It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Oh yes because our failure of a healthcare system was doing such a great job in the first place wasn't it?
We pay more than any other system in the world and get crap for return.
People like you cry about how bad the government is when in fact it is the insurance companies that jack the rates up but doesn't give anything in return.
And Medicaid and Medicare works rather well and would have been better if it wasn't for people like Bush that created programs but didn't fund them
Too bad the second bill of rights didn't get passed then the ACA wouldn't even be needed.
ausername
I think the estimate is too conservative. ... It is going to be a disaster by design.
A lot of people in the middle class are going to find themselves unable to afford coverage under the ACA mandate when fully implemented and enforced.... There are millions being cancelled from existing plans, and many more when the employer mandates are fully implemented and enforced.
xuenchen
reply to post by thekaliyuga
(partial quote)
The companies are reducing hours down to part time to bypass giving their employees healthcare, I doubt the prezi is sitting around plotting our individual demise by reduction in our work hours... so if you work at McDonalds just wait,
once legislation is passed it will be illegal to reduce work force hours to essentially break the law of the land.
Interesting.
Is that in the PPACA, or is it a regulation by one of the Cabinet agencies?
Or is it an Executive Order?
Oh yes because our failure of a healthcare system was doing such a great job in the first place wasn't it?
Testifying before the House Budget Committee yesterday, Congressional Budget Office director Douglas Elmendorf said of Obamacare, “[T]he act creates a disincentive for people to work.” He declared, “[B]y providing heavily subsidized health insurance to people with very low income and then withdrawing those subsidies as income rises, the act creates a disincentive for people to work—relative to what would have been the case in the absence of that act.”
Elmendorf, a Democrat, tried to claim that these people who would “have less of an incentive to work” would be “better off,” but Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan was having none of it.
Ryan replied, “I guess I understand the ‘better off’ in the context of health care. But better off in inducing the person not to work who’s on the low-income scale, not to get on the ladder of life, to begin working, getting the dignity of work, getting more opportunities, [raising] their income, joining the middle class, this means fewer people will do that. That’s why I am troubled by this.”
People like you cry about how bad the government is when in fact it is the insurance companies that jack the rates up but doesn't give anything in return.
The CEO of AOL, Tim Armstrong, said on CNBC this morning that "Obamacare is an additional $7.1 million expense for us as a company."
"We have to look at our benefits programs very seriously," said Armstrong. "In the CEO chair, let me give you an example of the decisions we have to make as a company: Obamacare is an additional $7.1 million expense for us as a company. So we have to decide whether or not to pass that expense to employees or whether to cut other benefits."
I find it endlessly hilarious that despite cold hard facts in front of your nose, people would rather believe a lie than read between the lines. Have you really bought into the fear mongering so much that you believe the dribble of Fox news? Funny that FOX NEWS AND IT SUBSIDIARIES ARE THE ONLY NEWS STATIONS REPORTING THIS TRASH.
On Tuesday, the Congressional Budget Office released a new study finding that the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, will cause "a decline in the number of full-time-equivalent workers of about 2.0 million in 2017, rising to about 2.5 million in 2024."
Here's how it will work (or rather, discourage work): Obamacare offers Medicaid to people earning up to 138 percent of the federal poverty line in states that opted into the program, and it provides subsidies to people earning above that amount, up to 400 percent of the federal poverty line. As your income increases, the subsidy decreases.
CBO explains that "the phaseout effectively raises people’s marginal tax rates (the tax rates applying to their last dollar of income), thus discouraging work."
For some people, CBO notes, the incentive to reduce their hours or quit their jobs will be especially strong: "People whose income exceeds 400 percent of the FPL are ineligible for premium subsidies, and for some people those subsidies will drop abruptly to zero when income crosses that threshold."
The Obamacare subsidy cliff is so steep that if you earn just $1 above the threshold, you could end up paying anywhere from a few thousand dollars to $20,000 more for insurance, depending on your age.
What the truth might be, and what few politicians would dare say, is there might simply be some value in lower economic growth.
Danielle Kurtzleben, associate editor, U.S. News & World Report.
jimmyx
how is this possibly a "job killer"?....if a 65 year old worker can now retire and get affordable healthcare, that job they left, still has to be done by somebody, the work that needs to be done is still there, and still needs someone to do it. companies hire people to do jobs, so that company can stay in business, they don't hire people just so the worker has healthcare....geez...talk about denying ignorance
Studies have been done and the most jobs lost at the maximum is 300,000 and those are minimum wage, menial jobs.
America now has a government that views work as a trap and celebrates those who escape it.
That is the upshot of last week’s remarkable exchange over ObamaCare. It began when the head of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reported that the interplay of taxes and subsidies in the law “creates a disincentive for people to work.” The report predicted the mix would lead to fewer hours worked, costing the equivalent of nearly 2.5 million jobs.
In response, President Obama’s spokesman pleaded guilty — with pride and pleasure.
“Opportunity created by affordable, quality health insurance allows families in America to make a decision about how they will work, or if they will work,” Jay Carney said. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi applauded the law for freeing people from “job-lock.”
They never mentioned the implications of this distinctly Obama-ish New Deal. The subsidies that enable some Americans to decide “if they will work” mean higher taxes from those who must or want to work.
The discussion began when round-table host Jonathan Karl asked Congressman Tom Cole (R-Okla.) about a CBO report showing "the equivalent of two million-plus workers coming out of the economy" due to Obamacare.
Cole said, "Obamacare has been an issue from day one that's hurt Democrats and helped Republicans." And he said it's "not going to go away" as an issue "because it's fundamentally a flawed, bad policy."
Ellison countered that the CBO report on the reduction of hours worked means, "We are going to have parents being able to come home, working reasonable hours. People are going to be able to retire. People might actually be able to cook dinner rather than have to order out and get some takeout."
He added: "If you look at international comparisons country by country, Americans work way more that the average of industrialized countries around the world."
He said the report showing fewer work hours gives us the chance "to look at our work/life balance," which he described as "a great opportunity."