The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[Dutch]

Edward,

Does China's regional resume in this brokerage arena suggest that this is promising?

[SirFozzie]

I was surprised to see this story.

President Obama's approval rating at least stayed the same in all trackers this week, and even went up in a couple.. I guess that's because he smacked around the IRS (which everyone likes to see), the AP story folks are used to, and Benghazi is a non-story? (I seriously thought that he'd take a hit in the week, seeing all the scandals that came out)


Obama approval rating holding steady - POLITICO.com

[molson]

I don't think Benghazi is really on the radar of the mainstream. I don't think people care beyond the right wing bloggers/commentators, who have tried to make it a bigger deal, but have failed. The tea party is a running joke in the mainstream, so people aren't going to care about them being mistreated. You'd think the AP thing would have more people upset, but there's a disconnect and apathy if there's no "us v. them" dynamic like we had when the Bush administration would do similar stuff. If both parties do it, there's not going to be as much anger.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

I was surprised to see this story.

Why?

Neither the proverbial live goat or dead child on the WH lawn is going to move things more than a point or two (and that's just sampling differences).

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Mike D

Edward,

Does China's regional resume in this brokerage arena suggest that this is promising?

No, I don't think it would suggest its promising. Just interesting.

There is a new player and it changes the dynamics some and maybe not for the better.

China could side more with the Palestinians/Muslims and US-Israel ties deepen again creating a greater divide. I don't think its in China's nature to get involved in these things (not really within its historical sphere of influence).

Maybe its more economic vs political. I don't see Israel becoming very close to China other than economics.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by molson

I don't think Benghazi is really on the radar of the mainstream. I don't think people care beyond the right wing bloggers/commentators, who have tried to make it a bigger deal, but have failed.

I think the Benghazi is more Hillary in 2016 than Obama now.

[Galaxy]

Health Law Costs: Employers Eye Bare-Bones Plans - WSJ.com

(Hopefully the paywall doesn't show up, if it does)

By CHRISTOPHER WEAVER And ANNA WILDE MATHEWS

Employers are increasingly recognizing they may be able to avoid certain penalties under the federal health law by offering very limited plans that can lack key benefits such as hospital coverage.

Benefits advisers and insurance brokers—bucking a commonly held expectation that the law would broadly enrich benefits—are pitching these low-benefit plans around the country. They cover minimal requirements such as preventive services, but often little more. Some of the plans wouldn't cover surgery, X-rays or prenatal care at all. Others will be paired with limited packages to cover additional services, for instance, $100 a day for a hospital visit.

Enlarge Image
image
image
Getty Images

Tex-Mex restaurant chain El Fenix is looking to offer limited plans.

Federal officials say this type of plan, in concept, would appear to qualify as acceptable minimum coverage under the law, and let most employers avoid an across-the-workforce $2,000-per-worker penalty for firms that offer nothing. Employers could still face other penalties they anticipate would be far less costly.

It is unclear how many employers will adopt the strategy, but a handful of companies have signed on and an industry is sprouting around the tactic. More than a dozen brokers and benefit-administrators in 10 states said they were discussing the strategy with their clients.

"There had to be a way out" of the penalty for employers with low-wage workers, said Todd Dorton, a consultant and broker for Gallagher Benefit Services Inc., a unit of Arthur J. Gallagher AJG -0.51% & Co., who has enrolled several employers in the limited plans.

Pan-American Life Insurance Group Inc. has promoted a package including bare-bones plans, according to brokers in California, Kansas and other states and company documents. Carlo Mulvenna, an executive at New Orleans-based Pan-American, confirmed the firm is developing these types of products, and said it would adjust them as regulators clarify the law.

The idea that such plans would be allowable under the law has emerged only recently. Some benefits advisers still feel they could face regulatory uncertainty. The law requires employers with 50 or more workers to offer coverage to their workers or pay a penalty. Many employers and benefits experts have understood the rules to require robust insurance, covering a list of "essential" benefits such as mental-health services and a high percentage of workers' overall costs. Many employers, particularly in low-wage industries, worry about whether they—or their workers—can afford it.

But a close reading of the rules makes it clear that those mandates affect only plans sponsored by insurers that are sold to small businesses and individuals, federal officials confirm. That affects only about 30 million of the more than 160 million people with private insurance, including 19 million people covered by employers, according to a Citigroup Inc. C +0.04% report. Larger employers, generally with more than 50 workers, need cover only preventive services, without a lifetime or annual dollar-value limit, in order to avoid the across-the-workforce penalty.

Such policies would generally cost far less to provide than paying the penalty or providing more comprehensive benefits, say benefit-services firms. Some low-benefit plans would cost employers between $40 and $100 monthly per employee, according to benefit firms' estimates.

"For certain organizations, it may be an ideal solution to minimize the cost of opting out," said David Ellis, chief executive of Youngtown, Ariz.-based LifeStream Complete Senior Living, which employs about 350 workers, including low-wage housekeepers and kitchen staff. Mr. Ellis, who was recently pitched a low-benefit plan, said it is one option the firm may consider to lower costs and still comply with the law, he said.
[image]

Administration officials confirmed in interviews that the skinny plans, in concept, would be sufficient to avoid the across-the-workforce penalty. Several expressed surprise that employers would consider the approach.

"We wouldn't have anticipated that there'd be demand for these types of band-aid plans in 2014," said Robert Kocher, a former White House health adviser who helped shepherd the law. "Our expectation was that employers would offer high quality insurance." Part of the problem: lawmakers left vague the definition of employer-sponsored coverage, opening the door to unexpected interpretations, say people involved in drafting the law.

The low-benefit plans are just one strategy companies are exploring. Major insurers, including UnitedHealth Group Inc., UNH -0.21% Aetna Inc. AET -0.92% and Humana Inc., HUM -0.57% are offering small companies a chance to renew yearlong contracts toward the end of 2013. Early renewals of plans, particularly for small employers with healthy workforces, could yield significant savings because plans typically don't need to comply with some health law provisions that could raise costs until their first renewal after Jan. 1, 2014.

Insurers and health-benefits administrators are also offering small companies a chance to switch to self-insurance, a form of coverage traditionally used by bigger employers that will face fewer changes under the law. Employers are also considering limiting workers' hours to avoid the coverage requirements that apply only to full-time employees.

"You're looking at ways to avoid being subject to the law," said Christopher F. Koller, health insurance commissioner of Rhode Island.

Regulators worry that some of these strategies, if widely employed, could pose challenges to the new online health-insurance exchanges that are a centerpiece of the health law. Among employees offered low-benefit plans, sicker workers who need more coverage may be most likely to opt out of employer coverage and join the exchanges. That could drive up costs in the marketplaces.

"The whole idea is to get healthy people in and not-so-healthy people in" the marketplaces, said Linda Sheppard, special counsel for the Kansas Insurance Department.

Experts worried that plans lacking hospital or other major benefits could leave workers vulnerable to major accidents and illnesses. "A plan that just covers some doctor visits and preventive care, I wouldn't say that's real health-insurance protection," said Karen Pollitz, a senior fellow at the Kaiser Family Foundation and former federal health official.

Officials at the Department of Health and Human Services said they haven't seen widespread evidence of such strategies. They said the health law would bring new options, including the subsidized exchange plans, to low-income workers, and that most employers who offer coverage now choose to provide much more robust benefits.

"Any activities that take place on the margins by a small number of employers would not have a significant impact on the small group or the individual market," said Mike Hash, director of the department's Office of Health Reform.

Limited plans may not appeal to all workers, and while employers would avoid the broader $2,000-per-worker penalty for all employees not offered coverage, they could still face a $3,000 individual fee for any employee who opts out and gets a subsidized policy on the exchanges.

But the approach could appeal to companies with a lot of low-wage workers such as retailers and restaurant operators, who are willing to bet that those fees would add up slowly because even with subsidies, many workers won't want to pay the cost of the richer exchange coverage.

A full-time worker earning $9 an hour would have to pay as much as $70 a month for a midlevel exchange plan, even with the subsidies, according to Kaiser. At $12 an hour, the workers' share of the premium would rise to as much as $140 a month.

Firms now offering low-cost policies known as mini-meds, generally plans that cap benefits at low levels, could favor the tactic. Companies sought federal health department waivers to cover nearly four million with mini-meds and other similar plans, which will be barred next year. Some employers are "thinking of this as a replacement for the mini-med plan," said Tracy Watts, national leader for health-care reform at Mercer, a consulting unit of Marsh & McLennan Cos. MMC -0.07%

San Antonio-based Bill Miller Bar-B-Q, a 4,200-worker chain, will replace its own mini-med with a new, skinny plan in July and will aim to price the plan at less than $50 a month, about the same as the current policy, said Barbara Newman, the chain's controller. The new plan will have no dollar limits on benefits, but will cover only preventive services, six annual doctors' visits and generic drugs. X-rays and tests at a local urgent care chain will also be covered. It wouldn't cover surgeries or hospital stays.

Because the coverage is limited, workers who need richer benefits can still go to the exchanges, where plans would likely be cheaper than a more robust plan Bill Miller has historically offered to management and that costs more than $200 per month. The chain plans to pay the $3,000 penalty for each worker who gets an exchange-plan subsidy.

But, "those are going to be the people who will be ill and need a more robust plan," and insuring them directly could cost even more, Ms. Newman said.

Many more workers, she expects, will continue to go without insurance, despite the exchanges and the limited plan. Currently, only one-quarter of workers eligible for the mini-med plan take it. Ms. Newman said, "We really feel like the people who are not taking it now will not take it then."

Tex-Mex restaurant chain El Fenix also said it would offer limited plans to its 1,200 workers, covering doctors visits, preventive care and drugs, but not hospital stays or surgery. "What our goal was all along was to make [offering coverage] financially palatable for the company as a whole, so we didn't do damage and have to let people go or slow down our growth," said Brian Livingston, chief financial officer of Dallas-based Firebird Restaurant Group LLC, owner of El Fenix.

Some benefits advisers worry that since the idea of the low-benefit plans is so new, they could yet invite scrutiny from regulators, and may run afoul of other health law requirements.

John Owens, a broker for the Lewer Agency in Kansas City, Mo., said a large Midwestern convenience store chain is considering signing up for such a policy and is awaiting guidance from regulators.

"What I'm telling people is, this may work, but you better have a plan B," said Andrew Ky Haynes, a Kansas City, Mo.-based benefits lawyer.

Write to Christopher Weaver at [email protected] and Anna Wilde Mathews at [email protected]

A version of this article appeared May 20, 2013, on page A1 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Employers Eye Bare-Bones Health Plans Under New Law.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by lungs

Since this is kind of catch-all the political thread, here is an interesting graphic. Scott Walker promised job growth via a balanced budget. He'd be hard pressed to make the argument that austerity has helped job growth at this point.

Of course budget hawks can point to a balanced budget (so long as they use accounting methods he condemned in the past).

I don't think it's fair to compare the two. I can live a much better life if I run up my credit cards every month. Just as a state could have far less unemployed if they spend more than they bring in.

Walker was full of shit about the balanced budget bringing in more jobs, but I don't necessarily think it's bad that he balanced it. Someone has to pay those bills at some point. Illinois overpaid for years and now people like me are having to pay the price for that with higher taxes.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

I guess I'm just not convinced of the correlation either way. Walker's claims that cutting spending would result in more jobs was phony campaign-speech stuff. But plenty of conservative-spending states are seeing their unemployment rates decline right now. I think its so much more about execution at the state level. There are well run conservative states and well run liberal states. And poorly run conservative and liberal states. When Idaho gets a surplus, they save it for a rainy day. Which can be frustrating sometimes, but I think that fits the character of the state and it helped them get through the worst times a little better than some other states. Other states might need to spend surplus money on infrastructure because of a fast-growing city or something. That might make sense for them at that time too. There's no inherently correctly political or spending ideology that you can slap on and immediately fix any issue. The only states that had increased unemployment rate in the last year are Illinois, Delaware, Indiana, Wisconsin, Mississippi and New Hampshire. The five states with the biggest drop-off in unemployment in the last year are Nevada, Rhode Island, California, Florida, and Washington. And overall, the five states with the lowest unemployment right now are North Dakota, Nebraska, Vermont, South Dakota, and Iowa. What common thread can you draw through those states to prove the superiority of your political opinions?

States are tough to compare because they don't all pay in evenly to the federal government. Idaho is able to balance its budget in large part to the fact that they are a welfare state when it comes to federal taxes. They bring in far more than they pay in. If a state like Illinois was getting back what they were paying in, they may be able to balance their budget and even produce more jobs.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

States are tough to compare because they don't all pay in evenly to the federal government. Idaho is able to balance its budget in large part to the fact that they are a welfare state when it comes to federal taxes. They bring in far more than they pay in. If a state like Illinois was getting back what they were paying in, they may be able to balance their budget and even produce more jobs.

Illinois has a lot more wealth to draw from. They can do whatever they want with that money. Federal money subsidizes a lot of Idaho state programs that probably wouldn't exist otherwise. Idaho residents pay the same federal tax rates Illinois residents do, they just have a much smaller collective and average income. Could a rich person balance their budget better if they didn't have to pay so much in taxes? I guess, or they'd probably just spend more and be in the same hole. Is your view about individuals the same? Maybe rich people shouldn't have to pay so much in taxes so they can have fewer financial problems.

I know you love to beat your chest about the "welfare state" thing and that's how you assign value to different states, but every state has a different situation, different resources, different challenges. Every state can be run either well or poorly based on the cards its been handed. Rich states aren't automatically run well just because they're rich, and vice versa with the poor states. There's nothing policy-wise Idaho can do in the next few years to create a Chicago or New York City or Los Angeles within its borders (though if there was, I doubt increasing everyone's taxes, or turning down federal money, or whatever else you're suggesting would be the thing to make it happen.)

Edit: It would be an interesting calculation though to see how much you'd have to cut the federal income tax rates of Illinois residents in order to for the state "to get back what they're paying in" on the whole. Or how high you'd have to raise Idaho residents' federal income tax rates in order to get the same kind of equality. Cut taxes on the rich, raise them on the poor, until we're all putting in and taking the same out of government - not sure what the point of government would be in that instance.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

Illinois has a lot more wealth to draw from. They can do whatever they want with that money. Federal money subsidizes a lot of Idaho state programs that probably wouldn't exist otherwise. Idaho residents pay the same federal tax rates Illinois residents do, they just have a much smaller collective and average income. Could a rich person balance their budget better if they didn't have to pay so much in taxes? I guess, or they'd probably just spend more and be in the same hole. Is your view about individuals the same? Maybe rich people shouldn't have to pay so much in taxes so they can have fewer financial problems.

I know you love to beat your chest about the "welfare state" thing and that's how you assign value to different states, but every state has a different situation, different resources, different challenges. Every state can be run either well or poorly based on the cards its been handed. Rich states aren't automatically run well just because they're rich, and vice versa with the poor states. There's nothing policy-wise Idaho can do in the next few years to create a Chicago or New York City or Los Angeles within its borders (though if there was, I doubt increasing everyone's taxes, or turning down federal money, or whatever else you're suggesting would be the thing to make it happen.)

Edit: It would be an interesting calculation though to see how much you'd have to cut the federal income tax rates of Illinois residents in order to for the state "to get back what they're paying in" on the whole. Or how high you'd have to raise Idaho residents' federal income tax rates in order to get the same kind of equality.

I get if it's necessary to provide certain programs. I'm not complaining about that. But don't brag about Idaho being great at balancing their budget when they are only able to do that because people like me are paying their bills. Idaho wouldn't be in their position if it wasn't for states like Illinois who cover their expenses.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I get if it's necessary to provide certain programs. I'm not complaining about that. But don't brag about Idaho being great at balancing their budget when they are only able to do that because people like me are paying their bills. Idaho wouldn't be in their position if it wasn't for states like Illinois who cover their expenses.

That's not how it works. Illinois pays way more in federal taxes because their residents have much more income. That fact doesn't prevent Illinois from running its state well. It actually should help. That's the difference between the "givers" and the "takers". They're poor v. rich.

As for the spending, we know what the federal government spends money on - defense, healthcare, social security. I don't know how defense spending is broken down on a state-by-state level for purposes of "giving v. taking" analysis. I would presume that social security would be spread pretty evenly, and the health care spending would disproportionately help the poor, which I think is the point. So how are you "paying Idaho's bills" exactly? The state of Idaho wouldn't be spending hundreds of billions in defense if the United States wasn't. Though its true that Illinois residents, at least the rich ones, have a much greater personal financial stake in that national spending. Rich Idahoans do to, there just isn't as many of them.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Health Law Costs: Employers Eye Bare-Bones Plans - WSJ.com

I don't think this should be a surprise to anyone. Anyone who thought that this law would somehow even the playing field was fooling themselves. If anything, the median level of insurance likely has gone down.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I don't think this should be a surprise to anyone. Anyone who thought that this law would somehow even the playing field was fooling themselves. If anything, the median level of insurance likely has gone down.

Only if you don't count the 40 million that didn't have insurance before.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't think it's fair to compare the two. I can live a much better life if I run up my credit cards every month. Just as a state could have far less unemployed if they spend more than they bring in.

Walker was full of shit about the balanced budget bringing in more jobs, but I don't necessarily think it's bad that he balanced it. Someone has to pay those bills at some point. Illinois overpaid for years and now people like me are having to pay the price for that with higher taxes.

No arguments here. I'm not arguing that balancing the budget was a bad thing. It had to be done either way. But Walker did not use all his methods at his disposal. A slight tax increase along with slightly lesser concessions from public employee unions would have accomplished the same. Walker's assertion was that any increase in taxes would have a detrimental affect on job growth. We can't really go back and see how a tax increase would have affected it now, but I think it's pretty clear that staying the line on taxes (and now he wants to decrease the income tax) hasn't helped create jobs.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

That's not how it works. Illinois pays way more in federal taxes because their residents have much more income. That fact doesn't prevent Illinois from running its state well. It actually should help. That's the difference between the "givers" and the "takers". They're poor v. rich.

As for the spending, we know what the federal government spends money on - defense, healthcare, social security. I don't know how defense spending is broken down on a state-by-state level for purposes of "giving v. taking" analysis. I would presume that social security would be spread pretty evenly, and the health care spending would disproportionately help the poor, which I think is the point. So how are you "paying Idaho's bills" exactly? The state of Idaho wouldn't be spending hundreds of billions in defense if the United States wasn't.

Idaho takes back more than it pays in. My state pays in more than it takes back. I'm not saying that shouldn't be the case. I'm just saying it's much easier to balance your budget when other states are subsidizing you.

If we are comparing how states handle their budgets, it's fair to note when certain states are being subsidized by others.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Only if you don't count the 40 million that didn't have insurance before.

You seriously think the median plan has increased under the new law? I'd find that very hard to believe. Adding those 40M insured (all won't be added but we have to assume all will fall under the current median) isn't going to make a lick of difference on the median. In fact, if those people receive a plan similar to the one being discussed in the article, it won't make a difference at all. The median would drop 15-20M spots and would guarantee a lower median plan.

You're going to have a situation which hospitals have been fearing. They're going to be billing more people directly for their care rather than trying to collect from the government. That's going to result in a greater number of payment defaults and the health industry is going to have to find a way to pay for that. Health care workers shouldn't be in that position.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Idaho takes back more than it pays in. My state pays in more than it takes back. I'm just saying it's much easier to balance your budget when other states are subsidizing you.

Illinois TAXPAYERS pay more in federal taxes, Idaho taxpayers pay less. That has nothing to do with how well the states are run. Illinois doesn't subsidize the Idaho state budget. They just, as a group, pay a higher % of the costs of national spending. That doesn't make it any easier for Idaho to balance its budget, and all of those wealthy Illinois taxpayers doesn't make things harder on the Illinois state budget.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by lungs

No arguments here. I'm not arguing that balancing the budget was a bad thing. It had to be done either way. But Walker did not use all his methods at his disposal. A slight tax increase along with slightly lesser concessions from public employee unions would have accomplished the same. Walker's assertion was that any increase in taxes would have a detrimental affect on job growth. We can't really go back and see how a tax increase would have affected it now, but I think it's pretty clear that staying the line on taxes (and now he wants to decrease the income tax) hasn't helped create jobs.

My only problem with Walker is that he just doesn't come out and say what is really the issue. Taxpayers in Wisconsin don't want to increase their already high state income taxes to pay for the incredibly high benefits of others. He hid his reasoning behind job growth and other talking points not based in reality, but I still think he made the right decision on the matter.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

Illinois taxpayers pay more in taxes, Idaho taxpayers pay less. That has nothing to do with how well the states are run. Illinois doesn't subsidize the Idaho state budget. They just, as a group, pay a higher % of the costs of national spending.

We are talking about different points of data. I'm not talking about what percent a state is paying in to the federal government. I'm talking about how much they receive back along with what they pay in. This number isn't derived by taking all federal revenue and dividing it by 50 and assuming each state receives the same amount of federal support.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

We are talking about different points of data. I'm not talking about what percent a state is paying in to the federal government. I'm talking about how much they receive back along with what they pay in. This number isn't derived by taking all federal revenue and dividing it by 50 and assuming each state receives the same amount of federal support.

Let me try to break down the two parts of it again them. And to try to see how Illinois "subsidizes" the Idaho budget or how the fact that Idaho is a "welfare state" makes it easier to balance the the budget.

1. Money to the federal government. This is tax revenue. Illinois taxpayers pay much more in federal tax revenue, both as a whole, and on average, than a poorer state like Idaho. This is both because Illinois a more populous state, and a higher income state. How having richer people hurts Illinois state budget, you haven't yet explained.

2. Money from the federal government. It appears you think that the Idaho state government just gets a big check of federal money that came directly from Illinois taxpayers, and they just easily balance their budget with that. That's not how it works. Most federal spending comes in the form of defense, social security, and healthcare spending. I don't know how that's broken down by state for the purposes of determining which states are "welfare states", but it's definitely true that Idaho citizens rely much more per capita on federal healthcare spending, federal welfare programs, federal unemployment benefits, than would the citizens from a richer state. The citizens of Idaho are definitely "takers" in that sense - as a group, they don't pay a lot of taxes, and they get a lot of federal benefits. I think that's the heart of the "welfare state" analysis - poor people are "freeloaders" and get more than they put in. That doesn't really implicate the state budget either. I guess you could argue that the state would have to pay more to fill the gap if those federal programs were cut. They might, they might not, but I'm sure if they did, they'd have to cut something else to make up the difference. They state government here is going to be conservative and balance the budget, using conservative revenue estimates, no matter what. If they estimated revenue too low (like they did this year), and have a huge surplus, they're still not spending any more. Maybe next year, if things still look good, they'll start to expand the budget, as they did in the late 90s, but they'll be very cautious in doing so. Just their fiscal philosophy. There's downsides to that philosophy, but definitely an upside when the economy turns bad.

Point is, whether you're a poor state, or a rich state, or whether you're a individual making $20k or $10 million, you can either be good with your money or bad with it. I'd say it's easier to be good with it the more you have. You're actually talking about how hard it is for the rich to make ends meet since they have to pay taxes to support the poor. Which isn't a very sympathetic viewpoint to have.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

Point is, whether you're a poor state, or a rich state, or whether you're a individual making $20k or $10 million, you can either be good with your money or bad with it. I'd say it's easier to be good with it the more you have. You're actually talking about how hard it is for the rich to make ends meet since they have to pay taxes to support the poor. Which isn't a very sympathetic viewpoint to have.

Again, they don't have that money. Illinois residents are forced to pay federal income tax. A percent of that money leaves the state and never comes back. Idaho pays federal income tax and is getting back all that revenue they paid in and then some. You can point out that Illinois is a wealthier state and all that does is show how much more money they are pumping in to the system vs other states. 75 cents on the dollar is a much bigger deficit for a wealthy state than a poor state.

Yes every state can be good and bad with their money. Illinois getting back what they paid in may not fix their bad budgets. But my point still stands that it is much easier to balance a budget in a state that is receiving financial assistance from other states than it is to balance a budget in a state that has to provide financial assistance to other states.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

My only problem with Walker is that he just doesn't come out and say what is really the issue. Taxpayers in Wisconsin don't want to increase their already high state income taxes to pay for the incredibly high benefits of others. He hid his reasoning behind job growth and other talking points not based in reality, but I still think he made the right decision on the matter.

Everything did kind of snowball. The unions did agree to the concessions but then Walker went after collective bargaining. If he would've stopped at the concessions, you wouldn't have seen the uproar that resulted, but to Walker's credit it has worked out politically so far. He's survived a recall and the Republicans still control both the Senate and Assembly.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Again, they don't have that money. Illinois residents are forced to pay federal income tax. A percent of that money leaves the state and never comes back. Idaho pays federal income tax and is getting back all that revenue they paid in and then some.

Yes every state can be good and bad with their money. Illinois getting back what they paid in may not fix their bad budgets. But my point still stands that it is much easier to balance a budget in a state that is receiving financial assistance from other states than it is to balance a budget in a state that has to provide financial assistance to other states.

Illinois pays more because they have more to begin with, that's how taxes work. That's not a detriment to them. Rich guys shouldn't be having financial problems that resulted from the high taxes they have to pay. I know that actually does happen to people and states, but they're doing it wrong.

And Idaho doesn't receive financial assistance from Illinois. I don't know how else to lay that out. Poorer Idaho taxpayers get money from the federal government, which got some of that money from rich Illinois taxpayers. In the same way, poor Illinois residents get federal benefits, which are paid, in part, indirectly, by rich Idaho taxpayers. That doesn't implicate state budgets. If the fed went nuts and cut Idaho off entirely tomorrow, Idaho would still have a balanced state budget. It would suck for poor people, but you can always restrict your spending to how much revenue you have, whether or not that's the right thing to do, you can always do it at the state level. If Illinois taxpayers' federal tax rates were slashed overnight, there would probably be somewhat more sales tax revenue in the state (as long as the taxpayers were spending their tax savings), but the Illinois state government could easily botch the surplus and dig themselves into a worse financial hole. Certainly, having insane amounts of revenue derived from all those rich people in the state already hasn't solved all their problems.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

And Idaho doesn't receive financial assistance from Illinois. I don't know how else to lay that out. Poorer Idaho taxpayers get money from the federal government, which got some of that money from rich Illinois taxpayers. In the same way, poor Illinois residents get federal benefits, which are paid, in part, indirectly, but rich Idaho taxpayers. That doesn't implicate state budgets.

The rich person in Idaho is seeing $1.21 of every $1 they put in coming back to their state. Not to them personally, but to people or infrastructure in their state. The rich person in Illinois is not having that money come back to the state they lives in.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

You seriously think the median plan has increased under the new law? I'd find that very hard to believe. Adding those 40M insured (all won't be added but we have to assume all will fall under the current median) isn't going to make a lick of difference on the median. In fact, if those people receive a plan similar to the one being discussed in the article, it won't make a difference at all. The median would drop 15-20M spots and would guarantee a lower median plan.

You're going to have a situation which hospitals have been fearing. They're going to be billing more people directly for their care rather than trying to collect from the government. That's going to result in a greater number of payment defaults and the health industry is going to have to find a way to pay for that. Health care workers shouldn't be in that position.

I'm saying that you are calculating the pre-ACA median without including the 40 million uninsured. Add those in and the median is a hell of a lot lower.

[RainMaker]

If it means anything, I'm renewing my company plan this week and the rates are about 7-10% higher than last year. I don't know if that is the new healthcare plan or not. But even before Obama took office, rates would go up around that much each year. I feel like a big chunk of the rising prices are the rising prices of healthcare as a whole.

[Easy Mac]

20k!

Because I haven't had anything to add to politics threads in about a decade.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The rich person in Idaho is seeing $1.21 of every $1 they put in coming back to their state. Not to them personally, but to people or infrastructure in their state. The rich person in Illinois is not having that money come back to the state they lives in.

The Idaho budget would be balanced and conservative regardless of the numbers. Even without the fed support of the poor. Believe me, it wouldn't be difficult, they'd enjoy the cutting.

The real issue I have is the implication behind the numbers. Rich states and rich people are always going to be the givers and poor states and poor people are always going to be takers. It's strictly a rich/poor distinction you're making. Most of the time, when that's emphasized, the point behind it is hostile, that the the poor shouldn't complain, that they have less say, and that their opinions' matter less. Like Romney's thing that 60% of America or whatever it is has no real stake because they're dependent on the government.

Edit: If a poor person took advantage of federal benefits, balanced his budget, ran his own little life well, I guess a rich person could say, "fuck you, I paid for those benefits, and now I can't manage my own finances because of all these taxes I have to pay", but he probably wouldn't be very popular.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by molson

The Idaho budget would be balanced and conservative regardless of the numbers. Even without the fed support of the poor. Believe me, it wouldn't be difficult, they'd enjoy the cutting.

The real issue I have is the implication behind the numbers. Rich states and rich people are always going to be the givers and poor states and poor people are always going to be takers. It's strictly a rich/poor distinction you're making. Most of the time, when that's emphasized, the point behind it is hostile, that the the poor shouldn't complain, that they have less say, and that their opinions' matter less. Like Romney's thing that 60% of America or whatever it is has no real stake because they're dependent on the government.

Texas is the ginormous exception to that.

[SirFozzie]

E.W. Jackson, Virginia Lieutenant Governor Candidate, Compared Planned Parenthood To KKK

Virginia doubling down on teaparty crazy in their governor-Lt Governor pair.

[JPhillips]

While it would be terrible policy, I have thought for years the Dems could make political hay out of a push for each state to get back what it contributes to the federal treasury. If a group of House Dems started screaming about that it would put the GOP in a tricky position and also have no chance of becoming law.

[cartman]

A Texas judge ruled that one of the tea party groups that got non-profit status was actually an unregistered PAC.

Judge rules tea party group a PAC, not a nonprofit - Houston Chronicle

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I have thought for years the Dems could make political hay out of a push for each state to get back what it contributes to the federal treasury.

I'm pretty sure it'd be unconstitutional to withhold federal benefits from poor people based on what state they happen to live in.

Edit: Maybe that's the disconnect here. Federal spending isn't state-based. It's mostly either national (like the military), or based on individual income and job status (like healthcare, unemployment benefits). The latter is obviously going to disproprtionatly flow into states with more poor individuals. The fact that you think it would be so popular among Dems to curb that flow is interesting. Where would the money go instead? Back to the taxpayers (the rich people), or would it go towards enhanced benefits for the poor fortunate enough to live in states that are already rich?

[molson]

Dola, you would think rich states would be more annoyed with poor states that spend themselves into trouble than ones who more carefully manage their limited resources. Of course, what this really all goes back to is whether people are voting the right way. I guess I can understand the gut desire of wanting to deprive any benefits of obamacare from people who didn't vote for obama (though, that would suck for the young and poor of Idaho, many of whom DID actually vote for Obama - Obama actually won in my local district, as did a lesbian state congresswoman), but if we take a step back, no, we don't condition government benefits on peoples' speech and votes in America.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

I'm pretty sure it'd be unconstitutional to withhold federal benefits from poor people based on what state they happen to live in.

Edit: Maybe that's the disconnect here. Federal spending isn't state-based. It's mostly either national (like the military), or based on individual income and job status (like healthcare, unemployment benefits). The latter is obviously going to disproprtionatly flow into states with more poor individuals. The fact that you think it would be so popular among Dems to curb that flow is interesting. Where would the money go instead? Back to the taxpayers (the rich people), or would it go towards enhanced benefits for the poor fortunate enough to live in states that are already rich?

I don't know about unconstitutional, but it's terrible policy. I don't want to see it passed, but watching the GOP sputter about the fairness of generally spending more on red states would be fun.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

Edit: Maybe that's the disconnect here. Federal spending isn't state-based. It's mostly either national (like the military), or based on individual income and job status (like healthcare, unemployment benefits).

But a lot of spending trickles into the states, even things like defense. If a military base is located in Oregon, federal money is being pumped into that area. The thousands of military personnel, the construction workers who need to build and maintain the facilities, janitorial services, and everything else involved. It's why local representatives push so hard to keep bases open in their area.

Appropriations are always heavily fought over in Washington. States routinely keep money they don't need because they can. Just look at the Gravina Island Highway in Alaska. Alaska is a state that takes in far more than they pay in, yet accepted millions in appropriations for a road they didn't need.

I'm not saying it should be even or that it even can be even. Just that when we try and compare how states handle their own budgets, we have to take into account whether they are hamstrung by where federal spending is allocated.

[Edward64]

I guess the concern is the precedence it sets but I'm okay with it. If it becomes once a day then I'll have issues but think Obama's policy is measured.

Holder: Drone strikes have killed four Americans since 2009 - CNN.com

Washington (CNN) -- Counterterrorism drone strikes have killed four Americans overseas since 2009, the U.S. government acknowledged for the first time on Wednesday, one day before President Barack Obama delivers a major speech on related policy.

In a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, Attorney General Eric Holder said the United States specifically targeted and killed one American citizen, al Qaeda cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, in 2011 in Yemen, alleging he was plotting attacks against the United States.

The letter provided new details about al-Awlaki's alleged involvement in bomb plots targeting U.S. aviation.

Holder also said the Obama administration was aware of three other Americans who had been killed in counterterrorism operations overseas.

Holder said Samir Kahn, Abdul Rahman Anwar al-Awlaki and Jude Kenan Mohammed were not targeted by the United States but he did not add more details about their deaths.

[panerd]

Sad how the debate has shifted from whether its okay to pour water over a foreign fighters face without due process to it being okay to kill American citizens without due process. I really wish McCain or Romney had won because it seems like this should be getting more resistance than it is. Edward needs 365 murders a year to give him pause, 4 is more than enough for me. 5th amendment and rule of law be damned we have cleaver wielding terrorists on rampages in London. There ain't time for those stupid 18th century relics like warrants and due process when there is so much terror in the world.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by panerd

Sad how the debate has shifted from whether its okay to pour water over a foreign fighters face without due process to it being okay to kill American citizens without due process. I really wish McCain or Romney had won because it seems like this should be getting more resistance than it is. Edward needs 365 murders a year to give him pause, 4 is more than enough for me. 5th amendment and rule of law be damned we have cleaver wielding terrorists on rampages in London. There ain't time for those stupid 18th century relics like warrants and due process when there is so much terror in the world.

I generally agree but at what's point does somebody simply become an enemy in an undeclared Civil War?

[JPhillips]

The Ohio Sec. State ordered every possible case of voter fraud in 2012 investigated. The end result is the referral of 135 people out of 5.6 million voters, and most of those were highlighted in ways that would work without voter ID. I'd bet anything that far more than 135 people were unable to vote due to lack of ID.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by panerd

Sad how the debate has shifted from whether its okay to pour water over a foreign fighters face without due process to it being okay to kill American citizens without due process. I really wish McCain or Romney had won because it seems like this should be getting more resistance than it is. Edward needs 365 murders a year to give him pause, 4 is more than enough for me. 5th amendment and rule of law be damned we have cleaver wielding terrorists on rampages in London. There ain't time for those stupid 18th century relics like warrants and due process when there is so much terror in the world.

McCain?
John McCain, Lindsey Graham assail Rand Paul for his drone filibuster - UPI.com

Two top Republican national security hawks defended President Barack Obama's drone use and lit into Sen. Rand Paul for his filibuster on the U.S. drone program.

"I don't think what happened yesterday was helpful to the American people," Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said on the Senate floor Thursday.

The nation "needs a discussion" of drone policy, but concerns raised by Paul, a Kentucky Republican, are "totally unfounded," McCain said, referring to Paul's comments Wednesday night that the U.S. government could potentially use military force to kill American citizens who object to government policies.

"We've done, I think, a disservice to a lot of Americans by making them think that somehow they're in danger from their government," McCain said.

"They're not. But we are in danger from a dedicated, longstanding, easily replaceable-leadership enemy that is hell-bent on our destruction."

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said, "To my party, I'm a bit disappointed that you no longer apparently think we're at war."

Romney?
John McCain, Lindsey Graham assail Rand Paul for his drone filibuster - UPI.com

Mitt Romney sought to ally himself with a multitude of President Barack Obama's policies during the third and final debate. That included the use of drones to target alleged terrorists overseas.

"I believe we should use any and all means necessary," Romney said when asked if he agreed with the president's policy. "I support that entirely and feel the president was right to up the usage of that policy."

I couldn't find a McCain, Romney quote specific to US citizens being killed by drone strikes, but let me know if you find anything to the contrary.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Edward64

McCain?
John McCain, Lindsey Graham assail Rand Paul for his drone filibuster - UPI.com


Romney?
John McCain, Lindsey Graham assail Rand Paul for his drone filibuster - UPI.com


I couldn't find a McCain, Romney quote specific to US citizens being killed by drone strikes, but let me know if you find anything to the contrary.

You're misunderstanding me I think. I meant that a lot more people would be speaking out against it because conservatives like this policy and liberals like the home team but hate it otherwise. Much like when Obama is in office a lot more people speak out against the bad economic policies of the federal government because liberals love spending money but so do conservatives when their guy is in power and so when they're not they see the errors of big government spending. My point being that there might actually be a louder voice than far left liberals and libertarians on this issue.

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The Ohio Sec. State ordered every possible case of voter fraud in 2012 investigated. The end result is the referral of 135 people out of 5.6 million voters, and most of those were highlighted in ways that would work without voter ID. I'd bet anything that far more than 135 people were unable to vote due to lack of ID.

We should apply the same logic to gun sales and the silly background checks.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

We should apply the same logic to gun sales and the silly background checks.

We have voting shows where you can vote without registering?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by panerd

You're misunderstanding me I think. I meant that a lot more people would be speaking out against it because conservatives like this policy and liberals like the home team but hate it otherwise. Much like when Obama is in office a lot more people speak out against the bad economic policies of the federal government because liberals love spending money but so do conservatives when their guy is in power and so when they're not they see the errors of big government spending. My point being that there might actually be a louder voice than far left liberals and libertarians on this issue.

Maybe, but maybe most support it and don't care ... unless its on US soil.
The reality is Americans aren't that concerned about drones | Harry J Enten | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

Support for the drone program varies across demographic and political groups about like you'd expect. Across pretty much all polling, Republicans, by about 10pts, are more likely to support drone use in general than Democrats, though majorities of both parties support it. Men are more likely to favor it than women, by anywhere from 7pts to 20pts. Again, however, more women favor the drone program in general than oppose it.

Why are Democrats and women more likely to oppose drone usage? It's not because of the program's murky legality. Among both groups, only 35% or less are "very concerned" about legality. With regard to the drones, Americans' number one worry is that the program endangers civilian lives. It's the only concern that garners a majority among the American people and among either Democrats or women.

Of course, striking non-American citizens on foreign soil is only part of the picture. The polling is less conclusive when the pollster specifically mentions killing Americans citizens via drone attack. The aforementioned Gallup poll found that a tiny majority, 51%, were opposed to using drones to kill US citizens overseas, per the following question: "Do you think the US government should or should not use drones to launch airstrikes in other countries against US citizens living abroad who are suspected terrorists?"

A Fox News poll found a majority, 60%, approved of this question: "Do you approve or disapprove of the United States using unmanned aircraft called drones to kill a suspected terrorist in a foreign country if the suspect is a US citizen?"

What accounts for the difference? The Gallup poll was taken after Rand Paul's filibuster, so that could be part of it. However, CBS News showed no changed before or after Paul's polemic, and used consistent question wording. It's more likely that more proactive words, like "airstrikes" and "launch", might have raised the hackles of respondents and made a few more people oppose the program. As usual, truth probably lies between the surveys. A February CBS News poll discovered that 49%, a plurality, but not a majority, favored "the US targeting and killing American citizens in foreign countries who are suspected of carrying out terrorist activities against the US".

The one thing all the polling agrees is that Americans are opposed to using drones to kill Americans in the United States. According to both Fox and Gallup, the majority is against this practice. Wording, again, makes a difference on the exact percentages, but Americans are strongly against this fantastical scenario.

The fact remains, however, that on drones writ large, most Americans just don't seem to care, and aren't paying attention to the news. Those who are paying attention mostly favor the program, which fits with the overall public support of using drones to kill non-US citizens overseas. The polling is more split on killing citizens in other counties, but it seems that more American support than oppose the policy.

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by cartman

We have voting shows where you can vote without registering?

Yes, people do it in Chicago all the time.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Maybe, but maybe most support it and don't care ... unless its on US soil.
The reality is Americans aren't that concerned about drones | Harry J Enten | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

And my contention is that a lot more liberals would care if the president had an R by his name. (Which isn't a complaint it would make me very happy). Look no further than Guantonimo Bay for an example of vigilant (impeachment talk) opposition until their guy came into power and said he was shutting it down and then did nothing... silence (from mainstream not antiwar etc) for five years.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by panerd

And my contention is that a lot more liberals would care if the president had an R by his name. (Which isn't a complaint it would make me very happy). Look no further than Guantonimo Bay for an example of vigilant (impeachment talk) opposition until their guy came into power and said he was shutting it down and then did nothing... silence (from mainstream not antiwar etc) for five years.

Just correcting one part of this. Obama tried to close Guantanamo and Congress refused.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Just correcting one part of this. Obama tried to close Guantanamo and Congress refused.

You do agree though that if '08 went to McCain and he was on his second term that the drone killings might have a little more opposition?