'Obamacare' will reduce US workforce, report finds

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

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

NIKI2

Saturday, February 15, 2014 1:00 AM

KPO, you can keep going, but somewhere along the line you're going to have to accept that you will never get through to Geezer and he will never admit he did anything wrong.

Quote:
folks in their early twenties who need health insurance for themselves and possibly a child are being held back from earning more, which may affect their standard of living, the possibility of higher education for children, and the amount of retirement income they'll have.

That might make sense, if it weren't for today's reality. Look at how salaries have NOT increased in a very long time, while the cost of living has continued to go up. The idea that anyone's being "held back" from "earning more" is a complete fallacy, right along the lines with "if you work hard, you'll get rich".

Leaving out all the elderly who have busted their asses to go on working long past the time it was healthy for them, just to keep health insurance, people's standard of living could only be IMPROVED if they weren't FORCED to work X amount of hours WITHOUT HEALTH INSURANCE, while praying they could survive getting sick or injured, which was the case before the ACA.

As you pointed out,

Quote:
But the alternative to government playing this role, of providing a safety net, is to have a society where some people live in misery, and grinding poverty.

That's a point Geezer is totally unwilling to address in any way; in his argument, there are only two alternatives: work more hours and "advance", or work less hours and get a subsidy. The fact is that without the ACA, people today would go on working more hours WITHOUT advancing, without any safety net; that's part of what the ACA is attempting to fix.

Geezer argues one side of everything; the doesn't mention or take into account the other side, he maximizes his negative assumptions, and he nit picks any potential positives.

I also reject his idea that the BBC changed THEIR copy; I read the entire thing from the link when he put it up, and noticed right off that there were seven paragraphs after the negative subheading and only three one-sentence, vague paragraphs under "empowerment", none of which addressed all the potential positives the CBO has enumerated. That was enough for me when I read it to see that it was slanted, and I enumerated that...BBC didn't change their text, period. And yet again, he has never ONCE addressed the clear refutation of his argument that he was "first, pointing out..." (which reads as if that, and merely finding the article "interesting" was his only focus). Handwriting's on the wall, as far as I'm concerned.

SIGNYM

Saturday, February 15, 2014 2:07 AM

Quote:
I point out that there may be some particular thing wrong with one of your pet laws, or parties, or politicians, or whatever, and you can't see it as showing something that could be improved, but an attack on all you hold dear.

Seriously??

I'd like you to show me who my "pet politicians" are, and which ones are my "pet laws" and "pet parties". I'd like to think I'm an equal-opportunity critic. What I hope to attack are belief systems.

Also, I take responsibility for my posts and comments. If someone can show me where I've made a logical error, missed important facts, made erroneous connections, or over-emphasized the importance of one event or process over another, I learn from it and move on.

But I've hardly every gotten to that point with anyone on this board. I would LOVE TO get into a discussion where we manage to get past all of the crap that is usually spewed across the board... the rappy-facts, strawmen, ad hominems, exceptionalism (moral relativism), partisanship, religiosity of all stripes (including libertarianism), and on and on and on...

I would pass out from shock, I would, if a thread actually went like...

A) I support this!
B) What do you mean by "this"?
A) I mean (provides alternate explanation and definition)
B) So, why do you support "this"
A) Because "this" will achieve "that"?
B) Really? How?
A) Thru mechanisms blotz and blortz.
B) But what about blitz? Blitz has been show to produce yix.
A) Because yaps won't allow it.
B) So, really, what you're trying to achieve is not exactly "that", but "that+-". Is that your goal?
A) Yes
B) Why would you want that goal?
A) Because I believe in efdom....
B) Efdom has never been show to exist. I believe in fedom instead

Usually, when you get to the point of a conversation, you come to an assumption, belief or ethic. If people are willing to have their beliefs examined by others, and to examine themselves, THAT'S when real learning takes place.

But like I said, this has almost never occurred here, as far as I recall. There was one instance where someone posted "I never thought of that" and actually changed their mind.

I've had many beliefs eliminated in a lifetime of learning. The latest was using "efficiency" as a paradigm. Once I realized how erroneous that was, I haven't mentally referenced it since. An earlier assumption that societies evolve towards betterment was knocked off its pedestal by Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed (Jared Diamond). In fact, the whole idea of "nature" as useful paradigm for human development is looking pretty silly. I've learned a lot from FREM, from RUE, even CTS (altho we got into some serious dogfights, her graph on disease reduction over the centuries was instructive) and too many others to name.

In the reverse, when people's favorite beliefs are challenged here, they either go off and sulk, or break the nearest beer-bottle over the bar and turn a discussion into a bar-fight, using any and all dirty tricks possible. WTF??? Whatever happened to just talking rationally?

GEEZER

Saturday, February 15, 2014 6:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Seriously??

I'd like you to show me who my "pet politicians" are, and which ones are my "pet laws" and "pet parties".

So you, KPO and NIKI aren't tenaciously defending the ACA in this thread from any suggestion that it might have flaws?

Quote:
Also, I take responsibility for my posts and comments. If someone can show me where I've made a logical error, missed important facts, made erroneous connections, or over-emphasized the importance of one event or process over another, I learn from it and move on.

Right. Like you're doing in the El Nino thread?

"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."

SIGNYM

Sunday, February 16, 2014 12:59 AM

Quote:
I'd like you to show me who my "pet politicians" are, and which ones are my "pet laws" and "pet parties".-signy
So you, KPO and NIKI aren't tenaciously defending the ACA in this thread from any suggestion that it might have flaws?-geezer

Um... am I defending the ACA? I think my criticisms of the ACA, and the general notion of mandated private insurance, would have been long, loud, and bitter enough to have made an impact by now! All I'm doing is reacting to the mis-interpretation of the CBO report.

Quote:
Also, I take responsibility for my posts and comments. If someone can show me where I've made a logical error, missed important facts, made erroneous connections, or over-emphasized the importance of one event or process over another, I learn from it and move on. -signy

Right. Like you're doing in the El Nino thread?-geezer

I've said over and over in that thread that I have absolutely no idea of the point you're trying to make. I've asked over and over again for explanations, and have re-explained myself over and over again with the idea that we will at least figure out what it is we're disagreeing about. It seems to me that we're truly talking past each other. But here... http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=57477&p=1#9
63154
...see for yourself. I continue to respond on-point, and attempt to understand you, and to make myself understood. I "get" that you're frustrated with the lack of common understanding, but... what's your beef with me?

CHRISISALL

Sunday, February 16, 2014 2:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Right. Like you're doing in the El Nino thread?

Geeze, you're acting like a troll on both threads. I'd like to think it's not on purpose.

SIGNYM

Sunday, February 16, 2014 2:25 AM

Geezer is frustrated with me because I don't see at all (and I mean not AT ALL. Complete blank to me!) what he sees so clearly. I think this is a genuine misunderstanding.

KPO

Sunday, February 16, 2014 6:40 AM

Quote:
I know. It is my point. That folks are incentivized to not try and advance by the implicit tax of the subsidy. This may be fine if you're closing in on retirement, but folks in their early twenties who need health insurance for themselves and possibly a child are being held back from earning more, which may affect their standard of living, the possibility of higher education for children, and the amount of retirement income they'll have.

You didn't understand this by now?

Try not to combine douche-ish condescension with imbecility. You've made this point before, I addressed it saying that you have a point, but that this is only a small part of the picture. Your only response to this is to repeat your point again, and again...

Quote:
And you can predict the labor market now?

The CBO is in the business of making predictions based off economic forecasts/assumptions.

Quote:
Yes, teacher. I understand that jobs won't be lost, just workforce equivalent hours.

Nice, but while giving me sass you completely missed the point. I was explaining why the CBO included the words 'when the labour market is strong' in that sentence. But it doesn't matter...

Quote:
So if this were a 25 year old woman, and she were offered a better job with a $3,000 pay raise, she'd actually lose almost $5,000 a year in real money.

Geezer, Geezer. You had to overreach didn't you? If that lady from Georgia were 25, and not 60, have you seen what happens to her premiums on the calculator? With a $3000 pay rise her premium rises from $4275 to $4537. In other words, by not very much. She would GAIN almost all of her pay rise (although we shouldn't forget about tax).

You have highlighted something interesting though, with the 60 year old woman, and I'm sorry I didn't notice it earlier. For a rare few there is quite a strong disincentive to earn more. Points I would make:

1. This is limited to people who are on or just below the 400% of poverty income threshold, getting pay raises just above it.
2. This is limited to people who are relatively old, or sick - and hence have high premiums
3. People in this situation could work something out with their employer so that they didn't lose out financially. The employer could offer a smaller pay rise, or the employer could work slightly less hours, or a combination of the two. This seems to be what the CBO assumes will happen.
4. This seems like a glitch to me, a small problem, that ought to be addressed. In an ideal world both parties would work together to fix the shortcomings in Obamacare. Until that day should we keep the small problems in perspective, and not hype them up for partisan reasons?

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

NIKI2

Monday, February 17, 2014 12:10 AM

KPO, that was beautifully done. You have far more patience than I, and you are far more courteous. "In an ideal world both parties would work together to fix the shortcomings in Obamacare." Amen. But as for "Until that day should we keep the small problems in perspective, and not hype them up for partisan reasons?" Good luck!

I'm only chiming in to respond to "So you, KPO and NIKI aren't tenaciously defending the ACA in this thread from any suggestion that it might have flaws?" That is such complete bullshit that it made me guffaw. How many, many times have I stated quite clearly that I DON'T like the ACA, it's a bastardization of private enterprise, but which was the only thing that could even conceivably be passed? I've been very clear that, like SSI or Medicare (or Bush's Part D), the ACA is not a good thing to start but all we can get, and now it's up to us to IMPROVE it. I've been extremely clear, repeatedly, so once again, with that sentence Geezer is obviously lying and trolling. This particular thread has been the final wake-up call for me, or rather the straw that broke the camel's back, since I've been awake, just continuing to try and communicate fairly. But with this thread he's been just too blatant and too dishonest.

GEEZER

Monday, February 17, 2014 7:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Right. Like you're doing in the El Nino thread?
Geeze, you're acting like a troll on both threads. I'd like to think it's not on purpose.

"Troll" in this instance meaning I disagree with your pals' viewpoints, in a thread I started?

Are NIKI's multipage posts about something completely outside of the scope of the original posts (republican comments) trolling to you?

"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."

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9