Hiyi, folks...
No doubt you've noticed I haven't directly addressed the unfolding disaster that is the ObamaCare roll-out.
Oh... a few newsbites... but no big stand-alone post...
Let me just throw this out:
Mary and I have insurance. Medical. Not dental. One eye exam every two-years. Minimal reimbursement towards contacts/glasses.
Our plan is a PPO. That's good! No referrals needed. Yet... we're still locked into network providers. It's not as if our GP would ever deny us a referral. So who really receives the benefit of our having a PPO? Our doctor! Less paperwork for him!
And, hey... with $50 co-pays for ANY doctor we see (except for one "well visit" per year; a yearly exam) it's not like we're making doctors appointments we don't need to make.
Anyway... for this we pay $1,327 per month out of pocket - plus any co-pay and/or deductible deductible expenses incurred in any month.
So... let's do the math: $1,327 X 12 = $15,924
Again, folks... that's with no dental; do you recall what your last root canal and crown cost you? How about your last implant? What of mere cavities and regular check-ups and cleanings?
But, hey... forget dental... let's return to yearly out of pocket expenditures for our basic medical insurance. When you add in a few yearly doctor visits and the co-pays associated with them... then add in our prescriptions and the co-pays that go with them... I'm guessing... round number... $17,000 a year out of pocket to cover two relatively healthy adults.
Folks... we bring in around $70,000 a year. That's $70,000 a year to support two adults living in New York... living less than 50 miles northwest of the George Washington Bridge.
No complaints! No whining! We live just fine... according to our means...
We've always paid our bills. Never taken loans we couldn't afford... loans we couldn't repay.
That said... back to the discussion at hand... we pay roughly a quarter of our yearly income just for major medical insurance... with no dental insurance.
So... what do you suppose we'd find out if we were to register with ObamaCare?
I say "register" because you have to register first... give all your information... set up your account... before your "exchange" will let you see what your prices will be... what your options will be.
So... what do you suppose our ObamaCare rate will come to if we try to move to the supposedly "more affordable" ObamaCare?
Will we receive a quote of less than $1,327 a month for an equivalent ObamaCare plan which allows us to keep our doctors and retain the basic outline of our present coverage in terms of advantages and quality?
$70,000 ain't much compared to what most of our peers bring in, but it's far above the poverty line... particularly for a couple with no dependents. Am I holding my breath expecting a sign-up to offer us a subsidized deal... perhaps some "reasonable" quote such as a "mere" $600, $700, or $800 a month via the NYS ObamaCare Exchange?
(*GUFFAW*)
Not on your life, folks!
But consider this... let's say I'm being pessimistic and ObamaCare will indeed offer Mary and I a large healthcare insurance subsidy...
(*SIGH*)
Why should we be subsidized? Clearly at $70,000 we're not poor; theoretically we're well within the middle class!
The Federal Government is broke... right...??? I mean without having had to subsidize me and Mary they've had to borrow $7 trillion dollars over the past five "ObamaYears" just to meet operating expenses and this year's figure is what... $700 million in additional deficit spending just to meet "payroll?"
Think about it, folks... my buddy "He Whose Name Dare Not Be Mentioned" could gift Mary and I $1,327 a month and still have money left over to keep me in beer and scotch without sacrificing one single "family fun" experience for himself and his family. How's this? Because unlike the Federal Government, "He Whose Name Dare Not Be Mentioned" lives within his means and even has liquid savings!!!
People who live within their means... who save... who maintain liquid and property wealth... who spend less each year than they actually make... who even when it comes to capital expenditures that are debt financed make sure they don't bite off more than they can chew... these are people who can provide "subsidies," who can provide "charity," who can piss away their money left and right if that's what floats their boat... or maybe yacht.
(*CHUCKLE*)
The Federal Government...? It's not rich! It's debt-ridden! With debt growing minute by minute... hour by hour... day by day... week by week... month by month... year by year...
(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)
And sane, responsible Americans should be cheering even the concept that this government might add William R. Barker and Mary T. Barker of Harriman, NY to the ObamaCare subsidy rolls...?!?!
When you think about it... doesn't that sound a bit... oh... I don't know... INSANE to you...?!?!
So... here's the deal: I don't expect ObamaCare to provide any health insurance relief to me - and if it does it'll be via adding to deficit spending which is bad for everyone... including me... including "He Whose Name Dare Not Be Mentioned."
By the way, folks... again... back to the dental care issue... does it make any sense to you that the government mandates free birth control for 28 year old Ivy League Law School students and insists that everyone must have insurance (or face a fine) just in case an ankle is sprained and needs to be seen, x-rayed, and bandaged by a physician... yet... it's fine and dandy if all your teeth rot out of your mouth because you can't afford dental care and so don't get it?
(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)
ObamaCare is a disaster, folks. I told you it would be. This "roll-out" - even worse than I could ever have imagined!
Understand, folks... if it's this bad before it gets its tentacles totally wrapped in and around all facets of the system, imagine when ObamaCare is the be all and end all... the major source... controller... driver... of everyday healthcare for all of us.
This is why Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, and a few brave others did what they did - attempted to strangle ObamaCare in the crib before it could grow and suck the oxygen out of our "old" system and therefore replace it forever... replace it with single-payer eventually.
(*SIGH*)
What we should have done as true health insurance reform was to make all insurance individual insurance.
No more family of five paying the same premiums as a family of four... or three... or seven. (Children's insurance would be the responsibility of the parents... just as housing, clothing, food, and all other needs are.)
Insurance should be catastrophic in nature! High deductibles with subsidies tied to income and need with subsidy emphasis focused upon health care, not insurance premiums.
Actuarial reality should be at the center of pricing because "actuality" is based upon REALITY!
Again... subsidies... a safety net... yes, they must be provided; but the way we provide them now is totally ass-backwards... inefficient... wasteful! Subsidies and safety nets must be carefully targeted and logically disbursed.
Folks... again... going back to my personal circumstances... if Mary and I can be expected to pay one-quarter of our total income in medical (but no dental!) insurance so that we can can each get one "well-care" visit a year and other than that pay $50 co-pays to our doctors... tiered co-pays for our meds... maintain high deductibles for possible hospitalizations... and so on and so forth... wouldn't it make more sense to simple make the national decision that folks like us can - and thus will - provide for our own "ordinary" yearly medical expenses up to say... 12.5% of income... and then perhaps some sliding scale where insurance reimbursements would partially kick in medical expenses above 12.6% of income up to say 15%... then additional subsidies for costs above 15% of income... then above 20% of income... and then at that point catastrophic 100% coverage kicks in and takes over for all expenses beyond the roughly 25% point Mary and I now pay year after year after year even as we're healthy... even as if we did get sick we'd still rack up bills in addition to our premiums according to the terms of our current insurance?
Doesn't a system based upon the above concept sound better - less expensive, fairer - than what self-insured people like ourselves deal with now?
One last point: If you're one of the lucky minority who still get platinum plated - or even "mere" gold-plated - insurance via your employer... good for you... you've managed to game a system built to be gamed.
I'm talking about the tax code, here, folks, and how your employer provided insurance benefits are "free" to you in the sense that you don't pay taxes on their value while the employer enjoys a partial business expense write-off... (Yeah... that's right... a tax loophole benefiting you or me has to be "filled" by taking the "lost" tax revenue out of someone else's hide.)
Enough with a "upper/lower-class society" when it comes to subsidized workers vs. unsubsidized workers!
Think about the unfairness, folks... you make $100,000 a year in cash... in the "value" of the cash... and accordingly you pay taxes on $100,000. Your brother does the same exactly jobs as you do... only he works for the company across the street. His company pays him a "mere" $80,000 a year in cash... but... on top of that they provide him and his family with health insurance valued at $20,000... at an actual "value" of $20,000 in cash. And yet... your brother ends up paying taxes on "only" $80,000.
HOW THE FRIG IS THAT FAIR...?!?!
You know, folks... I'm no genius. Obama... he's the genius! (Or so I've been told...) Why is it that I can come up with points and plans and logic such as this stand-alone post while President Obama... has spent the past five years "fundamentally changing" America... and not for the better?
10 comments:
* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)
http://the-free-foundation.org/tst10-21-2013.html
* BY THE ALWAYS HONORABLE RON PAUL, MD, FORMER REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMAN AND PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE
Washington, DC, Wall Street, and central bankers around the world rejoiced this week as Congress came to an agreement to end the government shutdown and lift the debt ceiling.
The latest spending-and-debt deal was negotiated by Congressional leaders behind closed doors, and was rushed through Congress before most members had time to read it.
Now that the bill is passed, we can see that it is a victory for the political class and special interests, but a defeat for the American people.
The debt ceiling deal increases spending above the levels set by the “sequester.”
* ONE... MORE... TIME...
The debt ceiling deal increases spending above the levels set by the “sequester.”
The sequester cuts were minuscule, and in many cases used the old DC trick of calling reductions in planned spending increases a cut. But even minuscule and phony cuts are unacceptable to the bipartisan welfare-warfare spending collation.
The bill also does nothing to protect the American people from the ObamaCare disaster.
As is common in bills drafted in secret and rushed into law, this bill contains special deals for certain powerful politicians.
The bill even has a provision authorizing continued military aid to opponents of the Ugandan “Lord’s Resistance Army,” which was the subject of the widely-viewed “Kony 2012” YouTube videos.
(Most of these unrelated provisions did not come to public attention until after the bill was passed and signed into law.)
Members of Congress and the public were told the debt ceiling increase was necessary to prevent a government default and an economic crisis. This manufactured fear supposedly justified voting on legislation without allowing members time to even read it, much less to remove the special deals or even debate the wisdom of intervening in overseas military conflicts because of a YouTube video.
Congress should have ignored the hysterics.
(A failure to increase government’s borrowing authority would not lead to a default any more that an individual's failure to get a credit card limit increase in would mean they would have to declare bankruptcy. Instead, the failure of either an individual or a government to obtain new borrowing authority would force the individual or the government to live within their means, and may even force them to finally reduce their spending.)
* TO BE CONTINUED...
* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)
Most people would say it is irresponsible to give a spendthrift, debit-ridden individual a credit increase. Why then is it responsible to give an irresponsible spendthrift government an increase in borrowing authority?
* GOOD... FRIGGIN'... QUESTION...
Congress surrendered more power to the president in this bill. Instead of setting a new debt ceiling, it simply “suspended” the debt ceiling until February. This gives the administration a blank check to run up as much debt as it pleases from now until February 7th.
* FOLKS... I'M STILL NOT CLEAR ABOUT THIS. I'LL ADDRESS IT DIRECTLY WHEN I FEEL SURE I KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.
Congress can “disapprove” the debt ceiling suspension, but only if it passes a resolution of disapproval by a two-thirds majority.
(*HEADACHE*)
* SURE AS HELL DOESN'T SOUND CONSTITUTIONAL...
How long before Congress totally abdicates its constitutional authority over spending by allowing the Treasury permanent and unlimited authority to borrow money without seeking Congressional approval?
* NOT AN UNSERIOUS QUESTION! I COULD SEE CONGRESS DOING THIS... PARTICULARLY IF THE DEMS TAKE BACK THE HOUSE AND RETAIN THE SENATE NEXT YEAR!
Instead of seriously addressing the spending crisis, most in Congress would rather engage in last-minute brinksmanship and backroom deals instead of taking the necessary action to rein in spending.
* WHICH IS WHY I SERIOUSLY WOULD APPLAUD MASS SUICIDES BY MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE AND SENATE!
Congress will only take serious steps to reduce spending when either a critical mass of Americans pressures it to cut spending, or when investors and foreign countries stop buying US government debt. Hopefully, those of us who understand sound economics can convince enough of our fellow citizens to pressure Congress to make serious spending cuts before Congress’s reckless actions cause a total economic collapse.
* I WISH I COULD... (*SIGH*)... BUT I JUST DON'T SEE IT. I FEAR WE'VE CROSSED THE RUBICON... ACHIEVED CRITICAL MASS.
http://blog.heritage.org/2013/10/22/obamacare-obama-defends-health-care-law-high-quality-health-insurance/
Obama Said This with a Straight Face:
“Thousands of people are signing up and saving money as we speak.”
Yes, President Obama actually said that yesterday about ObamaCare. As we all know, for the vast majority of people, the opposite is true.
Signing up? Most people have found it impossible to sign up for coverage through the Healthcare.gov website. In fact, some of the people standing behind the President during his speech — who were supposed to represent “success stories” — have not yet obtained coverage.
* THE UPDATE I HEARD THIS MORNING CHANGED THAT TO "MOST OF THE PEOPLE STANDING BEHIND THE PRESIDENT..."
Saving money? Heritage research revealed that in 43 out of 47 states with information available, premiums are higher in the ObamaCare marketplaces than in the individual insurance market.
* ONE... MORE... TIME...
[I]n 43 out of 47 states with information available, premiums are higher in the ObamaCare marketplaces than in the individual insurance market.
The first problem — website signups — can be fixed. The second — ObamaCare’s price — cannot.
* EXCEPT BY FURTHER SUBSIDIZEATION VIA EXPANDING DEFICITS AND DEBT EVEN FURTHER!
Obama touted the fact that young people can stay on their parents’ plans until they are 26. But what about parents whose premiums are going up? Or people who are turning 27 and facing the disproportionately high cost burden that ObamaCare puts on young adults?
* OR WHAT ABOUT THE EFFECT ALL THIS SUBSIDIZATION SMOKE AND MIRRORS HAS IN THE REAL WORLD WHERE S*O*M*E*W*H*E*R*E THE HEALTHCARE SUBSIDY COSTS OF HAVING ADULTS ON PARENTS INSURANCE POLICIES NEEDS TO BE PAID FOR BY ALL OF THE REST OF US!
He touted the law’s Medicaid expansion, which puts more Americans on a broken-down program where one out of three primary care doctors already won’t accept new patients.
* ONE... MORE... TIME...
Medicaid expansion puts more Americans on a broken-down program where one out of three primary care doctors already won’t accept new patients. (ONLY THE NAME HAS CHANGED!)
He claimed ObamaCare would bring “competition” and “more choices.” In reality, the opposite is true. Heritage experts Robert Moffit and Edmund Haislmaier have explained how “Under ObamaCare, Americans will have less choice and less competition.
* LESS CHOICE! LESS COMPETITION!
He claimed ObamaCare is “high quality” health insurance. But it’s a one-size-fits-all deal — and that doesn’t work for health care.
* HELL... IT DOESN'T EVEN WORK IN AMUSEMENT PARKS - SEE: "SPEED PASS." (EXTRA COST!) NOR DOES IT WORK ON CRUISE LINES - SEE: "PREMIUM DINING OPTION." (EXTRA CHARGES APPLY.) FOLKS... THIS IS GOING TO FURTHER EXACEBATE THE SPLIT BETWEEN THE HAVES AND HAVE NOTS IN TERMS OF MEDICAL TREATMENT! (UNLESS OF COURSE YOU FURTHER SOCIALIZE THE MARKET... WHICH MY GUESS IS IS THE LONG TERM GOAL!)
Today Obama said, “The Affordable Care Act is not just a website — it’s much more.” Exactly! The ObamaCare website might eventually get fixed — but ObamaCare won’t.
* BECAUSE IT CAN'T BE FIXED! IT'S BASED UPON A FALSE PREMISE AND SMOKE AND MIRRORS ECONOMICS!
http://reason.com/blog/2013/10/18/with-debt-ceiling-lifted-federal-governm
When Congress "saved" America from the perilous clutches of a federal government compelled to live within its means without running up the credit card, it came up with a doozy of a deal.
From now until February 7, 2014, the U.S. Department of the Treasury can borrow as much as it pleases.
* AGAIN... I'M NOT QUITE SURE HOW THEY DID THIS... BUT APPARENTLY THEY DID IN FACT DO IT... BASICALLY "TRANSFER" THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL SPENDING AUTHORITY/RESPONSIBILITY TO THE EXECTIVE BRANCH. THIS IS OF COURSE BLATANTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL... BUT AGAIN... WE'RE IN THE AGE OF OBAM...
(*SIGH*)
Jack Lew and company aren't wasting any time letting their freak flags fly. From October 16 to October 17 (that's overnight, for the calendar-challenged), public debt outstanding jumped $328 billion, from $16.747 trillion to $17.076 trillion. Fast work, folks!
The Treasury Department's online calculator runs from January 1, 1993, when public debt outstanding was $4.168 trillion, to the present day. The debt broke $10 trillion on September 30, 2008, and has jumped over seven trillion dollars since then. Despite all the quibbling over the federal budget and "reducing deficits," any deficit adds to the total owed. The tally of debt has risen in an almost unbroken line the entire time.
Here's a question for Barry, Harry, and John: Any thoughts — any at all — on ever paying that down?
* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2013/October/21/cancellation-notices-health-insurance.aspx
Health plans are sending hundreds of thousands of cancellation letters to people who buy their own coverage, frustrating some consumers who want to keep what they have and forcing others to buy more costly policies.
* GEEZUS...
The main reason insurers offer is that the policies fall short of what the Affordable Care Act requires starting Jan. 1.
* OBAMACARE FORCES AMERICANS TO BUY INSURANCE WHICH OFFERS THINGS THEY NEITHER WANT NOR NEED. (IMAGINE ONLY BEING ALLOWED TO GO TO RESTAURANTS THAT OFFERED BREAKFAST, LUNCH AND DINNER. IMAGINE ONLY BEING ALLOWED TO GO TO HOTELS WHICH OFFERED SUITES AS WELL AS SINGLE ROOMS. PICK YOUR OWN EXAMPLE!)
Most are ending policies sold after the law passed in March 2010. At least a few are cancelling plans sold to people with pre-existing medical conditions.
(*SNORT*)
By all accounts, the new policies will offer consumers better coverage, in some cases, for comparable cost - especially after the inclusion of federal subsidies for those who qualify.
* BULLSHIT. AND IN ANY CASE THE AUTHOR ACTS AS IF THERE'S NOT COST TO "THE INCLUSION OF FEDERAL SUBSIDIES."
The law requires policies sold in the individual market to cover 10 “essential” benefits, such as prescription drugs, mental health treatment and maternity care.
* AND IF YOU DON'T WANT TO BE A MOTHER? AND IF YOU'RE A WOMAN UNABLE TO HAVE CHILDREN? YOU STILL PAY FOR MATERNITY CARE YOU WON'T EVER USE! OH... AND WE ALL KNOW THE TIER SCAM WITH PRESCRIPTION DRUG "COVERAGE." MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT? HOW MUCH FRAUD AND ABUSE GOES ON WITH THAT...
In addition, insurers cannot reject people with medical problems or charge them higher prices.
* HOW THIS PASSES CONSTITUTIONAL MUSTER I JUST DON'T GET. THE GOVERNMENT IS "TAKING" IN THE SENSE OF FORCING INSURANCE COMPANIES TO SIGN CONTRACTS ASSURING THEM OF LOSSES! (IT WOULD BE DIFFERENT IF THE GOVERNMENT DIRECTLY SUBSIDIZED THESE LOSSES... BUT IT DOESN'T!)
The policies must also cap consumers’ annual expenses at levels lower than many plans sold before the new rules.
* NOT TAKING ACCOUNT OF THE ACTUAL MATH INVOLVED, I'LL BET...
But the cancellation notices, which began arriving in August, have shocked many consumers in light of President Barack Obama’s promise that people could keep their plans if they liked them.
“I don’t feel like I need to change, but I have to,” said Jeff Learned, a television editor in Los Angeles, who must find a new plan for his teenage daughter, who has a health condition that has required multiple surgeries.
* DUH! OBAMA LIED!
* TO BE CONTINUED...
* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)
An estimated 14 million people purchase their own coverage because they don’t get it through their jobs. Calls to insurers in several states showed that many have sent notices. Florida Blue, for example, is terminating about 300,000 policies, about 80% of its individual policies in the state. Kaiser Permanente in California has sent notices to 160,000 people – about half of its individual business in the state. Insurer Highmark in Pittsburgh is dropping about 20% of its individual market customers, while Independence Blue Cross, the major insurer in Philadelphia, is dropping about 45%.
(*CLAP...CLAP...CLAP*)
Some receiving cancellations say it looks like their costs will go up, despite studies projecting that about half of all enrollees will get income-based subsidies.
* DUH! ("STUDIES," HUH? RUN BY WHO? OBAMACARE SUPPORTERS?)
Kris Malean, 56, lives outside Seattle, and has a health policy that costs $390 a month with a $2,500 deductible and a $10,000 in potential out-of-pocket costs for such things as doctor visits, drug costs or hospital care.
* FOLKS... DO THE MATH... RE-READ MY "HEALTHCARE STAND-ALONE" GRACING THE FRONT PAGE OF TODAY'S NEWSBITES POST. I ONLY WISH I HAD A DEAL LIKE THAT!
As a replacement, Regence BlueShield is offering her a plan for $79 more a month with a deductible twice as large as what she pays now, but which limits her potential out-of-pocket costs to $6,250 a year, including the deductible.
* BTW... IS THIS WITH OR WITHOUT GOVERNMENT SUBSIDY?
“My impression was … there would be a lot more choice, driving some of the rates down,” said Malean, who does not believe she is eligible for a subsidy.
Regence spokeswoman Rachelle Cunningham said the new plans offer consumers broader benefits, which “in many cases translate into higher costs.”
“The arithmetic is inescapable,” said Patrick Johnston, chief executive officer of the California Association of Health Plans. Costs must be spread, so while some consumers will see their premiums drop, others will pay more - “no matter what people in Washington say.”
Health insurance experts say new prices will vary and much depends on where a person lives, their age and the type of policy they decide to buy. Some, including young people and those with skimpy or high-deductible plans, may see an increase. Others, including those with health problems or who buy coverage with higher deductibles than they have now, may see lower premiums.
Blue Shield of California sent roughly 119,000 cancellation notices out in mid-September, about 60% of its individual business. About two-thirds of those policyholders will see rate increases in their new policies, said spokesman Steve Shivinsky.
* TWO THIRDS!
Like other insurers, the Blue Shield letters let customers know they have to make a decision by Dec. 31 or they will automatically be enrolled in a recommended plan.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/90609000-americans-not-labor-force-climbs-another-record
The number of Americans who are 16 years or older and who have decided...
* "WHO HAVE DECIDED...?!?!" THAT'S A NEW ONE!
(*GUFFAW*)
...not to participate in the nation's labor force has climbed to a record 90,609,000 in September, according to data released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
(*PURSED LIPS*)
The BLS counts a person as participating in the labor force if they are 16 years or older and either have a job or have actively sought a job in the last four weeks. A person is not participating in the labor force if they are 16 or older and have not sought a job in the last four weeks.
In from July to August, according to BLS, Americans not participating in the labor force climbed from 89,957,000 to 90,473,000, pushing past 90,000,000 for the first time, with a one month increase of 516,000.
* ...FOR THE FIRST TIME...
In September, it climbed again to 90,609,000, an increase of 136,000 during the month.
[T]he number of Americans not in the labor force has increased by 10,102,000 during Obama's presidency.
(*SILENCE*)
The labor force participation rate, which is the percentage of the non-institutionalized population 16 years or older who either have a job or actively sought one in the last four weeks, was 63.2% in September. That was unchanged from August. (When President Obama took office in January 2009, the labor force participation rate was 65.7%.)
* AND WHAT WAS IT IN THE LAST FULL MONTH OF REPUBLICAN CONTROL OF BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS (WITH PRESIDENT BUSH IN OFFICE) IN DECEMBER OF 2006? (BETCHYA IT WAS HIGHER YET! ANYONE WANNA CHECK...???)
The percentage of the civilian non-institutionalized population over 16 that was employed also remained constant from August to September at 58.6%. (When President Obama took office in January 2009, the employment-population ratio was 60.6%.)
The number of people actually employed increased by 133,000 last month, climbing from 144,170,000 in August to 144,303,000 in September. When Obama took office in January 2009, there were 142,153,000 Americans employed - meaning the number has increased by 2,150,000 over the past 57 months.
* BUT... RECALL...
[T]he number of Americans not in the labor force has increased by 10,102,000 during Obama's presidency.
(*BANGING MY HEAD AGAINST THE WALL*)
One reason for the increasing number of people not in the labor force is the aging of the Baby Boom generation, whose members have begun retiring...
* TRUE ENOUGH... BUT, SORRY, NO CIGAR. OTHER REASONS INCLUDE DELIBERATE EXPANSION OF THE DISABLITY RANKS - PEOPLE USING DISABILITY AS WELFARE.
* OH... AND SPEAKING OF WELFARE... ANOTHER REASON NO DOUBT IS THE GENERAL EXPANSION OF THE WELFARE STATE UNDER OBAMA - EVERYTHING FROM FOOD STAMPS (SNAP) TO THE PROVISION OF "OBAMAPHONES."
(*SNORT*)
* IN OTHER WORDS, OBAMA HAS MADE IT EASIER TO BE UNEMPLOYED. HE'S ALSO MADE IT LESS COMPARATIVELY REWARDING TO WORK. WHEN ONE'S HOUSING, FOOD, MEDICAL CARE, AND IN SOME CASES EVEN TRANSPORTATION NEEDS ARE "COVERED" THROUGH GOVERNMENT LARGESS...
(*SHRUG*)
* OH... AND FINALLY... AS TO ALL THESE "NEW" JOBS? WHAT KIND OF JOBS? FULL TIME OR PART TIME? PERMANENT OR TEMPORARY? OFFERING BENEFITS OR NOT?
(*SMIRK*)
Another reason is that female participation in the labor force has been declining. In January 2009, the female labor force participation rate was 59.4%. In September 2013, it was 57.1%.
* REMEMBER "THE END OF WELFARE AS WE KNOW IT" BACK IN THE '90's COURTESY OF NEWT GINGRICH (AND BILL CLINTON)? WELFARE IS BACK. BIG TIME. BIGGER AND "BETTER" THAN EVER.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/economy/the-big-takeaway-from-the-september-jobs-report-the-economy-is-stalling-20131022
The Big Takeaway From the September Jobs Report: The Economy Is Stalling: The U.S. economy added 148,000 jobs and unemployment fell to 7.2 percent in September. That's not good news
* AND THAT'S THE HEADER AND SUB-HEADER OF THIS NATIONAL JOURNAL STORY I'M ABOUT TO NEWSBITE! (READ ON!)
You'd be forgiven for being bored by the September jobs report. There is nothing sexy about the latest numbers, which were released Tuesday morning: The economy picked up 148,000 jobs and unemployment fell slightly to 7.2%. The report was not heartening...
The key phrase for the September report is "little change." The total number of unemployed Americans is little changed from August at 11.3 million. The ethnic breakdowns among the unemployed were also little changed, as was the number of long-term unemployed (people jobless for at least 27 weeks), which stood at 4.1 million for September.
Douglas Holtz-Eakin, the former Congressional Budget Office director, described the numbers as "lackluster, tepid, listless, or soft."
(*SIGH*)
The [all-important] U-6 rate, a broader measure of unemployment that includes people "marginally attached" to the labor force, as well as people employed part-time for economic reasons, declined only slightly to 13.6 percent in September from 13.7 percent the previous month.
* LISTEN... I'LL TAKE WHAT I CAN GET. IT IS "GOOD NEWS" THAT U-6 UNEMPLOYMENT HAS GONE DOWN 1/10TH OF A POINT.
That may prove to be the most positive news for jobs growth for the rest of the year.
Just how bleak are the September numbers? They don't even beat the average of what has been a pretty tepid year for growth. (Over the previous 12 months, the U.S. economy averaged 185,000 job gains per month, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.)
GREAT "stand alone" comment today!
GREAT "stand alone" today!!
Cheers!
Post a Comment