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

[Arianrhod]

I already did in Post #50.

Leaving out Non-Workers is intellectually dishonest.

Trying to compare an "About Us" page to the data you like on the BLS site is dishonest, but so amateurish it's not really that significant.

A couple of weaknesses in your debating style. Playing "Hey, look over there!" can be translated as "I don't have the facts at my disposal so I'll try to create a distraction and hope no one notices," and resorting to insults only emphasizes that. Then there's your confirmation bias, which underlies your entire structure.

You don't like the PPACA because you don't like the PPACA. Nothing will change your mind, unless of course you end up in a situation like this guy: Leonard Pitts Jr. Blind man loses bluff on Obamacare Miami Herald

 

[Greenbeard]

It's a 7 quarter study. You're also ignoring the drop in the Labor Force Participation Rate - there are fewer workers today as a ratio of the population. These people aren't counted at all. They are the biggest victims of ObamaCare - people who have given up looking for jobs because the Obama Economy is an epic fail.

These people aren't counted in what? Many of those leaving the workforce are retiring Baby Boomers who are aging into Medicare.

The question at hand is whether the ACA is eroding ESI. Many have looked at this question and the answer has been unanimous: no. ESI offers and enrollment have remained steady, while enrollment via the individual insurance market has risen steadily. Exactly as intended.

 

[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%

 

[boedicca]

It's a 7 quarter study. You're also ignoring the drop in the Labor Force Participation Rate - there are fewer workers today as a ratio of the population. These people aren't counted at all. They are the biggest victims of ObamaCare - people who have given up looking for jobs because the Obama Economy is an epic fail.

These people aren't counted in what? Many of those leaving the workforce are retiring Baby Boomers who are aging into Medicare.

The question at hand is whether the ACA is eroding ESI. Many have looked at this question and the answer has been unanimous: no. ESI offers and enrollment have remained steady, while enrollment via the individual insurance market has risen steadily. Exactly as intended.

That is utter b'loney. The labor force participation rate for older workers has increased. It's dropped for everyone under 55.

And here is more detail by age category:

Civilian labor force participation rates by age sex race and ethnicity

 

[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.

 

[Greenbeard]

That is utter b'loney. The labor force participation rate for older workers has increased.

That data shows a 20+ point drop in labor force participation between just-pre-Medicare folks and Medicare-age folks. As the population continues to age, the number of people (and proportion of the population) aging over that threshold each year continues to grow. At this point it's something like 10,000 people per day.

So yeah, millions of people are going to keep leaving the workforce each year. We have a graying population.

What this has to do with the fact that ESI coverage has continued uninterrupted through the ACA's implementation, I don't know.

 

[Arianrhod]

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.

If you want to stay home and dust the furniture and watch game shows all day, I wish you well. Just make sure someone else can support you and provide health insurance coverage.

 

[boedicca]

That is utter b'loney. The labor force participation rate for older workers has increased.

That data shows a 20+ point drop in labor force participation between just-pre-Medicare folks and Medicare-age folks. As the population continues to age, the number of people (and proportion of the population) aging over that threshold each year continues to grow. At this point it's something like 10,000 people per day.

So yeah, millions of people are going to keep leaving the workforce each year. We have a graying population.

What this has to do with the fact that ESI coverage has continued uninterrupted through the ACA's implementation, I don't know.

You really can't read properly can you? Take a look at the #s highlight in yellow. Which time sequences are decreasing and which are increasing? The group just before Medicare eligibility is increasing its participation rate, bub.

 

[boedicca]

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.

If you want to stay home and dust the furniture and watch game shows all day, I wish you well. Just make sure someone else can support you and provide health insurance coverage.

You sad sack of sophistry. I'm not the one who suggested we use the 1950s' LFPR. If one is going to use it, one should understand what societal values caused it to be at a lower level than today.

 

[Arianrhod]

I'm not the one who suggested we use the 1950s' LFPR.

No, you're the one who suggested returning to "the values." Was dusting the furniture not among them?

 

[Greenbeard]

You really can't read properly can you?

To repeat: large numbers of people drop out of the labor force as they age into Medicare eligibility. The number of people doing so (and the proportion of the population) doing so has been steadily increasing. The accelerating retirement of the Baby Boomers shows up in the topline labor force participation numbers.

None of which has anything to do with the observed stability of ESI. You're really milking this red herring but it's irrelevant. Employers aren't dropping coverage, nor are they going to. Just another in the endless list of dumb predictions by the confused anti-ACA crowd.

 

[boedicca]

You really can't read properly can you?

To repeat: large numbers of people drop out of the labor force as they age into Medicare eligibility. The number of people doing so (and the proportion of the population) doing so has been steadily increasing. The accelerating retirement of the Baby Boomers shows up in the topline labor force participation numbers.

None of which has anything to do with the observed stability of ESI. You're really milking this red herring but it's irrelevant. Employers aren't dropping coverage, nor are they going to. Just another in the endless list of dumb predictions by the confused anti-ACA crowd.

You really are dense. The drop in the LFRP is not due to boomer retirement. That is only a fraction of the decrease. The bigger societal issue is that young and prime working age people are dropping out of the workforce.

 

[Arianrhod]

I just hope you guys aren't *too* disappointed when this gets shot down for, what is it? The 55th time? The 60th? Hey, maybe one of you should file another King v Burwell. That worked out well...

 

[mudwhistle]

Well sure, that sounds like a terrific plan! And the GOP loses all the way around.

The Senate, using this trick (which is perfectly legal, of course) passes it with at least 51 votes. It goes on record as having passed a bill to repeal Obamacare.

President Obama then goes on TV and warns what will happen to millions and millions of Americans if he doesn't veto the bill, which was supposed to be the long-term highway bill, but hey, let's throw the "kill Obamacare" thingy in there.

A big scare would ensue. People would be really, really pissed. Wonderful.

Then, President Obama vetoes said bill, it dies right there, but the public would know exactly WHO tried to kill Obamacare.

All that work on the part of the GOP - for nothing, and lots politically to lose.

And you know who will be smiling the most?

Hillary Clinton.

So, yeah, by all means, l'il sluggers, go with that!


Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry....but Obamacare isn't popular.

So nothing happens if the vote against it. Obama can stomp all he wants....but when Obamcare blows up next year Obama will look like an asshole.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Well sure, that sounds like a terrific plan! And the GOP loses all the way around.

The Senate, using this trick (which is perfectly legal, of course) passes it with at least 51 votes. It goes on record as having passed a bill to repeal Obamacare.

President Obama then goes on TV and warns what will happen to millions and millions of Americans if he doesn't veto the bill, which was supposed to be the long-term highway bill, but hey, let's throw the "kill Obamacare" thingy in there.

A big scare would ensue. People would be really, really pissed. Wonderful.

Then, President Obama vetoes said bill, it dies right there, but the public would know exactly WHO tried to kill Obamacare.

All that work on the part of the GOP - for nothing, and lots politically to lose.

And you know who will be smiling the most?

Hillary Clinton.

So, yeah, by all means, l'il sluggers, go with that!


Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry....but Obamacare isn't popular.

So nothing happens if the vote against it. Obama can stomp all he wants....but when Obamcare blows up next year Obama will look like an asshole.

Yeah, you go with that one. Run with it.

 

[evince]

they are just so full of crap.


not popular



man do they ever tire of lying?

 

[mudwhistle]

Well sure, that sounds like a terrific plan! And the GOP loses all the way around.

The Senate, using this trick (which is perfectly legal, of course) passes it with at least 51 votes. It goes on record as having passed a bill to repeal Obamacare.

President Obama then goes on TV and warns what will happen to millions and millions of Americans if he doesn't veto the bill, which was supposed to be the long-term highway bill, but hey, let's throw the "kill Obamacare" thingy in there.

A big scare would ensue. People would be really, really pissed. Wonderful.

Then, President Obama vetoes said bill, it dies right there, but the public would know exactly WHO tried to kill Obamacare.

All that work on the part of the GOP - for nothing, and lots politically to lose.

And you know who will be smiling the most?

Hillary Clinton.

So, yeah, by all means, l'il sluggers, go with that!


Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry....but Obamacare isn't popular.

So nothing happens if the vote against it. Obama can stomp all he wants....but when Obamcare blows up next year Obama will look like an asshole.

Yeah, you go with that one. Run with it.

If they try to get rid of Obamacare it'll be just fulfilling a promise they made to their base.
Everyone who's been to the doctor in the last couple of years knows that Obamacare is total shit. It's also caused costs to skyrocket.....not drop as Obama promised.

 

[mudwhistle]

they are just so full of crap.


not popular



man do they ever tire of lying?

 

[Arianrhod]

Everyone who's been to the doctor in the last couple of years knows that Obamacare is total shit.

Really? I don't recall your calling me to ask me. Must have gone straight to VM...

 

[evince]

go et your poof people hate ACA