Breaking: Healthcare Reform Collapsed, 3 Effects on Economy

After GOP Sens. Mike Lee and Jerry Moran defected 13 hours ago, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was forced to acknowledge defeat. The repeal and replace of Obamacare will not go through. For the markets, this is latest development indicates that the Trump administration is ineffective and has therefore, caused the following to happen today:

  1. The 10-year US Treasury note yield has declined .034%,
  2. The ICE dollar index has fallen to its lowest level since September 2016, and
  3. The price of gold has increased by $7.90

This may mean that the Trump administration will not be able to get tax reform or an infrastructure spending plan in place.
- said Larry Milstein, head of government and agency trading at R.W. Pressprich & Co, according to WSJ

Trump’s economically liberal and anti-regulatory policies were initially welcomed by Wall Street, but sentiment towards the POTUS has steadily been souring. Is this the final straw?

Should Obamacare be repealed and only later be replaced as Trump is now suggesting. Should we push for a healthcare system more similar to the European model as the ACA has attempted, or is this simply not compatible with the US?

 

I would argue that public sentiment will turn against congressional Republicans, rather than the President. Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan are grossly incompetent, and Trump has been able to use Rand Paul as his proxy on The Hill without getting much of this stink on him.

Honestly, McConnell and Ryan need to be replaced ASAP. The GOP has control of the House and Senate, as well as a conservatively leaning Supreme Court, and they continue to obsess over Obamacare at the expense of getting anything done to hang their hats on. This is just like the chance the Dems had in 2008 when they held the legislature and the Executive Branch. They effectively could ram through whatever legislation they wanted, but all they accomplished was the ACA, then dicked around until the mid-terms and got their asses handed to them.

"Repeal & Replace" has proven to be too thorny of an issue. Just move to repeal the ACA, and keep the 2 provisions that anyone gives a shit about (pre-existing conditions, and allowing people to stay on their parents' plans). Shit would be a slam dunk and done in a week.

The GOP is standing in Trump's way by not allowing him to pursue other issues in his platform (tax reform, border wall, repairing relations with nations that matter, checking Brussels' continued erosion of European sovereignty, etc). What's most fucked up is that the Republicans have been advocating for shit like tax reform and border security for 20+ years, and now that they're holding all of the cards they won't play their hand. The Republicans need to get the last of these neo-cons out of the party before their mistakes add up and public perception of the GOP is that they have no platform. This would be the same identity crisis that the Democratic Party is currently undergoing: No platform besides, "We're not Trump!"

 

Agree on most points. Clearly Ryan and McConnell are ineffective, don't seem to really back up the president's agenda too wholeheartedly. Who would have thought that Ted Cruz seems to be one trying to actually get things done on behalf of this admin?

The problem is that there is no real way to make everyone happy with health care. I think they need to simply repeal and then try to find an actual healthcare plan that might work well in the future, package it with infrastructure spending so that you can maybe convince Democrats to get on board with it.

The problem the R's are running into is that this bill doesn't really do a whole lot, and isn't a whole lot different than Obamacare in most respects. You have Democrats opposing it because it's a Republican bill - but also opposing it because it's so similar to Obamacare, why even repeal Obamacare in the first place? Republican's need to get away from the democratic talking point of "number of insured" because they're not going to win that battle, and that shouldn't be the point of their bill anyway. As long as they continue to frame it that way, they will face difficulties and it will look like Obamacare. If you're going to pass a bill that looks like Obamacare, now you own it when it inevitably fails.

Drop the number of insured metric, get something done that is actually going to change healthcare and perhaps cut the "number of insured," but actually provides quality and affordable options. Package it with infrastructure so that Democrats MAY get on board, and you can still fulfill another part of your agenda. When that happens maybe you can get the ball rolling on taxes.

If you don't want to do all that, repeal now, move to taxes, replace after. Just my .02

 

Don't you think the number of insured metric is pretty important from a moral standpoint, considering the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
? You could argue that the people should be clever enough to make sure they are insured, but that simply is not the case.

Is it not merely a matter of pride for the GOP to repeal, rather than something that helps US. IMO they should move on rather than repeal, because the benefit the pre-existing conditions clause out-ways the potential pitfalls of the ACA.

 

Seems to be true. The bill is on the cover of the WSJ today and the article talks primarily about the worry of people losing coverage:

Groups representing hospitals, doctors and seniors are urging House Republican leaders to put the brakes on their plan to overhaul the Affordable Care Act, saying it risks stripping too many people of insurance and in some cases would hurt industry finances.

On a day when two House committees began formally debating the GOP plan, the cautions and opposition from groups such as AARP, which represents older Americans; the American Medical Association; and the American Hospital Association showed the difficult path ahead for the legislation.

 

It's an awful plan unless you are well off, essentially. And has been pretty uniformly seen as terrible, even from extremely conservative sources.

Millions of americans are going to lose coverage. It's being mostly funded by tax credits, which don't help low income earners and will make insurance less affordable than it is currently. They are gutting medicaid. They are getting rid of the mandate which will likely make insurance more expensive, as well. And they, laughably, are trying to bar medicaid reimbursements to planned parenthood. Clearly denying contraception to poor americans is in the nations best interest.

 

Millions of Americans are going to lose what should never have been given.

I think the plan is dumb, but low income people have countless programs to help them. Tax credits help middle and higher income people go out and buy insurance if they don't have it from their employer.

And while I am pro abortion and pro anything which reduces the human scourge on this planet, PP could easily bifurcate their offering and this issue wouldn't alive. PP provides abortions and many people have issues with this. If they only provided birth control and mammograms I doubt you'd hear republicans bitch.

 
TNA:

Millions of Americans are going to lose what should never have been given.

I think the plan is dumb, but low income people have countless programs to help them. Tax credits help middle and higher income people go out and buy insurance if they don't have it from their employer.

And while I am pro abortion and pro anything which reduces the human scourge on this planet, PP could easily bifurcate their offering and this issue wouldn't alive. PP provides abortions and many people have issues with this. If they only provided birth control and mammograms I doubt you'd hear republicans bitch.

Yes, Planned Parenthood should change their business model, which has extreme synergies that partially allows them to subsidize low income americans, to appease crazy old religious zealots in a country that pretty strongly supports pro-choice and is supposed to have separation of church and state. Solid argument.

And as for your "millions of americans are going to lose what should have never been given" comment, if you truly think that we shouldn't provide quality affordable healthcare to the nations poor you don't understand what's best for you economically. And that's not even going into the laughable heartlessness of your comment. And no, poor americans don't have countless programs except for medicaid and subsidized programs on the exchange. Both of which are being gutted. So the healthcare costs, which aren't going down anytime soon, will just get subsidized by taxpayers anyways after they default on their hospital debts after going into the ER. But on top of that, we will just destroy their credit too so they don't have any ability to put more money back into the economy.

It's an awful plan and there is no way to get around that fact.

 

1) yes, they should change their "business " model. Abortion is unappeasing to lots of people, not just crazy religious nuts. If they want tax payer money, provide birth control and women's health. Let individuals donate to support abortion. I'll happily write a check.

2) the nations poor already have a government plan for insurance.

3) Obamacare was to help the group of people who weren't poor enough for Medicaid and who didn't get insurance from their employers.

We will always have some people uninsured. Even with Obamacare, there are people who pay the penalty and don't have insurance.

If you lower the bar for Medicaid you'll get more people insured who truly need the help. If you give tax credits , you provide means for people to get insurance themselves. If you work to make drugs cheaper and allow across state line competition you'd will make insurance cheaper.

Real simple. I believe a rich nation should help its poor. But those who cause their problems should shoulder some blame. If you need the government and tax payer to take care of your every need and want, you become a child and as such, should have a limited voice.

Children don't get the benefit of being cared for while also having an equal say at the dinner table.

 
TNA:

1) yes, they should change their "business " model. Abortion is unappeasing to lots of people, not just crazy religious nuts. If they want tax payer money, provide birth control and women's health. Let individuals donate to support abortion. I'll happily write a check.

2) the nations poor already have a government plan for insurance.

3) Obamacare was to help the group of people who weren't poor enough for Medicaid and who didn't get insurance from their employers.

We will always have some people uninsured. Even with Obamacare, there are people who pay the penalty and don't have insurance.

If you lower the bar for Medicaid you'll get more people insured who truly need the help. If you give tax credits , you provide means for people to get insurance themselves. If you work to make drugs cheaper and allow across state line competition you'd will make insurance cheaper.

Real simple. I believe a rich nation should help its poor. But those who cause their problems should shoulder some blame. If you need the government and tax payer to take care of your every need and want, you become a child and as such, should have a limited voice.

Children don't get the benefit of being cared for while also having an equal say at the dinner table.

1) This is stupid. We need to provide contraception and abortion for poor people. The verdict is already out on this. The country supports it, especially under 65. It's going to happen. And all we are doing now is perpetuating the issues of over crowding in poor neighborhoods while well educated people continue to put off having children till later in life or, like my fiance and I, make the decision not to at all.

Plain and simple, this is a remnant of religious zealots (I come from a family of them, I know).

2) They are gutting medicaid. I've said this three posts in a row now. They are also gutting exchanges, which provides for those just over the medicaid cut off, which they aren't going to expand, because they are gutting medicaid.

3) See above.

Not even making a moral issue out of this (though there is one), this plan is bad for the economy unless you are rich. And it's bad for your health if you are poor/middle income.

 
AllDay_028:

And all we are doing now is perpetuating the issues of over crowding in poor neighborhoods while well educated people continue to put off having children till later in life or, like my fiance and I, make the decision not to at all. Plain and simple, this is a remnant of religious zealots (I come from a family of them, I know).

Love this liberal passive aggressive attitude. You talk up your support for the poor, yet it's the poor that is largely the ones with traditional values and a faith in God. Still, you shit on something that is more important to them than money. Am I the only one that sees the irony in that?

 
iBankedUp:
AllDay_028:

And all we are doing now is perpetuating the issues of over crowding in poor neighborhoods while well educated people continue to put off having children till later in life or, like my fiance and I, make the decision not to at all.

Plain and simple, this is a remnant of religious zealots (I come from a family of them, I know).

Love this liberal passive aggressive attitude. You talk up your support for the poor, yet it's the poor that is largely the ones with traditional values and a faith in God. Still, you shit on something that is more important to them than money. Am I the only one that sees the irony in that?

I'm not shitting on religion, I am shitting on people who want to legislate away the ability for poor people to have access to abortions (due to religion) in a country that both supports pro-choice and the separation of church and state. And that was pretty clear, so take your strawman elsewhere.

 
AllDay_028:

I'm not shitting on religion, I am shitting on people who want to legislate away the ability for poor people to have access to abortions (due to religion) in a country that both supports pro-choice and the separation of church and state. And that was pretty clear, so take your strawman elsewhere.

No you are shitting on religion, per this line: "Plain and simple, this is a remnant of religious zealots (I come from a family of them, I know)."

There's a march that happens since 1974 with plain ole constituents against Planned Parenthood that happens in Washington every year. But liberals like you like to pretend it doesn't exist, because those aren't your kind of poor people.

I agree with TNA on the HSAs. Unfortunately, poor people don't learn the basics of economics to be able to understand the benefits of tax savings, and compounded interest. I think we have a fundamentally flawed liberal system that will eventually catch up and run amok, or maybe it already has.

 
iBankedUp:
AllDay_028:

I'm not shitting on religion, I am shitting on people who want to legislate away the ability for poor people to have access to abortions (due to religion) in a country that both supports pro-choice and the separation of church and state. And that was pretty clear, so take your strawman elsewhere.

No you are shitting on religion, per this line: "Plain and simple, this is a remnant of religious zealots (I come from a family of them, I know)."

There's a march that happens since 1974 with plain ole constituents against Planned Parenthood that happens in Washington every year. But liberals like you like to pretend it doesn't exist, because those aren't your kind of poor people.

I agree with TNA on the HSAs. Unfortunately, poor people don't learn the basics of economics to be able to understand the benefits of tax savings, and compounded interest. I think we have a fundamentally flawed liberal system that will eventually catch up and run amok, or maybe it already has.

1) No, i'm not shitting on religion, which, again, is clear. If you want to take quotes out of context that are talking, again, clearly, about legislating away access, it doesn't change that fact. You can say the sky is green as many times as you want, you're wrong.

2) I am not ignoring that some people are against abortion. I am telling you the majority of americans support it (which we see, in polling). And that support is VAST among those young enough to actually get pregnant. It's basically a dying off opposition at this point.

3) HSAs are great, no argument from me. Absolutely does benefit me. But a lot of people don't make enough to fund and HSA well enough to cover their medical expenses. On top of gutting medicaid (I don't know why people keep ignoring this) and affordable plans in exchanges, we are all going to fund these people through tax payer money when they default on medical debt.

Lastly, these aren't liberal ideas. It's crazy how far to the right the trump phenomenon has taken so many people that they call funding healthcare for the poor and middle class "liberal".

 
AllDay_028:

1) No, i'm not shitting on religion, which, again, is clear. If you want to take quotes out of context that are talking, again, clearly, about legislating away access, it doesn't change that fact. You can say the sky is green as many times as you want, you're wrong.

2) I am not ignoring that some people are against abortion. I am telling you the majority of americans support it (which we see, in polling). And that support is VAST among those young enough to actually get pregnant. It's basically a dying off opposition at this point.

3) HSAs are great, no argument from me. Absolutely does benefit me. But a lot of people don't make enough to fund and HSA well enough to cover their medical expenses. On top of gutting medicaid (I don't know why people keep ignoring this) and affordable plans in exchanges, we are all going to fund these people through tax payer money when they default on medical debt.

Lastly, these aren't liberal ideas. It's crazy how far to the right the trump phenomenon has taken so many people that they call funding healthcare for the poor and middle class "liberal".

  1. "Religious zealots" is you trying to mock someone's way of life. I don't go around calling you a passive aggressive classist because you low-key want to see less uneducated people having babies. They're not this undertone of hate and condescension, that you call a zealot; they're just simply believers, and more than both of us, which is not inherently a bad thing.

  2. Yes, the same people stuck to buzzfeed in their palms believe that abortion in all cases is unequivocally good. By the way, my main issue with Planned Parenthood is their liberal recklessness. Services they provide range from abortion in all cases to hormone services to counseling for all of these gender issues. And they do it for minorities, without any obligation to even inform parents. I'm one of the proudest and protective people, so if I had kids and someone was giving one of them medication or any advice without first consulting me, I'd be ready to rip heads off. Not to mention that paying for abortion in all cases is extremely absurd. There are countless of people I grew up with that had babies out of wedlock, with no compulsion to marry or stay with the other person and still kept the child. So why do we provide funding for it?

  3. Just like anything in government, it should be about the most efficient plan to balance resources with commitments. Things like HSAs are just fundamentally superior to expansion of the welfare state. The reason the latter is advocated is because libs can't plan more holistically, and fix the broken parts of the entire system to open up to more opportunities. I'm comfortable with expanding welfare to people who will not be able to access healthcare otherwise, but the fact that they can't access it is a problem that ideally should be fixed. Welfare, to me, seems like a Band-Aid solution, because the problem still exists, it's just covered up.

 
iBankedUp:
AllDay_028:

1) No, i'm not shitting on religion, which, again, is clear. If you want to take quotes out of context that are talking, again, clearly, about legislating away access, it doesn't change that fact. You can say the sky is green as many times as you want, you're wrong.

2) I am not ignoring that some people are against abortion. I am telling you the majority of americans support it (which we see, in polling). And that support is VAST among those young enough to actually get pregnant. It's basically a dying off opposition at this point.

3) HSAs are great, no argument from me. Absolutely does benefit me. But a lot of people don't make enough to fund and HSA well enough to cover their medical expenses. On top of gutting medicaid (I don't know why people keep ignoring this) and affordable plans in exchanges, we are all going to fund these people through tax payer money when they default on medical debt.

Lastly, these aren't liberal ideas. It's crazy how far to the right the trump phenomenon has taken so many people that they call funding healthcare for the poor and middle class "liberal".

  1. "Religious zealots" is you trying to mock someone's way of life. I don't go around calling you a passive aggressive classist because you low-key want to see less uneducated people having babies. They're not this undertone of hate and condescension, that you call a zealot; they're just simply believers, and more than both of us, which is not inherently a bad thing.
  2. Yes, the same people stuck to buzzfeed in their palms believe that abortion in all cases is unequivocally good. By the way, my main issue with Planned Parenthood is their liberal recklessness. Services they provide range from abortion in all cases to hormone services to counseling for all of these gender issues. And they do it for minorities, without any obligation to even inform parents. I'm one of the proudest and protective people, so if I had kids and someone was giving one of them medication or any advice without first consulting me, I'd be ready to rip heads off. Not to mention that paying for abortion in all cases is extremely absurd. There are countless of people I grew up with that had babies out of wedlock, with no compulsion to marry or stay with the other person and still kept the child. So why do we provide funding for it?
  3. Just like anything in government, it should be about the most efficient plan to balance resources with commitments. Things like HSAs are just fundamentally superior to expansion of the welfare state. The reason the latter is advocated is because libs can't plan more holistically, and fix the broken parts of the entire system to open up to more opportunities. I'm comfortable with expanding welfare to people who will not be able to access healthcare otherwise, but the fact that they can't access it is a problem that ideally should be fixed. Welfare, to me, seems like a Band-Aid solution, because the problem still exists, it's just covered up.

1) The zealots are the ones trying to legislate away other peoples abilities to have access to abortions. This is, by definition, true. That is not shitting on religion or believers, that's shitting on the zealots who want to conform others to their religion through law. I know you're just using this as an ad hominem, but I won't address it again. You're wrong. I'm not shitting on religion. I never have.

2) Was this supposed to be like a "young people don't know shit because they are on buzzfeed" point? Otherwise I don't get it. But it's a stupid point, if that's what you meant. As for your parenting argument, we are just going to have to agree to disagree on that. But it's not just planned parenthood that won't inform you, depending on the state you live in. So that's not really a planned parenthood specific issue that you have. And lastly, there are countless reasons for abortion outside of "wedlock" or not. Chalking it up to those people you knew who were fine having kids out of wedlock just shows you lack any real perspective on life.

3) I certainly don't disagree with you that we need to fundamentally change the system to allow for people to help themselves. But right now this specific plan is doing nothing other than raising the cost of insurance, causing more people to be uninsured, taking money away from medicaid, and primarily providing more support for those already rich enough that they don't have to worry about it (through HSA expansion, tax credits, etc). Would we ideally just dismantle the whole system and build it back up from scratch? Absolutely, i'd love to do that, it just isn't realistic and this is what we have. Obamacare had a lot of issues, i've never been a huge fan of it. But this proposed plan is a disaster for the middle and lower classes.

 
AllDay_028:

1) The zealots are the ones trying to legislate away other peoples abilities to have access to abortions. This is, by definition, true. That is not shitting on religion or believers, that's shitting on the zealots who want to conform others to their religion through law. I know you're just using this as an ad hominem, but I won't address it again. You're wrong. I'm not shitting on religion. I never have.

2) Was this supposed to be like a "young people don't know shit because they are on buzzfeed" point? Otherwise I don't get it. But it's a stupid point, if that's what you meant. As for your parenting argument, we are just going to have to agree to disagree on that. But it's not just planned parenthood that won't inform you, depending on the state you live in. So that's not really a planned parenthood specific issue that you have. And lastly, there are countless reasons for abortion outside of "wedlock" or not. Chalking it up to those people you knew who were fine having kids out of wedlock just shows you lack any real perspective on life.

3) I certainly don't disagree with you that we need to fundamentally change the system to allow for people to help themselves. But right now this specific plan is doing nothing other than raising the cost of insurance, causing more people to be uninsured, taking money away from medicaid, and primarily providing more support for those already rich enough that they don't have to worry about it (through HSA expansion, tax credits, etc). Would we ideally just dismantle the whole system and build it back up from scratch? Absolutely, i'd love to do that, it just isn't realistic and this is what we have. Obamacare had a lot of issues, i've never been a huge fan of it. But this proposed plan is a disaster for the middle and lower classes.

  1. Just go back into your original posts, hit the edit button, and officially change what you said.

"all we are doing now is perpetuating... over crowding in poor neighborhoods while well educated people continue to put off having children till later in life or, like my fiance and I, make the decision not to at all..."

"Plain and simple, this is a remnant of religious zealots (I come from a family of them, I know)."

My point is that not all of these 'zealots' come from the 'establishment'. The establishment, that has legislative power, is advocated on the basis of the wishes and desires of the poor. They're not zealots. This has existed since the beginning of Planned Parenthood, which you comfortably try to ignore. Four decades of marches, with thousands if not millions, on Washington is not the voice of zealots. But if you look at the numbers, religious people in this country are at a minority. Blacks didn't have the votes in numbers to overturn segregation or slavery. It took political leadership, 'zealots' if you will to overturn it. You are either a 'none' or a bigot against religious minorities. People can choose to believe, you can accept them even if they are poor.

  1. People who respond, "that's stupid" usually read Buzzfeed. You sound like a bimbo bitch at this point.

  2. The plan may be poorly executed. I don't think the GOP should push this plan through because it could end up being bad for the party, and it's a little too speedy of a plan. And 'taking money away from Medicaid' is misleading. You've said they were gutting Medicaid in previous posts, which just isn't true. There are caps being imposed on federal funding, which is upsetting State leadership because it requires them to fund Medicaid with more of their own money. Again, I don't know if this plan was given a comprehensive look, within the time that it's been brought to the table.

 
iBankedUp:
AllDay_028:

1) The zealots are the ones trying to legislate away other peoples abilities to have access to abortions. This is, by definition, true. That is not shitting on religion or believers, that's shitting on the zealots who want to conform others to their religion through law. I know you're just using this as an ad hominem, but I won't address it again. You're wrong. I'm not shitting on religion. I never have.

2) Was this supposed to be like a "young people don't know shit because they are on buzzfeed" point? Otherwise I don't get it. But it's a stupid point, if that's what you meant. As for your parenting argument, we are just going to have to agree to disagree on that. But it's not just planned parenthood that won't inform you, depending on the state you live in. So that's not really a planned parenthood specific issue that you have. And lastly, there are countless reasons for abortion outside of "wedlock" or not. Chalking it up to those people you knew who were fine having kids out of wedlock just shows you lack any real perspective on life.

3) I certainly don't disagree with you that we need to fundamentally change the system to allow for people to help themselves. But right now this specific plan is doing nothing other than raising the cost of insurance, causing more people to be uninsured, taking money away from medicaid, and primarily providing more support for those already rich enough that they don't have to worry about it (through HSA expansion, tax credits, etc). Would we ideally just dismantle the whole system and build it back up from scratch? Absolutely, i'd love to do that, it just isn't realistic and this is what we have. Obamacare had a lot of issues, i've never been a huge fan of it. But this proposed plan is a disaster for the middle and lower classes.

  1. Just go back into your original posts, hit the edit button, and officially change what you said.

"all we are doing now is perpetuating... over crowding in poor neighborhoods while well educated people continue to put off having children till later in life or, like my fiance and I, make the decision not to at all..."

"Plain and simple, this is a remnant of religious zealots (I come from a family of them, I know)."

My point is that not all of these 'zealots' come from the 'establishment'. The establishment, that has legislative power, is advocated on the basis of the wishes and desires of the poor. They're not zealots. This has existed since the beginning of Planned Parenthood, which you comfortably try to ignore. Four decades of marches, with thousands if not millions, on Washington is not the voice of zealots. But if you look at the numbers, religious people in this country are at a minority. Blacks didn't have the votes in numbers to overturn segregation or slavery. It took political leadership, 'zealots' if you will to overturn it. You are either a 'none' or a bigot against religious minorities. People can choose to believe, you can accept them even if they are poor.

  1. People who respond, "that's stupid" usually read Buzzfeed. You sound like a bimbo bitch at this point.
  2. The plan is stupid. I don't think the GOP should push this plan through because it could end up being bad for the party, and it's a little too speedy of a plan. And 'taking money away from Medicaid' is misleading. You've said they were gutting Medicaid in previous posts, which just isn't true. There are caps being imposed on federal funding, which is upsetting State leadership because it requires them to fund Medicaid with more of their own money. Again, I don't know if this plan was given a comprehensive look, within the time that it's been brought to the table.

1) Wait... you're equivocating Abolishing Slavery to Stopping medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood because it provides abortion services? Religious minorities having to live in a country that has legal access to abortion to black people being enslaved? Are you serious? This can't get any more astounding. I literally cannot believe that there are people out there that believe something this absolutely asinine. I'm at a loss for words just how reckless and undeniably vacuous this is.

2) "Bimbo bitch"... Well, I guess you ran out of talking points. See above.

3) This is nothing more than symantics. It's gutting federal medicaid funding in favor or the military budget. States aren't running huge surpluses. Whether or not states are able to make up the difference doesn't change that fact. It's a 1 trillion dollar shift over a decade (at a minimum). It's not going to be able for states to make up that difference without significant hits to the other parts of their budget. What would actually happen would be that medicaid coverage would just tighten, covering less treatments and people, because that's how you make up such a large gap.

Lastly, it's pretty clear this conversation has run it's course. You don't seem to have the wherewithal to make a cogent point and instead have moved onto comparing abortion to slavery, calling young people stupid, using personal ad hominems like "bimbo bitch", and mis representing what the plan does. It's just another clear indicator that personal bias' and partisanship means more to people than actually challenging how they think about issues and the anger that partisanship for the sake of it seems to instill in people.

 
AllDay_028:

1) Wait... you're equivocating Abolishing Slavery to Stopping medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood because it provides abortion services? Religious minorities having to live in a country that has legal access to abortion to black people being enslaved? Are you serious? This can't get any more astounding. I literally cannot believe that there are people out there that believe something this absolutely asinine. I'm at a loss for words just how reckless and undeniably vacuous this is.

2) "Bimbo bitch"... Well, I guess you ran out of talking points. See above.

3) This is nothing more than symantics. It's gutting federal medicaid funding in favor or the military budget. States aren't running huge surpluses. Whether or not states are able to make up the difference doesn't change that fact. It's a 1 trillion dollar shift over a decade (at a minimum). It's not going to be able for states to make up that difference without significant hits to the other parts of their budget. What would actually happen would be that medicaid coverage would just tighten, covering less treatments and people, because that's how you make up such a large gap.

Lastly, it's pretty clear this conversation has run it's course. You don't seem to have the wherewithal to make a cogent point and instead have moved onto comparing abortion to slavery, calling young people stupid, using personal ad hominems like "bimbo bitch", and mis representing what the plan does. It's just another clear indicator that personal bias' and partisanship means more to people than actually challenging how they think about issues and the anger that partisanship for the sake of it seems to instill in people.

I'm simply unpacking and putting things back into context.

  1. Fact: You, probably subconsciously, are uncomfortable with the poor, but you are trying to use altruism to rationalize, typical liberal.

  2. My bad. I got distracted by your pretty blonde bimbo hair (are you blond?). Anyway, PP is totally different than other programs because it is a federally funded entitlement(?). My tax dollars, vote, and citizenship is valuable enough to cut any program that goes against who I am as an American, as is the same for many other Americans.

  3. Again, the military budget should be saved as much as unnecessary spending on domestic programs. I'm not in agreement with everything the GOP is doing, including this frothy rollout of this repeal.

To conclude, my thought has always been that liberals don't have a lot of respect for the poor, but like to hide behind their lofty spending plans. I mostly like welfare programs because of the optics (it's no different than posturing with large military budgets). However, it's an imbalance to expand commitments without resources, point blank period. The GOP plan should be better, as that's what they campaigned on, yet, they seemed to be more inclined to get something on the table, than actually get dirty in the details. I would like to see a transformation in this country for the better, but that's not going to happen where the left and the right can't commit to find balanced solutions. For now, we will have to take the rights' cuts with the left expansion until hopefully we get to something good in the middle.

 
Best Response
iBankedUp:
AllDay_028:

1) Wait... you're equivocating Abolishing Slavery to Stopping medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood because it provides abortion services? Religious minorities having to live in a country that has legal access to abortion to black people being enslaved? Are you serious? This can't get any more astounding. I literally cannot believe that there are people out there that believe something this absolutely asinine. I'm at a loss for words just how reckless and undeniably vacuous this is.

2) "Bimbo bitch"... Well, I guess you ran out of talking points. See above.

3) This is nothing more than symantics. It's gutting federal medicaid funding in favor or the military budget. States aren't running huge surpluses. Whether or not states are able to make up the difference doesn't change that fact. It's a 1 trillion dollar shift over a decade (at a minimum). It's not going to be able for states to make up that difference without significant hits to the other parts of their budget. What would actually happen would be that medicaid coverage would just tighten, covering less treatments and people, because that's how you make up such a large gap.

Lastly, it's pretty clear this conversation has run it's course. You don't seem to have the wherewithal to make a cogent point and instead have moved onto comparing abortion to slavery, calling young people stupid, using personal ad hominems like "bimbo bitch", and mis representing what the plan does. It's just another clear indicator that personal bias' and partisanship means more to people than actually challenging how they think about issues and the anger that partisanship for the sake of it seems to instill in people.

I'm simply unpacking and putting things back into context.

  1. Fact: You, probably subconsciously, are uncomfortable with the poor, but you are trying to use altruism to rationalize, typical liberal.
  2. My bad. I got distracted by your pretty blonde bimbo hair (are you blond?). Anyway, PP is totally different than other programs because it is a federally funded entitlement(?). My tax dollars, vote, and citizenship is valuable enough to cut any program that goes against who I am as an American, as is the same for many other Americans.
  3. Again, the military budget should be saved as much as unnecessary spending on domestic programs. I'm not in agreement with everything the GOP is doing, including this frothy rollout of this repeal.

To conclude, my thought has always been that liberals don't have a lot of respect for the poor, but like to hide behind their lofty spending plans. I mostly like welfare programs because of the optics (it's no different than posturing with large military budgets). However, it's an imbalance to expand commitments without resources, point blank period. The GOP plan should be better, as that's what they campaigned on, yet, they seemed to be more inclined to get something on the table, than actually get dirty in the details. I would like to see a transformation in this country for the better, but that's not going to happen where the left and the right can't commit to find balanced solutions. For now, we will have to take the rights' cuts with the left expansion until hopefully we get to something good in the middle.

Ok, see now we have:

1) Planned Parenthood and the plight of the religious minority fighting against it in the US is contextually equivalent to slave's fighting for their freedom.

2) Young people, other then you, are stupid.

3) If people point out that #2 is wrong, they sound like a "bimbo bitch" that reads buzzfeed. Also something about blonde's (is this supposed to be some sort of sexist rant?).

4) Absurd accusations that large swaths of people including myself hate poor people but cover that up by trying to help poor people. Because, clearly, we would stop keeping them down if we took away their access to affordable healthcare.

5) It's liberal to support funding healthcare for the poor and middle classes.

I mean this with all due respect, but I'm not certain I have an appropriate adjective to describe just how vapid and ignorant your insane rantings have been in this thread.

 

1) whatever fantasy world you want to live in. Planned parenthood should have their abortions covered by private donations. I'd happily donate for it. But expecting the government to finance Eugenics is stupid and absurd.

2) I am not arguing for the republican plan. I support letting Obamacare die and making small changes to gap the uninsured people.

 

It's amazing how the rest of the developed world somehow manages to cover healthcare for all of their citizens while the richest country in the world continually finds a way to screw over their poor while wasting tens of billions on military spending.

Array
 

They cover it through exorbitant taxes and little to no defense spending. And these super high taxes aren't enough.

Oh, and all the healthcare innovation is coming out of the US.

Hmmm.

Sorry, but we take care of our poor. It's such a pathetic straw man argument. Obamacare is about a group of people in the middle. We can easily reduce this number to a minimal amount without upending things.

 

Yea...no. This is the sam guy that blamed obesity on microwaves and vacuum packaging, not the fact that people can't stop putting ho-hos into their mouths. I'm sure there is no possible way he's politically motivated or anything like that.

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford
 

.

"Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, for knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind. And greed, you mark my words, will not only save Teldar Paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA."
 

I don't know as much as I ought to about the American health reforms but one of the benefits of a Socialised Health System such as the NHS in the UK is that it can increases labour force mobility thus helping create a better labour market. Small Businesses don't need to worry about providing health insurance, workers don't need to worry about staying in a job just to ensure that their kids get their medicine etc.

Personally I think that when looking at health care reform, the amount of jobs it provides should not be one of the main priorities compared to efficiency/equity/Healthy labour force/etc .

 
anarchyburger:
I don't know as much as I ought to about the American health reforms but one of the benefits of a Socialised Health System such as the NHS in the UK is that it can increases labour force mobility thus helping create a better labour market. Small Businesses don't need to worry about providing health insurance, workers don't need to worry about staying in a job just to ensure that their kids get their medicine etc.

Personally I think that when looking at health care reform, the amount of jobs it provides should not be one of the main priorities compared to efficiency/equity/Healthy labour force/etc .

totally agree...

this is definitely one of the better responses...

the potential benefit of a higher labor force mobility is huge !

 

I'm pretty much always skeptical of claims that such and such will destroy X number of jobs. I feel like those forecasts are probably riddled with problems and a great example of pseudoscience (or better yet, a great example of what F.A. Hayek called "scientism"). Furthermore, they can't take into account the new jobs that will be created because it's impossible to predict.

 

Could someone please tell me something the government has messed with that has not cost an exponential amount of money or not caused a massive growth in bureaucracy.

There are other ways to solve things than running to the government.

 

I just get so frustrated when I read crap like this that it makes my blood boil. How is it that there are so many rational, intelligent people in this country, but yet when you lump them together, retarded drivel like this spews out.

Still not sure if I want to spend the next 30+ years grinding away in corporate finance and the WSO dream chase or look to have enough passive income to live simply and work minimally.
 

The reasoning behind the claim is clear: healthcare reform's thousand of pages not only gave pretty healthy tax credits to small businesses, it is also expected to reduce healthcare costs and increase the number of people accessing healthcare. The increased number of people accessing healthcare will force hospitals to hire more medical professionals (doctors, nurses, physician assistants, nurses assistants, etc) and the decreased costs of healthcare ( an allegation that I am unsure will happen) will allow employers to hire more people, buy more capital goods, advertise more, etc. The conglomeration of both of these things will mean more people employed, and also higher taxes.

I think whenever someone claims very specific job loss or gains they are met with the near universal skepticism that you see in this thread. The initial claims in the report doesn't weigh the increased number of medical professionals against the decreased number of jobs from the increased taxation.

I am not cocky, I am confident, and when you tell me I am the best it is a compliment. -Styles P
 

I'm confused, was the "health care reform" supposed to create jobs or, you know, reform health care?

You know a bill is failing when the rational its supporters give for keeping it starts shifting to try and find solid ground. Kind of like when the "reason" for going to war in Iraq shifted from finding WMDs to liberating the Iraqi people.

 

My only question with this healthcare thing is: Why do we have to pay 16% of our GDP in medical costs when other developed countries pay about 8%. I am not sure our healthcare system is twice as good as the hospitals in London and Munich. WE must have reached a point of diminishing returns somehow.

Also, the tax argument does not match as well, European nations tax about 2-3% more than the US. Remember you need to include State sales, property and income taxes

 
freroht:
My only question with this healthcare thing is: Why do we have to pay 16% of our GDP in medical costs when other developed countries pay about 8%. I am not sure our healthcare system is twice as good as the hospitals in London and Munich. WE must have reached a point of diminishing returns somehow.

Also, the tax argument does not match as well, European nations tax about 2-3% more than the US. Remember you need to include State sales, property and income taxes

Something like 90+% of healthcare costs are incurred in the last year of life. In the US, when a 75 year old with terminal cancer gets heart disease, they get a $600K heart operation, paid for by Medicare. In other countries, that patient is denied the heart operation, given pain killers, and told to go home and die in peace.

The US system is incentivized to have costs skyrocket. Patients have no idea for fair price and no control over costs. Insurance companies want higher health care costs because they just raise premiums to keep the same margin (but because revenue base is higher, that means more profits). Providers, such as doctors and hospitals, are equally happy to have higher costs, since that gives them more money.

If we got rid of all healthcare insurance, health care costs would plummet. Truth.

 

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

http://www.economywatch.com/business-and-economy/eu-tax-system.html

"The tax burden in the EU area is much higher than in most other OECD countries. Defined as the tax-to-GDP ratio, it stood at 40 per cent in 1998, some 11 and 12 percentage points higher than in the United States and Japan, respectively. The tax mix is also different. Most EU countries rely heavily on social security contributions, consumption and environmentally related taxes. On the other hand, corporate income and property taxes account for a much lower share of total tax revenues than in Japan and the United States -- the United Kingdom and France being the main exception to "

Europe taxes way more than the USA.

http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/taxation/taxes-on-personal-income_20758510…

Healthcare costs have skyrocketed. No doubt. Government intervention is not going to reduce those costs or improve the quality.

The real issue is people cannot handle the fact that they are going to die. They expect that insurance companies should spend unlimited funds on experimental treatments to keep them alive for another month. There is a finite value on human life and people need to embrace palliative care in this country.

The whole European example is infeasible in this country. You are comparing relatively small, high taxed countries with the United States, which is really 50 countries forming one big one. Look at the issues Europe is having with bailing out profligate countries such as the PIGS. It is not easy acting as a unified whole. We also have an illegal immigration issue that Europe cannot compare with.

I completely agree that there needs to be healthcare reform, but this is something that was rammed down the throats of the people in this country. We already have free, government provided heathcare for the poor and old. Private employers cover a large portion of this country. The real issue is the people who lose their job or those who are not poor enough. The unemployed situation could be solved by paying a small amount per week to temporarily be on medicaid. The working poor is another problem and I cannot easily find a solution.

I don't know, do people hold any responsibility for their lives anymore? We have a multitude of solutions for lower income individuals, but does there not come a point where you have to lay in the bed you made? How much sympathy must we dole out? I am getting pretty damn tired of government intervention to "solve" mistakes people made themselves. Can I have a government agent come to my house and iron my clothes because I slept late and cant do it now? At what point do you have to suck it up and wipe your own ass?

 
ANT:
"The tax burden in the EU area is much higher than in most other OECD countries. Defined as the tax-to-GDP ratio, it stood at 40 per cent in 1998, some 11 and 12 percentage points higher than in the United States and Japan, respectively. The tax mix is also different. Most EU countries rely heavily on social security contributions, consumption and environmentally related taxes. On the other hand, corporate income and property taxes account for a much lower share of total tax revenues than in Japan and the United States -- the United Kingdom and France being the main exception to "

This popped to me. So basically Europe (excluding France and the UK) has a more regressive tax structure that should encourage corporate growth. This combined with high taxes on personal income should encourage investment as it would be cheaper to keep money invested and generating returns at lower tax rates instead of cashing out and consuming with that money. High payroll taxes should also encourage some very lean companies, which leads me to believe that if you could get around the short workweeks you could generate some pretty impressive growth. I wonder if anyone has done a study on why these tax weightings haven't had these results?

 

@ Midas

IMO your writting always make for an interesting read. Great journalism. Far and above the 101 "which Desk, HF, IB, or Prop Firm" topics that usuaually grace these pages.

In responce to your topic... I think the lines between economics and politics were blurred a LOOOOOONG time ago. G.W. Bush Jr. first politcal campaign that got him into office was just the door slowly being open to the public.

Please don't make me talk to you like an asshole...
 

High employee costs. Limited population growth. Very restrictive corporate environment. Limited upside. Why people want the USA to be more like Europe is beyond me. Wonderful place to visit, but nothing I would want to emulate economically or socially.

 

Agree with Alex. We need more skin in the game and a more holistic approach towards healthcare. You can also buy small policies through aflack and the like for serious illness. Honestly, most people are good with limited plans and a HSA. Physicals, normal blood work and simple stuff is pretty cheap. Cancer and other long term illness is what gets expensive.

I am telling you guys now, the more government becomes your mom and dad, the more they tell you what to eat and when to go to bed. We have rants daily about drugteating welfare because we pay for it. Do you think it will be cool to eat junk food all the time when I have to flip the bill for your diabetes?

 

Repeal it, yesterday.

Economies should not orient towards employment, but rather toward productivity and wealth creation.

********************************* “The American father is never seen in London. He passes his life entirely in Wall Street and communicates with his family once a month by means of a telegram in cipher.” - Oscar Wilde
 

I think short term the effect will be mostly in the healthcare IT sector, the plan initially calls for extensive reform in how medical records are kept and transferred among institutions; Essentially forcing HC providers to put most records in electronic format. I-Banks which specialize in IT firms will be in luck as those firms would need a major capital boost to feed the high demand caused by Obama.

As for Pharma and Providers, the plan doesn't "force" any immeadiate changes so the effect will be somewhat minimal for a year or two. However, for an industry that weathered the recession pretty well, Healthcare IB is looking to be a key aspect of most major IBs.

 

Accusamus accusantium amet porro nihil. Esse quia beatae debitis recusandae soluta et. Iure explicabo qui harum.

Laudantium nihil enim magni ea ut sed itaque. Eius sint illum omnis magni qui corporis non. Est nihil provident sed et atque.

Dolore alias quaerat ut ipsa maxime et et aut. Alias vitae rerum temporibus libero. Repellendus ut rerum minus.

Totam autem non nemo soluta beatae. Repudiandae hic aut et reiciendis repellendus a. Accusamus voluptas ut tenetur dignissimos.

Get busy living
 

Sed culpa perspiciatis quas et voluptates eius eius. Sunt voluptas officiis consequatur consequatur. Iusto cupiditate ratione suscipit id. Expedita dolor facere asperiores. Tenetur qui modi ut quidem.

Asperiores placeat ullam commodi et quia ratione laborum. Vel ea distinctio facilis.

Dolor voluptates eaque sed est praesentium voluptatem nobis. Quidem officia non et et.

Bene qui latuit, bene vixit- Ovid
 

Voluptatum officia rem praesentium maiores amet. Similique consequatur incidunt laboriosam sed eum dolore. Est distinctio sit laboriosam consequuntur maiores ab. Omnis culpa dolor placeat quo laborum veniam tempore. Inventore iure necessitatibus consequatur quam nulla deserunt qui. Laudantium pariatur officia nostrum aperiam quas quia. Sed adipisci quam et dolores.

Consectetur laudantium ut sed in rem nesciunt non. Adipisci dolor incidunt et occaecati sint. Quas recusandae quo maxime commodi eius enim. Autem et a et soluta enim quo.

Baby you're the perfect shape, baby you're the perfect weight. Treat me like my birthday, I want it this way and I want it that way. It makes a man feel good baby.

Career Advancement Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Jefferies & Company 02 99.4%
  • Goldman Sachs 19 98.8%
  • Harris Williams & Co. (++) 98.3%
  • Lazard Freres 02 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 03 97.1%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Harris Williams & Co. 18 99.4%
  • JPMorgan Chase 10 98.8%
  • Lazard Freres 05 98.3%
  • Morgan Stanley 07 97.7%
  • William Blair 03 97.1%

Professional Growth Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Lazard Freres 01 99.4%
  • Jefferies & Company 02 98.8%
  • Goldman Sachs 17 98.3%
  • Moelis & Company 07 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 05 97.1%

Total Avg Compensation

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Director/MD (5) $648
  • Vice President (19) $385
  • Associates (86) $261
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (13) $181
  • Intern/Summer Associate (33) $170
  • 2nd Year Analyst (66) $168
  • 1st Year Analyst (202) $159
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (144) $101
notes
16 IB Interviews Notes

“... there’s no excuse to not take advantage of the resources out there available to you. Best value for your $ are the...”

Leaderboard

1
redever's picture
redever
99.2
2
Secyh62's picture
Secyh62
99.0
3
Betsy Massar's picture
Betsy Massar
99.0
4
BankonBanking's picture
BankonBanking
99.0
5
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
6
DrApeman's picture
DrApeman
98.9
7
kanon's picture
kanon
98.9
8
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
9
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
10
Jamoldo's picture
Jamoldo
98.8
success
From 10 rejections to 1 dream investment banking internship

“... I believe it was the single biggest reason why I ended up with an offer...”