Obamacare Already Killing Jobs, Screwing Employees (1 Viewer)

[cpwill]

Hey, anybody remember this?



Yeah. Reality comes along once again to demonstrate that, when it comes to economics, these people have no idea what they are talking about:

Forty-one percent of the businesses surveyed have frozen hiring because of the health-care law known as Obamacare. And almost one-fifth—19 percent— answered "yes" when asked if they had "reduced the number of employees you have in your business as a specific result of the Affordable Care Act."...

"We were startled because we know that employers were concerned about the Affordable Care Act and the effects it would have on their business, but we didn't realize the extent they were concerned, or that the businesses were being proactive to make sure the effects of the ACA actually were minimized," said attorney Steven Friedman of Littler Mendelson. His firm, which specializes in employment law, commissioned the Gallup poll...

Another 38 percent of the small business owners said they "have pulled back on their plans to grow their business" because of Obamacare.
Those are "some pretty startling answers," Friedman said....


Just 9 percent of the small employers surveyed agreed that Obamacare would be "good for your business," while another 39 percent saw "no impact."
The prevalent pessimism tracks other answers in the poll, which showed that 55 percent of small business owners believe that the ACA will lead to higher health-care costs. By contrast, about 5 percent said the law would lead to lower costs.
And more than half—52 percent—said they expected a reduction in the quality of health care under Obamacare, while just 13 percent expected an improvement....

In addition to restricting hiring or cutting jobs, small companies are considering other ways to mitigate the expected financial fallout. Twenty-four percent are weighing whether to drop insurance coverage, while 18 percent have "reduced the hours of employees to part-time" in anticipation of the ACA's effects, the poll found.....

 

[RabidAlpaca]

If only somebody had seen this coming!

 

[humbolt]

If only somebody had seen this coming!

Yup. And if we were to pass the ACA again, why we'd create another 400,000 jobs. Who knew it would be so easy?

 

[cpwill]

funny how folks aren't even trying to defend this pile, anymore.

 

[Mycroft]

No...nobody will defend this crapola anymore. But talk about getting rid of this boondoggle and you'll have liberals coming out of the woodwork telling you we need this thing.

Liberals are sooo pathetic.

 

[Neomalthusian]

For the last 3 years at least, "it will create ________ jobs!" has been the barefaced fiction used to promote whatever piece of legislation the federal bureaucrat had on its agenda at the time. We all should have been suspicious any time one of the federal deceivers started in with the job-creation angle.

Instead, we ignorantly and obediently took their and the media's lies and used them against ourselves to whine at each other about how ineffective the other's political party is. "My guys want to create _______ many jobs! How many jobs does your party want to create? NONE!" Way too few people were bothering to ask themselves why this should have ever been a primary federal agenda in the first place. Some people caught on to the bull**** right away, but not nearly enough.

Pathetic.

 

[Mycroft]

Entirely too many people are caught up with the notion that government...whether controlled by the Republicans or the Democrats...can/should do something to create jobs. This is an asinine notion because the only thing the government can do is destroy jobs.

People create jobs and people create jobs best when government gets the hell out of their business.

 

[CRUE CAB]

I wonder if this is going to affect all those "shovel ready" jobs Obama was talking about?

 

[Fenton]

If only somebody had seen this coming!

BUT WHO ??!! Who could of possibly had the innate fore-thought, the almost god like abillity of precognition, the solid carved out Black Onxy " Magic 8 Ball " with it's solid Diamond "icosahedral" die floating in Mermaid tears passed down from Poseidon himself that would have told us these things about the impact of Obama-Care ?

WHO ? Who owns a Delorean that will actually GO 88 miles and hour let alone own a particle acelerator small enough and powerful enough to bend the fabric of space-time so we could have known this would have happened ?

There was just " no way of knowing " that these things were going to happen.
NO....WAY.

 

[Zalatix]

Straw man massacre.

Liberals wanted Medicare For All.

 

[AlabamaPaul]

Straw man massacre.

Liberals wanted Medicare For All.

Not all did...

 

[windowdressing]

Not all did...

I'll wait until 2014 to decide what I think of Romneycare .... I mean HeritageFoundationCare ... I'm sorry, Obamacare ... whew! my bad ...

 

[windowdressing]

Not all did...

but I did and that's all that matters ...

 

[Mycroft]

Straw man massacre.

Liberals wanted Medicare For All.

I'm sure some liberals wanted that...too bad the Congressional Democrats didn't give it to them, eh?

 

[Fenton]

Straw man massacre.


Liberals wanted Medicare For All.

Lol...and they wanted to tax " the rich " to pay for it.

Because they equate constructed narratives used to divide for the purpose of winning elections to actual currency.

Sorry, Obama-Care was pushed along with a variety of out right lies and low Life Democrat Politicians telling them.

Instead, because of ObamaCare we got 5 years of economic stagnation, MASSIVE new spending, 4 TRILLION in QE and a variety of new Narratives from people like you.

Each and everyone more irrelevent than the one before it.

Instead of offering up a honest and objective analysis we get this "eat the rich" nonsense, wealth disparty and a " evil SkyNet Robot revolution " that asserts this " new " technology upon becoming self aware has just decided to steal our jobs instead of turning us into Super-Heated plasma via Thermo-Nuclear annihilation.

The excuses are retarded and we DID warn you people.

WHAT did you expect ? You elected a Jr Senator with radical ties and NO proof of exceptional intelligence or qualifications.

Of-course this experiment was going to fail.

 

[Deuce]

Lol...and they wanted to tax " the rich " to pay for it.

Because they equate constructed narratives used to divide for the purpose of winning elections to actual currency.

Sorry, Obama-Care was pushed along with a variety of out right lies and low Life Democrat Politicians telling them.

Instead, because of ObamaCare we got 5 years of economic stagnation, MASSIVE new spending, 4 TRILLION in QE and a variety of new Narratives from people like you.

Each and everyone more irrelevent than the one before it.

Instead of offering up a honest and objective analysis we get this "eat the rich" nonsense, wealth disparty and a " evil SkyNet Robot revolution " that asserts this " new " technology upon becoming self aware has just decided to steal our jobs instead of turning us into Super-Heated plasma via Thermo-Nuclear annihilation.

The excuses are retarded and we DID warn you people.

WHAT did you expect ? You elected a Jr Senator with radical ties and NO proof of exceptional intelligence or qualifications.

Of-course this experiment was going to fail.

The Canadians use such a system and spend fewer tax dollars per capita than we do. Medicare for all would let you lower taxes.

 

[cpwill]

The Canadians use such a system and spend fewer tax dollars per capita than we do. Medicare for all would let you lower taxes.

That is correct. The cost for not providing care is roughly the expense of the paperwork to deny it. You can save a lot of money through rationing that way. Also by pawning off many of your medial needs to a wealthy country to your south that has a somewhat more market-based system.


So.... you think Mexico is going to be able to subsidize us?

 

[Deuce]

That is correct. The cost for not providing care is roughly the expense of the paperwork to deny it. You can save a lot of money through rationing that way. Also by pawning off many of your medial needs to a wealthy country to your south that has a somewhat more market-based system.


So.... you think Mexico is going to be able to subsidize us?

Oh please. The old "rationing healthcare" canard. So lazy.

 

[ttwtt78640]

The Canadians use such a system and spend fewer tax dollars per capita than we do. [/b]Medicare for all would let you lower taxes.[/b]

Upon what do you base this "fact"? Medicare, like Social Security, is currently paying out more in benefits than its dedicated taxation generates. Any program that has workers paying into it for decades (with no benefits) but may only draw those benefits upon retirement (at age 65) or upon disability is nearly an impossible model to apply to all.

the benefits paid to the worker greatly exceed the taxes paid by the worker (and pose a financial burden on the system)

Above quote taken from: Medicare (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[thinkforyoursel]

since when do republicans care about jobs?

For the last 4 years you guys took measures to kill job.....just so you can blame Obama.

All the TEA PURTY care about is abortion.....thats all they care about.

Talk...and talk all day about jobs....and your ridiculous .."JERB CREATORS"....and when you get power ....you flip over to your insane quest to control women's womb!!

 

[vash1012]

Upon what do you base this "fact"? Medicare, like Social Security, is currently paying out more in benefits than its dedicated taxation generates. Any program that has workers paying into it for decades (with no benefits) but may only draw those benefits upon retirement (at age 65) or upon disability is nearly an impossible model to apply to all.



Above quote taken from: Medicare (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, but keep in mind this program has been suffering from massive growth in spending costs and it also covers the highest risk group of the population, the elderly and disabled. It wouldn't cost the same per person to cover the rest of the population. As long as there is some progressive sharing, I think it would be much more efficient than our current system. Health-care is an example of something which I don't believe a free market can work for because the consumer base doesn't have the education to make informed decisions (they must rely on the advice of the people they are paying) and because the cost of and demand for the "product" is unpredictable. Maybe for the elective surgery market, it could work..but you can't shop around when you are having a heart attack.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Yes, but keep in mind this program has been suffering from massive growth in spending costs and it also covers the highest risk group of the population, the elderly and disabled. It wouldn't cost the same per person to cover the rest of the population. As long as there is some progressive sharing, I think it would be much more efficient than our current system. Health-care is an example of something which I don't believe a free market can work for because the consumer base doesn't have the education to make informed decisions (they must rely on the advice of the people they are paying) and because the cost of and demand for the "product" is unpredictable. Maybe for the elective surgery market, it could work..but you can't shop around when you are having a heart attack.

That argument, or the bulk of it anyway, could be made for car repair as well. The key problem with most medical care insurance plans is that they are being warpped into the only means of paying for any and all medical care. Insurance is for the rare, unexpected and expensive - not for routine maintanence like oil changes, tune-ups and replacing worn out tires. Many wish to transform all U.S. medical care costs into some fixed budget amount (2% of AGI?) that is heavily subsidized by "progressive" payment schemes and requires no additional individual out of pocket expense. If I could get unlimitted new tires free then I would never bother to propery inflate them, keep the front end aligned or stick to driving on reasonably safe surfaces.

 

[vash1012]

That argument, or the bulk of it anyway, could be made for car repair as well. The key problem with most medical care insurance plans is that they are being warpped into the only means of paying for any and all medical care. Insurance is for the rare, unexpected and expensive - not for routine maintanence like oil changes, tune-ups and replacing worn out tires. Many wish to transform all U.S. medical care costs into some fixed budget amount (2% of AGI?) that is heavily subsidized by "progressive" payment schemes and requires no additional individual out of pocket expense. If I could get unlimitted new tires free then I would never bother to propery inflate them, keep the front end aligned or stick to driving on reasonably safe surfaces.

No it can't be applied to car repair. It can be applied to some instances of car repair where you are stuck in the middle of nowhere and your options are limited, yes, but your life isn't dependent upon getting your transmission fixed. Using that example actually fuels my argument. Its easy to be ripped off if you are uneducated about cars and can't compare prices competitively because of the situation. Any other time, you can always get it towed somewhere else for a 2nd quote if you think the first guy was trying to rip you off. You can't do that for emergent health care. You also can't predict complications. Its impossible to accurately predict how much a hospital stay is going to cost someone so you couldn't price shop for a hospital visit even if you wanted to. Since you lean libertarian, you probably are familiar with austrian economics. In austrian economics, free markets exist when VOLUNTARY exchanges occur between two parties. The main component of healthcare cost growth is hospital costs. Hospital visits are not voluntary by my definition therefore a true free market can't exist in healthcare. This is called a market failure. Things that are voluntary like routine check ups could operate on a free market, but pragmatically speaking, routine check ups help keep people healthy which reduces overall healthcare costs so it wouldn't be a bad thing if there were less barriers to having them by having them 100% covered like Obamacare does (probably 1 of the best parts of the stupid law).

As far as your point about unlimited tires, that doesn't happen in any of the other countries with socialized medicine. Theres no reason to think it would happen here. In fact, those countries are healthier and spend less than us on healthcare. Also, thats why I said there needed to be a cost sharing component. It helps prevent overuse of healthcare resources. I'm all for letting markets be in many areas, but healthcare is not one of them. It just doesn't work.

 

[Bronson]

I'll wait until 2014 to decide what I think of Romneycare .... I mean HeritageFoundationCare ... I'm sorry, Obamacare ... whew! my bad ...

States have always been able to try different social experiments to see what works and what doesn't

This is the problem with Obama sheeple. They are more worried about blaming Romney or some Heritage Plan proposed by one guy that was rejected before it was seriously considered, instead of addressing the real problem which is that Obamacare is an absolute disaster that is killing the economy.

 

[thinkforyoursel]

sheesh....the American people already know what you guys are about.
How many times are you going to try and re-wrap the same package to scam Americans.

Republicans only care to either ...import cheap labor ...or export American companies overseas.....when it comes to American all republicans have is the old stale ...JOB-BORTION scams!!