ACA & The Claim It's A Job Killer

[Newell Steamer]

Nopes not.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...-its-opponents-obamacare-is-not-killing-jobs/

The figure above shows that since the subsidized premium exchanges and Medicaid expansions in 24 states (plus D.C.) came online last year (five other states later followed suit), monthly job growth in the health-care sector has risen sharply. (The monthly changes are jumpy, so we plotted the trend through the data.)

B-b-but teh part-time workers who use to have full time jobs at $100K a year and luxury boats!!shift+1!!!!

Nor is there any evidence that Obamacare is causing a shift from full-time to part-time jobs — the number of involuntary part-time workers is actually down since 2013 (and as Dean Baker notes, the evidence that the ACA’s premium subsidies may be encouraging voluntary part-time work is a good thing), while full-time employment has been steadily rising. Again, steady job growth is surely a function of the broad employment recovery, not health reform, but it is yet another trend going the wrong way for the critics.

The ACA isn’t perfect, but it is, as intended, covering more of the uninsured and slowing cost growth. And it is doing so without hurting the job market.

No Death Panels. No job killing.

Next.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

I don't think a single conservative here claimed it's a "Job Killer". If anything, tighter regulations and more rules means companies have to hire more people to make sure they aren't audited for incorrectly applying health care plans.

In turn, which coincides with what we HAVE been saying all along - is that it is DRASTICALLY driving up the costs of health insurance. You would think more healthy people contributing to the market = lower costs, but between tighter regulations, increased fees, and 96% contributions to most of the poor participants it has simply resulted in normal middle-class workers having to foot more peoples bills. There are plenty of people here that can vouch for this (I believe EagleKeeper works in Employer healthcare related expenses).

Furthermore the number of options for Obamacare keeps falling further and further, year after year as they close their doors because it simply is not sustainable. There is the thread in OT where most users are reporting 10-50% spikes in their employer health insurance. Mine was one of them.

It was a fucking book that Nancy Peloski said "Just sign it and read it after".

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I don't think a single conservative here claimed it's a "Job Killer". If anything, tighter regulations and more rules means companies have to hire more people to make sure they aren't audited for incorrectly applying health care plans.

In turn, which coincides with what we HAVE been saying all along - is that it is DRASTICALLY driving up the costs of health insurance. You would think more healthy people contributing to the market = lower costs, but between tighter regulations, increased fees, and 96% contributions to most of the poor participants it has simply resulted in normal middle-class workers having to foot more peoples bills. There are plenty of people here that can vouch for this (I believe EagleKeeper works in Employer healthcare related expenses).

Furthermore the number of options for Obamacare keeps falling further and further, year after year as they close their doors because it simply is not sustainable. There is the thread in OT where most users are reporting 10-50% spikes in their employer health insurance. Mine was one of them.

It was a fucking book that Nancy Peloski said "Just sign it and read it after".

Ted Cruz:
http://shark-tank.com/2015/03/25/ted-cruz-obamacare-the-single-largest-job-killer/

Donald Trump (admittedly he didn't use the phrase "job killer"):
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/08/07/this-is-donald-trumps-worst-prediction-ever/

Mitt Romney:
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/romney-obamacare-job-killer

Rand Paul (again he doesn't use the words "job killer" but he is real close:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/22/rand-paul-obamacare_n_3971784.html

Marco Rubio & Ted Cruz **warning pop ups:
http://www.latinpost.com/articles/62485/20150626/cruz-rubio-slam-supreme-courts-obamacare-ruling.htm

If you are talking "here" like these forums I'm not sure but I'd guess I could find some.
Yes I agree it was passed without much inspection just to get something done.

I don't have any stats but something similar happened in Massachusetts when Romney Care went into effect. Insurance got sharply more expensive then it leveled off quickly.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

I don't think a single conservative here claimed it's a "Job Killer". If anything, tighter regulations and more rules means companies have to hire more people to make sure they aren't audited for incorrectly applying health care plans.

Yeah you might want to use the site's search feature before saying something like that.

 

[trenchfoot]

I don't think a single conservative here claimed it's a "Job Killer". If anything, tighter regulations and more rules means companies have to hire more people to make sure they aren't audited for incorrectly applying health care plans.

In turn, which coincides with what we HAVE been saying all along - is that it is DRASTICALLY driving up the costs of health insurance. You would think more healthy people contributing to the market = lower costs, but between tighter regulations, increased fees, and 96% contributions to most of the poor participants it has simply resulted in normal middle-class workers having to foot more peoples bills. There are plenty of people here that can vouch for this (I believe EagleKeeper works in Employer healthcare related expenses).

Furthermore the number of options for Obamacare keeps falling further and further, year after year as they close their doors because it simply is not sustainable. There is the thread in OT where most users are reporting 10-50% spikes in their employer health insurance. Mine was one of them.

It was a fucking book that Nancy Peloski said "Just sign it and read it after".

If I recall correctly, wasn't it a book that the health care/insurance companies wrote and the Dems rushed through just to get anything moving toward universal health care?

 

[theeedude]

I mean those were Republican claims, you had to put them in line with trickle-down working, WMD's in Iraq, etc.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Ted Cruz:
http://shark-tank.com/2015/03/25/ted-cruz-obamacare-the-single-largest-job-killer/

Donald Trump (admittedly he didn't use the phrase "job killer"):
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/08/07/this-is-donald-trumps-worst-prediction-ever/

Mitt Romney:
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/romney-obamacare-job-killer

Rand Paul (again he doesn't use the words "job killer" but he is real close:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/22/rand-paul-obamacare_n_3971784.html

Marco Rubio & Ted Cruz **warning pop ups:
http://www.latinpost.com/articles/62485/20150626/cruz-rubio-slam-supreme-courts-obamacare-ruling.htm

If you are talking "here" like these forums I'm not sure but I'd guess I could find some.
Yes I agree it was passed without much inspection just to get something done.

I don't have any stats but something similar happened in Massachusetts when Romney Care went into effect. Insurance got sharply more expensive then it leveled off quickly.

I meant conservatives on this board, toolbag. Hence the word used... "HERE". Context. Get you some.

I don't care what some lunatic candidates are saying, I can pull stupid quotes out of any of any liberals if needed as well, but they don't speak for you - do they?

 

[fskimospy]

It was a fucking book that Nancy Peloski said "Just sign it and read it after".

You realize she never said that, right?

 

[BoberFett]

It's a pretty simple fact that you can't save any significant amount of money in an industry without affecting employment. Either ACA will reduce health care costs or it won't. If it does, it will affect employment. If it doesn't affect employement, it won't save money. If you have a problem with that, take it up with math.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

You realize she never said that, right?

You know you're an idiot, right?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV-05TLiiLU

 

[fskimospy]

You know you're an idiot, right?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV-05TLiiLU

You realize that you're an idiot, right?

Her actual quote was "we have to pass it so you can see what's in it" or something to that effect. You being the American people, not Congress. It was in no way 'sign it and read it after'.

 

[fskimospy]

It's a pretty simple fact that you can't save any significant amount of money in an industry without affecting employment. Either ACA will reduce health care costs or it won't. If it does, it will affect employment. If it doesn't affect employement, it won't save money. If you have a problem with that, take it up with math.

Yeah but they are talking about total jobs, not health care jobs. If the ACA reduced health care costs it might mean fewer health care jobs, but it would mean more money to be spent on...well... anything else, which would increase employment in whatever industry that was.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

You realize that you're an idiot, right?

Her actual quote was "we have to pass it so you can see what's in it" or something to that effect. You being the American people, not Congress. It was in no way 'sign it and read it after'.

facepalm.jpg

 

[thraashman]

You realize that you're an idiot, right?

Her actual quote was "we have to pass it so you can see what's in it" or something to that effect. You being the American people, not Congress. It was in no way 'sign it and read it after'.

Her exact, full quote was "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy". The "away from the fog of controversy" part gets left out by the fucktarded right because they know that if they leave it in you realize the quote was referring to all the bullshit rhetoric lies the right was claiming about the ACA before it was even passed. And people like s0me0nesARetard fell for the bullshit the right pedaled like he always does.

 

[fskimospy]

facepalm.jpg

Haha, face palm indeed. I'm constantly amazed how often that quote isn't understood by people.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Her exact, full quote was "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy". The "away from the fog of controversy" part gets left out by the fucktarded right because they know that if they leave it in you realize the quote was referring to all the bullshit rhetoric lies the right was claiming about the ACA before it was even passed. And people like s0me0nesARetard fell for the bullshit the right pedaled like he always does.

How in the FUCK do those words negate the previous words you dolt?

It's still the same message, she is advising to PASS THE BILL NOW, and to find out what is it in when the "controversy" dies down. It's not any different. There is no context there that suggests anything other than what it says. Pass the bill now, worry about what is in it afterwards.

I expect eskimospy to be that stupid, but one would hope to be better than rock bottom.

 

[fskimospy]

How in the FUCK do those words negate the previous words you dolt?

It's still the same message, she is advising to PASS THE BILL NOW, and to find out what is it in when the "controversy" dies down. It's not any different. There is no context there that suggests anything other than what it says. Pass the bill now, worry about what is in it afterwards.

I expect eskimospy to be that stupid, but one would hope to be better than rock bottom.

It's not our fault that you can't grammatically parse a simple sentence.

She was referring to how Americans would find out more about it after congress passed it.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

How in the FUCK do those words negate the previous words you dolt?

It's still the same message, she is advising to PASS THE BILL NOW, and to find out what is it in when the "controversy" dies down. It's not any different. There is no context there that suggests anything other than what it says. Pass the bill now, worry about what is in it afterwards.

I expect eskimospy to be that stupid, but one would hope to be better than rock bottom.

Her statement was to the general population. Not to the voting members of Congress which it seems you seem to be implying. So clearly she wasn't telling the public to vote for it so they could find out what's in it...

 

[bozack]

Umm your article focuses on the health care industry....of course that should grow/expand as we have now provided coverage via a tax for how many more people....

What will be of interest is if the average salary in the healthcare industry continues to climb or if things level or drop off...

However outside of healthcare....

http://www.forbes.com/sites/dandiam...ct-companies-cut-hours-for-part-time-workers/

http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-the-affordable-care-act-is-reducing-competition-1436136236

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles...-for-40-hour-workweek-in-obamacare-definition

 

[BoberFett]

Yeah but they are talking about total jobs, not health care jobs. If the ACA reduced health care costs it might mean fewer health care jobs, but it would mean more money to be spent on...well... anything else, which would increase employment in whatever industry that was.

Agreed, but that "whatever industry" is unknown.

I'm not saying it wouldn't be great to spend less on healthcare in the US, but like a lot of things nowadays, it's a jobs program.

 

[sm625]

It is hard for an industry that is bubbling up at rates exceeding 5% per year (swallowing the economy whole) to not create jobs in the process. The point is that $19k premiums is clearly not worth the paltry few jobs that have been created. I guess it will take $40k annual premiums for these zombies to realize it was a failure.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Agreed, but that "whatever industry" is unknown.

I'm not saying it wouldn't be great to spend less on healthcare in the US, but like a lot of things nowadays, it's a jobs program.

Uhhhh first in order to go with his retarded statement of "lowering healthcare costs".... It might help if healthcare costs WERE lowered... you know... instead of having the biggest increases of all time.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Her statement was to the general population. Not to the voting members of Congress which it seems you seem to be implying. So clearly she wasn't telling the public to vote for it so they could find out what's in it...

And he is simply missing the point. I never thought she meant that the target audience was Congress.

It still essentially boils down to a statement saying "You're all stupid and too incompetent to understand this big flaming ball of shit health care bill, so just wait until it passes before you try to do something crazy like understand what law is being enacted."

People should be actively involved and KNOW what is being passed prior to it being passed. This notion that her statement is any better depending on whom you say the target audience of her speech is doesn't matter. You're still a complete moron and a buffoon in life to ever live by the notion of "Trust me, I'll return the money. Just give it to me now and I'll give it back later". Yeah, sure. We know how putting trust in people works out 99% of the time.

 

[fskimospy]

Uhhhh first in order to go with his retarded statement of "lowering healthcare costs".... It might help if healthcare costs WERE lowered... you know... instead of having the biggest increases of all time.

Health care inflation has been significantly lower than average in the years since the ACA has passed. We already went over this, remember? Here's a chart from a link you posted (that you clearly didn't understand) showing that you're full of shit:

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Health care inflation has been significantly lower than average in the years since the ACA has passed. We already went over this, remember? Here's a chart from a link you posted (that you clearly didn't understand) showing that you're full of shit:

And we already debunked that in the thread on that topic as well. Don't you remember silly?

Health care costs, while they do have a similarity to premium costs - Are not the ultimate decision on your overall costs.

Costs of Health Care != Cost of Health Insurance Premiums. They are VERY separate, although one does affect the other. If a law is enacted that increases the amount of paperwork and research needed by health insurance companies - or in the case of obamacare - allows people with already-sick conditions to sign up for healthcare at the same rates as healthy people... The cost of surgery itself doesn't go up persay. The cost of the insurance to COVER the healthcare goes up.

But you just like looking at charts and hoping they agree with you, dont'cha? You're so cute!