You wre implying Obama wasn't hurting oil production. He may not be but he has tried to. He resists fracking which is responsible for todays gas prices. He has reduced leases on federal land. If it's not being used what does taking away the lease do but insure that land never gets used? He is killing the coal industry increasing the dependence on oil. He has done NOTHING to cause todays prices and wishes they weren't so.Originally posted by 3Rfan:
Once again I don't say what they do or do not support. I say oil production has vastly increased during his administration so claims that he has hurt oil production are simply ridiculous. He did take away some oil leases on government land that the companies who held those leases for years would NOT drill on. It was a use it or lose it kinda thang.
These are 3rd party people hired to find the best deal. They are not health care providers. We have filled out several forms as employees to comply with ACA. They named the "positives" about ACA but were emphatic it did nothing to make health care affordable.Originally posted by 3Rfan:
I'd bet if they could legitmately blame the ACA they would have shouted it from the roof tops to keep from taking the heat themselves fro rate increases.
Sure they could cut production and prices would rise temporarily. But US production is still increasing and when we get a more favorable administration in the executive branch it will really grow. Does OPEC keep cutting production and thus profits? Increased production in the US will force prices to a natural price level as opposed to the current controlled price. Cutting production by OPEC will only delay the inevitable unless we get a lot more libs in control.Originally posted by 3Rfan:
Their option would be to cut production like they usually do. If oil prices are set by the global market as you and others always tell me they are, less oil in the short term would mean price increases. They could affect the supply of oil in a few days if they turn off the spigot. U.S. oil producers could NOT take up their slack anywhere near soon enough to keep prices from going up. They're not cutting production in an effort to shut down a bunch of U.S. oil wells.
The employee pays 20% of the premium whatever it is and the employer pays the other 80%. There is no cost shift. There was a 40% increase to keep the existing policy! We went with a policy that has much higher co pays, deductibles, max out of pocket, and limits co pays to keep premiums near current levels.Originally posted by Neutron Monster:
Also you need to see the full premiums to judge how your health care costs really changed and not the employee premiums, it's not the fault of "obamacare" if your employer decides to shift cost to you.
We had a 7% increase last year and a 40% increase this year. Blame whoever you want. Neither healthcare nor insurance is more affordable under the "Affordable" Care Act.Originally posted by Neutron Monster:
Plenty of companies out there blaming obamacare for any cost increase or plan change whether or not it's true, 3R.
1. This admin has been as favorable to oil as any; the idea that oil is under attack in the US is ridiculous. Coal is under attack; nat gas/oil are being promoted by basically everyone.Originally posted by millerbleach:
Sure they could cut production and prices would rise temporarily. But US production is still increasing and when we get a more favorable administration in the executive branch it will really grow. Does OPEC keep cutting production and thus profits? Increased production in the US will force prices to a natural price level as opposed to the current controlled price. Cutting production by OPEC will only delay the inevitable unless we get a lot more libs in control.Originally posted by 3Rfan:
Their option would be to cut production like they usually do. If oil prices are set by the global market as you and others always tell me they are, less oil in the short term would mean price increases. They could affect the supply of oil in a few days if they turn off the spigot. U.S. oil producers could NOT take up their slack anywhere near soon enough to keep prices from going up. They're not cutting production in an effort to shut down a bunch of U.S. oil wells.
That's what I wanted to understand, thanks.Originally posted by millerbleach:
The employee pays 20% of the premium whatever it is and the employer pays the other 80%. There is no cost shift. There was a 40% increase to keep the existing policy! We went with a policy that has much higher co pays, deductibles, max out of pocket, and limits co pays to keep premiums near current levels.Originally posted by Neutron Monster:
Also you need to see the full premiums to judge how your health care costs really changed and not the employee premiums, it's not the fault of "obamacare" if your employer decides to shift cost to you.
The affordable care act is about access to care, not about lowering the overall cost curve for health care. The name is misleading.Originally posted by millerbleach:
We had a 7% increase last year and a 40% increase this year. Blame whoever you want. Neither healthcare nor insurance is more affordable under the "Affordable" Care Act.Originally posted by Neutron Monster:
Plenty of companies out there blaming obamacare for any cost increase or plan change whether or not it's true, 3R.
That's strange about number 1. I heard that the feds had slowed down on approving permits. I will have to see if I can find that.Originally posted by Neutron Monster:
1. This admin has been as favorable to oil as any; the idea that oil is under attack in the US is ridiculous. Coal is under attack; nat gas/oil are being promoted by basically everyone.Originally posted by millerbleach:
Sure they could cut production and prices would rise temporarily. But US production is still increasing and when we get a more favorable administration in the executive branch it will really grow. Does OPEC keep cutting production and thus profits? Increased production in the US will force prices to a natural price level as opposed to the current controlled price. Cutting production by OPEC will only delay the inevitable unless we get a lot more libs in control.Originally posted by 3Rfan:
Their option would be to cut production like they usually do. If oil prices are set by the global market as you and others always tell me they are, less oil in the short term would mean price increases. They could affect the supply of oil in a few days if they turn off the spigot. U.S. oil producers could NOT take up their slack anywhere near soon enough to keep prices from going up. They're not cutting production in an effort to shut down a bunch of U.S. oil wells.
J Paul Getty could be the President of the US and oil production would be about the same that it has been under Obama. Oil production is up by leaps and bounds!
2. There is no scenario under which the US could produce enough oil to offset a serious cut in supply by OPEC. You are living in fantasy land. We couldn't do it in the 1970's and we can't do it now.
The US produces about 9 million barrels of oil a day and we are using all of it - we have little to no spare capacity sitting idle. OPEC produces closer to 30 M. It doesn't take a math wizard to realize we can't ramp up enough to offset even a 10% cut in their supply.
You can repeat the lie about us being able to weather an OPEC supply cut 100 times and it doesn't magically become true. They could double the price of oil tomorrow if they wanted to do so.
There is no magic faucet to be turned on with oil. It takes time and years of investment to ramp up production. A sudden cut from OPEC in supply cannot be made up in the short term.
As were many other selling points of the ACA.Originally posted by Neutron Monster:
The affordable care act is about access to care, not about lowering the overall cost curve for health care. The name is misleading.Originally posted by millerbleach:
We had a 7% increase last year and a 40% increase this year. Blame whoever you want. Neither healthcare nor insurance is more affordable under the "Affordable" Care Act.Originally posted by Neutron Monster:
Plenty of companies out there blaming obamacare for any cost increase or plan change whether or not it's true, 3R.
You think they don't want $100 oil?Originally posted by Neutron Monster:
If OPEC wanted 100 dollar oil they could have it tomorrow. They control 1/3 of the supply of oil in a market with pretty inelastic demand. If they cut their production by even 5% it would shoot the price of oil up.
It would be a public relations nightmare to curtail private land drilling and that is the only reason they haven't tried to. If cutting permits is being "friendly" on oil production you clearly see things differently. Obama and Co are opposed to any energy that isn't unproven and yet people try to credit "increased production under his reign" as evidence he's on the right track.Originally posted by Neutron Monster:
Federal permits don't matter for drilling on non-Federal lands. Core of US growth is fracking on private land in ND and Texas. Feds haven't done anything material to impede that.
It's also true that Obama gets too much credit for oil production growth; what has happened in the US is a private sector story (they responded to high oil prices with ingenuity). Obama has allowed that to happen on a large scale to an extent similar to what a Republican President would allow.
The #1 thing driving drilling in the US is the price of oil. When oil is over $100, you're going to see everyone and their mother looking to drill new holes. When oil is in the $60s, you'll see news stories like what is attached. It just takes a long time for production growth (or decline) to show up given the lag time in these projects.
Does anyone know what the reason is for diesel fuel to be so high? Gas has dropped about a buck fifty, oil is almost half what it was and, diesel has dropped about 50 cents.
If you believe the news articles, it's not about bankrupting oil cos, it's about stopping new wells from being drilled so they can get a supply squeeze laterOriginally posted by millerbleach:
You think they don't want $100 oil?Originally posted by Neutron Monster:
If OPEC wanted 100 dollar oil they could have it tomorrow. They control 1/3 of the supply of oil in a market with pretty inelastic demand. If they cut their production by even 5% it would shoot the price of oil up.
Then why aren't they? They aren't going to bankrupt any oil companies with this "move" of continuing production.