Aa
Love Obamacare
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/05/budget-office-chief-obamacare-creates-disincentive-to-work/
Nice source Vance.
FAUX news.
You and I both know they lie, lie, lie and are Right-wing biased.
Shame, shame.
(facetious)
FAUX news.
You and I both know they lie, lie, lie and are Right-wing biased.
Shame, shame.
(facetious)
I know I know, but the report came from the CBO and the head of the report for the CBO testified, so even filled with it's bias and lies there has to be some truth to the article right? Maybe the racist republicans paid off the CBO?
CBO - teeheehee.
Vance and El, can't you take your mean spirited nastiness somewhere else, like keep it to yourself because hatred isn't current events.
Well, to be honest, a similar story was in my rather left leaning newspaper this morning.
Here's the story from the USA Today:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/02/04/health-law-could-mean-fewer-full-workers/5203719/
Here's the story from the USA Today:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/02/04/health-law-could-mean-fewer-full-workers/5203719/
I've been hearing this on every station I listened to, today, and seeing on every web site I've gone to.
Let's face it... if you get everything paid for by someone else, there really isn't much incentive to go to work.
Let's face it... if you get everything paid for by someone else, there really isn't much incentive to go to work.
OH-What are you talking about? The words I have written have been written by others and spoken by others on the left. Preach to the left to clean themselves up and then come speak to me about it.
"...mean spirited nastiness..."
If I had a nickle for every time Teko or Mike or desrt or even you, called a b/s when Brice, Vance, R Glass or myself posted an article from FOX, I'd have a few dollars.
Mean spirited nastiness? Right back at ya.
Take your left-wing biased ignorance somewhere else.
What's good for the goose...
********
Vance:
The New York Times actually said that the disincentive to work "is mostly a good thing, because it'll allow people to follow their hearts and their dreams, and not be forced to work in a job simply for the insurance".
So we'll have a new "class" in U.S. society: "the working class". There will be those on the Right that WORK. And those on the Left that DON'T (and are free to follow their hopes and dreams, while we fund their idiot programs).
I am absolutely FLOORED by the stupidity of some people. I'm sure Brice or R Glass or Barb can say it more eloquently and politely and in a more PC fashion than I can, but I simply cannot sugar-coat this crap. Obamacare is a complete FAILURE and will put more people OUT of insurance than into it, within the next 2 years.
The numbers are right in front of everyone in black&white, yet they're still denying, and the sheep on the Left are still believing. Out of a sense of desperation perhaps?
I'm SO done with this administration, and the sheeple following him.
If I had a nickle for every time Teko or Mike or desrt or even you, called a b/s when Brice, Vance, R Glass or myself posted an article from FOX, I'd have a few dollars.
Mean spirited nastiness? Right back at ya.
Take your left-wing biased ignorance somewhere else.
What's good for the goose...
********
Vance:
The New York Times actually said that the disincentive to work "is mostly a good thing, because it'll allow people to follow their hearts and their dreams, and not be forced to work in a job simply for the insurance".
So we'll have a new "class" in U.S. society: "the working class". There will be those on the Right that WORK. And those on the Left that DON'T (and are free to follow their hopes and dreams, while we fund their idiot programs).
I am absolutely FLOORED by the stupidity of some people. I'm sure Brice or R Glass or Barb can say it more eloquently and politely and in a more PC fashion than I can, but I simply cannot sugar-coat this crap. Obamacare is a complete FAILURE and will put more people OUT of insurance than into it, within the next 2 years.
The numbers are right in front of everyone in black&white, yet they're still denying, and the sheep on the Left are still believing. Out of a sense of desperation perhaps?
I'm SO done with this administration, and the sheeple following him.
EL I heard someone on the left trying to spin it the same way. People can start a business or cut back so they can be home with the kids. Everything that just warms your heart.
Republicans Wanted To Free Workers From Bad Jobs Until Obamacare Did It
Republicans and conservative wonks have long supported de-linking health insurance from employment in order to give workers more economic freedom. But now they're attacking Obamacare for ... doing just that.
Republicans seized on a Congressional Budget Office report Tuesday to attack Obamacare for "destroying" or "costing" jobs. The reality wasn't so simple; in fact, CBO didn't project any pink slips; it said some 2 million workers would voluntarily exit the full-time labor force (over a decade) because Obamacare will make them less dependent on their employer for health insurance. They can retire early, start a business, pursue a degree or spend more time with their families without the fear of losing health care coverage.
It has been an important conservative goal -- before and after the Obamacare debate poisoned intra-GOP politics -- to give workers more flexibility and freedom to retain health insurance if they switch jobs or quit. Indeed, existing health care alternatives by conservatives would have similar effects on workers.
"De-linking health insurance from employment has been a big theme in conservative proposals, and frankly liberal proposals too (e.g. single payer plans)," said Larry Levitt, senior vice president of the Kaiser Family Foundation.
In Oct. 2008, the conservative Heritage Foundation called this phenomenon "job lock" and "[a]n obstacle to labor mobility." A Heritage research paper praised then-presidential candidate Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) health care plan for addressing the problem by proposing adjustments to the tax treatment of health care, among other reforms.
"Today, leaving a job or changing jobs means leaving behind the health insurance provided at the place of work," wrote authors Robert E. Moffit and Nina Owcharenko. "Individuals who wish to take a better job, change careers, or leave the workforce to raise a family or to retire early take substantial risks."
Due to a quirk in the federal tax code that came about after World War II, one out of two American workers gets health insurance from an employer. Conservatives have for years been lamenting that the difficulty of buying coverage outside the workplace hinders economic freedom by discouraging entrepreneurship and risk-taking due to the fear of health insecurity (as well as the rising cost of providing care).
A Sept. 2006 research paper by the conservative American Enterprise Institute argued the tax preference for employer-based insurance created a "lack of choice" that can "disadvantage employees."
"Those who buy their health insurance through their employers may find themselves locked into their current employment for fear that they might lose coverage," wrote author Joseph Antos. "If the worker or a family member develops a serious health condition, a job change could mean the total loss of insurance or exclusion of that condition from coverage."
Obamacare seeks to fix this problem by providing financial assistance to get coverage and prohibits insurance companies from shutting out sick people. The Heritage Foundation and various prominent Republicans supported this approach during the 1990s and 2000s, but abandoned it once Democrats took it up. And so conservatives set about proposing new ways of disentangling health insurance and employment, such as unwinding the tax exclusion for job-based coverage, offering individuals a tax credit to buy insurance and expanding Health Savings Accounts.
The most recent of these proposals was put forward recently by Republican Sens. Orrin Hatch (UT), Tom Coburn (OK) and Richard Burr (NC). It provides subsidies for Americans to buy insurance regardless of their employment situation. "This protection ensures that individuals can transition from employer-based coverage to insurance in the individual market without being forced to face high premiums solely because of a costly underlying health condition," according to a summary of the proposal released by Hatch's office.
The goal is similar to that of Obamacare, and portends similar behavioral consequences. The CBO found that due to the Affordable Care Act, Americans will work an average of 1.5 to 2 percent fewer hours between 2017 and 2024. If Republicans give workers better health care options outside the workplace, it'll motivate some of them to exit the full-time labor force.
"If you cap or reduce the tax exemption for employer-provided insurance – as some conservative proposals call for – you could have bigger labor market effects because you’re reducing the incentive to work," said Levitt. "How a proposal changes the individual insurance market can have an effect too. The better and more secure individual market coverage, the less people may feel 'job locked.'"
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/republicans-obamacare-cbo-report-insurance-employment
Republicans and conservative wonks have long supported de-linking health insurance from employment in order to give workers more economic freedom. But now they're attacking Obamacare for ... doing just that.
Republicans seized on a Congressional Budget Office report Tuesday to attack Obamacare for "destroying" or "costing" jobs. The reality wasn't so simple; in fact, CBO didn't project any pink slips; it said some 2 million workers would voluntarily exit the full-time labor force (over a decade) because Obamacare will make them less dependent on their employer for health insurance. They can retire early, start a business, pursue a degree or spend more time with their families without the fear of losing health care coverage.
It has been an important conservative goal -- before and after the Obamacare debate poisoned intra-GOP politics -- to give workers more flexibility and freedom to retain health insurance if they switch jobs or quit. Indeed, existing health care alternatives by conservatives would have similar effects on workers.
"De-linking health insurance from employment has been a big theme in conservative proposals, and frankly liberal proposals too (e.g. single payer plans)," said Larry Levitt, senior vice president of the Kaiser Family Foundation.
In Oct. 2008, the conservative Heritage Foundation called this phenomenon "job lock" and "[a]n obstacle to labor mobility." A Heritage research paper praised then-presidential candidate Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) health care plan for addressing the problem by proposing adjustments to the tax treatment of health care, among other reforms.
"Today, leaving a job or changing jobs means leaving behind the health insurance provided at the place of work," wrote authors Robert E. Moffit and Nina Owcharenko. "Individuals who wish to take a better job, change careers, or leave the workforce to raise a family or to retire early take substantial risks."
Due to a quirk in the federal tax code that came about after World War II, one out of two American workers gets health insurance from an employer. Conservatives have for years been lamenting that the difficulty of buying coverage outside the workplace hinders economic freedom by discouraging entrepreneurship and risk-taking due to the fear of health insecurity (as well as the rising cost of providing care).
A Sept. 2006 research paper by the conservative American Enterprise Institute argued the tax preference for employer-based insurance created a "lack of choice" that can "disadvantage employees."
"Those who buy their health insurance through their employers may find themselves locked into their current employment for fear that they might lose coverage," wrote author Joseph Antos. "If the worker or a family member develops a serious health condition, a job change could mean the total loss of insurance or exclusion of that condition from coverage."
Obamacare seeks to fix this problem by providing financial assistance to get coverage and prohibits insurance companies from shutting out sick people. The Heritage Foundation and various prominent Republicans supported this approach during the 1990s and 2000s, but abandoned it once Democrats took it up. And so conservatives set about proposing new ways of disentangling health insurance and employment, such as unwinding the tax exclusion for job-based coverage, offering individuals a tax credit to buy insurance and expanding Health Savings Accounts.
The most recent of these proposals was put forward recently by Republican Sens. Orrin Hatch (UT), Tom Coburn (OK) and Richard Burr (NC). It provides subsidies for Americans to buy insurance regardless of their employment situation. "This protection ensures that individuals can transition from employer-based coverage to insurance in the individual market without being forced to face high premiums solely because of a costly underlying health condition," according to a summary of the proposal released by Hatch's office.
The goal is similar to that of Obamacare, and portends similar behavioral consequences. The CBO found that due to the Affordable Care Act, Americans will work an average of 1.5 to 2 percent fewer hours between 2017 and 2024. If Republicans give workers better health care options outside the workplace, it'll motivate some of them to exit the full-time labor force.
"If you cap or reduce the tax exemption for employer-provided insurance – as some conservative proposals call for – you could have bigger labor market effects because you’re reducing the incentive to work," said Levitt. "How a proposal changes the individual insurance market can have an effect too. The better and more secure individual market coverage, the less people may feel 'job locked.'"
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/republicans-obamacare-cbo-report-insurance-employment
Can anyone say "mouthpiece"?
Can anyone say "dumb bunny"?
Is that some kind of perverted sexual reference?
dumb bunny
noun
a stupid person.
Origin:
1940–45
Slang Dictionary
dumb bunny definition
n.
a stupid person; an oaf. : Who's the dumb bunny in the double-knits?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dumb+bunny
noun
a stupid person.
Origin:
1940–45
Slang Dictionary
dumb bunny definition
n.
a stupid person; an oaf. : Who's the dumb bunny in the double-knits?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dumb+bunny
I just want to say that I had some concern that I voiced regarding motivation. I am a firm believer in motivation. And I have wondered if our country is moving in a direction that minimizes motivation in our population to work. I know that I had several things that drove me when starting out my career. And now as a partner in a family, my husband and I have things that motivate us. Insurance is one of them. Getting ourselves educated and in a position to find employment with a benefits package was motivating.
Anyway, the things I've read the past couple of days really does confirm some of my thoughts on the direction this country is moving. While there are some positives to it, there is a downside. And the downside must be acknowledged and hopefully remedied.
Anyway, the things I've read the past couple of days really does confirm some of my thoughts on the direction this country is moving. While there are some positives to it, there is a downside. And the downside must be acknowledged and hopefully remedied.
"Getting ourselves educated and in a position to find employment with a benefits package was motivating."
So you got educated so you could get health insurance. Well, I didn't. I wanted an education so that I would be educated and the rest just fell in place.
If you believe that tying health insurance to employment is beneficial then we disagree. The point is - republicans have been claiming for decades that health insurance should not be tied to employment for the very reasons they are now assailing. They loved the portability and the freedom it afforded to individuals to make choices about their lives. Even the Heritage bunch were all for it. Now that Obama have accomplished it, of course, they're against it.
So you got educated so you could get health insurance. Well, I didn't. I wanted an education so that I would be educated and the rest just fell in place.
If you believe that tying health insurance to employment is beneficial then we disagree. The point is - republicans have been claiming for decades that health insurance should not be tied to employment for the very reasons they are now assailing. They loved the portability and the freedom it afforded to individuals to make choices about their lives. Even the Heritage bunch were all for it. Now that Obama have accomplished it, of course, they're against it.
Getting a good job that provided benefits was part of my plan. Yes. I'm glad you had the luxury of just viewing education as something to have but I knew early on I needed something from it and it was for a specific purpose, having what I needed in life.
I'm not even sure what you are talking about in your last paragraph. The information that has been in many articles from many sources, on the news, etc. is what I was referring to. It speak directly to the issue of people being less motivated.
I think, as a Republican, that I do think people should have a choice whether they want health insurance (and to pay for it or not)--- I'll always think that. But, that doesn't mean that I think we need a system that encourages lack of motivation to provide for oneself.
My husband works for a company that provides benefits as part of his compensation package. he works hard for it. I'm sure he has daydreams about not having to work as hard.
I'm not even sure what you are talking about in your last paragraph. The information that has been in many articles from many sources, on the news, etc. is what I was referring to. It speak directly to the issue of people being less motivated.
I think, as a Republican, that I do think people should have a choice whether they want health insurance (and to pay for it or not)--- I'll always think that. But, that doesn't mean that I think we need a system that encourages lack of motivation to provide for oneself.
My husband works for a company that provides benefits as part of his compensation package. he works hard for it. I'm sure he has daydreams about not having to work as hard.
So, for those people who are not financially able to attend college or aren't intellectually capable of graduating from college they should not be afforded the same level of healthcare that you are by virtue of your job? That sounds very discriminatory.
Honestly, republicans claim to value individual freedom but dislikes legislation that affords the average person that freedom. I wonder what you think healthcare is. Is it a privilege reserved only for the employed? What about the single mother with a child or 2? Should she be able to get healthcare coverage for her family? You don't like a legislative mandate which requires everyone to have healthcare - a de jure mandate. But you are all for the de facto mandate that ties healthcare to employment and basically means that if you want healthcare you must be employed. You think that's a good thing and that any relaxation of that mandate will motivate those lazy millions out there to not work and to not be productive. I don't see it like that.
Honestly, republicans claim to value individual freedom but dislikes legislation that affords the average person that freedom. I wonder what you think healthcare is. Is it a privilege reserved only for the employed? What about the single mother with a child or 2? Should she be able to get healthcare coverage for her family? You don't like a legislative mandate which requires everyone to have healthcare - a de jure mandate. But you are all for the de facto mandate that ties healthcare to employment and basically means that if you want healthcare you must be employed. You think that's a good thing and that any relaxation of that mandate will motivate those lazy millions out there to not work and to not be productive. I don't see it like that.
Everyone can afford college, it's called loans like I had to take myself.
If someone doesn't have the ability to work, we already have provided medical care for them.
For those who 'can't afford college' or aren't college material, our school system needs to do a better job of training them for trades. We also have lots of things in place to help with college tuition and my own husband didn't get a dime for his college paid for outside of his school loans.
I'm not calling people 'lazy'. I never said that. But I do believe in a system that motivates people to get ahead through their own efforts. The news reports that the ACA isn't doing that.
For those who 'can't afford college' or aren't college material, our school system needs to do a better job of training them for trades. We also have lots of things in place to help with college tuition and my own husband didn't get a dime for his college paid for outside of his school loans.
I'm not calling people 'lazy'. I never said that. But I do believe in a system that motivates people to get ahead through their own efforts. The news reports that the ACA isn't doing that.
Have you paid them off yet or did you welsh?
Read the CBO report and all of the age old republican talking points and get back to me on that. Or do you only read the headlines? Really?
And listen, check the "I'm so good because I care and the rest of you are unfeeling and putting down the underdogs" stuff at the door. I care too. I believe in helping people get ahead. I've mentioned before that I have mentored young women to put themselves in a position to attain financial independence down the road. I see that as SAVING them from a difficult life and I believe education/job training/ motivation is one of the best routes to take for that.
I have paid mine off like a responsible person. I was smart and went to a Community College to start and then transfered into a 4 year college where I could focus on my major.
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
