Morning Report – Sentiment Remains in Hibernation 3/11/14

Vital Statistics:

Last Change Percent
S&P Futures 1878.7 1.5 0.08%
Eurostoxx Index 3094.6 1.8 0.06%
Oil (WTI) 100.7 -0.4 -0.43%
LIBOR 0.233 -0.001 -0.45%
US Dollar Index (DXY) 79.85 0.081 0.10%
10 Year Govt Bond Yield 2.78% 0.00%
Current Coupon Ginnie Mae TBA 105.7 0.0
Current Coupon Fannie Mae TBA 104.3 0.0
RPX Composite Real Estate Index 200.7 -0.2
BankRate 30 Year Fixed Rate Mortgage 4.36
Markets are flattish this morning on no real news. Bonds and MBS are unchd.
The NFIB Small Business Optimism Report showed sentiment took a hit in February, falling from 94.1 to 91.4. January’s big hiring plans seem to have been reversed. Aside from a plan to increase capital expenditures, there is not a lot to hang your hat on in this report. Small business sentiment remains firmly mired at recessionary levels, which is astounding when you consider the S&P 500 is at record levels.

Future expectations of home price appreciation took a step upward in February, according to Fannie Mae. Homeowners expect to see 3.2% home price appreciation over the next 12 months, which was a step up from January’s 2% reading. 56% expect mortgage rates will increase over the next 12 months, while 33% expect them to be flat.

And finally, given the theme of sentiment, economic confidence is waning, according to Gallup. This probably doesn’t bode well for retail sales data coming out on Thursday. It is possible that weather is impacting this number, as it seems to have been blamed for everything else, but it is a bad omen for a 2H acceleration, which everyone seems to be forecasting.

134 Responses

  1. Frist! With a tweet of the day.

    Like

  2. Weird this wasn’t a selling point in 2010.

    Like

  3. Weird this wasn’t a selling point in 2010.

    The prison-industrial complex is just part of the system of racial oppression in this country, so of course Baggers want to keep their boots on the throats of the victims after they are released by depriving them of health care.

    Just more proof that Baggers are racists and hate Obama because they are racists.

    [I could totally play the part on DailyKos or MM or any of those hate/lie sites.]

    Like

  4. Ezra Klein’s new site has its teaser up.

    Like

  5. Perhaps the tide is turning.

    Bad science is everywhere.

    Like

  6. Oh my.

    Like

  7. Scott, an excerpt of vapid, fatuous pontification from one of the greatest declarations of judicial imperialism ever made:

    “In two circumstances, however, the Court would almost certainly fail to receive the benefit of the doubt in overruling prior cases. There is, first, a point beyond which frequent overruling would overtax the country’s belief in the Court’s good faith. Despite the variety of reasons that may inform and justify a decision to overrule, we cannot forget that such a decision is usually perceived (and perceived correctly) as, at the least, a statement that a prior decision was wrong. There is a limit to the amount of error that can plausibly be imputed to prior courts. If that limit should be exceeded, disturbance of prior rulings would be taken as evidence that justifiable reexamination of principle had given way to drives for particular results in the short term. The legitimacy of the Court would fade with the frequency of its vacillation.

    “That first circumstance can be described as hypothetical; the second is to the point here and now. Where, in the performance of its judicial duties, the Court decides a case in such a way as to resolve the sort of intensely divisive controversy reflected in Roe and those rare, comparable cases, its [p867] decision has a dimension that the resolution of the normal case does not carry. It is the dimension present whenever the Court’s interpretation of the Constitution calls the contending sides of a national controversy to end their national division by accepting a common mandate rooted in the Constitution.

    That was Casey v. Planned Parenthood in 1992. Who could have predicted that their scolding wouldn’t work, that over 20 years later, citizens would still be defying their supreme majesties by fighting over this. No matter how many times they tell half the country to shut up, people just won’t listen.

    Like

    • qb:

      That was Casey v. Planned Parenthood in 1992. Who could have predicted that their scolding wouldn’t work, that over 20 years later, citizens would still be defying their supreme majesties by fighting over this. No matter how many times they tell half the country to shut up, people just won’t listen.

      The clueless arrogance is really quite something to behold. The Court’s stated reasoning is the exact opposite of reality. It is precisely “the sort of intensely divisive controversy reflected in Roe” over which the court cannot expect a divided populace to simply accept their imperial ruling in perpetuity and without question. In fact, it is especially in such instances that it is the Court’s responsibility not to undermine the normal political processes by which a compromised solution to such “intensely divisive controversies” might get negotiated, particularly in the absence of clear and indisputable instructions within the text of the Constitution itself. Just making shit up out of “emanations of penumbras” in order to achieve a politically desired result is especially irresponsible in these kinds of intensely divisive situations.

      Like

  8. http://www.cityam.com/article/1394504131/venezuela-s-mad-socialist-experiment-destroying-nation

    This cant’ be right. I was told that without profits everyone would share equally

    Like

  9. Nate Silver has also announced the launch of 538’s new iteration:

    We have some news! We’re planning to relaunch FiveThirtyEight on March 17, a week from Monday.

    As with all plans, this one could go awry. We’re still completing final testing on the new website, and tweaking the final elements of the site’s design. But we estimate the probability of a March 17 launch at 90.617854%.

    Like

  10. Heh, Truth to Power.

    Like

  11. “This cant’ be right. I was told that without profits everyone would share equally”

    That isn’t socialism or communism – it is state-controlled capitalism, or fascism, which is what the right is all about… Don’t you get it?

    Like

  12. Double oh my.

    Like

  13. “Carl”:

    I thought that the Between Two Ferns bit was funny. But then, I’m a librul.

    Like

  14. “Don’t you get it?”

    No. I’m just a simpleton who looks at his costco sized rolls of toilet paper and thinks this is what’s best in life.

    Like

  15. Don’t you get it?

    Brent channels Aletheia!

    Like

  16. And evidently that Between Two Ferns appearance hit its target audience (sorry, “Carl”!):

    The Internet giveth, and the Internet taketh away. Or maybe that should be the other way around. Months after HealthCare.gov’s botched launch, it’s suddenly enjoying a burst of popularity. Where is all the love coming from? According to the White House’s top spokesperson for health care, it’s the comedy site FunnyorDie.com:

    http://t.co/FrO24hdvcA is the #1 source of referrals to http://t.co/0r93BavlrV right now.
    — Tara McGuinness (@HealthCareTara) March 11, 2014

    What’s driving the explosion in traffic? Obama went on Zach Galifianakis’ mock interview show, “Between Two Ferns” — and Obama made a pitch to younger Americans to sign up for insurance.

    “I wouldn’t be with you here today if I didn’t have something to plug,” Obama said.

    “Have you heard of the Affordable Care Act?”

    The strategy seems to be working.

    Like

    • What’s driving the explosion in traffic? Obama went on Zach Galifianakis’ mock interview show, “Between Two Ferns” — and Obama made a pitch to younger Americans to sign up for insurance.

      That’s heartening, that “younger Americans” get their information from mock interview comedy shows. Thank God they’ve got the franchise, that’s all I can say.

      Like

  17. It’s good to be the king.

    According to a bunch of the CPAC speakers, this must mean that Vladmir Putin also got advance episodes:

    “One perk of being the most powerful man in the world: yes, you get to see episodes early,” showrunners David Benioff and D.B. Weiss told Vanity Fair.

    Like

  18. No sorries necessary Michi! I don’t believe the report though. Way to convenient.

    Like

  19. Brent channels Aletheia!

    Yep. Who can whitewash away history with the best of ’em…

    Like

  20. Looks like there’s proposals to try and extend open enrollment now too. Anyone want to take odds on this?

    “For what it’s worth, the Obama administration has been pretty emphatic that March 31 is the real deadline. We have less than three weeks to find out if that’s the case.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/03/11/facing-obamacare-enrollment-deadline-these-states-are-pushing-for-more-time/

    Like

    • jnc:

      Looks like there’s proposals to try and extend open enrollment now too. Anyone want to take odds on this?

      It doesn’t make much sense to even call the ACA “the law” anymore, does it? ACA isn’t the law. Whatever Obama decides from day-to-day is the law.

      Like

    • jnc:

      Yesterday regarding Harry Reid you said:

      I think that Reid also benefits from lowered expectations. After the whole Romney tax return lying episode, Reid is easily dismissed as a pure hack, regardless of being the Senate majority leader.

      Never overestimate the common sense nor underestimate the hypocrisy of the sleazeballs at the New York Times:

      The leader of this effort has been Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader, who has delivered a series of blistering attacks against the Kochs and their ads on the Senate floor over the last few weeks. In addition, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has set up a website, http://www.kochaddiction.com, to remind voters of just what the Kochs stand for, and why they raised $407 million in the 2012 election. And individual candidates are making sure voters know who is paying for the ad blitz…

      Mr. Reid’s comments have gone to the heart of the matter. In his most recent speech, he pointed out that the fundamental purpose of the Kochs’ spending is to rig the economic system for their benefit and for that of other oligarchs. They own an industrial network that ranks No. 14 on the list of the most toxic American air polluters, and got their money’s worth in 2010 by helping elect a Republican House majority that has resisted environmental regulation.

      “That Republican majority is, in fact, working to gut the most important safeguards to keep cancer-causing toxins and pollution that cause sickness and death out of the air we breathe and the water we drink,” Mr. Reid said. “Without those safeguards, the Koch brothers would pass on the higher health care costs to middle-class Americans while padding their own pocketbooks.” He called it “un-American” to spend lavishly to preserve tax breaks and end workplace safety standards.

      Like

      • He called it “un-American” to spend lavishly to preserve tax breaks and end workplace safety standards.

        And that is where a bright line is crossed. No different than calling any special interest or political opponent un-American. That the NYT does not see this is a sign of their -uh- astigmatism.

        I am assuming the cited article or some other related article did not call the Senate Majority Leader on this, of course. I had assumed that someone would have done so, preferably a Democrat.

        Like

        • Mark:

          I am assuming the cited article or some other related article did not call the Senate Majority Leader on this, of course.

          Correct. The link was a NYT editorial. It essentially praised Reid for taking the lead on Koch bashing. The irony of a $2.5 billion media company attempting to influence the political process by producing commentary criticizing another company for spending money “lavishly” to, er, influence the political process is apparently lost on the NYT editors.

          They really are shameless propagandists for the Dems.

          Like

  21. I don’t believe the report though. Way too convenient.

    It seems to be the intertubes story of the day–both right and leftwing sites are talking about it as well as the Twitterati and whatever you call us old codgers who still have FB pages.

    Like

  22. People aren’t signing up b/c they though the ACA was going to be completely free.

    Like

  23. Anyone want to take odds on this?

    IIRC, you were one of the ones predicting this would happen (although I think you were saying that based on the federal site’s atrocious launch).

    Like

  24. without the date, it’s basically guarantee issue, community rating, no mandate.

    i’d drop coverage if that’s the case.

    Like

    • nova:

      without the date, it’s basically guarantee issue, community rating, no mandate.

      i’d drop coverage if that’s the case.

      According to today’s WSJ, you should drop coverage.

      ObamaCare’s implementers continue to roam the battlefield and shoot their own wounded, and the latest casualty is the core of the Affordable Care Act—the individual mandate. To wit, last week the Administration quietly excused millions of people from the requirement to purchase health insurance or else pay a tax penalty.

      This latest political reconstruction has received zero media notice, and the Health and Human Services Department didn’t think the details were worth discussing in a conference call, press materials or fact sheet. Instead, the mandate suspension was buried in an unrelated rule that was meant to preserve some health plans that don’t comply with ObamaCare benefit and redistribution mandates. Our sources only noticed the change this week….

      But amid the post-rollout political backlash, last week the agency created a new category: Now all you need to do is fill out a form attesting that your plan was cancelled and that you “believe that the plan options available in the [ObamaCare] Marketplace in your area are more expensive than your cancelled health insurance policy” or “you consider other available policies unaffordable.”

      This lax standard—no formula or hard test beyond a person’s belief—at least ostensibly requires proof such as an insurer termination notice. But people can also qualify for hardships for the unspecified nonreason that “you experienced another hardship in obtaining health insurance,” which only requires “documentation if possible.” And yet another waiver is available to those who say they are merely unable to afford coverage, regardless of their prior insurance. In a word, these shifting legal benchmarks offer an exemption to everyone who conceivably wants one.

      Like

  25. Yep. Same logic applies to the states too:

    “The PPACA is more what you’d call “guidelines” than actual rules.”

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0325980/quotes?item=qt0416601

    Like

  26. Nova, every time they take the punt to fix the short term political problem at the expense of the medium & long term policy.

    I suspect all of this will come back to bite them in October when the new premium calculations are done.

    Like

  27. at a meeting this morning, a colleague made an off-the-cuff remark that the states that didn’t’ set up the exchanges made the right call.

    Like

  28. Here we go again. The Clintons have learned nothing.

    “Hillary Clinton adviser Minyon Moore sought funds for illegal campaign, court papers allege”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-adviser-minyon-moore-sought-funds-for-illegal-campaign-court-papers-say/2014/03/11/753dcfc2-a931-11e3-8d62-419db477a0e6_story.html?hpid=z1

    Like

  29. The only exchange that appears to be a success is California’s.

    Like

  30. that’s connected to the that guy who literally passed at top hat around at a fundraiser

    Like

  31. Scott, it’s just a living document is all.

    1. Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.

    2. Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.

    3. No animal shall wear clothes.

    4. No animal shall sleep in a bed. with sheets

    5. No animal shall drink alcohol. to excess

    6. No animal shall kill any other animal. without cause

    7. All animals are equal. but some animals are more equal than others

    Like

  32. “it’s just a living document is all.”

    That’s perfect. And the logical end result.

    Like

  33. “Michigoose, on March 11, 2014 at 12:18 pm said:

    “Carl”:

    I thought that the Between Two Ferns bit was funny. But then, I’m a librul.”

    I haven’t watched it yet, but looking at the still frame for a second I thought it was an old video of President Obama talking to Christopher Hitchens..

    Like

  34. The only exchange that appears to be a success is California’s.

    From personal experience, Utah’s is good. But they were working on creating it even before the PPACA became law.

    Like

  35. Looks like it worked for the administration:

    “Zach Galifianakis is now HealthCare.gov’s biggest traffic driver”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/03/11/zach-galifianakis-is-now-healthcare-govs-biggest-traffic-driver/?hpid=z4

    Like

  36. Looks like it worked for the administration:

    Only if they monetize those eyeballs… No checks, no point.

    Like

  37. “monetize those eyeballs”

    good … good.

    Like

  38. I’ve seen it all now. Cef is defending the Spanish inquisition on PL.

    “And the Spanish Inquisition, which was, by the way, carefully legally constrained”

    This does go hand in glove with the defenses offered of the NSA though.

    Like

    • jnc:

      I’ve seen it all now. Cef is defending the Spanish inquisition on PL.

      You may be interested in reading this from Jonah Goldberg. Also, from a piece by historian Thomas Madden that he links to inside his piece:

      The Inquisition was not born out of desire to crush diversity or oppress people; it was rather an attempt to stop unjust executions. Yes, you read that correctly. Heresy was a crime against the state. Roman law in the Code of Justinian made it a capital offense. Rulers, whose authority was believed to come from God, had no patience for heretics. Neither did common people, who saw them as dangerous outsiders who would bring down divine wrath. When someone was accused of heresy in the early Middle Ages, they were brought to the local lord for judgment, just as if they had stolen a pig or damaged shrubbery (really, it was a serious crime in England). Yet in contrast to those crimes, it was not so easy to discern whether the accused was really a heretic. For starters, one needed some basic theological training — something most medieval lords sorely lacked. The result is that uncounted thousands across Europe were executed by secular authorities without fair trials or a competent assessment of the validity of the charge.

      The Catholic Church’s response to this problem was the Inquisition, first instituted by Pope Lucius III in 1184. It was born out of a need to provide fair trials for accused heretics using laws of evidence and presided over by knowledgeable judges. From the perspective of secular authorities, heretics were traitors to God and the king and therefore deserved death. From the perspective of the Church, however, heretics were lost sheep who had strayed from the flock. As shepherds, the pope and bishops had a duty to bring them back into the fold, just as the Good Shepherd had commanded them. So, while medieval secular leaders were trying to safeguard their kingdoms, the Church was trying to save souls. The Inquisition provided a means for heretics to escape death and return to the community.

      Like

  39. McWing!

    Your immigration reform post you’ve been waiting for! Haven’t read it yet, so hope it won’t be a disappointment. 🙂

    Like

  40. ” Cef is defending the Spanish inquisition on PL.”

    [pulls up the comfy chair, settles in to gawk]

    Like

  41. I’ve seen it all now. Cef is defending the Spanish inquisition on PL.

    Yeah, I thought that that was a bit out there, even for him. But I loved your “it’s going to be epic” comment.

    Like

  42. wildly OT: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/news/ghostbusters-oral-history

    The movie had just opened and I was doing a reading for Joe Papp in New York. So I’m walking down 7th Avenue, and there’s this big Ghostbusters marquee, and there are all these buses filled with kids. But I’m not registering it too much, I’m thinking about Chekhov. And all of a sudden about eight million kids lean out the windows and yell, “Hey, dickless.”

    Like

  43. Cef is the guy who believed that the Elder Bush flew to Paris in the “cargo hold” of a SR-71 during the ’80 election to meet with the Iranians to delay the hostages release until after the election.

    Seriously.

    Like

    • McWing:

      Cef is also the guy who decided pretty quickly that qb and I were the spawn of Satan and not to be communicated with or tolerated in the slightest. It took others here over a year to come to that conclusion, so maybe he’s more on the ball than you think!

      (BTW, didn’t Cef used to post here as Earl Moreo?)

      Like

  44. hmm. I’d watch that movie

    Like

  45. Giggle.

    Like

  46. BTW, didn’t Cef used to post here as Earl Moreo?

    Yes.

    And just last evening I was discussing Rangpur and Hendrick’s gins on a blog, so you’re not completely bad, Scott.

    Like

  47. news:

    About 940,000 people selected Obamacare insurance plans in February, bringing to 4.2 million the total number who have opted for health coverage in the new insurance exchanges since they launched in October. About a quarter of the sign-ups were adults between ages 18 and 35 — an age group sought by insurers. The Obama administration, making a final push to hit its revised goal of 6 million enrollees by the March 31 deadline, did not say how many people who signed up have paid their first premiums.

    Like

  48. I don’t believe the #’s. Sean Trende had a pretty good analysis a couple of weeks ago demonstrating that Medicsid enrollment a weren’t even keeping up with their natural churn.

    Like

  49. I honestly don’t remember what the estimates for enrollment were. I just remember that when i started in health policy, it was “OMG there are 50 million uninsured.”

    so, 6 million is pretty piss poor.

    Like

  50. Well, at least our felons get covered.

    Like

    • Hookey day at SWSX:

      R and I wanted to take in some films and without badges or film wrist bands we stood in line at the Long Center for the Performing Arts from 10 AM for an 11 AM of a screening of a new film. It had been expanded from last year’s Academy Award winning short film, which we saw last year, so we were curious. There were three lines. We were 15 and 16 in the “rush” line. The Badges were admitted. Then the Wristbands. Then 14 in the “rush line”.

      Undeterred by having spent $7 on parking and having waited in line for forty minutes to be rejected [we did have pleasant conversations with people from around the country and Europe] we went to brunch together and determined a strategy for a 2 PM showing. Dara had told us that all of the downtown venues would be crowded because the hotel guests were being shuttled to them all day, and that our best bet was a satellite venue.

      We chose the Alamo Drafthouse in the Village, 7 mi. north of downtown, and a feature length documentary that will be released in September. This is what we saw:

      http://schedule.sxsw.com/2014/events/event_FS15182

      It was quite moving, with a great soundtrack. As an added bonus, Edwyn, Grace, and the two young English directors were there for Q&A after the screening.

      R and I came home happy, behind on our work, but feeling very satisfied with our hookey day.

      Like

  51. the important thing to remember is the Medicaid sucks.

    Like

  52. I was going to cut and paste, or copy the image, but I can’t resize it so here’s a link to 20 Jokes Intellectuals Will Get.

    I need somebody to explain #12 to me, though. . .

    Like

  53. 12 is supposed to be a joke based on octal numbering. Same as base 8? I don’t get the chemist/plumber one, probably because I am not a chemist.

    Like

  54. Ah, thanks, QB.

    Plumber: yoon-yun-ized
    Chemist: un-eye-ohn-ized

    Like

  55. cef is a certifiable lunatic, and mentally incompetent. I am not joking. He knew Bush lied because it is impossible for intel to be wrong. Yes he argued that.

    I have bookmarked several classic threads in which he blathered on and on and on about how he had derived a function proving the Laffer Curve is impossible. Then he unfortunately said the the axes for the Laffer Curve are income earned and taxes paid. Epic blog debate failure of the century.

    Cef is a complete fraud. If you believe a word he says you are a sap.

    Like

  56. Oh duh, right. I couldn’t find that.

    I like the logician ones; they are succinct. I also like the naked lady one for some reason, even though it is clunky as can be. The klepto one is also ingeniously convoluted.

    Like

  57. “This cant’ be right. I was told that without profits everyone would share equally”

    They haven’t really tried socialism. If we just organized ourselves into coops and eliminated profits, our problems would be solved, because profits are an added cost of the goods we buy. If capitalists didn’t “have to” earn a profit, we would only have to pay what things really cost. See?

    Like

  58. I saw a couple of engineers and computer geeks quipping about 12 on Facebook. One older guy said no one gets it because no one uses octal anymore.

    Like

  59. Two other random notes before I jump off again.

    Speaking of PL, I can view one of the old threads I bookmarked, and comments load with no problem. But comments on current Wapo threads won’t load on my computer. So strange.

    And I guess I’m the only person who doesn’t actually know what SXSW is, and am not concerned.

    Like

  60. If we just organized ourselves into coops and eliminated profits, our problems would be solved

    Uh oh. Now QB’s channeling Aletheia!

    no one uses octal anymore

    I can honestly say that I’d never even heard of it until you explained #12 and I googled it.

    Like

  61. And I guess I’m the only person who doesn’t actually know what SXSW is, and am not concerned.

    South by Southwest music (mainly) festival in Austin every year. It’s one of the things that Keeps Austin Weird.

    Like

    • QB:

      And I guess I’m the only person who doesn’t actually know what SXSW is, and am not concerned.

      Nope, not the only one.

      Like

  62. Uh oh. Now QB’s channeling Aletheia!

    Exactly.

    My favorite was the Roman walking into a bar ordering 5 beers. Got a big laugh at the office with the visual.

    I like the Sartre one a lot, too. I’m just not sure I understand him well enough to really feel the joke works.

    Like

  63. South by Southwest music (mainly) festival in Austin every year. It’s one of the things that Keeps Austin Weird.

    I’d say highly commercial. Nothing cheap.

    Like

  64. Nope, not the only one.

    Third. I assumed it was some political thing since I gave up politics!

    Like

  65. Ever heard of this one?

    Dyslexics, untie!

    Still makes me chuckle.

    Like

  66. It’s like Burning Man for Hipster D-bags that are afraid of Burning Man.

    A cool time is the Kerrville Folk Festival.

    Like

  67. Dyslexics, untie!

    *snort*

    Like

  68. Well, the Republican won in in the Florida HoR special election so we don’t have to draw any larger conclusions from it.

    Bullet: dodged.

    Like

  69. I was in Austin once between the interactive and music portions of SXSW and went to a nerdcore music showcase and saw Schaffer The Darklord.

    Like

    • 70 percent of government spending is just wealth transfers, writing checks to individuals. Thank goodness we are, at long last, fulfilling the founder’s true vision of the federal government, as so clearly set out in the constitution.

      Like

  70. 70 percent of government spending is just wealth transfers, writing checks to individuals. Thank goodness we are, at long last, fulfilling the founder’s true vision of the federal government, as so clearly set out in the constitution.

    Racist.

    Amazingly, that’s actually what the hard-core on the other side claim that means.

    Like

  71. I actually know someone who owns and races a penny farthing bicycle. She’s not a hipster.

    Like

  72. Mandate is dead.

    https://twitter.com/bdomenech/status/443576878356783104

    Now, kill the risk corridors and we can put a bullet in the Abomination.

    Like

    • McWwing:

      Mandate is dead.

      Sorry, but I had it frist. You got me on ignore or something?

      Like

      • Rumors of an explosion in NYC…either in a tunnel at Grand Central Station or in a building on 116th street, depending on who you talk to. I am right next to GCS, and I don’t see anything happening. Bond market rallying like mad.

        Like

  73. Here’s the rub though. I give up a huge tax advantaged benefit by dropping employer sponsored coverage. it’s not like they’ll give me the cash instead. they won’t. i asked.

    Like

    • nova:

      Gawker says Harlem

      Yeah, seeing pictures now. Smoke coming out of a building. Going to turn out to be a simple accident, probably. Market coming back a bit.

      Like

  74. they won’t. i asked.

    It’s more like “they can’t.” It’s illegal.

    Although an executive order might be able to fix that. . .

    Like

    • It’s more like “they can’t.” It’s illegal.

      I get salary (less employer share of FICA) in lieu of healthcare because I am covered elsewhere. My last employer wouldn’t which was a big factor in switching.

      However, I don’t think they can let you go bare.

      Like

  75. “t’s more like “they can’t.””

    They can’t pay me more?

    Like

  76. They can’t pay me more?

    Not according to jnc–I raised that possiblity a few months ago and he put the kibosh on it.

    EDIT: Am I quoting you correctly, jnc?

    Like

  77. Scott, I was, er, merely re-contextualizing you comment.

    Like

  78. hmm. curious as to what he has to say. it was a take it/leave it proposition. i’m covered under spouse’s self-insured employer plan if that makes a differnce

    Like

  79. “Never overestimate the common sense nor underestimate the hypocrisy of the sleazeballs at the New York Times:”

    NYT also benefits from the same lowered expectations. Much like Reid, I assume them to be partisans first and discount anything they say accordingly.

    When it comes to attacks on the Koch brothers, they are just playing to the base.

    Like

  80. i’m covered under spouse’s self-insured employer plan if that makes a differnce

    That very well could. Brian never had health insurance through his employers because he was always covered under mine. I’ve put in a page to the expert, though.

    Like

  81. “attacks on the Koch brothers”

    Every time i read “Koch brothers” i just sub in “Mr. Burns.” much more fun that way.

    Like

  82. “Michigoose, on March 12, 2014 at 9:18 am said: Edit Comment

    They can’t pay me more?

    Not according to jnc–I raised that possiblity a few months ago and he put the kibosh on it.

    EDIT: Am I quoting you correctly, jnc?”

    I think something got muddled here. NoVA can get whatever he and his employer negotiate. I’ve argued in the past that employers probably won’t substitute the whole value of the insurance into a wage increase.

    The illegal part comes into qualifying for exchange subsidies depending on what your spouses insurance options are.

    Like

  83. That makes sense. I can’t try to qualify for subsidized coverage on the exchanges if I have it available through other means. the exchanges are supposed to be a back stop. this gets into how ridiculous the job-lock talking point is. completely divorced from the original goal.

    Like

    • Job-lock is real.

      I know a guy who just quit his job and went on Medicare because he was eligible. His younger wife who is a freelancer went on the Obamacare exchanges. He is now going to start an independent consulting service. Obamacare turned him into a job creator.

      Like

  84. No doubt. But ACA was not designed to solve it. And floating the idea would have gotten it voted down.

    Like

  85. There was also all the drama associated with companies like UPS eliminating spousal coverage as an option all together. At that point, I believe the spouse is eligible for the exchange subsidies.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/ups-dropping-spouses-health-coverage-2013-8

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-leadership/wp/2013/08/26/ups-to-cut-employees-working-spouses-from-its-health-plans/

    Like

  86. All jobs are locked one way or another. It’s an absurd notion.

    Like

    • It’s an absurd notion.

      It’s absurd that there are people not working at their peak opportunity because they can’t lose the health coverage their current job provides? It happens all over.

      Like

      • yello:

        …their peak opportunity…

        What in the world is that? How do I know if I am working at my “peak opportunity”?

        Like

  87. I’m forced to stay at my job because if I quit I could t pay my mortgage.

    See?

    I couldn’t take the the kids to Disneyworld.

    See?

    I couldn’t save for my retirement in Maui.

    See?

    Absurd.

    Like

  88. I’m forced to stay at my job because if I quit I could t pay my mortgage.

    See?

    This only counts as job lock if your employer carried your mortgage and called the note due if you quit.

    Like

  89. Hunh?

    Ami forbidden by law in purchasing healthcare if I quit?

    What’s that?

    No you say?

    See? Absurd.

    Like

    • Ami forbidden by law in purchasing healthcare if I quit?

      You can’t buy what people won’t sell. And if you have a pre-existing condition that makes individual insurance prohibitively expensive, that results in job-lock.

      That would make you a supporter of the insurance exchanges and hence the individual mandate. You have hit upon how Obamacare had its origins in the conservative rhetoric of individual responsibility.

      Like

  90. They were free to quit and buy individual coverage before. Now, they’re just having someone else cover the bulk of that expense.

    And, the talking point was that it was elimination of job lock that is causing the loss of hours worked in the CBO estimate. “They are choosing to work less hours and supply less labor. No longer locked into a job.”

    But if you leave and start your own shop, you’re not unemployed.

    Like

  91. Healthcare purchases can be made, it’s a choice of the purchaser willing and/or able to do it. Let’s say I need diabetes medicine, what stops me
    From purchasing it with an Rx?

    I do not beleive in a Federal role for healthcare.

    Like

  92. That’s true. The exchanges. Medicaid expansion, which is the bulk of ACA, is non starter though. the hertigate plan didn’t include that (i’m fairly certain)

    Like

  93. I do not beleive in a Federal role for healthcare.

    Then there is no need to discuss the manner in which the Federal government exercise that role since it is in your opinion illegitimate no matter how it does it.

    Like

    • yello:

      Then there is no need to discuss the manner in which the Federal government exercise that role since it is in your opinion illegitimate no matter how it does it.

      That is incorrect. Whether the federal government should pass a law is an entirely different and unrelated discussion to the manner in which the federal government actually does effect laws it wants to pass. One can believe that the government should not regulate a particular action while at the same time believing that if it does regulate it, it should be done constitutionally and not unconstitutionally.

      Like

  94. That’s certainly your right.

    What else is not worth discussing?

    Like

  95. I’m not the one abandoning debate.

    You mad bro?

    Like

  96. “Whitaker. Motherfucking. Chambers, on March 12, 2014 at 10:06 am said: Edit Comment

    I’m forced to stay at my job because if I quit I could t pay my mortgage.

    See?”

    It’s a bad analogy because there’s not really a “preexisting condition” clause for mortgages. (Bankruptcy comes close, but it has a fixed period on the credit report).

    The requirement to maintain seamless insurance does act as more of an incentive than other financial burdens which can be dropped and re-assumed as needed.

    I’d argue that the psychological effect is considerably enhanced when you have dependents to worry about.

    Like

  97. “That would make you a supporter of the insurance exchanges and hence the individual mandate.”

    False. You can support the exchanges without supporting the mandate. You just have to dispense with universal coverage as a goal.

    Like

  98. “dispense with universal coverage as a goal.”

    which i think is the current ACA situation.

    Like

  99. J, it’s about where one wants to spend their money. Nothing prevents the individual from prioritizing HC spending above, say, the cable and cell bill other than ones desire to do so.

    Also, bad credit and too much debt could prevent a mortgage being granted. The analogy’s fine.

    Like

  100. “Whitaker. Motherfucking. Chambers, on March 12, 2014 at 10:47 am said:

    J, it’s about where one wants to spend their money. Nothing prevents the individual from prioritizing HC spending above, say, the cable and cell bill other than ones desire to do so. ”

    Yes, whether or not they can afford to maintain it continuously.

    The analogy would be if you were unable to get HBO or a cell phone in the future if you ever discontinued those services for a specified period of time.

    Like

  101. No, you can get insurance, perhaps at a rate that you don’t like, but you can get it. There is no law preventing it. Again, priority.

    It’s a good analogy. 🙂

    Like

Be kind, show respect, and all will be right with the world.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: