'Obamacare' will reduce US workforce, report finds

POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Monday, February 17, 2014 19:37
VIEWED: 8792
PAGE 1 of 1

GEEZER

Wednesday, February 5, 2014 6:07 PM

Quote:
President Barack Obama's health law will cut the US workforce by the equivalent of more than two million workers, budget analysts say.

The reductions will begin in 2017 after the law's provisions take full effect, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) said in its report.

Lower-income workers will be hardest hit, limiting their hours to avoid losing federal subsidies.

Conservatives and the White House promptly clashed over the findings.

In Tuesday's report, the nonpartisan CBO said work hours would be reduced by the equivalent of 2.3 million full-time workers by 2021. It had previously estimated the health law would result in 800,000 fewer workers.

'Making it worse'

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare, will result in a slower rate of employment growth over the next decade, according to the findings.

The congressional analysts say there will be fewer workers because healthcare subsidies would "reduce incentives to work" and pose an "implicit tax on working" for those returning to a job with health insurance.

The CBO said some US businesses may also decide to reduce their workforce to fewer than 50 full-time employees to avoid having to provide health insurance as mandated under the law.

The report also found US workers nearing retirement may opt to work shorter hours to retain healthcare subsidies until they qualify for Medicare, a federal health programme for the elderly.

Employees may also face lower wages due to tax levees and penalties against their employers, the report found.

The CBO findings provided fodder for conservatives, who are expected to make the health law a major issue in November's midterm elections.

"The middle class is getting squeezed in this economy, and this CBO report confirms that Obamacare is making it worse," Republican House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner said in a statement.

'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 glitches that plagued the healthcare website during its October rollout would probably result in one million fewer enrolled participants than initially anticipated, the CBO found.

Six million people are now forecast to sign up for coverage by this year.

The president's Democratic allies have been trying to distance themselves from the issue in the lead-up to November's elections.
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.

Those polls will determine which political party holds sway in Congress for the final two years of Mr Obama's presidency.

Republicans say the law, America's most sweeping social legislation in decades, is an unacceptable government intrusion into healthcare. They have voted to repeal the act more than 40 times.

A Gallup poll on Tuesday found Americans continue to be more likely to disapprove of the law, by 51% to 41%.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-26041966

NIKI2

Wednesday, February 5, 2014 7:39 PM

Knew that was coming, figured it would be here by this morning. Only question was which one of you would put it up first.

Note the reasons the CBO cites:

Quote:
In its latest U.S. fiscal outlook, the nonpartisan CBO said the health law would lead some workers, particularly those with lower incomes, to limit their hours to avoid losing federal subsidies that Obamacare provides to help pay for health insurance and other healthcare costs.
....
CBO said the expected drop in work hours between 2017 and 2024 would result largely from worker decisions not to participate in the labor force, rather than from higher unemployment or the inability of part-time workers to find full-time hours.

"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," CBO said. http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/04/us-usa-fiscal-obamacare-idUS
BREA131B120140204

So they're not saying it will cut JOBS, but cut the WORK FORCE, and I know why. We know a lot of people, JUST LIKE MY HUSBAND, who worked long past retirement age (in his case, to 75) purely because of healthcare costs. Health care has risen so dramatically that even Medicare isn't any guarantee you won't lose your home, and everything else, if you get sick, so employer-provided medical insurance has kept many in the work force past retirement. He was down to 30 hours a week, the minimum he could work and still get medical insurance for both of us. Now some of those can retire, and those jobs will open up for other, younger people.

And in case the response is "yeah, now all those people will collect Social Security sooner...", you should know that most of them, again like my husband, went on working AFTER they started collecting Social Security, since we knew once he finally quit, whatever we had was going to start going downhill because we'd have to start paying supplemental medical insurance to make up for what he lost. As it has, we are now without his paycheck, and paying several hundred dollars more each month in Part D drug coverage (which doesn't cover much, and neither of us is using, but if you don't pay it from the start and someday need a prescription, they charge you FROM DAY ONE--thanx Bush) and supplemental health insurance.

So the ramifications are both bad and good, if you will, but we know what we'll be hearing from the right:

Quote:
....become fodder for partisan attacks in this year's congressional election battle....Republicans, who have already made Obama's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) a top campaign issue for November, seized on the CBO report....

Here we go...

GEEZER

Wednesday, February 5, 2014 8:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
So they're not saying it will cut JOBS, but cut the WORK FORCE,

You're right. The BBC article says "workforce" in both the title and the body of the article.

Your point?

Quote:
...and I know why. We know a lot of people, JUST LIKE MY HUSBAND, who worked long past retirement age (in his case, to 75) purely because of healthcare costs. Health care has risen so dramatically that even Medicare isn't any guarantee you won't lose your home, and everything else, if you get sick, so employer-provided medical insurance has kept many in the work force past retirement. He was down to 30 hours a week, the minimum he could work and still get medical insurance for both of us. Now some of those can retire, and those jobs will open up for other, younger people.

That could be one reason. But as the article you cited above notes, a lot of it is folks working less hours so they can stay under the 400% of poverty level cutoff for ACA subsidies. So they're basically taking a crapshoot as to whether their lower income will be made up for by the subsidy and lower out-of-pocket expenses.

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.

http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator/#state=ga&zip=31763&
amp;locale=Dougherty&income-type=dollars&income=45000&employer-coverage=0&people=1&alternate-plan-family=individual&adult-count=1&adults%5B0%5D%5Bage%5D=60&adults%5B0%5D%5Btobacco%5D=0&adults%5B1%5D%5Bage%5D=21&adults%5B1%5D%5Btobacco%5D=0&adults%5B2%5D%5Bage%5D=21&adults%5B2%5D%5Btobacco%5D=0&adults%5B3%5D%5Bage%5D=21&adults%5B3%5D%5Btobacco%5D=0&child-count=0&child-tobacco=0

ETA: It is interesting that the CBO figure for workforce reduction went from 800,000 to 2.3 million. Wonder why the got the original figure so wrong.

"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."

STORYMARK

Wednesday, February 5, 2014 9:34 PM

Funny, I saw several reports debunking this last night - and realized I was surprised none of our right wingers had tried to run with it.

I didn't really expect one of ya to push it AFTER it had been shot down.

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

BLUEHANDEDMENACE

Wednesday, February 5, 2014 9:44 PM

Cmon now, Story.

Yes you did.

STORYMARK

Wednesday, February 5, 2014 9:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BlueHandedMenace:
Cmon now, Story.

Yes you did.

I should have been more clear - I expected it, yes. I just thought they'd get to it sooner, when the rest of the echo chamber was all lathered up.

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

GEEZER

Wednesday, February 5, 2014 11:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Funny, I saw several reports debunking this last night - and realized I was surprised none of our right wingers had tried to run with it.

I didn't really expect one of ya to push it AFTER it had been shot down.

So what part of the BBC story, or my response to Niki's, post, do you disagree with?

"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."

ELVISCHRIST

Wednesday, February 5, 2014 11:12 PM

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/obamacare-cbo-report-jobs

It won't reduce the workforce. It will reduce the number of hours worked for many people, who will CHOOSE to work fewer hours to keep their own costs down.

Reducing the hours worked by the equivalent to 2.0 million "jobs" doesn't remove 2.0 million jobs or workers from the workplace. If anything, it will ADD jobs and workers to the workforce. Note that this isn't employers cutting hours or eliminating jobs that they no longer need done; it's workers not working those hours. The work is still there, so workplaces will actually have to hire more people to do the work that still needs to be done.

NIKI2

Wednesday, February 5, 2014 11:26 PM

Thanx for clarifying that so succinctly, EC. The point is that it won't increase unemployment, most likely it will make more jobs available.

Quote:
"I think it’s important to distinguish between people choosing to work less and jobs being lost," said Larry Levitt, vice president at the non-partisan Kaiser Family Foundation. "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."

Nobody is saying you misrepresented anything, Geezer, tho' your title obviously highlights the reduction in workforce and your choice of articles doesn't give all the information. But the fact remains that the right has
leapt on the CBO report and is broadcasting all over everywhere that "Obamacare Will Cost 2 Million Jobs!!!!", which is a flat-out lie.

Quote:
ObamaCare could lead to loss of nearly 2.3 million US jobs, report says

...nearly 2.5 million workers could opt out of full-time jobs over the next 10 years -- allowing employers to wipe 2.3 million full-time jobs off the books. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/04/obamacare-expected-to-lead-
to-loss-nearly-25-million-american-jobs-report-says/

From the NRCC (National Republican Congressional Committee):

Quote:
Non-partisan CBO report admits #ObamaCare is hurting the economy, will cost 2.5 millions jobs. http://nrcc.me/1doOOA8 http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/02/04/no-cbo-
did-not-say-obamacare-will-kill-2-million-jobs/

Quote:
This Shocking Government Report Confirms That ObamaCare Will Cost America 2 Million Jobs

A new report from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office should pour cold water on Democrats who continue to deny that ObamaCare is a massive burden on the economy.

According to the CBO, ObamaCare will push approximately 2 million workers out of the labor market by 2017, as the law’s perverse incentives and regulations roll into effect. The latest estimate from the CBO is substantially larger than its previous analysis.

The report also finds that the economic burden is most likely to be felt among low-wage employees. Instead of trying to score political points by attempting to raise the minimum wage, shouldn’t Democrats focus on repealing ObamaCare and providing real economic relief to American workers? http://www.nrcc.org/2014/02/04/shocking-government-report-confirms-oba
macare-will-cost-america-2-million-jobs/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=tweets_social_twitter_20140204_e_AB_v2

That is a simple, flat-out LIE...no jobs will disappear. Note the NRCC article says the "economic burden is most likely to be felt among low-wage employees"...but that's completely ass-backwards from what the report actually says!

Quote:
No, CBO did not say Obamacare will kill 2 million jobs

Here we go again. During the 2012 campaign, The Fact Checker had to repeatedly explain that the Congressional Budget Office never said that the Affordable Care Act “killed” 800,000 jobs by 2021. Now, the CBO has released an updated estimate, nearly the triple the size of the earlier one: 2.3 million in 2021.

...the health insurance subsidies in the law (are) a substantial benefit that decreases as people earn more money, so at a certain point, a person has to choose between earning more money or continuing to get the maximum help with health insurance payments. In other words, people might work longer and harder, but actually earn no more, or earn even less, money.

Look at this way: If someone says they decided to leave their job for personal reasons, most people would not say they “lost” their jobs. They simply decided not to work.

The CBO, in its sober fashion, virtually screams that t

KPO

Thursday, February 6, 2014 12:16 AM

Quote:
Lower-income workers will be hardest hit, limiting their hours to avoid losing federal subsidies.

Does anyone else find this wording curious?

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

NIKI2

Thursday, February 6, 2014 12:30 AM

It's double-speak, obviously. Some low-income workers will CHOOSE to limit their hours to enable them to get medical coverage; by putting it as "limiting their hours" and not explaining it, it sounds like their hours are BEING LIMITED by someone else. Frank Luntz would greatly approve.

Amusingly, what it actually sounds like, if you think about it, is that they're saying low-wage workers shouldn't HAVE TO limit their hours to get subsidies, hee, hee, hee. Frank Luntz would definitely NOT approve!

ELVISCHRIST

Thursday, February 6, 2014 1:13 AM

Frank Luntz is too busy telling conservatives to trend on words like "lawless."

AURAPTOR

Thursday, February 6, 2014 2:44 AM

Redistributionist in Chief

Who didn't see that comin' ?

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

REAVERFAN

Thursday, February 6, 2014 6:34 AM

What it does is give workers the ability to keep their coverage if they change jobs, lose their jobs, or maybe quit to start their own businesses.

We finally sorta joined the rest of the first world. It'll be good.

That's why the teanderthals are so apoplectic, and willing to lie and distort to get their useful idiots to vote against their own best interests.

AURAPTOR

Thursday, February 6, 2014 6:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by reaverfan:
What it does is give workers the ability to keep their coverage if they change jobs, lose their jobs, or maybe quit to start their own businesses.

We finally sorta joined the rest of the first world. It'll be good.

That's why the teanderthals are so apoplectic, and willing to lie and distort to get their useful idiots to vote against their own best interests.

It won't be good. It's already a disaster. Millions more have LOST their coverage, the coverage they liked, they wanted, and that Obama PROMISED they could keep, so that a small % ( all Obama voters ) could get crappy, expensive care.

The needs of the few out weigh the needs of the many.

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

GEEZER

Thursday, February 6, 2014 7:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Nobody is saying you misrepresented anything, Geezer, tho' your title obviously highlights the reduction in workforce and your choice of articles doesn't give all the information.

Not my title. It's the title of the BBC article.

But it is interesting to see you and others jumping all over something no one in this thread has said.

"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

Thursday, February 6, 2014 7:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by ElvisChrist:
Note that this isn't employers cutting hours or eliminating jobs that they no longer need done; it's workers not working those hours. The work is still there, so workplaces will actually have to hire more people to do the work that still needs to be done.

So you disagree with this, from the BBC article.

"The CBO said some US businesses may also decide to reduce their workforce to fewer than 50 full-time employees to avoid having to provide health insurance as mandated under the law."

"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

Thursday, February 6, 2014 7:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
It's double-speak, obviously. Some low-income workers will CHOOSE to limit their hours to enable them to get medical coverage; by putting it as "limiting their hours" and not explaining it, it sounds like their hours are BEING LIMITED by someone else. Frank Luntz would greatly approve.

Amusingly, what it actually sounds like, if you think about it, is that they're saying low-wage workers shouldn't HAVE TO limit their hours to get subsidies, hee, hee, hee. Frank Luntz would definitely NOT approve!

So the BBC, that tool of American conservatives, is engaging in doublespeak?

"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

Thursday, February 6, 2014 10:04 AM

Cute. "The CBO said some US businesses may..."

Note that

Quote:
CBO expects the law to have "small or negligible" effects on labor demand in most parts of the economy. http://www.businessinsider.com/cbo-report-obamacare-discouraging-work-
2014-2#ixzz2sVudJdTb

"Some" businesses "may"...
"small or negligible effects on labor"...

Even the statement you quoted qualifies itself twice. I wonder why a source is so all-consuming important to you? You keep quoting conservative points coming out of WaPo like it is absolutely, positively, ALWAYS a liberal source, and this concept that because it came from the BBC, it HAS to be "neutral" or something. It's weird. I'll have to look into WHO wrote the article, not who they wrote it FOR.

The article I quoted goes on to say

Quote:
The main effects will come on the labor supply side. This has important implications for wages: While a decline in labor demand will tend to reduce wages, a withdrawal of labor supply may actually help push them up, as employers compete to hire from a reduced pool of available workers.

That from the oh-so-liberal Business Insider. Just because the BBC says something...they are in another country, y'know (and even they qualified it considerably)...doesn't mean it's any more valid than anything else. There's good and bad about all of this, nobody's saying otherwise. It could be a LOT better, but to trash it, you have to offer a viable alternative.

From the same article (which I think discusses the issue quite well):

Quote:
The work-discouraging income effect from Obamacare is mostly good. The pre-Obamacare health policy status quo, which focused heavily on tying insurance to full-time employment, provided a strong incentive for people to be full-time employed. Easy availability of comprehensive, subsidized health plans will make it easier for people to retire before age 65, quit a full-time job to start a business, or shift to part-time work and spend more time raising children or attending school. This is a feature, not a bug. As a Senior White House Official pointed out on a press call this afternoon, Social Security and Medicare reduce employment among seniors; this (making retirement possible) is a key aim of those programs, not a negative side-effect.

The work-discouraging substitution effect from Obamacare is clearly bad. For workers who rely on health insurance subsidies created by the law, Obamacare will reduce the marginal return to labor: That is, they'll get less after-tax income for working one more hour. This is because a higher income will mean a smaller health plan subsidy. The effective tax rate will vary based on individual circumstances. For workers who work only part of the year (and therefore can get a cheap subsidized plan during the part of the year they're unemployed) CBO pegs the typical tax rate at 15%. For a single adult with a low or moderate income who works all year without employer-based health coverage, my back-of-the-envelope math puts the tax rate around 10%.

Again: There are many things that are bad and good about the ACA. Our "representatives" should be working to IMPROVE it, not just trash it. Because there's also this:

Quote:
Any alternative policy to significantly expand health coverage will also have income and substitution effects that reduce labor supply. If you give out subsidies for health insurance that aren't tied to employment, you'll create an income effect that makes it easier for people to work less. If you phase out those subsidies, you'll create a substitution effect that encourages people to work fewer hours. (For example, the Republican Coburn-Burr-Hatch Obamacare alternative has both of these features, and so would also reduce employment relative to the pre-Obamacare status quo.) If you don't phase out the subsidies, they'll be r

NIKI2

Thursday, February 6, 2014 10:17 AM

There's no attribution to the BBC story, so we can't trace whose opinion it represents. But there are a few things that give it away.

The title: "'Obamacare' will reduce US workforce, report finds"

The subheadings: "'Making it worse'" (quoting Boehner), seven paragraphs.

Another:"'Empowered'" (quoting Jay Carney), three short paragraphs, then it goes straight into "The glitches that plagued the healthcare website...."

The side box, time-lining "'Obamacare' setbacks"

And it wraps up with

Quote:
Republicans say the law, America's most sweeping social legislation in decades, is an unacceptable government intrusion into healthcare. They have voted to repeal the act more than 40 times. A Gallup poll on Tuesday found Americans continue to be more likely to disapprove of the law, by 51% to 41%.

Yes, Geezer, I see words being used to slant. Frank Luntz would have been much more obvious, but I think he wouldn't be displeased with how it's portrayed.

SHINYGOODGUY

Thursday, February 6, 2014 12:12 PM

The CBO says:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/02/04/what-the-c
bo-report-on-obamacare-really-found/

"The CBO report actually says that the impact of the ACA will be “almost entirely” due to a decline in labor that “workers choose to supply.” It says explicitly that the ACA’s impact will not be felt as an “increase in unemployment” or “underemployment.”

Let me repeat: a decline in labor that "workers choose to supply"

It says explicitly that Obamacare will NOT be felt as an "increase in unemployment" or an increase in "underemployment."

The key words here are "workers choose" and No increase in unemployment.
I watched a review of the CBO Report where the commentator said that the
unemployment rate will be reduced down to 5.8% sometime in 2021.

The Explanation (for our brethren with reading issues):

A worker's health care is usually tied to his or her job (you with me so far). 1- They work beyond their years to keep that health insurance active
2- They may work longer hours to reach a 40-hour work week (same
reason as above).

With Obamacare; since health care is no longer tied to the worker's employment, but rather to the individual, there's no longer a need to work longer hours or more years to help with coverage. Hence, fewer work hours needed. So it is a reduction in the labor force, if the worker chooses that path, NOT a reduction in jobs. The average Joe is in the driver seat, and not the ever-so benevolent Owner (or keeper of the keys).

Again, because I know how much you guys love repetition:

The work force will choose to reduce the amount of hours they work because it will be no longer necessary.

As the title to this Thread says "Obamacare Will reduce Workforce"

END of Discussion (whoa!, that felt good)

SGG

ELVISCHRIST

Thursday, February 6, 2014 1:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by ElvisChrist:
Note that this isn't employers cutting hours or eliminating jobs that they no longer need done; it's workers not working those hours. The work is still there, so workplaces will actually have to hire more people to do the work that still needs to be done.

So you disagree with this, from the BBC article.

"The CBO said some US businesses may also decide to reduce their workforce to fewer than 50 full-time employees to avoid having to provide health insurance as mandated under the law."

"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."

Do I?

Are you psychic? Or psychotic? Or just making shit up again?

ELVISCHRIST

Thursday, February 6, 2014 1:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

The needs of the few out weigh the needs of the many.

The GOP mantra.

SIGNYM

Thursday, February 6, 2014 6:22 PM

Quote:
The needs of the few out weigh the needs of the many. -rappy
The GOP mantra. -Elvis

Yes, thank you for pointing that out. If you hadn't pointed out that sweet irony, I would have.

GEEZER

Thursday, February 6, 2014 7:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Cute. "The CBO said some US businesses may..."

Try reading the actual CBO report, and you'll find that it is also full of "probably", "about", "projects", "estimated", "subject to substantial uncertainty", etc.

http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45010-Outlook2
014.pdf

The section concerning Labor Market Effects of the ACA starts on page 117.

Quote:
Note that
Quote:

CBO expects the law to have " small or negligible " effects on labor demand in most parts of the economy. http://www.businessinsider.com/cbo-report-obamacare-discouraging-work-
2014-2#ixzz2sVudJdTb

Actually, the "small or negligible" comment refers to the supply of labor (see page 118 "Effects of the ACA on Supply of Labor"), not labor demand.

"CBO estimates that the ACA will lead to a net reduction in the supply of labor. In the Agency's judgment, the effects will be most evident in some segments of the workforce and will be small or negligible for most categories of workers."

Need to start checking your cites again.

The above is true because anyone making substantially above 400% of the poverty level won't be getting subsidies, and has no incentive to reduce their wages.

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.

Not sure this is a good thing.

"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

Thursday, February 6, 2014 8:54 PM

I don't think it's a good thing in some respects, either. But I'm weighing the difference between all the people who couldn't get or couldn't afford health insurance, and what we do to fix that. All you're doing is focusing on the potential negatives and trying to make them seem even more than they are.

The CBO also states

Quote:
ACA’s
subsidies for health insurance will both stimulate demand
for health care services and allow low-income households
to redirect some of the funds that they would have spent
on that care toward the purchase of other goods and services—
thereby increasing overall demand. That increase
in overall demand while the economy remains somewhat
weak will induce some employers to hire more workers or
to increase the hours of current employees during that
period.

CBO estimates that, over the next few years, the various
provisions of the ACA that affect federal revenues and
outlays will increase demand for goods and services, on
net. Most important, the expansion of Medicaid coverage
and the provision of exchange subsidies (and the resulting
rise in health insurance coverage) will not only stimulate
greater demand for health care services but also allow
lower-income households that gain subsidized coverage
to increase their spending on other goods and services—
thereby raising overall demand in the economy. A partial
offset will come from the increased taxes and reductions
in Medicare’s payments to health care providers that are
included in the ACA to offset the costs of the coverage
expansion.

On balance, CBO estimates that the ACA will boost
overall demand for goods and services over the next few
years because the people who will benefit from the expansion
of Medicaid and from access to the exchange subsidies
are predominantly in lower-income households and
thus are likely to spend a considerable fraction of their
additional resources on goods and services—whereas
people who will pay the higher taxes are predominantly
in higher-income households and are likely to change
their spending to a lesser degree. Similarly, reduced payments
under Medicare to hospitals and other providers
will lessen their income or profits, but those changes are
likely to decrease demand by a relatively small amount.
The net increase in demand for goods and services will in
turn boost demand for labor over the next few years,
CBO estimates.22 Those effects on labor demand tend to
be especially strong under conditions such as those now
prevailing in the United States, where output is so far
below its maximum sustainable level that the Federal
Reserve has kept short-term interest rates near zero for
several years and probably would not adjust those rates to offset the effects of changes in federal spending and
taxes. Over time, however, those effects are expected to
dissipate as overall economic output moves back toward
its maximum sustainable level. https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1013002/cbo-la
bor-report.pdf

There is a lot that is good and bad in this issue, and nobody can know anything for sure until we're further down the road. Your determination to focus only on the potential negatives, and enhance them without any recognition of the potential positives, or the fact the main issue is that something has to be done, and anything that is done will affect the labor market and the economy, is disingenuous.

I notice you have no desire to address

Quote:
Any alternative policy to significantly expand health coverage will also have income and substitution effects that reduce labor supply. If you give out subsidies for health insurance that aren't tied to employment, you'll create an income effect that makes it easier for people to work less. If you phase out those subsidies, you'll create a substitution effect that encourages people to work fewer hours. (For example, the Republican Coburn-Burr-Hatch Obamacare alternative has

GEEZER

Thursday, February 6, 2014 9:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
I don't think it's a good thing in some respects, either. But I'm weighing the difference between all the people who couldn't get or couldn't afford health insurance, and what we do to fix that. All you're doing is focusing on the potential negatives and trying to make them seem even more than they are.

No. I'm pointing out, first, that the CBO's original and revised figures for workforce reduction are quite different. They are.

I'm also pointing out that a lot of the folks who are most likely to go from full-time to part-time work are those close to the poverty level, which the CBO states in their report. Since they get cheaper insurance, it's pretty obvious that there are some benefits to the program, but I personally am bothered by the fact that some folks may be encouraged not to try and advance because their insurance costs will go up.

Everything else is the product of your partisan imagination. Apparently you are conflating what other folks have said elsewhere outside RWED with what I have been saying. This doesn't appear to be limited 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."

ELVISCHRIST

Thursday, February 6, 2014 11:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

Apparently you are conflating what other folks have said elsewhere outside RWED with what I have been saying. This doesn't appear to be limited to you.

I've noticed that as well. You have been quite eager to engage in it as well.

NIKI2

Friday, February 7, 2014 1:41 AM

Quote:
Everything else is the product of your partisan imagination. Apparently you are conflating what other folks have said elsewhere outside RWED with what I have been saying.

I think I was extremely clear:

Quote:
Nobody is saying you misrepresented anything, Geezer, tho' your title obviously highlights the reduction in workforce and your choice of articles doesn't give all the information. But the fact remains that the right has leapt on the CBO report and is broadcasting all over everywhere that "Obamacare Will Cost 2 Million Jobs!!!!", which is a flat-out lie.

That IS what's been coming from the right, whether in carefully-crafted phrases or flat-out lies, and that's what I was pointing out. The article you posted to begin this thread does NOT give all the facts, and I offered some, and you have done nothing (except for this one most recent part of a sentence) but focus on the negatives, as you always do.

"I'm pointing out, first, that the CBO's original and revised figures for workforce reduction are quite different." That is absolutely untrue. You titled this thread "'Obamacare' will reduce US workforce, report finds" and posted an article about same WITH NO COMMENT. Within the article is one statement, "In Tuesday's report, the nonpartisan CBO said work hours would be reduced by the equivalent of 2.3 million full-time workers by 2021. It had previously estimated the health law would result in 800,000 fewer workers." The entire rest of the article is about the reduction in workforce. You didn't "point out" "first" anything about the difference in estimates until an ADDED "ETA" in your second post, and never mentioned it again, until now. Is any of that untrue?

GEEZER

Friday, February 7, 2014 7:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
You titled this thread "'Obamacare' will reduce US workforce, report finds" and posted an article about same WITH NO COMMENT.

And for the second time, That's the title BBC put on the article. It's not my title.

I thought it was an interesting article.

You seem to see it as right-wing attack.

First you say "So they're not saying it will cut JOBS, but cut the WORK FORCE, and I know why."

Then you decide that "The title: "'Obamacare' will reduce US workforce, report finds", give the article a conservative slant.

Is it using "Obamacare"? Because the Business Insider article you cited uses the same term? Is it the word "Workforce" that you say is actually the correct term?

Then you complain "The subheadings: "'Making it worse'" (quoting Boehner), seven paragraphs."

Did you even read the paragraphs? The first five are a recap of the CBO's findings. The next one points out that the report will be "fodder for conservatives, who are expected to make the health law a major issue in November's midterm elections." and the last is a quote from Boehner.

You complain that they mention "glitches that plagued the healthcare website during its October rollout" but that's also in reference to the CBO reports disclosure that less people will sign up. Isn't that news? Should the BBC censor it?

Then there's a paragraph quoting Carney, so one Republican quote and one Democratic quote.

----------------

Take off your partisan glasses for once and go back and read the BBC article. Actually read it, don't assume that since it says "Obamacare", or since I posted it its anti-ACA.

Then read the section of the CBO report cited above that refers to the effect of the subsidy on workforce participation.

Show where the BBC report is actually wrong about anything, using cites from the CBO report.

----------------

As for always focusing on the negatives - not so.

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.

"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

Friday, February 7, 2014 8:25 PM

So you're quite happy to cite the CBO when it produces reports that you agree with, huh Geezer? It's not an extension of the Obama administration in this case?

That's convenient.

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

NIKI2

Friday, February 7, 2014 11:50 PM

Your mind works weird, Geezer…I don't know whether it's deliberate or not, but it's weird.

You've completely ignored my DIRECT RESPONSE TO YOU and come up with a bunch of bullshit which has nothing to do with what I wrote. So unless you address MY RESPONSE TO YOU, this goes no further for me. Here it was:

Quote:

Quote:
Everything else is the product of your partisan imagination. Apparently you are conflating what other folks have said elsewhere outside RWED with what I have been saying.

I think I was extremely clear:
Quote:
Nobody is saying you misrepresented anything, Geezer, tho' your title obviously highlights the reduction in workforce and your choice of articles doesn't give all the information. But the fact remains that the right has leapt on the CBO report and is broadcasting all over everywhere that "Obamacare Will Cost 2 Million Jobs!!!!", which is a flat-out lie.

That IS what's been coming from the right, whether in carefully-crafted phrases or flat-out lies, and that's what I was pointing out. The article you posted to begin this thread does NOT give all the facts, and I offered some, and you have done nothing (except for this one most recent part of a sentence) but focus on the negatives, as you always do.

"I'm pointing out, first, that the CBO's original and revised figures for workforce reduction are quite different." That is absolutely untrue. You titled this thread "'Obamacare' will reduce US workforce, report finds" and posted an article about same WITH NO COMMENT. Within the article is one statement, "In Tuesday's report, the nonpartisan CBO said work hours would be reduced by the equivalent of 2.3 million full-time workers by 2021. It had previously estimated the health law would result in 800,000 fewer workers." The entire rest of the article is about the reduction in workforce. You didn't "point out" "first" anything about the difference in estimates until an ADDED "ETA" in your second post, and never mentioned it again, until now. Is any of that untrue?

Beyond that, what you last posted is a bunch of gobbledy-gook that makes no sense.
NOWHERE did I "decide that "The title: "'Obamacare' will reduce US workforce, report finds", give the article a conservative slant."

My remark "You titled this thread "'Obamacare' will reduce US workforce, report finds" and posted an article about same WITH NO COMMENT." was specifically and clearly in reference to you NOT addressing any difference in the CBO's earlier projection and the current one, which you claimed you were "pointing out, first". We all choose whether to post the title to an article or our own wording--the point was that you did NOT title this "CBO comes out with different projection", or anything which would indicate your FOCUS (as you claimed) was on the difference between the numbers. Is that clear enough? I never said the title gave it a right-wing slant; in fact I agreed that the title was accurate, as opposed to the right wing currently screaming that the ACA would cause unemployment or cut jobs.

I never said the article was a right-wing attack. I said it was slanted, and it is.

Quote:
"Then you complain "The subheadings: "'Making it worse'" (quoting Boehner), seven paragraphs."

Absolutely accurate. After "Making It Worse", there followed seven paragraphs on the potential negatives of the ACA.

But after "Empower" (three short paragraphs about how people will choose to work less), NOWHERE does it list any of the potential POSITIVES which the CBO quite clearly points out regarding how the ACA will effect employment or the economy. The CBO report addresses numerous issues where the ACA's provisions will potentially help the emp

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Saturday, February 8, 2014 12:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
You're playing some kind of weird game, I have no idea why, but if you can't respond to what I've clearly written, you're not debating, you're trolling.

Does that make you the pot or the kettle?

NIKI2

Saturday, February 8, 2014 1:52 AM

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-february-6-2014/the-cbo-report

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-february-6-2014/terror-on-bulls-
-t-mountain

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-february-6-2014/terror-on-bulls-
-t-mountain---family-first

GEEZER

Saturday, February 8, 2014 1:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
NOWHERE did I "decide that "The title: "'Obamacare' will reduce US workforce, report finds", give the article a conservative slant."

Yeah. Right.

Quote:
There's no attribution to the BBC story, so we can't trace whose opinion it represents. But there are a few things that give it away.

The title: "'Obamacare' will reduce US workforce, report finds"

The subheadings: "'Making it worse'" (quoting Boehner), seven paragraphs.

Another:"'Empowered'" (quoting Jay Carney), three short paragraphs, then it goes straight into "The glitches that plagued the healthcare website...."

The side box, time-lining "'Obamacare' setbacks"

And it wraps up with

Quote:
Republicans say the law, America's most sweeping social legislation in decades, is an unacceptable government intrusion into healthcare. They have voted to repeal the act more than 40 times. A Gallup poll on Tuesday found Americans continue to be more likely to disapprove of the law, by 51% to 41%.

Yes, Geezer, I see words being used to slant.

Once again, the title of this thread, and of the BBC's article, are theirs, not mine.

And once again, read the BBC article and read the CBO report from page 117, and then tell me what in the BBC report is wrong.

Or continue to get hysterical over something neither I nor the BBC has said.

"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 2:38 AM

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.

Also an article can be slanted in what it omits, as well as what it says - a fact you should keep in mind Geezer.

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

SIGNYM

Saturday, February 8, 2014 3:54 AM

Oh, Geezer keeps omissions in mind. It's a well-practiced rhetorical skill!

GEEZER

Saturday, February 8, 2014 9:09 AM

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.

"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

Saturday, February 8, 2014 9:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Oh, Geezer keeps omissions in mind. It's a well-practiced rhetorical skill!

Don't worry, Siggy. I have you on a strict diet.

"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 6:15 PM

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.

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

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?

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.

KPO

Tuesday, February 11, 2014 3:05 AM

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

I actually had difficulty copying and pasting from that report. And I noticed that Geezer incorrectly typed 'who's' instead of 'whose', so I believe that he re-typed the quote.

As for why he left out the exact two words that would change the quote's meaning, my guess is that he read the quote to mean what he wanted it to, and then when he came to type it his mind was happy to jettison a couple of words that got in the way of his 'meaning'.

I don't know. Either that or he's lying about not doing it on purpose.

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

1KIKI

Tuesday, February 11, 2014 5:30 AM

So, Niki

Just curious - do you have anything else you'd like to say on the topic (before Geezer intruded and it became all about his trolling)?

GEEZER

Tuesday, February 11, 2014 6:50 PM

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?

Niki, there are two reasons that I don't answer some of your accusations.

1. Many are buried somewhere in three or four pages of text, so it's difficult to actually find them. Being concise instead of posting reams of quotes and ramblings would make your posts a bit more understandable.

2. Many of your accusations are so obviously dead wrong anyone looking at the thread can see it, so there's no point in responding.

example:

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.

But those paragraphs were, are, and have always been in my original post. Look at it and see. (Yes. I know. You'll go all KIKI and accuse me of editing it after the fact, but I didn't.)

Then there's...

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

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

Still not my title. The BBC's title.

"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

Tuesday, February 11, 2014 6:56 PM

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.

So you actually don't believe me then.

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

Because I didn't?

See the post above.

"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 7:50 PM

No, Kiki; I endeavored to make my points as clearly as I could, and the CBO has come out and clarified the issue themselves, so I think the issue has been well covered.

As to Geezer's last two posts however, this has gotten utterly incredible. Geezer's gotten truly weird, and I'll address that before I leave this thread.

The article as it appears now in Geezer's post:

Quote:
"The middle class is getting squeezed in this economy, and this CBO report confirms that Obamacare is making it worse," Republican House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner said in a statement.

'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 glitches that plagued the healthcare website during its October rollout would probably result in one million fewer enrolled participants than initially anticipated, the CBO found.

Six million people are now forecast to sign up for coverage by this year.

The president's Democratic allies have been trying to distance themselves from the issue in the lead-up to November's elections.
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.

Those polls will determine which political party holds sway in Congress for the final two years of Mr Obama's presidency.

The original article:

Quote:
"The middle class is getting squeezed in this economy, and this CBO report confirms that Obamacare is making it worse," Republican House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner said in a statement.

'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.

The glitches that plagued the healthcare website during its October rollout would probably result in one million fewer enrolled participants than initially anticipated, the CBO found.

Six million people are now forecast to sign up for coverage by this year.

The president's Democratic allies have been trying to distance themselves from the issue in the lead-up to November's elections.

Those polls will determine which political party holds sway in Congress for the final two years of Mr Obama's presidency.

I don't believe him. I looked the first time; they weren't there, and now they're there in a different place in the article? I can't guarantee I ran a "search" for those sentences, but it's what I normally would do.

Add to that the fact that he's never addressed his lie that he was "pointing out, first" the difference in the CBO's numbers, the omission of the other two words KPO caught which changed the meaning, and his responding to others for several posts before "clarifying" the two missing sentences (my writing long is bullshit, I addressed these three issues extremely clearly more than once), and yeah, I think he went back and edited.

And yes, KPO, I didn't believe Geezer would stoop to the kind of bullshit our resident troll does, either, previously, but he's now lost all credibility with me. As such, I've had it with his games. I've struggled with Geezer's specious arguments for a long time, trying to treat him as a legitimate opponent, this was the last straw. He can go on playing them by himself from here on.

KPO

Tuesday, February 11, 2014 8:58 PM

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:
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?

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?

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

STORYMARK

Tuesday, February 11, 2014 9:49 PM

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.

So you actually don't believe me then.

Jesus, do you even try to read before saying this shit?

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

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Tuesday, February 11, 2014 10:26 PM

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.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Tuesday, February 11, 2014 11:43 PM

Yep.

I can't work more than 30 hours a week now on average since that's considered "full time" under Obamacare. I was bitching about this 6 months ago. Glad to know that it's at least "news" now.

The only good I see coming from this is that I'll NEVER be in danger of hitting the threshold that will cut my food stamps. I'll be damned if I work 2 part time jobs to make ends meet now. I'd sooner live in a house at least 10 degrees colder than most mere mortals could suffer for this bitter winter and use the money I saved to pay future bills instead of putting it on my credit card.

GEEZER

Wednesday, February 12, 2014 7:46 PM

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??

You're still assuming that I modified it to suit my argument. If so, you don't believe I left anything out by accident.

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?

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:
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?

Let's see, the BBC described - "Lower-income workers will be hardest hit, limiting their hours to avoid losing federal subsidies."

This apparently based on the CBO statement that - "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),"

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 than the low-income workers mentioned in both the BBC story and the CBO report.

"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."

STORYMARK

Thursday, February 13, 2014 1:23 AM

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.

Awwww, that's adorable, given that you never, ever comment on the subject of any thread, and just fling shit.

But since you're slow - I was asking if grandpa had actually read what he quoted - because his response to it seemed rather tone-deaf to the actual point, about his hubris over being wrong. Seriously - how stupid are you fucks? He quotes the part that says they believe him - and then states they don't.

But that's okay - you're too fuckin stupid to grasp such a concept as responding to what's actually written, rather than what you imagine.

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

KPO

Thursday, February 13, 2014 4:57 AM

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:
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:
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.

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.

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.

And here's my quoted section, directly following on:

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

GEEZER

Thursday, February 13, 2014 7:32 PM

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.

I have some idea what subconsciously means. The issue is with you suggesting I modified something to suit my argument, subconsciously or no.

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.

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.

Sort'a like this...

"Did you doctor this quote Geezer?"

"Anything to say in your defence, Geezer?"

"Are you saying you did it by accident?"

"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."

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."

KPO

Friday, February 14, 2014 12:39 AM

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

Those two words change the meaning of the sentence from what you want it to mean, to what I want it to mean. 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:
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:
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"

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.

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

GEEZER

Friday, February 14, 2014 6:26 PM

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.

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

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.

Bullshit.

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:
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"

Unfortunately, the labor market is not strong right now, as is noted elsewhere in the CBO's blog as is the fact that the subsidies are an implicit tax on the poorer workers.

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.

Plenty of folks here pointing out good things about the ACA, including me. I also see issues with some of the provisions and the lack of planning for implementation. This apparently makes some folks very angry.

"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."

SECOND

Friday, February 14, 2014 8:01 PM

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?

Under the title Stupidity in Economic Discourse

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.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/14/stupidity-in-economic-disc
ourse/ FEB 14, 7:39 AM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

KPO

Friday, February 14, 2014 9:40 PM

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

Well you DID, the question is whether it was purposeful or subconscious (or completely accidental, I suppose, but that seems less likely).

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.

They're still not accusations. And if you don't want people to be suspicious of you for changing the meaning of quotes, be more careful when you're transcribing them.

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:
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.

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

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.

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

SIGNYM

Friday, February 14, 2014 10:49 PM

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.

Every step of they way, you've biased your arguments - and your quotes- to say exactly the opposite of what the CBO said. (And no, I don't think the BBC changed the article... they list corrections at the end of an article when it's been changed). I'm not making a big deal out of this single event, but you show a pattern of using that big brain of yours to delete huge chunks of data, obliterate decades of history, miss myriad obvious connections (like the Bush - Bandar "Bush" -Al Qaida connection), and avoid answering direct, repeated questions.

You know that we humans really don't really see what's in front of us. Even a simple sense like vision is heavily processed, which is why we can be fooled by magic tricks. Perceptions are deeply directed by what we want, or are afraid of. People misperceive things all of the time. So when people make a glaring mistake... like pulling into traffic without seeing that vehicle heading in their direction .... or consistently misquoting/ misrepresenting what someone else said... people would be far better off admitting the mistake, backtracking to the source of the error, doing actual LEARNING, and rooting out whatever it was that misled them in the first place.

GEEZER

Friday, February 14, 2014 11:33 PM

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.

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:
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.

And you can predict the labor market now? How about some stock tips while you're at it?

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.

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

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.

But in most such programs the reduction in benefits is pretty much dollar-for-dollar. The subsidy is not like that, cutting off dramatically when you reach the 400% FPL limit.

As noted above...

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.

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.

"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

Friday, February 14, 2014 11:38 PM

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.

Not surprisingly, this is pretty much the way I see you, KPO, and Niki.

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.

I've particularly enjoyed when you call me or Auraptor trolls in threads that we started.

"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

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."