How did ObamaCare screw up the GDP report?

posted at 2:01 pm on June 26, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

Yesterday’s cliff dive of an economic-growth report from the BEA had a lot of people scratching their heads over the last 24 hours. How exactly did the BEA start with an advance estimate of 0.1% annualized GDP growth in Q1 to a final estimate of -2.9%, a full three points of difference? The Wall Street Journal’s Eric Morath and Louise Radnofsky explain that the BEA bought into the Obama administration model of ObamaCare, and just assumed that the enrollment figures for Medicaid and private insurance on the exchanges meant that a deluge of spending would follow. Instead, the actual numbers turned out to be significantly more sour:

Spending on health-care services declined at a 1.4% annualized pace in the first quarter, compared to an earlier estimate of a 9.1% increase. That revision contributed to a revision of gross domestic product to a 2.9% annualized decline from an earlier estimate of a 1% decline.

The revision in the health-care category was the largest in recent memory, said Nicole Mayerhauser, an official that oversees GDP statistics at the Commerce Department’sBureau of Economic Analysis. …

For the first two estimates of any quarter’s GDP, the Commerce Department doesn’t have direct figures on health-care output. Instead it uses wage and employment data to make estimates. Sometimes government economists consider other measures to augment their approximations.

Initially, they considered Medicaid benefit figures and the number of Americans enrolling in coverage made available under the new health-care law. That data showed an increase in Medicaid outlays and that millions of Americans were signing up for healthcare insurance, leading the Commerce Department to forecast an increase for health outlays.

In the initial reading of first-quarter GDP, released in April, the Commerce Department noted this methodology. With more reliable data now available from a Census survey, those early assumptions have essentially been replaced with more reliable figures.

Ms. Mayerhauser said the Commerce Department doesn’t plan to regularly incorporate data related to the Affordable Care Act into its standard methodologies.

In essence, then, the administration’s assumptions about ObamaCare promoting usage turned out to be incorrect, at least in the short term. Daily Beast analyst Daniel Gross warns that ObamaCare seems to be disturbing health care deliveries, if not the rest of the economy:

A month ago, the BEA thought health care spending rose at a 9.1 percent annual rate in the first quarter. After all, health care spending almost always rises—and quite rapidly. But today, upon further reflection and numbers-crunching, it concluded that health care spending actually fell at a 1.4 percent annual rate. So instead of adding 1.01 percentage points to the GDP growth rate, as the government thought last month, health care wound up sandbagging growth by .16 percent. That differential accounted for about 60 percent of the downward revision.

Why did this happen? It could be that people were hording [sic] medicines and avoiding going to the doctor during the cold weather. Or it could be that many newly insured people delayed going to see the doctor, buying medicine, or having procedures done in January, February ,or March until their health care premiums were fully processed by the state and federal exchanges in April. (Remember, April 1 was the deadline for signups under the Affordable Care Act). It could be that doctors are rationing health care—refusing to schedule appointments. Or it could be that many people are actually paying less for health care because they have insurance—i.e. seeing doctors with a $25 co-pay instead of going to the emergency room.

Clearly, the implementation of Obamacare is disrupting and disturbing the way that health care services are being priced and consumed. In the first quarter, that led to lower spending—either through lower utilization, or lower prices, or some combination thereof.

Well, it’s not lower prices. The final price to the consumer may be lower, but not the actual price set by the insurer. Tax subsidies mask premiums on the exchange by an average 76%, which applies to 87% of all private insurance bought through the exchanges, but it doesn’t lower premiums. Given all of the provider-network restrictions and contractions insurers were forced to take for cost control because of ObamaCare, it’s almost certainly lower utilization.

There is also the question of the economic damage done by ObamaCare in terms of extra tax and regulatory burdens on businesses. The White House shrugged that off after the first estimate in April by claiming increased utilization had saved the economy, a claim that makes the original question even more pressing. In my column today for The Fiscal Times, I note that businesses will have to start making decisions this summer about the employer mandate and how to minimize their exposure to costs and penalties. Those incentives will likely make for more unexpectedly bad GDP reports in the near future:

Get ready for more dampening effects on the economy from Obamacare, too. The Washington Post reminded readers this week that the employer mandates will soon come into force for most businesses, which now have to make decisions on staffing, hours, and benefits for their 2015 budgets. …

Evidence is mounting that the practice [of cutting hours to avoid the mandate] has become widespread even among companies that don’t announce their intentions. When asked about this rational response to incentives, White House economists suggested watching payroll data to see whether distribution of part-time hours remained steady or shifted as the mandate approached, and last year published a study claiming no effect had been seen.

However, the study relied on a method of rounding up that made workers averaging 29.5 hours (which does not qualify as full time for the ACA) to 30 hours (the threshold for full-time designation in the ACA). In reality, the numbers of workers getting 30-34 hours of work a week has dropped 6.4 percent since the end of 2012, while those getting 25-29 hours a week has risen 10.8 percent.

As businesses cut hours and postpone or cancel expansion plans, fewer jobs are created and workers who do have jobs earn less money. That soft labor market also hampers wage growth and has a dampening effect on consumer spending. That’s before the cost of Obamacare hits the workers themselves, with a new report suggesting that the brunt of those costs hit middle-aged women hardest.

The White House can try postponing the employer mandate again, but that’s not easily done. The subsidies now getting paid for the coverage are supposed to come in part from an estimated $150 billion in employer fines for coverage issues. Postponing enforcement another year sinks the program even further into red ink. Even if they do keep the mandate in place, though, that revenue may never come close to the projected level, as employers do whatever they can to avoid penalties — by cutting hours, especially.

This won’t be the last GDP report in the ObamaCare era that has economists scratching their heads over unexpectedly negative impacts.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Is this healthcare spending moving from private to government? Medicare?

faraway on June 26, 2014 at 2:06 PM

“…and just assumed…”

There’s a fine line between that and wishful thinking.

Drained Brain on June 26, 2014 at 2:07 PM

Obamacare: The gift that keeps on taking.

xNavigator on June 26, 2014 at 2:08 PM

When premiums decline y’all are going to be pissed!

libfreeordie on May 7, 2014 at 10:18 AM

Schadenfreude on June 26, 2014 at 2:08 PM

But these Obamacare posts are about whistling past the graveyard, by next Novemeber Democrats will be openly running on the ACA. Mark my words.

libfreeordie on December 20, 2013 at 10:14 AM

Schadenfreude on June 26, 2014 at 2:09 PM

Spending on health-care services declined at a 1.4% annualized pace in the first quarter, compared to an earlier estimate of a 9.1% increase.

I’m sorry, but if I made estimates like that at my last job before I retired, I would not have been offered any retirement. I would have been fired and quite possibly had civil charges brought against me for fiduciary shenanigans.

Johnnyreb on June 26, 2014 at 2:11 PM

How did ObamaCare screw up the GDP report?

Easy – because they’re dishonest AND incompetent.

dentarthurdent on June 26, 2014 at 2:12 PM

Health care services down, health care insurance policies up 47%. Sure lots are paid for by the productive in taxpayer subsidies but still 47% higher. That has to come from somewhere.

Let’s also not forget that businesses actually plan for the future and under Obama, particularly Obama-democrat Care, there are no rules. Diktats and imperial actions can change the field at any time. Add in the lies of lower premiums and keeping your plan and doctor no sane business person would expand or bet on the future….unless you are a big democrat donor.

jukin3 on June 26, 2014 at 2:13 PM

ObamaCare screws up everything it touches.

faraway on June 26, 2014 at 2:15 PM

ObamaCare screws up everything he touches.

faraway on June 26, 2014 at 2:15 PM

VegasRick on June 26, 2014 at 2:16 PM

This all assumes the number of enrollees actually exist. I myself have been automatically signed up by my state 5 times this year. They claim incompetence with there computer system, but what if its an attempt to boost the numbers? If so, it easily explains the lack of healthcare spending for the 5 non existent enrollees.

nemo on June 26, 2014 at 2:17 PM

Gee? You mean when you double the costs of every bodies healthcare insurance, then tack on a $5000 out of pocket deductible before you can access even a dime of said overpriced insurance, people don’t have that $5k (having just given it to the insurance companies) and so elect to go without any actual health care services. But it’s ok! Because at least they now have health insurance. Not food. Not actual health care. But they do now have health insurance.

patches on June 26, 2014 at 2:19 PM

Excellent analysis Ed.
Isn’t it interesting that when you break down each element, the results pretty much match those darn nay sayers predictions?

JusDreamin on June 26, 2014 at 2:19 PM

OAN, as said above if I missed a estimate by 310% I’d be fired and or prosecuted. (+.001-.029)/.001=3.1.

jukin3 on June 26, 2014 at 2:20 PM

Obamacare: The gift that keeps on taking.

xNavigator on June 26, 2014 at 2:08 PM

Threadwinner right there.

Schadenfreude on June 26, 2014 at 2:09 PM

That will never get old.

dogsoldier on June 26, 2014 at 2:22 PM

then tack on a $5000 out of pocket deductible before you can access even a dime of said overpriced insurance, people don’t have that $5k (having just given it to the insurance companies) and so elect to go without any actual health care services.

patches on June 26, 2014 at 2:19 PM

Look for people walking around with homemade bandages, and wooden peglegs. Actually, that sounds like the VA too.

faraway on June 26, 2014 at 2:23 PM

Brilliant Liberal Moments in History. Make government so dysfunctional that we have to gut it entirely.

John the Libertarian on June 26, 2014 at 2:24 PM

The question becomes how honest does the admin let GDP numbers become going forward? They already fudge employment numbers, inflation numbers, Obamacare enrollment numbers. Why not just brazenly lie about second quarter GDP?

will77jeff on June 26, 2014 at 2:25 PM

” … more unexpectedly bad GDP reports in the near future”

and

” … unexpectedly negative impacts.”

you keep using that word. i don’t think it means what you think it means.

WaldoTJ on June 26, 2014 at 2:25 PM

Obamacare: The gift that keeps on taking.

xNavigator on June 26, 2014 at 2:08 PM

Comment of the Day™

That’s before the cost of Obamacare hits the workers themselves, with a new report suggesting that the brunt of those costs hit middle-aged women hardest.

If it were Romney at the helm of PlaceboCare, that would be called War On Wymyn.

Steve Eggleston on June 26, 2014 at 2:26 PM

A lot of people are spending more on insurance premiums regardless of whether they have any health issues, and for deductibles when they have to get health care. Does personal healthcare delivery contribute to the GDP? What is the ‘product’? I’m not sure how it would add to GDP in a logical world (but I realize we are talking political economics here, so logic doesn’t have to have a part in the results).

Regardless, thanks to the ACA, many people in the US have less money to spend on discretionary things than they used to, so they don’t buy new cars or furniture, or go on vacations, or replace that old smartphone with a new one, etc.

The economic prognosticators should have seen this coming in 2014, but it did not fit the narrative promoted by the White House, so the real impact of ACA on the average US household was ignored.

s1im on June 26, 2014 at 2:29 PM

How did ObamaCare screw up the GDP report?

Not at all according to the liberal pundits doing damage control last night. This was all about a severe winter due to climate change due to……. you know…… BUSH!!!!!!!!!

Nevermind the massive tax on Americans represented by Obamacare also made its debut during the same period. That’s as coincidental as hard drives crashing on seven key suspects at the IRS all at the same time that Congress started asking for e-mail records.

Happy Nomad on June 26, 2014 at 2:30 PM

Of note, over the past 5 quarters, this past quarter was the only one that saw a significant shift in the health care spending estimate between the 2nd and 3rd GDP estimates.

Steve Eggleston on June 26, 2014 at 2:30 PM

The Obama Bicycle Economy…..Crappy now but getting real sh.tty soon.
Unemployment pushing 9.5% next year and Dow will match it at 9500.

Privatize It on June 26, 2014 at 2:31 PM

Humiliating as it may be, I want to again thank Tlaloc and righty45 for helping point out that Obamacare only covered 5 million previously uninsured people at the low, low cost of only $350K each.

rogerb on June 26, 2014 at 2:32 PM

The unaffected masses will be affected in the fall.The shrieking will be monumental.

docflash on June 26, 2014 at 2:32 PM

Using data published by government web sites, compare the following two time periods:
January 3, 1995 – January 3, 2007 (when GOP held majority)
January 3, 2007 – Present (when DEMS have held majority)
(Majority = controlling 2+ out of 3 of the House, Senate, and Presidency)

=========

Average GDP Growth
1995-2006 GOP Majority: 3.3%
2007-2014 DEM Majority: 1.1%
(GDP growth three times better under GOP majority)

Average Annual Deficit
1995-2006 GOP Majority: 0.8% of GDP
2007-2014 DEM Majority: 6.4% of GDP
(Annual deficits eight times worse under DEM majority)

Average Employment-Population Ratio
1995-2006 GOP Majority: 63.3%
2007-2014 DEM Majority: 59.7%
2009-2014 Obama administration: 58.7%
(Over 11 Million more people would be employed if we had GOP-level employment right now)

=========

ITguy on June 26, 2014 at 2:33 PM

What doesn’t Obamacare screw up?

Thanks Benedict Roberts you smirking bastid.

viking01 on June 26, 2014 at 2:34 PM

This won’t be the last GDP report in the ObamaCare era that has economists scratching their heads over unexpectedly negative impacts.

…just wait until the ‘delays’ come into effect…they’ll be scratching themselves bald!

JugEarsButtHurt on June 26, 2014 at 2:35 PM

BEA bought into the Obama administration model of ObamaCare, and just assumed that the enrollment figures for Medicaid and private insurance on the exchanges meant that a deluge of spending would follow.

There’s an old saying hereabouts in Virginia: When you assume, you make an ass of “u” and me.

bgoldman on June 26, 2014 at 2:36 PM

A lot of people are spending more on insurance premiums regardless of whether they have any health issues, and for deductibles when they have to get health care. Does personal healthcare delivery contribute to the GDP? What is the ‘product’? I’m not sure how it would add to GDP in a logical world (but I realize we are talking political economics here, so logic doesn’t have to have a part in the results).

Regardless, thanks to the ACA, many people in the US have less money to spend on discretionary things than they used to, so they don’t buy new cars or furniture, or go on vacations, or replace that old smartphone with a new one, etc.

The economic prognosticators should have seen this coming in 2014, but it did not fit the narrative promoted by the White House, so the real impact of ACA on the average US household was ignored.

s1im on June 26, 2014 at 2:29 PM

Both spending on health care and on health insurance do contribute to GDP. The breakdown that gets down specifically to health insurance is only released annually, but increased payments in the larger “financial services and insurance” category contributed +0.13 percentage points to the change in real GDP in the first quarter after contributing +0.30 points to the change in real GDP in the fourth quarter of 2013.

Steve Eggleston on June 26, 2014 at 2:36 PM

How did ObamaCare screw up the GDP report?

It wasn’t Obamacare, 0dumbo King anti-Midas touched the GDP report.

freedomfirst on June 26, 2014 at 2:37 PM

This won’t be the last GDP report in the ObamaCare era that has economists scratching their heads over unexpectedly negative impacts.

The spin and gymnastics that will result when the 2Qtr2014 also shows a decline in GDP will be truly remarkable in its desperation and reach.

Athos on June 26, 2014 at 2:37 PM

” … more unexpectedly bad GDP reports in the near future”

and

” … unexpectedly negative impacts.”

you keep using that word. i don’t think it means what you think it means.

WaldoTJ on June 26, 2014 at 2:25 PM

Yes, the reports are unexpected by those who are willfully blind to the various downsides of the ACA, but not for those who walk around with eyes open.

s1im on June 26, 2014 at 2:38 PM

Humiliating as it may be, I want to again thank Tlaloc and righty45 for helping point out that Obamacare only covered 5 million previously uninsured people at the low, low cost of only $350K each.

rogerb on June 26, 2014 at 2:32 PM

You may want to adjust that math some. I’ve heard that the number of newly-insured is only 4 million, and that is likely a “gamed” number.

Steve Eggleston on June 26, 2014 at 2:38 PM

Nanzi was prophetic. You have to pass the bill…(you know the rest!)

Deano1952 on June 26, 2014 at 2:40 PM

It’s really pretty simple. The money I would have paid in premiums+copays+deductibles to get my shoulder repaired is now, in higher premiums, going to subsidize someone else’s care. No increase in care, just a redistribution of it.

How could anyone have thought this model would grow an economy?

ROCnPhilly on June 26, 2014 at 2:40 PM

Humiliating as it may be, I want to again thank Tlaloc and righty45 for helping point out that Obamacare only covered 5 million previously uninsured people at the low, low cost of only $350K each.

rogerb on June 26, 2014 at 2:32 PM

$350K each? Well there’s the problem right there. We’re not throwing enough money at the issue.

The Dim solution to every problem.

Closet Optimist on June 26, 2014 at 2:41 PM

This won’t be the last GDP report in the ObamaCare era that has economists scratching their heads over unexpectedly negative impacts.

 
The spin and gymnastics that will result when the 2Qtr2014 also shows a decline in GDP will be truly remarkable in its desperation and reach.
 
Athos on June 26, 2014 at 2:37 PM

 
I remain amazed that Obama supporters actually believe those numbers, along with the employment numbers in ITguy’s 2:33 post, can somehow yield a 17K stock market.

rogerb on June 26, 2014 at 2:41 PM

Doctors are not rationing healthcare. They are, however, spending a lot more time in the newly mandated electronic healthcare systems rather than seeing patients, which adds up to longer hours and fewer patients seen per day. Properly speaking, though, that was not required by Obamacare, but by the Stimulus law that required everyone to use an electronic health care record in a “meaningful” way. The “Meaningful Use” guidelines are, of course, set by government bureaucrats.

Still, the bigger impact comes not from the extra burden on doctors, but from the new insurance packages having such high deductibles that patients are avoiding going to a doctor if they don’t have to.

There Goes the Neighborhood on June 26, 2014 at 2:42 PM

Remember that Obama promised that we “can’t afford not to pass” Obamacare. America elected this Marxist incompetent liar and boy will it continue to pay for it.

Chessplayer on June 26, 2014 at 2:42 PM

I remain amazed that Obama supporters actually believe those numbers, along with the employment numbers in ITguy’s 2:33 post, can somehow yield a 17K stock market.

rogerb on June 26, 2014 at 2:41 PM

Considering that most of Wall Street, contrary to popular myth, is dominated by Rats wholly dependent on continued Quantitative Easing, and bad economic news helps ensure said continuance, you shouldn’t be amazed.

Steve Eggleston on June 26, 2014 at 2:48 PM

Unexpected. Of course. Over and over and over and over; ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

HiJack on June 26, 2014 at 2:49 PM

Nanzi was prophetic. You have to pass the bill…(you know the rest!)

Deano1952 on June 26, 2014 at 2:40 PM

Shut up! /

HiJack on June 26, 2014 at 2:50 PM

Still, the bigger impact comes not from the extra burden on doctors, but from the new insurance packages having such high deductibles that patients are avoiding going to a doctor if they don’t have to.

There Goes the Neighborhood on June 26, 2014 at 2:42 PM

I believe you nailed the soon-to-be-ongoing problem. After all, what good is insurance if it doesn’t pay for anything (other than Fluke’s birth control as that has a $0 deductible/co-pay)?

Steve Eggleston on June 26, 2014 at 2:52 PM

ObamaCare screws up everything it touches.

faraway on June 26, 2014 at 2:15 PM

FIFY

Patriot Vet on June 26, 2014 at 2:52 PM

How exactly did the BEA start with an advance estimate of 0.1% annualized GDP growth in Q1 to a final estimate of -2.9%, a full three points of difference?

because BEA employees are not potty trained ?
because BEA needs more money to buy new computers ?
because of Bush and Cheney ?

burrata on June 26, 2014 at 2:57 PM

they were only off by 290%… Bet they’ll start this quarter off in the black too. It’s getting to the point where you can’t believe anything this administration says or does.

supersport667 on June 26, 2014 at 2:57 PM

Humiliating as it may be, I want to again thank Tlaloc and righty45 for helping point out that Obamacare only covered 5 million previously uninsured people at the low, low cost of only $350K each.
 
rogerb on June 26, 2014 at 2:32 PM

 
You may want to adjust that math some. I’ve heard that the number of newly-insured is only 4 million, and that is likely a “gamed” number.
 
Steve Eggleston on June 26, 2014 at 2:38 PM

 
Ha, and thanks. Forbes has an interesting article on it. So let’s see, $1.76T / 4M previously uninsured = $440,000 each.
 
FWIW, I find it especially comical to watch supporters gradually change from their “40 million uninsured” talking point
 

“We are not a nation that accepts nearly 46 million uninsured men, women and children,” President Obama told doctors in a speech before the American Medical Association in Chicago in June.

 
to a percentage-insured number because they know folks won’t realize their HOORAY!!! percentage means there are still 40 million plus uninsured in the U.S.

rogerb on June 26, 2014 at 3:06 PM

they were only off by 290%… Bet they’ll start this quarter off in the black too. It’s getting to the point where you can’t believe anything this administration says or does.

supersport667 on June 26, 2014 at 2:57 PM

Minor point of order – the error is properly expressed on the entirety of the GDP estimate, not on the percentage-point change. That said, it is still large enough to be scandalous.

Steve Eggleston on June 26, 2014 at 3:09 PM

Pretty sure it isn’t this, folks…

It could be that doctors are rationing health care—refusing to schedule appointments.

Where in the world would this idea come from? “I don’t want to see you. That’s what I do, but…”

Please show your work.

cs89 on June 26, 2014 at 3:15 PM

I remain amazed that Obama supporters actually believe those numbers, along with the employment numbers in ITguy’s 2:33 post, can somehow yield a 17K stock market.

rogerb on June 26, 2014 at 2:41 PM

Considering that most of Wall Street, contrary to popular myth, is dominated by Rats wholly dependent on continued Quantitative Easing, and bad economic news helps ensure said continuance, you shouldn’t be amazed.

Steve Eggleston on June 26, 2014 at 2:48 PM

Steve, do you think that soon after Republicans take control, the Wall Street Rats will make the market tank, and blame the Republicans?

ITguy on June 26, 2014 at 3:21 PM

Steve, do you think that soon after Republicans take control, the Wall Street Rats will make the market tank, and blame the Republicans?

ITguy on June 26, 2014 at 3:21 PM

I only have recent history, specifically 2008, to go on. That should answer your question.

Steve Eggleston on June 26, 2014 at 3:26 PM

And if 2008 doesn’t answer that, I have 3 more years to toss out there – 1998, 2000 and 2001.

Steve Eggleston on June 26, 2014 at 3:40 PM

ObamaCare = permanent recession.

albill on June 26, 2014 at 4:07 PM

You ain’t seen nothing yet….

b.b.b.baby you ain’t seen nothing yet.

D-fusit on June 26, 2014 at 4:11 PM

There is little new spending by the “newly insured” under ACA because they are all essentially cash pay. If the ACA insurance is canceled for nonpayment of premiums, any unpaid insurance claims are voided, regardless of when the service was performed. The insurance companies wait several months to pay these claims (they pay standard insurance claims within a few weeks) and if the policy is cancelled the physician is left holding the bag. So most offices around here require payment up front from ACA policy holders, and if there is a refund due it will be paid after the entire claim is processed and paid.

Docnova on June 26, 2014 at 4:19 PM

So if we got rid of Obummercare tomorrow the GDP would be way up?

Isn’t this the same metric that figures in consumer debt (including student loans) as positive growth?

We didn’t have Obummercare when the recession started 6-7 years ago, and none of the things that caused it have ever been addressed or really fixed…not that I think they really can short of waving a magic wand.

We’re being systematically robbed (and have been for ages) of real commodities in exchange for fiat currency that can technically evaporate at any moment. They keep the farm, we get to keep the greenback wallpaper and constantly depreciating possessions.

We’ve deluded ourselves into thinking that “boom and bust” cycles are normal. I’m not buying that. We were sold on that idea so that the players (and yeah, that could be us-anyone can buy stocks and bonds) could blow up a new bubble and cash in (hopefully) before it bursts…and then start it all over again.

How many panics, recessions and depressions do we have to go through? A truly stable economic system would not see such wild swings barring natural disasters of a momentous scale.

Lastly, the idea that inflation and price increases for products that see no higher demand is also delusional. There is nothing positive for us about a weakening currency.

Dr. ZhivBlago on June 26, 2014 at 4:25 PM

When premiums decline y’all are going to be pissed!

libfreeordie on May 7, 2014 at 10:18 AM

Very unlikely . . . we’ll be too busy staring in awe at all the flying pigs.

rplat on June 26, 2014 at 5:56 PM

I read an analysis by Richard Rahn about the affect on duration and severity of recession of the FED. His statistics show that both duration and severity are much worse since we have had the FED protecting us.

burt on June 26, 2014 at 7:58 PM

Figures don’t lie, liars figure

gwhh on June 27, 2014 at 12:24 AM

In a sane world, people spending less money on healthcare is a good thing.

I still can’t compute how forcing people to have insurance leads to less healthcare spending.

Did getting government subsidized insurance magically make their cancer go away?

airupthere on June 27, 2014 at 9:40 AM