The economic genius of the DUmp on display.

[Carl]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027217817

Thu Oct 1, 2015, 03:05 AM

LAGC (5,103 posts)

WOO-HOO! For the First Time, My Healthcare Premiums Are Going DOWN!
So it's October 1, which means the 2016 Obamacare rate schedules are out on the Idaho exchange.

After hearing all the horror stories about how the plans were bleeding money and to expect big premium rate increases again this year, I was bracing for the worst. Well, guess what? For the same Blue Cross Silver Choice 4000 PPO plan I've had since March 2014 with a $0 deductible and $1000 max out-of-pocket, with my same base income of $12,000/year (working part-time while attending school full-time at age 38 -- yeah, I know, better late than never, right?) instead of paying $70.33 per month for my premium, it dropped down to $65.28/month!

Granted, it's not going down by much, but its a hell of a good sign that it isn't still increasing astronomically year after year, after jumping from $26.27/mo. in 2014 clear up to $70.33/mo. in 2015. Well, technically the raw premium still is, so we still need to do something to reign in the overall growth of healthcare costs in general, but at least if the advance tax credits keep up -- $254/month for 2016 vs. $183/month for 2015 all things being equal -- at least the bite will be mitigated somewhat...

 

This is why we call you DUmbasses.

[USA4ME]

From $26.27/mo in 2014 to $70.22/mo in 2015 to $65.26/mo in 2016.

And the same policy was likely cheaper than $26.27 prior to Obamacare.

Yeah, you liberals are all about as sharp as a spoon.

.

[Carl]

From $26.27/mo in 2014 to $70,22 in 2015 to $65.26/mo in 2016.

And the same policy was likely cheaper than $26.27 prior to Obamacare.

Yeah, you liberals are all about as sharp as a spoon.

.

With an additional 71.00 of welfare money going towards it to reduce the payment by 5 dollars.
A bargain at any price.

[VelvetElvis]

All the while the DUmmie is ignoring the fact that it has absolutely no control whatsoever of his "healthcare" status. So it worked out "OK" this year? Just wait. It is completely at the mercy of some faceless bureaucrat's whim of the moment, who in turn can be steamrolled by the Bamster's political need-de-jour if it suits his majesty's fancy.

If these same toads decide that LAGC's premiums need to triple next week, what can it do about it? Squat! It's ability to go look for cheaper better options died in the middle of the night in December 2010, along with the rest of ours.

And if it does happen? **** him and anyone who looks like him for supporting this crap and ruining it for the rest of the country along the way.

[DumbAss Tanker]

Sounds like the government is picking up close to 80% of the actual tab via the tax credit, and the only reason his net payment went down is because the credit went up by more than the insurance did.  Of course, with a DUmmie, the remaining fraction he actually pays probably traces back to some other welfare or similar benefit anyway.

[JohnnyReb]

The DUmmies cost went down but the taxpayers cost went up.

[obumazombie]

When it comes to economics, are DUmmies/libs/progs ignorant, or liars...

Many people argue that liberals, socialists and progressives do not understand basic economics.
I am not totally convinced about that.

Take the law of demand, for example, one of the fundamental principles of economics.
It holds that the lower the cost of something the more people will take or do of it.

Conversely, the higher the cost the less people will take or do something.
By their actions, liberals fully understand the law of demand.

Let's look at some proof.

The Seattle City Council voted unanimously to establish a tax on gun and ammunition sales.
Hillary Clinton has called for a 25 percent tax on gun sales.

In Chicago, Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle proposed "violence taxes" on bullets to discourage criminals from buying guns.
Let's ignore the merit of these measures.

They do show that gun grabbers acknowledge the law of demand.
They want fewer gun sales and thus propose raising the cost of guns.

NBCBLK contributor Danielle Moodie-Mills said, "We need to stop misgendering people in the media, and there needs to be some type of fine that's put into place for
... media outlets
... that decide that they're just not going to call people by their name."

What Moodie-Mills wants is for us to be obliged, if a man says he's a woman, to address him as her and, if a woman says she's a man, to address her as him.
The basic point here is that Moodie-Mills acknowledges the fundamental law of demand when she calls for FCC fines for media people who "misgender" folks.

By the way, if I claimed to be the king of Siam, I wonder whether she would support my demand that I be addressed as "your majesty."

In the Ohio Legislature, Rep. Bill Patmon, a Democrat from Cleveland, introduced a bill to make it illegal to manufacture, sell or display toy guns.
The ban would apply to any toy gun that a "reasonable person" could confuse with a real one.

A $1,000 fine and up to 180 days in jail would be imposed for failure to obey the law.
That's more evidence that liberals understand the law of demand.

You want less of something?
Just raise its cost.

Even San Francisco liberals and environmentalists understand the law of demand.
They've proposed a ban that over the next four years would phase out the sale of plastic water bottles that hold 21 ounces or less in public places. Violators could face fines of up to $1,000.

Former U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu once said, "We have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe" in order to make Americans give up their "love affair with the automobile."
If gas prices rise high enough, Chu knows that Americans will drive less.

There you have it — abundant evidence that liberals, socialists and progressives understand the law of demand.
But wait a minute.
What about raising the cost of hiring workers through increases in the minimum wage?

Aaron Pacitti, Siena College professor of economics, wrote that raising the minimum wage "would reduce income inequality and poverty while boosting growth, without increasing unemployment."
The leftist Center for Economic and Policy Research has written a paper whose title tells it all:



"Why Does the Minimum Wage Have No Discernible Effect on Employment?"
The U.S. Department of Labor has a page on its website titled "Minimum Wage Mythbusters" (http://tinyurl.com/lt47co9), which relays a message from liberal economists:
"Increases in the minimum wage have had little or no negative effect on the employment of minimum-wage workers."

What the liberals believe
— and want us to believe
— is that though an increase in the cost of anything will cause people to use less of it, labor is exempt from the law of demand.

That's like accepting the idea that the law of gravity influences the falling behavior of everything except nice people.
One would have to be a lunatic to believe either proposition.

full article...



http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/walter-e-williams/2015/09/25/liberal-reasoning-idiotic-or-just-plain-dishonest#sthash.9imJci7N.dpuf