'Obamacare' will reduce US workforce, report finds

POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Monday, February 17, 2014 19:37
VIEWED: 8753
PAGE 6 of 9

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

GEEZER

Monday, February 10, 2014 7:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Are you saying you did it by accident?

You got me, KPO.

The BBC/American conservative axis internet monitor team that follows RWED 24/7 noted your inspired ferreting out of the hidden bias in the BBC article. They contacted me on my implant, and flew me to London on the Koch brothers' stealth SST for consultation. After hours of supercomputer analysis, they decided I should post a reply quoting the CBO report, but leaving out those crucial two words. After returning home by the secret trans-Atlantic hyper-tunnel, I typed and posted the modified sentence.

Unfortunately, since you also figured this out, we'll have to send the NSA memory eraser team in to clean you up. Please leave your front door unlocked so they don't have to break it down.

BWAHAHAHAH!!!
----------------------

Of course it was an accident, you idiot.

Are you sure you're not KIKI in disguise?

BTW: way to take two words out of context.

Read the whole fucking sentence, as you quoted it:

"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),"

What part of "negative effects of exchange subsidies on incentives to work..." do you not understand?

What part of "...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)," do you not understand?

I'm starting to believe that you understand nothing but the voices in your head.

Seems to be endemic in the "liberals" here.

"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

Monday, February 10, 2014 7:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
I don't believe him. 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.

I know that your paranoia won't let you believe me, but all my computer has is a basic .pdf reader. I can't copy, make, or edit pdf files, just read or print them.

"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."

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Monday, February 10, 2014 7:43 AM

I think this report makes a number of assumptions about behaviours, and goes with the notion that both individuals/businesses will do everything and anything to minimise health care costs.

I'd say that both individuals and businesses will make decisions based on a variety of factors, that may include reducing hours and or staff, but not necessarily do either.

A business will not reduce its workforce from 100 to 50 just to reduce costs, whereas it may reduce it from 57 to 49. MAY. If reducing your workforce ultimately impacts on the efficiency of the business, it probably wont happen.

Additionally, many employees will not have the option to reduce their hours, or they simply may find its still cost effective to work the same hours and foot a higher healthcare bill.

In the end, this is an adjustment period, and after a few years, people will hardly give it a thought.

NIKI2

Monday, February 10, 2014 7:42 PM

Good points, Magons, thank you. And yes, as we've discussed before, in a few years (and hopefully, with adjustments to improve it) this will all be a moot point. Nobody can know exactly how this will all come out until enough time has passed, and I think businesses won't be cutting off their noses to spite their faces, that the results will be more mixed than those on the right are trying to indicate.

As to Geezer; is he saying he can only copy text by typing EVERYTHING himself, or else how does he explain editing out the two sentences in the original BBC article?

And I note he has not addressed my initial argument, that he wasn't "pointing out, first" the difference in CBO's earlier and current estimates, nor do I expect him to.

I'm not convinced.

GEEZER

Tuesday, February 11, 2014 12:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Good points, Magons, thank you. And yes, as we've discussed before, in a few years (and hopefully, with adjustments to improve it) this will all be a moot point. Nobody can know exactly how this will all come out until enough time has passed, and I think businesses won't be cutting off their noses to spite their faces, that the results will be more mixed than those on the right are trying to indicate.

As to Geezer; is he saying he can only copy text by typing EVERYTHING himself, or else how does he explain editing out the two sentences in the original BBC article?

And I note he has not addressed my initial argument, that he wasn't "pointing out, first" the difference in CBO's earlier and current estimates, nor do I expect him to.

I'm not convinced.

If you have something to say to me, please address me directly, and don't drag Magons into your paranoid fantasy.

"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."

NIKI2

Tuesday, February 11, 2014 1:09 AM

I addressed you REPEATEDLY, concisely and specifically, Geezer; you refused to respond. Your statement is pure, unadulterated bullshit, it's absolutely laughable that you would even make it, given the contents of this thread.

One might mention that this is a free forum and any poster can address anyone or anything they desire, not somewhere that you control who says what to whom. Which you're also completely aware of, so the reasonable assumption is you are trolling, nothing more.

You have shown yourself to be a liar, a coward and a troll in this thread; that direct enough for you?

1KIKI

Tuesday, February 11, 2014 1:13 AM

Dood, seriously, I gotta ask - why should she bother?

You blew her off the first multiple times she asked you directly, just like you blew off SignyMs questions in multiple threads, and KPOs questions in multiple threads, and of course you NEVER respond to me.

So what's going to make this one time she does address you directly any different?

Time to let this thread die and sink into oblivion, eh Geezer? 'Cause you think people will forget and you can resume your trolling some other day. Is that how you're going to roll, Geezer?

STORYMARK

Tuesday, February 11, 2014 1:34 AM

He ignores every question, then whines that you didn't ask this one directly to him - yet he STILL doesn't answer the goddamned question.

Ya'll are still trying to talk to someone who clearly either has no interest in it. Another rappy. Worthless.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Tuesday, February 11, 2014 1:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

If you have something to say to me, please address me directly, and don't drag Magons into your paranoid fantasy.

Not much of a paranoid fantasy really

KPO

Tuesday, February 11, 2014 2:51 AM

Quote:
Of course it was an accident

I wanted to ask and hear you say it. I don't think you're the kind of person who would straight out lie. I wanted to see if you're the kind of person who would make it sound like it was an accident when it wasn't.

So I'll accept that it was an accident. But the fact remains that you unfaithfully gave a quote, accidentally/subconsciously adapting it to suit your argument. I'd be horrified and apologetic if I'd done that. You seem to be indignant and frothy.

Quote:
What part of " negative effects of exchange subsidies on incentives to work..." do you not understand?

I understand the word negative. It means something's gone down. The context (in the unedited quote) tells us that it is people's incentive to work that has gone down (and that this applies particularly to people in the lower income bracket). But as I've shown, a negative effect on a person's incentive to work is not necessarily a negative effect on the person themselves - which is what the BBC article was implying.

Do you want to try again and find a quote in the CBO report that supports the BBC quote? Or should we accept that the BBC report was badly written?

By the way, we still haven't heard why you edited the BBC article.

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

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