'Obamacare' will reduce US workforce, report finds

POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Monday, February 17, 2014 19:37
VIEWED: 8753
PAGE 5 of 9

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

GEEZER

Saturday, February 8, 2014 7:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
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.

CBO tends to write like they're paid by the word. BBC writes like a newspaper, to keep it brief and readable.

"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 7:21 PM

Quote:
"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),"

Did you doctor this quote Geezer?

The real quote:

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

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

NIKI2

Saturday, February 8, 2014 9:14 PM

Okay, that's it for me, I got it.

As expected, Geezer completely ignored my response to him, then ignored it again when I challenged him.

1. I wrote " All you're doing is focusing on the potential negatives and trying to make them seem even more than they are."

Geezer replied "No. I'm pointing out, first, that the CBO's original and revised figures for workforce reduction are quite different. They are." I showed that to be a complete lie; he has twice totally ignored my calling him on that.

2. Then I discovered he omitted two paragraphs from the article he posted:

Quote:
'Empowered'

But the White House said the impact on the workforce would be due to voluntary steps by workers rather than businesses cutting jobs.

The law will leave people "empowered to make choices about their own lives and livelihoods", said White House Press Secretary Jay Carney.

He added that the law would allow participants the freedom to retire early or become stay-at-home parents.

Paragraphs underline were edited out of what Geezer posted. Those are important points, showing AGAIN that the reduction in work force would be voluntary, not job losses.

3. Now I see he edited yet another part of what he quoted (thank you, KPO):

Quote:
"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.

The actual article reads " Correspondingly, the negative effects of exchange subsidies on incentives to work will be relevant primarily…" He excuses it by saying the CBO writes too long. Yeah, I edit stuff I put up sometimes, usually to avoid redundancies or parts which we're already aware of (like all the details about Zimmerman killing Martin in later stories). But the whole POINT of this debate is that the ACA increases INCENTIVES for people to CHOOSE not to work, so why pull out TWO WORDS of one sentence, unless you wanted to change the picture it presents?
_____________________________

So that's it for me. I will no longer treat Geezer as a valid voice--the omissions I can understand, and yes, I've omitted things negative to my point at times, too, tho' not often. But he made a DISTINCT POINT, that he wasn't slanting the issue, claiming he only found the article interesting, and that he "first" pointed out the difference between the CBO's estimates then and now. That was a flat-out lie; he didn't point it out "first", he only MENTIONED it once in an after-the-fact ETA in his second post, never mentioned it again for seven posts until he claimed that he was "pointing out, first,". He's never addressed that lie. He's twisted my words repeatedly; I took time and effort to challenge him, item by item (which he now claims is "getting hysterical"), and he hasn't responded to my rebuttals.

I know, many here gave up on him some time ago because of his consistent determination to twist and manipulate discussions. And he has spent literally YEARS claiming he was non-partisan, which has been proven to be a lie so many times that he doesn't even claim it anymore. But he's been about the only even half-decent "voice" from the right here, and he sometimes has made valid points, so I have continued to read his posts and respond to him. But that's it; I've been aware of how he works and the games he plays, but this is the final, too-blatant evidence that he's not here to debate, or even discuss, just to troll.

KPO

Sunday, February 9, 2014 7:50 AM

Anything to say in your defence, Geezer?

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

GEEZER

Sunday, February 9, 2014 6:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
"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),"

Did you doctor this quote Geezer?

The real quote:

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

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

No. I was copying from the PDF, which I couldn't cut & paste, by flipping screens back and forth. I missed a couple of words. Changes context not at all.

So does your corrected sentence make low income people any less hard-hit?

Go be paranoid some more.

"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."

AURAPTOR

Sunday, February 9, 2014 6:59 PM

The idea that fewer people will work, which means fewer incomes will be taxed, to pay for MORE people's healthcare is the REAL voodoo economics.

" That's kuángzhede ! That's suicide! "

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

NIKI2

Sunday, February 9, 2014 7:31 PM

I don't believe him. Why couldn't he COPY and paste?

Quote:
Correspondingly, the negative effects of exchange subsidies
on incentives to work will be relevant primarily for a
limited segment of the population—mostly people who
have no offer of employment-based coverage and whose
income is either below or near 400 percent of the FPL.

I had no problem doing so...did you, KPO? I think Geezer is trying to weasel out of admitting he edited the article (I notice he won't respond to my accusations) by writing "cut" and paste and hoping we wouldn't notice. There's no reason he couldn't copy and paste directly from the .pdf; more dishonesty.

AURAPTOR

Sunday, February 9, 2014 8:24 PM

Quote:
Changes context not at all.

Niki will pick nits over the details here, but the end result is exactly the same. Fewer people in the work force, drawing a pay check, and contributing to the tax base.

Redistribution of the wealth, as Obama always intended, adding to the number of takers ( leeches ) and dwindling the number of givers ( tax payers )

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

KPO

Monday, February 10, 2014 2:13 AM

Quote:
Changes context not at all.

It changes the context completely. Those are the two words to take out to strip the sentence of its precise meaning, and make it mean something else. The 'negative effects' are not on people, they're on people's incentives to work. Imagine a 62 year old with pre-existing conditions who wants to reduce the hours he works. Now thanks to Obamacare, he can. Has he been negatively affected? No. Has his incentive to work been negatively affected? Yes. That's why the BBC article was wrong to say people were being 'hard hit', and why you were wrong to defend them, and why your omitting those two key words from the CBO quote was criminal.

Quote:
I missed a couple of words.

Are you saying you did it by accident?

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

NIKI2

Monday, February 10, 2014 4:20 AM

You won't get anywhere, KPO, any more than I did. Note he's not responded to me since I called him on his dishonesty. I assume he'd claim that in "switching between screens" he also "missed" those two paragraphs he left out in his original quoting of the article. If he even bothered, which he hasn't.

I'd say "give it up". Geez wants this to go away so he can start anew twisting things on some other issue. He's never going to answer my challenge about his lie that he was "just" pointing out the difference between the CBO's previous numbers and the new ones, and that he just happened to find the article "interesting". After all, he's totally non-partisan, remember?

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