**UPDATE** New Obamacare Reality Setting in: 8M in exchanges, 35% are < 35 yrs old

[ccchr]

I know I know, the site is not trust worthy , but I will leave this here anyway.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...e-tough-questions-remain-whos-signing-up.html

And for a little light hearted reading. We now know how they got all the millions of last day sign ups.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/31/zach-galifianakis-obamacare_n_5062981.html

 

[theeedude]

What's sad is that as the article mentions at least in the short term this is probably a bad thing. We need more inflation, not less. It's funny that success in one of the law's purposes is probably a bad thing from an economics standpoint. Damned if you do and damned if you don't, eh?

It's not a bad thing because it allows the Fed to keep the interest rates low longer without causing inflation.

 

[fskimospy]

It's not a bad thing because it allows the Fed to keep the interest rates low longer without causing inflation.

It is bad though, because inflation is much too low right now. If the US could get up to 3-4% inflation year over year it would help the economy enormously.

 

[theeedude]

It is bad though, because inflation is much too low right now. If the US could get up to 3-4% inflation year over year it would help the economy enormously.

The solution is not to overpay for things. It's to buy more things.

 

[Fern]

but you do pay when ever someone without insurance goes to the emergency room and can't pay the bill. who do you think pays for that? the hospital raises everyone's fee to cover the ones who don't.

How's that any different from us paying for their insurance?

It isn't. All the same pieces are still on the board, it's just that they've been rearranged.

Fern

 

[Schmide]

How's that any different from us paying for their insurance?

It isn't. All the same pieces are still on the board, it's just that they've been rearranged.

Fern

No! There are new pieces on the board as well as some rearrangement. Those who would use the emergency room as a primary care facility now have other options that lower the general cost of care.

 

[theeedude]

I love how Republicans consider the poor waiting until a condition becomes a medical emergency, going to the ER to get stabilized (with no follow up) and released, and then filing for bankruptcy as equivalent to them having health insurance and going to regular doctors to get prompt preventative and curative care and chronic condition management.
It's about as similar as jumping out of the window is to taking an elevator.

 

[fskimospy]

The solution is not to overpay for things. It's to buy more things.

I agree, but as conservatives in our legislature are making that difficult to do, overpaying for things is probably better than nothing.

 

[shortylickens]

I agree, but as conservatives in our legislature are making that difficult to do, overpaying for things is probably better than nothing.

That mindset right there is the main reason we are in so much trouble.

 

[fskimospy]

That mindset right there is the main reason we are in so much trouble.

What mindset is that? This is basic economics.

 

[dawp]

How's that any different from us paying for their insurance?

It isn't. All the same pieces are still on the board, it's just that they've been rearranged.

Fern

just pointing out to ttown that even if he didn't want to pay he still does. there's really no way around it.

 

[shortylickens]

What mindset is that? This is basic economics.

Dead Weight Loss is intermediate economics.
Intermediate micro I think.

 

[fskimospy]

Dead Weight Loss is intermediate economics.
Intermediate micro I think.

You think pricing inefficiencies are intermediate? Regardless, that isn't important. Our economy is demand constrained and monetary policy has reached the limits of its effectiveness. Because if that, we need to resort to fiscal policy.

It would be far better if we were spending that money on useful and efficient things, but if that isn't an option then we are better off spending then on inefficient things than not spending at all. Think world war 2 spending and/or the famous bank notes buried in the ground example.

 

[chucky2]

Exactly. Spend more. How is the $25k to every net taxpayer, five $5k payouts every 6 months, thing going? Is it still hung up on spending only on politically connected interest groups or can we not spend it on anything we want?

 

[Jhhnn]

Exactly. Spend more. How is the $25k to every net taxpayer, five $5k payouts every 6 months, thing going? Is it still hung up on spending only on politically connected interest groups or can we not spend it on anything we want?

Dive straight into absurdity. Maintain denial.

 

[chucky2]

Dive straight into absurdity. Maintain denial.

Maintain what denial? Please be specific.

As for absurdity, it's not absurd at all. I've fully come over to your Spender side of thinking. What more fair way to spend money we don't have, to stimulate the economy at every level, than to give every net taxpayer a bunch of money to spend? We of course don't want to spend it all at once, hence, the spread out allotments. Your problem with this proposal is what exactly?

 

[fskimospy]

Dive straight into absurdity. Maintain denial.

He's best ignored. His gut tells him that economics must be wrong, therefore he does whatever is necessary to maintain this delusion. He can't be reasoned with and any attempt to do so just enrages him further and makes him lash out even more childishly.

 

[chucky2]

He's best ignored. His gut tells him that economics must be wrong, therefore he does whatever is necessary to maintain this delusion. He can't be reasoned with and any attempt to do so just enrages him further and makes him lash out even more childishly.

Why would you need to reason with someone that has come over to your side of thinking? Dude, I'm a Spender now! I fully support blowing money we don't have on...well, anything we can blow it on! :thumbsup: I think you're just mad I didn't agree to letting the Politicians decide where to blow the money (read: pet political issue spending) and rather wanted to leave it up to the net taxpayers where to spend it.

How is that delusional in any way? Are you calling your Spender position delusional?

 

[fskimospy]

Why would you need to reason with someone that has come over to your side of thinking? Dude, I'm a Spender now! I fully support blowing money we don't have on...well, anything we can blow it on! :thumbsup: I think you're just mad I didn't agree to letting the Politicians decide where to blow the money (read: pet political issue spending) and rather wanted to leave it up to the net taxpayers where to spend it.

How is that delusional in any way? Are you calling your Spender position delusional?

lol, thanks for proving my point.

 

[chucky2]

lol, thanks for proving my point.

Look Nick, I'm sorry I can't trust the Politicians to spend the $1T+ my proposal would cost. I'd rather trust the taxpayer before them. Why is it such a problem with you?

 

[Jhhnn]

Maintain what denial? Please be specific.

As for absurdity, it's not absurd at all. I've fully come over to your Spender side of thinking. What more fair way to spend money we don't have, to stimulate the economy at every level, than to give every net taxpayer a bunch of money to spend? We of course don't want to spend it all at once, hence, the spread out allotments. Your problem with this proposal is what exactly?

And now the double-down. Of course.

What money that we don't have? There's plenty of money, it's just that 99.9% of us don't have much of it, and that's just getting worse everyday.

Oh, you mean money that the govt doesn't have. Simple. Raise taxes at the tippy-top until we do have the money we need. Figure out better ways to keep the money of the Government of the People from going so much in that direction.

If the much ballyhooed Job Creators! were, you know, creating jobs & paying decent wages, that wouldn't be attractive at all. Instead, we're faced with liquidity hoarding that inhibits the normal flow of commerce.

And, uhh, sorry to have mistaken you for a serious poster. My mistake.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I love how Republicans consider the poor waiting until a condition becomes a medical emergency, going to the ER to get stabilized (with no follow up) and released, and then filing for bankruptcy as equivalent to them having health insurance and going to regular doctors to get prompt preventative and curative care and chronic condition management.
It's about as similar as jumping out of the window is to taking an elevator.

The way you think never ceases to amaze me.

 

[werepossum]

Look Nick, I'm sorry I can't trust the Politicians to spend the $1T+ my proposal would cost. I'd rather trust the taxpayer before them. Why is it such a problem with you?

You're missing the point. Government punishing some people and rewarding others is what adds the magic.

 

[Jhhnn]

You're missing the point. Government punishing some people and rewarding others is what adds the magic.

Yeh, much better to leave it to the great benevolence of the Job Creators!, just like it was 125 years ago. Nothing bad ever happened out of that.

 

[chucky2]

And now the double-down. Of course.

I asked you to be specific in what I'm denying. Thx.

What money that we don't have? There's plenty of money, it's just that 99.9% of us don't have much of it, and that's just getting worse everyday.

Oh, you mean money that the govt doesn't have. Simple. Raise taxes at the tippy-top until we do have the money we need. Figure out better ways to keep the money of the Government of the People from going so much in that direction.

If the much ballyhooed Job Creators! were, you know, creating jobs & paying decent wages, that wouldn't be attractive at all. Instead, we're faced with liquidity hoarding that inhibits the normal flow of commerce.

Nice rant, but I wasn't ranting at all about blowing money we don't have. I'm embracing it. Since the national debt is meaningless, and we can simply spend money we don't have at will, there is no point in trudging along 'because we're not spending enough'. The Gov can fix that no problem. Simply pay each net taxpayer $5k in 5 allotments, spread 6 months apart. The economy will roar. What will it cost the Gov? $1T+? Peanuts. Especially since they'll be getting it back in tax revenues, a way better economy, and since the debt is meaningless anyways. So you see, I'm a Spender like you and Nick. He's just pissed I nixed his caveat on spending $1T+ we don't have not on net taxpayers, but, him wanting to allow Politicians to blow it on whatever pet project (and really, that means, vote buying areas) they wanted to spend it on. Given your rant, I'd think you'd be on my side on this, right? Would not you want net taxpayers themselves to receive the money, and they themselves to blow it on what they wanted?

And, uhh, sorry to have mistaken you for a serious poster. My mistake.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say, I don't think you realize just how infinite level the irony of you posting this is.