|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 4, 2014 22:51:28 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2014 3:44:48 GMT -5
"The report did say that the law would reduce hours worked and full-time employment, but not because of a crippling impact on private-sector job creation. With the expansion of insurance coverage, the budget office predicted, more people will choose not to work, and others will choose to work fewer hours than they might have otherwise to obtain employer-provided insurance. "
Why is that a bad thing?
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 7, 2014 11:54:12 GMT -5
"The report did say that the law would reduce hours worked and full-time employment, but not because of a crippling impact on private-sector job creation. With the expansion of insurance coverage, the budget office predicted, more people will choose not to work, and others will choose to work fewer hours than they might have otherwise to obtain employer-provided insurance. " Why is that a bad thing? Come on McAnswer. That's nothing but Orwellian spin. Why would those people choose not to work? Because if they did, their insurance costs would go up. Or they would no longer be eligible for subsidies. For years the administration has been saying that we have to do something about unemployment. Now, all of a sudden, an increase in unemployment is a "good" thing? Give me a break. Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2014 12:33:21 GMT -5
"The report did say that the law would reduce hours worked and full-time employment, but not because of a crippling impact on private-sector job creation. With the expansion of insurance coverage, the budget office predicted, more people will choose not to work, and others will choose to work fewer hours than they might have otherwise to obtain employer-provided insurance. " Why is that a bad thing? Come on McAnswer. That's nothing but Orwellian spin. Why would those people choose not to work? Because if they did, their insurance costs would go up. Or they would no longer be eligible for subsidies. For years the administration has been saying that we have to do something about unemployment. Now, all of a sudden, an increase in unemployment is a "good" thing? Give me a break. Bob Do you not understand the word "choose"? Do you know why people get so pissed at you, Bob? Because you can be such an arrogant fill in the blank. Just now you contradicted what was written in the quote from your own article. What is wrong with you? I see it coming already: ad hominem. That's your answer when you don't have one. Lots of people under 65 wouldn't leave their jobs because of the high cost of health care purchasing it on their own. That is a fact, Bob. I know that personally. And for people who will then have less of an income then they will get subsidies, so therefore they can finally leave their jobs. That's one reason. The other is that people will be able to drop their part-time jobs which counts as workers leaving jobs. Bob, the report was not about "jobs" but about the reduction in the "work force" but you just jump at anything that fits your agenda, even if it's FALSE. Another false information you are spewing that a person would not be eligible for subsidies if they quit their job. www.healthcare.gov/will-i-qualify-to-save-on-monthly-premiums/In any case, here is a more balanced interrpretation of the report: www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/02/07/the-first-attack-ad-based-on-the-cbo-report-on-obamacare-and-workers/ |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 7, 2014 13:22:04 GMT -5
Come on McAnswer. That's nothing but Orwellian spin. Why would those people choose not to work? Because if they did, their insurance costs would go up. Or they would no longer be eligible for subsidies. For years the administration has been saying that we have to do something about unemployment. Now, all of a sudden, an increase in unemployment is a "good" thing? Give me a break. Bob Do you not understand the word "choose"? Do you know why people get so pissed at you, Bob? Because you can be such an arrogant fill in the blank. Just now you contradicted what was written in the quote from your own article. What is wrong with you? I see it coming already: ad hominem. That's your answer when you don't have one. And Ad Homenem is your answer when you have no good arguments. And the Obama administration twists facts to fit their agenda, so we're even. The report is about people "choosing" not to earn more so they can keep a government subsidy. It is about people being forced by a government policy to work less. Now what happens when people work less? They have less income to spend. That contracts the economy and causes further unemployment, doesn't it? What! Where did I say that? I didn't. I said that "Why would those people choose not to work? Because if they did, their insurance costs would go up. Or they would no longer be eligible for subsidies." Which means that if they DIDN'T quit their jobs, they would be earning too much to qualify for subsidies. Yes, that is a more balanced interpertation. However, at the end of that article, they say: "There is certainly damaging material in the CBO report, ripe for plucking. Keith Hennessey, a former Bush administration official, offered some variations of possible attack lines, such as “Obamacare will shrink our economy by driving millions of moderate income people to work less, and discouraging some of them from working at all.” That’s a negative interpretation – liberals would emphasize the benefits—but it also is a statement that accurately reflects what the CBO said." What benefit is there in a shrinkinf economy? Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2014 14:11:34 GMT -5
The point is you are arrogant, as you often are to people who have opposite opinons from yours. Your answer to Mccans illustrated this. Mccans said nothing rude to you, but you were rude and sarcastic to him when he pointed out what you refused to acknowledge.
This post of yours is nothing but a deflection and you still refuse to acknowledge that your were and are totally one-sided. It appears you are asking for Mccans to go away again. Shape up!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2014 14:25:38 GMT -5
And the Obama administration twists facts to fit their agenda, so we're even. Bob, we are not "the Obama administration". You can treat us like you would normal people.  |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 7, 2014 14:35:28 GMT -5
The point is you are arrogant, as you often are to people who have opposite opinons from yours. No Lily, that is a projection. That is what you do when people have opinions that differ from yours. You apparently can't stand that so you respond with insults. If you spent as much time finding supporting arguments as you do with personal attacks, you might actually have a good case. Your answer to Mccans illustrated this. Mccans said nothing rude to you, but you were rude and sarcastic to him when he pointed out what you refused to acknowledge. This post of yours is nothing but a deflection and you still refuse to acknowledge that your were and are totally one-sided. It appears you are asking for Mccans to go away again. Shape up! [/quote]Did McAnswer say that? Did anyone else on the board say that? No they didn't because there was none there. Bob |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 7, 2014 14:36:57 GMT -5
And the Obama administration twists facts to fit their agenda, so we're even. Bob, we are not "the Obama administration". You can treat us like you would normal people. But you're supporting what the Obama administration said, aren't you? Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2014 14:38:34 GMT -5
STUFF IT, BOB. :-)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2014 14:47:47 GMT -5
Bob, we are not "the Obama administration". You can treat us like you would normal people. But you're supporting what the Obama administration said, aren't you? Bob I don't really understand what you are talking about. I was asking why you consider it a bad thing that people choose to stay at home because they don't need to work for insurance payments. I don't support "the Obama administration". I have my own beliefs and my own opinions, and I don't think the world's most powerful government needs my support anyway. I don't even think Obamacare is a particularly great idea, from what I've read about it so far it seems way too dependent on private insurance companies to be stable in the long run. From where I'm standing you guys need real socialized health insurance!  |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 7, 2014 14:58:03 GMT -5
I rest my case. Bob |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 7, 2014 15:03:39 GMT -5
But you're supporting what the Obama administration said, aren't you? Bob I don't really understand what you are talking about. I was asking why you consider it a bad thing that people choose to stay at home because they don't need to work for insurance payments. It's a bad thing because they are being forced into that decision by taking money away from them should they choose to work and make a higher salary. Well at least we agree that Obamacare is not a great idea. But then, neither is socialized healthcare. Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2014 15:40:04 GMT -5
I rest my case. Bob I hope it fit. |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 7, 2014 15:46:15 GMT -5
I rest my case. Bob I hope it fit. Like a glove. Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2014 15:54:07 GMT -5
I hope it fit. Like a glove. Bob You might want to re-word that.  |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 7, 2014 17:40:49 GMT -5
Like a glove. Bob You might want to re-word that. Nope. Bob |
|
joan
Member
Posts: 1,407
|
Post by joan on Feb 7, 2014 18:07:04 GMT -5
What's wrong with more time for yourself & your interests? We can grow as people, enrich ourselves. This is something we used to want as a society, more leisure time for pursuits. It used to be that one person in a couple could work part-time & support a family. Maybe not become wealthy, maybe not live luxuriously. The right wing doesn't want us poor folks having "free" time because we might use it to ORGANIZE like in the '60's, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 7, 2014 21:52:37 GMT -5
What's wrong with more time for yourself & your interests? We can grow as people, enrich ourselves. This is something we used to want as a society, more leisure time for pursuits. It used to be that one person in a couple could work part-time & support a family. Maybe not become wealthy, maybe not live luxuriously. The right wing doesn't want us poor folks having "free" time because we might use it to ORGANIZE like in the '60's, etc. Joan, I wish it were that way. I wish that people would be given a choice. But they are not. This is a government policy that makes it more difficult for people to work and earn money. If people are getting a government subsidy for their insurance and they earn too much, they will loose that subsidy. And who pays that subsidy to begin with? It's not the rich. You can be sure of that. It's the middle class. They are the ones getting squeezed here. Another thing, if people work less, they earn less and have less money to spend. This causes the economy to contract and the result is fewer jobs Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2014 21:39:56 GMT -5
Oh, I see. So people are merely cogs in the machine of the economy. Nevermind about their own desires and interests. How about whipping them into staying employed. And maybe, Bob, you haven't considered one thing. When older folks retire, that maks room for the younger ones. Or is that not important to the economy?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2014 21:59:47 GMT -5
Well at least we agree that Obamacare is not a great idea. But then, neither is socialized healthcare. Bob I said health insurance, not healthcare. These are two different things. Or did you suddenly become an opponent of public hospitals as well? |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 9, 2014 13:12:00 GMT -5
Oh, I see. So people are merely cogs in the machine of the economy. No. I didn't say that at all. It is the government's policies that are forcing people to choose less employment and lower wages. It's the government that doesn't care about the desires and interests of individuals. That assumes the number of jobs is constant. It isn't. The more people work, the more money gets put into the economy and more jobs are created. Bob |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 9, 2014 13:14:07 GMT -5
Well at least we agree that Obamacare is not a great idea. But then, neither is socialized healthcare. Bob I said health insurance, not healthcare. These are two different things. Or did you suddenly become an opponent of public hospitals as well? Okay. Socialized health insurance and socialized healthcare are both not great ideas. Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2014 11:57:43 GMT -5
So you are opposed to the idea of public hospitals, then. Why? Is it because you believe that no public organization can do anything right ever? If so, why are you not opposed to public prisons, or public justice courts, or public militaries?
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 12, 2014 18:26:52 GMT -5
So you are opposed to the idea of public hospitals, then. Why? Is it because you believe that no public organization can do anything right ever? If so, why are you not opposed to public prisons, or public justice courts, or public militaries? We already have private companies running some prisons here in the USA. We also have private arbitration courts set up for civil matters. In principal, I see nothing wrong with the government contracting out criminal cases to private companies. That certainly couldn't be much worse than our present system where judgeships are bought an sold by political bosses. As for private militaries, that is the one thing I'm afraid government has to do. Otherwise we could have a civil war if two leaders of competing militaries have a dispute. Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2014 6:35:13 GMT -5
But you've already established that governments are prima facie inferior to private companies in all areas. Therefore a private military is inherently superior to a state-run military.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 13, 2014 13:50:53 GMT -5
But you've already established that governments are prima facie inferior to private companies in all areas. Therefore a private military is inherently superior to a state-run military. No. Not all areas. Competing private military companies can lead to civil war. This is the main exception to free market superiority. Bob |
|
