First off, it seems more than a bit bizarre for the GOP to paint this as "jobs lost". It's not jobs lost, it's jobs (or hours of work) not taken.
I mean, if it's okay for employers to cut back on someone's hours, surely it's okay for employees to do so if they can afford to (esp. since the employers would need to okay that in most cases). I think that's called freedom, something the Republicans often claim to care about.
Further, and again, this isn't job loss, but employee loss. In theory, that makes for additional hours of work available for other people to take. You've got 100 hourly workers, and 4 of them decide to work 30 hours a week instead of 40? That's a whole new full-time job for someone. Isn't that a good thing?
Finally, presumably this means that people (women or men) who have children would be then able to spend more time with those kids, which I would think the GOP would be thrilled about, wouldn't you? I mean, if it was a Republican-passed plan, they'd be trumpeting that as one of its major features; instead, since it's That Man's plan, it's being denounced as promoting slackerdom.
Goofy.
Reshared post from +Kevin Ahlgrim
Gasp! People are CHOOSING to work less to stay home with their kids simply because they feel safer about their healthcare? Isn't staying home with kids a good thing?
GOP jumps on CBO’s Obamacare report
Yes, if you think "freedom"="more dependence on Government", I guess it might be good news….for some.
I don't see this as having a positive effect on the economy, though. The less people make the less, theoretically, they will be pumping back into the economy.
I have health insurance for the first time in a quarter of a century. How evil.
Who said it was "evil". Personally, I think it's great.
Now there are others, who've lost their insurance, who might not think it's so great.
"I guess it might be good news….for some. " = "great"? Right. Nice try.
If you got your news from somebody other than Rush Limbaugh and his ilk, you would know that the only health insurance plans lost are the ones that are little more than scams – they don't cover hospitalization and treatments that aren't very inexpensive. And those lost plans will be replaced by better ones under ACA that cost as little or even less.
Hey, regardless, people liked those "scams" and were covered at a price they chose to pay.
Now millions of them don't even have that.
A program to really crow about.
Oh and my "I think it's great" was in regards to you getting insurance +Scott Randel …..fyi.
+Mark Means I think of it less as "dependence on the government" (vs, say, "dependence on the employer") as "society taking responsibility for the health of its members".
'The less people make the less, theoretically, they will be pumping back into the economy' … so the way to help the economy is to blackmail people into working full time for fear of losing their insurance? Especially when we have ongoing unemployment or underemployment resources that could fill in the gaps? None of that makes much sense to me.
+Mark Means 'people liked those "scams" and were covered at a price they chose to pay.'
Except they weren't actually covered adequately — as many discovered when they actually needed to draw on that insurance.
'Now millions of them don't even have that'
Right. They have access to something better, and something that they don't automatically lose if they get fired, or feel the need to leave their jobs, or if it turns out they had a pre-existing condition, or if they hit limits for the year or their lifetime, or if they were costing their insurer or employer too much.
+Dave Hill Personally, I prefer to take care of myself. I don't need "society" to do it for me. I realize I may be in the minority in that, though.
"… so the way to help the economy is to blackmail people into working full time for fear of losing their insurance?"
Not sure how you made that leap and I have to ask just why people worked full time before employers started offering health insurance as a fringe benefit?
Less hours is going to equal less money, right? That's less money people are going to spend in the economy, right?
Makes perfect sense to me.
"Except they weren't actually covered adequately — as many discovered when they actually needed to draw on that insurance."
Really? Then why are so many of them torqued off that they lost that very same coverage?
If by "better" you mean higher deductibles and rates, sure.
Why? Because they hadn't rolled boxcars yet and discovered that the high deductibles, low caps, and limits on what was covered (and what could be escalated in cost at the drop of a hat) made their monthly payments largely a waste.
I guess "freedom" is the buzzword the Left is using in trying to spin this…
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/the-most-embarrassing-efforts-to-spin-cbos-obamacare-report-as-good-news/
Sort of like "government dependence" and "job loss" and all those other buzzwords the Right is using.
Oh, and thanks for the link to the completely biased opinion column. It was utterly worthless. I suppose you think Fox News and other conservative outlets aren't putting their own spin on things, deliberately misinterpreting the findings in the CBO report and such.
+Scott Randel I find it funny how you continue to assume that I must be a listener of Rush Limbaugh or a Fox News viewer for the simple reason that I don't agree with you.
The facts speak for themselves…..as does the spin.
Besides, I didn't realize that Mediaite was a "conservative outlet".
Also, you may want to switch to decaf….just sayin'.