'Obamacare' will reduce US workforce, report finds
POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Monday, February 17, 2014 19:37
VIEWED: 8753
PAGE 2 of 9
It's double-speak, obviously. Some low-income workers will CHOOSE to limit their hours to enable them to get medical coverage; by putting it as "limiting their hours" and not explaining it, it sounds like their hours are BEING LIMITED by someone else. Frank Luntz would greatly approve.
Amusingly, what it actually sounds like, if you think about it, is that they're saying low-wage workers shouldn't HAVE TO limit their hours to get subsidies, hee, hee, hee. Frank Luntz would definitely NOT approve!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Frank Luntz is too busy telling conservatives to trend on words like "lawless."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Redistributionist in Chief
Who didn't see that comin' ?
Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen
I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.
" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
What it does is give workers the ability to keep their coverage if they change jobs, lose their jobs, or maybe quit to start their own businesses.
We finally sorta joined the rest of the first world. It'll be good.
That's why the teanderthals are so apoplectic, and willing to lie and distort to get their useful idiots to vote against their own best interests.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by reaverfan:
What it does is give workers the ability to keep their coverage if they change jobs, lose their jobs, or maybe quit to start their own businesses.
We finally sorta joined the rest of the first world. It'll be good.
That's why the teanderthals are so apoplectic, and willing to lie and distort to get their useful idiots to vote against their own best interests.
It won't be good. It's already a disaster. Millions more have LOST their coverage, the coverage they liked, they wanted, and that Obama PROMISED they could keep, so that a small % ( all Obama voters ) could get crappy, expensive care.
The needs of the few out weigh the needs of the many.
Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen
I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.
" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Nobody is saying you misrepresented anything, Geezer, tho' your title obviously highlights the reduction in workforce and your choice of articles doesn't give all the information.
Not my title. It's the title of the BBC article.
But it is interesting to see you and others jumping all over something no one in this thread has said.
"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by ElvisChrist:
Note that this isn't employers cutting hours or eliminating jobs that they no longer need done; it's workers not working those hours. The work is still there, so workplaces will actually have to hire more people to do the work that still needs to be done.
So you disagree with this, from the BBC article.
"The CBO said some US businesses may also decide to reduce their workforce to fewer than 50 full-time employees to avoid having to provide health insurance as mandated under the law."
"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
It's double-speak, obviously. Some low-income workers will CHOOSE to limit their hours to enable them to get medical coverage; by putting it as "limiting their hours" and not explaining it, it sounds like their hours are BEING LIMITED by someone else. Frank Luntz would greatly approve.
Amusingly, what it actually sounds like, if you think about it, is that they're saying low-wage workers shouldn't HAVE TO limit their hours to get subsidies, hee, hee, hee. Frank Luntz would definitely NOT approve!
So the BBC, that tool of American conservatives, is engaging in doublespeak?
"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Cute. "The CBO said some US businesses may..."
Note thatQuote:
CBO expects the law to have "small or negligible" effects on labor demand in most parts of the economy. http://www.businessinsider.com/cbo-report-obamacare-discouraging-work-
2014-2#ixzz2sVudJdTb
"Some" businesses "may"...
"small or negligible effects on labor"...
Even the statement you quoted qualifies itself twice. I wonder why a source is so all-consuming important to you? You keep quoting conservative points coming out of WaPo like it is absolutely, positively, ALWAYS a liberal source, and this concept that because it came from the BBC, it HAS to be "neutral" or something. It's weird. I'll have to look into WHO wrote the article, not who they wrote it FOR.
The article I quoted goes on to say Quote:
The main effects will come on the labor supply side. This has important implications for wages: While a decline in labor demand will tend to reduce wages, a withdrawal of labor supply may actually help push them up, as employers compete to hire from a reduced pool of available workers.
That from the oh-so-liberal Business Insider. Just because the BBC says something...they are in another country, y'know (and even they qualified it considerably)...doesn't mean it's any more valid than anything else. There's good and bad about all of this, nobody's saying otherwise. It could be a LOT better, but to trash it, you have to offer a viable alternative.
From the same article (which I think discusses the issue quite well):Quote:
The work-discouraging income effect from Obamacare is mostly good. The pre-Obamacare health policy status quo, which focused heavily on tying insurance to full-time employment, provided a strong incentive for people to be full-time employed. Easy availability of comprehensive, subsidized health plans will make it easier for people to retire before age 65, quit a full-time job to start a business, or shift to part-time work and spend more time raising children or attending school. This is a feature, not a bug. As a Senior White House Official pointed out on a press call this afternoon, Social Security and Medicare reduce employment among seniors; this (making retirement possible) is a key aim of those programs, not a negative side-effect.
The work-discouraging substitution effect from Obamacare is clearly bad. For workers who rely on health insurance subsidies created by the law, Obamacare will reduce the marginal return to labor: That is, they'll get less after-tax income for working one more hour. This is because a higher income will mean a smaller health plan subsidy. The effective tax rate will vary based on individual circumstances. For workers who work only part of the year (and therefore can get a cheap subsidized plan during the part of the year they're unemployed) CBO pegs the typical tax rate at 15%. For a single adult with a low or moderate income who works all year without employer-based health coverage, my back-of-the-envelope math puts the tax rate around 10%.
Again: There are many things that are bad and good about the ACA. Our "representatives" should be working to IMPROVE it, not just trash it. Because there's also this:Quote:
Any alternative policy to significantly expand health coverage will also have income and substitution effects that reduce labor supply. If you give out subsidies for health insurance that aren't tied to employment, you'll create an income effect that makes it easier for people to work less. If you phase out those subsidies, you'll create a substitution effect that encourages people to work fewer hours. (For example, the Republican Coburn-Burr-Hatch Obamacare alternative has both of these features, and so would also reduce employment relative to the pre-Obamacare status quo.) If you don't phase out the subsidies, they'll be r
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There's no attribution to the BBC story, so we can't trace whose opinion it represents. But there are a few things that give it away.
The title: "'Obamacare' will reduce US workforce, report finds"
The subheadings: "'Making it worse'" (quoting Boehner), seven paragraphs.
Another:"'Empowered'" (quoting Jay Carney), three short paragraphs, then it goes straight into "The glitches that plagued the healthcare website...."
The side box, time-lining "'Obamacare' setbacks"
And it wraps up with Quote:
Republicans say the law, America's most sweeping social legislation in decades, is an unacceptable government intrusion into healthcare. They have voted to repeal the act more than 40 times. A Gallup poll on Tuesday found Americans continue to be more likely to disapprove of the law, by 51% to 41%.
Yes, Geezer, I see words being used to slant. Frank Luntz would have been much more obvious, but I think he wouldn't be displeased with how it's portrayed.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME