'Obamacare' will reduce US workforce, report finds

POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Monday, February 17, 2014 19:37
VIEWED: 8753
PAGE 4 of 9

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT PAGE

KPO

Friday, February 7, 2014 8:25 PM

So you're quite happy to cite the CBO when it produces reports that you agree with, huh Geezer? It's not an extension of the Obama administration in this case?

That's convenient.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NIKI2

Friday, February 7, 2014 11:50 PM

Your mind works weird, Geezer…I don't know whether it's deliberate or not, but it's weird.

You've completely ignored my DIRECT RESPONSE TO YOU and come up with a bunch of bullshit which has nothing to do with what I wrote. So unless you address MY RESPONSE TO YOU, this goes no further for me. Here it was:

Quote:

Quote:
Everything else is the product of your partisan imagination. Apparently you are conflating what other folks have said elsewhere outside RWED with what I have been saying.

I think I was extremely clear:
Quote:
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. But the fact remains that the right has leapt on the CBO report and is broadcasting all over everywhere that "Obamacare Will Cost 2 Million Jobs!!!!", which is a flat-out lie.

That IS what's been coming from the right, whether in carefully-crafted phrases or flat-out lies, and that's what I was pointing out. The article you posted to begin this thread does NOT give all the facts, and I offered some, and you have done nothing (except for this one most recent part of a sentence) but focus on the negatives, as you always do.

"I'm pointing out, first, that the CBO's original and revised figures for workforce reduction are quite different." That is absolutely untrue. You titled this thread "'Obamacare' will reduce US workforce, report finds" and posted an article about same WITH NO COMMENT. Within the article is one statement, "In Tuesday's report, the nonpartisan CBO said work hours would be reduced by the equivalent of 2.3 million full-time workers by 2021. It had previously estimated the health law would result in 800,000 fewer workers." The entire rest of the article is about the reduction in workforce. You didn't "point out" "first" anything about the difference in estimates until an ADDED "ETA" in your second post, and never mentioned it again, until now. Is any of that untrue?

Beyond that, what you last posted is a bunch of gobbledy-gook that makes no sense.
NOWHERE did I "decide that "The title: "'Obamacare' will reduce US workforce, report finds", give the article a conservative slant."

My remark "You titled this thread "'Obamacare' will reduce US workforce, report finds" and posted an article about same WITH NO COMMENT." was specifically and clearly in reference to you NOT addressing any difference in the CBO's earlier projection and the current one, which you claimed you were "pointing out, first". We all choose whether to post the title to an article or our own wording--the point was that you did NOT title this "CBO comes out with different projection", or anything which would indicate your FOCUS (as you claimed) was on the difference between the numbers. Is that clear enough? I never said the title gave it a right-wing slant; in fact I agreed that the title was accurate, as opposed to the right wing currently screaming that the ACA would cause unemployment or cut jobs.

I never said the article was a right-wing attack. I said it was slanted, and it is.

Quote:
"Then you complain "The subheadings: "'Making it worse'" (quoting Boehner), seven paragraphs."

Absolutely accurate. After "Making It Worse", there followed seven paragraphs on the potential negatives of the ACA.

But after "Empower" (three short paragraphs about how people will choose to work less), NOWHERE does it list any of the potential POSITIVES which the CBO quite clearly points out regarding how the ACA will effect employment or the economy. The CBO report addresses numerous issues where the ACA's provisions will potentially help the emp

NIKI2

Saturday, February 8, 2014 1:52 AM

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-february-6-2014/the-cbo-report

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-february-6-2014/terror-on-bulls-
-t-mountain

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-february-6-2014/terror-on-bulls-
-t-mountain---family-first

GEEZER

Saturday, February 8, 2014 1:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
NOWHERE did I "decide that "The title: "'Obamacare' will reduce US workforce, report finds", give the article a conservative slant."

Yeah. Right.

Quote:
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.

Once again, the title of this thread, and of the BBC's article, are theirs, not mine.

And once again, read the BBC article and read the CBO report from page 117, and then tell me what in the BBC report is wrong.

Or continue to get hysterical over something neither I nor the BBC 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."

KPO

Saturday, February 8, 2014 2:38 AM

As I highlighted before I would say this is pretty slanted:

"Lower-income workers will be hardest hit"

Pretty loaded way to phrase that sentence. It makes it sound like the effect is unquestionably bad - which it's not.

Also an article can be slanted in what it omits, as well as what it says - a fact you should keep in mind Geezer.

It's not personal. It's just war.

SIGNYM

Saturday, February 8, 2014 3:54 AM

Oh, Geezer keeps omissions in mind. It's a well-practiced rhetorical skill!

GEEZER

Saturday, February 8, 2014 9:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
As I highlighted before I would say this is pretty slanted:

"Lower-income workers will be hardest hit"

Pretty loaded way to phrase that sentence. It makes it sound like the effect is unquestionably bad - which it's not.

Try posting the whole sentence.

"Lower-income workers will be hardest hit, limiting their hours to avoid losing federal subsidies."

Then look at page 120 of the CBO report.

http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45010-Outlook2
014.pdf

"Correspondingly, the negative effects of exchange subsidies to work will be relevant primarily for a limited segment of the population - mostly people who have no offer of employee-based coverage and who's income is either below or near 400 percent of the FPL (Federal Poverty Level),"

"Negative effects of exchange subsidies to work will be relevant primarily..." sounds a lot like "hardest hit" to me.

"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."

GEEZER

Saturday, February 8, 2014 9:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Oh, Geezer keeps omissions in mind. It's a well-practiced rhetorical skill!

Don't worry, Siggy. I have you on a strict diet.

"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."

KPO

Saturday, February 8, 2014 6:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
As I highlighted before I would say this is pretty slanted:

"Lower-income workers will be hardest hit"

Pretty loaded way to phrase that sentence. It makes it sound like the effect is unquestionably bad - which it's not.

Try posting the whole sentence.

"Lower-income workers will be hardest hit, limiting their hours to avoid losing federal subsidies."

Then look at page 120 of the CBO report.

http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45010-Outlook2
014.pdf

"Correspondingly, the negative effects of exchange subsidies to work will be relevant primarily for a limited segment of the population - mostly people who have no offer of employee-based coverage and who's income is either below or near 400 percent of the FPL (Federal Poverty Level),"

"Negative effects of exchange subsidies to work will be relevant primarily..." sounds a lot like "hardest hit" to me.

That sounds less black and white to me. But I'd have to skim the CBO report to be sure.

It's not personal. It's just war.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT PAGE