The less obviously insulting he is, the more he’s trying to confuse the issue. When conservatives actually have something to complain about, they’re on message like a memo from Fox News. The fact that conservatives are dancing around the issue, saying these vague half-truths about a report most people won’t bother reading is that they know they’re full of it.
The CBO has said Obamacare would be a good for the economy. It will increase worker mobility, reduce dependence on employer-based health care, and cause people to be able to leave their current jobs to pursue other goals rather than being tied to it because of the insurance. Once again, reality and facts don’t agree with the GOP talking point and they are* running scared!*
Sheesh! The CBO report can be spun to seem quite good or quite bad for Obamacare. Pick your Kool-Aid or choice.
I find it odd that those seemingly most opposed to the PPACA on this board seem to be the ones arguing that the CBO reports says PPACA won’t necessarily result in jobs being eliminated. People not losing jobs is good, right?
The anti-PPACA crowd can point to the sort of perverse incentive in the PPACA that the CBO report mentioned - that it may encourage some people to work less in order to retain subsidies.
The pro-PPACA crowd can point to the people able to pursue other dreams such as opening businesses thanks to their ability to obtain health insurance under the PPACA since they no longer feel locked into a specific job.
Uh, yeah? Did you not read any of the articles during the height of the recession about workers being stressed yet more productive when their laid off coworkers’ workload was redistributed? And that’s with whole jobs being cut, imagine the lack of incentive to replace a handful of hours a week if one or two employees decide to work a bit less.
So why haven’t employers cut this extra 2.5 million equivalent workers from their rolls already if its unnecessary? Businesses are supposed to be run efficiently, correct? If a business owner knows that they can get by just fine with their remaining employees once this reduction in hours kicks in, then why haven’t they already cut down to that point. Why do you think businesses want to pay for work that they don’t need? Out of the kindness of their hearts? Lets say that a business needs X amount of labor to be as productive as they need to be, and Y is the amount of reduction expected. If all of a sudden they have (X-Y) available, and they say, well that’s ok, we can get by with that, then why haven’t they already been getting by with that. Why would the business owner just pay for Y extra work that isn’t needed. Wouldn’t that be a violation of the fiduciary duty to maximize profits for shareholders?
ACA is seeing more than just a few parts that have to be ignored or delayed or repealed. Then there’s the big one, that Democrats wrote the law intending to coerce the states into expanding Medicaid. That was just ignorant.
The coercion part is in taking away all Medicaid funds if they refused. That got smacked down by SCOTUS 7-2. There’s just no excuse for not knowing that wouldn’t fly.
I’ll be generous and assume that Fear Itself was only aware of what the law is now, rather than what the law was before SCOTUS ripped out the unconstitutional parts.
So now that all the unconstitutional parts have been ripped out, you’re good with it, right? Passed by Congress, signed by the President, reviewed by the Supreme Court; millions of people with health insurance they didn’t have before, so what’s the problem?
That the Democrats get credit for it. That’s all. :rolleyes:
Evidence being that anything they trial-balloon to “repeal and replace” it *with *is pretty much the same damn thing, minus some protections of course. Which makes sense, it having been their own fucking idea to start with.
The only bad thing about the act, in my opinion, is having to pay out of pocket instead of having the money come from taxes.
I’m sure there are a lot of people like me who are having a hard time making ends meet and can’t really afford a new bill every month, but yet the government says we can and we have to (even with subsidies the remainder can be expensive).
Maybe I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure that making it an actual tax would make it more affordable. For example, the money taken out for state, federal, SSI, and so on doesn’t come out to very much.