are y'all better off than you were 4 years ago ?

[Capvin]

It is pretty remarkable the new things you can learn by just reading BYC. Who knew that companies outsourcing jobs and downsizing and unenployment was the fault of Obamacare?? I guess I was just misled by the results of the Fortune 500 companies that are making record profits here in the US. Hmmm...maybe it is just the case in Western Oregon. But I think I also heard that my ingrown toenails are the result of Obamacare, so who really knows.

 

[thaiturkey]

It is pretty remarkable the new things you can learn by just reading BYC. Who knew that companies outsourcing jobs and downsizing and unenployment was the fault of Obamacare?? I guess I was just misled by the results of the Fortune 500 companies that are making record profits here in the US. Hmmm...maybe it is just the case in Western Oregon. But I think I also heard that my ingrown toenails are the result of Obamacare, so who really knows.

 

[chickened]

It is pretty remarkable the new things you can learn by just reading BYC. Who knew that companies outsourcing jobs and downsizing and unenployment was the fault of Obamacare?? I guess I was just misled by the results of the Fortune 500 companies that are making record profits here in the US. Hmmm...maybe it is just the case in Western Oregon. But I think I also heard that my ingrown toenails are the result of Obamacare, so who really knows.

I don't think fortune 500 companies have much to worry about it seems it will effect the businesses that are struggling right now.

Maybe Obamacare will cover pedicures.

 

[rufus]

It is pretty remarkable the new things you can learn by just reading BYC. Who knew that companies outsourcing jobs and downsizing and unenployment was the fault of Obamacare?? I guess I was just misled by the results of the Fortune 500 companies that are making record profits here in the US. Hmmm...maybe it is just the case in Western Oregon. But I think I also heard that my ingrown toenails are the result of Obamacare, so who really knows.

Well, if a company does not provide health insurance for its employees, there is a $2,000 per employee fine. That really adds up. So, it is cheaper to just have production overseas rather than deal with the extra expense. That money for Obamacare has to come from somewhere, and it cannot come from profits or the company will lose its financing. It cannot be passed on to the customer because then the company couldn't compete with cheap imports.

It would be nice if there was an easy way out of this situation, but I don't think there is one.

 

[oldrooster]

Well, if a company does not provide health insurance for its employees, there is a $2,000 per employee fine. That really adds up. So, it is cheaper to just have production overseas rather than deal with the extra expense. That money for Obamacare has to come from somewhere, and it cannot come from profits or the company will lose its financing. It cannot be passed on to the customer because then the company couldn't compete with cheap imports.

It would be nice if there was an easy way out of this situation, but I don't think there is one.

it depends on how many employees you have I have no idea if there are differences if they are full or part time permanent or temporary but I can imagine many companies using temp agencies or independent contractors to skirt the law if they can or fire 2-3 people to get under the number.

 

[ivan3]

rufus wrote Well, if a company does not provide health insurance for its employees, there is a $2,000 per employee fine. That really adds up. So, it is cheaper to just have production overseas rather than deal with the extra expense. That money for Obamacare has to come from somewhere, and it cannot come from profits or the company will lose its financing. It cannot be passed on to the customer because then the company couldn't compete with cheap imports.

It would be nice if there was an easy way out of this situation, but I don't think there is one.

Affordable Care Act, like Dodd-Frank are near-beer shrouds to drape the rot. The ACA `might' decrease, in some small way, the increases in the unfunded liability of medicare, but that is simply not going to cure the disease. And, whoever thought that allowing U.S. multinationals to build factories in other countries, the output of which wasn't being sold, primarily, to the locals, was insane (that's Globalization, i.e., enlightened Corporate imperialism, for you GATT). Short term savings on `Cheap' stuff is an illusory benefit to the Republic. This current excuse to `offshore' is FUD generation. FUD is unnecessary, there are worse things to fear.

We have been at a trade disadvantage with nearly all of our Industrialized competition for decades owing to our health care system - %GDP (Canada, for example):

Comparison of the health care systems in Canada and the United States are often made by government, public health and public policy analysts.[1][2][3][4] The two countries had similar health care systems before Canada reformed its system in the 1960s and 1970s. The United States spends much more money on health care than Canada, on both a per-capita basis and as a percentage of GDP.[5] In 2006, per-capita spending for health care in Canada was US$3,678; in the U.S., US$6,714. The U.S. spent 15.3% of GDP on health care in that year; Canada spent 10.0%.[5] In 2006, 70% of health care spending in Canada was financed by government, versus 46% in the United States. Total government spending per capita in the U.S. on health care was 23% higher than Canadian government spending, and U.S. government expenditure on health care was just under 83% of total Canadian spending (public and private) though these statistics don't take into account population differences.[6]

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

Canadian System can demand drug discounts from pharm. industry, what did we do?

Medicare Part D is instructive (both about the pol's and their devotion to special interests rather than the Republic): The Medicare Modernization Act (2003) was pushed primarily by the Repubs but passed in a bipartisan manner. Say what you will about the two unpaid for tax cuts and wars, this beat them all, adding, in one fell swoop, more debt than the Social Security shortfall (a problem with a Simpson-Bowles solution, thank goodness).

Add together the unfunded liabilities from Medicare and Social Security, and it comes to $99.2 trillion over the infinite horizon. Traditional Medicare composes about 69 percent, the new drug benefit roughly 17 percent and Social Security the remaining 14 percent.

http://www.dallasfed.org/news/speeches/fisher/2008/fs080528.cfm (that's from the Dallas Fed Chief's 2008 estimate - we're probably talking an even 100 trillion, today)

What about the pol. who pushed this through (no discounts if the Federal Gov is paying!), well, he got his:

By the design of the program, the federal government is not permitted to negotiate prices of drugs with the drug companies, as federal agencies do in other programs. The Department of Veterans Affairs, which is allowed to negotiate drug prices and establish a formulary, has been estimated to pay between 40%[26] and 58%[27] less for drugs, on average, than Medicare Part D. For example, the VA pays as little as $782.44 for a year's supply of Lipitor (atorvastatin) 20 mg, while the Medicare pays between $1120 and $1340 on Part D plans.[27]
Although generic versions of [frequently prescribed to the elderly] drugs are now available, plans offered by three of the five [exemplar Medicare Part D] insurers currently exclude some or all of these drugs from their formularies.…Further, prices for the generic versions are not substantially lower than their brand-name equivalents. The lowest price for simvastatin (generic Zocor) 20 mg is 706 percent more expensive than the VA price for brand-name Zocor. The lowest price for sertraline HCl (generic Zoloft) is 47 percent more expensive than the VA price for brand-name Zoloft.
—Families USA, No Bargain: Medicare Drug Plans Deliver High Prices[27]

Former Congressman Billy Tauzin, R-La., who steered the bill through the House, retired soon after and took a $2 million a year job as president of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the main industry lobbying group. Medicare boss Thomas Scully, who threatened to fire Medicare Chief Actuary Richard Foster if he reported how much the bill would actually cost, was negotiating for a new job as a pharmaceutical lobbyist as the bill was working through Congress.[28][29] A total of 14 congressional aides quit their jobs to work for the drug and medical lobbies immediately after the bill's passage.

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

No matter which way it goes Tuesday, I don't feel better about the grand kid's chances (though I'll continue to keep up with the letters to Congress - a quixotic devotion of mine).
Have to remember to cross into Canada to get some drugs (at a discount being subsidized by my tax dollars) so as to keep the pharm profits up so those profits get eked out into a 401k that is losing value owing to increasing debt load. Not a pretty picture.

 

[hemet dennis]

Can someone tell me why the present President is afraid of a trade war with China ?

 

[chickened]

Can someone tell me why the present President is afraid of a trade war with China ?

He is spineless... real tough when bad mouthing a hurricane that is on its way out but he is a coward when it comes to real issues or maybe a pacifist. In one word... inexperienced.

Toanswer your question he is not going to rock the boat for a bunch of reasons but mainly I think he just does not want the drama.

 

[cupman]

The answer is simple, a trade war would hurt both sides so there is really no purpose for it. The U.S. is so dependent on international trade that something as drastic as a trade war would not help our already weak economy, it would hurt it. It might sound good hearing a one liner from some political pundit but if you look at the ramifications of a trade war with China it is not such a spectacular idea. In any case I think both candidates have similar views on trade with China.

If you want a better explanation you can read about the Smoot Hawley Tariff Act of 1930. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot-Hawley_Tariff_Act_of_1930)

 

[cupman]

He is spineless... real tough when bad mouthing a hurricane that is on its way out but he is a coward when it comes to real issues or maybe a pacifist. In one word... inexperienced.

Toanswer your question he is not going to rock the boat for a bunch of reasons but mainly I think he just does not want the drama.

Emotional reply with no truth to it. The president has brought several cases in front of the World Trade Organization and has had nearly 100% success in complaints against China. Look at his success with imposing tariffs on Chinese tires or more recently about tariffs on U.S. steel.

The difference between our president and his challenger is that Mitt Romney has made it clear that "on day one" he is going to label China a currency manipulator. They are, sure, but doing so will no doubt be seen as outright disrespect and will hinder relations with the Chinese, especially in the area of trade. Our president, on the other hand, uses the World Trade Organization as a intermediary. This keeps things fair, almost like a court of law, and if they rule against China it won't be seen as disrespectful. chickened might call that spineless and cowardly but the majority of people call it calculated and professional.