Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Because people who orginally got healthcare through their employers had to work 40 hours. Now, because that is no longer the case, the EMPLOYEES not the EMPLOYERS are cutting back their hours.
Nice spin.
what did i spin, stampie?
Quote:
"The act creates a disincentive for people to work. By providing heavily subsidized health insurance to people with very low income and then withdrawing those subsidies as income rises, the act creates a disincentive for people to work—relative to what would have been the case in the absence of that act.”
- Congressional Budget Office director Douglas Elmendorf
Because people who orginally got healthcare through their employers had to work 40 hours. Now, because that is no longer the case, the EMPLOYEES not the EMPLOYERS are cutting back their hours.
Nice spin.
And the employees hours arent being made up by the employer hiring others...
the spin job is coming from you because the ONLY reason they can cut back on their hours is because someone else is working them and paying for the subsidies..
The "Obamacare Cliff" what one website calls it can be fixed as well as the 400% FPL. The Republican Plan though cuts off subsidies at 300% of FPL and of course taxes almost everyone with employer provided insurance to pay for the subsidies. By the way its been ok for years for older unmarried couples to "live in sin" to avoid taxes or collect a benefit like Medicaid but if a young couple finds a way to do the same thing they are freeloaders.
Thank you for pointing out some of the myriad ways that government actively works against the common good, via the perverse incentives built into its programs.
You didnt spin a thing. Lefties are trying to find anything good in this piece of **** legislation and I'm more shocked that they think its a good thing that others are workign, to pay for their handouts.
They are only looking at one side, i.e. people choosing to work less, while ignoring others are working to pay for the handouts, and also the employers arent replacing the hours.
At $10 an hour, the total comes out to nearly $50 billion lost to the nations GDP.
Whats comical about it, is the CBO operates under the White House department.. So how can they reject a report that comes from their own administration?
They cant.. Its a total joke now that they are running around making excuses for their own failure trying to justify it as a positive.
You can't say people don't want to work and want to spend more time at home and then turn around and demand job creation and higher wages because people can't exist on the money they make now.
Which one is the right story folks ?
The CBO didn't say they wanted to stay home with their kids and work on hobbies, the WH did.
Isn't this the same WH saying the middle class deserve higher salaries to close the income gap ?
You ain't gonna close that income gap with the rich when you decide you'd rather stay home and qualify for government subsidies. But you'll certainly decline to meet up with the poor class as you all wait on line for your government "allowance" but only if you don't make too much money.
Please point out where the CBO report says there would be a loss to 2.5 million jobs.
I see..let's argue and debate over semantics.
Key word FB is "equivalent" which the CBO did use.
It's the total man hours people are going to NOT work that add up to 2.5 million.
But stay fixated on that "jobs" point as that is what all the other "deniers" are doing as well.
Or take the stance of the WH and just "reject" the report.
Please point out where the CBO report says there would be a loss to 2.5 million jobs.
Thats not what I said it says.. It says the EQUIVALENT of 2.5 million jobs to be lost due to LOST HOURS.. the total is nearly 92,000,000 hours A WEEK in lost productivity.
Do you know the difference between losses, and equivalent losses?
The "Obamacare Cliff" what one website calls it can be fixed as well as the 400% FPL. The Republican Plan though cuts off subsidies at 300% of FPL and of course taxes almost everyone with employer provided insurance to pay for the subsidies. By the way its been ok for years for older unmarried couples to "live in sin" to avoid taxes or collect a benefit like Medicaid but if a young couple finds a way to do the same thing they are freeloaders.
Quote:
Originally Posted by marcopolo
Thank you for pointing out some of the myriad ways that government actively works against the common good, via the perverse incentives built into its programs.
The Obamacare Cliff for the most part has to do with people past the age of 40 who are self-employed or buy insurance on the private market. As an example a couple at age 40 pays $5,890 for a Silver Plan with a small subsidy with an income of $62,000. They continue to pay $5,890 every years but their subsidy continues to grow until at age 64 its $9,300. On the other hand if the couple made $62,400 their would be no subsidy. By the way self employed people are often Republicans who seem to know how to avoid paying taxes. Now since this is the ACA when an accountant shows them how to get the subsidy they are freeloaders. However they got away with paying little taxes in the past is ok because they were good Republican business people.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
