In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 1377
Online now 1386 Record: 18710 (2/25/2012)
We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.
Where the madness isn't just in March.
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Scored 4 touchdowns...in a single game. Polk High!
You lost me at "YOLO."
no detail at all there. just conjecture. nothing exposed.
(I am very anti-obamacare, btw)
YOLO linked the article from Economic Policy Journal.
First off, what you have here is a re-post of a summary of an opinion in the Wall Street Journal. No part of this is actual news.
Second, there is one line in the original opinion that renders it completely moot:
"Soon Massachusetts Democrats leaked that their political strategy all along was to expand coverage only, because had RomneyCare seriously squeezed providers it never would have overcome industry opposition."
The Affordable Care Act seriously "squeezes providers" in a way that Romney's Mass. plan never did. The Medical Loss Ratio (MLR) rule contained in the ACA mandates that: "If an insurance company spends less than 80% of premiums on medical care and quality (or less than 85% in the large group market, which is generally insurance provided through large employers), it must rebate the portion of premium dollars that exceeded this limit."
The health care law holds health insurance companies accountable to consumers with the 80/20 Rule.
Still... Their economic analysis lacked the requisite level of #SWAG.
Which cherry-picked passages from an opinion piece in the WSJ.
The Economic Policy Journal is not exactly a respected news source.
No source that questions Obama or Obamacare is a respected news source...at least according to the left. Number #1 rule, if you do not like the content, attack the source. Are the claims regarding Mass incorrect? Are the numbers false? Is this claim false...Massachusetts spends more per capita on health care than any other state and therefore more than anywhere else in the industrialized world. Costs are 27% higher than the U.S. average, 15% higher when adjusted for the state’s higher wages and its concentration of academic medical centers and specialists…?
Is this claim false...Health costs—Medicaid, RomneyCare’s subsidies, public-employee compensation—will consume some 54% of the state budget in 2012, up from about 24% in 2001.?
This post was edited by dpfenny 16 months ago
As for Obamacare, I will have less than 50 employees with over 30 hours a week by the time it is implemented....just have to cut a few positions down to 30 hours per week. It will be a benefit to me since I compete with many companies who have over 50 fulltime employees and will be forced to pay. Based on that I should be all for Obamacare, but I cannot in good conscience support bad policy even if will hurt my comp more than myself.
I knew it was just a matter of time before BFL chimed in...
News for bros and by bros?
Time and change will surely (truly) show
How firm thy friendship ... OHIO!
Looking at the State of Massachusetts website.... the cited 53% of spending spent on healthcare comment is intentionally misleading because its 53% spending on HEALTH and HUMAN SERVICES...
Much of that evil 53% of "health" spending is for Veteran homeless shelters, foster care, social worker pay, etc., etc.
Claiming that Romneycare is responsible for 53% of the state budget is clearly misleading to anyone that wants to spend 5 minutes reading the budget.
Is it up from 24% in 2001 as the article claims? BTW, the article doesn't claim simply healthcare. The exact quote...Health costs—Medicaid, RomneyCare’s subsidies, public-employee compensation—will consume some 54% of the state budget in 2012, up from about 24% in 2001.
"No source that questions Obama or Obamacare is a respected news source...at least according to the left."
No, that's your persecution complex speaking. Just because something has a fancy title doesn't make it anything more than a blog.
Also, you did a wonderful job of ignoring my post above in which I detail why this is a misleading article.
I am borderline so I will only have to cut a handful of employees hours. However, if and when we grow, I will have to continue to hire workers at 30 hours or less.
No, you simply gave a link that did nothing to disprove the claim. Then in your latest post you conveniently ignored all of my questions regarding the article.
During Obama’s term, between 2009 to 2012, premiums have climbed $2,370 for the average family with an employer-provided plan – a rate faster than the during the previous four years under President George W. Bush, according to Kaiser.
Again, all of those are part of the HHS budget which is 54% of the state budget. But they are far from 100% of that budget.
Any opinion artilce that misuses a statistic like that doesn't exactly pass the sniff test. Especially when they are just linking an opinion from the Wall Street Journal.
The mass website doesnt show budget info past 2007, but since 2007 HHS spending has been 50-53% of the entire budget. Of course there is probably some spending in other sections of the budget for "health costs", and they can spend more or less on programs within the HHS budget, but it would seem to me that healthcare spending in Mass. has been very stable for the last 6 years.
Surely if it was such an incompetent centrally planned system, then costs would have increased every few budget years correct?
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by rms02d 16 months ago
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports