The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!

The cost of free condoms is negligible relative to the cost of supporting unwanted pregnancies on the public dime.

Who said you had to support that?

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!

Who said you had to support that?

You don't have to support it, but you can be **** sure you're going to for the reasons outlined below.

Well yeah, providing no subsidized health care at all would be the most fiscally conservative position (good luck with that).

But in the real world where we have things like Medicaid, Medicare, and a law requiring ERs to treat anyone who walks in, subsidized birth control is still more fiscally conservative than burying one's head in the sand regarding anything related to sex and then covering the resulting pregnancies.

A pack of condoms costs a few dollars. An iud costs a few hundred but lasts for 5 years. A single healthy live birth in a hospital costs $20,000. And that doesn't include pre natal care or the costs of raising that child. If the child has to go to the NICU, you're looking at 6 figures, easily.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!

From that noted partisan scold, the Congressional Budget Office:

The Affordable Care Act is projected to reduce the number of full-time workers by roughly 2.3 million people through 2021 and insure 2 million fewer people this year than previously estimated, the Congressional Budget Office said Tuesday.

 

[Rover]

Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!

A better analysis of Fishy's post, also using CBO estimates.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...b-fe5228217bd1_story.html?wpisrc=al_comboEP_p

 

[LynahFan]

Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!

A better analysis of Fishy's post, also using CBO estimates.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...b-fe5228217bd1_story.html?wpisrc=al_comboEP_p

I didn't see much analysis in there (not surprising, considering the source).

"The reduction in employment from the health care law 'includes some people choosing not to work at all and other people choosing to work fewer hours than they would have in the absence of the law,' the CBO said."

I, for one, am shocked - SHOCKED - to learn that when you hand out goodies for free, people choose to quit working and mooch from the system. Who could have foreseen such selfish behavior in the workers' paradise that is the US of A?

 

[Rover]

Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!

I didn't see much analysis in there (not surprising, considering the source).

"The reduction in employment from the health care law 'includes some people choosing not to work at all and other people choosing to work fewer hours than they would have in the absence of the law,' the CBO said."

I, for one, am shocked - SHOCKED - to learn that when you hand out goodies for free, people choose to quit working and mooch from the system. Who could have foreseen such selfish behavior in the workers' paradise that is the US of A?

The reduction as I read it is in hours, not necessarily by position. So, instead of working two jobs to afford health care, you may get by with just one now that you can get insurance on the exchange. You could also be a two income family with kids where one spouse can now stay at home if insurance is now available for the family.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!

The reduction as I read it is in hours, not necessarily by position. So, instead of working two jobs to afford health care, you may get by with just one now that you can get insurance on the exchange. You could also be a two income family with kids where one spouse can now stay at home if insurance is now available for the family.

That's how you read "choosing not to work at all"? Really?

 

[Rover]

Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!

That's how you read "choosing not to work at all"? Really?

Lynah I'm sorry but its just a difference in the world view of conservatives. Conservatives think everybody is trying to run a con on them. So, if somebody drops out of the workforce, its because they want to collect welfare. Never mind that in most places you can barely survive on public assistance and the places where you can tend to be in the cheaper, right wing voting part of the country (try paying the mortgage on the $624 a week before taxes in Massachusetts, the most generous state for unemployment benefits). People can leave the workforce for a variety of reasons, school, illness, childcare, elder care, etc etc. Are there a handful of scammers? I'm sure there are. By and large though I interpret this as we no longer need people to work to the bone to be able to get health insurance, and that's not a bad thing.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!

By and large though I interpret this as we no longer need people to work to the bone to be able to get health insurance, and that's not a bad thing.

I assume we can agree that health care is more expensive than ever, right? Therefore somebody IS "working to the bone" to pay for it - government benefits do not materialize out of thin air. You just don't seem to mind that the people benefiting are not the same ones who are doing the work.

 

[Priceless]

Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!

From that noted partisan scold, the Congressional Budget Office:

Actually, that's from the noted partisan scold, the Wall Street Journal. Shocking.

Here's a liberal partisan explaining what the CBO actually said.

On the deficit:

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office caused quite a stir on Capitol Hill this morning with its new report (pdf) on long-term economic projections. There’s no shortage of interesting angles, though the top-line results are immediately striking.

The U.S. budget deficit is set to fall to $514 billion this year, down substantially from last year and the lowest level by far since President Barack Obama took office five years ago, a congressional report said Tuesday.
The Congressional Budget Office credits higher tax revenues from the rebounding economy and sharp curbs on agency spending as the chief reason for the deficit’s short-term decline.

To be sure, this is a preliminary projection, which will likely change by the end of the fiscal year in the fall, but a $514 billion deficit would represent rather dramatic deficit reduction – nearly a full trillion dollars below the annual deficit when President Obama took office. It would also put the deficit at about 3% of GDP, which is roughly in line with the average of the four decades.

In terms of the political implications, there’s clearly rational need for anyone involved in the fiscal debate to ask, “Why isn’t Obama doing anything about the deficit?” Indeed, for those who continue to throw around the “trillion dollars a year” talking point – Rand Paul, I’m looking in your direction – it’s clearly time for a broad revision to the right’s fiscal rhetoric.

As for the ACA...

Some of the headlines and coverage this morning make it seem as if “Obamacare” will cause mass layoffs, but what the CBO actually found is that the health care reform law will likely create new opportunities for people who would otherwise be stuck under job-lock.

As the Wall Street Journal put it, the CBO found “the jobs figures largely represent Americans who will choose not to work rather than those who will lose their jobs or have their workweeks reduced because of the law.”

Exactly. There are very likely some 60 years olds out there, for example, who would prefer to retire but can’t – they and their families can’t afford to lose their health care benefits. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, those folks can go ahead and voluntarily leave the workforce, knowing that it won’t leave them uninsured. Or maybe a parent who wants to stay home with a child, who would ordinarily feel forced to get a job in order to get access to health care, now would take advantage of the choice “Obamacare” offers.

Those saying, “See? This law will cost us 2 million jobs!” aren’t paying close enough attention. The CBO report specifically says, “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 relative to what would have occurred otherwise rather than as an increase in unemployment (that is, more workers seeking but not finding jobs) or underemployment (such as part-time workers who would prefer to work more hours per week).”

That’s a complicated way of saying: a lot of folks who would feel the need to work for health care benefits probably won’t bother. The 2 million figure refers to Americans who’ll choose to leave the workforce voluntarily because the Affordable Care Act will create opportunities that otherwise wouldn’t be available.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!

Balderdash. If person A voluntarily drops out of the labor force and his company still needs a worker, they can now hire long-time unemployed person B and there will be no net reduction of jobs. That would clearly lead to a reduction in the unemployment rate (employment-seeking B is replaced by dropped-out-of-the-workforce A) while the total number of jobs remains the same. But what the CBO actually said was "by 2021, the number of full-time positions would be reduced by 2.3 million." Those are necessarily jobs that people leave and are NOT replaced. Due to this law, there will be 2.3M fewer people working and even more people people receiving health care - I think you can do the math from there...

 

[Rover]

Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!

I assume we can agree that health care is more expensive than ever, right? Therefore somebody IS "working to the bone" to pay for it - government benefits do not materialize out of thin air. You just don't seem to mind that the people benefiting are not the same ones who are doing the work.

First of all, spare me the conservative martyrdom as to only right wingers are working. I worked two jobs as a dishwasher at the same time I was commuting 1 hour 45 minutes each way to school freshman year, so I have no love for people who don't want to work. I'd also say I've worked harder to get where I am life than 90% of this message board's population, so try your schtick on someone else.

ACA is paid for by 1) higher tax on top earners (boo hoo hoo) and 2) givebacks from the hospital and pharma industries amongst other things such as changing how doctors are paid (keeping revisits down instead of paying for each procedure or visit). While costs are higher, they're now at the growth rate of the economy which was the Holy Grail of cost containment.

Next, if people can afford to work less, good for them. Not everyone needs to be putting in lawyer hours nor does everyone need a two income household. However, I'm going to put to rest your notion that we're creating 2M moochers.

How many people do you know personally Lynah? I'm guessing from family, friends, work, school, travel, etc its somewhere in the hundreds. Lets call it 500. Of all those people you know, how many do you think have no work ethic and would decide to live as leeches on society if they could? Probably not a lot if any. That's how the conservative con game works. Its always the people you don't know that are screwing you, but the people you do know are all hard working and upstanding and paying the bills for the anonymous slackers. I'm a bit surprised a guy like you falls for that frankly.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!

First of all, spare me the conservative martyrdom as to only right wingers are working.

Why are you dragging red vs. blue into this? I never said anything of the sort. There are almost certainly more moochers in red areas of the country than blue ones. I have more contempt for people who mooch and then vote R because "God, abortion, guns" than any other kind of moocher.

I worked two jobs as a dishwasher at the same time I was commuting 1 hour 45 minutes each way to school freshman year, so I have no love for people who don't want to work. I'd also say I've worked harder to get where I am life than 90% of this message board's population, so try your schtick on someone else.

Clearly, I am not talking about you. Defensive, much?

ACA is paid for by 1) higher tax on top earners (boo hoo hoo) and 2) givebacks from the hospital and pharma industries amongst other things such as changing how doctors are paid (keeping revisits down instead of paying for each procedure or visit). While costs are higher, they're now at the growth rate of the economy which was the Holy Grail of cost containment.

We shall see. We don't even really have the first data point yet, since some of the key provisions are just going into effect this year, or next year, or whenever Obama feels like it.

Next, if people can afford to work less, good for them. Not everyone needs to be putting in lawyer hours nor does everyone need a two income household.

Not if the reason they can "afford" to work less is because the government is providing benefits for "free." When did it become un-American to work hard for the things you want in life (like healthcare)?

However, I'm going to put to rest your notion that we're creating 2M moochers. How many people do you know personally Lynah? I'm guessing from family, friends, work, school, travel, etc its somewhere in the hundreds. Lets call it 500. Of all those people you know, how many do you think have no work ethic and would decide to live as leeches on society if they could? Probably not a lot if any. That's how the conservative con game works. Its always the people you don't know that are screwing you, but the people you do know are all hard working and upstanding and paying the bills for the anonymous slackers. I'm a bit surprised a guy like you falls for that frankly.

Seriously? You're actually falling for the "everyone in the country must be just like my friends" fallacy? Of my 500 closest friends, probably 98% have college degrees, while less than 33% of the US population does. If everyone in the US were like my friends, there would be no welfare program at all, and yet there is. How can that be??? If expected everyone in the US to act like my friends, I would be a tremendous fool.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!

If everyone in the US were like my friends, there would be no welfare program at all.

Eh, I wouldn't be so sure.

 

[Rover]

Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!

Seriously? You're actually falling for the "everyone in the country must be just like my friends" fallacy? Of my 500 closest friends, probably 98% have college degrees, while less than 33% of the US population does. If everyone in the US were like my friends, there would be no welfare program at all, and yet there is. How can that be??? If expected everyone in the US to act like my friends, I would be a tremendous fool.

So people without college degrees are moochers? Would you like to order a side of fries with that class warfare Lynah! You do realize a lot of those people without college degrees are our grandparents (or parent depending on your age) who worked hard all their lives back when we had more manufacturing jobs in this country.

In short, get over yourself.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!

Balderdash. If person A voluntarily drops out of the labor force and his company still needs a worker, they can now hire long-time unemployed person B and there will be no net reduction of jobs. That would clearly lead to a reduction in the unemployment rate (employment-seeking B is replaced by dropped-out-of-the-workforce A) while the total number of jobs remains the same. But what the CBO actually said was "by 2021, the number of full-time positions would be reduced by 2.3 million." Those are necessarily jobs that people leave and are NOT replaced. Due to this law, there will be 2.3M fewer people working and even more people people receiving health care - I think you can do the math from there...

I don't buy the idea that there is going to be fewer jobs because of this healthcare law. Employers don't decide whether to add employees based upon whether that employee will get healthcare. I will tell you that as an employer I decide to add or reduce positions based upon need. If I have the work, I hire another employee. If the work isn't there, and someone leaves, that position may not be filled.

I have a lot of experience in the "employment" field. I can tell you that there are a sizable number of people, usually women, who choose to work, or remain employed, because of their ability to get healthcare coverage for their family. I have a number of those employees myself. Their spouses are self-employed, maybe farmers or a small business owner. These women take jobs from me because we offered health insurance.

There are also a sizable number of people who choose to work more than 32 hours or 36 hours or 40 hours per week (whatever the cutoff was) in order to be eligible for coverage. Again, a lot of these people are women, but not all of them. If they had the chance they would have worked a lot fewer hours, but again, they needed the health coverage for their families.

I think that's going to change with the law. People will further cut their hours, voluntarily, down to the new minimum (30), and may even choose to drop out altogether if they can get coverage, and maybe a subsidy, through the exchanges that is reasonably priced.

But I'm still going to need the workers. This law won't change that.

You're not going to see a bunch of people fired just so the employer can get below the 50 employee line, or make everyone part time employees so they work less than 30 hours/week. Having an entire staff of part time workers is too big a hassle. More paperwork, more scheduling, etc... It will happen in rare, individual cases, but not on any widespread basis.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!

So, I'm trying to make sure I understand the 2.3 million number. What I read said 2.3 million equivalent full time jobs. But if people are being cut from, say, 40 to 30 hours, that delta is just 1/4 of a full time 40 hour position, isn't it? So if that's correct, there would be four times 2.3 million people (assuming for discussion that the average person is cut from 40 to 30 hours, which who knows what it would actually be), or 9.2 million people going from full time to part time. Just asking to try to understand what the number means.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!

So people without college degrees are moochers? Would you like to order a side of fries with that class warfare Lynah! You do realize a lot of those people without college degrees are our grandparents (or parent depending on your age) who worked hard all their lives back when we had more manufacturing jobs in this country.

In short, get over yourself.

You know, if you stop willfully misinterpreting my posts, you'd be a lot less bitter. It's not my fault you tried to make a fallacious point about my 500 closest friends. My 500 closest friends don't share any number of demographic characteristics as the country as a whole, so expecting the rest of the country to act like them is silly. Do you really think your friends are demographically representative of the country as a whole?

 

[walrus]

Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!

Do you really think your friends are demographically representative of the country as a whole?

He is a man of the people

 

[walrus]

Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!

You're not going to see a bunch of people fired just so the employer can get below the 50 employee line, or make everyone part time employees so they work less than 30 hours/week. Having an entire staff of part time workers is too big a hassle. More paperwork, more scheduling, etc... It will happen in rare, individual cases, but not on any widespread basis.

Going to 28 hrs is a reality in the retail world. So there are companies that will keep part timers to below the ACA threshold