• Obamacare to cut work hours by equivalent of 2 million jobs
    105 replies, posted
[URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euGHP_VRfrs"]According to the Congressional Budget Office Director, this is not true.[/URL] These media sources do not understand economics at all, and they are misinterpreting data from the Congressional Budget Office. EDIT: Yea, that was the wrong video at first.
[QUOTE=Terminutter;43803004]To reduce a complicated market like the pharmaceutical industry to high school level stuff you'll learn in business studies and economics does not work. It has more nuances than that.[/QUOTE] I agree. Every market is more complicated than the basic supply and demand curves. But when someone makes a statement implying that companies wouldn't lower production to avoid losses, you have to show on a basic level why this isn't true. If you delve into more complicated factors, you start to lose people.
[QUOTE=UziXxX;43802893]The post you quoted when I was explaining basic economics has nothing to do with drug development.[/QUOTE] Except your 'basic economics' fails to account for any of the actual processes involved in developing new drugs or the sources of resources/money involved. The amount of resources put into the drugs developed in the United States is vastly disproportionate to the amount of resources put into drug development in other sectors when you look at the private sector. It isn't uncommon for more money to be put into advertising for drugs than for the entirety of preclinical and clinical trials in addition to production. Speaking as someone involved in preclinical drug development and discovery, you are grossly misrepresenting the nature of the market and the processes involved. I mean, seriously, you posted a god damn Forbes editorial as evidence. Here's an article from the British Medical Journal from the same year a couple months after the Forbes piece was published: [url]http://www.bmj.com/content/345/bmj.e4348?ijkey=Y1g4ZVUImIbtXOI&keytype=ref[/url] [QUOTE]Although the pharmaceutical industry emphasises how much money it devotes to discovering new drugs, little of that money actually goes into basic research. Data from companies, the United States National Science Foundation, and government reports indicate that companies have been spending only 1.3% of revenues on basic research to discover new molecules, net of taxpayer subsidies.23 [B]More than four fifths of all funds for basic research to discover new drugs and vaccines come from public sources[/B].24 [B]Moreover, despite the industry’s frequent claims that the cost of new drug discovery is now $1.3bn (£834m; €1bn),25 this figure, which comes from the industry supported Tufts Center,26 has been heavily criticised. Half that total comes from estimating how much profit would have been made if the money had been invested in an index fund of pharmaceutical companies that increased in value 11% a year, compounded over 15 years[/B][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=UziXxX;43802893]The post you quoted when I was explaining basic economics has nothing to do with drug development. [editline]5th February 2014[/editline] Actually it didn't. Someone said that companies don't lower production when a price ceiling is implemented. Every econ professor I've had, each of whom have Ph.Ds say otherwise. I don't know, I'm more inclined to believe a Ph.D econ professor than someone on facepunch. So drug companies spend $0 on R&D? Every dollar they receive is from government grant? Anyone who believes that drug companies don't spend any of their own money on R&D is daft. [URL]http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2012/02/10/the-truly-staggering-cost-of-inventing-new-drugs/[/URL][/QUOTE] I didn't say that and you'd know that if you read what I did say rather than post without reading
[QUOTE=UziXxX;43803132]I agree. Every market is more complicated than the basic supply and demand curves. But when someone makes a statement implying that companies wouldn't lower production to avoid losses, you have to show on a basic level why this isn't true. If you delve into more complicated factors, you start to lose people.[/QUOTE] Your example isn't necessarily true though (the ten and two bikes one). Firms often receive economies of scale which means it's cheaper per unit to produce more units. One explanation for this is the contribution value - variable costs (costs per unit) are subtracted from the revenue, and that remainder then contributes to the fixed costs (rent, salaries, R&D etc). So if you have more products produced and sold, the cost of each unit (in terms of variable costs and contribution to fixed costs) can be lower. I don't even know why we are debating this though. But as someone who spouts on about economics you should know better.
[QUOTE=Comrade_Eko;43800687]I'm a college student who takes max credit hours every semster. So my options are, get a shitty part time job so I can get subsidies to get healthcare that I won't use because I've been living on my own since I was 17 and never went to the doctor, whether I needed stiches or got deathly sick I was always too poor to afford it, I did that shizzle by myself like an IRL rust. Or I can just pay a fine which is WAY WAY less costly than paying for insurance, so I can keep up my max credit hours and finish college 2 years early just like I've been planning to, get a real job that would have had insurance covered in my employment anyway. In my opinion if this was to help out the poor I think it is going to have the EXACT opposite effect[/QUOTE] You clearly don't understand the ACH bill at all Lets assume you as a college student somehow don't apply for your parents health insurance because you are an orphan, your parents are the "kick you out never see you again" type or you just don't want to deal with them (you can ride off your parents health insurance till you are 26) To even be fined for not having health insurance under the AHC, the cost of AHC must not exceed 8% of your income for the most basic plan. If it does, you are exempt from the entire AHC. If you have no income or below $9000/yr (aka you do not file your taxes) then you are exempt, since what you owe for AHC is determined by how you file your taxes. This basically means if you make below poverty line (somewhere in the ballpark of $20-25k/yr) then you are exempt from AHC fines. If you make anywhere from poverty line to around $46K/yr, you qualify for subsidies to help pay for AHC (these subsidies are much more signifigant the closer you are to poverty line). Pretty much anyone who cannot afford health care in the first place doesn't need to worry about AHC at all. AND this isn't even including the new "hardship exemption", where if you experience a hardship such as a close family member dying, unemployment, disability, etc then you become temporarily exempt from AHC. To give you an idea of what you are expected to pay if you aren't exempt from the fine, its around 2-3% of your total income must go to an AHC plan on the lower-income side of the scale, otherwise its upwards of 6-8% of your total income must go to AHC for high earners (the ones who can easily afford it). I'm really sick of people saying how it penalizes poor and the middle class when 99% of the poor don't have to worry about AHC at all, and most of middle class just have to basically put a drop of a bucket towards AHC to avoid being fined. [editline]6th February 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Antdawg;43802669]It's fucking dumb that it forces people to get health insurance if they don't want to pay a penalty. Yes it would be good for everyone to have healthcare, but when low-income earners can't afford the health insurance it just doesn't work. Honestly, I reckon Obamacare should be repealed and replaced with something that does the job properly. Doesn't need to be a fully socialised universal healthcare system like in Europe, they could at least adopt the Australian model which offers both public healthcare (pay a 1.5% levy on taxable income above $350 per week and when you go to the hospital the government will subsidise a significant portion of the costs) and private insurance (private for access to private hospitals with shorter waiting lines and full coverage of hospital fees on the spot by the insurance company).[/QUOTE] As already said in my post above, [B]low income workers don't have to get AHC at all and won't be fined if they don't[/B] AHC is determined by you filing your taxes. If you don't file taxes, you don't owe AHC anything because you aren't in their system. If you file taxes and the cheapest plans for AHC will cost more than 8% of your income, you don't owe AHC anything.
[QUOTE=UziXxX;43800713]A lot of resources are poured into creating it. The price is steep because the company has to get rewarded for the work it did to create this drug. Not because "fuck the poor only rich should get this drug".[/QUOTE] But the CEO of Bayer Pharmaceutical [thread=1354719][I]literally said this[/I][/thread].
I'm just waiting for a good democratic candidate to vote for. I was so upset Ron Paul didn't make the ballot.
[QUOTE=KorJax;43803929]You clearly don't understand the ACH bill at all Lets assume you as a college student somehow don't apply for your parents health insurance because you are an orphan, your parents are the "kick you out never see you again" type or you just don't want to deal with them (you can ride off your parents health insurance till you are 26) To even be fined for not having health insurance under the AHC, the cost of AHC must not exceed 8% of your income for the most basic plan. If it does, you are exempt from the entire AHC. If you have no income or below $9000/yr (aka you do not file your taxes) then you are exempt, since what you owe for AHC is determined by how you file your taxes. This basically means if you make below poverty line (somewhere in the ballpark of $20-25k/yr) then you are exempt from AHC fines. If you make anywhere from poverty line to around $46K/yr, you qualify for subsidies to help pay for AHC (these subsidies are much more signifigant the closer you are to poverty line). Pretty much anyone who cannot afford health care in the first place doesn't need to worry about AHC at all. AND this isn't even including the new "hardship exemption", where if you experience a hardship such as a close family member dying, unemployment, disability, etc then you become temporarily exempt from AHC. To give you an idea of what you are expected to pay if you aren't exempt from the fine, its around 2-3% of your total income must go to an AHC plan on the lower-income side of the scale, otherwise its upwards of 6-8% of your total income must go to AHC for high earners (the ones who can easily afford it). I'm really sick of people saying how it penalizes poor and the middle class when 99% of the poor don't have to worry about AHC at all, and most of middle class just have to basically put a drop of a bucket towards AHC to avoid being fined.[/QUOTE] You couldn't be more wrong. The ACA fines you for not having some form of insurance if you make more than $10,000/year.... Period. Reason being is that if you make more than $10,000/year and are not on medicare, medicaid, etc...., you receive a tax credit that puts your premium costs under 8% of your income. The only exemptions are: Religions opposed to health insurance, illegal immigrants, and the incarcerated. So either get medicare, get insurance, or get a fine. (and btw, the fine is WAAAY cheaper than the premiums)
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;43804449] The only exemptions are: Religions opposed to health insurance, illegal immigrants, and the incarcerated. [/QUOTE] Nah. [URL="https://www.healthcare.gov/exemptions/"]First result on Google.[/URL] It's not that hard.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;43804616]Nah. [URL="https://www.healthcare.gov/exemptions/"]First result on Google.[/URL] It's not that hard.[/QUOTE] I left out if you're a member of a tribe, uninsured for a few months, and a couple others.... Wow, you really got me there....
Worked at a large company, had 28 hours part time. Now at a small business with <50 employees. Part time=40-50 hours a week. Damn glad that change happened.
[QUOTE=KorJax;43803929]You clearly don't understand the ACH bill at all Lets assume you as a college student somehow don't apply for your parents health insurance because you are an orphan, your parents are the "kick you out never see you again" type or you just don't want to deal with them (you can ride off your parents health insurance till you are 26) To even be fined for not having health insurance under the AHC, the cost of AHC must not exceed 8% of your income for the most basic plan. If it does, you are exempt from the entire AHC. If you have no income or below $9000/yr (aka you do not file your taxes) then you are exempt, since what you owe for AHC is determined by how you file your taxes. This basically means if you make below poverty line (somewhere in the ballpark of $20-25k/yr) then you are exempt from AHC fines. If you make anywhere from poverty line to around $46K/yr, you qualify for subsidies to help pay for AHC (these subsidies are much more signifigant the closer you are to poverty line). Pretty much anyone who cannot afford health care in the first place doesn't need to worry about AHC at all. AND this isn't even including the new "hardship exemption", where if you experience a hardship such as a close family member dying, unemployment, disability, etc then you become temporarily exempt from AHC. To give you an idea of what you are expected to pay if you aren't exempt from the fine, its around 2-3% of your total income must go to an AHC plan on the lower-income side of the scale, otherwise its upwards of 6-8% of your total income must go to AHC for high earners (the ones who can easily afford it). I'm really sick of people saying how it penalizes poor and the middle class when 99% of the poor don't have to worry about AHC at all, and most of middle class just have to basically put a drop of a bucket towards AHC to avoid being fined. [editline]6th February 2014[/editline] As already said in my post above, [B]low income workers don't have to get AHC at all and won't be fined if they don't[/B] AHC is determined by you filing your taxes. If you don't file taxes, you don't owe AHC anything because you aren't in their system. If you file taxes and the cheapest plans for AHC will cost more than 8% of your income, you don't owe AHC anything.[/QUOTE] You seem to know what you're talking about, I need to ask you a few questions First of all yes I am an orphan so no the whole parent thing is pointless to me. I said I was a college student, I live off of the extra money I get from financial aid, in order to get financial aid I have to file taxes. This means I usually work during summer break because during the summer I only take 1-2 classes. Then I file whatever pocket change I earn, but the gov knows it gives me like 10+k a year in grants. So I guess what I'm asking is, doesn't this mean I'm getting fined because technically I make 14+k a year even though I only get ~4k for bills and food? I am poor as fuck but I spend a lot of money on that piece of paper I'm going to school for
[QUOTE=UziXxX;43802533] Let's say you build bicycles. It takes you $100 to build one, so you sell it for $150. If something happened where you suddenly could only sell them for $75, in which senario would you lose more money? a) Produce 10 bikes, costing you 1000. You sell them for 750. You lost 250. b) You produce 2 bikes, costing you 200. You sell them for 150. You lost 50. So I ask you: does producing less still not make any sense?[/QUOTE] You're assuming that you would keep manufacturing your bicycles, even when you're selling them at a loss - that doesn't make any sense at all, unless you plan on recouping those losses on repair fees, etc. I'm assuming that the company would still make a small profit on each product, in which case it would make infinitely more sense selling it at that price (unless those assembly lines could be used for a more lucrative product) than just throw the whole R&D budget out the window by not selling it at all. Unless you're trying to send a political message, of course.
[QUOTE=Comrade_Eko;43806728]You seem to know what you're talking about, I need to ask you a few questions First of all yes I am an orphan so no the whole parent thing is pointless to me. I said I was a college student, I live off of the extra money I get from financial aid, in order to get financial aid I have to file taxes. This means I usually work during summer break because during the summer I only take 1-2 classes. Then I file whatever pocket change I earn, but the gov knows it gives me like 10+k a year in grants. So I guess what I'm asking is, doesn't this mean I'm getting fined because technically I make 14+k a year even though I only get ~4k for bills and food? I am poor as fuck but I spend a lot of money on that piece of paper I'm going to school for[/QUOTE] You can technically write off your college expenses while at school on your taxes IIRC, which means your "taxable income" is much less. I could be wrong on this, I've just heard that people do this successfully. Also, as far as I'm aware, income does not equal grants/refunds/rebates/etc. I.E. if I make $200 off a credit card signup bonus, that does not count towards my income since it is technically a rebate. As far as financial aid, it depends: [url]https://ttlc.intuit.com/questions/1538384-does-financial-aid-count-as-income[/url] [quote]Financial aid is treated differently based on whether it is "gift aid" (basically, merit- or need-based aid) - typically most "grants" and "scholarships" fall in to this category - or "compensation based aid" (aid granted in exchange for work) - some "followships" and nearly all "work study" arrangements are this type. Gift aid is tax exempt. Compensation aid (like all wages and other compensation) is taxable as income.[/quote] In other words, unless you are getting financial aid through a work study program or etc, that financial aid is tax-exempt, which means you do not report it as income. Now the above link does say that if you have left over money from finaid that you use to help spend on food/board/etc then that is taxable income, so watch out for that. However, now that I look it up, you can write off college expenses on your taxes: [url]http://www.bankrate.com/finance/money-guides/the-irs-offers-ways-to-save-on-college-1.aspx[/url] Basically if all you basically have from financial aid and grants to spend on living expenses in the year is $4K, even if y you get over $10K in aid, then only that $4K slice is taxable income. Keep in mind though, there are a lot of loopholes in this stuff. You might be able to get away with writing off a good chunk of your living expenses from your taxes since you technically don't have a stable job, and as far as the IRS knows you could be getting that money from relatives/etc to help pay for rent/etc (not taxable) rather than from your grants. After all you are only in the wrong if you get audited, which most of the time IRS isn't interested in doing to college students unless you are doing hardcore tax evasion. Not that I'm wanting to encourage you to do tax evasion. [editline]6th February 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;43804449]You couldn't be more wrong. And the rest of my post is still correct. The ACA fines you for not having some form of insurance if you make more than $10,000/year.... Period. Reason being is that if you make more than $10,000/year and are not on medicare, medicaid, etc...., you receive a tax credit that puts your premium costs under 8% of your income. The only exemptions are: Religions opposed to health insurance, illegal immigrants, and the incarcerated. So either get medicare, get insurance, or get a fine. (and btw, the fine is WAAAY cheaper than the premiums)[/QUOTE] I was wrong with my first figure but you are wrong as well. If I'm making $15K a year in taxable income (aka AFTER everything has been written off), I am exempt from AHC because I would qualify for medicaid instead. If I made $16K a year in taxable income, I would no longer be exempt from AHC but my premiums would be so heavily subsidized I'd have to pay around $44~/mo for healthcare on the silver plan (even cheaper for basic).
[QUOTE=KorJax;43811117] I was wrong with my first figure but you are wrong as well. If I'm making $15K a year in taxable income (aka AFTER everything has been written off), I am exempt from AHC because I would qualify for medicaid instead. If I made $16K a year in taxable income, I would no longer be exempt from AHC but my premiums would be so heavily subsidized I'd have to pay around $44~/mo for healthcare on the silver plan (even cheaper for basic).[/QUOTE] I see what you are saying, and you're partially right. If you qualify for medicare, then no, you don't have to pay the fine. But if you don't qualify for medicare, and don't get insurance, the fine is still cheaper, and that's what a LOT of young people are doing.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.