Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

I can't believe the republicans are presenting this in the manner they are...Well, actually I can.

They are saying people will actually be able to quit their jobs because they can get health insurance outside of the work place.......How is that bad????

I know lots of people in their 60's who currently cannot retire because they need insurance but can't get it...Seems like changing this would be a good thing! Of course the repubs are saying that when people quit these jobs because they no longer need them, the jobs will be eliminated and not filled by other workers...I find this odd as well.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02 ... port-says/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And then reality hits:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/obamaca ... eport-jobs" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The CBO report, in fact, specifically undermines that claim. Those lost hours will "almost entirely" be the result of people choosing to work fewer hours because of Obamacare -- not because they lost their jobs or can't find a full-time job.


The estimated reduction stems almost entirely from a net decline in the amount of labor that workers choose to supply, rather than from a net drop in businesses' demand for labor, so it will appear almost entirely as a reduction in labor force participation and in hours worked relative to what would have occurred otherwise rather than as an increase in unemployment (that is, more workers seeking but not finding jobs) or underemployment (such as part-time workers who would prefer to work more hours per week).


The report explicitly says that Obamacare isn't going to force businesses to cut jobs on any grand scale. What it is going to do is change how much Americans work.

"I think it’s important to distinguish between people choosing to work less and jobs being lost," Larry Levitt, vice president at the non-partisan Kaiser Famiy Foundation, told TPM. "That is something important to keep an eye on, since you don’t want to discourage work. But, it’s not in all cases a bad thing."

"For example, some people in their late 50s and early 60s would like to retire because they have health issues but have kept working for the health benefits. Some of them can now retire because they can’t be discriminated against for having a pre-existing condition and may get help paying their premiums."

And wouldn't this INCREASE employment?

If people are choosing to work less hours, wouldn't that mean those hours have to be filled by someone else?

So how do these people in their late 50's and early 60's pay their premiums after they "retire early"?

Company I worked for a couple years ago went from 300 employees to 11, due entirely to Obamascare.

Jon has a point here. I think some (a lot?) people in certain situations will stop working, however its not for the great positives Jon is spinning this as, but more of the reason being that those close to that X% of the poverty level (I don’t remember what the cut off is) to qualify for a subsidy will do so. In conjunction with the Obamacare subsidy they will also apply for food stamps, the free cell phones, rent subsidies and any other free handouts they can qualify for by walking away from their job (if they aren’t already on those programs).

So how is that 50 and 60 year old who decides to retire going to pay for their premiums? The answer is they won’t, us idiots who decide to keep working will pay if for them…in addition to everything else we already fork over money for. Cradle to grave baby, cradle to grave.

Talk about putting lipstick on a pig.

If this had been brought up prior to the 2012 election there would have been sparks-a-flyin from the WH.

The next shoe to drop is in fact going to be the effects of the employer mandate (if it was such a wonderful thing all these "lost" jobs... then why depth charge the law with the Magical O Inkpen by delaying it a year?)

I guess we shouldn't be surprised there are O-Bots still around

can't wait to bump this thread right around October-November... we might get to see some diehard big government troglodytes starting to question their existence

The angst will be like salty tears for my martini

dbackjon wrote:"For example, some people in their late 50s and early 60s would like to retire because they have health issues but have kept working for the health benefits. Some of them can now retire because they can’t be discriminated against for having a pre-existing condition and may get help paying their premiums."

Not that I'd mind retiring in my late 50s or early 60s myself but the kinds of people you're talking about are going to be a net drag on the system if they do retire in their late 50s and early 60s. Actually, since such people are probably already a drag on the system, I should say they will be MORE of a drag on the system.

What the CBO really found was that the numbers of hours worked would decrease under Obamacare, by roughly 1.5 percent to 2 percent between 2017 and 2024.

That's from that Talking Points Memo thing. Now think about it. It says the report says the number of hours worked will decrease. Does that not likely mean a less productive society? Maybe not by much percentage wise.

I mean, number of hours worked doesn't necessarily have to mean less productivity. But in this context I think the reason for the decline in the number of hours does appear likely to mean that. We're not talking about fewer hours being worked because productivity per hour increases. We're talking about fewer hours being worked because people choose to work fewer hours.

Having said all that I don't think CBO projections of any kind are worth the paper they're written on. I don't know how many times the CBO has to demonstrate that it has no clue with respect to predicting what's going to happen in the future before people stop taking it seriously.

If you're talking about tracking what's happened in the past, fine. The CBO is a credible source. But you'd do just as well consulting one of the eight ball things you shake where phrases appear in the window predicting the future as you would looking to the CBO.

Maybe Bette from Spokane will be one of those who quit working, seeing how she quit looking for a better insurance deal and decided to just bitch about premiums instead...

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2014/j ... rs-speech/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As I mentioned before, we are privately insured through Lifewise of Washington and our insurance costs went down considerably while still getting to see the same Doc's.

Talking Points Memo?

Premier Donk jacking material since 2000.

JohnStOnge wrote:

dbackjon wrote:"For example, some people in their late 50s and early 60s would like to retire because they have health issues but have kept working for the health benefits. Some of them can now retire because they can’t be discriminated against for having a pre-existing condition and may get help paying their premiums."

Not that I'd mind retiring in my late 50s or early 60s myself but the kinds of people you're talking about are going to be a net drag on the system if they do retire in their late 50s and early 60s. Actually, since such people are probably already a drag on the system, I should say they will be MORE of a drag on the system.

They will be.

We're talking about a group that will be living for another 25 years at least after retirement with advancements in modern medicines.

I'm not sure where this excitement that the left gets from having people sitting on their asses collecting a check every month comes from...

DSUrocks07 wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
Not that I'd mind retiring in my late 50s or early 60s myself but the kinds of people you're talking about are going to be a net drag on the system if they do retire in their late 50s and early 60s. Actually, since such people are probably already a drag on the system, I should say they will be MORE of a drag on the system.

They will be.

We're talking about a group that will be living for another 25 years at least after retirement with advancements in modern medicines.

I'm not sure where this excitement that the left gets from having people sitting on their asses collecting a check every month comes from...

AKA retirement. It creates job demand for younger generations.

kalm wrote:

DSUrocks07 wrote:
They will be.

We're talking about a group that will be living for another 25 years at least after retirement with advancements in modern medicines.

I'm not sure where this excitement that the left gets from having people sitting on their asses collecting a check every month comes from...

AKA FORCED retirement. It creates job demand for younger generations.

fify

And also the disparity of current retirees to working Americans will continue to head towards an equilibrium as the Baby Boomers go into retirement.



Social Security = the original Ponzi scheme

brb, going to make more babies to do my part to save the economy.

DSUrocks07 wrote:I'm not sure where this excitement that the left gets from having people sitting on their asses collecting a check every month comes from...

From the possibility that a vote might be bought.

DSUrocks07 wrote:

kalm wrote:
AKA FORCED retirement. It creates job demand for younger generations.

fify

And also the disparity of current retirees to working Americans will continue to head towards an equilibrium as the Baby Boomers go into retirement.



Social Security = the original Ponzi scheme

brb, going to make more babies to do my part to save the economy.

Who's being forced to retire? Employment will follow demand. SS is a different topic.

kalm wrote:

DSUrocks07 wrote:
fify

And also the disparity of current retirees to working Americans will continue to head towards an equilibrium as the Baby Boomers go into retirement.



Social Security = the original Ponzi scheme

brb, going to make more babies to do my part to save the economy.

Who's being forced to retire? Employment will follow demand. SS is a different topic.

Those 2.3 million people working these jobs currently will have to find something to do...

And SS is directly related to retirement, especially when we're talking about lowering the potential income of two million people and outright losing their jobs to "free them up for younger generations".

dbackjon wrote:And wouldn't this INCREASE employment?

If people are choosing to work less hours, wouldn't that mean those hours have to be filled by someone else?

The head of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office delivered a damning assessment Wednesday of the Affordable Care Act, telling lawmakers that ObamaCare creates a "disincentive for people to work," adding fuel to Republican arguments that the law will hurt the economy.




The testimony from CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf comes after his office released a highly controversial report that detailed how millions of workers could cut back their hours or opt out of the job market entirely because of benefits under the health law.

The White House and its Democratic allies accused Republicans, and the media, of mischaracterizing the findings. But Elmendorf backed Republicans' central argument -- fewer people will work because of the law's subsidies.

"The act creates a disincentive for people to work," Elmendorf said, under questioning from House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis.

Ryan clarified that the CBO report found not that employers would lay people off, but that more individuals would choose not to work.

DSUrocks07 wrote:

kalm wrote:
Who's being forced to retire? Employment will follow demand. SS is a different topic.

Those 2.3 million people working these jobs currently will have to find something to do...

And SS is directly related to retirement, especially when we're talking about lowering the potential income of two million people and outright losing their jobs to "free them up for younger generations".

Again...from the CBO report that Dback already posted:

The estimated reduction stems almost entirely from a net decline in the amount of labor that workers choose to supply, rather than from a net drop in businesses' demand for labor, so it will appear almost entirely as a reduction in labor force participation and in hours worked relative to what would have occurred otherwise rather than as an increase in unemployment (that is, more workers seeking but not finding jobs) or underemployment (such as part-time workers who would prefer to work more hours per week).

...and as Z posted ahead of me...this projection isnt a matter of company's laying off workers. So if the demand is there these people who can afford to retire but don't due to health insurance reasons now will, opening up jobs for younger folks.

In all honesty, I'm skeptical of the CBO's claims here as I'm guessing there are employers who will attempt to mitigate this expense by cutting jobs. (this is why I don't like Obamacare as employers should not be on the hook for healthcare) But if they are unable to meet demand they will either have absorb the cost elsewhere (net profits) or will succumb to competition that is able to.

And yes SS is related to the debate but it's been wildly successful in eliminating elder poverty, is still solvent, and can be fixed to honor it's commitments going forward. It's only a Ponzi scheme if we go broke as a nation but that too is another story...

Now, go find your bouncing ball...

Hell lets just pay everybody not to work and be done with it.

Work conflicts with laying on the couch and watching idol or honey fvcking boo boo anyway

CID1990 wrote:Hell lets just pay everybody not to work and be done with it.

Work conflicts with laying on the couch and watching idol or honey fvcking boo boo anyway

Aren't you in the military..
You're kinda doing that already (right?)

Chizzang wrote:

CID1990 wrote:Hell lets just pay everybody not to work and be done with it.

Work conflicts with laying on the couch and watching idol or honey fvcking boo boo anyway

Aren't you in the military..
You're kinda doing that already (right?)

Good god, man. He hasn't been in the military for YEARS.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Chizzang wrote:

Aren't you in the military..
You're kinda doing that already (right?)

Good god, man. He hasn't been in the military for YEARS.

Government Employee (same same)

Looks like PelosiGalore lied to you again

Flashback: At the Health Care Summit in February 2010, Pelosi claimed Obamacare would increase 400,000 jobs “almost immediately.”
“It’s about jobs. In it’s life, the health bill will create 4 million jobs — 400,000 jobs almost immediately.”

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJKGWEkkE7E[/youtube]