White House: When you think about it, 2.5 million fewer people working because of ObamaCare is good news

posted at 3:21 pm on February 4, 2014 by Allahpundit

I’m done, guys. If we’ve reached the stage of welfare-state decadence where it’s a selling point for a new entitlement that it discourages able-bodied people from working, there’s no reason to keep going. We’ve lost, decisively.

As a great man once said, remember me as I am — filled with murderous rage.

In a statement and conference call featuring top administration officials, the White House tried to beat back an emerging narrative that the CBO report supported claims made by health care reform critics. The CBO report says the Affordable Care Act could lead to a reduction of 2 million full-time workers between 2017 and 2024. The CBO says the reduction would not come via fewer available full-time jobs (as critics of the law have alleged) but “almost entirely from a net decline in the amount of labor that workers choose to supply.”…

“To put that in context, I have no doubt that if we eliminated Social Security and eliminated Medicare, there would be many 95-year-olds that would choose to work more hours than they’re working today just so they could survive, feed themselves and have health insurance,” the official said.

The CBO’s projected reduction in full-time workers, then, “shouldn’t be a significant cause for surprise and it reflects the fact that workers have a new set of options and are making the best choices that they can choose to make for themselves given those options,” the official said.

In other words, it’s not that employers will be offering 2.5 million fewer jobs. It’s that ObamaCare, by subsidizing low earners and expanding Medicaid for the very poor, will incentivize 2.5 million people not to work. Or, if you prefer:

Billions upon billions of dollars in economic productivity up in smoke as workers who’ve stuck with their jobs for the health insurance quit and take a subsidies check from Uncle Sam instead. To the White House, which otherwise bleats about “growth” at every opportunity, this is a feature of the law, not a bug. WaPo’s fact-checker even rushed out a piece this afternoon in defense of their position. The law’s not destroying 2.5 million jobs, says Glenn Kessler, it’s merely inviting 2.5 million employees to quit. How much does it matter to growth, though, if the labor force shrinks on the demand side versus the supply side? Will all, or most, of the vacated positions be filled by younger workers or will they evaporate as businesses downsize (or close down)? If giving people more “choice” in whether to be employed or not is now our cardinal social good, we might as well go for a guaranteed minimum income and clear out all the wage slaves. Let’s see how small we can get the labor force before the wheels come off the economy.

Don’t act surprised, either. Nancy told you this was coming. Look on the bright side: If fewer people working is a sign of economic success, the Obama presidency will be remembered as a golden age.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5

You’re a terrible poker player.

Throwing you around, mentally, is way better than poker or chess, alas.

When you’re dismissing me you always say “libslave” or whatever lame thing.

You be wrong, even on this. I don’t dismiss you. I call you this because I truly would like for YOU, all of you, to be free, finally. You’ll never believe this but I did help more blacks than you and obama, combined. However, none were as enslaved as either of you.

Its one of your endlessly repeating commenting rituals.

Truth hurts. I want you to unshackle, finally, damn it! YOU are free. Don’t promoted shackledom, for you and others.

Plus, professors should know it’s from its.

You changed it up on that comment, which means you saw some validity in my point, but you didn’t want to admit it. :)

libfreeordie on February 4, 2014 at 5:30 PM

If ever you’d make valid points, I’d freely give them to you. Just ask verbie. I congratulated you on your huge win on Sunday. What did you do? You promoted racism.

Schadenfreude on February 4, 2014 at 5:35 PM

libfreeordie on February 4, 2014 at 5:23 PM

You’re so long winded.

Why not just say “Money is the root of all evil.” and get it over with. Too biblical for you?

thatsafactjack on February 4, 2014 at 5:35 PM

That occurred in the vast minority of the case. The labor market did not get any easier for uneducated black people when welfare reform was instituted.

libfreeordie on February 4, 2014 at 5:26 PM

And most of these people live under the rule of Democrats and have for decades.

Cities and states run by Democrats can’t manage to pull this off but the federal government can somehow?

gwelf on February 4, 2014 at 5:35 PM

Fine! Seriously, its fine. They aren’t obligated to raise wages. Then they have to contribute to middle class lifestyle via greater taxes. It is one or the other. In order for America to be middle class a certain amount of resources have to get to a certain amount of people.

libfreeordie on February 4, 2014 at 4:40 PM

I have a box of geodes that are giggling their little crystals off.

Rio Linda Refugee on February 4, 2014 at 5:36 PM

Is this. Or is this not an incredibly tight job market right now? Isn’t it in the interest of employers, who use tight labor markets to lower wages and cut employee benefits to claim that this is a bad thing? They’ll do *anything* to keep wages stagnant, including pretending to forget the relationship between job demand and wages.

libfreeordie on February 4, 2014 at 3:39 PM

Hey Genius, could you shed light on sales figures and profitability for those same employers? Oh, I know you’ll cherry pick, but lets just see how far you can get.

It works like this. For every named employer, you show wage figures for a few years, and then you show sales and profitability.

I built one of Del’s sundials in the back yard. Let me set it.

oldroy on February 4, 2014 at 5:37 PM

sentinelrules on February 4, 2014 at 5:35 PM

And if they have ambitions of upward mobility, by any means, are generally the most blatantly snobbish.

thatsafactjack on February 4, 2014 at 5:37 PM

The country’s economy started going downhill, immediately after the great WWII. Slowly, at first … then rapidly, through the ’50s.

JFK’s tax cuts reversed this (for all-to-short of a time, unfortunately).

listens2glenn on February 4, 2014 at 5:09 PM

.
You actually believe that? Wow.

libfreeordie on February 4, 2014 at 5:13 PM

.
Yes.
.
You actually don’t believe that? … Wow.

listens2glenn on February 4, 2014 at 5:38 PM

“The first thing we do is kill all the artists…”

Washington Fancy on February 4, 2014 at 5:38 PM

Where’d he go? Must have been time to make that bacon wrapped meatloaf. I guess that’s all he could afford on his poor teachers salary.

oldroy on February 4, 2014 at 5:41 PM

libfreeordie on February 4, 2014 at 5:23 PM

The ‘middle class’ of this country was never under more direct attack and more reductions in their numbers than when the progressive-fascists, like you, start whinging over ‘social justice’, ‘fairness’, and the greatest of fallacies, ‘income inequality’.

It’s not the role of the government or corporations to determine who or what to give in order to support the middle class. Any efforts towards engineering a free market system breaks that free market system.

This is a country that is based on the equality of opportunity – not the equality of results. This also is a country that is based on a classless system – yet the left today is so inordinately obsessed with class…particularly their own position at the top as the elitists who know it all.

People who entered the middle class earned their entry into the middle class by their efforts, their education, their learning of a trade and obtaining a job where they contribute to their employer and earn a wage that is determined and set by the marketplace, to the point of finally responsibly spending their incomes while investing for their future and retirement. To remain in the middle class, their sons and daughters largely needed to do the same – be able to compete in the marketplace to earn wages and then to responsibly use those wages as well as invest those wages for the future.

The advocacy of a ‘planned structure’ for the ‘middle class’ distorts everything, encourages waste, inefficiency, corruption, or the ability to actually achieve to the point to move from one class to another.

It reflects that the more the government tries to ‘fix’ something, the far more it ‘breaks’ something.

It reflects the real difference between what happens in reality and the useful idiot theoretical jingoism that you readily espouse.

The only thing sadder is your continued ignorance of not only facts, but cause in effect – all blinded by your ideological fantasies.

Athos on February 4, 2014 at 5:41 PM

Really dude? You don’t think that there aren’t fundamental differences between the way we would administer a slightly more socialistic state and the way it was done in early 20th century Russia? Really? Like, we’re just somehow going to be unaware of that fact. That’s a fact that’s pretty deeply embedded into the national consciousness. By dint of the fact that you just brought it up here.

And can somone *please* remind me why it is bad to Godwin with Holocaust examples, but you all are allowed to equate slightly higher tax rates with the fricking Gulags. Where lots and lots of lives were lost. We should be able to distinguish between a Gulag and a healthcare bill. Why can’t you though?

libfreeordie on February 4, 2014 at 5:16 PM

The more I think about it the more I think I hit home.

You are the one blaming everything on the Kulaks.

gwelf on February 4, 2014 at 5:42 PM

Why not just say “Money is the root of all evil.” and get it over with. Too biblical for you?

thatsafactjack on February 4, 2014 at 5:35 PM

…and leftists love it – see the obamas and liblikeaslave…but they like to redistribute other people’s dough, while accusing the ones who earned of “racism”.

Meh, this is pure modern day ‘plantation’ stuff. Otherwise they’d promote good education for all, not the public school squaller union front…rewards for efforts, lower paying jobs for students, while they study…reminds me

Obama “I painted houses too in the summer, but it wasn’t enough”…therefore he, hue-based alone, was paid by money ‘pimps’ and he’s still not grateful, same as liblikeslave.

You give them something, they bite the hand which fed them and the vicious circle continues.

Schadenfreude on February 4, 2014 at 5:44 PM

Who are these people who only had a job to get healthcare benefits?

What do they eat and where do they sleep? What about their dependents?

gwelf on February 4, 2014 at 3:56 PM

My mom is one. Dad farms and handles everything else, but they couldn’t swing health insurance. Pretty much every bit of Mom’s paycheck goes for health insurance. In fact, sometimes when school is out for a few weeks, Mom actually pays in to work.

cptacek on February 4, 2014 at 5:44 PM

Must have been the end of the work day for libfree. It probably wouldn’t matter, but he should let his school know how much at work time he spends refuting the lies of the state’s enemies.

oldroy on February 4, 2014 at 5:45 PM

Really dude? You don’t think that there aren’t fundamental differences between the way we would administer a slightly more socialistic state and the way it was done in early 20th century Russia? Really? Like, we’re just somehow going to be unaware of that fact. That’s a fact that’s pretty deeply embedded into the national consciousness. By dint of the fact that you just brought it up here.

And can somone *please* remind me why it is bad to Godwin with Holocaust examples, but you all are allowed to equate slightly higher tax rates with the fricking Gulags. Where lots and lots of lives were lost. We should be able to distinguish between a Gulag and a healthcare bill. Why can’t you though?

libfreeordie on February 4, 2014 at 5:16 PM

When Left-wing “slightly socialistic” policies fail, as they inevitably do over time, will the Leftists amongst us call for rolling back those polices, or doubling down on socialism? Doubling down, of course.

And when the double-down on “slightly socialistic” ideas fail, will the Leftists demand they we undo their anti-choice, command-and-control policies, or will they push for more? They’ll push for more, of course.

And when those policies fail over time, will the Leftists move towards free market capitalism, or go harder Left: more centralization, more corruption, more bloating, more waste, fraud and abuse? They’ll go harder Left, of course.

The endgame of the Progressive ideology can only be some kind of totalitarianism. That’s because the Progressive ideology defies human nature. It can never work in the long run. Conservatives understand human nature. It can’t be changed. So we advocate the policies, while imperfect, that will bring the most prosperity and well-being to the most amount of people.

visions on February 4, 2014 at 5:46 PM

The endgame of the Progressive ideology can only be some kind of totalitarianism. That’s because the Progressive ideology defies human nature. It can never work in the long run. Conservatives understand human nature. It can’t be changed. So we advocate the policies, while imperfect, that will bring the most prosperity and well-being to the most amount of people.

visions on February 4, 2014 at 5:46 PM

Yeah, I know. Individual freedom and prosperity from ones own accomplishments and work are vice that we conservatives have to accommodate for in our thinking.

oldroy on February 4, 2014 at 5:48 PM

Progress. = Perversion.

Bmore on February 4, 2014 at 5:49 PM

until 2010 when healthcare passed.

libfreeordie on February 4, 2014 at 5:10 PM

It’s funny how Leftists believe that heath care did not exist in America before 2010. It makes even less sense considering that ObamaCare is a law that deals with heath insurance. Why do Leftists, all the way up to Obama, believe that health insurance and health care are the same thing?

visions on February 4, 2014 at 5:49 PM

The endgame of the Progressive ideology can only be some kind of totalitarianism. That’s because the Progressive ideology defies human nature. It can never work in the long run. Conservatives understand human nature. It can’t be changed. So we advocate the policies, while imperfect, that will bring the most prosperity and well-being to the most amount of people.

visions on February 4, 2014 at 5:46 PM

But then the free people no longer vote for the fascist leftist thugs.

Schadenfreude on February 4, 2014 at 5:49 PM

Successful day. Libfree admits that he is just a lucky fool. Just lucky enough to have his job, because any number of other fools could have been chosen. I’m sure he was a slacker and was chosen just because he was black or gay or both.

If this isn’t the case, what happens to all of his own arguments?

oldroy on February 4, 2014 at 5:50 PM

That occurred in the vast minority of the case. The labor market did not get any easier for uneducated black people when welfare reform was instituted.

libfreeordie on February 4, 2014 at 5:26 PM

Sounds like you did alright…

BigWyo on February 4, 2014 at 5:51 PM

It’s funny how Leftists believe that heath care did not exist in America before 2010. It makes even less sense considering that ObamaCare is a law that deals with heath insurance. Why do Leftists, all the way up to Obama, believe that health insurance and health care are the same thing?

visions on February 4, 2014 at 5:49 PM

They don’t. They want to destroy any option for healthcare except government.

oldroy on February 4, 2014 at 5:51 PM

We all knew there were a significant number of people who were staying on the job because they didn’t want to lose their health care coverage. In many cases they had developed expensive health conditions while they were under their current employer provided plan, and if they quit, they would be facing a backbreaking cost for new insurance due to their having what would be considered by their new insurer to be a serious preexisting condition.

They really were trapped, and it was due to no fault of their own. The system of employer provided health care insurance sucked, and everyone knew it.

So many of those people who were trapped are quitting now because they can get Obamacare, where their preexisting condition is irrelevant.

In those cases where this is what is actually happening, those ‘job losses’ are a good thing.

As destructive as Obamacare is overall, it is not pure evil.

fadetogray on February 4, 2014 at 5:52 PM

Where’d you go libby? Brought a forked tongue to a truth fight and got your self whooped?

oldroy on February 4, 2014 at 5:53 PM

Waiting for that list of employers that have dropped their wages libby. If it’s not too much trouble, could you name them and show their sales and profitability too? I know math isn’t your deal, but just give it the old college try.

oldroy on February 4, 2014 at 5:55 PM

Heh. libby is a coward.

22044 on February 4, 2014 at 5:59 PM

Just read the 5 points, and make sure all know them.

Schadenfreude on February 4, 2014 at 5:59 PM

So many of those people who were trapped are quitting now because they can get Obamacare, where their preexisting condition is irrelevant.

In those cases where this is what is actually happening, those ‘job losses’ are a good thing.

As destructive as Obamacare is overall, it is not pure evil.

fadetogray on February 4, 2014 at 5:52 PM

HUH? Yeah it is pure evil. It is a most pervasive and destructive evil. The damn thing isn’t even about access to healthcare or any of the other lies that were told to sell it. It is about creating a permanent ruling class, and a permanent underclass. People like me in the middle are going to be nothing but batteries for the oligarchs until our usefulness is used up. I loathe you reprobates that perpetuate the lies about the intent and purpose of this law.

But yeah, people dropping out of the workforce “to get healthcare” is GOOD.

/

Murphy9 on February 4, 2014 at 5:59 PM

liblikeaslave lost at poker.

Schadenfreude on February 4, 2014 at 5:59 PM

Dennis Prager has mentioned that Marx wanted a society where people worked very little and got to write poetry and stuff.

terryannonline on February 4, 2014 at 6:01 PM

liblikeaslave lost at poker.

Schadenfreude on February 4, 2014 at 5:59 PM

Nah. He just ran out of time at work and had to go pick up his paycheck.

oldroy on February 4, 2014 at 6:01 PM

You give them something, they bite the hand which fed them and the vicious circle continues.

Schadenfreude on February 4, 2014 at 5:44 PM

Indeed, Paladin, and the best reason to stop giving and start making all earn their way.

It’s not only not ethical to deprive people of the opportunity to achieve in their own right, thus depriving them of personal freedom, self reliance and dignity, it’s immoral, too.

thatsafactjack on February 4, 2014 at 6:03 PM

it’s immoral, too.

thatsafactjack on February 4, 2014 at 6:03 PM

It’s also immoral to allow suckers to keep their ‘riches’. Let the leftist redistribution preachers hand out their wealth…heh, heh, heh.

Schadenfreude on February 4, 2014 at 6:07 PM

A nation of Maynard G. Krebses.

BJ* on February 4, 2014 at 6:09 PM

Murphy9 on February 4, 2014 at 5:59 PM

People now being able to get out of jobs they were trapped in because of our screwed up health insurance arrangements pre-Obamacare is a good thing.

It does not mean Obamacare is not an evil thing overall, just that one of its effects (that is ONE of its effects) happens to be good.

fadetogray on February 4, 2014 at 6:10 PM

They really were trapped, and it was due to no fault of their own. The system of employer provided health care insurance sucked, and everyone knew it.

fadetogray on February 4, 2014 at 5:52 PM

Many conservatives and Leftists believe that health insurance should no longer be provided by employers. But that’s where the agreement ends.

Conservatives (and Libertarians) know that freeing the insurance market is the solution (even before ObamaCare health insurance was one of the most over-regulated in the entire country, nothing close to a free market) while Leftists believe in a government takeover, in various degrees.

Believe it or not, there are free-market based solutions for those with “pre-existing conditions.”

Finally, I’m not ready to believe that all people with bad health and “pre-existing conditions” are that way because of “no fault of their own.” I have a family member that smokes menthols, drinks Mountain Dew all day, never exercises, and is around 50 years old with big time health problems and “pre-existing conditions.” Not their fault? Shouldn’t they be responsible to pay for their own health decisions?

visions on February 4, 2014 at 6:12 PM

Not their fault? Shouldn’t they be responsible to pay for their own health decisions?

visions on February 4, 2014 at 6:12 PM

You’ll need to wait for libfree to give you the ultimate judgment answer on that.

oldroy on February 4, 2014 at 6:15 PM

We all knew there were a significant number of people who were staying on the job because they didn’t want to lose their health care coverage. In many cases they had developed expensive health conditions while they were under their current employer provided plan, and if they quit, they would be facing a backbreaking cost for new insurance due to their having what would be considered by their new insurer to be a serious preexisting condition.

They really were trapped, and it was due to no fault of their own. The system of employer provided health care insurance sucked, and everyone knew it.

So many of those people who were trapped are quitting now because they can get Obamacare, where their preexisting condition is irrelevant.

In those cases where this is what is actually happening, those ‘job losses’ are a good thing.

You’re right, workforce mobility is critical to the country’s long-term economic success. A worker trapped in a position that under utilizes his or her skill set blocks productivity gains while creating a bottleneck for companies trying to fill higher skilled positions. The next Steve Jobs shouldn’t be trapped in his corporate job because he requires health insurance.

Conservatives (and Libertarians) know that freeing the insurance market is the solution

Absolutely wrong. The solution- first demonstrated by Romney- is to change the underlying healthcare business model to accountable care. It’a amazing that so many on the right continually fail to understand the basic mechanics necessary to reform and reduce healthcare costs. Simply improving ‘free market’ competition among insurance companies never had the potential to fundamentally realign the financial incentives that have led to huge inefficiencies in the delivery of healthcare in the US.

bayam on February 4, 2014 at 6:20 PM

under Clinton and Welfare reform. No President since Clinton has reinstituted federal welfare in the way it existed. Until Obamacare, which is just up and running. We have had 35 years of Reaganomics fundamentally unchanged until 2010 when healthcare passed.

libfreeordie on February 4, 2014 at 5:10 PM

You seem to forget that your Rock Star Clinton vetoed welfare reform twice.

Oh, and all of my relatives who have been doctors for decades will only laugh at your assertion that there was no health care before 2010.

Those who have the most money love money the most.

libfreeordie on February 4, 2014 at 5:23 PM

Epic Fail. Only some people who have money love it more than others. Those people are called “Liberal Democrats”.

Far Right Loon Nick Kristof, in the Republican Rag the New York Times:

Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.

Other research has reached similar conclusions. The “generosity index” from the Catalogue for Philanthropy typically finds that red states are the most likely to give to nonprofits, while Northeastern states are least likely to do so.

The upshot is that Democrats, who speak passionately about the hungry and homeless, personally fork over less money to charity than Republicans — the ones who try to cut health insurance for children.

And I’ll cut off your totally predictable “response” off at the pass:

According to Google’s figures, if donations to all religious organizations are excluded, liberals give slightly more to charity than conservatives do. But Mr. Brooks says that if measuring by the percentage of income given, conservatives are more generous than liberals even to secular causes.

Thanks for playing!

F-

Del Dolemonte on February 4, 2014 at 6:22 PM

The next Steve Jobs shouldn’t be trapped in his corporate job because he requires health insurance.

bayam on February 4, 2014 at 6:20 PM

Another Genius. Could you tell us when apple first offered insurance? and how long after Jobs and Wozniak started the company that was?

oldroy on February 4, 2014 at 6:24 PM

I built one of Del’s sundials in the back yard. Let me set it.

oldroy on February 4, 2014 at 5:37 PM

When can I expect my royalty check?

/

Del Dolemonte on February 4, 2014 at 6:25 PM

The next Steve Jobs shouldn’t be trapped in his corporate job because he requires health insurance.

bayam on February 4, 2014 at 6:20 PM

Steve Jobs mention by bayam. EVERYBODY DRINK.

Chuck Schick on February 4, 2014 at 6:26 PM

It’s a bad thing that people will be working less hours at their shitty low-wage jobs in order to afford the basic necessities of life?

Thanks to automation and globalization there simply aren’t enough decent paying jobs anymore so we might as well just guarantee all US citizens the basic necessities of life. Of course conservatives are just sadists who enjoy the thought of people dying the streets from easily preventable causes so of course they think this would be a bad thing.

AJB on February 4, 2014 at 6:26 PM

Absolutely wrong. The solution- first demonstrated by Romney- is to change the underlying healthcare business model to accountable care. It’a amazing that so many on the right continually fail to understand the basic mechanics necessary to reform and reduce healthcare costs. Simply improving ‘free market’ competition among insurance companies never had the potential to fundamentally realign the financial incentives that have led to huge inefficiencies in the delivery of healthcare in the US.

bayam on February 4, 2014 at 6:20 PM

Why can’t you put on your big boy pants and admit ObamaCare is not working?

Chuck Schick on February 4, 2014 at 6:27 PM

When can I expect my royalty check?

/

Del Dolemonte on February 4, 2014 at 6:25 PM

You never sent the plans.

oldroy on February 4, 2014 at 6:28 PM

Of course conservatives are just sadists who enjoy the thought of people dying the streets from easily preventable causes so of course they think this would be a bad thing.

AJB on February 4, 2014 at 6:26 PM

False premise reprobate.

Murphy9 on February 4, 2014 at 6:28 PM

Typical libtards, generous with everyone else’s money.

Murphy9 on February 4, 2014 at 6:29 PM

The next Steve Jobs shouldn’t be trapped in his corporate job because he requires health insurance.

bayam on February 4, 2014 at 6:20 PM

Another Genius. Could you tell us when apple first offered insurance? and how long after Jobs and Wozniak started the company that was?

oldroy on February 4, 2014 at 6:24 PM

Neither had a severe, pre-existing healthcare condition and I’m surprised a man so certain of his intellectual prowess didn’t know that simple fact.
But that has nothing to do with the primacy of the accountable care model first introduced in the US by Romney.

bayam on February 4, 2014 at 6:29 PM

That occurred in the vast minority of the case. The labor market did not get any easier for uneducated black people when welfare reform was instituted.

libfreeordie on February 4, 2014 at 5:26 PM

Everyone was a hell of alot better off under Clinton than Obama. No one can argue that.

Do you disagree?

Chuck Schick on February 4, 2014 at 6:30 PM

AJB on February 4, 2014 at 6:26 PM

Too Funny!

Bmore on February 4, 2014 at 6:31 PM

bayam on February 4, 2014 at 6:29 PM

Why do you think its not working bayam?

Bmore on February 4, 2014 at 6:33 PM

Neither had a severe, pre-existing healthcare condition and I’m surprised a man so certain of his intellectual prowess didn’t know that simple fact.
But that has nothing to do with the primacy of the accountable care model first introduced in the US by Romney.

bayam on February 4, 2014 at 6:29 PM

ObamaCare has totally debunked your nonsense. No one’s signing up to this disaster because:

A) the number of people who have pre-existing conditions and can’t get insurance are very low

B) the number of people with pre-existing conditions can’t afford ObamaCare

C) A and B

The numbers don’t lie, bayam. You people do.

Chuck Schick on February 4, 2014 at 6:33 PM

Why not just say “Money is the root of all evil.” and get it over with. Too biblical for you?

thatsafactjack on February 4, 2014 at 5:35 PM

…and leftists love it – see the obamas and liblikeaslave…but they like to redistribute other people’s dough, while accusing the ones who earned of “racism”.

Schadenfreude on February 4, 2014 at 5:44 PM

From January 23, 2014

Local taxpayers fund at least $350K in security costs for Obama Hawaiian vacations

KAILUA, Hawaii — During her recent visit to Maui and the home of close family friend Oprah Winfrey, First Lady Michelle Obama was escorted by Maui police.

The tab for that protection? $54,233.70, said a spokesman for the Maui Police Department.

That’s a drop in the bucket, though.

Honolulu police protected the first family while they spent some 15 days during the holidays in Kailua, Oahu.

Michelle Yu, spokeswoman for the Honolulu Police Department, said Thursday the department spent $293,731.99 for overtime only, an expense that excludes normal salary pay.

Neither county police department will seek federal reimbursement for those expenses, putting the burden on local taxpayers.

‘Ae la laua ‘ai iho mea’ono!

(That’s “Let them eat cake!” in Hawaiian)

Del Dolemonte on February 4, 2014 at 6:34 PM

Neither had a severe, pre-existing healthcare condition and I’m surprised a man so certain of his intellectual prowess didn’t know that simple fact.
But that has nothing to do with the primacy of the accountable care model first introduced in the US by Romney.

bayam on February 4, 2014 at 6:29 PM

You sidestepped the question. If Jobs had no pre-existing condition why was he your example? Seems like he had a family trait of higher cancer rates, no? He’s dead of cancer isn’t he?

oldroy on February 4, 2014 at 6:36 PM

Really dude? You don’t think that there aren’t fundamental differences between the way we would administer a slightly more socialistic state and the way it was done in early 20th century Russia?
….
libfreeordie on February 4, 2014 at 5:16 PM

Communism may have failed in the past, but only because WE weren’t in charge. This time we’ll get it right.

The cry before every failed communist regime since the first one. But hey, maybe this time Lucy won’t pull away the football; just keep piling failure upon failure.

Maybe this time won’t result in millions starving to death like every other time. It’s worth a shot… what do we have to lose except having millions of people starve to death.

And who really cares about that.

gekkobear on February 4, 2014 at 6:37 PM

we might as well just guarantee all US citizens the basic necessities of life.
AJB on February 4, 2014 at 6:26 PM

I ask without sarcasm: What tax rate should be locked in to fund food, shelter, health insurance, etc. for the entire US?

You could tax “the rich” at 100% and not fund Obama’s agenda right now. So, assuming the tax rate for “the rich” would have to be around 90-100%, what would the tax rate be for middle-income families to fund food, shelter, housing, health insurance, education, etc. for everyone in the US? As a Leftist, you’re pro-Amnesty, so you’ve got to include all illegal aliens, present and future.

visions on February 4, 2014 at 6:37 PM

The labor market did not get any easier for uneducated black people when welfare reform was instituted. libfreeordie on February 4, 2014 at 5:26 PM

“Extra! Extra! Read all about it! Unskilled people with little education have trouble finding work! Extra! Extra!”

Akzed on February 4, 2014 at 6:38 PM

Unemployment went down steadily for years after Clinton was coerced into signing welfare reform after vetoing it twice… or was it three times?

Akzed on February 4, 2014 at 6:40 PM

Is this. Or is this not an incredibly tight job market right now? Isn’t it in the interest of employers, who use tight labor markets to lower wages and cut employee benefits to claim that this is a bad thing? They’ll do *anything* to keep wages stagnant, including pretending to forget the relationship between job demand and wages.

libfreeordie on February 4, 2014 at 3:39 PM

Libfreeanddie – what is going on is called “Going Galt” – do google search. I have been a businessman for over 35 years. Started my own business right out of college. Many owners of business I know are in hunker down mode until this disaster we call Obamanomics is over.

The feds are making it impossible for the private sector to hire. We can’t print, borrow and steal money like Obama does….

redguy on February 4, 2014 at 6:40 PM

Neither had a severe, pre-existing healthcare condition and I’m surprised a man so certain of his intellectual prowess didn’t know that simple fact.
But that has nothing to do with the primacy of the accountable care model first introduced in the US by Romney.

bayam on February 4, 2014 at 6:29 PM

SO we must cover pre-existing conditions in insurance?

Ok, my housed burned down last week, I need homeowners insurance now to replace the house and everything in it. I’ll pay a year’s worth of premiums for that… deal, right?

Oh, and I wrapped my car around a telephone pole last month; I need to upgrade my car insurance to “comprehensive” so I can get paid for a new car.

No? So I can’t get insurance to cover something AFTER it happens? That is stupid to ask for? But “pre-existing conditions” totally need to be covered by health insurance and this somehow will NOT end up with the same issues?

Explain the math of how much insurance costs if you let people “sign up” AFTER they realize they’ll have millions in costs.

gekkobear on February 4, 2014 at 6:41 PM

But that has nothing to do with the primacy of the accountable care model first introduced in the US by Romney.

brayam on February 4, 2014 at 6:29 PM

LOL, I love how you studiously avoid the word “affordable”.

A+

As for Romney, this is obviously your new “talking point”, as you’ve dropped his name in this thread twice already.

A+

However, you’re totally ignorant to the fact that in fact most of the Massachusetts health care law was not written by Romney, it was written by the Democrats who have controlled the Commonwealth since your great-grandfather was playing for the Montreal Expos.

And you also ignore the fact that Romney vetoed 8 entire sections of “Romneycare” that he did not like. All 8 of those vetoes were promptly overridden by the Democrat Supermajority in MA.

Thanks for playing!

Del Dolemonte on February 4, 2014 at 6:42 PM

What to do with all those grumpy unemployed folk…?

SCALIA PREDICTS RETURN OF INTERNMENT CAMPS

Akzed on February 4, 2014 at 6:42 PM

y’all have to read some of the lib posters on politico…they are highlarious…they are in such denial its amazing…still drinking the kool-aid…

cmsinaz on February 4, 2014 at 6:44 PM

will mika and joe address this in the am

how is wolfie and tingles taking the news?

cmsinaz on February 4, 2014 at 6:44 PM

Del Dolemonte on February 4, 2014 at 6:42 PM

Plus, not everyone in MA was coerced into it. It was for the uninsured.

Akzed on February 4, 2014 at 6:45 PM

Michelle Yu, spokeswoman for the Honolulu Police Department, said Thursday the department spent $293,731.99 for overtime only, an expense that excludes normal salary pay.

Neither county police department will seek federal reimbursement for those expenses, putting the burden on local taxpayers.

‘Ae la laua ‘ai iho mea’ono!

(That’s “Let them eat cake!” in Hawaiian)

Del Dolemonte on February 4, 2014 at 6:34 PM

Could someone explain to me why the States have a federal government, anyway? What does it do besides suck up money and screw up national defense and overburden States with oppressive, unconstitutional regulations?

Couldn’t Texas, for instance, protect itself much better with its own federal tax dollars?

I am quite serious. If we are going this whole open borders/free flow of labor route, what is the point of paying tribute to Washington, D.C.?

fadetogray on February 4, 2014 at 6:45 PM

Wonder when we’ll see the number of paid enrollments nationwide…it’s February already.

oldroy on February 4, 2014 at 6:47 PM

If we are going this whole open borders/free flow of labor route, what is the point of paying tribute to Washington, D.C.?
fadetogray on February 4, 2014 at 6:45 PM

People like George Mason and Patrick Henry and Jeff Davis wondered the same thing.

Akzed on February 4, 2014 at 6:48 PM

Here is a good article that libfreeanddie should read…..

The Dark Side of the War on ‘the One Percent’

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303942404579360632011640384

redguy on February 4, 2014 at 7:00 PM

“To put that in context, I have no doubt that if we eliminated Social Security and eliminated Medicare, there would be many 95-year-olds that would choose to work more hours than they’re working today just so they could survive, feed themselves and have health insurance,” the official said.

Nice try, but “funemployment” says a lot more in a single word.

There Goes the Neighborhood on February 4, 2014 at 7:02 PM

e jobs (as critics of the law have alleged) but “almost entirely from a net decline in the amount of labor that workers choose to supply.”…

Is this. Or is this not an incredibly tight job market right now? Isn’t it in the interest of employers, who use tight labor markets to lower wages and cut employee benefits to claim that this is a bad thing? They’ll do *anything* to keep wages stagnant, including pretending to forget the relationship between job demand and wages.

libfreeordie on February 4, 2014 at 3:39 PM

In the face of sheer absurdity, you rally yourself to try to make it seem … reasonable.

Like a man who loses his leg, but consoles himself thinking about how much he can now save on shoes….

Awe-inspiring, in its own pathetic little way.

There Goes the Neighborhood on February 4, 2014 at 7:06 PM

What the? Each and every day I’m stunned by the ignorance of this administration. What are they doing? It’s good not to have a job? I don’t know what I’d do with myself if I couldn’t work. Learn to knit and then ask the government to supply my yarn and needles because I can’t afford to buy them since I have no income? Buy me some canvas and paint so I can become an artist? I’m out of dishwashing soap and my dishes need cleaned and if they sit too long it will be a health hazard? Where does it end? I truly am beginning to despise what this country is becoming. No wonder there’s a heroin epidemic in this country…people have no hope anymore.

scalleywag on February 4, 2014 at 7:16 PM

Have you been watching corporate earnings reports? How much easier does it have to be for large corporations to turn a profit? Because they seem to be doing just fine. Like, seriously. I want a number, how many hundreds of billions of dollars must they net before they will raise wages?

What a deeply stupid question! The goal of business is not to pay a high wage, but to sell a product. When the unemployment rate is about 14% as it is now, businesses have absolutely no reason to pay high wages.

These people *love* money. They love it more than anything else in the world. So you’re suggesting that, out of the goodness of their hearts, they would ever make a decision to decrease their amount of money in any real structural way. In a way that would support the middle class Americans long for.

Babbling. Business don’t love money any more than your typical liberal Democrat. But they have to earn theirs fairly — unless, of course, they can get in bed with your typical liberal Democrat and rig the game.

Because it is going to have to happen one of two ways. Either corporations will pay enough to provide that lifestyle or the state will provide enough resources to provide that lifestyle. One or the other. Right now, the declines in the middle class tell us that corporate America is shirking its responsibility to provide the middle class lifestyle conservative America longs for and is nostalgic about.

The decline in the middle class tells us that the government is taking money from the middle class under pretense of helping the poor. Why not from the rich? Because the big money is in the middle class. There just aren’t enough of the rich to go around, and they tend to protect their money from government takeover effectively.

So, when is corporate America going to fulfill its part of the bargain. They asked for a massive structural change in tax rates and got it during the Reagan years. And since the Reagan Administration capital gains and income tax rates have stayed within a pretty close range. Nothing compared to the tax rates of America’s “golden” World War II and postwar decades. But they haven’t kept up their end of the bargain. They have responded to getting the tax policy they wanted and disbanding 80% of the labor movement….by lowering wages and slashing employee benefits. It just seems like the last 40 years of tax policy is the proof on conservative philosophy about American standards of living and our level of intimacy with the federal state.

libfreeordie on February 4, 2014 at 4:10 PM

There is no bargain, and never was. Lowering the tax rates raised revenue, and the government squandered the revenue, then complained that they had no money because of the tax cuts.

What raises wages is economic growth. If not for the massive regulatory burdens expansion of the welfare state — and, of course, Obamacare preventing the poor and lower middle class from even working a full-time job, much less getting overtime — the economy would already have recovered 3 years ago.

There Goes the Neighborhood on February 4, 2014 at 7:23 PM

Brayam…you’re a talking point in human form.

Please post “Rush” for me. So much fun.

Hey we misses you around here celebrating all the greatness that is Obamacare…where ya been? Hahhaaha idiot.

CWchangedhisNicagain on February 4, 2014 at 7:29 PM

Lazy shiftless liar encouraging America to be lazy and shiftless.

Color me shocked…

JohnGalt23 on February 4, 2014 at 7:33 PM

You also ignore the fact that while wages have remained stable for the last several decades the purchasing power of that wage has greatly increased.

Wrong. Wages have declined for the last several decades and precipitously most recently. Try not to confuse the profit margin of a health insurance firm with a single family. A 5% cut in wages hurts big time. It very easily sends a working family into the realm of needing food stamps to supplement their income. If they are on that bubble. Is the idea that one has to be more than earning enough to be off the government dole, one must also have a nest large enough to stay off the government dole if their wages are cut by 5%? And if wages keep declining, how much of their income must go to the nest egg or daily expenses? At the end of the day my central point remains. A certain amount of resources have to get to a certain amount of people if there is going to be an American middle class. How should that happen is the question. Right now, it is not happening.

libfreeordie on February 4, 2014 at 5:00 PM

So how much does that working family lose in wages when their hours are cut from 40 to 29 because of Obamacare? Does that 27.5% cut in wages hurt them?

Obamacare’s damage is just getting started. And it’s going to hurt the poor the most of all.

Of course, the Dems don’t care. A poor family is dependent on the government, and ready to vote for any politician who promises to raise taxes on “the rich” and give the money to “the poor.”

There Goes the Neighborhood on February 4, 2014 at 7:37 PM

The hilarity here is watching the idiots like libfreeordie and the braying brayam decry the harm to the “middle class” while demanding that middle-class working people be forced to fork over a quarter of their annual income to provide uneducated lazy Obama voters with a middle-class lifestyle sans work.

The simple answer is to make welfare benefits taxable same as income. Once that happens, the Free Sh*t Army self-immolates.

northdallasthirty on February 4, 2014 at 7:42 PM

Here’s where Obama is headed~ Bananas

profitsbeard on February 4, 2014 at 7:46 PM

Billions upon billions of dollars in economic productivity up in smoke as workers who’ve stuck with their jobs for the health insurance quit and take a subsidies check from Uncle Sam instead.

People will now actually be able to live on benefits they’ve paid for with their payroll taxes because their medical insurance is now affordable. The horror!

Constantine on February 4, 2014 at 7:51 PM

live on benefits they’ve paid for with their payroll taxes

The horror of the progtard mind.

Murphy9 on February 4, 2014 at 7:54 PM

Heh, we got a new troll! Woo hoo!

22044 on February 4, 2014 at 7:56 PM

Yeah, after all, to the Libtard Obamabots, what’s 2.5 million more when over 92 million people ALREADY aren’t working? It’s a drop in the bucket, yo! MOAR POT!

Meople on February 4, 2014 at 8:05 PM

We’ve now come full circle and reached the point that liberals are arguing that increased joblessness, as the direct result of their policies.

libfreeordie on February 4, 2014 at 3:39 PM

QED, you son of a b*tch.

crrr6 on February 4, 2014 at 8:08 PM

The solution- first demonstrated by Romney- is to change the underlying healthcare business model…
 
bayam on February 4, 2014 at 6:20 PM

 

But that has nothing to do with the primacy of the accountable care model first introduced in the US by Romney.
 
bayam on February 4, 2014 at 6:29 PM

 
Wow. Twice in one thread.
 
This is how you know that they know Obamacare (which was passed without any (R) votes) is failing them.

rogerb on February 4, 2014 at 8:12 PM

People will now actually be able to live on benefits they’ve paid for with their payroll taxes because their medical insurance is now affordable. The horror!

Constantine on February 4, 2014 at 7:51 PM

Assuming for a nano-second that *any* of your premise wasn’t complete and total bullshit…

What happens when those ‘payroll taxes’ run out? They’re out of work, genius. You can’t ride that train to the station, idiot…the track only goes 100 yards.

God DAMN liberals are stupid.

a5minmajor on February 4, 2014 at 8:12 PM

What happens when those ‘payroll taxes’ run out? They’re out of work, genius. You can’t ride that train to the station, idiot…the track only goes 100 yards.
God DAMN liberals are stupid.
a5minmajor on February 4, 2014 at 8:12 PM

I don’t know what you’re talking about, but I’m discussing Social Security, which is currently funded for the next 25 years. But thanks for raising the level of discourse with namecalling.

Constantine on February 4, 2014 at 8:15 PM

People will now actually be able to live on benefits they’ve paid for with their payroll taxes because their medical insurance is now affordable. The horror!
 
Constantine on February 4, 2014 at 7:51 PM

 
Speaking of increased deductibles:
 
Constantine, we need your help with something. Obamacare was passed to solve the free rider problem:

 

“So that’s why the individual mandate’s important,” Obama explained in a speech on Aug. 15, 2011.
 
“Because the basic theory is, look, everybody here at some point or another is going to need medical care, and you can’t be a free-rider on everybody else,” said Obama.
 

http://abcnews.go.com/m/blogEntry?id=14952502&sid=77&cid=77

 

The tax/fine on a person making $43K who doesn’t want or can’t afford insurance will only equal about $860 (vs. thousands in premiums and deductibles), and $860 will barely cover any actual medical procedure.

 
Hospitals will still be required by law to provide care regardless of insurance coverage or ability to pay.
 
Can you explain how Obamacare does anything to change the free rider problem?
 
Give us specifics, please.

rogerb on February 4, 2014 at 8:16 PM

rogerb on February 4, 2014 at 8:16 PM

Sorry, can’t help you. I was responding to the assertion in this and another post that jobs are being “lost” due to Obamacare, when in fact they are being voluntarily given up. If you’d like to divert the discussion to something else, perhaps you should find a “free rider” post.

Constantine on February 4, 2014 at 8:24 PM

…because their medical insurance is now affordable. The horror!
 
Constantine on February 4, 2014 at 7:51 PM

 

I don’t know what you’re talking about, but I’m discussing Social Security…
 
Constantine on February 4, 2014 at 8:15 PM

 
So you were initially referring to Medicare?

rogerb on February 4, 2014 at 8:25 PM

I was responding to the assertion in this and another post that jobs are being “lost” due to Obamacare, when in fact they are being voluntarily given up.

Constantine on February 4, 2014 at 8:24 PM

If you don’t want to be called stupid, you’re not making the case that you’re not.

22044 on February 4, 2014 at 8:27 PM

If you don’t want to be called stupid, you’re not making the case that you’re not.
22044 on February 4, 2014 at 8:27 PM

Psst! You forgot to make a point!

Constantine on February 4, 2014 at 8:28 PM

That the White House (and their hapless lapdog Kessler at WaPo) is trying to spin this as neutral or even positive news proves my theory that they realize their only remaining constituency is the terminably ignorant who will believe absolutely anything.

They are NOT “giving people a choice” not to work full time, they are giving them a DISINCENTIVE to work.

That’s a recipe for economic collapse.

And yet, we badgered these dummies to register and then to vote. They don’t even have to show up at the registration office. They don’t have to show up at the polls. Are you stupid? Are you disengaged from public discourse? Do you want free stuff? Vote Democratic!

Adjoran on February 4, 2014 at 8:31 PM

A whistle sounded across the internet.

Come obamaphiles, from your holes, and blindly defend the idea that people should be happy with less. Your dear leader needs you.

And arrived they did.

lorien1973 on February 4, 2014 at 8:31 PM

Communism incentivized people to work less; because they didn’t have to. They voluntarily gave up those hours. They got the same thing working or not working – so why bother working at all.

And that worked out fine. What are y’all worried about.

Less tax dollars into the government can’t possibly make all this unaffordable.

lorien1973 on February 4, 2014 at 8:32 PM

Constantine on February 4, 2014 at 8:28 PM

Pathetic attempt all around. Why don’t you put this sock back in the drawer?

thatsafactjack on February 4, 2014 at 8:33 PM

Sorry, can’t help you. I was responding to the assertion in this and another post that jobs are being “lost” due to Obamacare, when in fact they are being voluntarily given up. If you’d like to divert the discussion to something else, perhaps you should find a “free rider” post.

Constantine on February 4, 2014 at 8:24 PM

Remember when you guys advertised Obamacare as a stimulus package of sorts? You’re now bragging about how increasing joblessness is a good thing. We’ve come full circle. Q…E…D

What are you guys all trial lawyers or something? Just arguing for the sake of arguing in the face of a smoking gun? Your centrally planned grand designs have been laid bare. Sorry that you can’t stand to look.

How much of your pay or hours would your employer have to cut before you were driven out of your job basically out of necessity? This is liberalism for ya: we won’t make your decision for you technically, but we’ll make the alternative hell.

crrr6 on February 4, 2014 at 8:34 PM

I’m not sure what model libfreeordie is going for.
The much vaunted social democracies of Northern Europe don’t prop up a middle class by heavily taxing the rich and businesses – they heavily tax the middle class as well.

gwelf on February 4, 2014 at 8:36 PM

Y’all panic too much. When that guy drops a few hours to get his subsidy, he can just go on welfare/food stamps to get back up to his deserved slave wage.

There’ll be enough taxpayers to cover it.

lorien1973 on February 4, 2014 at 8:37 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5