|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
The problem is that no one was really asking for "reform." Obama just wanted to make it look like he "got something done," and used the economic panic to push it through.
I am one of the lucky few able to get a good full time job in the US. I've been in school for about 5 years, and finally was able to land a job that actually had health benefits. I was looking for over 3 years total, working part time jobs (and not being able to afford healthcare) just to be able to eat.
I have a feeling a lot of the people who think they know best for the US aren't actually from the US. Its a big country, with tons of problems. Reforming a problem doesn't mean its a good thing (if its the wrong kind of reform), even though the connotation of the word works in the favor of reformers.
So now watch as the US becomes an even more under/unemployed, under/uninsured morass. Unintended consequences are real, and the ACA has a lot of them.
If the bill did what it promised, I wouldn't have a problem with it. I never bought into the promises in the first place. The data won't lie. The government is simply too large to be cost-efficient. They have no incentive to be cost-efficient anyways.
|
Oh, and lest we forget, congress all-too-happy to exempt itself from Obamacare. It doesn't take a genius to figure out why.
|
Yeah, because no one in Congress has ever had a problem getting health insurance.
|
By the way, does anyone find it a bit ironic that Obama is about to bomb a middle eastern country without UN approval because of WMD's?
|
|
|
On August 28 2013 02:57 xDaunt wrote:
Oh, and lest we forget, congress all-too-happy to exempt itself from Obamacare. It doesn't take a genius to figure out why.
Congress exempts itself from fucking everything.
|
i'd hope so, that sounds exhausting!
|
On August 28 2013 02:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2013 02:21 kwizach wrote:On August 28 2013 02:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 28 2013 01:48 kwizach wrote:On August 28 2013 01:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 28 2013 01:36 kwizach wrote:On August 28 2013 01:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 28 2013 01:14 DoubleReed wrote:
The employer mandate isnt an important part of the bill. The individual mandate is, however.
And I hardly think trying to ensure a smoother implementation constitutes panic. As opposed to people saying that it will destroy America and kill us all or whatever. More equivocation. The relentless centrism can be trying, jonny. There have been more delays than just the employer mandate. And if the employer mandate is so unimportant, why not just get rid of it wholesale? Because it's a good thing? It's not, but if you think that it's a good thing why not also consider it important? It is, and it's not an "important" part of the bill with regards to the other parts because it's the individual mandate which allows the other provisions to work and not the employer mandate. The individual mandate is only so important too. It's a very weak mandate. Tens of millions are still expected to opt for the penalty, rather than the insurance. If you don't see how the individual mandate is a more fundamental part of the ACA than the employer mandate, then you don't understand the law. If you do, then you have the answer to your question. Less important =/= unimportant. Just because there are more important provisions to the ACA doesn't take away from the fact that other, also important, provisions have been delayed / watered down.
I'm pretty sure DoubeReed wasn't arguing that the employer mandate was in no way important, but rather that it wasn't important with regards to the rest of the ACA bill like the individual mandate is.
On August 28 2013 02:29 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2013 02:21 kwizach wrote:@DeepElemBlues: You're looking at this through the lens of your personal experience (so far) with the effects of the law. That's why the "people getting hurt" are in your scenario the overwhelming majority, while the "people getting helped" are apparently "mythical" and "a good joke". I know it must be hard for you to do otherwise at this point, and believe it or not I do sympathize with your situation, but if at one point you want to look at the general effects of the reform you'll see that yes, the healthcare reform is and will be a good thing overall (including, and especially for, the less fortunate). Of course, it's not the best system possible, since you'd have to look in the direction of Canada and Europe to find examples of better systems, but I suppose you don't want to do that, do you? On August 28 2013 02:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 28 2013 01:48 kwizach wrote:On August 28 2013 01:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 28 2013 01:36 kwizach wrote:On August 28 2013 01:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 28 2013 01:14 DoubleReed wrote:
The employer mandate isnt an important part of the bill. The individual mandate is, however.
And I hardly think trying to ensure a smoother implementation constitutes panic. As opposed to people saying that it will destroy America and kill us all or whatever. More equivocation. The relentless centrism can be trying, jonny. There have been more delays than just the employer mandate. And if the employer mandate is so unimportant, why not just get rid of it wholesale? Because it's a good thing? It's not, but if you think that it's a good thing why not also consider it important? It is, and it's not an "important" part of the bill with regards to the other parts because it's the individual mandate which allows the other provisions to work and not the employer mandate. The individual mandate is only so important too. It's a very weak mandate. Tens of millions are still expected to opt for the penalty, rather than the insurance. If you don't see how the individual mandate is a more fundamental part of the ACA than the employer mandate, then you don't understand the law. If you do, then you have the answer to your question. So what exactly are you arguing? That Obamacare is a good thing? Or that it will eventually lead to a good thing? Those are two very distinct concepts. Also, it's no secret that a comparatively disproportionate portion of those who are employed are only working part time, and that a very significant reason for that is that employers are trying to duck the healthcare mandate.
Let's be clear here, are you suggesting that if you look at the part-time workforce in the U.S., a "significant" (what is your definition of "significant"?) portion of these part-time jobs are part-time because of the ACA? Because the data does not support this at all:
+ Show Spoiler +
Source.
|
On August 28 2013 03:06 TheOneWhoKnocks wrote:
By the way, does anyone find it a bit ironic that Obama is about to bomb a middle eastern country without UN approval because of WMD's?
Are you seriously trying to equate Syria and Iraq? And the U.S. actions towards both?
|
On August 28 2013 03:55 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2013 03:06 TheOneWhoKnocks wrote:
By the way, does anyone find it a bit ironic that Obama is about to bomb a middle eastern country without UN approval because of WMD's? Are you seriously trying to equate Syria and Iraq? And the U.S. actions towards both?
Its mind-boggling that people try to do this very equation. It sickens me that anyone would compare the stable Iraq, and the questionability of the US entering Iraq to the Syrian civil war and its 100k+ casualties.
|
On August 28 2013 03:53 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2013 02:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 28 2013 02:21 kwizach wrote:On August 28 2013 02:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 28 2013 01:48 kwizach wrote:On August 28 2013 01:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 28 2013 01:36 kwizach wrote:On August 28 2013 01:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 28 2013 01:14 DoubleReed wrote:
The employer mandate isnt an important part of the bill. The individual mandate is, however.
And I hardly think trying to ensure a smoother implementation constitutes panic. As opposed to people saying that it will destroy America and kill us all or whatever. More equivocation. The relentless centrism can be trying, jonny. There have been more delays than just the employer mandate. And if the employer mandate is so unimportant, why not just get rid of it wholesale? Because it's a good thing? It's not, but if you think that it's a good thing why not also consider it important? It is, and it's not an "important" part of the bill with regards to the other parts because it's the individual mandate which allows the other provisions to work and not the employer mandate. The individual mandate is only so important too. It's a very weak mandate. Tens of millions are still expected to opt for the penalty, rather than the insurance. If you don't see how the individual mandate is a more fundamental part of the ACA than the employer mandate, then you don't understand the law. If you do, then you have the answer to your question. Less important =/= unimportant. Just because there are more important provisions to the ACA doesn't take away from the fact that other, also important, provisions have been delayed / watered down. I'm pretty sure DoubeReed wasn't arguing that the employer mandate was in no way important, but rather that it wasn't important with regards to the rest of the ACA bill like the individual mandate is. Show nested quote +On August 28 2013 02:29 xDaunt wrote:On August 28 2013 02:21 kwizach wrote:@DeepElemBlues: You're looking at this through the lens of your personal experience (so far) with the effects of the law. That's why the "people getting hurt" are in your scenario the overwhelming majority, while the "people getting helped" are apparently "mythical" and "a good joke". I know it must be hard for you to do otherwise at this point, and believe it or not I do sympathize with your situation, but if at one point you want to look at the general effects of the reform you'll see that yes, the healthcare reform is and will be a good thing overall (including, and especially for, the less fortunate). Of course, it's not the best system possible, since you'd have to look in the direction of Canada and Europe to find examples of better systems, but I suppose you don't want to do that, do you? On August 28 2013 02:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 28 2013 01:48 kwizach wrote:On August 28 2013 01:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 28 2013 01:36 kwizach wrote:On August 28 2013 01:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 28 2013 01:14 DoubleReed wrote:
The employer mandate isnt an important part of the bill. The individual mandate is, however.
And I hardly think trying to ensure a smoother implementation constitutes panic. As opposed to people saying that it will destroy America and kill us all or whatever. More equivocation. The relentless centrism can be trying, jonny. There have been more delays than just the employer mandate. And if the employer mandate is so unimportant, why not just get rid of it wholesale? Because it's a good thing? It's not, but if you think that it's a good thing why not also consider it important? It is, and it's not an "important" part of the bill with regards to the other parts because it's the individual mandate which allows the other provisions to work and not the employer mandate. The individual mandate is only so important too. It's a very weak mandate. Tens of millions are still expected to opt for the penalty, rather than the insurance. If you don't see how the individual mandate is a more fundamental part of the ACA than the employer mandate, then you don't understand the law. If you do, then you have the answer to your question. So what exactly are you arguing? That Obamacare is a good thing? Or that it will eventually lead to a good thing? Those are two very distinct concepts. Also, it's no secret that a comparatively disproportionate portion of those who are employed are only working part time, and that a very significant reason for that is that employers are trying to duck the healthcare mandate. Let's be clear here, are you suggesting that if you look at the part-time workforce in the U.S., a "significant" (what is your definition of "significant"?) portion of these part-time jobs are part-time because of the ACA? Because the data does not support this at all: + Show Spoiler +Source.
Those graphs don't show anything. It's indisputable that Obamacare increases full-time employee costs for affected employers. There also was no shortage of major employers who previously applied for waivers from the employer mandate before the fucker was waived generally. Economics 101 dictates that Obamacare adversely affects employment (by forcing employers to turn full time positions into part time positions or eliminated positions), and the Obama administration has already admitted as such.
I'll just leave this here. Check out the article itself for all of the internal links and cites:
Policymakers are still recovering from yesterday’s shocking admission by the Administration that it can’t implement Obamacare’s employer mandate without destroying jobs.
The announced one-year delay in enforcement brings with it an immediate revenue loss. But by further encouraging firms to drop coverage now—allowing businesses to privatize gains and socialize losses—the change could cause federal spending on Obamacare exchange subsidies to soar.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated in May that the employer mandate would raise $10 billion in revenue in its first year. (Because the employer mandate is a tax penalty, firms will pay the penalties the following year—penalties for 2014 will be paid in 2015; penalties for 2015 will be paid in 2016, etc.) That $10 billion in employer mandate revenue projected for fiscal year 2015 will almost certainly disappear.
Then there’s the separate question of whether, when, and how employers will drop their health insurance plans and dump their workers on the exchanges. Here’s what we know on that front:
•In its most recent economic forecasts in February, the CBO estimated that unemployment would average 7.8 percent in 2014. That number is nearly three percentage points higher than the CBO’s estimate of 2014 unemployment at the time of Obamacare’s passage. Because unemployment will be higher than the CBO first projected when Obamacare passed, firms will have more incentive to drop health insurance now, while labor markets are more competitive and workers have fewer employment options.
•The CBO now projects that, if firms do drop health coverage, insurance subsidies on exchanges will average $5,290 per enrollee next year. By comparison, shortly after Obamacare passed, the CBO projected subsidies would average $3,970 in 2014. In other words, the projected average subsidy for 2014 has grown by one-third since the law passed.
•As we documented last week, since Obamacare’s enactment, the CBO has increased the number of projected uninsured and decreased the number of individuals projected to retain their employer coverage.
Over the past several years, numerous studies, papers, briefs, reports, employer questionnaires, consultant presentations, surveys, op-eds, interviews, quotes, and comments from Democrats suggest that employers will drop coverage in significant numbers, resulting in trillions of dollars of added federal costs. Even Jon Stewart, in an interview with Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius last year, would not believe that employers would keep offering coverage:
Is the penalty more than the [cost of] insurance?… Is there a consequence other than a fine or shame—cause I know the shame thing’s not gonna work.
Instead of facing a decision to pay more than $10,000 for a worker’s insurance policy or pay a $2,000 per-employee penalty, employers next year will now be able to raise their workers’ wages to compensate them for the loss of their health plans. And the cost of that choice—which some would argue is so obvious as to not be a choice—could result in skyrocketing federal spending.
Source.
|
The graphs "don't show anything"? Here's what you wrote:
On August 28 2013 02:29 xDaunt wrote:
[...] it's no secret that a comparatively disproportionate portion of those who are employed are only working part time, and that a very significant reason for that is that employers are trying to duck the healthcare mandate.
The two graphs I presented you with clearly show that your statement is completely false, unless by "a very significant reason for that" you meant "the potential reason for a very small percentage of that amount".
Also, nice source of yours - even your heritage foundation blog only provides speculation and not actual data to back up its claim. Regardless, there is a difference between having an small negative impact on employment and being a "very significant reason" for the high levels of part-time employment in the US, like you originally claimed.
|
On August 28 2013 04:28 kwizach wrote:The graphs "don't show anything"? Here's what you wrote: Show nested quote +On August 28 2013 02:29 xDaunt wrote:
[...] it's no secret that a comparatively disproportionate portion of those who are employed are only working part time, and that a very significant reason for that is that employers are trying to duck the healthcare mandate. The two graphs I presented you with clearly show that your statement is completely false, unless by "a very significant reason for that" you meant "the potential reason for a very small percentage of that amount". Also, nice source of yours - even your heritage foundation blog only provides speculation and not actual data to back up its claim. Regardless, there is a difference between having an small negative impact on employment and being a "very significant reason" for the high levels of part-time employment in the US, like you originally claimed.
Okay, have it your way. Let's ignore what congress is doing. Let's ignore the pleas from the employers. Let's ignore the CBO reports. We can just stick our head in the sand because the adverse impact hasn't been sufficiently quantified to your liking.
|
Graphs 30 years into the past till 2012 don't show anything relevant for this discussion.
I have big sympathies with the person here who just lost half his job becasue of this complete idiotic policy decision. This will not only have effects on one person but probably one of the most obvious and worst effects of Obamacare.
This is going to be an ENORMOUS change in the rest of the service sector. I have talked to a lot of owners of restaurants and restaurant chains, and the 40-hour work week is a thing of the past in that business. One of my employees said that in Hawaii, it was all the hotel employees could talk about. Many chains are working on mutli-team systems where two teams of people working part-time replace the former group of full-time employees. 2013/14 is going to see a lot of people (who are not paid very well to begin with) getting their hours and pay cut by 25%. At the same time that they are required, likely for the first time since many are relatively young, to purchase health insurance.
The data backs this up:
Overall unemployment stayed steady in June at 7.6%. The economy reportedly created 195,000 jobs in the month. But. The quality of the jobs created is not good.
In June, the household survey reported that part-time jobs soared by 360,000 to 28,059,000 – an all time record high. Full time jobs? Down 240,000. And looking back at the entire year, so far in 2013, just 130K Full-Time Jobs have been added, offset by a whopping 557K Part-Time jobs. And there is your jobs “quality” leading to today’s market euphoria (if only for now).
This is the ObamaCare effect. Obama’s health care law incentivizes employers to drop workers to below 30 hours per week in order to avoid incurring liabilities or fines. Or, if the employer is near the 50 employee mark, to trim down to below 50 to escape ObamaCare altogether.
Factor in the fact that the rate of participation in the job market remains at a historic low, and the economy remains weak. McJobs won’t power a full recovery.
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/07/05/june-jobs-report-part-time-jobs-up-full-time-jobs-down/
|
On August 28 2013 04:41 legor wrote:
Graphs 30 years into the past till 2012 don't show anything relevant for this discussion.
They do, and you'd know that if you had paid attention to the claim I was replying to.
On August 28 2013 04:41 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2013 04:28 kwizach wrote:The graphs "don't show anything"? Here's what you wrote: On August 28 2013 02:29 xDaunt wrote:
[...] it's no secret that a comparatively disproportionate portion of those who are employed are only working part time, and that a very significant reason for that is that employers are trying to duck the healthcare mandate. The two graphs I presented you with clearly show that your statement is completely false, unless by "a very significant reason for that" you meant "the potential reason for a very small percentage of that amount". Also, nice source of yours - even your heritage foundation blog only provides speculation and not actual data to back up its claim. Regardless, there is a difference between having an small negative impact on employment and being a "very significant reason" for the high levels of part-time employment in the US, like you originally claimed. Okay, have it your way. Let's ignore what congress is doing. Let's ignore the pleas from the employers. Let's ignore the CBO reports. We can just stick our head in the sand because the adverse impact hasn't been sufficiently quantified to your liking.
You're the one who made a claim that went way beyond looking at the actual effects of the ACA on employment. Nobody's ignoring the CBO reports - you're the one who's ignoring the reality of the overwhelming majority of part-time jobs in the U.S. having absolutely nothing to do with the ACA. You tried to sneak in a ridiculous hyperbole into your attack of the ACA, and you've been called out on it.
|
On August 28 2013 04:59 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2013 04:41 legor wrote:
Graphs 30 years into the past till 2012 don't show anything relevant for this discussion. They do, and you'd know that if you had paid attention to the claim I was replying to. Show nested quote +On August 28 2013 04:41 xDaunt wrote:On August 28 2013 04:28 kwizach wrote:The graphs "don't show anything"? Here's what you wrote: On August 28 2013 02:29 xDaunt wrote:
[...] it's no secret that a comparatively disproportionate portion of those who are employed are only working part time, and that a very significant reason for that is that employers are trying to duck the healthcare mandate. The two graphs I presented you with clearly show that your statement is completely false, unless by "a very significant reason for that" you meant "the potential reason for a very small percentage of that amount". Also, nice source of yours - even your heritage foundation blog only provides speculation and not actual data to back up its claim. Regardless, there is a difference between having an small negative impact on employment and being a "very significant reason" for the high levels of part-time employment in the US, like you originally claimed. Okay, have it your way. Let's ignore what congress is doing. Let's ignore the pleas from the employers. Let's ignore the CBO reports. We can just stick our head in the sand because the adverse impact hasn't been sufficiently quantified to your liking. You're the one who made a claim that went way beyond looking at the actual effects of the ACA on employment. Nobody's ignoring the CBO reports - you're the one who's ignoring the reality of the overwhelming majority of part-time jobs in the U.S. having absolutely nothing to do with the ACA. You tried to sneak in a ridiculous hyperbole into your attack of the ACA, and you've been called out on it.
This is why I used to ignore your posts. You aren't arguing anything meaningful. All of your responses to my original post can be distilled to "I disagree with xDaunt's use of the term 'significant.'" Arguing semantics is a bore. There's no hyperbole in what I said. In fact, what I said shouldn't even be controversial.
|
On August 28 2013 02:57 xDaunt wrote:
Oh, and lest we forget, congress all-too-happy to exempt itself from Obamacare. It doesn't take a genius to figure out why.
Yep, and wb to thread.
On August 28 2013 03:00 farvacola wrote:
Yeah, because no one in Congress has ever had a problem getting health insurance.
The ruling class writes laws for others that expressly exempt them. It is their selfish concern and knowledge of Obamacare that inspires them to lobby for these exemptions. It is in that sense no different than the other central planners throughout history, and not surprising.
|
On August 28 2013 05:15 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2013 04:59 kwizach wrote:On August 28 2013 04:41 legor wrote:
Graphs 30 years into the past till 2012 don't show anything relevant for this discussion. They do, and you'd know that if you had paid attention to the claim I was replying to. On August 28 2013 04:41 xDaunt wrote:On August 28 2013 04:28 kwizach wrote:The graphs "don't show anything"? Here's what you wrote: On August 28 2013 02:29 xDaunt wrote:
[...] it's no secret that a comparatively disproportionate portion of those who are employed are only working part time, and that a very significant reason for that is that employers are trying to duck the healthcare mandate. The two graphs I presented you with clearly show that your statement is completely false, unless by "a very significant reason for that" you meant "the potential reason for a very small percentage of that amount". Also, nice source of yours - even your heritage foundation blog only provides speculation and not actual data to back up its claim. Regardless, there is a difference between having an small negative impact on employment and being a "very significant reason" for the high levels of part-time employment in the US, like you originally claimed. Okay, have it your way. Let's ignore what congress is doing. Let's ignore the pleas from the employers. Let's ignore the CBO reports. We can just stick our head in the sand because the adverse impact hasn't been sufficiently quantified to your liking. You're the one who made a claim that went way beyond looking at the actual effects of the ACA on employment. Nobody's ignoring the CBO reports - you're the one who's ignoring the reality of the overwhelming majority of part-time jobs in the U.S. having absolutely nothing to do with the ACA. You tried to sneak in a ridiculous hyperbole into your attack of the ACA, and you've been called out on it. This is why I used to ignore your posts. You aren't arguing anything meaningful. All of your responses to my original post can be distilled to "I disagree with xDaunt's use of the term 'significant.'" Arguing semantics is a bore. There's no hyperbole in what I said. In fact, what I said shouldn't even be controversial.
I'm arguing what you said. If you want to debate the impact on employment of the ACA, by all means, go ahead. If you're going to claim, as you did, that "it's no secret that a comparatively disproportionate portion of those who are employed are only working part time, and that a very significant reason for that is that employers are trying to duck the healthcare mandate" (emphasis mine), then don't expect people not to notice that you just said something that is blatantly false in order to paint the ACA as negatively as you can.
edit: in fact, sam!zdat addressed this even before I did, when he wrote in his reply to you "romneycare at worst somewhat exacerbates an already very serious trend towards precarious employment which has been underway for 30 years and will continue into the foreseeable future".
|
On August 28 2013 05:21 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2013 05:15 xDaunt wrote:On August 28 2013 04:59 kwizach wrote:On August 28 2013 04:41 legor wrote:
Graphs 30 years into the past till 2012 don't show anything relevant for this discussion. They do, and you'd know that if you had paid attention to the claim I was replying to. On August 28 2013 04:41 xDaunt wrote:On August 28 2013 04:28 kwizach wrote:The graphs "don't show anything"? Here's what you wrote: On August 28 2013 02:29 xDaunt wrote:
[...] it's no secret that a comparatively disproportionate portion of those who are employed are only working part time, and that a very significant reason for that is that employers are trying to duck the healthcare mandate. The two graphs I presented you with clearly show that your statement is completely false, unless by "a very significant reason for that" you meant "the potential reason for a very small percentage of that amount". Also, nice source of yours - even your heritage foundation blog only provides speculation and not actual data to back up its claim. Regardless, there is a difference between having an small negative impact on employment and being a "very significant reason" for the high levels of part-time employment in the US, like you originally claimed. Okay, have it your way. Let's ignore what congress is doing. Let's ignore the pleas from the employers. Let's ignore the CBO reports. We can just stick our head in the sand because the adverse impact hasn't been sufficiently quantified to your liking. You're the one who made a claim that went way beyond looking at the actual effects of the ACA on employment. Nobody's ignoring the CBO reports - you're the one who's ignoring the reality of the overwhelming majority of part-time jobs in the U.S. having absolutely nothing to do with the ACA. You tried to sneak in a ridiculous hyperbole into your attack of the ACA, and you've been called out on it. This is why I used to ignore your posts. You aren't arguing anything meaningful. All of your responses to my original post can be distilled to "I disagree with xDaunt's use of the term 'significant.'" Arguing semantics is a bore. There's no hyperbole in what I said. In fact, what I said shouldn't even be controversial. I'm arguing what you said. If you want to debate the impact on employment of the ACA, by all means, go ahead. If you're going to claim, as you did, that "it's no secret that a comparatively disproportionate portion of those who are employed are only working part time, and that a very significant reason for that is that employers are trying to duck the healthcare mandate" (emphasis mine), then don't expect people not to notice that you just said something that is blatantly false in order to paint the ACA as negatively as you can.
"Blatantly false?" Are you crazy? EVERYONE admits that the ACA is adversely affecting employment. EVERYONE admits that the ACA significantly contributes to the disproportionately high number of part time jobs, because the ACA so dramatically skews employee cost curves. There's nothing blatantly false about what I am saying. This shit is self-evident.
|
On August 28 2013 03:58 Catch]22 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2013 03:55 kwizach wrote:On August 28 2013 03:06 TheOneWhoKnocks wrote:
By the way, does anyone find it a bit ironic that Obama is about to bomb a middle eastern country without UN approval because of WMD's? Are you seriously trying to equate Syria and Iraq? And the U.S. actions towards both? Its mind-boggling that people try to do this very equation. It sickens me that anyone would compare the stable Iraq, and the questionability of the US entering Iraq to the Syrian civil war and its 100k+ casualties.
Would you like a reminder of how many people Sadam killed in order to keep his country "stable" . History didn't begin on 9/11. If you're going to use that comparison we should wait 15 years to see if Syria is stable.
On August 28 2013 05:21 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2013 05:15 xDaunt wrote:On August 28 2013 04:59 kwizach wrote:On August 28 2013 04:41 legor wrote:
Graphs 30 years into the past till 2012 don't show anything relevant for this discussion. They do, and you'd know that if you had paid attention to the claim I was replying to. On August 28 2013 04:41 xDaunt wrote:On August 28 2013 04:28 kwizach wrote:The graphs "don't show anything"? Here's what you wrote: On August 28 2013 02:29 xDaunt wrote:
[...] it's no secret that a comparatively disproportionate portion of those who are employed are only working part time, and that a very significant reason for that is that employers are trying to duck the healthcare mandate. The two graphs I presented you with clearly show that your statement is completely false, unless by "a very significant reason for that" you meant "the potential reason for a very small percentage of that amount". Also, nice source of yours - even your heritage foundation blog only provides speculation and not actual data to back up its claim. Regardless, there is a difference between having an small negative impact on employment and being a "very significant reason" for the high levels of part-time employment in the US, like you originally claimed. Okay, have it your way. Let's ignore what congress is doing. Let's ignore the pleas from the employers. Let's ignore the CBO reports. We can just stick our head in the sand because the adverse impact hasn't been sufficiently quantified to your liking. You're the one who made a claim that went way beyond looking at the actual effects of the ACA on employment. Nobody's ignoring the CBO reports - you're the one who's ignoring the reality of the overwhelming majority of part-time jobs in the U.S. having absolutely nothing to do with the ACA. You tried to sneak in a ridiculous hyperbole into your attack of the ACA, and you've been called out on it. This is why I used to ignore your posts. You aren't arguing anything meaningful. All of your responses to my original post can be distilled to "I disagree with xDaunt's use of the term 'significant.'" Arguing semantics is a bore. There's no hyperbole in what I said. In fact, what I said shouldn't even be controversial. I'm arguing what you said. If you want to debate the impact on employment of the ACA, by all means, go ahead. If you're going to claim, as you did, that "it's no secret that a comparatively disproportionate portion of those who are employed are only working part time, and that a very significant reason for that is that employers are trying to duck the healthcare mandate" (emphasis mine), then don't expect people not to notice that you just said something that is blatantly false in order to paint the ACA as negatively as you can. edit: in fact, sam!zdat addressed this even before I did, when he wrote in his reply to you "romneycare at worst somewhat exacerbates an already very serious trend towards precarious employment which has been underway for 30 years and will continue into the foreseeable future".
http://www.forbes.com/sites/lauraheller/2013/06/14/obamacare-is-turning-walmart-workers-into-temps/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/06/beige-book-obamacare_n_2821632.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324694904578601922653718606.html
I'm sure it's just a coincidence, the year obamacare is going to kick in people change their hiring.
On August 28 2013 03:00 farvacola wrote:
Yeah, because no one in Congress has ever had a problem getting health insurance.
If Obamacare is so good, they should want to stop receiving their normal heath benefits in exchange for it. Unless it's just them trying to pass off shit to the underclass while they eat filet mignon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://angrybearblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Clipboard01-PARTTIME.bmp)
![[image loading]](http://angrybearblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Clipboard01-weekly2.bmp)
