We're doing it, POLITICS style

by **td11** » Thu Oct 11, 2012 13:10:08

jerseyhoya wrote:
td11 wrote:You posted an erik erikson article in the last thread

Is this in response to me pointing out Biden lied about his academic record or pointing out that the new unemployment filings appear to be wrong?

the unemployment numbers have been steadily improving for some time now, i don't think revising this set of numbers would have a huge effect on that general trend

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/201 ... ation.html

by **Werthless** » Thu Oct 11, 2012 13:15:52

td11 wrote:the biden thing. really not worth hashing out, though. i acknowledge how republicans feel about biden and enjoy all the consternation it causes them

I cant speak for all conservatives, but I like having him around as a gaffe-machine.

by **Youseff** » Thu Oct 11, 2012 13:19:04

I'm starting to get the feeling Romney may be a very competitive guy. That's a BIG no-no for role of POTUS.

by **pacino** » Thu Oct 11, 2012 13:20:59

Bills for people without insurance are higher, too. Then hospitals apply for Medicaid to cover 60% of those bills, then the rest is on the uninsured person. If you are into 'fixing' Medicaid, third and nursing homes sucking off the teat of the government are issue 1 through 10.

by **pacino** » Thu Oct 11, 2012 13:22:15

Werthless wrote:
td11 wrote:the biden thing. really not worth hashing out, though. i acknowledge how republicans feel about biden and enjoy all the consternation it causes them

I cant speak for all conservatives, but I like having him around as a gaffe-machine.

I like having him around because he's one of the few people in dc who gives a damn about the common man.

by **jerseyhoya** » Thu Oct 11, 2012 13:22:26

td11 wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:
td11 wrote:You posted an erik erikson article in the last thread

Is this in response to me pointing out Biden lied about his academic record or pointing out that the new unemployment filings appear to be wrong?

the unemployment numbers have been steadily improving for some time now, i don't think revising this set of numbers would have a huge effect on that general trend

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/201 ... ation.html

That's a pretty useless graph without some idea of a starting point and of what initial jobless claims are in a healthy labor market. The trend is good, but the trend should be good given the job losses from 2008-09. Things are either getting worse at a slower rate or better more quickly, but without historical context/a starting point/etc. it doesn't say a whole lot.

by **jerseyhoya** » Thu Oct 11, 2012 13:24:46

Youseff wrote:I'm starting to get the feeling Romney may be a very competitive guy. That's a BIG no-no for role of POTUS.

The Competitor in Chief; Obama Plays to Win, in Politics and Everything Else

by **pacino** » Thu Oct 11, 2012 13:26:01

jerseyhoya wrote:
td11 wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:
td11 wrote:You posted an erik erikson article in the last thread

Is this in response to me pointing out Biden lied about his academic record or pointing out that the new unemployment filings appear to be wrong?

the unemployment numbers have been steadily improving for some time now, i don't think revising this set of numbers would have a huge effect on that general trend

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/201 ... ation.html

That's a pretty useless graph without some idea of a starting point and of what initial jobless claims are in a healthy labor market. The trend is good, but the trend should be good given the job losses from 2008-09. Things are either getting worse at a slower rate or better more quickly, but without historical context/a starting point/etc. it doesn't say a whole lot.

Trying to set policies to stop the growth doesn't help.

by **Werthless** » Thu Oct 11, 2012 13:28:23

pacino wrote:Trying to set policies to stop the growth doesn't help.

I'm seeing a growth of posts that make little sense. It coincides with an increase in my posting frequency. Coincidence, or causation?

by **Youseff** » Thu Oct 11, 2012 13:30:18

jerseyhoya wrote:
Youseff wrote:I'm starting to get the feeling Romney may be a very competitive guy. That's a BIG no-no for role of POTUS.

The Competitor in Chief; Obama Plays to Win, in Politics and Everything Else

Oh wow. Two competitive people running for the highest office in the land? The horror. Our country really is doomed.

by **pacino** » Thu Oct 11, 2012 13:31:09

We have a fundamental difference on what grows the economy, but to say it makes no sense is a bit non-sensical itself. I believe in creating demand by investing in our infrastructure and our workforce. That's a pretty mainstream idea. Cutting every program except defense does nothing towards putting people in jobs.

by **slugsrbad** » Thu Oct 11, 2012 13:32:50

Werthless wrote:
pacino wrote:Trying to set policies to stop the growth doesn't help.

I'm seeing a growth of posts that make little sense. It coincides with an increase in my posting frequency. Coincidence, or causation?

You bring out the best in us.

by **slugsrbad** » Thu Oct 11, 2012 13:34:50

Werthless wrote:Guys, it's happening.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.co ... right-now/

Cliff notes: not yet.

Just wait until TNC offerss "his" next opinion.

by **td11** » Thu Oct 11, 2012 13:35:50

jerseyhoya wrote:
td11 wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:
td11 wrote:You posted an erik erikson article in the last thread

Is this in response to me pointing out Biden lied about his academic record or pointing out that the new unemployment filings appear to be wrong?

the unemployment numbers have been steadily improving for some time now, i don't think revising this set of numbers would have a huge effect on that general trend

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/201 ... ation.html

That's a pretty useless graph without some idea of a starting point and of what initial jobless claims are in a healthy labor market. The trend is good, but the trend should be good given the job losses from 2008-09. Things are either getting worse at a slower rate or better more quickly, but without historical context/a starting point/etc. it doesn't say a whole lot.

by **Grotewold** » Thu Oct 11, 2012 13:37:01

td11 wrote:“No, you go to the hospital, you get treated, you get care, and it’s paid for, either by charity, the government or by the hospital. We don’t have people that become ill, who die in their apartment because they don’t have insurance.”

How in the world is that preferable to "Obamacare"? Seems like a pretty clear case of ideology trumping common sense.

by **Youseff** » Thu Oct 11, 2012 13:37:10

A CNBC correspondent later tweeted that the mystery state appears to have failed to process "its typical seasonal workload," Business Insider reports. Weekly job numbers are prone to volatility anyway, the department noted. "Throw out the number and we'll try again next week," one trader tells CNBC. Numbers overall are headed in a good direction—the more stable four-week average fell to 364,000; anything below 375,000 is considered a sign the economy is adding jobs.

by **Youseff** » Thu Oct 11, 2012 13:37:35

Grotewold wrote:
td11 wrote:“No, you go to the hospital, you get treated, you get care, and it’s paid for, either by charity, the government or by the hospital. We don’t have people that become ill, who die in their apartment because they don’t have insurance.”

How in the world is that preferable to "Obamacare"? Seems like a pretty clear case of ideology trumping common sense.

or the rationale behind Romneycare.

by **RichmondPhilsFan** » Thu Oct 11, 2012 13:38:33

pacino wrote:Bills for people without insurance are higher, too. Then hospitals apply for Medicaid to cover 60% of those bills, then the rest is on the uninsured person. If you are into 'fixing' Medicaid, third and nursing homes sucking off the teat of the government are issue 1 through 10.

That's pretty simplistic. Most often, Medicaid coverage creates an insurance-like situation (if not outright insurance through a private reinsurer) where the recipient merely is responsible for a co-pay. The hospital is already an approved Medicaid provider (much like they'd be an approved, e.g., Anthem provider) with specified rates for repayment, so after the claim is approved by Medicaid, the balance is adjusted based upon the coding of the charges and payment is applied. The rate of repayment can be anywhere from 15-20% or 110% (don't laugh, it actually does happen in rare occurrences).

There are some Medicaid programs with deductibles, but I can't think of any off the top of my head with a coinsurance. I'm sure there is one, but they're rare.

At least, that's how it's set up here in Virginia by our Department of Medical Assistance Services. Other states are different, I'm sure.

by **jerseyhoya** » Thu Oct 11, 2012 13:41:18

td11 wrote:

This is a much better graph. So we're getting back to a range where the labor market can be stable but have a bit to go before we're making a significant dent in the deep losses from the 2008-09 hole.

by **jerseyhoya** » Thu Oct 11, 2012 13:42:38

Youseff wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:
Youseff wrote:I'm starting to get the feeling Romney may be a very competitive guy. That's a BIG no-no for role of POTUS.

The Competitor in Chief; Obama Plays to Win, in Politics and Everything Else

Oh wow. Two competitive people running for the highest office in the land? The horror. Our country really is doomed.

I am dazed and confused by these posts.

Archived

We're doing it, POLITICS style

Re: We're doing it, POLITICS style

Re: We're doing it, POLITICS style

Re: We're doing it, POLITICS style

Re: We're doing it, POLITICS style

Re: We're doing it, POLITICS style

Re: We're doing it, POLITICS style

Re: We're doing it, POLITICS style

Re: We're doing it, POLITICS style

Re: We're doing it, POLITICS style

Re: We're doing it, POLITICS style

Re: We're doing it, POLITICS style

Re: We're doing it, POLITICS style

Re: We're doing it, POLITICS style

Re: We're doing it, POLITICS style

Re: We're doing it, POLITICS style

Re: We're doing it, POLITICS style

Re: We're doing it, POLITICS style

Re: We're doing it, POLITICS style

Re: We're doing it, POLITICS style

Re: We're doing it, POLITICS style