Obamacare Just Made Americans Richer Without Anyone Noticing Glenn Beck once said Obamacare would mean "the end of prosperity in America forever." But so far, it turns out President Obama's 2010 health law is actually putting money in Americans' wallets. To be exact, President Obama's 2010 health law was responsible for about three-quarters of a surprising January rise in U.S. consumer spending and American income growth, according to calculations by the Wall Street Journal. While not exceptional, the gains were significant: a 0.4 percent rise in consumer spending ($45.2 billion) and a 0.3 percent rise in personal incomes (up $43.9 billion), according to new figures released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The growth came in spite of the expiration of unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed and all that horrible winter weather. So what exactly did the Obamacare rollout do to cause such a rise? For one, it expanded the Medicaid program, a critical and highly controversial aspect of the law, by adding up to a $19 billion in benefits in January. On top of that, health care enrollees additionally received another near $15 billion in the form of tax credits as a result of the rollout, according to the BEA. Together the two changes have freed up many Americans to spend money that would have gone towards health care premiums on goods and services instead. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/04/obamacare-january-bea_n_4892267.html
Only way that's going to happen is if they give them a one-way bus ticket and a bribe (like $100-$200/person). Just like Arkansas did in the early 90's - busing their welfare recipients to California...
LOL! Yes, free up the income some folks would have spent on health care premiums by taking money away from others who have to pay for their medicaid. You're a real wizard at this, Spike! Tell me, if it's so awesome, why does Obama keep postponing all the pieces of the law?
Keyesian Kool-Aid... Gov't spending begets greater tax revenues? If this was the case, why hasn't QE earned back enough to close the budget deficit or reduce the Federal debt (and/or debt to the Fed)? Because it can't...
What if government builds a bridge between two trading cities separated by a river, could the acceleration of trade and rise in their GDPs increase government tax receipts? If the bridge lasts long enough, could the increased tax receipts pay off the loan to build the bridge?
In theory, yes. In reality, no. You're assuming the spending of other stuff remains static and/or level... Politicians will always spend every available dollar. So the tax revenues generated by the bridge will never be high enough to pay off the bridge *and* fund all the other new budget items that get funded due to the increased tax revenues... Just look at your finances today versus when you were 20. Looking back, you should be much farther along due to your increased income. But if you're not, it's because you failed to control the spending and keep it at/near the same level.
So where does it stop? Medicaid to cover up to 138% of poverty level. Will Odumbo want to change it to 150% next year? Then 200%. Where does it stop, if ever? The whole Odumbocare deal is a joke. Families of 4 making over $90,000 get subsidies. Again, why are there no penalties for those people who consciously CHOOSE to abuse their bodies and thus create their own health issues? For fun go to a Golden Buffet, Shoney's or any other place that serves all you can eat buffet. Or just go to any chain restaurant and observe those there. Any of the above will certainly validate that at least 2/3 of the country is overweight/obese. Rather than penalizing these people it's the health conscious individuals who are being penalized financially by seeing rates jacked up big time and losing what were good, solid policies that met our needs. But as is the norm with Democrats ... there shall be no personal responsibility.
From what I've been reading, obesity worldwide is closely associated with poverty, because the poor typically eat cheaper food, food which has a higher carbohydrate content.
Of course it could. But that's not what QE does, Ricter. QE doesn't build anything that can yield a return, because each dollar created devalues all the existing dollars equally (in theory, of course).