- Joined
- Apr 16, 2007
- Messages
- 11,010
- Reaction score
- 5,149
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Other
Who are you to be so ignorant as to think anyone is talking about forced unemployment? There is no such thing going to happen. So the question is who are you to say they have to work just so they can have insurance when all their other bills and even the insurance premiums are affordable with whatever non-working income they have, perhaps stocks or an annuity, or a legal payout or any other non-government funded resource for paying their bills.Μολὼν λαβέ;1062918952 said:Reality? :lamo
Cheap child care is an oxymoron.
Except for that health care insurance issue? :doh
Who are you to decide whether or not someone will be fine if laid off from their job near retirement age, God or Keith Ellison?
For the same reason that I have to help pay for the roads you use to get to work, the electric grid you use to power your home, the failures of banksters and wallstreet, schools for your family.... because that's why communities group together in neighborhoods, cities, states, and countries. Because the resources provided by many for the good of all costs everyone less than trying to accomplish everything individually. Really, do you need this explained to you?
Who do you think does? You already were.
No, it was obviously rhetorical. I shouldnt have to pay for you to use those things, because I never consented to those services. Nor did I ever consent to paying for other peoples healthcare. Or this idea of 'needs of the many at the expense of the few'
And why?
One reason is from the law that requires ERs treat the uninsured and the government subsidises hospitals to do that.
The other is that the same care ends up costing your insurance company more to help pay for that. The extra cost to your insurance turns into higher premiums for you.
To a certain degree he does have a point. If we could get all the women out of the jobs they shouldn't have, there would likely be a much lower unemployment rate (as men would fill those jobs) and the women could get back to their proper place as housewives and homemakers.
Except the CBO didn't say that there would be the jobs lost as referenced but that people would be free to leave jobs that they are hanging on to because of insurance needs. It is about fewer people working, the jobs would still be there and the Representative makes the point that it means that people who are working just to have insurance can now be a stay at home parent. I thought the right wing wanted that?
You participated in the voting of your representatives. That means you are party to what happened. And frankly, your view is a bit skewed. You pay for fire departments and roads and police and other things that others don't but use. You and I do for two reasons: 1) in benefits us personally when the circumstance changes and we need them, and 2) it benefits the community as a whole, and when our neighbor is protected, it makes things better for all of us.
One reason is from the law that requires ERs treat the uninsured and the government subsidises hospitals to do that.
The other is that the same care ends up costing your insurance company more to help pay for that. The extra cost to your insurance turns into higher premiums for you.
And I never consented to any of that.
Do you have insurance or not?
I do not. I have a local HMO where anyone who recieves care, pays for it.
You are still parroting rhetoric and have yet to post the actual report which you profess to believe. Where is the actual REPORT...not the defense of, not the spin, and not the rhetoric. Where is the REPORT that says 2 millions jobs will be lost but thats OK because they are 2 million jobs that will be lost because the employees really just dont want to have to work those hours anyway. Thats all I have asked since the very beginning.
SURELY you have read the report and are not just mindlessly parroting what others have said...right? Why is it that now FIVE of you can parrot the rhetoric but not provide the actual report (which is all I asked from the get go before you all got so chunky and angry)
Voting for representatives does not change the law.
You did not post the CBO report. You have posted and parroted the defense of, the interpretation of. You have not posted the actual report or what it says. And from the comments most people have made they havent read the actual report either. I asked the first-5 responders to provide a link to the actual REPORT that they were defending. There was a reason for that. I dont trust congressmen or TV personalities to not have an agenda. Hell...I dont trust the head of the CBO to not have an agenda. I really wanted to see and read the actual report.The bold part is the root of your misunderstanding. No one, CBO included, is saying 2 million jobs will be lost.
You believe the lie because you want to believe the lie.
I'm not parroting anything but what the CBO says. I did post the link to the CBO report and quote the CBO director regarding HIS report.
So, I ponied up my proof... where's yours?
I posted the link to the CBO report. So yes, I did not post the actual report. You're correct.You did not post the CBO report. You have posted and parroted the defense of, the interpretation of. You have not posted the actual report or what it says. And from the comments most people have made they havent read the actual report either. I asked the first-5 responders to provide a link to the actual REPORT that they were defending. There was a reason for that. I dont trust congressmen or TV personalities to not have an agenda. Hell...I dont trust the head of the CBO to not have an agenda. I really wanted to see and read the actual report.
What the actual reports says is incongruent with reality. It implies employees dictate jobs and hours worked. The report implies there will be the equivalent of 2-2.5 million jobs in manhours that are not worked. It cites 2 Reasons. Reason 1...they wont need to because they wont have to work to provide insurance for themselves. Reason 2-they wont work because it will put them in a higher tax bracket. The PROBLEM is with the rationale that an EMPLOYEE dictates job markets. EVEN IF the CBO estimates are accurate...and nothing so far on the ACA has been remotely accurate...it is still not possible that those 2-2.5 million jobs in equivalent hours will cease to exist because employees wont feel the need desire or ability to work them. IF those manhours are REQUIRED they will be filled by someone. If their estimate is 'just' that people will cumulatively work fewer hours that implies those jobs are not NEEDED.
An HMO is a form of insurance.
Regardless, if one person doesn't pay their bill, you end up getting charged more. Just like how shoplifting makes things more expensive for the rest of us.
Lets be completely upfront...I dont trust ANY government agency to be truthful. I certianly dont trust people who's jobs and careers and livelihood depend on kissing the ass of those they are responsible to report on.I posted the link to the CBO report. So yes, I did not post the actual report. You're correct.
You can't have it both ways my friend. You can't say that the CBO is wrong, but use their information to support your stance.
Choosing not to work a second job is absolutely up to the employee. Choosing not to work overtime is absolutely up to the employee (most of the time).
My problem is solely the purposeful misinterpretation of the CBO report by you and conservatives. Whether you believe the CBO's report or not doesn't matter to me. I respect your opinion though.
Totally reasonable based on history. I'm with you here. Give me the facts and I'll go along with you. Give me nothing but estimates based on wishful thinking... I gotta give the suspicious eye to ya.Lets be completely upfront...I dont trust ANY government agency to be truthful. I certianly dont trust people who's jobs and careers and livelihood depend on kissing the ass of those they are responsible to report on.
These are the sticking point for me.Now...I dont expect you to go back and reread the thread because frankly...it shouldnt be that important to you to dedicate that kind of time to (and I mean that in a positive way). But the fact is that with the first defender of Ellisons words I asked him to support his comments by providing the report, and not some kneejerk response. Silence. The second...same thing and not only silence but anger and personal attacks. Third...same. Forth. Same. You were I believe the fifth and the only one of ANY of them that offered a substantive rebuttal. Of you I asked you to provide the REPORT. I figured that after all...people that wade in defending the comments surely have read the actual report. They ahdnt and it is obvious. I finally said to hell with it and looked up the report. I read what the report said regarding jobs and the ACA. The fact is that the report DOES attribute 2-2.5 million in jobs and manhours lost directly related to the ACA and it gave two reasons. The first was because people would choose to work less because they didnt need to work as much. The second was that people would choose to work less because if they worked mre, the provisions of the ACA would be fiscally punitive (increased taxes). Then comes the manipulation and dancing.
Ultimately, I agree with you in regards to being skeptical of any and all estimates. It doesn't take much to throw it out of whack and in an ever-changing policy environment, nothing will remain the same for a decade.Look...lets be real. The ACA isnt going to be around in 2024 when the final estimates are expected to be realized. Second, the CBO estimates are tripe. Their own words and reality show that they have millions fewer enrolled than what they projected, and yet, they project surplus in revenues vs decreases. OK...set THAT aside. They estimate that while they have a small fraction of enrollees currently that it should all change and be close to goals by March...the open enrollment period. Sure...OK...take THAT on faith, ignore the numbers and set THAT aside. The CBO has underestimate the new enrollees in government provided care. OK...set THAT aside.
The meat...
"The ACA includes a range of provisions that will take full effect over the next several years and that will influence the supply of and demand for labor through various channels. For example, some provisions will raise effective tax rates on earnings from labor and thus will reduce the amount of labor that some workers choose to supply. In particular, the health insurance subsidies that the act provides to some people will be phased out as their income rises—creating an implicit tax on additional earnings— whereas for other people, the act imposes higher taxes on labor income directly. The ACA also will exert conflicting pressures on the quantity of labor that employers demand, primarily during the next few years."
"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."
"Although CBO projects that total employment (and compensation) will increase over the coming decade, that increase will be smaller than it would
have been in the absence of the ACA. The decline in full-time-equivalent employment stemming from the ACA will consist of some people not being employed at all and other people working fewer hours"
and here is where it goes totally political and wonky...
"The estimated reduction stems almost entirely from a net decline in the amount of labor that workers choose to supply, rather than from a net drop in businesses’ demand for labor, so it will appear almost entirely as a reduction in labor force participation and in hours worked relative to what would have occurred otherwise "
Hogwash. ASSUMING their estimates are correct, the ABSOLUTE REALITY is that as an employER...my employee requirements are NOT dictated by how many hours my employees choose to work. If there s a demand or need for labor...I WILL fill that demand. If there is NOT a demand, JOBS have been adversely impacted. There is no way around that reality.
I hear what you are saying. regardless of whatshisbuckets personal stuff earlier in the thread, I really wanted to know the actual report and it was obvious most have not read the report.Totally reasonable based on history. I'm with you here. Give me the facts and I'll go along with you. Give me nothing but estimates based on wishful thinking... I gotta give the suspicious eye to ya.
These are the sticking point for me.
First - Manhours is being treated as actual jobs being lost. It's the reduction in manhours, counted and then translated into jobs (35 to 40 hour work weeks), that's being calculated, not actual jobs being cut or dropped. Not the same thing. Not even close.
Second - The CBO is guessing that people will act a particular way. They are not saying the ACA will cause job loss (employers firing people), but that people will look at their situation and decide to act in a particular way. The ACA gives people a choice. "Should I work harder and more hours for healthcare when I don't have to anymore?" That's the choice people will be faced with. The CBO believes that choice will lead to many saying "F*ck this job!" or "I'm not working 20 more hours in this crappy place for healthcare!". Again, that's not strictly due to the policies in the ACA, but people choosing to act a particular way now that they are giving a choice. That's a wholly different situation than what's being presented by Conservatives. Honestly, it's a gross misrepresentation made to appeal to the base. It's nothing but a bogus talking point and it's bothers me that folks continue to swallow and regurgitate it.
Ultimately, I agree with you in regards to being skeptical of any and all estimates. It doesn't take much to throw it out of whack and in an ever-changing policy environment, nothing will remain the same for a decade.
My problem is only with the mis-characterization in regards to job loss. That's it. The talking point is dishonest and totally confuses the issues that the ACA does have by causing silly debates over what the CBO did or did not say.
I've posted what the CBO believes in regard to the talking point. That's straight from the horse's mouth. I just want there to be a common starting point so real debate can take place, instead of the nonsense of debating clearly incorrect talking points.
You think.
You link? LOL!
I mean the economy of today usually requires two incomes to make it work.
Then maybe we expect too much in our lives.... multiple csrs, cable TV in every room, eating out all the time, etc....
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?