Obamacare's effect on the middle class

[IndyColtsFan]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
anyways this is a pretty misleading article, largely around the incredibly misleading and vague term 'middle class' which in this case appears to be used in the old british sense of the word, not the pluralistic american sense. A single earner earning 85k is a very nice income in most areas and firmly upper middle class.

bullshit. That's squarely middle class. It's a factory workers wage, so are you trying to say a factory work is upper middle class?

$85K is well above what an average factory worker makes and an $85K household income is well above the US median of $70K for a family of 4.

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
anyways this is a pretty misleading article, largely around the incredibly misleading and vague term 'middle class' which in this case appears to be used in the old british sense of the word, not the pluralistic american sense. A single earner earning 85k is a very nice income in most areas and firmly upper middle class.

bullshit. That's squarely middle class. It's a factory workers wage, so are you trying to say a factory work is upper middle class?

Seconded. In the Chicago area at least, $85k a year household income is squarely solid middle class. NOT upper middle class, definitely not lower class.

Now, you go to some state like Kentucky or a poorer area in the US, then yeah, $85k a year is definitely upper middle class.

Got to seriously question the mentality of folks thinking a household making $85k a hear is upper middle class.

Chuck

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

As inconclusive as he is otherwise, the author would disagree with you on this one point.

Perhaps, but the public option was another "don't look behind the curtain" piece of legislation. What, precisely, did it entail?

It's all there, starting in Sec. 221 of HR 3200. Sen. Schumer and Sen. Rockefeller's respective public options were explained in plain English when introduced as amendments.

I've asked this question several times today, and of course it's ignored. What was to prevent the government from leveraging the public option to remove all opposition to complete government control of health care? Good will?

The health insurance lobby has shown itself to be the most powerful lobby outside of the NRA.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
anyways this is a pretty misleading article, largely around the incredibly misleading and vague term 'middle class' which in this case appears to be used in the old british sense of the word, not the pluralistic american sense. A single earner earning 85k is a very nice income in most areas and firmly upper middle class.

bullshit. That's squarely middle class. It's a factory workers wage, so are you trying to say a factory work is upper middle class?

Bwahahahahahaha! You are totally disconnected with reality.

 

[Alienwho]

If 85K is middle class, pretty much everybody I know who makes 50k, has a damn nice place to live, multiple vehicles and toys must be in absolute poverty.

Newsflash, for the majority of the United States, below 30 is "poverty" (nice to be impoverished and still having a washing machine, don't you think?) 30-45 lower middle, 45-60 middle, 60-90 upper middle, 90 - 200 upper, 200+ elite. You might think 85k is middle class in chicago if you live in a down town high rise, but you take that pay and commute a half hour to suburbia and you're in the upper middle class.

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: Alienwho
If 85K is middle class, pretty much everybody I know who makes 50k, has a damn nice place to live, multiple vehicles and toys must be in absolute poverty.

Newsflash, for the majority of the United States, below 30 is "poverty" (nice to be impoverished and still having a washing machine, don't you think?) 30-45 lower middle, 45-60 middle, 60-90 upper middle, 90 - 200 upper, 200+ elite. You might think 85k is middle class in chicago if you live in a down town high rise, but you take that pay and commute a half hour to suburbia and you're in the upper middle class.

I'm an hour commute south from downtown Chicago. $85k is getting towards the upper end of middle class, but it's certainly not upper middle class. Try again.

Chuck

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
anyways this is a pretty misleading article, largely around the incredibly misleading and vague term 'middle class' which in this case appears to be used in the old british sense of the word, not the pluralistic american sense. A single earner earning 85k is a very nice income in most areas and firmly upper middle class.

bullshit. That's squarely middle class. It's a factory workers wage, so are you trying to say a factory work is upper middle class?

You LIE

Isn't your average factory worker laid off and earning $0 now?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the co-op plans end up doing nothing to reduce the cost of health care. It's just another touchy-feely band-aid that doesn't address the real issues, such as the entire structure of the medical care system in this country. Other nations have shown that they can do it better and cheaper, but too many entrenched, powerful interests that profit from the current system are in the way of real reform.

 

[Alienwho]

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: Alienwho
If 85K is middle class, pretty much everybody I know who makes 50k, has a damn nice place to live, multiple vehicles and toys must be in absolute poverty.

Newsflash, for the majority of the United States, below 30 is "poverty" (nice to be impoverished and still having a washing machine, don't you think?) 30-45 lower middle, 45-60 middle, 60-90 upper middle, 90 - 200 upper, 200+ elite. You might think 85k is middle class in chicago if you live in a down town high rise, but you take that pay and commute a half hour to suburbia and you're in the upper middle class.

I'm an hour commute south from downtown Chicago. $85k is getting towards the upper end of middle class, but it's certainly not upper middle class. Try again.

Chuck

Here is a list of average wages in Chicago from 2007. A quick scan resulted in less than 15 that exceeded 85k. And by the looks of it, if you were over 80 you were way over (100k+) The 80-100k doesn't seem to exist. If 85k is middle class, than 90% of that list is lower-middle class, with most falling into the lower class spectrum.

 

[jpeyton]

This is why a public option needs to be part of the bill.

 

[StageLeft]

I'd consider 85k right in the middle class. It's above the average median nationally, but not really by much from a practical perspective. Wiki has a few definitions but 100k is a cutoff in some cases before you hit upper middle. I bet most people 85k would not consider themselves upper middle.

 

[Fingolfin269]

I'm middle class. I voted for Obama. If my taxes were to go up by $4000 because of this I doubt I would be voting for him next time.

With that being said, I doubt what is in the article will actually happen.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: jonks
You mean the facts that this estimate is based upon the fact that there is no public option to drive down costs?

our .gov is already spending more per capita than either the government of the UK or germany. why the fuck would tossing more money on the pile 'drive down costs?'

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
anyways this is a pretty misleading article, largely around the incredibly misleading and vague term 'middle class' which in this case appears to be used in the old british sense of the word, not the pluralistic american sense. A single earner earning 85k is a very nice income in most areas and firmly upper middle class.

bullshit. That's squarely middle class. It's a factory workers wage, so are you trying to say a factory work is upper middle class?

Seconded. In the Chicago area at least, $85k a year household income is squarely solid middle class. NOT upper middle class, definitely not lower class.

Now, you go to some state like Kentucky or a poorer area in the US, then yeah, $85k a year is definitely upper middle class.

Got to seriously question the mentality of folks thinking a household making $85k a hear is upper middle class.

Chuck

single earner, not household income, you stupid cunts

 

[Athena]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
anyways this is a pretty misleading article, largely around the incredibly misleading and vague term 'middle class' which in this case appears to be used in the old british sense of the word, not the pluralistic american sense. A single earner earning 85k is a very nice income in most areas and firmly upper middle class.

I was reading about something else this weekend and the writer made the point that there has been a conscious movement in the US away from the term "working class" to "middle class" and turning everyone into hyper consumers. Traditionally, middle-class referred to more than annual income; it implied a level of security that had nothing to do with the job of the moment. Living a middle-class "lifestyle", i.e. buying the same things, doesn't make someone middle-class.

Labor gains in the 50s and 60s may have provided more money and more (job-related) security but that didn't change the underlying dynamic of being completely dependent on that job. As more middle-class families moved to living pay check to pay check and lost traditional middle-class pension arrangements, the line between the two types was blurred.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
I'd consider 85k right in the middle class. It's above the average median nationally, but not really by much from a practical perspective. Wiki has a few definitions but 100k is a cutoff in some cases before you hit upper middle. I bet most people 85k would not consider themselves upper middle.

Most people who make $250k claim to be barely getting by.

 

[miketheidiot]

accidental post

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Skoorb
I'd consider 85k right in the middle class. It's above the average median nationally, but not really by much from a practical perspective. Wiki has a few definitions but 100k is a cutoff in some cases before you hit upper middle. I bet most people 85k would not consider themselves upper middle.

Most people who make $250k claim to be barely getting by.

my grandmother makes something like 60k a year with no debts/mortgage, lives alone, and claims to barely get by, and is constantly begging for money.















because she spends half the year and 80% of her income on vacation.

 

[Athena]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
The conclusion is shocking. Middle- and upper-middle class Americans could face an enormous increase in their premiums. The hit could easily approach $4,000 for someone earning less than $90,000 -- or more than double that increase as soon as the worker's pay hits six figures. That's because Obama's plan would collect hundreds of billions of dollars in new taxes at the expense of medium earners, and re-channel the money into subsidies for the uninsured, low-income earners, and union retirees over age 55.

Yes, it would be shocking...if in fact it was plausible. Several health policy experts have commented about the questionable assumptions implicit in the report. See Jon Cohn's articles here and here or Ezra Klein's piece today.

The particulars, for those who want to get into the weeds, have to do with PriceWaterhouseCoopers assumptions about regional variation. To arrive at their figures, they assume that average premiums in some parts of the country would exceed the national average by about twice the national average.

But the best available data we have, from government surveys and the Kaiser Family Foundation, suggest that average premiums exceed the national average by, at most, around 20 percent. The idea that the variation would somehow explode up to 100 percent, during a period in which reform will likely reduce national variation, is pretty hard to swallow."

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Athena

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
anyways this is a pretty misleading article, largely around the incredibly misleading and vague term 'middle class' which in this case appears to be used in the old british sense of the word, not the pluralistic american sense. A single earner earning 85k is a very nice income in most areas and firmly upper middle class.

I was reading about something else this weekend and the writer made the point that there has been a conscious movement in the US away from the term "working class" to "middle class" and turning everyone into hyper consumers. Traditionally, middle-class referred to more than annual income; it implied a level of security that had nothing to do with the job of the moment. Living a middle-class "lifestyle", i.e. buying the same things, doesn't make someone middle-class.

Labor gains in the 50s and 60s may have provided more money and more (job-related) security but that didn't change the underlying dynamic of being completely dependent on that job. As more middle-class families moved to living pay check to pay check and lost traditional middle-class pension arrangements, the line between the two types was blurred.

You also have to also remember Diner's Club, AMEX, and Visa all started a massive rollout of plastic in the late 50's/early 60's, which drastically changed America's finances.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Athena
Yes, it would be shocking...if in fact it was plausible. Several health policy experts have commented about the questionable assumptions implicit in the report. See Jon Cohn's articles here and here or Ezra Klein's piece today.

The particulars, for those who want to get into the weeds, have to do with PriceWaterhouseCoopers assumptions about regional variation. To arrive at their figures, they assume that average premiums in some parts of the country would exceed the national average by about twice the national average.

But the best available data we have, from government surveys and the Kaiser Family Foundation, suggest that average premiums exceed the national average by, at most, around 20 percent. The idea that the variation would somehow explode up to 100 percent, during a period in which reform will likely reduce national variation, is pretty hard to swallow."

Nice post, but I believe that you TOO failed to see that the PriceWaterhouseCoopers thread is a different thread than this one. Two different threads on different aspects of a similar topic confused Spidey07 above as well.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
anyways this is a pretty misleading article, largely around the incredibly misleading and vague term 'middle class' which in this case appears to be used in the old british sense of the word, not the pluralistic american sense. A single earner earning 85k is a very nice income in most areas and firmly upper middle class.

bullshit. That's squarely middle class. It's a factory workers wage, so are you trying to say a factory work is upper middle class?

$40/hour is a factory workers wage? I don't think so.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: blanghorst

Originally posted by: Ausm
You can blame the GOP and conservative Dems that are bought off by lobbyists for shitcanning the public option.

Of course you can, because whatever the GOP says, Obama must do. :roll:

I have an idea -- why not craft a plan that works for everyone AND holds up to budgetary scrutiny? Or maybe unify your party so the GOP can't stop your plans?

And you win, by the way -- when I saw the thread, I thought to myself: "I wonder who will be the first lefty to blame the GOP." Congratulations.

Why should we care what someone who doesn't even bother to vote thinks?

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: blanghorst

Originally posted by: Ausm
You can blame the GOP and conservative Dems that are bought off by lobbyists for shitcanning the public option.

Of course you can, because whatever the GOP says, Obama must do. :roll:

I have an idea -- why not craft a plan that works for everyone AND holds up to budgetary scrutiny? Or maybe unify your party so the GOP can't stop your plans?

And you win, by the way -- when I saw the thread, I thought to myself: "I wonder who will be the first lefty to blame the GOP." Congratulations.

Why should we care what someone who doesn't even bother to vote thinks?

And why should we care what someone who doesn't know what the definition of "decision" thinks?

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
It's a lie!

Thought I'd be first in line.

As long as you continue to be underworked and overpaid what do you care?