Obama for President: Experienced Leader

[WhoWee]

I don't think it matters that much. Religious people already seem to think Obama's a bad candidate - at least, every religious person I've seen on TV and in the news seems to think that.

If Pythagorean's post is correct "Yeah.. it was an obvious backhanded comment. It's very Obama-like. Any argument that it was actually faith-based is either ignorant or deceitful."
my guess is more than a few Independents and Moderates will take note of the insincerity.

 

[Gokul43201]

I posted employed fraction of population intentionally to show the difference.

You have to be very careful with interpreting E/P trends during a period when baby boomers are dropping (like flies) out of the workforce.

On a related note: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-03/payrolls-in-u-s-jumped-243-000-in-january-unemployment-rate-drops-to-8-3-.html

 

[Gokul43201]

... we got a quick look under the tent and now understand the President makes decisions based on his religious beliefs.

Not following exactly how we arrived at that. Please explain?

The alternative is not very nice - is it?

What is the (only) alternative you have in mind?

 

[WhoWee]

You have to be very careful with interpreting E/P trends during a period when baby boomers are dropping (like flies) out of the workforce.

On a related note: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-03/payrolls-in-u-s-jumped-243-000-in-january-unemployment-rate-drops-to-8-3-.html

Good point, I happened to look at stats for OH yesterday - approx 11,000 per month are turning 65 and retiring.

 

[WhoWee]

Not following exactly how we arrived at that. Please explain? What is the (only) alternative you have in mind?

My response was in the context of Pythagorean's post
"Yeah.. it was an obvious backhanded comment. It's very Obama-like. Any argument that it was actually faith-based is either ignorant or deceitful. Ignorance is easy to forgive. I'm pretty ignorant about politics, myself. Social sciences are vastly complex! "

 

[Gokul43201]

My response was in the context of Pythagorean's post
"Yeah.. it was an obvious backhanded comment. It's very Obama-like. Any argument that it was actually faith-based is either ignorant or deceitful. Ignorance is easy to forgive. I'm pretty ignorant about politics, myself. Social sciences are vastly complex! "

Yes, I read Pyth's post, but still don't follow your line of reasoning (it's been a long week). Maybe it's just that I see more alternatives that you have in mind.

Is it not possible, for instance, for the President to arrive at an idea independently of his religion, and seek wider acceptance for that idea from a religious electorate by pointing out a perceived connection to similar ideas from religious texts?

 

[WhoWee]

Yes, I read Pyth's post, but still don't follow your line of reasoning (it's been a long week). Maybe it's just that I see more alternatives that you have in mind.

Is it not possible, for instance, for the President to arrive at an idea independently of his religion, and seek wider acceptance for that idea from a religious electorate by pointing out a perceived connection to similar ideas from religious texts?

Agreed, there are a lot of possibilities.

 

[mheslep]

You have to be very careful with interpreting E/P trends during a period when baby boomers are dropping (like flies) out of the workforce.

Yep:

E/P has its flaws too, as people simply retiring will lower E/P.

though not 'very' careful, as there are still many more turning 16 every day than 65.

On a related note: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-03/payrolls-in-u-s-jumped-243-000-in-january-unemployment-rate-drops-to-8-3-.html

That's good news, though people should be even more careful with the BLS seasonally adjusted unemployment rate. BLS typically adds a big swag to the January numbers for seasonable adjustment, IIRC last year 1.3 million jobs, just tacked on, to compensate for what they assume will the right correction to the post holiday layoffs. And as mentioned above those that give up and stop looking drive the BLS unemployment figure down.

 

[mheslep]

So, in other words, it's your opinion that 20 million people are unemployed but want work?

I'm saying it is a fact that for most of the last decade ~63% of the US population was employed, and it is a fact that now and for the last two years ~58.5% of the population of 311 million is employed.

 

[phoenix:\\]

Those two may be facts, but what isn't a fact is 20 million people unemployed and looking for work.

 

[Gokul43201]

...though not 'very' careful, as there are still many more turning 16 every day than 65.

Having only thought about this a minute (so I could easily be quite wrong), I disagree. My guess would be that the fraction of population turning 16 is a slowly varying function of time compared to the fraction turning 65 (specifically at this point in time, 65 yrs after 1946).

That's good news, though people should be even more careful with the BLS seasonally adjusted unemployment rate. BLS typically adds a big swag to the January numbers for seasonable adjustment, IIRC last year 1.3 million jobs, just tacked on, to compensate for what they assume will the right correction to the post holiday layoffs. And as mentioned above those that give up and stop looking drive the BLS unemployment figure down.

Agreed. The answer, of course, is to wait a few quarters and look back.

 

[Angry Citizen]

Angry Citizen - I'm a bit confused with your postings about the benefits of Socialism in a thread titled "Obama's Candidacy" - how is this on topic? What does the defense of Socialism have to do with President Obama?

Hooboy, let's take this one at a time.

I am not touting the benefits of socialism. I am touting the benefits of social democracy. Obama is taking us closer to social democracy; he's on the correct end of the spectrum compared to the right-wingers who want to pretend Keynesian economics do not work. Furthermore, a common critique of Obama is that he is a socialist. He is not, of course, except in the minds of the more radical and thoughtless members of the Republican party. However, even if he were, it would be better than if he were a radical advocate of laissez-faire.

 

[Angry Citizen]

What happened to "We don't have socialized medicine". Seems clear to me that US medicine is at least half socialized - Medicare, Medicaid, and Veteran's being government single payer systems (and unsustainable).

America doesn't; but the City of Austin in which I reside is kind enough to have something similar. And when I get out of college, I'll benefit from Obama's universal health care plan (distinct from socialized medicine) in that my preexisting condition will have to be covered.

 

[ThomasT]

America doesn't; but the City of Austin in which I reside is kind enough to have something similar. And when I get out of college, I'll benefit from Obama's universal health care plan (distinct from socialized medicine) in that my preexisting condition will have to be covered.

The healthcare industry, even considering Obamacare, is still seriously out of whack. How did it get to a point where the average person can't afford adequate preventative care?

Has Obama done enough to counter the root problems of overinflated healthcare costs? Imho, no.

In fact, it could be argued that Obama hasn't done many things that he could have done to counter the status quo, a status quo that maximizes corporate profits, the financial sector, and benefits the rich to the detriment of the country as a whole.

 

[Angry Citizen]

Has Obama done enough to counter the root problems of overinflated healthcare costs? Imho, no.

I agree. Obama's faux-universal-health-care system is not a replacement for real, honest-to-god socialized medicine. However, he has done a lot - wait till the price control comes into effect where the insurance industry is forced to pay 80% of its income on health care.

 

[WhoWee]

Those two may be facts, but what isn't a fact is 20 million people unemployed and looking for work.

Did someone post "20 million people unemployed and looking for work" as factual?

 

[WhoWee]

America doesn't; but the City of Austin in which I reside is kind enough to have something similar. And when I get out of college, I'll benefit from Obama's universal health care plan (distinct from socialized medicine) in that my preexisting condition will have to be covered.

How much will your plan cost per year between premium, deductibles, co-insurance, co-pays, etc. - any idea?

 

[WhoWee]

I agree. Obama's faux-universal-health-care system is not a replacement for real, honest-to-god socialized medicine. However, he has done a lot - wait till the price control comes into effect where the insurance industry is forced to pay 80% of its income on health care.

Please clarify your opinion of how this will work - please present accurate information.

 

[Angry Citizen]

How much will your plan cost per year between premium, deductibles, co-insurance, co-pays, etc. - any idea?

Assuming a roughly linear relation in cost per capita, approximately half what it does now.

http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/spend.php

 

[Angry Citizen]

Please clarify your opinion of how this will work - please present accurate information.

Please clarify your clarification on how this will work. What would you like to know? It's in the PPACA. Indeed, it's already starting to happen.

http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2010pres/11/20101122a.html

 

[WhoWee]

Assuming a roughly linear relation in cost per capita, approximately half what it does now.

http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/spend.php

Considering this thread is titled Obama's Candidacy - I'll ask this question in the context of promises made by the President - why do you believe health care costs will be reduced by 50% when Obamacare is fully implemented?

btw - please support your response if you decide to present specifics beyond your opinion.

 

[WhoWee]

Please clarify your clarification on how this will work. What would you like to know? It's in the PPACA. Indeed, it's already starting to happen.

http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2010pres/11/20101122a.html

Accordingly, you posted mis-information. This is from your link "New regulations issued today by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) require health insurers to spend 80 to 85 percent of consumers’ premiums on direct care for patients and efforts to improve care quality." my bold

You stated "However, he has done a lot - wait till the price control comes into effect where the insurance industry is forced to pay 80% of its income on health care. "

Do you have any idea whatsoever the (pre-PPACA) average profit margin is for an insurance company or the average percentage of premium allocated to direct care for patients?

 

[Angry Citizen]

why do you believe health care costs will be reduced by 50% when Obamacare is fully implemented?

Excuse me, I think I misread your post. I thought you were asking me about the cost of socialized medicine (which is the plan I advocate) rather than the cost of my actual insurance plan. I haven't the foggiest. I don't know what insurance I'll be on.

Furthermore, I don't believe health care costs will be reduced by 50% when Obamacare is fully implemented because it is not a socialized medical system. It is a universal health care system that is still farther to the right-wing than any western European system. But mark my words - our cost per capita will go down, and our health will increase as a result of it. Belgium has a reasonably similar UHC plan, and the figures for their system is widely available.

btw - please support your response if you decide to present specifics beyond your opinion.

The post you are quoting has a source from the University of California at Santa Cruz. I think that qualifies as support.

 

[WhoWee]

The post you are quoting has a source from the University of California at Santa Cruz. I think that qualifies as support.

I can't open your link. However, if it was on topic - it would be a good source.

 

[Angry Citizen]

Accordingly, you posted mis-information. This is from your link "New regulations issued today by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) require health insurers to spend 80 to 85 percent of consumers’ premiums on direct care for patients and efforts to improve care quality." my bold

You stated "However, he has done a lot - wait till the price control comes into effect where the insurance industry is forced to pay 80% of its income on health care. "

Do you have any idea whatsoever the (pre-PPACA) average profit margin is for an insurance company or the average percentage of premium allocated to direct care for patients?

I see very little difference between my post and the link. 80% is a baseline figure. It is the minimum for the general populace. Since insurance companies do not acquire any income aside from premiums (please correct me otherwise), my statement matches.

As for the average percentage, no, I do not. However, we can be assured that it is lower than 80%:

http://fyi.uwex.edu/healthreform/aca-changes-set-to-go-into-effect-jan-1-2011/

Specifically:

According to HealthCare.gov, the Department of Health and Human Services’ website on health-care reform, the new rules will protect up to 74.8 million insured Americans. Some 9 million people could be eligible for rebates worth up to $1.4 billion.

Unless those darn HHS guys are lyin' again.

 

[Angry Citizen]

I can't open your link. However, if it was on topic - it would be a good source.

I'll quote relevant sections then (in full context):

Despite the wide gaps, higher spending on health care does not necessarily prolong lives. In 2000, theUnited States spent more on health care than any other country in the world: an average of $ 4,500 per person. Switzerland was second highest, at $3,300 or 71% of the US. Nevertheless, average US life expectancy ranks 27th in the world, at 77 years. Many countries achieve higher life expectancy rates with significantly lower spending. The chart below shows the top 30 countries in the world ranked by life expectancy. The red line indicates per-capita health expenditure (right axis), and shows that many countries outperform the US with approximately half the spending.

Below that portion is the attached chart. Note that the chart shows (for some reason) that the US's life expectancy is far higher than it actually is. Make sure to read the relevant paragraph above.

 

[WhoWee]

I see very little difference between my post and the link. 80% is a baseline figure. It is the minimum for the general populace. Since insurance companies do not acquire any income aside from premiums (please correct me otherwise), my statement matches.

As for the average percentage, no, I do not. However, we can be assured that it is lower than 80%:

http://fyi.uwex.edu/healthreform/aca-changes-set-to-go-into-effect-jan-1-2011/

Specifically:



Unless those darn HHS guys are lyin' again.

Again, you posted mis-information - whether you "see very little difference" or not. In the future, please be sure to distinguish between your opinions and fact.

In the context of this thread about Obama's Candidacy - perhaps we should explore everything the President has ever said about the condition of the healthcare system and everything he's promised? Given that the PPACA will take another 2 years to implement - it seems a good topic to measure the President in the past, present, and future.

 

[Angry Citizen]

Again, you posted mis-information - whether you "see very little difference" or not. In the future, please be sure to distinguish between your opinions and fact.

Was my 'opinion' factually inaccurate? No. It was not. The error I made was a conservative error that would've benefited you had you not spoken up; given that the reality may be up to 85% on actual health care costs, that is just another plus in favor of the PPACA.

 

[WhoWee]

Was my 'opinion' factually inaccurate? No. It was not. The error I made was a conservative error that would've benefited you had you not spoken up; given that the reality may be up to 85% on actual health care costs, that is just another plus in favor of the PPACA.

If you want to present your opinion as factual - please support with more than additional opinions.

 

[Angry Citizen]

I can't make you read links. See support already given.

 

[WhoWee]

I can't make you read links. See support already given.

We both now the rules - let's (both follow them) and end the discussion here - get back on topic.

 

[phoenix:\\]

Did someone post "20 million people unemployed and looking for work" as factual?

Yes. Go back a few pages to see the post.

 

[mheslep]

America doesn't; ...

Well does and doesn't. Clearly Medicare and Medicaid are single payer socialized medicine, and account for ~half of all health dollars spent in the US.

 

[Angry Citizen]

Well does and doesn't. Clearly Medicare and Medicaid are single payer socialized medicine, and account for ~half of all health dollars spent in the US.

Y'know, I hate it when people try to pull a fast one on someone like me. This is not the least bit true, and I have documentation to prove it. Medicare and Medicaid account for about 36% of all health dollars spent in the US, and given that they service the most needy people (poor and unhealthy people, and old/disabled people), this number is a great example of how socialized programs work better.

Anyway, documentation. Follow the link below. Scroll to 'downloads', then to the third download link from the top. Do the math: (medicaid+medicare)/total expenditure.

https://www.cms.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/02_NationalHealthAccountsHistorical.asp#TopOfPage

 

[Astronuc]

Well does and doesn't. Clearly Medicare and Medicaid are single payer socialized medicine, and account for ~half of all health dollars spent in the US.

Y'know, I hate it when people try to pull a fast one on someone like me. This is not the least bit true, and I have documentation to prove it. Medicare and Medicaid account for about 36% of all health dollars spent in the US, and given that they service the most needy people (poor and unhealthy people, and old/disabled people), this number is a great example of how socialized programs work better.

Anyway, documentation. Follow the link below. Scroll to 'downloads', then to the third download link from the top. Do the math: (medicaid+medicare)/total expenditure.

https://www.cms.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/02_NationalHealthAccountsHistorical.asp#TopOfPage

Well - mheslep did indicate ~half, and it appears that is the case, or at least it's close depending on what one includes "health dollars spent"

Medicare and Medicaid paid a record 57.5% of patient bills for hospital, doctors, drugs and other care in the last quarter, up from 49.3% in 2005.

Contrast this
http://yourlife.usatoday.com/health...edicare-Medicaid-tab-keeps-growing/49776998/1

with this
https://www.cms.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/02_NationalHealthAccountsHistorical.asp

Total health expenditures reached $2.6 trillion, which translates to $8,402 per person or 17.9 percent of the nation's Gross Domestic Product, the same share as in 2009.

I think this thread needs surgery to excise the OT discussion on government-supported medical care.

Please stick to the topic of "Obama's Candidacy".