Obamacare is crashing...

[TX-Beau]

Yeah, the sick and elderly will no longer have to keep working in order to keep health insurance. In other cases, both parents will no longer have to work to keep health insurance for the family.

A CBO report shows how Obamacare will help the working poor (Daily KOS; February 6, 2014)​

Lazy Fuckratds! Why should Grandma get a day off just 'cause she's got cancer?

 

[xbuzzerx]

I did not spin. I quoted what Fact Check said.

You're trying to discount what I quoted from the people at Fact Check. I did not quote any republican.

Oh really. Why don't you quote the part where Factcheck.org said "this law is turning people into lazy, non productive citizens."

 

[TX-Beau]

Surely you could do better than quote Daily Kos. Maybe InfoWars or Media Matters next time.

Surely you could answer the point you don't need daily KOS to figure out for your own damn self.

 

[Jack Springer]

Oh really. Why don't you quote the part where Factcheck.org said "this law is turning people into lazy, non productive citizens."

The CBO said that people would not work so they could collect benefits of Obamacare. Again, I understand that's a good thing for liberals and their way of thinking.

 

[frankfrank]

1) its not 'crashing'.

As I initially believed (when I started the thread), some people will continue to believe it now and forever - and their complete cognitive dissonance guarantees they will never find a reason to think otherwise. Some will continue to believe it, because it fits in with their agenda. CEO's of some companies (as, I just saw mentioned, AOL) realize that the war on labor is being won in THEIR favor, and as union representation shrinks they also realize that they can just go ahead and BLAME OBAMACARE for rising costs which may or may not even exist for their companies. They realize that whatever they say, nobody is going to audit their figures with the intention of exposing the possible lie or overstatement, and nearly all the talking heads (including, initially, MSNBC on this issue) either believe that The ACA is driving the nation to hell-in-a-handbasket OR they'll disingenuously say so because their "bread is buttered on that side." The CEO's can get rid of this expense that way, and they'll get away with it by stretching the truth, not having strong unions to fight back, etc. A big company can claim they had to lay off 40,000 people and the public will believe it.

And the CEO will take home $12 million more in 2014 than he did in 2013, because he saves so much money by stealing the safety net from his [strike]workers[/strike] slaves, and gets rewarded for a "JOB WELL DONE!" It's in his best interests to limit or remove health care, even if in full defiance of current federal law, because he knows there will be no consequences, ever...and he just gets richer.

Yes, under the current system of political alliances and the rampant and widespread behaviour of those who indeed want Obamacare to crash and burn, they just may indeed cause destruction of the system. Consider the millions of people (in red states) who are being kicked off Medicaid and just being told to deal with it and go off somewhere and die. This is the result of politicians, working in real time, to do their best to sabotage the law and make sure that IT, in turn, dies.

I think the non-existent Republican replacement plan will, again, morph into something similar to Medical Savings Accounts, accessible only to those people who make enough money to live AND still have enough left over to put away into a "rainy day fund" in case they get sick. That was the first Republican model when the issue really started getting off the ground 20+ years back, during Bill Clinton's early days.

This is complete and total, BS. No one is going to stay unemployed so they can have their health insurance paid for. People still have to *eat* and put a roof over their head.

A major Fox Spews talking point, of course - and Rush Limbaugh and virtually all other radio talkers. In these United States, in most places, one can be limited to a car radio, and drive MANY hundreds of miles, day or night, and absolutely never be exposed to even one talker, regardless of searching the dial constantly and intensely, who defies this unanimous point of view. Talk radio is virtually 100% Republican in nature.

Yeah, the sick and elderly will no longer have to keep working in order to keep health insurance. In other cases, both parents will no longer have to work to keep health insurance for the family.

A CBO report shows how Obamacare will help the working poor (Daily KOS; February 6, 2014)​

You quoted something from Daily KOS. What are you trying to do...make conservative heads explode?

 

[xbuzzerx]

The CBO said that people would not work so they could collect benefits of Obamacare. Again, I understand that's a good thing for liberals and their way of thinking.

It said that some people may voluntarily decrease their hours because pre-ACA only some employees would qualify for healthcare benefits through their employer and could not get them any other way, even on the open market and even if they were willing and capable of paying, and that they will now have more access other than "only through full time at a job that offers insurance coverage only to full-time employees."

That is not the same as what you are saying, at all. You make it sound as though your level of coverage gets easier or goes up the less you work. That is not the case. The case is that previously, if an insurance company didn't think you were a "profitable" insuree, gaining health insurance in any way other than through your employer could range from prohibitive to impossible. If you think that was a good thing, then I suppose you've never known someone with diabetes or serious health problems.

 

[opinterph]

You quoted something from Daily KOS. What are you trying to do...make conservative heads explode?

In the interest of fair disclosure, a Senior Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute is the original publisher of the item.

A CBO Report Shows How Obamacare Will Help the Working Poor

(Next New Deal: The Blog of the Roosevelt Institute; February 6, 2014)​

 

[Benvolio]

No one wants Obamacare to succeed. The democrats want it fail, forcing socialized health care. "Single payer" is one of those democrat terms intended to and serving no other purpose than to hide their intent from the people. It is a lie.

 

[Kulindahr]

The CBO said that 2.5 MILLION PEOPLE will probably not work to they can get money from the government to pay for insurance.

Do you ever actually read the articles? The CBO didn't say anything of the sort. It said they will choose to work fewer hours because working more would reduce their subsidies.

Unintended consequences . . . .

 

[Kulindahr]

It's too bad there weren't any conservatives in Congress to propose actual market-based reforms. Maybe then Obama wouldn't have been such a wuss as to turn to a plan written by neo-conservative plutocrats pretending to be libertarians.

Milton Friedman's approach would have been far better -- no games with how many hours one works, no (appearance of) incentives to work less.

But even better would have been starting by ending the AMA's monopoly over the supply of doctors, building fifty new medical schools, and providing incentives for not-for-profit fraternal insurance organizations to really bring insurance costs down. There were so many possibilities that would have been big steps forward, but no one was interested in anything that didn't increase profits for people who write campaign checks.

 

[Jack Springer]

Do you ever actually read the articles? The CBO didn't say anything of the sort. It said they will choose to work fewer hours because working more would reduce their subsidies.

Unintended consequences . . . .

The report said people will not work because they can get their insurance paid for by other taxpayers.

Not sure what you're trying to spin.

 

[Jack Springer]

It said that some people may voluntarily decrease their hours because pre-ACA only some employees would qualify for healthcare benefits through their employer and could not get them any other way, even on the open market and even if they were willing and capable of paying, and that they will now have more access other than "only through full time at a job that offers insurance coverage only to full-time employees."

That is not the same as what you are saying, at all. You make it sound as though your level of coverage gets easier or goes up the less you work. That is not the case. The case is that previously, if an insurance company didn't think you were a "profitable" insuree, gaining health insurance in any way other than through your employer could range from prohibitive to impossible. If you think that was a good thing, then I suppose you've never known someone with diabetes or serious health problems.

The US needs more full-time workers - not more part-time workers.

Obama's basic change to America has been elimination of millions of people from their full time jobs and the creation of a new America with part-time jobs, no work benefits, and lower pay.

Creating a climate where people feel they will be taken care of by the government is horrible.

 

[Kulindahr]

The report said people will not work because they can get their insurance paid for by other taxpayers.

Not sure what you're trying to spin.

What are you reading?

There's nothing that says people "will not work" -- in fact, if people just plain stop working, in most if not all states they won't even be able to get insurance through the ACA -- that's a guarantee in red states, where many people are already disqualified because they don't earn enough.

It says some people will choose to work fewer hours, because if they work more their subsidy won't be as big.

 

[Kulindahr]

Obama's basic change to America has been elimination of millions of people from their full time jobs and the creation of a new America with part-time jobs, no work benefits, and lower pay.

That started under Reagan, and has kept getting worse no matter who's sat in the White House. The reason is that corporations like Walmart and McDonalds have realized that they can pay their workers crap and let the taxpayers take care of them -- in other words, what was meant to help take care of people is now not-so-indirect corporate welfare, or companies ripping off the taxpayers, depending on how you look at it.

Another major trend pushing it is that even as the population continues to creep upward, the world needs fewer and fewer skilled workers. We need a new economic model; depending on an ever-increasing population won't work if there aren't good enough jobs to make them more than leeches on the government.

This is one reason pragmatism suggests making sure everyone has the basics.

 

[xbuzzerx]

The US needs more full-time workers - not more part-time workers.

The problem with that is the corporations who have been keeping employees at under full time against their wishes in order to deny them full-time benefits.

People who voluntarily reduce their hours because they were only working full time to get health insurance have nothing to do with that.

 

[Benvolio]

That started under Reagan, and has kept getting worse no matter who's sat in the White House. The reason is that corporations like Walmart and McDonalds have realized that they can pay their workers crap and let the taxpayers take care of them -- in other words, what was meant to help take care of people is now not-so-indirect corporate welfare, or companies ripping off the taxpayers, depending on how you look at it.

Another major trend pushing it is that even as the population continues to creep upward, the world needs fewer and fewer skilled workers. We need a new economic model; depending on an ever-increasing population won't work if there aren't good enough jobs to make them more than leeches on the government.

This is one reason pragmatism suggests making sure everyone has the basics.

Having said that, you still can not understand that in the US an ever increasing population by immigration won't work.
Pragmatism suggests we first stop making the problem worse with massive immigration.

 

[LuvFindsAndyHardy]

You quoted something from Daily KOS. What are you trying to do...make conservative heads explode?

In the interest of fair disclosure, a Senior Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute is the original publisher of the item.

ROOSEVELT??????

 

[LuvFindsAndyHardy]

The US needs more full-time workers - not more part-time workers.

The US needs more people working, period. More people in the workforce is a good thing, period. Having people who can afford to leave the workforce without losing their healthcare and thereby allowing otherwise unemployed Americans to fill the vacated job hours is a good thing, period.

 

[Kulindahr]

Having said that, you still can not understand that in the US an ever increasing population by immigration won't work.
Pragmatism suggests we first stop making the problem worse with massive immigration.

 

[Jack Springer]

The US needs more people working, period. More people in the workforce is a good thing, period. Having people who can afford to leave the workforce without losing their healthcare and thereby allowing otherwise unemployed Americans to fill the vacated job hours is a good thing, period.

Do you have any idea how crazy that sounds.

You're saying people should quit their jobs so that the government can give them free healthcare.

Why stop at 2 million people?