patrick.net

Bellingham Bill says

Obama is treated like he's some bomb-throwing Marxist by the right, when the truth is he's another conservative (center-right) Dem like all the others we've had since KennedyCarter.

I completely agree with you here. Notice that I never call Obama anything. I only criticize his policies and how they did not live up to expectations. I feel like Bush started his presidency with his advisers running the show and finished as his own man. It does not excuse all the bad things he did. Obama started as his own man but is now completely relying on advisers. It's funny when conservatives compare Obama to Carter. They are nothing alike.

Bellingham Bill says

2002-2008 we gave China $2.3T of our money to buy oil with!

That's way simplifying what happened. The trade deficit with China is even higher now but that's not keeping oil prices up.

tr6 says

The trade deficit with China is even higher now but that's not keeping oil prices up.

my graph of China's consumption rise is an important part of the story of high oil prices.

as is Japan taking their nuclear fleet offline in 2011 and moving to bunker oil to power their country

I don't pretend to understand oil prices -- the swings of 2008-2009 show there's a lot of volatility and market manipulation going on at some level -- but if we had a GOP president now they'd certainly be taking credit for oil falling like it has recently.

>but that's not keeping oil prices up

what is then?

tr6 says

Actually it was. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66bgpRRSDD4

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/23/us/23health.html

His words about lowering “premiums” by $2,500 for the average family of four have been fairly consistent. But the health policy advisers who formulated the figure say it actually represents the average family’s share of savings not only in premiums paid by individuals, but also in premiums paid by employers and in tax-supported health programs like Medicare and Medicaid.

“What we’re trying to do,” said one of the advisers, David M. Cutler, in explaining the gap between Mr. Obama’s words and his intent, “is find a way to talk to people in a way they understand.”

The memorandum attributed specific savings to several broad initiatives, with the numbers plucked from recent studies. Investments in computerized medical records would save $77 billion a year, the advisers wrote. Reducing administrative costs in the insurance industry would yield up to $46 billion. Improving prevention programs and chronic disease management would be worth $81 billion.

The total savings were then divided by the country’s population, multiplied for a family of four, and rounded down slightly to a number that was easy to grasp: $2,500. The average cost of family coverage bought through an employer was $12,106 in 2007, with workers paying $3,281 of that amount, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, a health research group.

~~

So it was (partially!) "sold" as cutting premiums, sure, even though the real argument was it would improve overall cost effectiveness of delivery (eventually!).

I don't see the problem here, people are indeed stupid and on the campaign trail you've got to package policy in terms people can understand and get behind.

most of the quotes of the video are Obama saying ". . . and if you've got healthcare, we're going to work with your employers to lower premiums by up to $2500 per family per year"

In 2008 there were 110M families in the US, so Obama's promise was on the order of $300B in cost savings of "his plan", 10% of total spending in 2012.

If it weren't a campaign promise, he could have added in addition to "up to", the qualifier ". . . eventually, assuming we get the added efficiencies we expect once the reforms are in effect".

But that's not how campaign promises work.

tr6 says

Obama started as his own man but is now completely relying on advisers.

I don't get that impression at all. He got weak-sauce advice in 2008-2009 and ran with it. From horrible people like Rahm.

I think he's wisened up more by now. He tried the bipartisan "Grand Bargain" let's-meet-in-the-middle approach, but luckily that failed when it did.

tr6 says

Obama is treated like he's some bomb-throwing Marxist by the right

He is a Marxist.

Still no answer to the 6k deductible problem.

indigenous says

bob2356 says

The rate of increase is declining not the cost. You have a lot of trouble with the whole rate of increase thing every time you run into it.

Don't sound so smug at least half the time I disprove your proselytizing or scolding.

Totally ignoring facts and continually changing the subject is not the same as disproving. You need to consult your websters more. Look up marxist while you are there also.

bob2356 says

Totally ignoring facts and continually changing the subject is not the same as disproving. You need to consult your websters more. Look up marxist while you are there also.

You mean like TR6 pointed out that the ACA was sold on cost reduction?

BTW in a United States form of Republic the government has no business entering in the market place. The complete disregard for this fact by Obama (a constitutional law professor, what a traitor) makes him not only a traitor but a comparative Marxist.

Bellingham Bill says

I don't pretend to understand oil prices -- the swings of 2008-2009 show there's a lot of volatility and market manipulation going on at some level -- but if we had a GOP president now they'd certainly be taking credit for oil falling like it has recently.

I agree with you. If oil prices fell because Obama made a deal with Saudis to take down Russia, then why did he take not take down oil sooner? If oil prices fell because of the investigations into banks' commodity trading, then why did he not do it sooner? My point is that it's too early to give credit to him for this as prices were relatively high during most of his presidency.

Do you think technology might have something to do with it?

tr6 says

bob2356 says

ACA was never sold as cost reduction, it was sold as getting people coverage

Actually it was. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66bgpRRSDD4

Lowering insurance premiums by subsidising them with tax money isn't the same as lowering the cost of health care by any stretch of the imagination. It's just taking the money out of a different pocket. It's ok indegienous doesn't understand that either.

bob2356 says

Lowering insurance premiums by subsidising them with tax money isn't the same as lowering the cost of health care by any stretch of the imagination. It's just taking the money out of a different pocket. It's ok indegienous doesn't understand that either.

Bullshit, O clearly states what he states.

When you're caught in a LIE, it's best to just reframe what you said.
And it becomes extra easy, when you're already going in, thinking your audience is a bunch of fucking idiots, morons and bafoons.

Which one is indigenous and I Bob?

I'm not the one Gruber was talking about. He was talking squarely about you Stool Cricket.

sbh,

I really wish you're stop with the eating shit images. It kind of kills the thread for everyone. Which may be the point. But that's not cool.

Marcus doesn't like SBH's selfie...

indigenous says

bob2356 says

Lowering insurance premiums by subsidising them with tax money isn't the same as lowering the cost of health care by any stretch of the imagination. It's just taking the money out of a different pocket. It's ok indegienous doesn't understand that either.

Bullshit, O clearly states what he states.

CaptainShuddup says

When you're caught in a LIE, it's best to just reframe what you said.

And it becomes extra easy, when you're already going in, thinking your audience is a bunch of fucking idiots, morons and bafoons.

Which one is indigenous and I Bob?

Well captain I guess I have to add you to the list of people who can't grasp the concept. No wonder it was to easy to Obama to sell the steaming pile of crap called aca.

bob2356 says

Well captain I guess I have to add you to the list of people who can't grasp the concept. No wonder it was to easy to Obama to sell the steaming pile of crap called aca.

And you cannot get the concept that the ACA WAS sold on reducing costs.

The concept you are trying to hide behind is not rocket science.

The ACA HAS reduced medical costs.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-09-05/obamacare-effect-linked-to-lower-medical-cost-estimates.html

Way too early to say that...

No amount of time will prove anything to republicans. The republican talking points will always be that the medical costs would be lower without O-care, regardless of new information.

Yeah, costs estimates under Obamacare have been revised downward. Cost estimates during Bushes term were revised upward.

Here's what you missed or ignored from the same article,

“When the CBO goes back and revises their baseline, historically they’ve adjusted upwards,” said Tricia Neuman, director of the Kaiser Family Foundation’s Program on Medicare Policy. “So the fact that there’s been year-after-year downward adjustments is fairly remarkable since they occurred after the ACA” was signed into law.

Call it Crazy says

Obamacare Effect Linked to Lower Medical Cost Estimates

You know what traditionally happens with "estimates"?

Yes: wait and see.

In contrast, any confirmation of the law's bad consequences is to be shouted immediately from the rooftops, even if such "confirmation" was discovered before the law went into effect.

Time for you to shake your head sadly over the biased behavior of those awful partisans out there.

YesYNot says

When the CBO

Google what the CBO estimated medicare to cost by 1990...

Call it Crazy says

Yes, because we have no history to go by regarding the CBO and estimates....

Given your track record on probabilities and mathematics here, don't you think it would be better if you went off and joined a My Little Pony forum, or maybe got into Justin Bieber fanfiction?

Call it Crazy says

Given your track record of keyboard diarrhea here, why don't you disprove my chart instead of your normal useless posts..

You must be the king of comebacks.

It's going fine......we are still hoping for change.

"Unemployment - went from 10% just after crisis to below 6%." - Fantasy land, head in sand statement. Consider the record low labor force participation rate and declining wages. If there were no jobs, and folks stopped looking for work, the unemployment rate would be zero and yet no one would be employed.

"Tarp ended up being profitable. Helped save banks and auto companies without costing a dime." - Con game accounting at best. Here is virtually free money criminals, i.e., a money machine. And we won't jail you. Now go and record socialism-for-the-rich profits and we'll con the masses into thinking it was a fair game.

And what money to banks did pay was by jacking up fees on customers, particularly ordinary retail customers.

The one itty bitty tepid reform that was emplaced after 2008 just got nixed by the Cromnibus Bill. Obama signs, of course.

thunderlips11 says

Obama signs, of course.

Analyzer says

we are still hoping for change.

No "change" was possible after the 2010 midterms and further losses in 2012.

Given the non-desire of the Dems to do the GOP's dirty work for them of discarding the filibuster in the Senate, no "change" was possible after Scott Brown took over Kennedy's 60th seat in Feb 2010.

Going to be (GOP) business as usual in DC through 2018 unless another 2006 anti-GOP wave happens in 2016. (Don't see that happening of course). The GOP only needs one arm of power to block "change" -- they control 3 out of 4 starting next year, 4 out of 5 if you count the popular media establishment.

An Obama presidency with Dem majorities like FDR enjoyed 1933-38 and LBJ had in '64 would have looked a lot different, with a lot more progress on everything.

But this is not the hand the electorate dealt him. Quite the opposite!

Blurtman says

"Unemployment - went from 10% just after crisis to below 6%." - Fantasy land, head in sand statement. Consider the record low labor force participation rate and declining wages. If there were no jobs, and folks stopped looking for work, the unemployment rate would be zero and yet no one would be employed.

"Tarp ended up being profitable. Helped save banks and auto companies without costing a dime." - Con game accounting at best. Here is virtually free money criminals, i.e., a money machine. And we won't jail you. Now go and record socialism-for-the-rich profits and we'll con the masses into thinking it was a fair game.

Agreed.

indigenous says

bob2356 says

Well captain I guess I have to add you to the list of people who can't grasp the concept. No wonder it was to easy to Obama to sell the steaming pile of crap called aca.

And you cannot get the concept that the ACA WAS sold on reducing costs.

The concept you are trying to hide behind is not rocket science.

Really, how was that? The CBO estimate was net cost of $1,383 billion for the 2015–2024 period. How was that selling a reduction in costs? It's sad you and captain dopedup can't dstingush between the cost of healthcare vs the cost of health insurance and why it matters. But you both always have trouble with numbers so I can understand it.

1) Debt skyrocketed, I don't see "deficit reduction" being a worthy mention. Call me when debt goes down.

2) And many people also can't afford due to new ACA. Prices did go up and a lot. Sure more are insured, but the rest are paying astronomical rates to make up for it, going broke.

3) Temp jobs, underemployment, minimum wage jobs.... not exactly a winner.

4) It cost a lot, just cause they shuffle money from one pocket to another eventually putting us into debt... banks are profitable though, the rest of us are not as much.

5) If the war ended, why do we have 13,000 soldiers there now still, while fighting war in Afghanistan and Syria simultaneously? What is your definition of "war ended"?

6) Our lives today are not better than they were pre Bush crisis, I feel America is in decline. More poor today, not Obamas fault, but he didn't change it any.

7) That's not Obama, that's economic war with Russia. As soon as Russia and US will stop bickering, those gas prices will skyrocket right back up to usual racket they call "free market".

8) Obama was just present when this finally got tracked down by Marines. Original order to kill Osama was by Clinton.

YesYNot says

1) Obama presided over the largest reduction in the deficit since the end of WWII.

2) Health care - many more people can afford it thanks to the ACA.

3) Unemployment - went from 10% just after crisis to below 6%.

4) Tarp ended up being profitable. Helped save banks and auto companies without costing a dime.

5) Iraq war ended. Could have been quicker, but at least we went in the right direction.

6) Decline of america? - we have not been hammered by the young whippersnapper countries like many of the dire predictions around here.

7) Natural gas and oil prices - nice and low

8) Osama bin Laden

FortWayne says

but the rest are paying astronomical rates to make up for it

unfounded assertion and/or lie, depending on how intelligent you are.

Call me when debt goes down.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yq0EmbY3XyI

If the war ended, why do we have 13,000 soldiers there now still,

to forestall your fuckhead conservative friends from blaming Obama for bugging out too soon, losing "their" war that they had won already.

Our lives today are not better than they were pre Bush crisis, I feel America is in decline. More poor today, not Obamas fault, but he didn't change it any.

America is in decline due to all the conservative polices we've instituted since the 1980s. Trillion dollar tax cuts for the rich. Union-busting. Free trade with cheap labor countries resulting in:

rederegulating big finance in the 1990s and allowing them to totally leverage up the entire nation in the Bush Boom of 2003-2006:

Shows that prior to St Reagan's term, household owed what they made. The ratio got to 2:1 "pre Bush crisis", and it's a bit better now but still not good.

This nation needs redistribution from the rich -- top 1 to 5% who make 1/3 the total income -- to the poor (bottom 60% who don't have shit)

Conservatives both instituted and now defend these damaging policies. "Job creators" my ASS! YOU are the problem!

Obama couldn't do anything in office since his party lost the House in 2010, essentially turning him into a 2 year President, with more than half of those short two years lost due to the successful GOP obstruction in the Senate.

Congress since 2011 has been mostly concerned with renaming post offices, with the occasional total government shutdowns and bullshit grandstanding.

Bellingham Bill says

America is in decline due to all the conservative polices we've instituted since the 1980s. Trillion dollar tax cuts for the rich. Union-busting. Free trade with cheap labor countries resulting in:

That I agree on. But I do not believe that Obama has done anything to change or reverse that course. Nor I have a problem with Union busting, unions became a racket to both employer and employee, and took away much freedom of at will employment. What I have a problem with is outsourcing, offshoring, illegals, tax cuts for super wealthy, and all those things that screw our working and poor.

As far as war...wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are far from over, we are still fighting there, troops are still there and now permanently. There was even a funny skit on John Stewart recently about Obama sending "advisors", it was pretty clear that those "advisors" are soldiers. We are sending more drones too, since that's easier to sell to the public. Hell, we are expanding our war, ISIS, Syria, now we are starting a war in Ukraine too, while at it.

This is all under Obama continuing stupid right winger policies. The only difference between Obama and Bush is that Bush was upfront about being an asshole, while Obama hides it.

FortWayne says

But I do not believe that Obama has done anything to change or reverse that course

PPACA is a major reform for the poor and powerless, and it's paid for by a 3.8% tax rise on high-income investors.

and took away much freedom of at will employment

see, that's your problem right there. You're too attached to your ideology and stories to understand the past 30 years.

People should have the ability to unionize, and choose among competing unions. They don't now, thanks to GOP anti-union policy and the Dem's failure to fight against it.

This is all under Obama continuing stupid right winger policies.

He's mitigated what he could. You know, people like you blame him for starting a war or whatever in Libya, but that's not on the same scale as what the GOP did in Iraq ten years earlier.

Obama is center-right, he was never the radical bomb-thrower the GOP has brainwashed people to believe he is.

Just like Clinton. Center-right sells in this country, since most people are conservative and stupid (but I repeat myself).

Bellingham Bill says

People should have the ability to unionize, and choose among competing unions. They don't now, thanks to GOP anti-union policy and the Dem's failure to fight against it.

It isn't a choice if the only choice is to be part of the union or be unemployed. We still have that kind of strong-arming in public sector unions in CA, it's horrible.

Bellingham Bill says

He's mitigated what he could. You know, people like you blame him for starting a war or whatever in Libya, but that's not on the same scale as what the GOP did in Iraq ten years earlier.

Two wrongs don't make a right. I think Obama just like Bush are both reckless right wingers.

Bellingham Bill says

PPACA is a major reform for the poor and powerless, and it's paid for by a 3.8% tax rise on high-income investors.

He exempted many corporations and unions out of paying these taxes, and just raised fees for not having insurance which is just a sweet spot for insurance companies to collude one day and racket the population. My insurance costs went up, everyones did... nothing is free, all those Obamacare mandates raised costs and raised them a lot.