Hooray for Obama!!!

John is 59, has had a good career as a mechanical engineer, has saved pretty diligently his whole life, and also has a chronic heart condition. He's got the cash to retire early, but he's not yet eligible for Medicare. So he needs to keep working more than he wants to for a few more years. Or at least he would have if not for the Affordable Care Act, which makes it feasible for him to buy insurance on the private market and get a jump start on his fishing plans.

Mary is 27 and pregnant. She'd like to start working part time once the baby is born. But even though her husband's company is doing OK it's too small to provide health insurance to its employees. So the family really needs Mary to put in enough hours to qualify for benefits at her office. That is, they would need her to work full time if not for the Affordable Care Act, whose small-business tax credits are going to let her husband's boss start offering insurance.
Those are good stories, right?

Well, certainly I framed them as good stories. Today's Congressional Budget Office update on the state of the labor market frames them as bad stories by estimating that the Affordable Care Act will shrink the size of the American labor force by about 2 million full-time equivalent employees. I just gave you the story of how the ACA will cost the country one and a half FTE jobs. And it sounded like a good story. But aggregate all those happy stories of early retirements and shifts to part-time work, and it can look like a bad story. A society where health insurance is less tied to full-time employment is a society in which more people will choose not to work full time.


http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox...job_killer_how_the_cbo_thinks_it_ll_work.html
 
Superfreak said:
Do you ever get tired of making excuses for Obama and the disaster he has been as a President? Do you get embarrassed that you voted for a man that is actually WORSE than Bush?
Click to expand...
Unfortunately for you the majority of the nation thinks Obama has done a reasonable job of leading country out what was the TRUE DISASTER, the Bush Presidency and he's done so handicapped with a do nothing GOP dominated congress that is determined to bring the President down and the country with it. So blow some smoke up somebody elses ass.
 
Darla said:
I think it shows you are engaging in very simple thinking and I think it's very clear as to why.
Click to expand...

Really? Should I go grab an article from a right-wing site and claim you're a hack?

What I posted cuts to the core of what the CBO is saying. Jobs aren't being lost it's that people aren't going to be working. Why aren't they going to be working? If you don't have to work to get insurance and if you work and earn too much and thus lose your subsidized insurance what are you going to do?
 
cawacko said:
Really? Should I go grab an article from a right-wing site and claim you're a hack?

What I posted cuts to the core of what the CBO is saying. Jobs aren't being lost it's that people aren't going to be working. Why aren't they going to be working? If you don't have to work to get insurance and if you work and earn too much and thus lose your subsidized insurance what are you going to do?
Click to expand...
Move to California? :)
 
aeprga said:
What's the problem with people choosing not to work?
Click to expand...

If we have less people working; paying taxes and paying into S.S., and more people not working and on the receiving end of benefits aren't we going to run into a numbers problem?
 
cawacko said:
If we have less people working; paying taxes and paying into S.S., and more people not working and on the receiving end of benefits aren't we going to run into a numbers problem?
Click to expand...

So it's a revenue issue to you? We should get rid of policies that result in people electing to work less because we need them to work more -- even if they don't want to and do it just so that they can have health insurance -- because the government needs revenue? There are better ways to raise revenues -- particularly SS revenues -- if that's what your worried about.
 
To me this is a no-brainer. The employer-provided health care is a disaster IMO for both American businesses and the American people. Now, more people will have freedom to choose. Choose to start a business. CHoose to retire at 58 instead of having to hang on for Medicare to kick in, freedom to stay at home with their children...

I am really bewildered as to how anyone can see this as a problem. YOu have to really love being under the whip if you do. And hey, I'm a liberal, if that's your thing...but keep it as your thing. Some of us like freedom.
 
aeprga said:
So it's a revenue issue to you? We should get rid of policies that result in people electing to work less because we need them to work more -- even if they don't want to and do it just so that they can have health insurance -- because the government needs revenue? There are better ways to raise revenues -- particularly SS revenues -- if that's what your worried about.
Click to expand...

Sure, you just raise taxes. In theory no revenue problem is too great until you can't tax anymore.

Obviously the government attempts to influence our behavior based on the tax code. Due to baby boomers starting to retire, the state of the economy and other issues our workforce participation is at its lowest levels since the late '70's or around then. This will continue to lower that rate. At what point do you see a potential problem with a lack of a workforce participation, if that is a problem at all in your opinion?
 
Darla said:
That's an oversimplification:


What the CBO really found was that the numbers of hours worked would decrease under Obamacare, by roughly 1.5 percent to 2 percent between 2017 and 2024. The report then translated those lost hours into the equivalent of 2.5 million jobs. But that doesn't mean 2.5 million jobs are going to disappear from the U.S. economy.

The CBO report, in fact, specifically undermines that claim. Those lost hours will "almost entirely" be the result of people choosing to work fewer hours because of Obamacare -- not because they lost their jobs or can't find a full-time job.

"I think it’s important to distinguish between people choosing to work less and jobs being lost," Larry Levitt, vice president at the non-partisan Kaiser Famiy Foundation, told TPM. "That is something important to keep an eye on, since you don’t want to discourage work. But, it’s not in all cases a bad thing."

"For example, some people in their late 50s and early 60s would like to retire because they have health issues but have kept working for the health benefits. Some of them can now retire because they can’t be discriminated against for having a pre-existing condition and may get help paying their premiums."

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/oba...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Click to expand...

So people choosing to work less, and pay less tax while doing it, in order to not lose a government subsidy is a good thing to you?

You have no right to complain about deficits
 
Superfreak said:
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/197365-cbo-o-care-slowing-growth

Job losses? No way! Who could have predicted that?

Bigger deficits? NO WAY! Who could have predicted that?

But, but, but... I thought Obama had cut the deficit in half... yet we are still projected to add another $10T to the debt in the next ten years. Hmmmmm... lets do that math... ten years, ten trillion... one trillion per year over the next ten years on average.

WAY TO GO OBAMA!!!
Click to expand...

I'll believe it when I see it.

It would be interesting to see how many long-range predictions actually come true no matter what they're about.
 
Superfreak said:
Do you ever get tired of making excuses for Obama and the disaster he has been as a President? Do you get embarrassed that you voted for a man that is actually WORSE than Bush?
Click to expand...

bush was the worst president ever but I know you can't see it with your economy goggles on.
 
cawacko said:
If we have less people working; paying taxes and paying into S.S., and more people not working and on the receiving end of benefits aren't we going to run into a numbers problem?
Click to expand...

How did you get from the first part of your comment to being on the receiving end of benefits? What benefits?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top