Page 69 of 215 FirstFirst ... 1959676869707179119169 ... LastLast
Results 681 to 690 of 2145

Thread: U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

  1. #681
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:26 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,299

    Re: U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by ToastyOats View Post
    For sake of the argument, let us assume that the country actually gets to spend the $3.8 trillion requested by Obama. The last budget year (2011-2012) saw expenditures under what was projected, but sake of the argument like I said.

    Compared to what the spending was in Obama's first year in office ($3.51 trillion, and I'm being really nice since this was the actual spending for the FY2008-2009 and Obama was in office for only 9 months of said fiscal year.), no. That's an 8% increase from then to now, assuming again $3.8 trillion will be spent. Actual spending in the last full fiscal year, 2012-2013, is estimated to be $3.53 trillion according to the CBO. Unless we there's an unexpected emergency expenditure, this should hold.

    Now if we were to compare spending between Reagan's first budget and his in 1985, you get $678 billion in spending in 1981 and $852B in '84. I'm using the '84 budget vs the '12 budget for the sake of fairness and accuracy since we haven't even begun FY2013-2014.

    An 8% projected estimate under Obama according to you, 1% actual CBO estimate, vs. 21.5% actual under Reagan. If 1-8% is "ballooning", then we need to find a better word for Reagan's spending habits. Shoot, the actual raw numbers show that spending went up less under Obama compared to Reagan.

    Don't get me wrong, having said all of that lol, I think we should do more than just slow growth in expenditures. We need to cut spending in order to help reduce the deficit and Obama and Congress need to do more than they already have to peruse that goal, but Reagan's fiscal habits are not something we should follow. It would grow jobs in the public sector and we most certainly wouldn't see the decrease in government employment we have been witnessing over almost every month in the last four years, and there'd be a resulting decrease in total unemployment in the public and private markets; but, it would be fiscally irresponsible and right now would be inconceivable to see such jumps in spending pass Congress.
    Let me help you with some basics before you continue to make a fool of yourself. Budgets are blueprints for spending and the budget is for the fiscal year which begins in October and ends in September. Bush submitted a budget for fiscal year 2009 that was never passed by Congress but was signed by Obama in March of 2009. The budget submitted was for 3.0 trillion dollars and Bush was in office from October 1, 2008 to January 20, 2009. That budget did not include the 700 billion TARP bill which was a loan although classified an expense and charged against the 2009 deficit. That loan has been mostly repaid so why don't you find out where the money went. Did it go to reduce the 2009 deficit?

    Then there is the 842 billion dollar stimulus program that was proposed and signed by Obama in February 2009. Is that charged to Bush? How about the Afghanistan supplementals one of which was over 100 billion signed in June 2009, was that a Bush expense? How about the GM/Chrysler takeover by the Federal Govt. in 2009, was that a Bush expense?

    You continue to buy what you are told and even when the facts refute what you are told you continue to buy the rhetoric. Why is that? What is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty?

    Ask the American people if they care about a 1.7 trillion dollar Reagan debt over 8 years that created over 17 million jobs vs the Obama 6.2 trillion dollar debt in less than 5 years which
    has created about 300,000 jobs a year vs Reagan's 2 million a year. Which one do you think costs the most debt service which is the fourth largest budget item?

    Unfortunately you aren't alone in buying the rhetoric that you are being told but I suggest you really start doing research. I learned this from Reagan whose philosophy was "Trust but Verify" whereas most liberals today trust completely

  2. #682
    Sage
    Gimmesometruth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    US Southwest
    Last Seen
    09-13-17 @ 10:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    22,405

    Re: U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    There are very few people here with the passion that you have for supporting mediocrity and poor economic performance. Are you on the Obama or Federal Payroll? I have never seen someone so dedicated to massive expansion of the Federal Govt. all on the "promise" that costs will be contained and jobs will be created when none of that has ever happened. Now it is promoting single payer. Where are the doctors going to come from to provide those services?

    You really are very naïve and post information that doesn't tell the whole story. What good is total access if you cannot find a doctor? What good is access if the waiting period is so long that you aren't assured of prompt treatment for your ailments?

    Why do you continue to buy what you are told but never do any followup research. MA medical expenses are the highest in the nation, access is available but service is poor, there is a shortage of doctors and a massive outreach to attract doctors to the state which isn't working.

    I realize that nothing anyone says is going to get through to you but your support for liberalism and their promises is misguided at best and borders on total and complete ignorance of reality.

    http://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files....13/01/8311.pdf
    LOL!!!!

    The Kaiser report shows how overall the system has done what it set out to do, and costs have already started to be contained.

    Besides, this is an expansion of PRIVATE INSURANCE.....for like the millionth time already.
    Quote Originally Posted by trouble13 View Post
    If you wanna know why Trumpsters are ignoring you its for the same reason you ignored the KKKs complaints about Obama.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
    When it comes down to it, all facts are cherry picked.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    He didn't say it didn't make sense. He said it is complete nonsense.

  3. #683
    Sage
    Gimmesometruth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    US Southwest
    Last Seen
    09-13-17 @ 10:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    22,405

    Re: U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    What a crock! ER use was not even mentioned. Hospital costs should decrease dramatically as the number of insured increases, simply because insured patients can pay (more of) their hospital bill - duh.
    It certainly was, in both the quote and in the article and the study.
    Quote Originally Posted by trouble13 View Post
    If you wanna know why Trumpsters are ignoring you its for the same reason you ignored the KKKs complaints about Obama.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
    When it comes down to it, all facts are cherry picked.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    He didn't say it didn't make sense. He said it is complete nonsense.

  4. #684
    Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    11-30-13 @ 07:05 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,293

    Re: U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by KevinKohler View Post
    At some point, reality will sink in. Complete, "full time" employment is over. Just as Americans once worked 10-12 hours per day 6-7 days per week as a norm, so to will the norm of the 5 day, 35-45 hour per week norm die.

    30 hours is the target set by the health care law. 30 hours per week is the new full time. Increases to minimum wage will be made to accommodate for the lack of hours.
    Do you hate people that want to enter the labor force or something?

  5. #685
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:26 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,299

    Re: U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by Gimmesometruth View Post
    LOL!!!!

    The Kaiser report shows how overall the system has done what it set out to do, and costs have already started to be contained.

    Besides, this is an expansion of PRIVATE INSURANCE.....for like the millionth time already.
    It is a realistic assessment of the program access increased but service poor and costs higher than other states in the nation. Yes, a typical liberal program that sounds good on paper but poor in implementation yet you support continued growth in the govt.

  6. #686
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,698

    Re: U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by Gimmesometruth View Post
    It certainly was, in both the quote and in the article and the study.
    ER was mentioned only as part of things included under inpatient COSTS - no mention of whether ER use decreased.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  7. #687
    Sage
    Gimmesometruth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    US Southwest
    Last Seen
    09-13-17 @ 10:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    22,405

    Re: U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    It is a realistic assessment of the program access increased but service poor and costs higher than other states in the nation. Yes, a typical liberal program that sounds good on paper but poor in implementation yet you support continued growth in the govt.
    Um, the system had no cost containment strategies, they are being implemented and as the previously cited article shows, cost are now in line with the rest of the nation.

    Further, I have no idea why you keep blabbering about "govt growth", this is expanding PRIVATE INSURANCE.
    Quote Originally Posted by trouble13 View Post
    If you wanna know why Trumpsters are ignoring you its for the same reason you ignored the KKKs complaints about Obama.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
    When it comes down to it, all facts are cherry picked.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    He didn't say it didn't make sense. He said it is complete nonsense.

  8. #688
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    384

    Re: U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Let me help you with some basics before you continue to make a fool of yourself. Budgets are blueprints for spending and the budget is for the fiscal year which begins in October and ends in September. Bush submitted a budget for fiscal year 2009 that was never passed by Congress but was signed by Obama in March of 2009. The budget submitted was for 3.0 trillion dollars. That budget did not include the 700 billion TARP bill which was a loan although classified an expense. That loan has been mostly repaid so why don't you find out where the money went. Did it go to reduce the 2009 deficit?

    Then there is the 842 billion dollar stimulus program that was proposed and signed by Obama in February 2009. Is that charged to Bush? How about the Afghanistan supplementals one of which was over 100 billion signed in June 2009, was that a Bush expense?
    Nope, I gave the FY08-09 budget to Obama which does include the Recovery Act, the actual spending produced during that time. It was Bush's TARP and he did send us into Afghanistan, but I'm being nice today. So all that you mentioned goes to Obama, and you still get a much smaller budget increase compared to Reagan.

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    You continue to buy what you are told and even when the facts refute what you are told you continue to buy the rhetoric.

    Why is that? What is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty?
    Not liberalism, just base economic data from the CBO. Also, you've been the king of both soaring and and damning rhetoric throughout this thread, you have zero room to talk on the subject.

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Ask the American people if they care about a 1.7 trillion dollar Reagan debt over 8 years that created over 17 million jobs vs the Obama 6.2 trillion dollar debt in less than 5 years which
    has created about 300,000 jobs a year vs Reagan's 2 million a year. Which one do you think costs the most debt service which is the fourth largest budget item?
    Nice appeal to emotion, "ask the American people", ask that sad puppy and look into its wide shimmering eyes. :rolls

    And only 300,000 jobs a year? Huh, tell that to the ~600,000 jobs added in the last three months alone. If you're trying to refer to the averages counting the recession that began before Obama became president and hit its zenith just as he was walking into office, you are correct if you go by calendar year, you a net gain of 1.2 million jobs so far. By fiscal year however, when we actually got to start trying out "Obamanomics", it is closer to 5.7 million jobs or ~1.425 million per fiscal year. Guess it depends on which math you want to use I suppose.

    Still, better than the last guy. Bush scored an increase of 1.13 million jobs over 8 years by calendar years, or -1.79 million by fiscal years. Giving Bush the math Republicans would prefer, we get an average net increase of 94,000 jobs a year. Carter did a better job on that front lol.

  9. #689
    Sage
    Gimmesometruth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    US Southwest
    Last Seen
    09-13-17 @ 10:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    22,405

    Re: U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    ER was mentioned only as part of things included under inpatient COSTS - no mention of whether ER use decreased.
    The data on combined inpatient and outpatient ED use (top graph) suggest that the Massachusetts reform did not change the state's trend in total ED utilization relative to that in states where no such reform was enacted. The continuous upward trend in ED utilization throughout the three periods is remarkably consistent from state to state; if we didn't know which state had implemented the reform law, we could not guess on the basis of these data. Although the majority of ED visits are outpatient visits, inpatient ED visits account for a large fraction of total ED costs (approximately 65% in our data set). To clarify the trends in such visits, we show in the bottom graph inpatient visits only. Here, too, we find no evidence that the Massachusetts reform significantly increased hospitalizations from the ED relative to those in other states that did not pass reforms. We also examined ED use in safety-net hospitals, which were disproportionately affected by the insurance expansion, but did not find evidence that ED utilization in these hospitals was different from that in similar hospitals in other states. In summary, ED use increased in Massachusetts after reform but also increased by similar amounts in New Hampshire and Vermont, states that did not implement insurance expansions.
    On the basis of these findings, we conclude that Massachusetts' health care reform law has thus far neither increased nor decreased ED utilization relative to that in other states. The similarity among states is to be expected if the level of ED visits is dominated by broader trends in population health, such as health status or accidents that are not affected by a health insurance expansion. Alternatively, it is possible that this null result arises from two equal forces pushing in opposite directions — that the Massachusetts insurance expansion increased prevention, thereby reducing ED use, but that this effect has been offset by the reduced out-of-pocket cost of using the ED or difficulties in finding primary care physicians.


    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1109273


    Objective: There is widespread concern that large-scale insurance expansion - such as that anticipated from the Affordable Care Act - has the potential to cause sharp increases in health care utilization and costs. In the setting of Massachusetts’ landmark 2006 health care reform, we estimated pre-reform to post-reform changes in inpatient care volumes and costs, contrasting the experience of safety-net hospitals (SNH) as the predominant providers of care for targeted reform beneficiaries, with that of non-SNH.

    Study Design: We analyzed MA inpatient discharge on all discharges from 2004-2010 for 2,636,326 non-elderly patients (age 18-64) across all 66 short-term acute care hospitals. Safety-net hospitals were identified as those in the top quartile of hospitals in the proportion of hospital admissions with Medicaid, Free Care and self-pay as the primary payer. Using linear regression models we estimated hospital-level post-reform changes in (a) # admissions, (b) length of stay (LOS; days), (c) charge per day ($) and (d) charge per stay ($), separately for SNH and non-SNH, adjusting for patient demographics and comorbidities. We also examined changes for subpopulations by race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status (SES; defined using patient zip code median income). To isolate the impact of reform from secular trends, we treated the elderly as the "control" population.

    Findings: There was no significant post-reform change in the number of admissions; average quarterly number of admissions per hospital were 1,480 pre-reform and 1,520 post-reform (p=0.68). A similar pattern was found for admissions by SNH status, and for minority and low-income subpopulations. Average LOS increased by a smaller amount among SNH (0.20 days; 95% CI=[0.15, 0.25]) than among non-SNH (0.30 days; 95% CI=[0.27, 0.33]). Average charges per day decreased among SNH ($-198; 95%=[$-251, $-145]) and increased among non-SNH ($249; 95%=[$215, $284]). A similar trend with a larger difference was found for average charges per stay (SNH=$-477; 95%CI=[$-768, $-187] and non-SNH=$1,442; 95%CI=[$1,248, $1,635]). Similar trends were found for both acute and non-acute admissions. Among blacks, Hispanics and low-income patients, none of the measures indicated larger increase in SNH compared to that in non-SNH.

    Conclusion: Following MA health reform, utilization of inpatient care did not increase at SNH, the predominant providers of inpatient care for populations targeted by the reform, compared to non-SNH. A similar trend was found for acute and non-acute admissions, and for minority and low-income subpopulations. Future analyses in the coming months will test robustness of these findings using the non-elderly patients from comparison states as the control population.

    Abstract 23: Impact of Massachusetts Health Reform on Hospitalizations, Length of Stay and Costs of Inpatient Care: Does Safety-Net Status Matter? -- Hanchate et al. 6 (1003): A23 -- Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes
    Quote Originally Posted by trouble13 View Post
    If you wanna know why Trumpsters are ignoring you its for the same reason you ignored the KKKs complaints about Obama.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
    When it comes down to it, all facts are cherry picked.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    He didn't say it didn't make sense. He said it is complete nonsense.

  10. #690
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,698

    Re: U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by Gimmesometruth View Post
    The data on combined inpatient and outpatient ED use (top graph) suggest that the Massachusetts reform did not change the state's trend in total ED utilization relative to that in states where no such reform was enacted. The continuous upward trend in ED utilization throughout the three periods is remarkably consistent from state to state; if we didn't know which state had implemented the reform law, we could not guess on the basis of these data. Although the majority of ED visits are outpatient visits, inpatient ED visits account for a large fraction of total ED costs (approximately 65% in our data set). To clarify the trends in such visits, we show in the bottom graph inpatient visits only. Here, too, we find no evidence that the Massachusetts reform significantly increased hospitalizations from the ED relative to those in other states that did not pass reforms. We also examined ED use in safety-net hospitals, which were disproportionately affected by the insurance expansion, but did not find evidence that ED utilization in these hospitals was different from that in similar hospitals in other states. In summary, ED use increased in Massachusetts after reform but also increased by similar amounts in New Hampshire and Vermont, states that did not implement insurance expansions.
    On the basis of these findings, we conclude that Massachusetts' health care reform law has thus far neither increased nor decreased ED utilization relative to that in other states. The similarity among states is to be expected if the level of ED visits is dominated by broader trends in population health, such as health status or accidents that are not affected by a health insurance expansion. Alternatively, it is possible that this null result arises from two equal forces pushing in opposite directions — that the Massachusetts insurance expansion increased prevention, thereby reducing ED use, but that this effect has been offset by the reduced out-of-pocket cost of using the ED or difficulties in finding primary care physicians.


    MMS: Error


    Objective: There is widespread concern that large-scale insurance expansion - such as that anticipated from the Affordable Care Act - has the potential to cause sharp increases in health care utilization and costs. In the setting of Massachusetts’ landmark 2006 health care reform, we estimated pre-reform to post-reform changes in inpatient care volumes and costs, contrasting the experience of safety-net hospitals (SNH) as the predominant providers of care for targeted reform beneficiaries, with that of non-SNH.

    Study Design: We analyzed MA inpatient discharge on all discharges from 2004-2010 for 2,636,326 non-elderly patients (age 18-64) across all 66 short-term acute care hospitals. Safety-net hospitals were identified as those in the top quartile of hospitals in the proportion of hospital admissions with Medicaid, Free Care and self-pay as the primary payer. Using linear regression models we estimated hospital-level post-reform changes in (a) # admissions, (b) length of stay (LOS; days), (c) charge per day ($) and (d) charge per stay ($), separately for SNH and non-SNH, adjusting for patient demographics and comorbidities. We also examined changes for subpopulations by race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status (SES; defined using patient zip code median income). To isolate the impact of reform from secular trends, we treated the elderly as the "control" population.

    Findings: There was no significant post-reform change in the number of admissions; average quarterly number of admissions per hospital were 1,480 pre-reform and 1,520 post-reform (p=0.68). A similar pattern was found for admissions by SNH status, and for minority and low-income subpopulations. Average LOS increased by a smaller amount among SNH (0.20 days; 95% CI=[0.15, 0.25]) than among non-SNH (0.30 days; 95% CI=[0.27, 0.33]). Average charges per day decreased among SNH ($-198; 95%=[$-251, $-145]) and increased among non-SNH ($249; 95%=[$215, $284]). A similar trend with a larger difference was found for average charges per stay (SNH=$-477; 95%CI=[$-768, $-187] and non-SNH=$1,442; 95%CI=[$1,248, $1,635]). Similar trends were found for both acute and non-acute admissions. Among blacks, Hispanics and low-income patients, none of the measures indicated larger increase in SNH compared to that in non-SNH.

    Conclusion: Following MA health reform, utilization of inpatient care did not increase at SNH, the predominant providers of inpatient care for populations targeted by the reform, compared to non-SNH. A similar trend was found for acute and non-acute admissions, and for minority and low-income subpopulations. Future analyses in the coming months will test robustness of these findings using the non-elderly patients from comparison states as the control population.

    Abstract 23: Impact of Massachusetts Health Reform on Hospitalizations, Length of Stay and Costs of Inpatient Care: Does Safety-Net Status Matter? -- Hanchate et al. 6 (1003): A23 -- Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes
    OK, so expensive taxpayer subsidised insurance programs do not significantly change hospital costs or ER usage - so how do they save any money again?
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •