Fuck its silent in here.......

[Wheezer]

Sharron Angle, zipperhead.

[morpheus]

For those still interested in hearing about ObamaCare's incentive problems: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304510704575562643804015252.html

The consequence of these generous subsidies will be that America's health reform may well drive many more people than projected out of employer-sponsored insurance and into the heavily subsidized federal system. Perhaps this is a miscalculation by the Congress, perhaps not. One principle of game theory is to think like your opponent; another is that there's always a larger game.

Indeed, Mr. Bredesen (D - TN).  Indeed.

[R-V]

For those still interested in hearing about ObamaCare's incentive problems: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304510704575562643804015252.html

The consequence of these generous subsidies will be that America's health reform may well drive many more people than projected out of employer-sponsored insurance and into the heavily subsidized federal system. Perhaps this is a miscalculation by the Congress, perhaps not. One principle of game theory is to think like your opponent; another is that there's always a larger game.

Indeed, Mr. Bredesen (D - TN).  Indeed.

I think moving people from employer-based insurance onto the exchanges is a feature, not a bug. But I've been reading a lot of Phil Rogers lately so I don't really trust my opinions.

[Slaky]

I think I don't take people seriously when they use the phrase ObamaCare.

[Bort]

I think I don't take people seriously when the use the phrase ObamaCare.

Me neither.

[Quality Start Machine]

For those still interested in hearing about ObamaCare's incentive problems: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304510704575562643804015252.html

The consequence of these generous subsidies will be that America's health reform may well drive many more people than projected out of employer-sponsored insurance and into the heavily subsidized federal system. Perhaps this is a miscalculation by the Congress, perhaps not. One principle of game theory is to think like your opponent; another is that there's always a larger game.

Indeed, Mr. Bredesen (D - TN).  Indeed.

Wouldn't this lead to more jobs? I keep hearing about how putting more money in the pockets of business owners will create jobs. Lowering the employers' costs (via cost of benefits being assumed by the Gubment) would, by that logic, spur hiring.

[morpheus]

For those still interested in hearing about ObamaCare's incentive problems: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304510704575562643804015252.html

The consequence of these generous subsidies will be that America's health reform may well drive many more people than projected out of employer-sponsored insurance and into the heavily subsidized federal system. Perhaps this is a miscalculation by the Congress, perhaps not. One principle of game theory is to think like your opponent; another is that there's always a larger game.

Indeed, Mr. Bredesen (D - TN).  Indeed.

Wouldn't this lead to more jobs? I keep hearing about how putting more money in the pockets of business owners will create jobs. Lowering the employers' costs (via cost of benefits being assumed by the Gubment) would, by that logic, spur hiring.

You'd have to assume that 1) the employers' costs end up lower than they were *before* PPACA, which may or may not be the case, and 2) that the demand effects coming from having to pay the subsidies (that money still comes from somewhere) and from having to pay for your health insurance through the exchanges (which may or may not be higher priced to you than what your employer might have offered) are lower as well.  I'm not sure you can make those assumptions.

[Tinker to Evers to Chance]

I think I don't take people seriously when the use the phrase ObamaCare.

Me neither.

"Pelosicare" just doesn't have the same ring to it.

[Quality Start Machine]

I think I don't take people seriously when the use the phrase ObamaCare.

Me neither.

"Pelosicare" just doesn't have the same ring to it.

Dammit, can't we just call it "Socialism" and move on? I'm tired of updating the glossary.

[Yeti]

I think I don't take people seriously when the use the phrase ObamaCare.

Me neither.

"Pelosicare" just doesn't have the same ring to it.

Dammit, can't we just call it "Socialism" and move on? I'm tired of updating the glossary.

I already do?

[R-V]

For those still interested in hearing about ObamaCare's incentive problems: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304510704575562643804015252.html

The consequence of these generous subsidies will be that America's health reform may well drive many more people than projected out of employer-sponsored insurance and into the heavily subsidized federal system. Perhaps this is a miscalculation by the Congress, perhaps not. One principle of game theory is to think like your opponent; another is that there's always a larger game.

Indeed, Mr. Bredesen (D - TN).  Indeed.

Wouldn't this lead to more jobs? I keep hearing about how putting more money in the pockets of business owners will create jobs. Lowering the employers' costs (via cost of benefits being assumed by the Gubment) would, by that logic, spur hiring.

You'd have to assume that 1) the employers' costs end up lower than they were *before* PPACA, which may or may not be the case, and 2) that the demand effects coming from having to pay the subsidies (that money still comes from somewhere) and from having to pay for your health insurance through the exchanges (which may or may not be higher priced to you than what your employer might have offered) are lower as well.  I'm not sure you can make those assumptions.

Response to the WSJ editorial: when Massachusetts enacted a similar law - with much softer penalties, which would imply a greater incentive to drop coverage - employer-based coverage actually went up.

In 2006, the state of Massachusetts put in place a system much like the one the Affordable Care Act will create nationally--with subsidies for low income groups (subsidies that are even more generous than those in the Affordable Care Act) and an individual mandate, but without the small group tax credit or meaningful penalties on firms that don't offer insurance. The result? Employer-sponsored insurance has risen in the state by more than 100,000 persons.

Bredesen does talk about another state--his home, Tennessee--and does some calculations to suggest it would save money by dropping insurance for its public employees. But his math is way off. First of all, Tennessee state employees generally make too much money to get big subsidies through the exchanges. Forty percent have incomes higher than 400 percent of the poverty lines, which means they'd be eligible for no tax credits at all; even for those with incomes below that level, the average tax credit would offset just a third of their premium cost. Second, if these individuals lost their public employee insurance and went into the exchanges, they would want to receive the same very generous benefits they get now–coverage comparable to the platinum plans offered in the exchange. Working from CBO's estimate of the cost of less generous plans in the exchange in 2016, those plans would cost about $6650 for an individual and $17,400 for a family in 2014.

Using the Governor's estimates of 40,000 state employees, and accounting for the low subsidization and high cost of the very generous benefits they would need to get in the exchange, I estimate that it would cost state employees about $425 million out of their own pockets to replicate in the exchange what they get today from the state. Accounting for the amount already paid by employees ($63 million after tax), that is a net increase in cost to them of $362 million. Providing a raise to state employees sufficient to offset that cost would cost the state about $496 million, which is itself an understatement since the higher wages would lower the employees' subsidies and require additional raises. Add to that the $80 million the state would have to pay in free rider assessment, and the cost to the state is $576 million. Thus, by dropping insurance, the state wouldn't save money, as Bredesen claims. It would incur a new cost of around $230 million--and, along the way, displace state employees from their existing source of insurance. I find it hard to believe Bredesen--or any sane governor--would even think about doing that.

[Chuck to Chuck]

I love living in the past:

"(Clarence Thomas) was obsessed with porn," (Lillian McEwen) said of Thomas, who is now 63. "He would talk about what he had seen in magazines and films, if there was something worth noting."

Fork for SCOTUS?

[R-V]

I'm sure Democrats will be too lame to actually follow this advice, but it's interesting.

By looking separately at voters who only use cell phones, those who have both cell and home phones, and those only with home telephones, SUSA has found significant differences in the voting intentions of the cell phone-only citizens and the rest. It is no secret to young people (of all ages) who use cell phones exclusively that they are culturally distinct from land liners in ways that extend beyond hardware preferences.

Nomadic, and on the move, more reliant on the Internet than the television for their news intake, they're the future of the United States. And they're also a lot more multi-racial – and more actively defy societal apartheids - than the rest of the population. OMG! Wait... wait... see that little light bulb popping on over our heads? By Jove, I think we get it! Those are the 2008 first time Obama voters, duh! And getting them to vote in the midterm elections is the biggest headache that the White House and the Democratic party has right now leading up to November 2.

But it is less of a headache in California this year, precisely because Proposition 19 is on the ballot.

The best case scenario for Democrats, however, is not that Prop 19 loses and comes up again in California in 2012, but to the contrary: If the historic Proposition 19 passes, the pundits and talking heads that generate the misnamed "conventional wisdom" in the Washington DC beltway will be falling all over each other to note that Prop 19 won and it pulled Boxer out of the fire with it. If coming out of Election Night, Prop 19 emerges with the sheen of a  newly-minted winner, Democratic strategists will have little choice but to adopt a "50 state strategy" (especially in the 26 states - Maine, Massachusetts, and virtually everything west of the Mississippi River - that have citizen generated statewide ballot initiative processes), and go "all in" on legalizing, regulating and taxing marijuana, even if their politicians continue to balk at saying it aloud.

[CBStew]

I filled out my absentee ballot last night.  Tell Oleg that I voted for Prop. 19.

[Quality Start Machine]

Weed is Liberal marriage protection.