Skip to main content

Well, lookie. At the same hearing in which Rep. Paul Ryan was forced to acknowledge that no, the CBO report didn't say that Obamacare would kill 2 million jobs, the flip-side of 2 million workers free to quit their jobs was explored. And guess what? It actually turns out that Obamacare is going to reduce unemployment, as CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf reiterates with Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) in that video clip. Greg Sargent has more:
On page 124, the report 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." This, the report says, "will in turn boost demand for labor over the next few years."

"When you boost demand for labor in this kind of economy, you actually reduce the unemployment rate, because those people who are looking for work can find more work, right?" Van Hollen asked Elmendorf.

"Yes, that's right," Elmendorf said.

Elmendorf added that the factor Van Hollen had identified was something CBO thinks "spurs employment and would reduce unemployment over the next few years."

That's considering the increased buying power lower-income folks are going to have now that they don't have to spend so much on health care. It's not considering the jobs that will be opening up as people choose to leave them to pursue other opportunities. It's not counting the potential jobs created by people leaving those jobs to start their own businesses. Even Republicans love those people, right? Republicans especially love those people, unless of course those people are foregoing the "dignity of work" to become moochers reliant on tax credits to help them pay for health insurance.

Here's the truth: Obamacare isn't a jobs killer. It's a jobs creator. The Republicans' dirty little secret is that this is something they've known all along; it's one of the reasons they've fought so hard to kill the law. It's one of the reason so many Republican governors and legislatures have refused participate. Economic sabotage has been one of the GOP's primary tactics against President Obama, and Obamacare opposition has been part and parcel of that.

Originally posted to Joan McCarter on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 11:12 AM PST.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  this is a least an attempt at New Deal Policy (11+ / 0-)

    despite its reliance on propping up exploitative corporatist capitalist institutions

    Here's the truth: Obamacare isn't a jobs killer. It's a jobs creator. The Republicans' dirty little secret is that this is something they've known all along; it's one of the reasons they've fought so hard to kill the law. It's one of the reason so many Republican governors and legislatures have refused participate. Economic sabotage has been one of the GOP's primary tactics against President Obama, and Obamacare opposition has been part and parcel of that.

    Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "I’m not the strapping young Muslim socialist that I used to be" - Barack Obama 04/27/2013

    by annieli on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 11:14:34 AM PST

  •  This has been yet another episode of (24+ / 0-)

    "Everything Republicans Say Is Wrong"

    You'd think after 30+ years of this somebody in the lame-stream media would get a clue about it. Sigh.

    Food processed to be nothing more than simple starches with two dozen flavorings and stabilizers added to make it appear to be food isn't "food". It's "feed" -- what you give to livestock to fatten them up for slaughter.

    by ontheleftcoast on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 11:14:47 AM PST

    •  Will anyone ask Boehner? (11+ / 0-)

      Remember how the Republicans swept to power in the House in 2010 by promising to focus on jobs, jobs, and jobs? Of course you don't remember; the media don't report that with any regularity at all. But that was the big campaign issue for Republicans in 2010.

      Since then? Well, they haven't produced a jobs bill, but House Republicans have voted 40 times to "repeal" "Obamacare." And now it turns out that the Affordable Care Act will actually create jobs, according to the CBO.

      I'll put the over/under at 1 on the number of reporters who ask Speaker Boehner on the record about this apparent contradiction. I'll take the under. Any takers on the over?

    •  Here is how wrong (10+ / 0-)

      When you put $10 in a lower SES person pocket, that money will likely get spent on necessities.  Put enough $10s and a job will be created somewhere.  This is shown by the cut in SNAP.  Walmart is already acknowledging is have a significant effect on sales.  This, for those who don't know, means people are being fired or hours are being cut back.

      Contrast this will the republican view that requires a million dollars to be put in a few peoples pocket.  This will allow capital to build more walmarts, more shopping centers, more yachts.  This, at a limit, only makes sense when the economy is at full utilization and those resources are going to be used.  Right now, for example, most walmarts that are being built in my area are taking customers from other near by walmart, walmarts that are already underutilized.  Same this for other stores.  It is unclear that there is value.  And while investing $100 million in a startup does create 10 high quality jobs, and is critical for long term growth, it is not clear that will help those people without jobs in the next year.

      The ACA is set to be the best of all worlds.  People with access to capital can now become entrepreneurs without fear of health issues.  Wage slaves who are working for health insurance may be able to look for more suitable work or stop working.  This may be the case for may parents in dual income families, something conservatives should support.  Firm who want to get rid of older workers, which appears to be major issue, may now find it easier to do so legal ways through buy outs and the like.

      •  Bad maths (0+ / 0-)

        So since I now have to work 28 hrs at one job, then work another 16 hours at another and focus on my studies, this helps me and others like me how? I don't have daddy money bags to support my wife and I so how again is this beneficial?

    •  Personally I vote for that as a Top Comment (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ontheleftcoast, emyrphe

      Another episode of "Everything Republicans Say is Wrong"
      Love it!

  •  Sorry Joan, but this is old news... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blue aardvark, tuma, TofG, rabel

    Sean Hannity personally called me an hour ago to give me this news and he said he would not rest until every American understands this truth.  

    Yep.

    It's all a Communist PLOT!

    by quiet in NC on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 11:23:28 AM PST

  •  So... (6+ / 0-)

    Why doesn't Obama call for a press conference to set the record straight and rub the GOP's and the Trademed's collective noses in it?

    “Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.” - John Steinbeck

    by RichM on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 11:29:20 AM PST

    •  because he has better things to do like you know - (10+ / 0-)

      be President.  He's not the Republican's kindergarten teacher, he's the President.

      I'm so fat! Oh, they're going to love me, I'm so marbled! - Jack LeMans, Bounty Killer

      by Mortifyd on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 11:37:46 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Part of being President is being the nation's (11+ / 0-)

        father figure. Look at the good FDR's Fireside Chats did for the country.

        Food processed to be nothing more than simple starches with two dozen flavorings and stabilizers added to make it appear to be food isn't "food". It's "feed" -- what you give to livestock to fatten them up for slaughter.

        by ontheleftcoast on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 11:40:40 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Father figure, not ass wiper and hand holder. (4+ / 0-)

          It is not the President's job to constantly explain, cajole and plead with recalcitrant and stupid people to listen.  Citizens have a responsibility as do other legislators, not everything can be the President's job.

          I'm so fat! Oh, they're going to love me, I'm so marbled! - Jack LeMans, Bounty Killer

          by Mortifyd on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 11:46:00 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  And when his signature achievement is being used (7+ / 0-)

            by the opposition to stoke anti-Democratic resentment for the upcoming election what's his responsibility then? Sorry to offend your sensibilities but it looks like Obama is going to have to pick up some asswipes and use them on the asses in the Republican party between now and this November.

            Food processed to be nothing more than simple starches with two dozen flavorings and stabilizers added to make it appear to be food isn't "food". It's "feed" -- what you give to livestock to fatten them up for slaughter.

            by ontheleftcoast on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 11:48:49 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  And this is new because why? Hint - it's not. (4+ / 0-)

              So no, he doesn't have to stoop and wipe their asses and noses for them.  He supports the people running against them who need to MAKE THEIR OWN DAMN POINTS and not stand there waiting for someone else to do it for them.  

              This idea that we are some kind family unit with a Daddy who is in charge of explaining everything to the stupid children needs to stop.   We do not have a "daddy" we have a leader.  That means it's incumbent on all of us as citizens to do our best not to be fucking morons.  So YOU get out there and YOU tell them they're being stupid if you think they need to be told.  

              Tell your representatives that they need to address it - Congress isn't doing anything else at the moment and hasn't since the ACA was passed.   But demanding the President actually take time from being the head of state to wipe the drool off the stupid people is showing a complete lack of awareness of what the job of President actually is - and here's a hint - it's not "Daddy."

              I'm so fat! Oh, they're going to love me, I'm so marbled! - Jack LeMans, Bounty Killer

              by Mortifyd on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 11:55:26 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  And look how well that's worked. (8+ / 0-)

                You can wish for a different world all you want but that's not the one we've got. I can argue with one teahadist at a cocktail party but the President can reach millions. He's got a "bully pulpit" and he damn well needs to use it. If you think that's below his station as President then you've failed to notice how US politics has worked for 200+ years.

                Food processed to be nothing more than simple starches with two dozen flavorings and stabilizers added to make it appear to be food isn't "food". It's "feed" -- what you give to livestock to fatten them up for slaughter.

                by ontheleftcoast on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 12:00:21 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  There is a difference between "bully pulpit" (3+ / 0-)

                  and running after the stupid and trying to make them see reason.  One is a calculated use of resources, the other is pandering to the lowest common denominator that's not capable of nor interested in listening.

                  If you don't see the difference between the two - then you don't understand what the President actually does.  

                  I didn't vote for a "Daddy" in any Presidential election since I turned 18, I voted for a leader.  Someone who has a job to do and will spend the time doing it rather than taking photo ops chopping wood on vacation.   We clearly have very different ideas of what leadership means and should probably go on our merry ways from here.

                  I'm so fat! Oh, they're going to love me, I'm so marbled! - Jack LeMans, Bounty Killer

                  by Mortifyd on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 12:10:29 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I'd add to this. (4+ / 0-)

                    We know full well that refuting the GOP take on the CBO report will only lead to more GOP shit, on that or something else.  If the GOP can draw him out making rebuttals on a daily basis, it looks defensive and legitimizes their lies.

                     As you said (and I believe he has said this before as well), he doesn't have time to get into a back-and-forth every time some GOP asshat opens his/her mouth.

                    Others need to step, as Van Hallen did at the hearing.

                    The most violent element in society is ignorance.

                    by Mr MadAsHell on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 01:17:40 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Others need to step up (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Greenfinches, Lilredhead, T Maysle
                      Others need to step, as Van Hallen did at the hearing.
                      Who better to step up than the people who wrote the law, as the President did not and are facing re-election, as the President is not.

                      "I am not interested in picking up crumbs of compassion thrown from the table of someone who considers himself my master. I want the full menu of rights." (From "You Said a Mouthful" by Bishop Desmond Tutu - South African bishop & activist, b.1931)

                      by FiredUpInCA on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 01:29:32 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  He didn't write that. He pushed it. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        emyrphe

                        Again - there is more to being President than being cheerleader for a piece of legislation you like that's ALREADY PASSED.

                        I'm so fat! Oh, they're going to love me, I'm so marbled! - Jack LeMans, Bounty Killer

                        by Mortifyd on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 04:05:16 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                •  The failure of the grown-up in the room strategy (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  ontheleftcoast, RichM, duke1983

                  digby:

                  The budget deficit is the lowest it has been since President Barack Obama took office, according to a Congressional Budget Office report this week. But don't expect that to matter to the American people.

                  In fact, the deficit has been falling steadily since 2009. Yet a new HuffPost/YouGov poll shows that Americans still think the deficit is going up and disapprove of Washington politicians accordingly.

                  It's a painful irony for the jobless, whose livelihoods were sacrificed in the pursuit of deficit reduction over the past several years. Beginning in 2010, the White House shifted its focus from growing the economy to reducing the deficit, hoping to win over swing voters thought to be turned off by too much government spending. As public jobs were slashed and government spending slowed, the economy took the predicted hit. But as the survey shows, there was no political gain that came with the pain.

                  The administration has since pivoted away from talk of belt tightening and shifted back toward economic growth -- which, economists have pointed out all along, is the fastest way to reduce the deficit.

                  According to the new poll, 54 percent of Americans think the budget deficit has increased since Obama took office in 2009, while only 19 percent know it has decreased. Fourteen percent think it has stayed the same since Obama became president."

                  ----
                  A new NBC/Marist poll of Americans' "view of the national economy and their own finances has uncovered a paradox: While nearly two-thirds think the country is in a recession or going in the wrong direction, the vast majority believe their personal prospects will improve or stay the course. A current of individual optimism -- the highest level detected since 2009 -- runs through the results of the survey, despite evidence that millions of Americans, especially those in lower income brackets, are struggling to balance their budgets. And yet that individual optimism is trumped by political pessimism of the country's situation as a whole."
                  Obama and the Democrats have a messaging problem.

                  As ontheleftcoast said:

                  I can argue with one teahadist at a cocktail party but the President can reach millions. He's got a "bully pulpit" and he damn well needs to use it.
          •  Then he should have Biden do it (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            rat racer, chrismorgan, wmspringer

            To be honest, I'm baffled he hasn't used the VP for that very job, or to smack down Republicans. We had to wait 4 years (VP debate) for Biden to be let loose.

            But, from day one, Obama has insisted on doing the heavy lifting in this White House. His communications people haven't done him any favors, either. Gibbs was notoriously bad during the '08 campaign and as press secretary. Carney is a huge improvement, but that's not saying much.

        •  Obama does a weekly public address (9+ / 0-)

          it's on the intertubes. He talks about a lot of stuff, I'm sure he'll touch on this then.

          The reason Obama doesn't need to hold an emergency press conference is because the CBO's report is not an emergency. And acting like it is may only serve to reinforce the impression that there's bad news in the CBO report.

          Also as Mortifyd said, "He's not the Republican's kindergarten teacher."

          In the end, this whole "Costs 2 Million jobs" will go down with Hillary's "What does it matter?" quote as things only Republican die-hards believe.

        •  Being the nation's father figure (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Mortifyd

          Here's the problem with your FDR analogy: FDR went on the radio, and spoke to people in plain English about the challenges facing our country. He did so without the Greek chorus of opposition behind him seconds later nay-saying and deriding every word that came out of his mouth.

          Mr Obama has enjoyed no such luxury since the day he stepped into the race. He encountered a very well-funded opposition, which had made its goal to derail him at every turn, facts be damned.

          Most people are discovering, to their pleasant surprise, that they can in fact receive decent coverage for fairly (and sometimes very) reasonable rates. The right wing-nut faction (by which I mean regular Fox"News" viewers) are turning themselves inside out to make the ACA a miserable failure.

          •  So he should not try to outtalk them? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            rat racer

            That makes no sense. Yes, he's been giving weekly talks, but how many people know and/or know how to see/hear them? Imho, he should be on TV at every opportunity--meaning, any time he has something to say, which should be plenty--telling people truths and urging them to vote. Buy ad time if need be, do a puppet show, whatever. I just don't get the difficulty or reticence here . . .

            "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

            by bryduck on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 02:47:36 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  The President has more important things to do (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              high5

              than buy ad time and do a puppet show. Seriously, do people have no idea what the President actually does because W let Cheney do all the heavy lifting in secret?

              NO matter what he says, or does - there will be immediate spin and backlash that no other President has ever had to face.  There is no value in using his time that way.  He has an actual job and is doing it.  Playing Daddy to anyone other than Sasha and Malia - not part of it.

              I'm so fat! Oh, they're going to love me, I'm so marbled! - Jack LeMans, Bounty Killer

              by Mortifyd on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 04:11:03 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  More important than convincing (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Old Sailor

                the electorate to help him do his job by electing sane representatives and/or explaining what the government is doing to help them? I think, if he's as smart and capable as everyone says he is, he can do that as much as he needs to to get what support is necessary and the populace behind his policies and goals. That is politics and being President, not "playing Daddy."
                In fact, I think that should be his most important job, given the sad state of ignorance the country shows these days.
                No, people don't know what he does (or how Congress "works", for that matter.) That seems really obvious to me.

                "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

                by bryduck on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 04:47:42 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I don't think he needs to stoop to the lowest (0+ / 0-)

                  common denominator because the POX spews "nation" demands it.  I don't.   That's not playing politics, that's being sucked into a quagmire of petty bullshit.  And I don't think he has time for that - and the law has already passed.

                  So it's not in his nor the nation's best interest to bog him down in bullshit because some people didn't pay attention in Government class.

                  His most important job is to lead.  Not to explain to recalcitrant children, not to put on puppet shows, not to tell people to stop eating paste and pay attention.  Leading doesn't require hand holding, it requires getting the job done and he did that.  The law is passed.  It's working. It's gone to the Supreme Court and come back as constitutional.

                  If people want to stick their fingers in their ears and scream LALALALALALALALALA - it is not his responsibility to make them sit down and shut up, or use little words until they just pout in the corner - because those that are against it on principal will not change their minds.

                  His job is to get on with his actual duties - whether people understand what they are or not - to the best of his ability.  That's what we elected him to do.  We can argue all day about who's job it is to teach remedial Government to the people who don't get it - but it's not his.

                  I'm so fat! Oh, they're going to love me, I'm so marbled! - Jack LeMans, Bounty Killer

                  by Mortifyd on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 05:08:47 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  So we just let the populace be (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Old Sailor

                    ignorant? How is that leading, or even governing? At some point, somebody has to lead the ignorant back to a basic level of comprehension, and his is the most dominant voice on the planet, whether he or you likes it or not. It shouldn't be his job, I agree, but I'm afraid at this point, we don't have a choice in the matter, imho. No one else can do it as quickly and efficiently, and time is the one thing we really don't have.

                    "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

                    by bryduck on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 05:27:24 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  It's NOT the President's job. (0+ / 0-)

                      It's not.  We most certainly do have a choice - we let the President do his actual job and come up with someone else to stick with the childcare.

                      If his was the most dominant voice on the planet as you say - we wouldn't be having this conversation because the idiots would have already stopped eating the paste and signed up for the ACA.  They haven't.  So using him in that manner is not effective.

                      I'm so fat! Oh, they're going to love me, I'm so marbled! - Jack LeMans, Bounty Killer

                      by Mortifyd on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 05:31:59 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

      •  Rec'd for (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Chas 981, Lilredhead

        "Republican's kindergarten teacher."

        Had a good laugh at that one.

        The most violent element in society is ignorance.

        by Mr MadAsHell on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 01:18:43 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Like sitting down with O'Reilly? (0+ / 0-)

        Or hold a special signing ceremony for that disgusting farm bill?

        If the GOP/MSM can make fictional "Death Panels" stick...

    •  Let Joe do that (14+ / 0-)

      He'll do it with a grin and wink too.

      And we all know how much he loves kicking Ryan around.

    •  Because the TradMed would report it as (4+ / 0-)

      "he said, he said" without the slightest acknowledgement that Obama was 100% accurate and the GOP was 100% wrong. They don't do truth, remember? They report both sides and let us discern truth.

      I'm on a mission! http://www.dailykos.com/comments/1233352/51142428#c520 Testing the new site rules.

      by blue aardvark on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 12:57:39 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I was thinking Obama should've done that yesterday (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RichM, chrismorgan

      when this crap was flying across the internet. Obama and the Democrats can't afford to let the lie spread then wait for the corrections by the "librul media" 3 hours later, if not later. There were even people on here saying this was bad for the Dems, FFS.

    •  Exactly! But sadly he won't. n/t (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RichM

      "The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it." Albert Einstein

      by sfcouple on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 01:44:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  It's about the 401k's stupid (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blue aardvark

    All those folks that are basically in the office hiding under their desks to get Health Insurance (yes they exist, I've worked with far too many of them) will get out of the way for us Gen X/Y employees to get jobs and rise through the company.  Since they're too young to pull social security, they'll start pulling out of 401ks.  When you do that, guess what, IT'S TAXABLE!  And not only that, it's taking money that's parked on the sidelines and putting it on the street!  That means more jobs, not less.

    •  Sort of, but not exactly (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blue aardvark, Cassandra Waites

      Most of the people holding onto their jobs for the insurance will, if they are over age 62, now be able to consider retiring. They may or may not have 401k's, but it doesn't matter. (Those that do are unlikely to have enough saved in them to live off of in any case.) Being free to retire and start collecting Social Security at age 62 without worrying about how they're going to get health insurance coverage until Medicare kicks in is going to be a huge relief to tens of thousands of workers, especially those who have spouses who are already 65, on Medicare, and retired. The younger spouse can now retire, too. It will be a boon for both baby boomers and the generation next in line behind them, their children, as they vacate those jobs.

      "Some folks rob you with a six-gun, some rob you with a fountain pen." - Woody Guthrie

      by Involuntary Exile on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 12:32:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Obamacare: Freedom to make my own job (21+ / 0-)

    because I now have the freedom to own my own health insurance policy. I am no longer dependent on anyone else for my health insurance.

    This really is freedom.

    •  I think that's where the CBO is misleading (6+ / 0-)

      Yes, thousands of people will withdraw from the workforce, but they wont all go lie down and wait to die.

      With adequate healthcare and a less strenuous lifestyle, people in their 60s can expect to work productively for another three decades.

      They wont be working a job they hate for a paycheck, but most of these people will likely continue to work. They'll just do stuff they love.

      •  That in turn could conceivably (9+ / 0-)

        create more jobs. Say you've got an accountant at a firm with a sucky boss; she decides to set up her own CPA/financial planning firm. If the firm gets busy enough, she's going to need to hire an administrator/receptionist to answer the phones, maybe an assistant who can fill in for her when she's out of town on conferences and the like.

        In fact, that's pretty much what my mom-in-law's CPA did -- but she has a spouse who works and can provide insurance coverage. Now, the option to strike out on one's own could conceivably be open to single women (and men) as well.

        There's only one rule that I know of, babies -- goddammit, you've got to be kind. -- Kurt Vonnegut

        by Cali Scribe on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 01:02:26 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  U'd think it was the 1st time anyone retired, the (0+ / 0-)

          nonsense the media spouted on this.  

          Its very simple and been going on since before Benedict Arnold planned his first Tea-publican plot: some retire or work less, others are hired to take up the slack.  Indeed, if you follow the logic of the Thugs then there will be no jobs at all in 50 years bc everyone working today will have left the labor force by then!

  •  The REAL headline: (16+ / 0-)

    Two Million Jobs Opened By ObamaCare

    That's what is really happening. Two million more job openings!

    Where are the Democrats that should be shouting from the roof tops about how wonderful this is?

  •  Health care advocates (4+ / 0-)

    have been arguing for years that spending money on health care brings economic growth into regions.

    Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

    by a gilas girl on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 12:14:16 PM PST

  •  GOP economic sabotage works against most of (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Old Sailor

    the 1% as well.

    Only those who rely almost entirely on unearned income, and further can afford to move that capital from nation to nation as circumstances dictate, profit by sabotaging the US economy in order to keep workers subservient.

    It's not the 1%; it's a tiny minority, probably on the order of one person in 10,000 who benefits.

    Balancing an entire party upon the goodwill of 0.01% of the voters and their ability to lie to 50% of the rest of the voters is quite a stunt.

    I'm on a mission! http://www.dailykos.com/comments/1233352/51142428#c520 Testing the new site rules.

    by blue aardvark on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 12:55:36 PM PST

  •  Benghazi, IRS, Fast and Furious, whatever nt (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TofG, chrismorgan
  •  Wish I had time to read through their report (0+ / 0-)

    Their conclusions sound nice and I would like for them to be true, but...

    Don't they require people to have already been insured?
    The sales pitch to date has been that ACA will insure people who weren't insured before or allow people to get "good" insurance to replace their "junk" insurance.

    For people who weren't insured before, the act doesn't put money in their pockets because they weren't paying for insurance to begin with.

    For people with junk insurance, the act may or may not put money in their pockets, depending on how much they were paying before.

    In the case of my family, even with a large subsidy, we are about breaking even because the cost of our insurance is so much higher than it was before.  No extra money to help pump up the economy and create a demand for employees.

    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

    by dinotrac on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 01:01:40 PM PST

    •  Depends on whether you use the insurance (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cali Scribe, Greenfinches

      If the cost of your coverage is that much higher then it means you are probably getting better coverage.  If you stay healthy that won't matter, other than it should give you greater peace-of-mind.  However it there becomes a need for you to use your coverage, then the money it keeps in your pocket could be significant.  

      Bottom-line is that you should be getting a better value for the same money.  Also even if you don't use the coverage, others will and that will have the effect of creating the demand (or of not reducing demand) that you are looking for.

      The difficulty lies not so much in developing new ideas as in escaping from old ones! - John Maynard Keynes

      by Do Something on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 01:11:25 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Better? Maybe. (0+ / 0-)

        Given that the subsidy is more than half the cost of our insurance, I would hope that we are getting better value.

        I think we are, but I haven't done all the math. We only have a silver plan.  A gold plan clearly would be better than we had, but...CHEEZ! Very pricey in these parts (North Texas).

        LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

        by dinotrac on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 01:21:51 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Its 'guaranteed issue' that does it. Not who ACA (0+ / 0-)

      insures, 'new' or 'existing' policyholders.

      Its the 'can not be denied insurance' provision.  It means Joe-60yearsold, who hates his job and is falling apart, can now tell his employer he doesn't need the employer's insurance bc he can now get it himself guaranteed by ACA even tho he's got a ton of pre-existing conditions (he's falling apart remember?)  It means Jane-Iwanttostartabusiness can quit her only-does-it-for-health-insurance-job and do so, bc now she can get insurance without being gouged on the individual markert bc she doesn't have pool buying power.  

      And so on.

      Understand?

      •  The guaranteed issue definitely raises the cost, (0+ / 0-)

        but, from a strictly personal standpoint, the guaranteed issue isn't doing me or my family any good.

        Now.
        Today.
        And that, I think, may be behind young people who grouse about signing up as well -- they are paying for a benefit they aren't likely to see for decades, but, let's face it, young people may not want to be old but nearly all of them hope to grow old.

        The biggest problem with ACA is not ACA itself but the fact that it's a layer on top of a ridiculously expensive health care system.  If health care itself had been fixed, ACA would be a lot less controversial because the costs would be a ton lower.

        LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

        by dinotrac on Thu Feb 06, 2014 at 08:29:14 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yeah its not a magic pony. Deal with it. Its what (0+ / 0-)

          we could get, and its the Dem's baby.

          Stop your trolling on this.

          •  What trolling? (0+ / 0-)

            Do you even know the definition of trolling?

            LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

            by dinotrac on Thu Feb 06, 2014 at 10:44:47 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  IIRC you've not had 1 good thing to say about ACA (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Old Sailor

              If I remember incorrectly, I apologize.

              Otherwise the shoe fits.

              •  You remember incorrectly. (0+ / 0-)

                But that would not equal trolling even if it were true.

                To be clear:  I think ACA is not a good law overall, and that it's implementation has been poor.

                I am biased: My family is one of those that has been affected by the problems, to the point that I finally gave up on the law's guarantee that I could keep my college-aged daughter on my health insurance and bought her a separate policy.

                But -- I have also consistently said that we cannot go back to the status quo, which was even worse.

                ACA does address some terrible problems, including those faced by people who are frozen out of the insurance market and those who find their insurance rescinded because SHOCK! they need to use it. There are a number of other good nuggets tucked away in the law.

                Now, however, we need to address the real problem: health care itself.

                LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                by dinotrac on Thu Feb 06, 2014 at 03:10:16 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  When everything you say is negative, and often (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Old Sailor

                  grasping at straws - as the original comment in this thread was - its as I thought 'overall'.

                  And that fits one definition of trolling. See, http://en.wikipedia.org/..._(Internet).  

                  If I assume your good faith, then I would say you are defining things to specifically exclude yourself.  This includes ACA.  Maybe its caused some problems for you specifically, but you have to be able to look beyond yourself to the tens of millions it will benefit.  (I also suspect you're blaming ACA for consequences of other actors, but whatever.)

                  Likewise, while I preferred a more 'socialized' model - either Medicare for All or hybrid - I got beyond my disappointment and sometimes anger with certain Ds  (I'm looking at you Lie-berman!-filibuster-your-own-plan-cause-some-Ds-hurt-your-feefees) to objectively analyze the entire ACA regime and understand that on-balance for most Americans it is far superior to the clusterf#ck it replaced.  

                  Now we can turn our efforts to defending the gains we won, destroying the nihilist Thuglicans and then making it even better in future.  

                  Rather than spend another 100 years debating whether we should even start, as we did from TR to ACA.

                  And that's progress, which is what progressives are supposed to be for, no?

                  •  It's caused a problems for a lot of people, and (0+ / 0-)

                    those were included in a FP article recently right here on DK:

                    http://www.dailykos.com/...

                    And it's good that people benefit -- really good. Health care in this country is practically a criminal conspiracy, but that doesn't make ACA a good law, even with its benefits.  It makes it a law that does some good things.  I'll bet even the Patriot Act meets that standard, and No Child Left Behind certainly met it.  Come to think of it, the Bush tax cuts absolutely met that standard.

                    Good intentions does not equal good law.

                    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                    by dinotrac on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 09:04:38 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

  •  Alex Wagner just zapped Ryan, playing a 2009 clip (4+ / 0-)

    of Ryan fretting over "job lock."

    •  That was terrific!! (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TofG, FiredUpInCA

      It explains why even Paul Ryan refuted the GOP claim that 2.3 million jobs would be lost.  He knows there is a tape of him out their talking about "job lock".

      Instead, he chose to direct his venom against these people "refusing" to work and instead lie in their social net hammocks of ease.  He is a real piece of work.  

  •  But Chuck Todd said it would "feel" otherwise! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FiredUpInCA

    Once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right.

    by darthstar on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 01:08:10 PM PST

  •  Would Ryan Have Said Same About 40 Hour Work Week? (3+ / 0-)

    All those people who have only been limited to the dignity of work for 40 hours a week. Such deprivation that we take for granted.

  •  Those MSM "journalists" who effed up yesterday (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TofG, tb mare, FiredUpInCA, Old Sailor

    and today continue to carry the GOP's bucket of bullshit deserve to be named and shamed into apologizing. Chuck Todd, Luke Russert, Andrea Mitchell and Chris Cilizza are the ones I caught. FOX of course goes without saying. They'll still be running yesterday's lie into November.

  •  too late the meme is out there (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PorridgeGun, chrismorgan

    And it will stay there forever. A small correction on the bottom of page 13 won't change the headlines proclaiming it a jobs killer. That is what will stick in people's minds

  •  the dems are so (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PorridgeGun

    lacking in responding or anticipating these attacks that it looks like they don't really care one way or another.

    once the attack has been reported the response in all likelihood will not undo the damage already done by the criticism specious or not.

    save america defeat all republicans and conservatives

  •  Since the CBO's explainin' (3+ / 0-)

    does that mean they're losin; or something?

  •  People with THREE jobs .. so they can afford (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TofG, FiredUpInCA, Cassandra Waites

    health insurance and maybe send a kid to college ... will be able to quit one.

    Which opens that job to someone else who needs one.

    But remember ... "economists" concern themselves with the health of the Economy ... never the individuals who have to make a living in in it.

    "In spite of heavy losses, Our Army continues to advance Victoriously."

  •  But will the media report this??? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FiredUpInCA

    We can only hope parity wins in the end.

  •  somebody tell mewling centrist dana milbank (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    QuelleC

    whose column i briefly scanned in my free copy of the washington past this morning

  •  A family values Republican should support (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TofG

    Obamacare.  It's going to make it easier for families to make a decision to have 1 parent stay at home.

    Global Shakedown - Alternative rock with something to say. Check out their latest release, "A Time to Recognize": Available on iTunes, Amazon, Google Play, Spotify and other major online music sites. Visit http://www.globalshakedown.com.

    by khyber900 on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 02:09:22 PM PST

  •  Has there ever been in the history of the world... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TofG, Old Sailor

    a political party that simply flat out lies about everything???

    It really is comical how stupid the people who vote for them are, I just wish there was not such a large affect on the rest of us...

    Fox News, The triumph of stupidity over reason.

    by laughingriver on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 02:26:38 PM PST

  •  Another CBO point the GOP will ignore... (0+ / 0-)
  •  CBO: Obamacare enables retirement (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TofG, Old Sailor, LollyBee

    The CBO Report affirms what everybody knows: many people stayed in a miserable job with a miserable boss and a lousy package of pay and benefits because if they quit or retired, they would lose health insurance coverage.  Even if you got another job, if you had a pre-existing condition, the coverage in the new position might be reduced and/or more expensive.  
    People in this situation were basically locked in, and this gave the employer enormous leverage over work conditions, pay levels, benefits, and other intrusive practices.  So health care coverage was a tool by which American industry reduced labor mobility, undermined bargaining rights, controlled labor unrest, and enjoyed higher profits.  

    So one result of Obamacare is that many more people can now retire before getting old enough to qualify for Medicare, leaving the work force and opening jobs for others. Obamacare breaks the link between health care and employment and by so doing it breaks a major element of indentured servitude and wage slavery.  

  •  Obamacare is the right of every American who needs (0+ / 0-)

    it.  To live without decent health care is to live a life of fear and severely diminished opportunity.  Those who are covered with healthcare know the difference.

  •  Republican Propagandist (0+ / 0-)

    So of course Republican Propagandist are spreading the lie that the CBO said that the ACA will kill jobs.  No explanation, no good reason other than to just spread another lie.  

  •  The dumbness of the right (0+ / 0-)

    Ore people enroll,more people see Drs.,need blood work,some hospitalization.  What do you need?  More workers,not fewer.  Guess it's easy to use reverse psychology on the righties.  They really need to read more than one book and broaden their views.  It's especially sad since they get everything wrong. It's as if they are suffering from mass hypnotic suggestion.  When they start to tell the truth I guess we should start to worry.  They will do and say anything to seem as if the Pres. Is constantly doing wrong.  Thank goodness for people who can read,filter information and come to logical conclusions.  The right is nothing but a pack of liars,cheats and rotten humans.  They are ramping it up because it is an election year.  All the creeps come out of their closets.  

  •  Actually those are two separate issues (0+ / 0-)

    1) the ACA will increase labor demand in some sectors (yay!).

    OTH
    2) It will also provide incentives to reduce labor force participation because of the phase in of the subsidies which make full time and part time employment less appealing.

    •  No, will 'reduce SUPPLY of EXISTING labor' but NOT (0+ / 0-)

      DEMAND for labor, so will = more hiring to fill the demand.

      Its basic supply-demand economics.  Not rocket science.  Don't let yourself be hypnotized by 'buzz words' that have little real meaning at the margins.  

      •  Two separate issues (0+ / 0-)

        again, these are not the same pool of people or jobs. 2.5 million of the very poor will wok less due to the incentives of heath care subsidies and the penalty of losing that subsidy with more work.

        The demand side comes for jobs in health care in some sectors.

        •  Doesn't matter if different pools, aggregate matte (0+ / 0-)

          rs.  

          And no, the demand is in the labor market generally: it will not be reduced by ACA b/c the demand for goods and services is not reduced by ACA.  The increase in jobs bc of more health care services, greater spending power from subsidies, reduced premium increases, etc., is in addition to the 2 m job openings created by freeing those 'job locked'.

          Now, ask yourself why are some supposedly not Thuglican puppets here so intent on creating a false narrative about ACA killing us all?  And why don't they just stick with their original 'death panel' lies?

          •  You keep missing my point (0+ / 0-)

            1- there are going to be some higher labor demands in some aspects of the health care industry, requiring certain skills and training. That is a good thing.

            2- at the bottom of the wage scale 2.5 million will work less or not all because of a combination of incentives of subsidization and penalties of the loss of subsidies and addition of taxes for woking.

            I am not saying these 'equal out" because they are two separate issues. We (as much as the CBO can predict) that the latter will take place. We do not know what the job increases (or unemployment deceases) will be. But losing out on 2.5 million low wage workers to social welfare and subsidies will put an unanticipated strain on the financial stability of nit just the ACA but other government programs as well.

            •  Hasn't been a job created since social security (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Old Sailor

              let old folks retire forcing us to "lose out on [] million[s] of [] wage workers"!

              Or Medicare.  Or Medicare part D.

              The world was created entire yesterday!

              It's actually getting pretty funny how determined you guys are not to accept simple supply and demand.

              Here's a hint: If there is no drop is labor demand, as the CBO says, then 2.5 m deciding to retire or start businesses or raise their kids = more jobs which must be filled.

              So the increase in # of jobs from ACA is additive, not 'equal out'.

              Or do you like being the only folks presumably opther than Thugs (assuming your not some plant) who haven't gotten this yet?

              •  Nope (0+ / 0-)

                Please save the sarcasm. #1- they are not going to state a business (hens they are out of the labor market). And there are not going to be many "new" retirees due to this- the numbers aren't there. And as for raising kids? Maybe. But the report clearly states:

                "Although CBO projects that total employment (and compensation) will increase over the coming decade, that increase will be smaller than it would have been in the absence of the ACA,"
                Again, there are a lot of positives in the ACA obviously. 15 million less uninsured, a smaller near term deficit, employment demand in some sectors. But to also contributes to an already very low labor participation rate, which, has long term economic consequences. It may well be a good trade off (and I think it can be if handled appropriately). However the argument (spin) that the reduced labor participation is, on its own merits a positive thing doesn't make any sense.
                •  sigh, read front page on this: U.S.News& World Rep (0+ / 0-)

                  ort: "if a few people cut back their hours, there will be more hours for the people who want them", i.e., more jobs and/or longer hours for existing workers.

                  Give it up. I'm right, you Ed Grimley's are wrong but for whatever reason keep insisting ACA = we're "doomed as doomed can be!"  

                  •  I'll stick to facts from the report (0+ / 0-)

                    And its author. Rather than speculative opinion. 2.5 million full time equivalent is hardly "a few". I don't recall anyone touting this stat as a selling point until this week when it was announced to much surprise.

                    I certainly have not engaged in doom and gloom rhetoric on this issue. Like I said save the juvenile  sarcasm.

    •  Speaking to issue #2 (0+ / 0-)

      I'm a walking, talking anecdote for that one.

      I turned down a job as part-time staff at what can be described as a major university because their crap insurance would force me to drop my CoveredCA policy and take theirs, for the 4 months that I'll be in their employ.

      One of the conditions of getting a subsidy is that you must drop your policy and take anything that an employer offers.

      It appears that there is a way to get out of having to take your employer's insurance if it exceeds your income by a particular percentage (from the definition of "affordable") but the whole process is so new that I did not want to spend the energy being the first one to get a waiver for employer's coverage based on the excessive cost of that employer's insurance. I had to jump through enough hoops to get the policy, after my old policy was cancelled.

      The $500 a month that the silver-grade coverage would have cost me represented a 45% reduction in pay. I explained it several times to the PhD that wanted to hire me, and to the HR. There's another story in that, me creating, delivering, tutoring, and grading a lab section of students that are paying well over half a million dollars in tuition and fees, but  as I said, it's another story.

      I think what it means is that there are a bunch of jobs that have shit insurance that are going to have to either pay more to get employees, or improve their insurance offerings.

  •  The CBO did a lousy job getting its point across (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    chrismorgan

    This is part of Elmendorf's testimony:
    "The reason that we don’t use the term ‘lost jobs’ is because there is a critical difference between people who would like to work and can’t find a job — or have a job that was lost for reasons beyond their control — and people who choose not to work. If someone comes up to you and says, ‘Well the boss says I’m being laid off because we don’t have enough business to pay me,’ that person feels bad about that and we sympathize with them for having lost their job. If someone says, ‘I decided to retire or stay home and spend more time with my family or spend more time doing my hobby,’ they don’t feel bad about it — they feel good about it. And we don’t sympathize. We say congratulations. And we don’t say they’ve lost their job. We’ve say they’ve chosen to leave their job.”
    He sure could have made that clearer in the report

  •  Exactly what I've been saying: ACA= more jobs is (0+ / 0-)

    what CBO report actually says if you just use that noodle and little logic, and know the difference b/t demand and supply and how that works.

    Glad to see someone else can read and reason at above a 2 year old level. :)

  •  Spin City (0+ / 0-)

    I've seen, both, the Left & the Right spin like crazy when some information that is negative to their positions come out, but I don't think I've ever seen so many people twist their minds in so many unlikely directions as I've seen the past few days.

    The CBO report is devastating to supporters of ACA/Obamacare.

    There I said it.

    Will the job help some people who previously couldn't retire.  Yes, it will - but, that wasn't how the law was framed.  It was supposted to be deficit neutral, cut the cost of health insurance and be good for everyone.  Do any of you think it has done that?  If so, please send me some of your meds.

    People are "voluntarily" cutting their hours to qualify for subsidies.  Makes perfect economic sense.  If I earn $50k, and find I can get thousands of dollars in government subsidies if I can reduce my income below $46k - guess what, I'm finding a way to get my hours cut.  Is that voluntary.  Sure.  Is it good for the country, the economy and the federal budget. No way.  And when they say, unemployment will go down! I would counter, that cutting the labor participation rate is not the way you want to achieve that goal.

    ACA was supposed to be the great leap forward to help cover the uninsured.  Instead, we're likely to see the number of uninsured decline from 40-45 million, to 30-35 million.  Good, but not great.  We're told pre-existing conditions are now covered, but people are still being turned down for coverage because the funding wasn't sufficient.

    Recently, Duke Business school did a survey of corporate Chief Financial Officers, the findings --

    10% of the companies planned to cut staff directly due to ACA costs.

    20% planned to curtail hiring or switch towards more part time employees

    And, 44% were looking into cutting health benefits for their employees.

    This is all going to hit home in late summer when the employer mandate kicks in.  

    So, put a big smiley face on the CBO report.  

    But, unless the gridlocked gummint comes up with a way to address the failings of ACA I anticipate with resigned disgust to all the diaries that will appear on these "pages" in November about how the American people turned the Senate over to Mitch McConnell because they're too stupid to support their own interests.  

    •  another actual datapoint (0+ / 0-)

      I eat lunch once a week with a friend, who is a small business, employing about 5 people. They install digital PBXs for companies, dealing with everything from the getting the initial broadband connections needed for modern digital telephony to pulling cables and installing handsets. He's a good guy, works smart, and provides insurance for his employees.

      He announced at lunch recently that he'd checked into the employer options for small businesses under the ACA, and he's going to be able to get coverage for all his employees that's better than what he has now, and he's going to be able to give them a raise with the difference.

      As far as I can tell, there aren't many failings in the ACA, looking at it from the viewpoint of someone who now has much better insurance than what was cancelled out from under me.

      I allow that it's a bleeding disaster for the Republican party and for so-called "conservatives". I can't imagine anyone who now had coverage voting Republican.

      •  A different experience (0+ / 0-)

        Someone I used to be involved with is the Head of Administration for a foreign company with US factories.  The plugged the numbers and decided to expand their workforce by making all the wokers part timers.  Before the business mandate delay, they were also contemplating cutting health insurance, pushing workers onto the exchanges and just paying the penalty.  They decided to use the year long delay to continue offering insurance while the exchanges got the kinks worked out and use the time to ease the transition to a larger, part time workforce.  This analysis is taking part in millions of businesses.

        For those that have seen their insurance costs rise, their doctor networks contract and the general chaos of the implementation - I don't find it hard to imagine a tremendous blowback.

        •  How can that work? (0+ / 0-)

          Replacing full-time manufacturing workforce with part-time workers isn't going to dodge the ACA penalties. If even one of those part-time employees purchases insurance on an exchange, then the employer garners penalties for their entire workforce fulltime equivalent, minus 30.

          Here's the flowchart:

          http://obamacarefacts.com/...

          Your "Someone" will still have to offer insurance that covers at least 60% of the employees' medical costs, and they'll have to offer it at an "affordable" rate, or they'll incur penalties.

          If you're still on speaking terms with your "Someone", I'd like to hear how things are going with the Employer Mandate planning.

  •  More political smoke and mirrors (0+ / 0-)

    So if you fold a piece a paper into halves, thirds, etc, does it mean you have 'more' paper, just in a more fun size, or do you have the same amount of paper? Hmmmm..... I have seen the direct impact this ACA has at the college I work at and it goes like this; an individual who was once able to work 39.90 or so hours and maybe pick up one small side job now HAS to work two or more jobs. So let us do more math here; more travel time, more gas, more wear and tear on the vehicle, more money possibly spent on eating out and the list goes on. So yep, they are so right, on the working people's backs again they profit! And who says the Repooblicans have the market cornered on slavery? Who do you think started the Klan? All these groups are bent if you think you can believe any corporate owned politician on either side of the aisle is doing a thing for them.

  •  This comes under Get A Clue -- (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Old Sailor

    From the very beginning, and thinking for myself, I always felt that 30 - 40 million more people on our healthcare rolls would create jobs; not destroy them.

    At a time when manufacturing is mostly overseas, and  the NYC Garment District is just a figment of my imagination, I always felt that the way to counter balance jobs was in the service industry.....jobs that stay in the U.S.  

    I have never seen a campaign to make poor people DIE with as much disgusting gusto as this War on the ACA has been since 2009.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site