Title of Article: "Obamacare Premium Rates Lower than Expected"
Date: September 25, 2013
Source: CNN
Author: Tami Luhby
The Positive Outlook on Obamacare
According to new data, Obamacare will cost less than
predicted. The release of new information provided a look into rates for
consumers buying individual insurance on the 36n federally run exchanges. The
national average will be 328 dollars a month, before subsidies, for this new
premium program; this is sixteen percent less than projected by the
Congressional Budget Office. With less money spent on governmental health care,
the government and people who will have Obamacare are free to spend that money
however they wish.
The subsidies will offer maximum caps for low-and
moderate-income Americans in the benchmark plans. However, those who choose not
to enroll in Obamacare are not guaranteed a fixed price for healthcare, as the
prices range varies based on one’s age, income, and state. “For instance, a
27-year-old-living in Dallas making $25,000 could pay as little at $74 a month
for the cheapest “bronze” plan after subsidies, according to the Department of
the Health and Human Services.” While a sixty-year-old woman in Wyoming who
makes more than 46,000 dollars a year could pay as much at 758 dollars for an
extremely similar plan. Nevertheless, the majority of people uninsured today
will be able to find a policy for one-hundred dollars or less a month with
account subsidies and Medicaid eligibility taken into account.
Starting October 1st, consumers will be able to
start enrolling with coverage that begins in January. Starting in 2014, “nearly
everyone” must have insurance, either through jobs, government programs, or the
individual market, otherwise, they will face a penalty. These newly released
rates do not apply to those who receive insurance through their employer.
Most people who are expected to sign up for coverage in the
exchange have incomes up to 400 percent of poverty and will be eligible for federal
subsidies. The lower your income, the more expensive the benchmark plan in your
state, the larger your subsidy. Anyone who earns fewer than 45,960 dollars
would be responsible for the entire tab on the Obamacare health plan of his/her
choice. Premiums are higher in states with only a handful of insurers, says
Gary Claxton, vice president at the Kaiser Family Foundation. The three most
expensive states are Wyoming, Alaska, and Mississippi, where residents will
only have a choice of two insurers. With more opportunities for insurance,
leads to different deals and prices because that specific economy is allowing
choice.
This program is extremely important because it affects most of the people in
the United States. The fact that health insurance will be determined based
partly on where people live may lead to an increase in population in places
where the Obamacare is more readily available and cheap and a decline in places
where Obamacare is more expensive.
Thursday, September 26, 2013
Sunday, September 22, 2013
Underestimated Unemployment
New Source: Associated Press
Date of Article: September 19, 2013
Author of Article: Christopher Rujaber
Title of Article: US Unemployment Benefit Applications Rise to 309K
As technology moves forward and innovations continue to develop, the unemployment rate increases as well, unfortunately. In a society that is constantly moving forward, one would think that the rate of employment would exponentially grow, with new products on the market, meaning more job opportunities. However, with the steady increase of inflation, people cannot seem to manage to find a job that offers steady pay.
The number of people seeking U.S. unemployment benefits rose fifteen-thousand last week to 309,000. The Labor Department says that this data was not correct and that the four-week average fell seven-thousan to 314,750: the lowest in six years. California and Nevada claimed they were unable to submit all of their data due to computer upgrades, however, that does not change the fact that the number of people seeking U.S. unemployment benefits is the highest it has been in the past six years. A government spokesman says that those states reported all of the applications that came in last week. But backlogged date from two weeks ago may elevate the figures in the coming weeks, he said.
The broader trend in applications has been favorable, signaling fewer layoffs. The four-week average fell six percent in the two months before the computer upgrades distorted the numbers. As the layoffs are down, companies have yet to step up the rate of hiring. Employers have added an average of just 155,000 jobs a month since April. That is down from an average of 205,000 for the first four months of the year. This is one of the main contributing factors as to why the Federal Reserve on Wednesday help off slowing its $85 billion-a-month in bond buying. Those purchases are intended to keep mortgage and other longer-term interest rates low and encourage borrowing, spending, and growth.
Unfortunately, the economy grew at a whopping 2.5 percent annual rate in April-June quarter. That is too slow to generate hiring strong enough to rapidly lower the unemployment rate, which is still 7.3 percent higher than after the Great Recession ended. As consumers have grown more cautious about spending, higher interest rates have threatened to slow the housing recovery.
This article is especially important because it talks about where our economy stands today, and where it is going. It highlights how important it is for America to increase the overall unemployment rate and that if the rate does not increase, more people will be filling for US Unemployment Applications which will destroy the governments funds.
Date of Article: September 19, 2013
Author of Article: Christopher Rujaber
Title of Article: US Unemployment Benefit Applications Rise to 309K
As technology moves forward and innovations continue to develop, the unemployment rate increases as well, unfortunately. In a society that is constantly moving forward, one would think that the rate of employment would exponentially grow, with new products on the market, meaning more job opportunities. However, with the steady increase of inflation, people cannot seem to manage to find a job that offers steady pay.
The number of people seeking U.S. unemployment benefits rose fifteen-thousand last week to 309,000. The Labor Department says that this data was not correct and that the four-week average fell seven-thousan to 314,750: the lowest in six years. California and Nevada claimed they were unable to submit all of their data due to computer upgrades, however, that does not change the fact that the number of people seeking U.S. unemployment benefits is the highest it has been in the past six years. A government spokesman says that those states reported all of the applications that came in last week. But backlogged date from two weeks ago may elevate the figures in the coming weeks, he said.
The broader trend in applications has been favorable, signaling fewer layoffs. The four-week average fell six percent in the two months before the computer upgrades distorted the numbers. As the layoffs are down, companies have yet to step up the rate of hiring. Employers have added an average of just 155,000 jobs a month since April. That is down from an average of 205,000 for the first four months of the year. This is one of the main contributing factors as to why the Federal Reserve on Wednesday help off slowing its $85 billion-a-month in bond buying. Those purchases are intended to keep mortgage and other longer-term interest rates low and encourage borrowing, spending, and growth.
Unfortunately, the economy grew at a whopping 2.5 percent annual rate in April-June quarter. That is too slow to generate hiring strong enough to rapidly lower the unemployment rate, which is still 7.3 percent higher than after the Great Recession ended. As consumers have grown more cautious about spending, higher interest rates have threatened to slow the housing recovery.
This article is especially important because it talks about where our economy stands today, and where it is going. It highlights how important it is for America to increase the overall unemployment rate and that if the rate does not increase, more people will be filling for US Unemployment Applications which will destroy the governments funds.
Sunday, September 15, 2013
Protests of Partisan and Paranoia
9/15/13
Title of Article-"Workers' Protests Highlight Fast-Food Economics"
Date of Article-September 1, 2013
Authors-Candice Choi and Jonathan Falley
This past year, thousands of fast-food workers and supporters have been protesting against the federal minimum wages. The increase in protest activity has raised the question of whether the economics can actually provide these workers with a feasible response to their request.
The industry of fast-food is built on the idea of keeping costs low in order to make money while satisfying America's love of cheap, greasy, satisfying, food. Customers love the fact that they save money at McDonald's, this is what keeps people coming back: the predictability and consistency of the food quality and price. Unfortunately, store owners claim to be surviving on "slim margins" as the menu items are cheap.
Along with that, the corporations have to grow profits to keep shareholders happy. Althought the median hourly wage for a fast-food cook has increased from seven dollars to nine dollars, many workers make the federal mimimum wage at $7.25 an hour, making less than half of the median salarty of an American worker.
New York, Chicago, and Detroit protests are pushing for $15 an hour ($31,000 a year,) but in actuality, the protestors would be happy gaining just a few more dollars, as they are trying more or less, to raise awareness to their minimal wages. However, low wages and a lack of benefits for workers is nothing new at McDonalds, but the large number of people who have jobs at McDonalds is, and the number is growing exponentially. "Nearly 70 percent of the jobs gained since the recession ended have been in low-paying industries such as fast food."
The franchises claim their profit margins are thin so they can't afford to increase the workers pay. Over 90 percent of McDonald's and Burger Kings are owned by franchisees who claim they have to worry about making rent, buying supplies, paying fees to their parent company, while proividing extremely cheap prices to customers, therefore creating a higher wage is nearly impossible. Kathryn Slater Carter, who owns two McDonald's in California, said that what franchisees can pay dependes "on what money you've got left after all (the company's) interference."
As food ingredients and insurance prices increase, the workers pay amount is not one of the franchisees priorities. Other labor groups give a large profit to the CEOs while the workers receive barely anything. However, McDonald's and Burger King claim they do not determine wages for workers as the majority of restaurants are run by franchisees. The company aslo noted that an increase in entry-level wages would mean an increase in overall costs, which would result in higher prices on menus, which could possibly have a negative impact on employment and business growth in the fast-food industry. Labor organizers disagree with the idea that companies cannot influence the worker pay, as they state that the companies have total control of "every other aspect of the operations."
Although many Americans claim to support higher wages for workers, they flock to the cheapest meals in reality, which cut into profits, which is why fast-fppd chains have been stepping up[ deals and promotions in the weak economy. The impact of the series of protests against low wages has been unclear. No stores have shut down even in New York City, after 400 protesters trageted a McDonald's by the Empire State Building this past week, business remained regular.
I think that his specific article is extremely important because of the mass amount of people that are affected. Critically, in today's economy, more and more people have low income jobs, yet nobody seems to be doing anything about their low-wages. It is important to note that Americans claim to want to increase the pay of the minimum0waged workers, but are not willing to pay for more expensive items as a result. Americans claim one thing, making it seem like they care about bettering America as a whole, when in reality, Americans are selfish and care about their own profit more than the nation's average income level. The fast-food economy relies on one of the economic and social goals of the U.S., "economic efficiency" as they spend minimal amounts of money on their workers. In effect, the benefits gained are indubitably greater than the costs incurred. Although economic equity seizes to exist due to CEO's and franchisers who spend fast-food profit elsewhere, it is a trade-off made for economic efficiency. I think that these industries should try to focus more on providing their workers with better pay. Otherwise, the inconsistency and unpredictability of the staff will continue. Plus, as America's economy as a whole continues to to evolve and become more expensive, the wages of the workers should coincide and increase as well, otherwise they are unable to support themselves r their families and are unable to buy products therefore the markets would not be as high and those people working for those products would not have as many job opportunities. In conclusion, the economy runs on a ripple effect. Everything that one company does somehow affects someone else somewhere.
Title of Article-"Workers' Protests Highlight Fast-Food Economics"
Date of Article-September 1, 2013
Authors-Candice Choi and Jonathan Falley
This past year, thousands of fast-food workers and supporters have been protesting against the federal minimum wages. The increase in protest activity has raised the question of whether the economics can actually provide these workers with a feasible response to their request.
The industry of fast-food is built on the idea of keeping costs low in order to make money while satisfying America's love of cheap, greasy, satisfying, food. Customers love the fact that they save money at McDonald's, this is what keeps people coming back: the predictability and consistency of the food quality and price. Unfortunately, store owners claim to be surviving on "slim margins" as the menu items are cheap.
Along with that, the corporations have to grow profits to keep shareholders happy. Althought the median hourly wage for a fast-food cook has increased from seven dollars to nine dollars, many workers make the federal mimimum wage at $7.25 an hour, making less than half of the median salarty of an American worker.
New York, Chicago, and Detroit protests are pushing for $15 an hour ($31,000 a year,) but in actuality, the protestors would be happy gaining just a few more dollars, as they are trying more or less, to raise awareness to their minimal wages. However, low wages and a lack of benefits for workers is nothing new at McDonalds, but the large number of people who have jobs at McDonalds is, and the number is growing exponentially. "Nearly 70 percent of the jobs gained since the recession ended have been in low-paying industries such as fast food."
The franchises claim their profit margins are thin so they can't afford to increase the workers pay. Over 90 percent of McDonald's and Burger Kings are owned by franchisees who claim they have to worry about making rent, buying supplies, paying fees to their parent company, while proividing extremely cheap prices to customers, therefore creating a higher wage is nearly impossible. Kathryn Slater Carter, who owns two McDonald's in California, said that what franchisees can pay dependes "on what money you've got left after all (the company's) interference."
As food ingredients and insurance prices increase, the workers pay amount is not one of the franchisees priorities. Other labor groups give a large profit to the CEOs while the workers receive barely anything. However, McDonald's and Burger King claim they do not determine wages for workers as the majority of restaurants are run by franchisees. The company aslo noted that an increase in entry-level wages would mean an increase in overall costs, which would result in higher prices on menus, which could possibly have a negative impact on employment and business growth in the fast-food industry. Labor organizers disagree with the idea that companies cannot influence the worker pay, as they state that the companies have total control of "every other aspect of the operations."
Although many Americans claim to support higher wages for workers, they flock to the cheapest meals in reality, which cut into profits, which is why fast-fppd chains have been stepping up[ deals and promotions in the weak economy. The impact of the series of protests against low wages has been unclear. No stores have shut down even in New York City, after 400 protesters trageted a McDonald's by the Empire State Building this past week, business remained regular.
I think that his specific article is extremely important because of the mass amount of people that are affected. Critically, in today's economy, more and more people have low income jobs, yet nobody seems to be doing anything about their low-wages. It is important to note that Americans claim to want to increase the pay of the minimum0waged workers, but are not willing to pay for more expensive items as a result. Americans claim one thing, making it seem like they care about bettering America as a whole, when in reality, Americans are selfish and care about their own profit more than the nation's average income level. The fast-food economy relies on one of the economic and social goals of the U.S., "economic efficiency" as they spend minimal amounts of money on their workers. In effect, the benefits gained are indubitably greater than the costs incurred. Although economic equity seizes to exist due to CEO's and franchisers who spend fast-food profit elsewhere, it is a trade-off made for economic efficiency. I think that these industries should try to focus more on providing their workers with better pay. Otherwise, the inconsistency and unpredictability of the staff will continue. Plus, as America's economy as a whole continues to to evolve and become more expensive, the wages of the workers should coincide and increase as well, otherwise they are unable to support themselves r their families and are unable to buy products therefore the markets would not be as high and those people working for those products would not have as many job opportunities. In conclusion, the economy runs on a ripple effect. Everything that one company does somehow affects someone else somewhere.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)