Meltdown

[drogulus]

    Hmmm, I don't know. It looks like we were heading out of it anyway, at least the chart would support that view. But rearmament starting in 1940 accelerated the recovery which was in progress. You could make the argument that, as in the current case, the effect of stimulative policies was in moderating the decline. I think stimulus should be seen as a holding action and an opportunity to enact projects which will have long term benefits. Rajan doesn't like this. He disapproves of Rahm Emmanuel for saying that you shouldn't waste a crisis, believing this is just an excuse for pork barrel projects. I think this is too negative. Some projects are wasteful, others pay off. Most bridges are not to nowhere.

[Karl Henning]

Independents, widely considered the most critical voting bloc this fall, continue to blame Bush far more than Obama for the economic troubles. Fifty-seven percent of unaffiliated voters put the blame on the former Republican president, while 25 percent believe the blame rests more with Obama.

We've written for quite some time that the longer Obama is in office (and the longer Bush is out of it), the more likely it is that blame for the economy would shift toward him. But, these numbers suggest — gasp! — we were wrong.

"The economy? It's still Bush's fault"

[Karl Henning]

Bank of America, reversing loss, earns $2 billion in fourth quarter

The bank set aside $1.5 billion for litigation expenses, mostly related to fighting lawsuits from mortgage loans.

"That's not much," remarked Mitt Romney . . . .

[Todd]

The bank set aside $1.5 billion for litigation expenses, mostly related to fighting lawsuits from mortgage loans.

Well, you have to be able to pony up for firms like Gibbs & Bruns.  $85,000,000.00 settlement payments don't grow on trees.  Fortunately, such firms are out for the public good.

[Karl Henning]

Nice to see they were able to turn such a nice profit even though they gave up the monthly debit card fee . . . .

[drogulus]

    If more people blame Bush than Obama for current economic conditions it may explain why people also tend to blame Congress for inaction on the economy. People are being realistic, and I don't know if I should be surprised or not. There is all the emotionality around the Tea Party and the Occupiers, but there's a solid center of the country that seems to be taking a longer view that doesn't depend on finding a scapegoat but fixing responsibility where it belongs. We had a near depression on top of a huge ballooning deficit that made corrective measures politically untenable, but these events occurred before Obama arrived, and the inability to respond effectively was due to a very public strategy of sabotage. No President, not Bush II, not Clinton, not Bush I, and certainly not Reagan has been the object of such total obstructionism. The public sees that and the polls reflect that reality. For this reason I think Obama will be reelected, even though by traditional reckoning he should lose.

[Coopmv]

IMO, the Obama Care is a complete failure, as employees all over the country are paying more for their shares of the work-provided health insurance starting this year.  The program has not been able to force down the insurance rates because elderly statesman like Tom Daschle, the former Democratic Senate Majority Leader is on the payroll of United Heathcare, go figure ...

Red State, Blue State but money is always green.   

[Coopmv]

    If more people blame Bush than Obama for current economic conditions it may explain why people also tend to blame Congress for inaction on the economy. People are being realistic, and I don't know if I should be surprised or not. There is all the emotionality around the Tea Party and the Occupiers, but there's a solid center of the country that seems to be taking a longer view that doesn't depend on finding a scapegoat but fixing responsibility where it belongs. We had a near depression on top of a huge ballooning deficit that made corrective measures politically untenable, but these events occurred before Obama arrived, and the inability to respond effectively was due to a very public strategy of sabotage. No President, not Bush II, not Clinton, not Bush I, and certainly not Reagan has been the object of such total obstructionism. The public sees that and the polls reflect that reality. For this reason I think Obama will be reelected, even though by traditional reckoning he should lose.

According to some computer model, Obama will lose his re-election bid.  The model has only missed 2 presidential elections: It predicted Ford to win in 76 and Bush I to win in 92.  As such, the model is quite accurate.

[Karl Henning]

IMO, the Obama Care is a complete failure, as employees all over the country are paying more for their shares of the work-provided health insurance starting this year.

Well, I may have news for you:  in practically each of the past four or five years, my health care premium has gone up, or there has been a marginal roll-back in the benefit, or both.  I fail to see that as an invidious result of "Obamacare."  The cost structure of the health service is a problem;  the drive to make sure that all Americans are covered by health insurance is not the problem there, although it is not yet positioned to be quite the solution, either.

[Karl Henning]

According to some computer model, Obama will lose his re-election bid.  The model has only missed 2 presidential elections: It predicted Ford to win in 76 and Bush I to win in 92.  As such, the model is quite accurate.

As such, the model may miss this year, too.

However, if you wish to put your faith in that computer model, that is your prerogative : )

[snyprrr]

IMO, the Obama Care is a complete failure, as employees all over the country are paying more for their shares of the work-provided health insurance starting this year.  The program has not been able to force down the insurance rates because elderly statesman like Tom Daschle, the former Democratic Senate Majority Leader is on the payroll of United Heathcare, go figure ...

Red State, Blue State but money is always green.   

Our company, 7 years ago, 'upgraded' their brand, blah blah, and now, after all, they're switching back,... but not, get this, until after Novemeber,... which I thought was interesting.

Is everyone putting off their 'decisions' until after...um ... 'November'

Things That Make You Go...Hmmm

[drogulus]

The AARP has this on the effects of the new law.

Benefits in Effect Now

Expanded coverage for preventive care and screenings

People who have Medicare Part B as well as those covered by many individual and employer-sponsored health plans are eligible for free — i.e., no deductibles or copayments — preventive and wellness benefits, such as annual health exams, immunizations, mammograms and other screenings for diseases including diabetes and certain cancers. For instance, Medicare Part B enrollees can have a free wellness visit with their doctor every year. (See "What You Need to Know About the New, Free Medicare Checkup.") People with other types of insurance can ask their insurance company or physician about the free preventive services now available to them.
Related
   
New options for people with pre-existing conditions

Adults whom private insurers consider to be "high-risk" due to prior or current health problems — and who have been uninsured for at least six months — are eligible to buy insurance through the federal Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan (PCIP) in their state.

Lowered costs for people in the Medicare Part D "Doughnut Hole"

People with Medicare Part D who fall into the prescription drug coverage gap will automatically receive a 50 percent discount on most brand-name prescriptions and biologic drugs, as well as a discount on generic drugs. For 2011, the generic drug discount is 7 percent; in 2012, it will be 14 percent. (To learn more, see the Ms. Medicare columns "Paying Less for Drugs in the Doughnut Hole" and "Can a Drug Cost You Less in the Doughnut Hole?")

Greater consumer protections against insurance cancellations

A common practice among insurers seeking to deny payments for costly medical care has been to re-examine customers' initial applications and cancel or "rescind" policies. So long as you pay your premiumns, your health insurance is guaranteed. The health care law prohibits insurers from rescinding coverage because of unintentional mistakes or minor omissions on an application.

An end to lifetime limits on health insurance coverage

Insurers can no longer limit how much they will pay out in essential medical benefits over a person's lifetime. This benefit is now automatically in effect on all insurance policies.

Higher annual limits on health insurance coverage

Most insurance plans must now cover medical expenses up to at least $750,000 per year. (See page 3 for more about annual coverage limits).

Expanded coverage for adult children up to age 26

Young adults who don't have access to an employer health plan now can stay on a parent's health insurance policy until they turn 26, even if they are married or don't live at home. Previously, most insurance plans kicked young adults off family policies when they turned 18 or, if the young adult was in college, soon after graduation.

Insurance supports for early retirees

If you have retiree health coverage through your work and are between 55 and 64, funding from the new Early Retirees Reinsurance Program will enourage your former employer to maintain your health benefit until you reach Medicare age.

Greater protections for children with pre-existing conditions

Under most individual and group insurance plans, children up to age 19 with prior or current health problems can no longer be denied coverage.

Free wellness care for babies and children

Children are eligible for free annual wellness exams and immunizations from birth to age 21.

Easy-to-use resources for finding affordable insurance

Consumers seeking to research private and public health insurance plans, obtain rate information, and better understand their insurance options can now visit a one-stop shopping website established by the federal government.

Easier access to specialty care

Among the "patient bill of rights" provisions in effect now are rules that prevent insurance companies from requiring primary-care physician referrals for ob/gyn visits or out-of-network emergency care.

Expanded rights of appeal

If an insurer rejects a claim or cancels coverage, customers of most plans now have the right to appeal the decision to an outside review panel. Unlike in the past, insurers will have to abide by that group's findings.

Greater protections for nursing home residents

The new health care law provides expanded resources, such as access to quality ratings and complaint reports, for families seeking nursing home care and greater protections for nursing home residents.

Insurance supports for small-business employers

Business tax credits have been established for employers who have fewer than 25 employees and want to provide health insurance to their workers.

Benefits Still to Come

An end to denials and expensive premiums due to gender or pre-existing conditions

As of Jan. 1, 2014, insurance companies will no longer be able to deny adults health coverage because of pre-existing conditions, or charge higher premiums due to gender or gender-specific medical needs, such as childbearing.
Health Law: An Overview

The creation of health insurance exchanges

Also in 2014, most individuals and families will be required to carry a minimal level of health insurance. Those without employer or other group coverage will be able to purchase insurance more affordably through state-based health insurance exchanges. Premium subsidies will be available for individuals and families with limited incomes. People who select not to have health insurance coverage could face a fine.

Expanded mental health and substance abuse services

While many group insurance plans today do include mental health and addiction services, by 2014 most individual and small group insurance plans will be required to do the same.

An end to annual insurance limits on health coverage

In 2012, insurers will be required to cover medical expenses of up to $1.2 million per year. In 2013, the ceiling will rise to $2 million; in 2014, it will be eliminated entirely.

Insurance coverage for more low-income people

In 2014, people who earn less than about $15,000 a year (and about $29,000 for a family of four) will be eligible to enroll in Medicaid, the federally run public health insurance program for low-income people.

End of the Medicare Part D Doughnut Hole

In 2020, the Medicare Part D coverage gap, or doughnut hole, will completely close.


     Since people often oppose the law without much idea of what's in it, I thought it would be good to know what the law really does.

     As for the law increasing your premiums, my premiums go up all the time. That probably won't change much for most people.

[Coopmv]

Our company, 7 years ago, 'upgraded' their brand, blah blah, and now, after all, they're switching back,... but not, get this, until after Novemeber,... which I thought was interesting.

Is everyone putting off their 'decisions' until after...um ... 'November'

Things That Make You Go...Hmmm

Many middle and small businesses are waiting for the regime change in Washington after this November before they put their hiring plans in effect. 

[Coopmv]

Well, I may have news for you:  in practically each of the past four or five years, my health care premium has gone up, or there has been a marginal roll-back in the benefit, or both.  I fail to see that as an invidious result of "Obamacare."  The cost structure of the health service is a problem;  the drive to make sure that all Americans are covered by health insurance is not the problem there, although it is not yet positioned to be quite the solution, either.

But you are missing the point.  The increases many people are seeing for 2012 are the biggest in a number of years ...

[drogulus]

But you are missing the point.  The increases many people are seeing for 2012 are the biggest in a number of years ...

     Smart move, I'd say. Raise the premiums and blame it on the new law. The past increases were just increases and anger focused on the insurers. This is a freebie for them. They also have the Heritage Foundation spreading FUD.

     The truth is that unless you fall into one of the categories I referenced above you won't notice anything. That means you won't see the difference until you get into trouble, and then you can ask Heritage "but, but why didn't you tell me?". Or, you can decide that objective information is worth more than propaganda. Not that AARP is objective, mind you, but they do outline the provisions which Heritage propaganda doesn't, (I know, I checked). In case there's any doubt, always prefer information sources that increase the information supply, rather than restrict it. It amazes me that more people don't get this point. You should never trust a single source for information, but you should especially distrust sources that tell you a bill is bad without explaining what is actually in the bill. See, they're afraid you'll find out that there's more to the story. The best rule to follow is to give your trust to sources that want you to know more, not less. But don't trust anyone completely.

[Coopmv]

     Smart move, I'd say. Raise the premiums and blame it on the new law. The past increases were just increases and anger focused on the insurers. This is a freebie for them. They also have the Heritage Foundation spreading FUD.

     The truth is that unless you fall into one of the categories I referenced above you won't notice anything. That means you won't see the difference until you get into trouble, and then you can ask Heritage "but, but why didn't you tell me?". Or, you can decide that objective information is worth more than propaganda. Not that AARP is objective, mind you, but they do outline the provisions which Heritage propaganda doesn't, (I know, I checked). In case there's any doubt, always prefer information sources that increase the information supply, rather than restrict it. It amazes me that more people don't get this point. You should never trust a single source for information, but you should especially distrust sources that tell you a bill is bad without explaining what is actually in the bill. See, they're afraid you'll find out that there's more to the story. The best rule to follow is to give your trust to sources that want you to know more, not less. But don't trust anyone completely.

If the law was so good, why wasn't a public health insurance exchange where people can buy more afforable health insurance coverage included as part of the package?  Giving the private health insurers a healthy dose of competitions is a sure way to drive down insurance premium. 

[Coopmv]

Another recession is on its way according to Gary Shilling ...

[mc ukrneal]

But you are missing the point.  The increases many people are seeing for 2012 are the biggest in a number of years ...

My premiums have gone up EVERY year for the past 20 (in those years I had insurance, which was most of them). It's gone up regarldless of whether a Republican or a Democrat was in office. It's gone up in good years and in bad. It's gone up, up, and up no matter what laws were or were not enacted.

[Todd]

It's gone up in good years and in bad. It's gone up, up, and up no matter what laws were or were not enacted.

That will change after the 2012 election.  I promise.

[Karl Henning]

Todd, have I expressed appreciation before, of your sense of humor?