Boyish charm, college grad, wonk, .....and stupid, too?
A new Congressional Budget Office, or CBO, report shows Obamacare is
expected to eliminate the equivalent of 2.3 million jobs over the next
decade – a huge jump from original estimates – and opponents of the law
say it’s more proof that repeal is the only solution.
The CBO report states
the estimate is based on reduced working hours for some employees and
the elimination of other positions by employers who want to avoid being
required to provide health coverage to their employees.
So what does Ryan blabber about?
Immigration "reform."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Were you paying closer attention, you'd note that when folks who no longer need to work just to hang on to their health insurance step aside, those jobs open up for the currently unemployed. The tripe that companies will eliminate jobs to avoid providing health coverage for their employees is more projection on your part. Why would profitable companies reduce their workforce to avoid a slight uptick that's more than offset by rising receipts?
Actually the report says little if anything about "lost jobs". It says that 2.3 million full time equivalent workers will reduce their hours because they can now get health insurance independent of their employer. This allows them to seek further education, spend more hours raising families, pursue creative and business opportunities, or retire before age 65. This will also create a higher demand for labor which will put upward pressure on wages.
It's a good thing.
Clearly, grade-school math was (and still is) a challenge for you.
Provide health insurance (single coverage, average plan design) = $4K to $8K/year.
Pay ObozoCare Fine for NOT providing same = $2K fine.
Which is the larger cost?
Further, the CBO made the projection, not I.
Finally, people who "hang on" to their insurance through employment generally have a REASON to do so.
When ObozoCare premiums, copays, and deductibles are added up, those folks have MORE reason to "hang on" to their jobs.
You don't care about them, of course, because they're just 'little people' who don't live in Shorewood or Elm Grove.
Jam it.
Will voluntarily cut back?
Quote the language directly, please.
Again: paying for ObozoCare is extremely onerous if one IS employed. It's a helluva lot MORE onerous if one does not have a paycheck.
You are insufferably stupid--so don't expect to see much more of your asinine propaganda published here.
"The estimated reduction stems almost entirely from a net decline in the amount of labor that workers
choose to supply, rather than from a net drop in businesses’ demand for labor, so it will appear almost entirely as a reduction in labor force participation and in hours worked..."
CBO Report February 4, 2014, Appendix C
Some people will be able to retire before age 65 when they can get Medicare. Some people can stay at home more hours while their spouse continues to work. Some people can go back to school part-time because they now have a way to carry insurance independent of their employer.
Jam this.
Well, well. It's Jimbo, the "retired" SanFranLefty banker!
Hmmmmmmmm. Why would workers 'supply less labor'?
How about getting more free Gummint cheese--like ObozoCare subsidies?
Hmnmmmm?
PS: Medicare--unless you pay highly subsidized premiums--is for hospitalization only. Those premiums are deducted from a rather paltry SS check, or come from cash on hand.
I smell subsidized cheese!
And of course, the 64+ crowd is a small portion of the "working-aged" non-jailed folks.
The others: free cheese!!
IOW, Jimbo, you commie, ObozoCare is like welfare and un-ending unemployment bennies: it rewards non-work.
The rewards must come from someplace, and that place is the pockets of workers.
Simply put, if you don't want to work, I don't want to pay you.
Jam THAT, Jimbo.
Post a Comment