10M greater. In reality, while there have been 16M new entrants to the Labor Force during the Obama Era, the economy created jobs for only 40% of them. That is an APPALLING statistic.

View attachment 45613

Now, what would the current IS rate be if we used the LFPR from, say, Eisenhower's time? His average was 59.4%
So that would mean the Labor Force would be 148,894,000 (0.594*250,663,000)
Take away the 148,379,000 employed, and we'd have 514,000 unemployed and an unemployment rate of 514,000/148,894,000 = 0.3%

So, what's the correct UE rate? Still think "constant LFPR makes sense? He'll if they did that from the beginning with 1947's 58.3% LFPR, our UE rate would be -1.7%

Well, back in Eisenhower's time, women were not in the workforce for the most part. That changed in the 70s and 80s. If you'd like to go back to the 50s, then by all means, let's adopt the value systems as well.

Ok, so we can agree that because the labor force participation rate is affected by non-economic factors, then the "constant labor force participation" method is not a good one.

 

[jon_berzerk]

it is a safe bet

it will not pass

Senate Votes to Revive Export-Import Bank, Keep Obamacare (Updated)

Senate Votes to Revive Ex-Im Bank Keep Obamacare

 

[boedicca]

Oh my goodness. I see that you don't understand the stats from the BLS (unsurprising given your Lo Info Voter status).

No, you really don't.

No, you really don't. It's clear you don't even know what the BLS is.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

From their data, if the LFRP were at the same levels now as when Obama took office, the unemployment rate would be 9.76%, an increase of 1.94 pts. The Labor Force would be 10M greater. In reality, while there have been 16M new entrants to the Labor Force during the Obama Era, the economy created jobs for only 40% of them. That is an APPALLING statistic.

View attachment 45613

Now, what would the current IS rate be if we used the LFPR from, say, Eisenhower's time? His average was 59.4%
So that would mean the Labor Force would be 148,894,000 (0.594*250,663,000)
Take away the 148,379,000 employed, and we'd have 514,000 unemployed and an unemployment rate of 514,000/148,894,000 = 0.3%

So, what's the correct UE rate? Still think "constant LFPR makes sense? He'll if they did that from the beginning with 1947's 58.3% LFPR, our UE rate would be -1.7%

Well, back in Eisenhower's time, women were not in the workforce for the most part. That changed in the 70s and 80s. If you'd like to go back to the 50s, then by all means, let's adopt the value systems as well.

Ok, so we can agree that because the labor force participation rate is affected by non-economic factors, then the "constant labor force participation" method is not a good one.

Not in this case, hun.

We were in a RECESSION in January 2009 when Obama took office. The LFPR should be healthier now - but we haven't had a real recovery. The declines for younger and prime age workers are very worrisome - and due to the growth killing policies of the Obama administration.

 

[pinqy]

No, you really don't.

No, you really don't. It's clear you don't even know what the BLS is.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

From their data, if the LFRP were at the same levels now as when Obama took office, the unemployment rate would be 9.76%, an increase of 1.94 pts. The Labor Force would be 10M greater. In reality, while there have been 16M new entrants to the Labor Force during the Obama Era, the economy created jobs for only 40% of them. That is an APPALLING statistic.

View attachment 45613

Now, what would the current IS rate be if we used the LFPR from, say, Eisenhower's time? His average was 59.4%
So that would mean the Labor Force would be 148,894,000 (0.594*250,663,000)
Take away the 148,379,000 employed, and we'd have 514,000 unemployed and an unemployment rate of 514,000/148,894,000 = 0.3%

So, what's the correct UE rate? Still think "constant LFPR makes sense? He'll if they did that from the beginning with 1947's 58.3% LFPR, our UE rate would be -1.7%

Well, back in Eisenhower's time, women were not in the workforce for the most part. That changed in the 70s and 80s. If you'd like to go back to the 50s, then by all means, let's adopt the value systems as well.

Ok, so we can agree that because the labor force participation rate is affected by non-economic factors, then the "constant labor force participation" method is not a good one.

Not in this case, hun.

We were in a RECESSION in January 2009 when Obama took office. The LFPR should be healthier now - but we haven't had a real recovery.

That's not the question. The question was whether the constant LFPR method is a good one for declaring what the UE rate should be. It's not, because all it is is picking an arbitrary LFPR to be the correct one, and then making massive assumptions.

The declines for younger and prime age workers are very worrisome - and due to the growth killing policies of the Obama administration.

You do realize that some of the decline is because the 25-54 year old population has shrunk?

 

[boedicca]

No, you really don't. It's clear you don't even know what the BLS is.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

From their data, if the LFRP were at the same levels now as when Obama took office, the unemployment rate would be 9.76%, an increase of 1.94 pts. The Labor Force would be 10M greater. In reality, while there have been 16M new entrants to the Labor Force during the Obama Era, the economy created jobs for only 40% of them. That is an APPALLING statistic.

View attachment 45613

Now, what would the current IS rate be if we used the LFPR from, say, Eisenhower's time? His average was 59.4%
So that would mean the Labor Force would be 148,894,000 (0.594*250,663,000)
Take away the 148,379,000 employed, and we'd have 514,000 unemployed and an unemployment rate of 514,000/148,894,000 = 0.3%

So, what's the correct UE rate? Still think "constant LFPR makes sense? He'll if they did that from the beginning with 1947's 58.3% LFPR, our UE rate would be -1.7%

Well, back in Eisenhower's time, women were not in the workforce for the most part. That changed in the 70s and 80s. If you'd like to go back to the 50s, then by all means, let's adopt the value systems as well.

Ok, so we can agree that because the labor force participation rate is affected by non-economic factors, then the "constant labor force participation" method is not a good one.

Not in this case, hun.

We were in a RECESSION in January 2009 when Obama took office. The LFPR should be healthier now - but we haven't had a real recovery.

That's not the question. The question was whether the constant LFPR method is a good one for declaring what the UE rate should be. It's not, because all it is is picking an arbitrary LFPR to be the correct one, and then making massive assumptions.

The declines for younger and prime age workers are very worrisome - and due to the growth killing policies of the Obama administration.

You do realize that some of the decline is because the 25-54 year old population has shrunk?

Scuze me - but the analysis is to show the impact of how the LFRP affects the UE3 rate.

When you look at it, the Obama Economy cannot generate enough jobs to keep up with population growth. Younger people and prime working age people are DROPPING OUT. This is horrible for our society.

I did this analysis a few weeks ago to demonstrate the job creation of Reagan and Obama at similar points in their presidencies. Reagan's resulted in job creation for 92% of the increase in the working age population compared to Obama's paltry 41%. If anything highlights the Epic Fail of Big Government centralized control, this one stat does.

 

[Arianrhod]

ObamaCare Repeal Goes Nowhere in Senate

 

[Arianrhod]

Wow, it sure got quiet in here. No more "teh Obamacare Killed My Puppy!!!!" tales?

 

[Hawkeye2j]

And tens of millions that did have health care DON'T!

You can prove this, of course. Using facts?

Meanwhile, taking the humans out of the equation, you're cool with adding $137 billion to the federal deficit?

Obamacare is a deficit reducing law. Sorry GOP you lose again. Repeal would explode the deficit

 

[Hawkeye2j]

Tens of millions of people that wouldn't have health insurance have it because of obamacare. Do you really think they won't vote against your party??? Event he ones that don't normally vote.

Everything you do is to hurt people.

And ten of millions more saw skyrocketing premiums and increased deductibles with the health insurance they already had. It seems all you folks can do is hurt people.

The rate of increase of premiums were cut sharply since Obamacare became law. Please stop the lies.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Tens of millions of people that wouldn't have health insurance have it because of obamacare. Do you really think they won't vote against your party??? Event he ones that don't normally vote.

Everything you do is to hurt people.

And ten of millions more saw skyrocketing premiums and increased deductibles with the health insurance they already had. It seems all you folks can do is hurt people.

The rate of increase of premiums were cut sharply since Obamacare became law. Please stop the lies.

ObamaCare was supposed to result in an average family decrease of $2500 a year, not slow the rate of increase. Please stop the lies.

 

[Hawkeye2j]

Tens of millions of people that wouldn't have health insurance have it because of obamacare. Do you really think they won't vote against your party??? Event he ones that don't normally vote.

Everything you do is to hurt people.

And ten of millions more saw skyrocketing premiums and increased deductibles with the health insurance they already had. It seems all you folks can do is hurt people.

The rate of increase of premiums were cut sharply since Obamacare became law. Please stop the lies.

ObamaCare was supposed to result in an average family decrease of $2500 a year, not slow the rate of increase. Please stop the lies.

In the long run, not immediately. It slowed the growth of increase. If all the states expand medicare like the bill called for that would go further in reducing premiums.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Tens of millions of people that wouldn't have health insurance have it because of obamacare. Do you really think they won't vote against your party??? Event he ones that don't normally vote.

Everything you do is to hurt people.

And ten of millions more saw skyrocketing premiums and increased deductibles with the health insurance they already had. It seems all you folks can do is hurt people.

The rate of increase of premiums were cut sharply since Obamacare became law. Please stop the lies.

ObamaCare was supposed to result in an average family decrease of $2500 a year, not slow the rate of increase. Please stop the lies.

In the long run, not immediately. It slowed the growth of increase. If all the states expand medicare like the bill called for that would go further in reducing premiums.

Many doctors aren't excepting Medicare anymore and a few states' exchanges have either completely collapsed or cost way more than anticipated. ObamaCare is an unmitigated disaster and does not address the overall problem. It's like sticking a bunch of band-aids on a dam that's cracking.

 

[Hawkeye2j]

Tens of millions of people that wouldn't have health insurance have it because of obamacare. Do you really think they won't vote against your party??? Event he ones that don't normally vote.

Everything you do is to hurt people.

And ten of millions more saw skyrocketing premiums and increased deductibles with the health insurance they already had. It seems all you folks can do is hurt people.

The rate of increase of premiums were cut sharply since Obamacare became law. Please stop the lies.

ObamaCare was supposed to result in an average family decrease of $2500 a year, not slow the rate of increase. Please stop the lies.

In the long run, not immediately. It slowed the growth of increase. If all the states expand medicare like the bill called for that would go further in reducing premiums.

Many doctors aren't excepting Medicare anymore and a few states' exchanges have either completely collapsed or cost way more than anticipated. ObamaCare is an unmitigated disaster and does not address the overall problem. It's like sticking a bunch of band-aids on a dam that's cracking.

That is simply not true. Obamacare is a tremendous success. You better hope it succeeds because if they went back to the old system now, most economists predict it would be a crashing blow to the economy. The only alternative would be single payer and I certainly would not be opposed to that.

 

[Arianrhod]

Many doctors aren't excepting Medicare anymore and a few states' exchanges have either completely collapsed or cost way more than anticipated.

Proof?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Many doctors aren't excepting Medicare anymore and a few states' exchanges have either completely collapsed or cost way more than anticipated.

Proof?

Doctors Refuse To Accept Medicare Patients

 

[Arianrhod]

Many doctors aren't excepting Medicare anymore and a few states' exchanges have either completely collapsed or cost way more than anticipated.

Proof?

Doctors Refuse To Accept Medicare Patients

Note the date on the article you linked to - August, 2013 - a year and a half before the implementation of the PPACA.

One of the important aspects of the PPACA is that it is in the process of streamlining Medicare and reducing paperwork.

You've got it backwards.

 

[Arianrhod]

^Actually, my bad - I got the year wrong (but, curiously, no one seems to have noticed). The PPACA came into effect in January 2014. The article Don't Taz Me Bro linked to was written in August 2013. So unless you believe Obama is an Evil Time Lord who is responsible for every bad thing since he tempted Eve with that apple, doctors' decision not to accept Medicare - which has been going on since the inception of Medicare, BTW - is not the fault of the PPACA.