If Chrysler was telling them they were going to liquidate, the the adminstration had to assume they would do what they said they would do.
I don’t see how your objection substantiates the WAPO bloggger’s assertion that Obama was using “phony numbers” anyway.
It doesn’t, which is why I originally took issue with the WaPo article. What I’m saying is that there are reasonable grounds to criticize Obama’s speech, but the WaPo bit did exactly what it accused him of doing.
I think it’s pretty stupid of him to paint it as a governmental financial success by using weasel words. But in a way it’s hilarious since most Republicans want you to believe that Obama is responsible for all the financial mess anyway, so according to them, ALL the money Chrysler got was from Obama, and they’ve paid it back. QED.
But… but…but…
And “If you’ve got insurance through your employer, you can keep your insurance.” What unauthorized Obama spokesperson came up with that crazy line??
The 30% of companies probably line up with the idiots in the Republican Base. You know, the ones who live and breathe the misinformation that the sickening liars you vote into office promulgate at your behest.
When the 30% realize that they will actually pay less under the new law, I imagine they’ll come around.
No, no, no! Business peiople are solid, feet on the ground people, who ony make decisions based on reasonable principles and hard facts. Hence, New Coke. And credit default swaps. And other splendid innovations too numerous to count! Its not that Republicans pander to them, its that Republicans also embody the kind of strictly rational thinking that fosters growth, like cutting taxes while starting futile and expensive wars.
The fact that they are willing to align themselves with hate-mongers and Bible-thumping bigots only underscores their practicality. It is said that one must be very careful if one sups with the Devil, but that’s only true if he isn’t a major stockholder. If the Dark Lord has significant investments to protect, he is a very reliable ally.
Let’s say I agree they’ll pay less under the new law. Will the benefits to their employees be the same?
And what if your imagination fails, and they don’t? I mean, Obama didn’t promise that you could keep your insurance unless you’re employed by Idiots in the Republican Base, did he? I think the debate might have gone a bit differently if he had said, “For 70% of you, you can keep your insurance. But 30% of you won’t be able to.”
If 30% of people will make economically irrational choices because of the negrofication of the White House, there is nothing you can do.
If I tell you that I’m gonna give your daughter a pony and in response you cut off her legs, it’s not my fault that she can’t ride.
But…but…but why isn’t the company that did the survey being forthcoming about the basics of the methodology when asked for them by a writer at Time magazine (e.g. who they surveyed, where in the country the respondents were located, whether they were chosen at random, what was the refusal/non-response rate, and so on and so forth)?
Why in particular did they prime the respondents about their answers, to wit: “…our survey educated respondents about [employer sponsored insurance] implications for their companies and employees before they were asked about post-2014 strategies”? How did they “educate” respondents? Why did they “educate” respondents? How did they ensure that their ‘education’ did not influence the responses that they got?
Uh oh, I’m sensing another fizzle! And this thread got off to such a heady start!
You assert as an article of faith, with no proof, that these choices are being made for irrational reasons.
I’m reasonably sure few respondants said their actions were based on the “negrofication” of the White House. Why, in a debate, do you believe you can simply define that as truth that all participants must accept?
I guess we’ll have to wait and see what actually happens, because IMHO it’s highly unlikely that 30% of employers will be able to get away with canceling coverage (at least not without a commensurate increase in compensation).
Do you believe ANY employers will drop insurance?
As your own cite says, “Previous other reputable studies have said far fewer businesses would drop coverage…”
That means, I take it, that you concede that other reputable studies have said some (fewer) businesses would drop coverage.
Yes?
I’m not asserting anything as an article of faith. An article of faith is believing that Jewish carpenters, on very rare occasions reanimate after death.
I was making a glib comment because you’re a fucking dishonest moron. Is that clear enough for you?
Hentor, below, makes a good point. I assumed you’d be honest enough to use a reputable cite. So that makes me the Stupid Democrat, I suppose.
I’m certain that many of the respondents aren’t particularly racist. However, many, if not most of them probably believe the lies that the Republican Party has spread. They are not dealing with information that is based in the real world. They are dealing with a perception of Death Panels, Government Takeovers and Bears, oh my!
That only matters if the same number of employers weren’t going to drop coverage in this time frame anyway, yes (ie., if HCR hadn’t passed)?
I have no idea how many employers, if any, will drop employees’ coverage because of the Affordable Care Act. You were the one to proffer such an outcome as evidence of a Stupid Democratic Idea of the Day, and to point to a particular source on the matter.
So, that means, I take it, that you are conceding that this study is of questionable reputation?
Do you have any reputable study that some proportion of employers will do in such a fashion that it makes the ACA a stupid idea?
If you wish to defend the study that you have brought before us, can you please answer the questions about it in my previous post?
Uh, Bricker? Your quote refers to something called Market Watch, while the link you offer takes one to something called The Network Journal, where a casual perusal finds no evidence of the quoted passage.
And this McKinsey Quarterly? Never heard of it. Is there some reason I should pay them some special heed? Are they recongnized experts in the field? Had you ever heard of them before now?
For the moment, sure, since I don’t have any way to answer your questions about the methodology, I’ll withdraw this study.
Your own cite acknowledges that previous studies (which it characterizes as reputable) have found the phenomenon exists, albeit in a smaller number.
It seems to me that almost ANY number above zero makes Obama’s assurance false.
They’ve only been in business since 1926, those impudent upstarts.
Of course I’ve heard of them. And yes, I’d say their expertise is well known. I can’t think of an older management consulting firm.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/firms-halting-coverage-as-reform-starts-survey-2011-06-06
Above is the link to the beginning story at Marketwatch.com, cunningly hidden at www.marketwatch.com.
What’s next? You need me to unzip you so you can take a piss?
Would you mind, terribly? Your Mom already left for the day and your sister isn’t due for another half hour.
I LOVE it when Daddy and Daddy fight…