Friggin' OBAMAcare again!

[Sabine Grant]

Our single-payer systems provide the best care for the best price in this country.

:laughing-smiley-014:laughing-smiley-014:laughing-smiley-014:laughing-smiley-014:laughing-smiley-014

I can attest of the cost effectiveness when it comes to Medicare in view of my patient benefiting of Medicare coverage for his 3 days of hospitalization, 2 weeks in rehab following his discharge from the hospital, 9 visits under home health care including PT and OT, meds reconciliation and med pours by an RN. Have you any idea what the cost out of pocket would be for my patient without Medicare? Probably not....

 

[Nice Squirrel]

But the unfunded mandates will remain and will continue to disincentivize employment in general.

Not that it matters to ideologues:

 

[jonatha]

But the unfunded mandates will remain and will continue to disincentivize employment in general.

Not that it matters to ideologues:

U6 would be a more relevant statistic than U3....

 

[Loren Pechtel]

:laughing-smiley-014:laughing-smiley-014:laughing-smiley-014:laughing-smiley-014:laughing-smiley-014

I can attest of the cost effectiveness when it comes to Medicare in view of my patient benefiting of Medicare coverage for his 3 days of hospitalization, 2 weeks in rehab following his discharge from the hospital, 9 visits under home health care including PT and OT, meds reconciliation and med pours by an RN. Have you any idea what the cost out of pocket would be for my patient without Medicare? Probably not....

Medicare paying the bills says nothing about how good the care was.

- - - Updated - - -

But the unfunded mandates will remain and will continue to disincentivize employment in general.

Not that it matters to ideologues:

1) Deceptive graph.

2) This says nothing about how good the jobs are. An awful lot of those no-longer-unemployed people are in part time, low pay jobs.

(Not that I am agreeing about the unfunded mandates.)

 

[ksen]

I can attest of the cost effectiveness when it comes to Medicare in view of my patient benefiting of Medicare coverage for his 3 days of hospitalization, 2 weeks in rehab following his discharge from the hospital, 9 visits under home health care including PT and OT, meds reconciliation and med pours by an RN. Have you any idea what the cost out of pocket would be for my patient without Medicare? Probably not....

Medicare paying the bills says nothing about how good the care was.

No, but the links I provided do along with many other studies.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/pub...e-vs--private-insurance--rhetoric-and-reality

 

[Nice Squirrel]

But the unfunded mandates will remain and will continue to disincentivize employment in general.

Not that it matters to ideologues:

1) Deceptive graph.

What is deceptive about it? The color choice or the fact that unemployment is not rising because Obamacare has ruined the economy?

2) This says nothing about how good the jobs are. An awful lot of those no-longer-unemployed people are in part time, low pay jobs.

And you of course have beliefs statistics that this is the case?

Like I said, not that any of this matters to those who beliefs fits a prescribed narrative.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But the unfunded mandates will remain and will continue to disincentivize employment in general.

Not that it matters to ideologues:

1) Deceptive graph.

What is deceptive about it? The color choice or the fact that unemployment is not rising because Obamacare has ruined the economy?

One of the standard tactics of deceptive graphs--putting the bottom of the graph near the low point of the data to maximize the apparent change.

2) This says nothing about how good the jobs are. An awful lot of those no-longer-unemployed people are in part time, low pay jobs.

And you of course have beliefs statistics that this is the case?

Like I said, not that any of this matters to those who beliefs fits a prescribed narrative.

It's called the news. Ever read it?

 

[ksen]

We never read the news you're reading because you don't link anything.

 

[Bomb#20]

But the unfunded mandates will remain and will continue to disincentivize employment in general.

Not that it matters to ideologues:

So, your reason for calling me an ideologue is what? The fact that unemployment numbers get better during a post-recession recovery? The fact that unemployment numbers look better when you don't count people who have given up on trying to get jobs? The fact that Obamacare is just one unfunded mandate among many, they've been piling up ever since the 1930s, and no single mandate is expensive enough all by itself to swamp all unrelated factors put together? Cherry-pick much?

The long term trends are toward more and more unfunded mandates that amount to taxes on the practice of employing people, and fewer and fewer people having jobs. (The second trend was masked for fifty years by the even greater long term trend toward less and less sex discrimination. But it shows up clearly in the male labor force participation rate, as well as in the overall rate once the abolition of female exclusion from paid work was essentially complete.)

Of course correlation doesn't prove causality; but it sure as hell doesn't disprove it.

 

[Bomb#20]

What is deceptive about it? The color choice or the fact that unemployment is not rising because Obamacare has ruined the economy?
...
Like I said, not that any of this matters to those who beliefs fits a prescribed narrative.

What's deceptive about it is its use in your prescribed narrative, in which you're falsely insinuating that I claimed Obamacare has ruined the economy.

 

[Malintent]

But the unfunded mandates will remain and will continue to disincentivize employment in general.

Not that it matters to ideologues:

and this quarter they have dropped to 5.9

 

[Nice Squirrel]

But the unfunded mandates will remain and will continue to disincentivize employment in general.

Not that it matters to ideologues:

1) Deceptive graph.

What is deceptive about it? The color choice or the fact that unemployment is not rising because Obamacare has ruined the economy?

One of the standard tactics of deceptive graphs--putting the bottom of the graph near the low point of the data to maximize the apparent change.

So these scales should be 120ft long and then we would see how the employment rate is crashing... OBAMA!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But the unfunded mandates will remain and will continue to disincentivize employment in general.

Not that it matters to ideologues:

1) Deceptive graph.

What is deceptive about it? The color choice or the fact that unemployment is not rising because Obamacare has ruined the economy?

One of the standard tactics of deceptive graphs--putting the bottom of the graph near the low point of the data to maximize the apparent change.

So these scales should be 120ft long and then we would see how the employment rate is crashing... OBAMA!

It has nothing to do with long. The bottom of the graph should be at zero which means the visual changes will be much smaller.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

It has nothing to do with long. The bottom of the graph should be at zero which means the visual changes will be much smaller.

And the top of the scale should be higher too.

These kind of graphs were invented for Ronald Reagan because a one page document that doesn't confirm what you already believe isn't good for anything.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It has nothing to do with long. The bottom of the graph should be at zero which means the visual changes will be much smaller.

And the top of the scale should be higher too.

These kind of graphs were invented for Ronald Reagan because a one page document that doesn't confirm what you already believe isn't good for anything.

That sort of deception came long before raygun.

 

[Bomb#20]

and this quarter they have dropped to 5.9

What exactly is it you two think those numbers prove? What you guys are describing is one third of the tiny little upturn at the far right edge of the red line in the middle graph of post #49. Are you suggesting one little zag in a zig-zagging line is enough to invalidate a historical trend that's held steady for sixty years? Your zag isn't even a departure from the trend -- it's predictable from the pattern of the graph. Overall, the red line closely tracks the blue line; it just has an additional oscillation where it drops away for a few years at each recession, and then rises back toward it until the next recession. The only thing Nice Squirrel's chart and your addition to it show is that we had a recession a few years ago.

 

[Malintent]

and this quarter they have dropped to 5.9

What exactly is it you two think those numbers prove? What you guys are describing is one third of the tiny little upturn at the far right edge of the red line in the middle graph of post #49. Are you suggesting one little zag in a zig-zagging line is enough to invalidate a historical trend that's held steady for sixty years? Your zag isn't even a departure from the trend -- it's predictable from the pattern of the graph. Overall, the red line closely tracks the blue line; it just has an additional oscillation where it drops away for a few years at each recession, and then rises back toward it until the next recession. The only thing Nice Squirrel's chart and your addition to it show is that we had a recession a few years ago.

I am not of the opinion that graphs of individual data points "proove" anything. It was just missing a very new piece of information that was released just hours before I posted the "missing" data point in this thread.. which happened to be very on-topic.. and also a continuation of the displayed trend.

I am no expert in this topic at all.. however I will also note that the release of the "5.9" figure for this quarter supposedly represented a historically significant low value... aparently (according to the media source that I happend to hear this from) it is a big deal that it is now below 6.0. If you are interested in doing so, feel free to support your statement by telling us the last time we were below 5.9. If your observation is correct, then your answer should be, "recently".. no?

 

[bilby]

Hey, at least you have unemployment figures. It turns out that ours have been completely wrong for the last three quarters (at least). http://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/abs-employment-data-revised-australians-have-been-fed-a-statistical-furphy-20141008-1136gz.html

The treasurer blamed this on cuts by the previous government, which apparently have left the ABS so short of funds that he was happy to cut its budget further a couple of months ago

Thanks Obama! Gillard!

 

[Bomb#20]

I am not of the opinion that graphs of individual data points "proove" anything. It was just missing a very new piece of information that was released just hours before I posted the "missing" data point in this thread.. which happened to be very on-topic.. and also a continuation of the displayed trend.

I am no expert in this topic at all.. however I will also note that the release of the "5.9" figure for this quarter supposedly represented a historically significant low value... aparently (according to the media source that I happend to hear this from) it is a big deal that it is now below 6.0. If you are interested in doing so, feel free to support your statement by telling us the last time we were below 5.9. If your observation is correct, then your answer should be, "recently".. no?

Recently. July 2008, when the recession was just getting underway. This is the usual pattern: when we recover from a recession the unemployment rate usually drops to around pre-recession levels. We're not there yet -- it was 4.6 in 2007 -- but we still might get there. So I don't know why your media source thought 5.9 was historically significant -- probably the reporter has a very short-term view of history. It was 4.0 back in the Clinton administration, before the dotcom recession. It was 3.4 just before the 1970 recession. The post-war low point was 2.9, way back in 1953.