More news for the Obama koolaid drinkers

The president's Democratic allies have been trying to distance themselves from the issue in the lead-up to November's elections, which will determine which political party controls Congress for the final two years of Mr Obama's presidency.

confuzzled dude wrote:Thanks for proving our point about corporate greed.

The congressional analysts say there will be fewer workers because healthcare subsidies would "reduce incentives to work" and pose an "implicit tax on working" for those returning to a job with health insurance.

The CBO said some US businesses may also decide to reduce their workforce to fewer than 50 full-time employees to avoid having to provide health insurance as mandated under the law.

The report also found US workers nearing retirement may opt to work shorter hours to retain healthcare subsidies until they qualify for Medicare, a federal health programme for the elderly.

Hellsangel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:Thanks for proving our point about corporate greed.

Did you even read that article?

The congressional analysts say there will be fewer workers because healthcare subsidies would "reduce incentives to work" and pose an "implicit tax on working" for those returning to a job with health insurance.

The CBO said some US businesses may also decide to reduce their workforce to fewer than 50 full-time employees to avoid having to provide health insurance as mandated under the law.

The report also found US workers nearing retirement may opt to work shorter hours to retain healthcare

subsidies until they qualify for Medicare, a federal health programme for the elderly.

For those of you ranting that the ACA is "killing jobs", note that the CBO claims that low income workers will "choose" to work less hours. Why would people choose that, you ask?

Well, let's take the real family I know in which both parents are working. Mom has a decent income, but no insurance. Dad barely makes makes what the family spends on child care, but works so that the family can have insurance. Here comes the ACA. Now dad can stay home with the kids and do part time work from home, and everyone is insured. This family is much better off. They are netting more money, and get to spend quality time with the kids.

In other (more hypothetical) examples, people may choose to cut their work hours without fear of not having access to insurance because they are going back to school, or because they are starting their own business. Both of these situations may provide long term benefits to the individuals and the nation's economy.

The real world is a lot more complicated than can be explained by ideological comments on excerpted sound bites.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:a comment on a similar article on the wapo website:

For those of you ranting that the ACA is "killing jobs", note that the CBO claims that low income workers will "choose" to work less hours. Why would people choose that, you ask?

Well, let's take the real family I know in which both parents are working. Mom has a decent income, but no insurance. Dad barely makes makes what the family spends on child care, but works so that the family can have insurance. Here comes the ACA. Now dad can stay home with the kids and do part time work from home, and everyone is insured. This family is much better off. They are netting more money, and get to spend quality time with the kids.

In other (more hypothetical) examples, people may choose to cut their work hours without fear of not having access to insurance because they are going back to school, or because they are starting their own business. Both of these situations may provide long term benefits to the individuals and the nation's economy.

The real world is a lot more complicated than can be explained by ideological comments on excerpted sound bites.

stay-at-home parenting and starting a business are cherished family values and business friendly republican ideals.