Pethokoukis, Economics, U.S. Economy

Another look at Obamacare, the employer mandate, and the rise of part-time America

Credit: Goldman Sachs, AEI

Credit: Goldman Sachs, AEI

Goldman Sachs has some thoughts on the implementation delay of Obamacare’s employer mandate — and whether the health care reform law has been nudging employers to hire part time rather than full time:

The delay should have modest near-term labor market implications. Some employers have indicated that they either have or will shift to more part-time workers in response to the health law. If this were occurring, it would have a positive effect on payrolls (assuming one full-time job is replaced with multiple part-time jobs) but would show up as a greater number of part-time workers in the household survey. This is to some degree what we have seen in recent employment reports, where part-time workers as a share of the population have risen since the start of the year, while full-time employment has been essentially flat.

The reference period for determining full-time employment is determined by the individual employer so the timing will vary, but to meet federal requirements it is likely that most employers would need to start their reference period in Q3 if they had not already.

While it is possible that the trends over the last few months might reflect the approaching onset of the now-delayed employer mandate, it is also important to note that the shift toward part-time labor pre-dates enactment of the health law and is much more clearly associated with the economic downturn, as shown in Exhibit 1.

When I look at the GS chart what I see is a) a surge in the share of part-time jobs as the Great Recession and Financial Crisis hits, b) another pop as the recovery begins to more firmly take hold in 2012 — which makes sense since employers are seeing better demand but are still cautious about hiring — followed by c) another surge more recently. Perhaps it is that 2013 upturn that reflects the Obamacare impact. I think Goldman is more cautious in declaring part-time America than what the evidence suggests.

Then you have pretty compelling anecdotal evidence, which GS also refers to, such as this recent piece from CNN Money:

Delaying the Obamacare employer mandate has simply put off rules business had already started adjusting to.

Under the Affordable Care Act, companies with 50-plus full-time employees must start offering them health insurance or face stiff penalties. The employer mandate had been set to kick in January 2014, but was pushed back a year.

Because a 30-hour work week counts as full-time under Obamacare, Fatburger fast-food restaurants had started cutting worker hours below that threshold, CEO Andy Wiederhorn said.

Some Fatburger owners even began “job sharing” with other businesses, teaming up to share a higher number of employees all working fewer hours. Someone could work 25 hours at one Fatburger, 25 at another one with a different franchise owner, and still not be a full-time worker under Obamacare rules.

Many companies at the International Franchise Expo in New York City last month acknowledged they’ve been adopting that slash-and-share method, cutting hours and splitting workers.

33 thoughts on “Another look at Obamacare, the employer mandate, and the rise of part-time America

  1. While it hasn’t helped, it isn’t just Obamacare that has led to a swing in the part-time/full-time job numbers, it is ALL of the baggage that goes with hiring full time employees. Most employers don’t – and haven’t – provide part time workers with health insurance or other benefits. Part-timers are easily to schedule as needed. Part-timers are easier to get rid of should the need/desire be there. Certain employee thresholds don’t apply to part-timers.

  2. “When I look at the GS chart what I see is … c) another surge more recently.”

    James, I’m not sure the chart really shows this. The uptick circled in red is within the “expected” variance as demonstrated in the data set from 2000 to 2009, and then again from 2010 to 2013.

    However, I certainly would predict the shift from full- to part-time employment to accelerate in the near future. As an employer, I can attest that the ACA is just the latest in a long line of “penalties” businesses pay in providing full-time employment. The dampening effect–which is just the opposite of any rational policy design–is bound to appear at some point.

  3. whether one wants to blame ObamaCare or not for the evolution towards Part time – the reality is that the more employers do this – the more ObamaCare and the health care exchanges are going to provide such people with access to health insurance that they did not have as a part time employee.

    In other words, they are making ObamaCare even more something that many people will want/need.

    When you think about it – employer-provided health care is twice – bad.

    1. first it encourages people to use great gobs of medical services without regard to caring about costs

    2. it’s a huge disruptive impact to the job market and job mobility.

    some people may well be better off working part time jobs or they may be more inclined to work towards entrepreneurial endeavors but they feel it would be a big risk and border on being irresponsible for their families so they take the “safe” job that provides employer-provided health insurance even if it’s not a good fit for them.

    I think that many businesses actually fear ObamaCare because it will give workers the freedom to pursue jobs without regard to health care – like they do in every other OECD country – on the planet.

    ObamaCare will eventually kill employer-provided heath care and in many minds – good riddance to it.

    Small businesses in particular may find a larger pool of potential workers .. in fact.

    If the GOP retakes Congress – they’re going to be in the position of taking aware health insurance from people.

    It’ll be interesting how they campaign … if they actually are going to campaign that if elected they WILL take away insurance coverage.

    • This is highly impressive idiocy Lar. We’re very impressed at your complete lack of knowledge of just about every aspect of this issue, choosing to make it fundamentally about politics, because, you know, medicine and healthcare delivery is a fundamentally political act….

      The June U-6 unemployment reading, the most accurate and reflective measure of Obamascare labor market impact, and overall economic health, came in at 14.3% (14.6, NSA), up from 13.8%. This number will continue to climb. The economy is being suffocated by Obamascare, and other moronic Obama hyperregulation.

      You actually are starting to get some of the picture, Lar. To wit –

      “In other words, they are making ObamaCare even more something that many people will want/need.”

      Unintentionally correct, because there will be very few full-time workers left, and all part-timers will be forced onto Obamascare rolls. This is at least partially intentional.

      “1. first it encourages people to use great gobs of medical services without regard to caring about costs”

      Yes! You got one right, Lar! It distorts use because of inaccurate/nonexistent price signals. So what’s your answer to that Lar? A giant government program which DOES IT MORE. The Treasury cash burn rate once Obamascare kicks in is going to be astronomical. The cost will be horrifying.

      “It’ll be interesting how they campaign … if they actually are going to campaign that if elected they WILL take away insurance coverage.”

      It’ll be interesting to see what’s left of the Democrat party, not that anyone will care, after Obamascare crashes and burns, which it is in the process of doing right now.

      Obamascare will go down as one of the largest political and economic disasters in modern civilization, if it ever gets off the ground.

      • This is highly impressive idiocy Lar. We’re very impressed at your complete lack of knowledge of just about every aspect of this issue, choosing to make it fundamentally about politics, because, you know, medicine and healthcare delivery is a fundamentally political act….

        healthcare IS about politics in every single OECD countries in the world – right? Politics is how universal health care get approved…

        “The June U-6 unemployment reading, the most accurate and reflective measure of Obamascare labor market impact, and overall economic health, came in at 14.3% (14.6, NSA), up from 13.8%. This number will continue to climb. The economy is being suffocated by Obamascare, and other moronic Obama hyperregulation.”

        really? do all the other OECD countries also have the same problem since they have their version of ObamaCare also?

        “In other words, they are making ObamaCare even more something that many people will want/need.”

        Unintentionally correct, because there will be very few full-time workers left, and all part-timers will be forced onto Obamascare rolls. This is at least partially intentional.

        this part you do not get. In an economy – ANY economy where globalization is having an effect on ALL jobs on the planet – we MAY be evolving to a world where not only do people change jobs frequently – even more than 7 times on average but also – we may be seeing “jobs” that are no longer 40 hours – for a number of reasons even unrelated to health care.

        the more people we have that change jobs frequently and have to work at more than one job and some of those jobs at small businesses that cannot afford to offer health insurance anyhow..

        the more of these people we have – the bigger demand there is going to be for health insurance that is portable and not dependent on the employer – like all the other OECD countries already have.

        “1. first it encourages people to use great gobs of medical services without regard to caring about costs”

        Yes! You got one right, Lar! It distorts use because of inaccurate/nonexistent price signals. So what’s your answer to that Lar?

        one answer is health care exchanges where people CAN CHOOSE from an array of options (unlike employer-provided) and some of those options are high deductibles – but still have routine care coverage.

        “A giant government program which DOES IT MORE. The Treasury cash burn rate once Obamascare kicks in is going to be astronomical. The cost will be horrifying.”

        is it that way in other OECD countries? Is it that way for Medicare which has much lower reimbursement rates than private options and despite claims to the contrary Medicare continues to be accepted by most physicians.

        ” “It’ll be interesting how they campaign … if they actually are going to campaign that if elected they WILL take away insurance coverage.”

        It’ll be interesting to see what’s left of the Democrat party, not that anyone will care, after Obamascare crashes and burns, which it is in the process of doing right now. ”

        oh you mean the folks who voted for Obama – that did not have insurance and now will have it will then vote for the GOP to take it back?

        “Obamascare will go down as one of the largest political and economic disasters in modern civilization, if it ever gets off the ground.”

        people who get insurance that they cannot get otherwise – from the exchanges – are going to vote for the GOP to take it away?

        you’re living in LA LA LAND BOY. You got a guy in office because the GOP was too stupid to understand that you cannot alienate great swaths of demographics and still get elected.

        they have not got any smarter judging by their actions on immigration, DOMA, etc…

        they have become the party of older white guys and they are history.

        • Oh good. More Larry horsecrap –

          “healthcare IS about politics in every single OECD countries in the world – right? Politics is how universal health care get approved…”

          Sure, and that’s exactly what shouldn’t happen. You have no right to tell me or any member of my family how we get treated, or that we must have our health insurance coverage limited (or jacked up in price), but that is exactly what just happened.

          But if you’re attempting to make Obamascare into a popularity contest, which you are, you are on the wrong side of the issue. Obamascare has been wildly unpopular since it was rammed through Congress in the dead of night, along with various bribes and backroom giveaways. It never should have been passed, idiot.

          “really? do all the other OECD countries also have the same problem since they have their version of ObamaCare also?”
          Yes, they have massive unemployment problems, and 1.5% GDP growth. Their economies are destroyed. But you’ll get your (inferior) healthcare. Don’t worry. It’ll be different here.

          “the more people we have that change jobs frequently and have to work at more than one job and some of those jobs at small businesses that cannot afford to offer health insurance anyhow.. the more of these people we have – the bigger demand there is going to be for health insurance that is portable and not dependent on the employer – like all the other OECD countries already have.”
          You mean the OECD countries whose economies are destroyed, and have 20% unemployment (some with youth unemployment rates of 50%+)? Those countries?

          Your statement is complete garbage.

          Larry, is it better to have more full-time, high-paying jobs with healthcare and a few outliers of uninsured (many by choice), or fewer low-paying jobs, most of which are part-time, and everyone covered by a deteriorating healthcare insurance and delivery system?

          You are probably too stupid to figure that out, but that is what is happening.

          By all means, let’s separate health insurance from employment, just don’t do it by killing full-time jobs, which Obamascare does, moron.

          “one answer is health care exchanges where people CAN CHOOSE from an array of options (unlike employer-provided) and some of those options are high deductibles – but still have routine care coverage.”

          You have no understanding of markets.

          The “exchanges” are government-run and government-owned, and will result in destruction of the private insurance market. Government will regulate private carriers out of existence (and is doing so already). The government option will become the best and only option for most.

          “is it that way in other OECD countries? Is it that way for Medicare which has much lower reimbursement rates than private options and despite claims to the contrary Medicare continues to be accepted by most physicians.”

          Yes it is. They don’t spend as much as we do, because they can’t. That is why clinics are closing in Britain, along with the rest of Europe, and Canadian (and other) patients continue to come to the US in droves for care.

          Medicare and is unsustainable and will implode, and this will get much, much worse under Obamascare. The cost of the Medicare expansion alone will be enormous, and many more doctors will refuse Medicare, further reducing access. This is a guaranteed outcome.

          “oh you mean the folks who voted for Obama – that did not have insurance and now will have it will then vote for the GOP to take it back?”
          See above. Obamascare is wildly unpopular, and has been since inception. A majority want it repealed.

          “people who get insurance that they cannot get otherwise – from the exchanges – are going to vote for the GOP to take it away?”
          You will find that universe of people isn’t large enough to influence an election.

          Larry, once again, you have shown yourself to be not only a fool, but an unbelievably aggressively ignorant jackass with zero understanding of economics or healthcare. Your irrational drive to control and steal healthcare access makes you incredibly dangerous.

          • “healthcare IS about politics in every single OECD countries in the world – right? Politics is how universal health care get approved…”

            Sure, and that’s exactly what shouldn’t happen. You have no right to tell me or any member of my family how we get treated, or that we must have our health insurance coverage limited (or jacked up in price), but that is exactly what just happened.

            oh but we do in a representatively-elected government.

            “But if you’re attempting to make Obamascare into a popularity contest, which you are, you are on the wrong side of the issue. Obamascare has been wildly unpopular since it was rammed through Congress in the dead of night, along with various bribes and backroom giveaways. It never should have been passed, idiot.”

            ha ha ha… looks to be about split with the edge right now to the opponents due the enormous anti propaganda campaign. But as more people actually figure out that they can get insurance at the exchanges, it’s going to go the way of Medicare which we still have opponents no question but those who favor it outnumber you.

            You mean the OECD countries whose economies are destroyed, and have 20% unemployment (some with youth unemployment rates of 50%+)? Those countries?

            you mean like Singapore, Australia, Sweden, Germany?

            “Larry, is it better to have more full-time, high-paying jobs with healthcare and a few outliers of uninsured (many by choice), or fewer low-paying jobs, most of which are part-time, and everyone covered by a deteriorating healthcare insurance and delivery system?”

            it does not work guy. you end up folks with gallon jars in 7-11 begging for help for their kids operation – and worse.

            By all means, let’s separate health insurance from employment, just don’t do it by killing full-time jobs, which Obamascare does, moron.

            Good GOD! we actually AGREE on SOMETHING.

            You have no understanding of markets.

            so sayeth Mr. Moron himself here, eh?

            “The “exchanges” are government-run and government-owned, and will result in destruction of the private insurance market. Government will regulate private carriers out of existence (and is doing so already). The government option will become the best and only option for most.”

            Meso, have you been to healthcare.gov and actually looked at the exchange? ALL the companies there are PRIVATE guy.

            “Yes it is. They don’t spend as much as we do, because they can’t. That is why clinics are closing in Britain, along with the rest of Europe, and Canadian (and other) patients continue to come to the US in droves for care.”

            they ration health care right? just like us, right? Britain IS a govt-run healthcare system but not even Margaret Thatcher would agree to kill it.

            You will find that universe of people isn’t large enough to influence an election.

            agree but combine it with the other demographics that the GOP hates and we’re in businesses.

            Larry, once again, you have shown yourself to be not only a fool, but an unbelievably aggressively ignorant jackass with zero understanding of economics or healthcare. Your irrational drive to control and steal healthcare access makes you incredibly dangerous.

            thanks Meso…

          • “oh but we do in a representatively-elected government. “

            No we do not. We protect negative rights, i.e. rights which do not infringe on the rights of others. That is what the Bill of Rights is for, and what the Constitution is entirely about.

            We do not (or at least used to not) grant positive rights, such as a mythical right to health care, because that requires imposing on/stealing from others.

            Health care is not a right. It is a service, the delivery of which does not entitle you to the labor of others, at others’ expense. That is exactly what Obamascare does.

            ” But as more people actually figure out that they can get insurance at the exchanges, it’s going to go the way of Medicare which we still have opponents no question but those who favor it outnumber you.”

            Not a chance, once the exchanges collapse (if they even get that far), and people see the price tag, and degradation of service and quality.

            “you mean like Singapore, Australia, Sweden, Germany?”

            Yes, all the above, to varying degrees, have difficulty supporting a “universal” healthcare system, and none of them have the scale of ours. The size of the US healthcare delivery and insurance system is too large to apply any existing model for coverage and care. We will find this out very quickly.

            Also, try Greece, Spain, Japan, and even France (just downgraded by Fitch to AA+ a few hours ago).

            “it does not work guy. you end up folks with gallon jars in 7-11 begging for help for their kids operation – and worse.”

            No, collectivism and socialized medicine does not work, dumbass guy, and never has. It is astonishing that even shockingly stupid people like you cannot grasp the obvious tautology that the more you redistribute, the worse things get. Health care is no different than any other industry.

            Your pathological need to do-good (perceived by you) does not override the imposition on the rest of us who do not want this disaster to be implemented. Your ignorance of current and past failed attempts only solidifies our case.

            “ALL the companies there are PRIVATE guy.”

            Go tell that to individual Aetna policyholders in CA. The fact that there are several market participants now does not mean they will stay (they won’t). Government, which is writing the rules for the exchanges, regulating them, and competing in them themselves will drive out those few private Government can do whatever it wants, and will drive other participants out of the exchanges though a combination of regulation and pricing. Government has no competition, infinite revenue via tax revenue streams, and rulemaking authority.

            You are ignorant of markets. And competition.

            “they ration health care right? just like us, right?”

            Wrong. They ration. We do not, not in the sense they do. Markets do not “ration.” And what shortfall/misallocation there is, is usually the result of market interference by government.

            You have no understanding of markets.

            “Britain IS a govt-run healthcare system but not even Margaret Thatcher would agree to kill it.”

            And they are paying the price for that stupidity now. The NHS is a shambles, and their delivery is collapsing, particularly among lower-income groups. This is apparently what you want.

            You really are a spectacular dunce. You may well be the dumbest individual of all time.

          • “No we do not. We protect negative rights, i.e. rights which do not infringe on the rights of others. That is what the Bill of Rights is for, and what the Constitution is entirely about.”

            elections win by majority vote. legislation passes by majority vote. the SCOTUS rules on majority vote.

            when you get taxed to pay for DOD – it’s not about negative rights…

            “We do not (or at least used to not) grant positive rights, such as a mythical right to health care, because that requires imposing on/stealing from others.”

            sure we do. all the time and way back when:

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Act_for_the_relief_of_sick_and_disabled_seamen

            Health care is not a right. It is a service, the delivery of which does not entitle you to the labor of others, at others’ expense. That is exactly what Obamascare does.

            So Medicare and MedicAid are unconstitutional? What about the heath care for Seamen?

            “Not a chance, once the exchanges collapse (if they even get that far), and people see the price tag, and degradation of service and quality.”

            time will tell

            “you mean like Singapore, Australia, Sweden, Germany?”

            Yes, all the above, to varying degrees, have difficulty supporting a “universal” healthcare system, and none of them have the scale of ours. The size of the US healthcare delivery and insurance system is too large to apply any existing model for coverage and care. We will find this out very quickly.”

            so the countries that will end up economically better off will be the 3rd world countries?

            Also, try Greece, Spain, Japan, and even France (just downgraded by Fitch to AA+ a few hours ago).

            “it does not work guy. you end up folks with gallon jars in 7-11 begging for help for their kids operation – and worse.”

            No, collectivism and socialized medicine does not work, dumbass guy, and never has. It is astonishing that even shockingly stupid people like you cannot grasp the obvious tautology that the more you redistribute, the worse things get. Health care is no different than any other industry.

            so health care in 3rd world countries is better?

            “Your pathological need to do-good (perceived by you) does not override the imposition on the rest of us who do not want this disaster to be implemented. Your ignorance of current and past failed attempts only solidifies our case.”

            I personally just support the will of the majority.

            “Go tell that to individual Aetna policyholders in CA. The fact that there are several market participants now does not mean they will stay (they won’t). Government, which is writing the rules for the exchanges, regulating them, and competing in them themselves will drive out those few private Government can do whatever it wants, and will drive other participants out of the exchanges though a combination of regulation and pricing. Government has no competition, infinite revenue via tax revenue streams, and rulemaking authority.”

            the point is that you are lying when you say it is govt health care. it’s not.

            the govt you moron writes rules for Medicare, MedicAid, employer-provided health care, TRICARE for the military and the VA.

            why does the govt provide health care for the military instead of just paying them money and letting them go get their own?

            why?

            You are ignorant of markets. And competition.

            nope. I believe in the real world not idiot theories.

            “they ration health care right? just like us, right?”

            “Wrong. They ration. We do not, not in the sense they do. Markets do not “ration.” And what shortfall/misallocation there is, is usually the result of market interference by government.”

            health insurance does not have plan “limits”? Medicare will pay for all the dental or optical care you want? MedicAid will buy you any kind of health care you want?

            You have no understanding of markets.

            I believe in markets but I am pragmatic about the world also. The countries that provide true free market healthcare are what? 3rd world – right?

            “Britain IS a govt-run healthcare system but not even Margaret Thatcher would agree to kill it.”

            And they are paying the price for that stupidity now. The NHS is a shambles, and their delivery is collapsing, particularly among lower-income groups. This is apparently what you want.

            You really are a spectacular dunce. You may well be the dumbest individual of all time.

            Oh SHTFU you moron.

          • Confirmed.
            You are the dumbest person ever to have existed.

            “elections win by majority vote. legislation passes by majority vote. the SCOTUS rules on majority vote.”

            No. You cannot pass legislation which inflicts hardship, violence, or duty on others, even by majority. That used to be prohibited. That is (one reason) why Obamascare is flatly unconstitutional, irrespective of how the SC ruled.

            The Constitution guards against the tyranny of the majority, which you support. In this case, however, only a shrinking minority of clueless people, including you, support Obamascare, so it does not even have that going for it.

            “So Medicare and MedicAid are unconstitutional? What about the heath [sic] care for Seamen?”

            Medicare & Medicaid are designed to supplement private insurance. Participation is not mandatory (care for Seamen was not mandatory – you didn’t have to be a Seaman, and you didn’t have to come into port where it was required). Obamascare participation is.

            so the countries that will end up economically better off will be the 3rd world countries?

            Non sequitur. Name any country who has implemented large-scale (200 mm people+) universal healthcare successfully.

            I personally just support the will of the majority.

            No, you support the tyranny of the majority. This country does not operate solely on that principle, dumbass

            http://xroads.virginia.edu/~Hyper/DETOC/1_ch15.htm

            the point is that you are lying when you say it is govt health care. it’s not.

            No, the point is that you are so abjectly, completely, and totally ignorant of economics that you cannot see the logical outcome (and rank hypocrisy) of government-run “exchanges.” They will result in full government takeover, possibly sooner than expected if the exchanges continue to have extreme difficulty in setup.

            Larry, I seriously congratulate you for being the dumbest person ever to have existed (to date). You are a shining example of obtuseness, wretched and arrogant ignorance (h/t Vangel), and general complete lack of understanding and ability to reason, paired with a sniveling and unjustified pathological need to control others. It takes serious effort – and years of willful ignorance and self-deception – to reach your stratospheric level of dysfunction and error.

            You, sir, in short, are one dumb piece of shit.

          • Confirmed.
            You are the dumbest person ever to have existed.

            well confirmed. I align with the majority – in this country and in every other OECD country – and you?

            “elections win by majority vote. legislation passes by majority vote. the SCOTUS rules on majority vote.”

            No. You cannot pass legislation which inflicts hardship, violence, or duty on others, even by majority. That used to be prohibited. That is (one reason) why Obamascare is flatly unconstitutional, irrespective of how the SC ruled.

            who decides what “inflicts hardship” – you and your band of faux libertarian idiots?

            here’s what Thomas Jefferson said about it nimrod:

            ” 8. Majority Rule

            The only way a republican government can function, and the only way a people’s voice can be expressed to effect a practicable control of government, is through a process in which decisions are made by the majority. This is not a perfect way of controlling government, but the alternatives–decisions made by a minority, or by one person–are even worse and are the source of great evil. To be just, majority decisions must be in the best interest of all the people, not just one faction.”

            http://www.famguardian.org/Subjects/Politics/ThomasJefferson/jeff0500.htm

            so according to you TJ is a moron, right?

            “The Constitution guards against the tyranny of the majority, which you support. In this case, however, only a shrinking minority of clueless people, including you, support Obamascare, so it does not even have that going for it.”

            it does it in some specific and particulars ways guy NOT the way you think. I support the Constitution and I support the ways the Constitution protects the minorities and I totally reject idiot interpretations.

            “So Medicare and MedicAid are unconstitutional? What about the heath [sic] care for Seamen?”

            Medicare & Medicaid are designed to supplement private insurance. Participation is not mandatory (care for Seamen was not mandatory – you didn’t have to be a Seaman, and you didn’t have to come into port where it was required). Obamascare participation is.

            they are SUPPLEMENTAL? are you for real guy? they are PRIMARY for MOST that have it in part because they cannot find private insurance that provides what Medicare and MedicAid provide.

            The Seaman law? same as ObamaCare – if you don’t want to live here or come into port – yes – otherwise… what the heck are you saying?

            “so the countries that will end up economically better off will be the 3rd world countries?

            Non sequitur. Name any country who has implemented large-scale (200 mm people+) universal healthcare successfully.”

            name the countries that have not and as a direct result are better off… which you say they should be – right?

            I personally just support the will of the majority.

            No, you support the tyranny of the majority. This country does not operate solely on that principle, dumbass

            http://xroads.virginia.edu/~Hyper/DETOC/1_ch15.htm

            I support what Thomas Jefferson said…

            the point is that you are lying when you say it is govt health care. it’s not.

            No, the point is that you are so abjectly, completely, and totally ignorant of economics that you cannot see the logical outcome (and rank hypocrisy) of government-run “exchanges.” They will result in full government takeover, possibly sooner than expected if the exchanges continue to have extreme difficulty in setup.

            no – the point is that you are calling Thomas Jefferson an idiot.

            Larry, I seriously congratulate you for being the dumbest person ever to have existed (to date). You are a shining example of obtuseness, wretched and arrogant ignorance (h/t Vangel), and general complete lack of understanding and ability to reason, paired with a sniveling and unjustified pathological need to control others. It takes serious effort – and years of willful ignorance and self-deception – to reach your stratospheric level of dysfunction and error.

            You, sir, in short, are one dumb piece of shit.

            as is Thomas Jefferson according to you… because I hold his views… go look at the link to see the rest of his views.

          • As always, Jefferson didn’t say what you think he said.

            Neither did Madison, and neither did Tocqueville, et al. You are misinterpreting the Constitution and the founders’ intent, not us.

            Larry, listening to you misinterpret Jefferson is a little like listening to a child try to explain quantum mechanics and a unified field theory. You have the cognitive ability of very small rocks.

            Further, you are not the majority, Larry. The majority wants Obamascare gone. Get that thru your skull.

            “who decides what “inflicts hardship”

            The Supreme Court is supposed to decide that, and has now completely abandoned its charge. This has occurred over time, and the Obamascare ruling was not the first erosion of individual rights by an out of control state, but it was the largest in 80 years.

            “it does it in some specific and particulars ways guy NOT the way you think. I support the Constitution and I support the ways the Constitution protects the minorities [sic] and I totally reject idiot interpretations.”

            No, you support cognitive bias, and ignorance. In the case of Obamascare, you can’t even make that argument in your favor, either. You are a buffoon.

            “they are SUPPLEMENTAL? are you for real guy? they are PRIMARY for MOST that have it in part because they cannot find private insurance that provides what Medicare and MedicAid provide.”

            Correct, they are now primary, but were not designed that way. The exact same thing will be true of Obamascare in 10 years (possibly less). Thanks for making my case.

            “The Seaman law? same as ObamaCare”

            Wrong.

            http://www.volokh.com/2012/04/22/hamburger-responds-to-elhauge/

            [Larry is incapable of understanding that argument, but for others, it may be instructional.]

            “name the countries that have not and as a direct result are better off… which you say they should be – right?”
            The US. Now you name the countries who are better off with socialized medicine.

            “I support what Thomas Jefferson said… “

            No, you misunderstand what Jefferson, Madison, Tocqueville, and others have said about majorities and their propensity for tyranny, because you are incapable of understanding the material, just as you are entirely unable to understand economics. As we have said, you are The Dumbest Person Ever to Exist (so far).

            Exceptional dumbshitting, Larry, as usual. Every time you post something, you cement yourself in the Moron Hall of Fame.

          • As always, Jefferson didn’t say what you think he said.

            Neither did Madison, and neither did Tocqueville, et al. You are misinterpreting the Constitution and the founders’ intent, not us.

            Larry, listening to you misinterpret Jefferson is a little like listening to a child try to explain quantum mechanics and a unified field theory. You have the cognitive ability of very small rocks.

            Oh I don’t think so Meso. We do vote representatives by majority vote. They do pass legislation by majority vote and the SCOTUS decides Constitutionality by majority vote. Do you not believe that?

            “Further, you are not the majority, Larry. The majority wants Obamascare gone. Get that thru your skull.”

            what I said was I support the majority’s will and if that will is to get rid of ObamaCare so be it – but I have my doubts that it’s not more a split than a solid majority – especially as time goes by and people get insurance that did not have it.

            “who decides what “inflicts hardship”

            The Supreme Court is supposed to decide that, and has now completely abandoned its charge. This has occurred over time, and the Obamascare ruling was not the first erosion of individual rights by an out of control state, but it was the largest in 80 years. ”

            but it’s working as designed by the forefathers guy. Are you saying that 200 years of SCOTUS have failed ? How could that be if that’s how the Constitution defined their role?

            “they are SUPPLEMENTAL? are you for real guy? they are PRIMARY for MOST that have it in part because they cannot find private insurance that provides what Medicare and MedicAid provide.”

            Correct, they are now primary, but were not designed that way. The exact same thing will be true of Obamascare in 10 years (possibly less). Thanks for making my case.

            Medicare and MedicAid were designed to be supplementary? My impression was they were created because those people could not get insurance at all.
            got any cites?

            “The Seaman law? same as ObamaCare”

            Wrong.

            http://www.volokh.com/2012/04/22/hamburger-responds-to-elhauge/

            a bunch of wackos who disagree with Congress and the SCOTUS?

            are you denying that the law was passed, found Constitutional and implemented?

            [Larry is incapable of understanding that argument, but for others, it may be instructional.]

            the only thing “instructional” here is how you construct your own world of beliefs no matter what history shows and reality is

            “name the countries that have not and as a direct result are better off… which you say they should be – right?”
            The US. Now you name the countries who are better off with socialized medicine.

            “I support what Thomas Jefferson said… “

            No, you misunderstand what Jefferson, Madison, Tocqueville, and others have said about majorities and their propensity for tyranny, because you are incapable of understanding the material, just as you are entirely unable to understand economics. As we have said, you are The Dumbest Person Ever to Exist (so far).

            I’m the only one? All those SCOTUS and all of our majority vote elections and all the laws we pass by majority vote?

            are all those laws passed by majority vote – illegal?

            apparently you deny the existence of Congress which was voted by a majority and all the laws they pass by majority vote?

            and when pointed out to you all you can do is stutter about morons?

            ;-) you’re messed up something fierce boy.

          • You are incredibly confused.

            “but it’s working as designed by the forefathers guy.”

            LMGDFAO

            You just jumped into the Galactic Moron Hall of Fame with that one.

            No it isn’t, idiot guy.

            Where do “the forefathers” envision a massive bloated government bureaucracy, passed by a single party having to armtwist and bribe the swing votes IN THEIR OWN PARTY, in the dead of night, against the clear wishes of the majority?

            “what I said was I support the majority’s will and if that will is to get rid of ObamaCare so be it”

            But if the majority doesn’t want Obamascare, and Obamascare was enacted against their wishes (it was), how can the system possibly be “working as designed by the forefathers”?

            Also, I expect you to keep your yap shut about the House trying to repeal Obamascare 37 times (or whatever it is), since that clearly is the will of their constituents, and the country, if polls are correct.

            The rest of your tripe doesn’t deserve response.

          • You are incredibly confused.

            “but it’s working as designed by the forefathers guy.”

            LMGDFAO

            You just jumped into the Galactic Moron Hall of Fame with that one.

            No it isn’t, idiot guy.

            Where do “the forefathers” envision a massive bloated government bureaucracy, passed by a single party having to armtwist and bribe the swing votes IN THEIR OWN PARTY, in the dead of night, against the clear wishes of the majority?

            it’s working in terms of the intended majority vote concept.

            you may have other problems.. eh?

            but you’re confusing different things as per your usual wacked out thinking.

            ” “what I said was I support the majority’s will and if that will is to get rid of ObamaCare so be it”

            But if the majority doesn’t want Obamascare, and Obamascare was enacted against their wishes (it was), how can the system possibly be “working as designed by the forefathers”? ”

            it’s not “mob rule”. it takes time for change to occur – per their design.

            “Also, I expect you to keep your yap shut about the House trying to repeal Obamascare 37 times (or whatever it is), since that clearly is the will of their constituents, and the country, if polls are correct.”

            it’s “working” according the design guy. It’s got to pass both houses and get signed by the POTUS – and that’s AFTER it WAS found to be Constitutional!

            ObamaCare is going to end up like MediCare where the same wacked-out opponents vociferously opposed with hate and fear mongering propaganda, but after it was enacted – people loved it.

            The REALLY FUNNY Thing is the US govt operates the VA and TRICARE for the military.

            In both cases, they could just give money to the soldiers and let them go get their own health care – but they don’t – and not a single one of those who oppose ObamaCare have proposed to get rid of the “terrible govt-run VA” and just give veterans the money instead.

            hypocrites… one and all.. if they truly believed in the free market – they’d start with the VA and TRICARE but they really don’t believe in the free market. They just don’t want ordinary citizens to get what the govt gives to the military for free.

          • “it’s working in terms of the intended majority vote concept.
            you may have other problems.. eh?”

            Um, Lar, we’ve already established beyond any doubt that you are dumber than nearly all life forms, anywhere, at any time.

            Now, how is passing the largest change to any national system in 80 years against the will of the majority BY THEIR ELECTED OFFICIALS “working”?

            I’m going to ask you this again: How is this possibly working if the majority of the people never wanted it in the first place, and continue to oppose it?

            Please, for one lucid second, if you are capable of such a thing, try to answer this question in the context of your (incorrect) belief. There are a couple of possible answers, but I want you to come up with one first.

            The rest of your response is jibberish.

          • “it’s working in terms of the intended majority vote concept.
            you may have other problems.. eh?”

            Um, Lar, we’ve already established beyond any doubt that you are dumber than nearly all life forms, anywhere, at any time.

            for explaining to you how majority vote works in the US?

            jeeze guy…

            “Now, how is passing the largest change to any national system in 80 years against the will of the majority BY THEIR ELECTED OFFICIALS “working”?

            I’m going to ask you this again: How is this possibly working if the majority of the people never wanted it in the first place, and continue to oppose it?”

            then why did they elected Obama who PROMISED to do it? was that dumb or what? or did a majority vote that way on purpose guy?

            so maybe people THOUGHT they wanted it…voted for Obama and then changed their mind but then in 2012, they still could not vote him out and then the SCOTUS agreed it was Constitutional?

            it’s still playing out guy but I’d not bet that it goes away even if the GOP gets back in… they have to come up with something to replace it – that people want – and so far they’re such a mess they cannot even agree among themselves on what to do.

            thems the facts guy.

          • Clearly that was too much to ask of you.

            Ok fine, idiot, here you go:

            1. The system isn’t working. Correct answer. More correctly, representatives were bribed and cajoled into approving it. That, and the fact that no Repugs voted for it destroys any legitimacy Obamascare has. It was a partisan action.
            2. Change, and time – you did touch on this, but provided insufficient detail. The entire answer is that Obamascare will take time to impact people enough for them to make that change, when it will be too late.
            3. The system is working, primarily for entitlement whores, their reps, and select political patrons of this administration (fascism). Also acceptable.

            Now, why is answer #2 bad?

            Because it is extremely difficult to reverse course after building the massive bureaucracy required for Obamascare We were committed the day it was approved. And fixing it will likely result in even worse calamity.

            Obamascare was approved against the wishes of the majority. That is why 2010 was a bloodbath for Dems, and 2014 may well be another one. But it is too late, we are committed now to either Obamscare or single-payer, both of which will be far, far inferior to what we had

            No, people don’t “need” to come up with an alternative – the existing alternative was working, and can be improved by increasing market-based pricing and information, and reducing government interference. Obamascare does the exact opposite, and will fail.

            Them’s the facts, dumbass.

          • 1. The system isn’t working. Correct answer. More correctly, representatives were bribed and cajoled into approving it. That, and the fact that no Repugs voted for it destroys any legitimacy Obamascare has. It was a partisan action.

            Indeed! it walked and talked JUST LIKE Medicare Part D and Tom Delay’s tactics!

            2. Change, and time – you did touch on this, but provided insufficient detail. The entire answer is that Obamascare will take time to impact people enough for them to make that change, when it will be too late.

            if they sign up for insurance in the exchanges in the next 18 months ….

            3. The system is working, primarily for entitlement whores, their reps, and select political patrons of this administration (fascism). Also acceptable.

            just like Medicare Part D – right?

            Now, why is answer #2 bad?

            Because it is extremely difficult to reverse course after building the massive bureaucracy required for Obamascare We were committed the day it was approved. And fixing it will likely result in even worse calamity.

            see.. the GOP had a golden opportunity to do health care reform “right” when they had a majority of both houses and the POTUS and what did the morons do? they squandered it on yet another entitlement program!

            “Obamascare was approved against the wishes of the majority. That is why 2010 was a bloodbath for Dems, and 2014 may well be another one. But it is too late, we are committed now to either Obamscare or single-payer, both of which will be far, far inferior to what we had

            hard to cal 2012 a bloodbath though… the perfect chance to get rid of the author of the hated ObamaCare and the GOP failed to present a competitive alternative and went down to defeat they deserved. All talk no action since 1993! The GOP are epic losers on health reform!

            “No, people don’t “need” to come up with an alternative – the existing alternative was working,”

            working? only according to the most dumb of the dumb.

            ” and can be improved by increasing market-based pricing and information, and reducing government interference.”

            which the GOP FAILED to make a case for.. since 1993

            “Obamascare does the exact opposite, and will fail.”

            only if the GOP gets off their fat butts and proposes something better.. and that ain’t going to happen.

            these guys are lazy, incompetent fat asses when it comes to real issues.. like immigration , like health care…they are incapable of even finding compromise among themselves!

            the GOP is a grand maul cluster f_ck.

          • Your posts are bonanzas of faulty logic and poor grammar and usage, but a few items from your latest masterpiece:

            if they sign up for insurance in the exchanges in the next 18 months ….

            No, everyone is subject to the law now, and it impacts everyone directly or indirectly, indirectly if your plan changed (ours did), or directly if you go to these mythical exchanges yet to appear.

            “just like Medicare Part D – right?”
            “see.. the GOP had a golden opportunity to do health care reform “right” when they had a majority of both houses and the POTUS and what did the morons do? they squandered it on yet another entitlement program!”

            Giving away free stuff always wins. Until it results in a disastrous outcome, like Obamascare.

            Again, what someone does or does not do in advance of a poor action in no way impacts the legitimacy of the secondary action. Lack of Repug action in no way gives Democrats the right to pass something they apparently want, but which impacts everyone negatively.

            That is tyranny of the majority. That is why the Democrat party is dangerous.

            “hard to cal [sic] 2012 a bloodbath though… the perfect chance to get rid of the author of the hated ObamaCare and the GOP failed to present a competitive alternative and went down to defeat they deserved. All talk no action since 1993! The GOP are epic losers on health reform!”

            Completely irrelevant. The only people worse are Democrats. And Repugs did pass Part D, which you both despise, and celebrate, in various commentary here and elsewhere. Strange. So you cannot call them completely “all talk and no action.”

            Larry, you have a fascinating semi-conscious stream to your commentary. I’m wondering, how many traumatic brain injuries have you had?

          • Your posts are bonanzas of faulty logic and poor grammar and usage, but a few items from your latest masterpiece:

            if they sign up for insurance in the exchanges in the next 18 months ….

            No, everyone is subject to the law now, and it impacts everyone directly or indirectly, indirectly if your plan changed (ours did), or directly if you go to these mythical exchanges yet to appear.

            you can sign up now.. in some places.. people without insurance are going to sign up.

            ““just like Medicare Part D – right?”
            “see.. the GOP had a golden opportunity to do health care reform “right” when they had a majority of both houses and the POTUS and what did the morons do? they squandered it on yet another entitlement program!”

            Giving away free stuff always wins. Until it results in a disastrous outcome, like Obamascare.”

            no… people LOVE Medicare… no disaster.. just good stuff!

            “Again, what someone does or does not do in advance of a poor action in no way impacts the legitimacy of the secondary action. Lack of Repug action in no way gives Democrats the right to pass something they apparently want, but which impacts everyone negatively.”

            when you do NOTHING.. it begets bad stuff.

            “That is tyranny of the majority. That is why the Democrat party is dangerous.”

            bullfeathers.. that’s your excuse whenever you lose – no such complaint when the GOP banged Medicare Part D or Bush did his stuff… just silence.

            The GOP are epic losers on health reform!”

            Completely irrelevant. The only people worse are Democrats. And Repugs did pass Part D, which you both despise, and celebrate, in various commentary here and elsewhere. Strange. So you cannot call them completely “all talk and no action.”

            nope.. there needs to be action and the GOP are slugs. they had perfect opportunity to do something that would preempt ObamaCare and they are so incompetent they could not even agree on what to do other than push through yet another taxpayer-funded entitlement.

            “Larry, you have a fascinating semi-conscious stream to your commentary. I’m wondering, how many traumatic brain injuries have you had?”

            geeze guy.. you are pitifully pathetic..no wonder you boys lose every time! when are ya’ll going to win one?

          • Just a few from this one –

            “people LOVE Medicare… no disaster.. just good stuff!”

            That’s right Lar, Medicare’s just a big black box you get your healthcare from, right? Nothing wrong with that box at all….

            http://www.zerohedge.com/news/spot-unsustainable-entitlement

            [That’s using conservative estimates]

            Medicare is toast. You won’t be around much longer, so you don’t care. Parasite.

            “when you do NOTHING.. it begets bad stuff.”
            “ nope.. there needs to be action and the GOP are slugs.”

            Wrong. We got to this point because fools like you “did stuff.”

            Lar, offensively stupid people like you should at least admit that you are the reason we’re in trouble. That would be the polite thing to do.

          • Just a few from this one –

            “people LOVE Medicare… no disaster.. just good stuff!”

            That’s right Lar, Medicare’s just a big black box you get your healthcare from, right? Nothing wrong with that box at all….”

            and look what happened when Ryan said “change it”.

            http://www.zerohedge.com/news/spot-unsustainable-entitlement

            zerohedge is no credible site guy.. they’re totally wacko.

            [That’s using conservative estimates]…

            naw.. they’re using BOGUS estimates…

            “Medicare is toast. You won’t be around much longer, so you don’t care. Parasite.”

            ha ha ha… keep thinking that nimrod… you’re going to be on Medicare…. yourself…!

            “when you do NOTHING.. it begets bad stuff.”
            “ nope.. there needs to be action and the GOP are slugs.”

            Wrong. We got to this point because fools like you “did stuff.”

            nope. we have a problem. even you admit that. but the GOP is so feckless that they cannot get their act together to do ANYTHING. it’s all “ideas” but when it comes time to draft legislation – they’re a bunch of idiots.

            “Lar, offensively stupid people like you should at least admit that you are the reason we’re in trouble. That would be the polite thing to do.”

            Oh Meso.. you’re so pathetic boy. you Libs are so loony that you have no impact on elections at all.. you’re a joke.

          • You do have a sense of humor –

            “zerohedge is no credible site guy.. they’re totally wacko.”

            Says the wacko.

            Lar, the source is CBO. Read the chart.

            Medicare is toast. Your head is jammed in your ass, but again, you won’t be around much longer. Parasite.

            “you Libs are so loony …”

            Wait, I thought you thought I was Repug? I’m a liberal?

            Lar, get those meds going, chief. Time for your nap.

          • You do have a sense of humor –

            “zerohedge is no credible site guy.. they’re totally wacko.”

            Says the wacko.

            ZH has no “about” – they have a “manifesto”.

            it’s loony tunes…

            Lar, the source is CBO. Read the chart.

            nope… ZH and others do not use the SAME CRITERIA when talking about Medicare compared to to other spending.

            Medicare has a 75-year financial horizon. What does DOD have? Medicare Part A is limited by law to not pay out more than FICA brings in. How is DOD limited?

            Medicare Part B spends about 210 billion and is totally voluntary. The govt can charge whatever they want for it because it is not mandated. Who decides what the limits are to DOD?

            the whole thing is totally bogus..

            “Medicare is toast. Your head is jammed in your ass, but again, you won’t be around much longer. Parasite.

            “you Libs are so loony …”

            Wait, I thought you thought I was Repug? I’m a liberal?

            Lar, get those meds going, chief. Time for your nap.”

            you’re a “liberal” Meso? bahahhahahahah .. you’re a loon boy.

          • Absolutely fascinating –

            “ZH has no “about” – they have a “manifesto”. “

            Good point Lar. I’m convinced.

            “nope… ZH and others do not use the SAME CRITERIA when talking about Medicare compared to to [sic] other spending.”

            Excellent point. Do you have the complete list of the NON-SAME-CRITERIA users in this conspiracy? I bet its huge. And Merrill was on that chart, too. They’re part of that conspiracy.

            “Medicare has a 75-year financial horizon”

            Good for them. Pretty sure you don’t.

            .” What does DOD have?”

            Um, a pony?

            “Medicare Part A is limited by law to not pay out more than FICA brings in. “

            Fascinating.

            “How is DOD limited?”

            Their pony can’t fly?

            “Medicare Part B spends about 210 billion and is totally voluntary.”

            Interesting. Once Obamascare goes fully live, and Mediscare expands, will it still be voluntary? And will it always only spend $210 billion?

            “The govt can charge whatever they want for it because it is not mandated. “

            Oh, but government prices are mandated? You say they can charge whatever they want, so if they start charging too little, what happens then? And what happens to the delta (that’s difference, Lar) between costs and whatever the government wants to charge?

            “Who decides what the limits are to DOD?”

            Um, Alex Trebek. No, wait! Lady Gaga.

            “the whole thing is totally bogus..”

            I agree, your analysis is a little off kilter, but what does any of this have to do with unsustainable Medicare, which is unsustainable, and toast?

            http://www.fms.treas.gov/fr/12frusg/12frusg.pdf

            “you’re a “liberal” Meso? Bahahhahahahah”

            You said it Lar, not me – hahahahaha, I guess…..?

            “you Libs are so loony …”

            I knew you had hidden talent somewhere, Lar. This is comedy gold….

          • Absolutely fascinating –

            “ZH has no “about” – they have a “manifesto”. “

            Good point Lar. I’m convinced.

            “nope… ZH and others do not use the SAME CRITERIA when talking about Medicare compared to to [sic] other spending.”

            Excellent point. Do you have the complete list of the NON-SAME-CRITERIA users in this conspiracy? I bet its huge. And Merrill was on that chart, too. They’re part of that conspiracy.

            naw.. it’s easy.. they have a clear agenda…

            ” “Medicare has a 75-year financial horizon”

            Good for them. Pretty sure you don’t.

            .” What does DOD have?”

            Um, a pony?”

            correct answer – not a 75 year time horizon – not for the DOD, not for TRICARE, not for the VA.

            you’ve never answered my question as to why the military does no give their folks money to go find their own insurance. why don’t they?

            ” “Medicare Part A is limited by law to not pay out more than FICA brings in. “

            Fascinating.

            “How is DOD limited?”

            Their pony can’t fly?”

            correct answer that Zero Hedge ignores – no limits.

            ” “Medicare Part B spends about 210 billion and is totally voluntary.”

            Interesting. Once Obamascare goes fully live, and Mediscare expands, will it still be voluntary? And will it always only spend $210 billion?”

            it will still be voluntary for sure. what it will spend is determined by Congress… same as DOD.

            “The govt can charge whatever they want for it because it is not mandated. “

            Oh, but government prices are mandated? You say they can charge whatever they want, so if they start charging too little, what happens then? And what happens to the delta (that’s difference, Lar) between costs and whatever the government wants to charge? ”

            same thing that happens when DOD charges too little for TRICARE and the VA and/or DOD spends more than they figured, eh?

            ” “Who decides what the limits are to DOD?”

            Um, Alex Trebek. No, wait! Lady Gaga.

            “the whole thing is totally bogus..” ”

            wrong. it’s the very SAME Congress that does Medicare than ZH chooses to ignore.

            ‘I agree, your analysis is a little off kilter, but what does any of this have to do with unsustainable Medicare, which is unsustainable, and toast?”

            the “unsustainability” of Medicare is a gnat on a dogs butt compared to the spending on National Defense which exceeds 1.2 trillion.

            http://www.fms.treas.gov/fr/12frusg/12frusg.pdf

            you should look at page 56 to see how much we take in – in income taxes – because that’s what we have available for spending…. for DOD, National Defense and entitlements. What percent would you say that DOD/National Defense should get?

            “you’re a “liberal” Meso? Bahahhahahahah”

            You said it Lar, not me – hahahahaha, I guess…..?

            “you Libs are so loony …”

            I knew you had hidden talent somewhere, Lar. This is comedy gold

            a liberal? Jesus H Keeeerist!

            if you’re a liberal.. jesus…

            did you vote for Obama?

            :-)

          • This is priceless stuff Lar –

            “you’ve never answered my question as to why the military does no give their folks money to go find their own insurance. why don’t they?”

            I no know you asked me that. I don’t kno.

            “correct answer that Zero Hedge ignores – no limits.”

            Ah, got it, ok. They ignore that the DOD pony can’t fly above 50 ft.

            “it will still be voluntary for sure. what it will spend is determined by Congress… same as DOD. “

            Gotcha. Your track record here is significant. Congress is the perfect transparent budgetary body to decide what my doctor can do for/to me. I have no problem with that at all, and I’m sure no one else does either.

            “same thing that happens when DOD charges too little for TRICARE and the VA and/or DOD spends more than they figured, eh?”

            I see. So that couldn’t happen with Mediscare, or Obamascare, could it? Running up enormous shortfalls due to improper pricing, inefficiency, and waste?

            Nah, government is highly efficient and transparent. You’re right. Besides, Medicare, what’s not to like?! Remember what happened when Ryan tried to change it?

            “wrong. it’s the very SAME Congress that does Medicare than ZH chooses to ignore.”

            Oh, that’s right, that’s part of the conspiracy – ignore Congress. Forgot, sorry.

            Larry, you called me a lib, I copied that from your post here –

            http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/07/what-goldman-sachs-says-about-obamacare-and-the-rise-of-part-time-america/comment-page-1/#comment-295878

            I can’t take credit for that, but it was hilarious.

            I mean this Lar, this is brilliant stuff. Massive conspiracy, limits on….….things, inaccurate inconsistent measures, fun for everyone!

            No, I didn’t vote for Obama, but I’m definitely going to do so next time!

          • “you’ve never answered my question as to why the military does no give their folks money to go find their own insurance. why don’t they?”

            I no know you asked me that. I don’t kno.

            what’s your VIEW your opinion?

            Ah, got it, ok. They ignore that the DOD pony can’t fly above 50 ft.

            I dunno.. is Zero Hedge worried about spending ?

            “Congress is the perfect transparent budgetary body to decide what my doctor can do for/to me. I have no problem with that at all, and I’m sure no one else does either.”

            works for Medicare…. and Europe and Asia!

            I see. So that couldn’t happen with Mediscare, or Obamascare, could it? Running up enormous shortfalls due to improper pricing, inefficiency, and waste?

            oh it might but it also happens to DOD health care!

            Oh, that’s right, that’s part of the conspiracy – ignore Congress. Forgot, sorry.

            did Ryan propose to give DOD civilian and military “vouchers” like he did for Medicare?

            Larry, you called me a lib, I copied that from your post here –

            I did? … holy bat crap!

            Lord. Lord. Meso.

          • Excellent responses, Lar. Wow.

            Just kidding. I was funnin’ with ya a bit, tho you did call me a lib (you meant libertarian, and used the wrong truncation).

            Your responses above indicate intense confusion and bizarre associative thinking, in addition to near total economic ignorance, along with ignorance of almost everything else. Complete nonsense, with conviction. Very impressive.

            You truly are one of the dumbest life forms in the universe. See ya, King Ignoramus.

  4. I would suggest that looking at the time line Otrauma care has led to a steady state of part time work orientation on the part of employers. By this time in a financial crisis that we had in 07/ 08 and 09 the full time trend ought to be heading up and the part timers down – instead we have stasis at just about the time that our buddy got inaugurated in 09. The gap remains huge with both the part time line and the full time line drifting along as it were. This will not change as this travesty of our Republic is enacted now in 2015.

    • re: part-time

      none the less… regardless of reason… the trend to part-time work is going to leave more and more people without employer-provided insurance….

      and ObamaCare will become the insurance provider of last resort…

      in a way – getting the employers out of health insurance will have positive effects:

      1. – it will dampen the trend that those who have it, use it no matter the costs – they don’t care what procedures costs as long as they are covered and it’s skyrocketing the cost of care for everyone.

      2. – it will give employers many more options to choose from rather than just the employer-provided option which may be too expensive and have too much coverage for many.

      3. – the real biggie is portable health insurance that goes with you no matter where you work – no matter how many times you move or change jobs and no matter if you work multiple part time jobs or one job.

      you will have coverage – and no longer will you be worried about taking a job that does not offer health insurance.

      people will have many more options for employment and employers will have to compete for workers with something other than health insurance.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>