Hillary Surprised to Find that Small Businesses Are Struggling

[LowDown]

Hillary tells woman whose health care insurance premiums have tripled in price under Obamacare to "keep shopping".

When told [in 1994, that Hillarycare, the prototype for Obamacare] could bankrupt small businesses, Mrs. Clinton sighed, “I can’t be responsible for every undercapitalized small business in America.” When a woman complained that she didn’t want to get shoved into a plan not of her choosing, the first lady lectured, “It’s time to put the common good, the national interest, ahead of individuals.”

Clinton noted that small business creation has “stalled out,” to her chagrin. “I was very surprised to see that when I began to dig into it,” she said while campaigning in New Hampshire. “Because people were telling me this as I traveled around the country the last two years, but I didn’t know what they were saying and it turns out that we are not producing as many small businesses as we use to.” --Tony Snow, July 8, 1999.

 

[cpwill]

Hillary tells woman whose health care insurance premiums have tripled in price under Obamacare to "keep shopping".

Either they truly cannot understand the consequences of their policies, or they don't care.

 

[humbolt]

Either they truly cannot understand the consequences of their policies, or they don't care.

I don't think those two possibilities are mutually exclusive.

 

[Centrehalf]

Either they truly cannot understand the consequences of their policies, or they don't care.

I'm going with both for $1000 Alex.

 

[shlunka]

Either they truly cannot understand the consequences of their policies, or they don't care.

The article you linked is obfuscatory and doesn't actually delve into any information before driving home an unsubstantiated criticism against ACA.
IMPORTANT UPDATE: w/out details, Ohio woman's story blaming Obamacare for her rate increase makes little sense... | ACASignups.net

Discussed there are the actual costs of healthcare in the woman's area, and the benefits she would actually be eligible for (based on her descriptions).

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Either they truly cannot understand the consequences of their policies, or they don't care.

It's both. They don't understand and they don't care. They're a bunch of rich people making all these decisions and not grasping the reality of anything. do they even go grocery shopping? Hillary doesn't ****ing drive for Christ's sake.

 

[soot]

The article you linked is obfuscatory and doesn't actually delve into any information before driving home an unsubstantiated criticism against ACA.
IMPORTANT UPDATE: w/out details, Ohio woman's story blaming Obamacare for her rate increase makes little sense... | ACASignups.net

Discussed there are the actual costs of healthcare in the woman's area, and the benefits she would actually be eligible for (based on her descriptions).

Right.

A discussion based upon some blogger making completely arbitrary assumptions about the woman's/family's income.

Well, "arbitrary" isn't really the right word, as the assumptions weren't truly arbitrary but chosen purposefully in order to support the blogger's further assumption that he understands this woman's finances better than she does.

It's perfectly possible that this family could have made $70,000 or $80,000 in the year he's discussing but because of any number of reasons (consumer debt, college loan repayment, putting kids through private school, necessary repairs to their home, etc...etc...) just didn't have the available/disposable income necessary to afford what Obamacare thinks she should be able to afford in the case of a higher gross income.

I agree that there isn't enough information available for curious second parties to pick apart how this woman's situation actually shakes out.

But I also know, from discussing with friends their experience with Obamacare from the perspective of a moderately high middle-class income with moderately high middle-class expenses that there exists something of a "blind spot" in Obamacare, as it does in much liberal policy, where folks earning under a certain income benefit, and folks earning over a certain income have enough money that they really don't need to care, but lots of middle-class folks who fall in that "sweet spot" between the two really get hammered.

 

[shlunka]

Right.

A discussion based upon some blogger making completely arbitrary assumptions about the woman's/family's income.

Well, "arbitrary" isn't really the right word, as the assumptions weren't truly arbitrary but chosen purposefully in order to support the blogger's further assumption that he understands this woman's finances better than she does.

It's perfectly possible that this family could have made $70,000 or $80,000 in the year he's discussing but because of any number of reasons (consumer debt, college loan repayment, putting kids through private school, necessary repairs to their home, etc...etc...) just didn't have the available/disposable income necessary to afford what Obamacare thinks she should be able to afford in the case of a higher gross income.

I agree that there isn't enough information available for curious second parties to pick apart how this woman's situation actually shakes out.

But I also know, from discussing with friends their experience with Obamacare from the perspective of a moderately high middle-class income with moderately high middle-class expenses that there exists something of a "blind spot" in Obamacare, as it does in much liberal policy, where folks earning under a certain income benefit, and folks earning over a certain income have enough money that they really don't need to care, but lots of middle-class folks who fall in that "sweet spot" between the two really get hammered.

If you find those assumptions arbitrary then you're completely blinded by your own scorn. If their income were 80,000, there's absolutely no reason the premiums would be too exorbitant unless their luxury expenditures are excessively more than ample. I too have friends with high-middle class income ($70-80k) that spend reasonably and have very large amounts of leftover money for luxury.

I agree, however, that some in the middle class are paying far too much. I just disagree with the woman's claims.

 

[soot]

If you find those assumptions arbitrary then you're completely blinded by your own scorn. If their income were 80,000, there's absolutely no reason the premiums would be too exorbitant unless their luxury expenditures are excessively more than ample.

I gave several examples of how an ~$80,000 income could be winnowed down by things that are as far as possible from "luxury expenditures" yet you continue on with this irrational argument because you're "completely blinded" by something.

I just disagree with the woman's claims.

Which you've already admitted you can't possibly fully understand.

Sound analysis there.

 

[shlunka]

I gave several examples of how an ~$80,000 income could be winnowed down by things that are as far as possible from "luxury expenditures" yet you continue on with this irrational argument because you're "completely blinded" by something.



Which you've already admitted you can't possibly fully understand.

Sound analysis there.

You actually believe that going to private school, consumer debt (depending on purchases), attending expensive universities (as opposed to community colleges) and "home repairs" (which suggests they own a home that's not an apartment or less expensive townhouse?) are "as far as possible from luxury expenditures"?

 

[azgreg]

It's both. They don't understand and they don't care. They're a bunch of rich people making all these decisions and not grasping the reality of anything. do they even go grocery shopping? Hillary doesn't ****ing drive for Christ's sake.

It reminds me of the episode on The West Wing where no one knew how much a gallon of milk cost. They had to ask Charlie (a poor inner city kid) how much and he rattled it off the top of his head different prices at different stores in his area.

 

[soot]

You actually believe that going to private school, consumer debt (depending on purchases), attending expensive universities (as opposed to community colleges) and "home repairs" (which suggests they own a home that's not an apartment or less expensive townhouse?) are "as far as possible from luxury expenditures"?

Absolutely, yes.

There are a wide range of "private schools". Sending your kids to an Ivy league prep boarding school is certainly a luxury. Sending your kids to a local Catholic school for religious reasons or because the local public schools are failing your child is not a luxury.

I agree with you about consumer debt. Spending beyond one's means on luxury items is certainly a luxury. Buying groceries and paying the heating bills with your credit card because you spent part of the year unemployed isn't a luxury. I'm sure you can think of plenty of other reasons one could rack up debt without spending on luxuries.

Attending a university and earning a basic four year degree is a necessity in order to get your foot in the door of many careers which will allow you to earn a decent living. I'd accept the argument that attending a private out-of-state university because you've heard it's known as a "party school" is something of a luxury. Attending a public in-state school can also leave a student saddled with tens of thousands of dollars in debt. Going on and taking out loans to earn a graduate degree can easily result in over $100,000 in school debt. Unless you can explain to me how one earns a bachelors or graduate degree at a community college I fail to see the relevance of that part of your comment.

You aren't seriously arguing that owning a home is a "luxury". I mean, you have to have more sense than to argue that the most basic and fundamental pillar of the "American Dream" is a luxury. Id agree with you that spending well above one's means in order to purchase a 5000 sq/ft McMansion simply in order to "keep up with the Jones'" is a frivolous luxury expense. Simply owning a home, in which you build equity, rather than living in an apartment is is one of the most financially responsible things that you can do and is in no way a luxury.

 

[shlunka]

Absolutely, yes.

There are a wide range of "private schools". Sending your kids to an Ivy league prep boarding school is certainly a luxury. Sending your kids to a local Catholic school for religious reasons or because the local public schools are failing your child is not a luxury.

I agree with you about consumer debt. Spending beyond one's means on luxury items is certainly a luxury. Buying groceries and paying the heating bills with your credit card because you spent part of the year unemployed isn't a luxury. I'm sure you can think of plenty of other reasons one could rack up debt without spending on luxuries.

Attending a university and earning a basic four year degree is a necessity in order to get your foot in the door of many careers which will allow you to earn a decent living. I'd accept the argument that attending a private out-of-state university because you've heard it's known as a "party school" is something of a luxury. Attending a public in-state school can also leave a student saddled with tens of thousands of dollars in debt. Going on and taking out loans to earn a graduate degree can easily result in over $100,000 in school debt. Unless you can explain to me how one earns a bachelors or graduate degree at a community college I fail to see the relevance of that part of your comment.

You aren't seriously arguing that owning a home is a "luxury". I mean, you have to have more sense than to argue that the most basic and fundamental pillar of the "American Dream" is a luxury. Id agree with you that spending well above one's means in order to purchase a 5000 sq/ft McMansion simply in order to "keep up with the Jones'" is a frivolous luxury expense. Simply owning a home, in which you build equity, rather than living in an apartment is is one of the most financially responsible things that you can do and is in no way a luxury.

Having graduated from a mediocre public school, subsequently attending community college specifically for financial reasons, and living in an apartment the size of a closet...Yes, I'm seriously arguing that almost everything you've mentioned is a luxury.