No flounder, just the facts, ma'am.
What's the fact? That somebody thinks that 2.5 million people will lose their jobs in the next decade because of ACA?
That's certainly a fact.
I believe it was someone in the administration responding to a CBO report.
Sultan wrote: I believe it was someone in the administration responding to a CBO report.
The quote was attributed to White Press Secretary Jay Carney.
To be honest, every person in history who has had that job is a paid liar. Mr. Carney is the latest iteration and isn't very good at it. The desperate spin he tried to put on the CBO report proves it.
This report measures the amount of hours that people are supplying to the job market, not how many are being offered. In a separate statement, the CBO said the the ACA's effect on that is too small to be measured.
Here's the actual report, for those interested:
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45010-breakout-AppendixC.pdf
In reply to iadr:
Wait, what? You complain about Forbes' rhetorical "propaganda" and then offer your own variety? Smooooooth.....
The 21st century world you envision will cost trillions of dollars that do not exist. That may mean nothing to you now, but when it collapses Dickens' London may look like nirvana.
The CBO analysis shows that people will remove themselves from the work-force because federal subsidies allow them to exist at their preferred living standard, often without contributing much to the general welfare of the country; i.e., paying income taxes. Income tax revenues are the linchpin to funding those subsidies.
Individuals should have the freedom to decide what is a "dignified" retirement. They should also have to freedom to work more and earn more - something the ACA often prevents. Read this for more desperate propaganda: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/watch-out-obamacares-subsidy-cliff-earn-1-more-wages-and-you-could-pay-20000-more-insurance_778743.html
This is not exactly a Forbes piece. "Forbes.com/sites" is a place where anyone can open a blog. I could do that right now and write an exposé about Bigfoot's alien babies. Hmm, maybe I'll do that...
oldsaw wrote: The CBO analysis shows that people will remove themselves from the work-force because federal subsidies allow them to exist at their preferred living standard, often without contributing much to the general welfare of the country; i.e., paying income taxes. Income tax revenues are the linchpin to funding those subsidies.
No it shows that some people will now be able to retire when they originally wanted too not be forced to stay working for something they can't afford. It shows that others wont seek full time employment as even if they could find it, they then couldn't afford health insurance. The root of the issue is health insurance in this country is still busted. The rest of the 1st world democratic countries proved it health insurance to their citizens as part of their tax $'s at a far lower per person rate than here.
I have become convinced that Obamacare (AKA the ACA) was designed from the get go to fail. If they tried to make it any more of a train wreck they couldn't have. The motive for this is less clear. There will be some short term profits, but perhaps it is just a stepping stone to so called universal health car. If they can create such a giant mess of our existing system so that instead of working for most of the people it works for none of them, then we will all beg the government to take it all over and save us. We will do it for the children.
In reply to T.J.:
I've never understood why anyone would trust the government to run any program properly. History shows they can't do it.
GameboyRMH wrote: This is not exactly a Forbes piece. "Forbes.com/sites" is a place where anyone can open a blog. I could do that right now and write an exposé about Bigfoot's alien babies. Hmm, maybe I'll do that...
yep.. and it even says it is an OP/ED (opinion editorial).
so, it IS flounder, and not facts.
unless you consider opinions.. facts... but when you do, you flounder.
What a weird way to look at employment. I will only work for you (or anywhere) if my health insurance is favorable? How much will you pay me? What are the hours? What will I be doing? I don't care, tell me about your health insurance!
bravenrace wrote: In reply to T.J.: I've never understood why anyone would trust the government to run any program properly. History shows they can't do it.
But THIS TIME will be different. Right?
In reply to Bobzilla:
I don't think so, Bob.
What the CBO says is that 2.5 million people will choose to work less or not at all. The jobs will still be there which means some of the long term unemployed will fill them. That seems like a net loss of no jobs.
And yeah, the linked article is like linking to a Facebook post about something. Not very authoritative.
To think we could have just implemented tort reform. No one contests the estimate that 15 to 18 of all medicine is defensive…just cutting it in half with some simple measures like eliminating punitive damages would have freed up 8 percent of all resources (meds, devices, diagnostics, consumables, nurses, doctors, beds…everything) to be redirected to those that didn’t have access to care without imposing any harm to those that did. This could have been done in a matter of months, at minimal cost, with a high degree of predictability.
Next, we could decouple insurance from employment (we could call it, “take it with you”) and create a set of standards (the government LOVES doing this stuff) that safeguard against dropping burdensome insured’s. Both of these changes would increase premiums but not as much as the straight math would suggest as the insurance providers would no longer need to employ legions of people to figure out how to deny claims and kick people off of plans thus offsetting some of the added cost.
Whatever, I’m a process engineer, I know how to make systems run more efficiently…the ACA is taking us in the exact opposite direction (every hear of non value added activities, disincentives, gaming, and unintended consequences to name a few). Even now that the damage is coming to fruition and we’ve got the CBO (a nonpartisan organization of very capable economists and statisticians) quantifying it, we’re still bickering about something that’s totally obvious.
Four words: We-Need-People-Working. How anyone could be so steeped in ideology or so bad at math to not get this is incomprehensible to me.
Dculberson, I'm pretty sure the CBO said 2.5 million net loss so that's after accounting for any rotation.
SCARR wrote:GameboyRMH wrote: This is not exactly a Forbes piece. "Forbes.com/sites" is a place where anyone can open a blog. I could do that right now and write an exposé about Bigfoot's alien babies. Hmm, maybe I'll do that...yep.. and it even says it is an OP/ED (opinion editorial). so, it IS flounder, and not facts. unless you consider opinions.. facts... but when you do, you flounder.
By your logic, Jay Carney's statement (which is that of the administration) is also a flounder. After all, it is only their opinion about the "good" aspects of the CBO report.
chrispy wrote: What a weird way to look at employment. I will only work for you (or anywhere) if my health insurance is favorable? How much will you pay me? What are the hours? What will I be doing? I don't care, tell me about your health insurance!
The automotive idustry carries an exceptionally high rate fo health coverage, Before Obamacare my costs were $218/wk for my portion, not including any deductibles or non covered costs. That was $11336.00 annually for someone making a tick over $43000.00 in salary. It's okay because now my health care costs $252/wk ($13104.00/yr) and my new employer is commission only so I can make as little as nothing and as much as the market bears as long as I can get as many cars into and through the system as possible. I am petrified that I will make just enough to cover the insurance and that is all.
I would love to find another job that pays better, they aren't available. Change careers at 43? sounds brilliant... I will just go on down to the $50k/yr temp agency office and show them my stuff!
This is MY isolated case, I know others in the same boat. It's not even close to being a workers market out there.
RX Reven' wrote: Dculberson, I'm pretty sure the CBO said 2.5 million net loss so that's after accounting for any rotation.
Not as I read it; they do not say jobs will be lost at all, they say workers will work less. That's a very different scenario and not at all lost jobs. The money sentence from the report itself:
"The reduction in CBO's projections of hours worked represents a decline in the number of full-time-equivalent workers of about 2.0 million in 2017, rising to about 2.5 million in 2024."
And:
"almost entirely because workers will choose to supply less labor"
Note that it is not because the work is unavailable, it is because they will choose to work less.
bravenrace wrote: In reply to T.J.: I've never understood why anyone would trust the government to run any program properly. History shows they can't do it.
Every other first world democratic country manages it with better results than our for profit system. Why can't we?
In reply to Adrian_Thompson:
Well my take is that our country is run by politicians instead of government leaders. The difference is that they live in an isolated world in DC where they are out of touch with the people of this country and more concerned about getting re-elected and how they are perceived instead of doing the right thing. Term limits would solve a lot of that, but we have the wolves guarding the hen house on that one. Its the one big mistake our founding fathers made - Not anticipating career politicians. That was never the intent, but they didn't put a foolproof provision in anywhere to prevent it from happening.
In reply to Adrian_Thompson:
I just re-read your post, and am now uncertain what you meant by it. Are you saying you think the US government CAN run healthcare? If so, please offer an example of just one major program they have run efficiently. Medicare? No. Medicaide? No. Social Security? No. Post office? No. Tax System? No. Military? Yes on the combat side (run by soldiers, not politicians), definitely NOT on the administrative side.
Then again, if that's not what you meant, then refer to my last reply.
You'll need to log in to post.
