colourwheel Posted February 8, 2014 Author Share Posted February 8, 2014 (edited) So now unemployment is a good thing....... :thumbsup: It is if the "only" reason why one is working a full time job is for the sole purpose of healthcare benefits and not because they need the income.... Remember these are "mostly" spouses who don't necessarily take up a job for the income but for strictly just the healthcare benefits. Their significant other is presumably the bread winner... No one is stupid enough to just quit their job if they have no other means of income. Unemployment benefits are only given to those who are laid off, not to those who willingly quit their jobs..... Edited February 8, 2014 by colourwheel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zetenrisiel Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 I can't even express how uninterested I am in browsing a 170 page CBO report so I'll just ask you: On what page does it say that the ACA will reduce the deficit, boost the economy, and create jobs? Also, why do you consider it a good thing that people will be "purposely dropping out of jobs"? Because that sounds, to me, like a very bad thing. "My government takes care of me so I don't need to work.", said no successful, productive, or innovative person, ever. I agree, while it is good that people don't have to work just to afford healthcare, people leaving the workforce because they are instead relying on a government program just rubs me all kinds of wrong. In reapnse to the report, a quick google search could produce a dozen topics saying this program will kill america and twice as many saying it will save america. The parties can spin it however they want, and technically they are probably both right. My big issue is that any program run by our government runs half as well as it should and costs three times as mucj as it should. Look at our school system. Here in california we dump so much money in our schools, and the teachers are still poor and the kids still have to bring all their supplies, as well as a few extra for the poor kids. I know in my city two functioning schools have been shut down to convert into district offices. In one District, which already has a district offices. That means two full school campuses are no longer teaching, and instead are housing "administrative executives" that do not ever come in contact with the kids. I look at that and wonder why the Healthcare system would be any different. The government has a law thats been on the books for a long time that could create affordable healthcare in a week. Price fixing is illegal, and doctors and health insurance companies have been artificially raising healthcare costs for ever. Thats wjy it costs $200 for a vavcination you can get for free at wal-mart. Because the insurance company will only pay half that, so the doctor doubles the price and people without health insurance get stuck with the full bill. You knock that practice off and healthcare becomes affordable to the common worker, and no huge government entity needs to be created. The problem is Republicans and Democrats alike refuse to admit that they are innefective so they spin these reports and fight, obama laughs at congress for trying to keep him in check like they are supposed to, and I'm getting a tax penalty because I don't want government healthcare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colourwheel Posted February 8, 2014 Author Share Posted February 8, 2014 (edited) I agree, while it is good that people don't have to work just to afford healthcare, people leaving the workforce because they are instead relying on a government program just rubs me all kinds of wrong. Just imagine if you were in the lower income bracket and all of a sudden your spouse didn't have to work full time just because they needed the health insurance provided by the employer. Doesn't mean everyone will decide to leave their job but at least they won't feel obligated to work just because they need health insurance. Also you seem to over look that this frees up the labor market where as it creates more job openings for those who actually need jobs. Maybe you don't like a healthcare mandate but seems it's actually better for the economy than one would think. Education is a completely different topic if you would like to start one. would be a pleasure to see someone start a new thread... -wink- Edited February 8, 2014 by colourwheel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Your logic is flawed. "Lower Income" people aren't going to quit their job, just because they don't need it for the health insurance any more. And those folks leaving the workforce is NOT creating jobs. There is still the same number of jobs, just one less person in the workforce. I am sorry, your justification here falls flat. The money for that health care needs to come from somewhere. If not the people being covered, then it will be from government subsidies. At least if the person is working, they are paying some taxes, if they quit, then the government foots the full bill. How is that in any way "good for the economy"? Also, lets look at the source for this report. The "Congressional" budget office. Do you REALLY think that these folks would actually TELL US that the ACA was going to cost us jobs, slow economic growth, drive up health care costs? Etc??? If you think they would, then you are far to trusting. Our governments biggest business is lying to us, to convince us that they are actually 'helping' us.... when in reality, they are ONLY helping themselves, and their major campaign contributors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colourwheel Posted February 8, 2014 Author Share Posted February 8, 2014 @HeyYou You have always had very pessimistic way at looking at how our government works. I do not believe the CBO is purposely trying to deceive the public. If I am not mistaken even you have resorted in the past referencing to a CBO report to make the claim that the labor force of the medical field would be in more demand than could be supplied in the next few decades. If there was data that the ACA was going to cost jobs, slow economic growth, drive up health care costs, etc... they wouldn't hide it and certainly the Republican party would take great pleasure exploiting and making it clear to show every negative aspect they could find. People who voluntarily leave the work force wouldn't leave their job if they needed the income. The CBO report states that about 2 million people over the next 7-10 years will leave the work force, which these people were never employed for the purpose of anything other than getting the health benefits their employer was providing. Just because one is employed at a low income job doesn't mean they fall in the low income bracket of net income within the family household. Is it so hard to believe that eventually both parents within a family won't need to both work? or a family won't need a parent to work two jobs anymore? Just because people are leaving the work force doesn't equate to the government paying the full bill.... I think it's good for the economy because GDP isn't everything when people are freed up to have more time in their lives to pursue other things than just working all the time... needing to work more doesn't make ones life any better..... I have never claim the ACA to be perfect. Just frustrating that some people just don't want it to work no matter what and try very hard to make it fail. Seems more like the time and money wasted on people trying to obstruct this law could have been spent on actually trying to make it work better..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 No, I didn't use a CBO report to argue that healt care workers would be more in demand. I used economic laws. You just changed the conditions on your premise. You went from "low income people", to "people in low income jobs". Most low-income jobs around here don't even offer health care. They are also mostly part-time, which relieves the employers of the onus of providing insurance. The CBO is a government institution. From what I have seen of our government, they have serious difficulties operating within the confines of the truth. That doesn't apply to just one party, that applies to ALL OF THEM. It isn't in the CBO's best interests (or the governments, at this point) to actually tell us what the REAL effects of the ACA will be. Mainly because they themselves don't have a clue. Their 'predictions' of what the future holds on various government programs, (especially the financial aspects) have ALWAYS been WRONG. Not once have they accurately predicted the final costs of some government mandate. They consistently underestimate the costs, and negative effects. They are almost as reliable as Punxsutawny Phil with his weather predictions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colourwheel Posted February 8, 2014 Author Share Posted February 8, 2014 (edited) @HeyYou Maybe I was mistaken about you referencing to a CBO report in the past but I have never changed the premise from "low income people", to "people in low income jobs". In regards to low-income jobs, maybe "most" don't offer health care but then again we are talking about only 2 million people over a 7-10 year time period. It's not hard to believe this many people would be normally working full time if there was no mandate. Edited February 8, 2014 by colourwheel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rizon72 Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 What is funny is actually the CBO report is stating that people won't be losing their jobs but people will actually be purposely dropping out of the job force due to not needing to work as much or needing to working two jobs. Everyone I know, who work two jobs, are not not doing it for healthcare. They have normal living expenses to pay (like cell phone, rent, car, car insurance, food, electrical, internet), which have gone UP due to the fact they now HAVE to have healthcare insurance. Most of them didn't have it because it was deducted from their pay, which they needed for other things. This is something the left seems to not understand, and I seriously doubt ever will, but will hurt this country tremendously. The simple fact remains, the rules and regulations put in place by Obamacare will impact jobs, after all, healthcare is a large part of the US economy. It's a poorly written bill and it shows, especially considering how much it will effect everything. Democrats and the left slapped a bill together and this pile of **** is what we got. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colourwheel Posted February 13, 2014 Author Share Posted February 13, 2014 (edited) What is funny is actually the CBO report is stating that people won't be losing their jobs but people will actually be purposely dropping out of the job force due to not needing to work as much or needing to working two jobs. Everyone I know, who work two jobs, are not not doing it for healthcare. They have normal living expenses to pay (like cell phone, rent, car, car insurance, food, electrical, internet), which have gone UP due to the fact they now HAVE to have healthcare insurance. Most of them didn't have it because it was deducted from their pay, which they needed for other things. Obviously the CBO report isn't regarding people who work two job who need the income.... if you look at the amount of people who work two jobs specifically for reasons of income there would probably be hundreds of millions of people to account for... The CBO report is only stressing around 2 million people over a course of 7 -10 years... Edited February 14, 2014 by colourwheel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRoaches Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 (edited) I found myself wondering just now about the historical accuracy of CBO projections. I would encourage anyone interested to do a quick web search for "CBO historical accuracy" and see if they can find anyone from either academia or business who has anything positive to say about the accuracy of CBO projections. It is fair to say they have been laughably inaccurate. 40% margins of error are not unheard of. Some of the inaccuracy is explained by simple bias on the part of the people who prepare the reports, who are likely "encouraged" to make them a bit rosier than they should be by the presidents and congresspeople who back the proposed budgets. Another explanation is that once the CBO prediction is released it becomes a self-defeating prophecy. For example, if the CBO predicts a surplus congress and the president take that as a cue to start spending the surplus and then POOF no more surplus. In other words, if this CBO projection turned out to be even close to accurate it would be the exception to the rule, because the historical precedent is for them to be EXTREMELY inaccurate. eta: I also found this article: http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2012/02/02/are-cbo-estimates-really-the-gold-standard-of-accuracy/ proposed an interesting explanation for the inaccuracies, that being that the economic model that is used to produce the projections is itself flawed, and will always produce erroneous results regardless of the input that you give it. Edited February 14, 2014 by TRoaches Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts