Quote:

---

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

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

Of course it was an accident

---

Quote:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
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?

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

Geezer, tho' your title obviously highlights the reduction in workforce

---

Quote:

---

You titled this thread "'Obamacare' will reduce US workforce, report finds"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:

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:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

Quote:
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.


So you actually don't believe me then.

---

Quote:

---

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


Because I didn't?

---

Quote:

---

...when the labor market is strong and people decide on their own to retire, to leave work to take care of their families, or to cut back on their hours to pursue other interests, those people presumably think they are better off (or they would not be making the voluntary choices they are making). As a result, other people are generally happy for them and do not describe them as having “lost their jobs.”

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:


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:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:
Jesus, do you even try to read before saying this shit?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:

Quote:

---

Quote:
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.


So you actually don't believe me then.

---

Huh??

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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


Because I didn't?

---

Yes you did. Two of the paragraphs have been taken out and put back in the wrong place. How, and why, did that happen?

---

Quote:

---

As for the whole 'negative' impact thing, this is how the CBO in their recent blog post, describe the people that the BBC article described as 'hard hit':

Quote:

---

...when the labor market is strong and people decide on their own to retire, to leave work to take care of their families, or to cut back on their hours to pursue other interests, those people presumably think they are better off (or they would not be making the voluntary choices they are making). As a result, other people are generally happy for them and do not describe them as having “lost their jobs.”

---

Have the people described above been 'negatively affected' Geezer?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BIGDAMNNOBODY:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:
Jesus, do you even try to read before saying this shit?

---

Please explain to the class what this response has to do with Obamacare and the US workforce.

---

Quote:

---

You're still assuming that I modified it to suit my argument.

---

Quote:

---

I copied it and posted it. I wondered at the time about the paragraph structure. Perhaps The BBC corrected it later. It's been known to happen.

---

Quote:

---

Since your quote from the CBO blog (which one, BTW?) doesn't refer to negative effects or low income workers at all, I'd say the blog is talking about a different group of people

---

Quote:

---

Q: Will 2.5 Million People Lose Their Jobs in 2024 Because of the ACA?
A: No, we would not describe our estimates in that way.

We wrote in the report: “CBO estimates that the ACA will reduce the total number of hours worked, on net, by about 1.5 percent to 2.0 percent during the period from 2017 to 2024, almost entirely because workers will choose to supply less labor.” The reason for the reduction in the supply of labor is that the provisions of the ACA reduce the incentive to work for certain subsets of the population.

For example, under the ACA, health insurance subsidies are provided to some people with low income and are phased out as their income rises; as a result, a portion of the added income from working more would be offset by a loss of some or all of the subsidies, which represents an implicit tax on earnings. Also, the ACA’s subsidies effectively boost the income of recipients, which will lead some of them to decide they can work less and still maintain or improve their standard of living. Therefore, some people will decide not to work or to work fewer hours than would otherwise be the case—including some people who will choose to retire earlier than they would have otherwise, and some people who will work less themselves and rely more on a spouse’s earnings. (Many other factors influence decisions about working, including, for example, income and payroll taxes and the cost of commuting and child care. Moreover, under current economic conditions, a substantial number of people who would like to work cannot find a job.)

Because the longer-term reduction in work is expected to come almost entirely from a decline in the amount of labor that workers choose to supply in response to the changes in their incentives, we do not think it is accurate to say that the reduction stems from people “losing” their jobs.

---

Quote:

---

Here’s a useful way to think about the choice of wording: When firms do not have enough business and decide to lay people off, the people who are laid off are generally worse off and are therefore unhappy about what is happening. As a result, other people express their sympathy to those people for having “lost their jobs” due to forces beyond their control. In contrast, when the labor market is strong and people decide on their own to retire, to leave work to take care of their families, or to cut back on their hours to pursue other interests, those people presumably think they are better off (or they would not be making the voluntary choices they are making). As a result, other people are generally happy for them and do not describe them as having “lost their jobs.”

Thus, there is a critical difference between, on the one hand, people who leave a job for reasons beyond their control and, on the other hand, people who choose not to work or to work less. The wording that people use to describe those differing circumstances reflects the different reactions of the people involved. In our report, we indicated that “the estimated reduction [in employment] stems almost entirely from a net decline in the amount of labor that workers choose to supply,” so we think the language of “losing a job” does not fit.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:

Quote:

---

You're still assuming that I modified it to suit my argument.

---

If you knew what 'subconsciously' meant you would know that this precludes your doing anything 'on purpose'. And when you see that I actually typed 'accidentally/subconsciously' it's even clearer that I'm not accusing you of doing anything on purpose. On the contrary I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. But you're still finding reason to whine, and play the victim, somehow.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I copied it and posted it. I wondered at the time about the paragraph structure. Perhaps The BBC corrected it later. It's been known to happen.

---

Sounds plausible. The non-douche thing to do would've been to give this explanation about 50 posts ago.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Since your quote from the CBO blog (which one, BTW?) doesn't refer to negative effects or low income workers at all, I'd say the blog is talking about a different group of people

---

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45096

From the blog post:

Quote:

---

Q: Will 2.5 Million People Lose Their Jobs in 2024 Because of the ACA?
A: No, we would not describe our estimates in that way...



There. With this blog post the CBO was clarifying some of the points in their report, in response to all the misunderstandings that flew up around it. Thus it is referring to the same group of people, largely low income, that they talked about in their report. The 'negative effects' on people's incentive to work are talked about and explained at length.

---

So you expect that the CBO will go back and edit this part of the report?

"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),"

That's the basis of my comment...

"If you read "Number and Types of Worker Likely To Be Affected", starting on page 119, you'll see that it's folks who are incentivized by the availability of subsidized health care payments (i.e. folks not making much money) who will be most likely to work less hours. This is folks who are on the cusp of poverty, and may be dissuaded from moving up the economic ladder by fear of loss of the subsidy."

I still feel that way.

I have noted above that the subsidies under the ACA will benefit some folks, but I'm concerned about those that choose not to try and advance only because they must rely on the subsidy to get insurance to cover their families.




"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."

Quote:

---

The issue is with you suggesting I modified something to suit my argument, subconsciously or no.

---

Quote:

---

Actually, the non-douche thing would have been to not accuse folks you disagree with of sneakily modifying things on purpose to suit their argument.

---

Quote:

---

This is folks who are on the cusp of poverty, and may be dissuaded from moving up the economic ladder by fear of loss of the subsidy."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:
I find it hard to believe that those two specific words were omitted by complete random coincidence. For me this whole incident is illustrative of your ability to ignore things that don't quite fit your narrative. You ignored those two words when you read the sentence, which allowed you to misunderstand it. And then, it's no surprise when you came to retype the sentence that those were the two words you missed.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Actually, the non-douche thing would have been to not accuse folks you disagree with of sneakily modifying things on purpose to suit their argument.

---

Those were questions, not accusations, and I largely accepted your answers.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

This is folks who are on the cusp of poverty, and may be dissuaded from moving up the economic ladder by fear of loss of the subsidy."

---

As I've already pointed out, the CBO has a very different view of the people being affected by the law:

"when the labor market is strong and people decide on their own to retire, to leave work to take care of their families, or to cut back on their hours to pursue other interests, those people presumably think they are better off (or they would not be making the voluntary choices they are making). As a result, other people are generally happy for them"

---

Quote:

---

For example, under the ACA, health insurance subsidies are provided to some people with low income and are phased out as their income rises; as a result, a portion of the added income from working more would be offset by a loss of some or all of the subsidies, which represents an implicit tax on earnings. Also, the ACA’s subsidies effectively boost the income of recipients, which will lead some of them to decide they can work less and still maintain or improve their standard of living. Therefore, some people will decide not to work or to work fewer hours than would otherwise be the case—including some people who will choose to retire earlier than they would have otherwise, and some people who will work less themselves and rely more on a spouse’s earnings. (Many other factors influence decisions about working, including, for example, income and payroll taxes and the cost of commuting and child care. Moreover, under current economic conditions, a substantial number of people who would like to work cannot find a job.)

---

Quote:

---

To be fair Geezer I think you have a point. The healthcare law (as with any provision that gives help to the poor) will create some dependency, and in effect erode some people's incentive to advance themselves. But that's not the full picture. It's not even the main picture. It's a small part of the picture.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
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?

---

Quote:

---

. . . he pulls multiple fast ones, asserting things that he says are conclusions of the CBO report when they aren’t — they’re his own views, pulled out of, um, thin air, or maybe someplace else, which he is projecting onto the budget office to make them seem authoritative. . . .

It works like this: Conservatives in general, and conservative economists in particular, often have a very narrow vision of what economics is all about — namely supply, demand, and incentives. Anything that interferes with the sacred functioning of markets or reduces the incentive to produce must be a bad thing; any time a progressive economist supports policies that don’t fit neatly into this orthodoxy, it must be because he doesn’t understand Econ 101. And conservative economists are so sure of this that they can’t be bothered to actually read what the progressives write — at the first hint of deviation from laissez-faire, they stop paying attention and begin debating with the stupid progressive in their mind, not the real economist out there.

---

Quote:

---

So you're still accusing me of changing the sentence to fit my narrative.

---

Quote:

---

When you ask if I doctored something (instead of asking if I made a mistake), or if I have anything to say in my defense , those are accusations, and you know it.

---

Quote:

---

as is the fact that the subsidies are an implicit tax on the poorer workers.

---

Quote:

---

Unfortunately, the labor market is not strong right now

---

Quote:

---

I also see issues with some of the provisions and the lack of planning for implementation.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:

Quote:

---

as is the fact that the subsidies are an implicit tax on the poorer workers.

---

Hence their incentives to work have decreased. Which is what we've been talking about. This isn't a new point you're raising here.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Unfortunately, the labor market is not strong right now

---

See the BBC article, the CBO is talking about the period 2017-2021, when, according to projections, the labour market will be stronger than it is now.

---

Quote:

---

Understand that the CBO in that blog post is trying to explain the difference between 2.3 million workers being laid off because of an economic squeeze, and the equivalent of 2.3 million workers leaving the workforce voluntarily in ordinary, healthy economic conditions. But it doesn't make that big of a difference if the labour market is somewhat less than healthy, the distinction is still completely valid.

---

Quote:

---

The lowering of incentives to work and the 'implicit tax on earnings' effect is not unique to Obamacare. It's a downside to ALL provisions that benefit the poor. If you're poor, you get aid. If you stop being poor through self-advancement, that aid is withdrawn. Hence the government is, in a sense, making work pay less well. This is the implicit tax. 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.

---

Quote:

---

And it's a good deal for some, Using the Kaiser Subsidy calculator Kiki introduced in another thread, we have a 60 year old woman living in Albany Ga. and making $47,000, paying $12,264 for insurance with no subsidy. If she drops her income by $2,000, to $45,000, She'd receive a $7,989 subsidy, for a net $5,989 benefit.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
The problem with you, Geezer, is that you like to think you're reasonable. But the reality is that you're reasonable, but only to the point where an issue cuts across your assumptions... which is most of the time. After that, instead of using your big brain to learn, you use it to defend your assumptions.

---

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.

---

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".

---

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.

---

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

---

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

---

Quote:

---

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

---

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?

---

Quote:

---

And you can predict the labor market now?

---

Quote:

---

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

---

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.

---

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.

---