Total Posts:8|Showing Posts:1-8
Jump to topic:

More bad news for Obamacarae

AnsweringAtheism
Posts: 27
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2014 11:10:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Q. What would you call it if you took jobs away from nearly the entire population of Nevada?

A. Obamacare

Obamacare will push the equivalent of about 2 million workers out of the labor market by 2017 as employees decide either to work fewer hours or drop out altogether, according to the latest estimates Tuesday from the Congressional Budget Office.

That"s a major jump in the nonpartisan budget agency"s projections and it suggests the health care law"s incentives are driving businesses and people to choose government-sponsored benefits rather than work.

"CBO estimates that the ACA will reduce the total number of hours worked, on net, by about 1.5 to 2 percent during the period from 2017 to 2024, almost entirely because workers will choose to supply less labor " given the new taxes and other incentives they will face and the financial benefits some will receive," CBO analysts wrote in their new economic outlook.

The scorekeepers also said the rollout problems with the Affordable Care Act last year will mean only 6 million people sign up through the state-based exchanges, rather than the 7 million the CBO had originally projected.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com...

Who was right all along about Obamacare? Yup, the conservatives who were branded as RACIST for opposing Obama and as OBSTRUCTIONISTS for opposing Obamacare.
NightofTheLivingCats
Posts: 2,294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2014 10:26:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/4/2014 11:10:26 AM, AnsweringAtheism wrote:
Q. What would you call it if you took jobs away from nearly the entire population of Nevada?

A. Obamacare

Obamacare will push the equivalent of about 2 million workers out of the labor market by 2017 as employees decide either to work fewer hours or drop out altogether, according to the latest estimates Tuesday from the Congressional Budget Office.

That"s a major jump in the nonpartisan budget agency"s projections and it suggests the health care law"s incentives are driving businesses and people to choose government-sponsored benefits rather than work.

"CBO estimates that the ACA will reduce the total number of hours worked, on net, by about 1.5 to 2 percent during the period from 2017 to 2024, almost entirely because workers will choose to supply less labor " given the new taxes and other incentives they will face and the financial benefits some will receive," CBO analysts wrote in their new economic outlook.

The scorekeepers also said the rollout problems with the Affordable Care Act last year will mean only 6 million people sign up through the state-based exchanges, rather than the 7 million the CBO had originally projected.


Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com...

Who was right all along about Obamacare? Yup, the conservatives who were branded as RACIST for opposing Obama and as OBSTRUCTIONISTS for opposing Obamacare.

Obamacare is getting spanked
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2014 11:04:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
All I know is fvck Obamacare and/or state exchanges.
Since my insurance is "affordable" (less than 9% of gross), I do not qualify for any state programs once I am eligible.
I also do not qualify for tax credits or subsidies because I am eligible for insurance.
Because I am eligible, my wife is too, even though combined, the insurance would be over 20% of my income from said job.

Affordable my a$$.
So, it looks like I'll be paying a few hundred dollars for not having insurance I can't afford.
My work here is, finally, done.
TheJesusParadox
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2014 11:45:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
False! It will not remove 2 million jobs from the economy -- rather, it will reduce total hours of production in the equivalent of 2 million jobs. Basically, the CBO is saying people will have incentive to work less hours. Which is not necessarily a bad thing -- according to me and the CBO director under oath -- as it will give people more freedom of choice. With that said, those projections are according to the CBO and I find them highly questionable.

It does not make sense to assume folks will work less in order to get a higher subsidy. That is especially true when subsidies do not equal the wages they could gain by working more. In reality, the subsidies do not even come close to incentivizing a person to work less. In Arizona for instance, the maximum premium for a silver plan is $6,041. At an income of $60,000 with 4 people in the a household the subsidy would be a measly $1,128 and an income of $50,000 the subsidy would be $2,676. So, the CBO is honestly trying to tell me that people would sacrifice $10,000 to get $1300 more in the form of a subsidy. That is $8,700 a person is leaving on the table -- that does not sound like an incentive to work less.
NightofTheLivingCats
Posts: 2,294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2014 9:14:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/5/2014 11:45:38 PM, TheJesusParadox wrote:
False! It will not remove 2 million jobs from the economy -- rather, it will reduce total hours of production in the equivalent of 2 million jobs. Basically, the CBO is saying people will have incentive to work less hours. Which is not necessarily a bad thing -- according to me and the CBO director under oath -- as it will give people more freedom of choice. With that said, those projections are according to the CBO and I find them highly questionable.


Wait what?!

It does not make sense to assume folks will work less in order to get a higher subsidy. That is especially true when subsidies do not equal the wages they could gain by working more. In reality, the subsidies do not even come close to incentivizing a person to work less. In Arizona for instance, the maximum premium for a silver plan is $6,041. At an income of $60,000 with 4 people in the a household the subsidy would be a measly $1,128 and an income of $50,000 the subsidy would be $2,676. So, the CBO is honestly trying to tell me that people would sacrifice $10,000 to get $1300 more in the form of a subsidy. That is $8,700 a person is leaving on the table -- that does not sound like an incentive to work less.
TrueScotsman
Posts: 515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2014 10:28:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/4/2014 11:10:26 AM, AnsweringAtheism wrote:
Q. What would you call it if you took jobs away from nearly the entire population of Nevada?

A. Obamacare

Obamacare will push the equivalent of about 2 million workers out of the labor market by 2017 as employees decide either to work fewer hours or drop out altogether, according to the latest estimates Tuesday from the Congressional Budget Office.

That"s a major jump in the nonpartisan budget agency"s projections and it suggests the health care law"s incentives are driving businesses and people to choose government-sponsored benefits rather than work.

"CBO estimates that the ACA will reduce the total number of hours worked, on net, by about 1.5 to 2 percent during the period from 2017 to 2024, almost entirely because workers will choose to supply less labor " given the new taxes and other incentives they will face and the financial benefits some will receive," CBO analysts wrote in their new economic outlook.

The scorekeepers also said the rollout problems with the Affordable Care Act last year will mean only 6 million people sign up through the state-based exchanges, rather than the 7 million the CBO had originally projected.


Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com...

Who was right all along about Obamacare? Yup, the conservatives who were branded as RACIST for opposing Obama and as OBSTRUCTIONISTS for opposing Obamacare.

Obamacare doesn't cause people to lose their jobs, it gives them the freedom to on their own leave their jobs because they are no longer held captive by corporate healthcare plans.

Here is a good read for you, and from a more reputable Washington D.C. newspaper, the Washington POST.

http://www.washingtonpost.com...
lannan13
Posts: 23,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2014 11:34:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
THEWEEK also lambasted Conservatives and the South for starting a second Civil War as they are attempting to harm blacks and deny them their rights.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
TheJesusParadox
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2014 2:35:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/6/2014 9:14:10 AM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:
At 2/5/2014 11:45:38 PM, TheJesusParadox wrote:
False! It will not remove 2 million jobs from the economy -- rather, it will reduce total hours of production in the equivalent of 2 million jobs. Basically, the CBO is saying people will have incentive to work less hours. Which is not necessarily a bad thing -- according to me and the CBO director under oath -- as it will give people more freedom of choice. With that said, those projections are according to the CBO and I find them highly questionable.


Wait what?!


It does not make sense to assume folks will work less in order to get a higher subsidy. That is especially true when subsidies do not equal the wages they could gain by working more. In reality, the subsidies do not even come close to incentivizing a person to work less. In Arizona for instance, the maximum premium for a silver plan is $6,041. At an income of $60,000 with 4 people in the a household the subsidy would be a measly $1,128 and an income of $50,000 the subsidy would be $2,676. So, the CBO is honestly trying to tell me that people would sacrifice $10,000 to get $1300 more in the form of a subsidy. That is $8,700 a person is leaving on the table -- that does not sound like an incentive to work less.

The point was that folks working less hours is not a bad thing. According to their desires, they could trade-off working more hours for having more free time. In American culture the unneeded 40+ hour work week is valued. When in reality, people deserve more time off to have a better life. On top of that, if people had the incentive to work less hours it would lower the unemployment rate. Employers would need more employees to fill the void of workers working less.

That is neither here nor there -- as the CBO report is easily disputed by common sense.

The CBO report is interesting check it out: http://www.cbo.gov...