GOP’s latest Obamacare lie is a real doozie

The latest Republican lie about Obamacare is so blatantly false that not only has a fact-checker said so, but the Associated Press did an entire story on how badly the Republicans are lying.

You see, there’s a new Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report that says that by the year 2021, the equivalent of more than two million people will be able to leave their jobs because of the Affordable Care Act (ACA – aka Obamacare).

They won’t be fired.

They won’t be forced from their jobs.

They’ll finally be able to leave jobs that they want to leave, jobs that they’re holding on to ONLY because the job is giving them much-needed health care that they would lose and/or couldn’t afford if they left their job otherwise.  But now, with Obamacare, those people are free to leave jobs they don’t want.

CBO says 2m people will quit jobs they don’t want

Don’t believe me. Read what CBO concluded (I quote much more of the document below):

CBO estimates that the ACA will reduce the total number of hours worked, on net, by about 1.5 percent to 2.0 percent during the period from 2017 to 2024, almost entirely because workers will choose to supply less labor

The reduction in CBO’s projections of hours worked represents 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…

The estimated reduction stems almost entirely from a net decline in the amount of labor that workers choose to supply, rather than from a net drop in businesses’ demand for labor.

Can’t get much clearer than that.

Michael Hiltzik at the LA Times explains a bit further exactly who benefits from this:

As economist Dean Baker points out, this is, in fact, a beneficial effect of the law, and a sign that it will achieve an important goal. It helps “older workers with serious health conditions who are working now because this is the only way to get health insurance. And (one for the family-values crowd) many young mothers who return to work earlier than they would like because they need health insurance. This is a huge plus.”

GOP claims CBO says 2m Americans will be fired

So what did the Republicans do with this amazing revelation?  They’ve twisted it into “Obamacare kills 2 million jobs.”

Among the Republicans who outright lied about the report is not-ready-for-prime-time-yet-again 2016 presidential hopeful Marco Rubio:

“Just yesterday, the Congressional Budget Office found that Obamacare will cost millions of Americans their jobs.”

Then there’s GOP House Speaker John Boehner:


GOP House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (the #2 guy in the US House):

“The CBO’s latest report confirms what Republicans have been saying for years now. Under Obamacare, millions of hardworking Americans will lose their jobs…”

GOP House Whip Kevin McCarthy:


And GOP Sen. Rand Paul on CNN on Tuesday:

“The real point is is that Obamacare is going to cost two million fewer people to have jobs.”

The list goes on.

NBC’s Chuck Todd repeats GOP lie

It’s really quite astounding a lie.  And it’s one some in the media have been happy to repeat. Here is what Todd tweeted last night:


Then, when people blasted Todd for repeating GOP talking points, and misconstruing the blatantly obvious conclusion of the report, Todd doubled down:


Well, I did read the entire section.  And I’m increasingly convinced that Chuck Todd did not.  Here’s what CBO said about businesses possibly slowing down their hiring too:

The estimated reduction [in employment] stems almost entirely from a net decline in the amount of labor that workers choose to supply, rather than from a net drop in businesses’ demand for labor…

“A drop in businesses’ demand for labor” is another way of saying “businesses slowing down hiring.”  So, in fact, CBO said the opposite of what Todd is alleging.

There’s more:

The ACA also will affect employers’ demand for workers, mostly over the next few years, both by increasing labor costs through the employer penalty (which will reduce labor demand) and by boosting overall demand for goods and services (which will increase labor demand).

It’s worth pointing out that CBO just said that Obamacare will in some ways increase and in other ways decrease the demand employers will have for retaining current, and hiring additional, employees.  So far that’s a wash.

There’s more:

Uncertainty in several areas—including the timing and sequence of policy changes and implementation procedures and their effects on health insurance premiums and workers’ demand for health insurance—probably has encouraged some employers to delay hiring. However, those effects are difficult to quantify separately from other developments in the labor market, and possible effects on the demand for labor through such channels have not been incorporated into CBO’s estimates of the ACA’s impact.

So CBO says “some” employers may have held off on some additional hiring as a result of Obamacare being passed, but there’s really not enough information to say if it’s significant.  What there is enough information to say, CBO concludes, is that the “reduction” in employment will “almost entirely” come from people choosing to leave jobs they don’t want, and not from businesses slowing down their hiring.

So where exactly does CBO “essentially reaffirm GOP talking points on health care,” talking points that claim that two million people will be fired, rather than two million people will finally be able to leave jobs that they don’t want?

I’ve defended Chuck Todd in the past when I thought folks were misinterpreting his tweets.  But on this one, he’s dead wrong, and we’ve got the CBO report, and quotes, to prove it.

Even Paul Ryan seems to have figured out the truth. From AP:

As if recognizing that fellow Republicans were getting a bit overheated, Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, House Budget Committee chairman, introduced a reality check when questioning Douglas Elmendorf, budget office director, during a hearing Wednesday. “So just to understand this, it’s not that employers are laying people off, it’s that … people aren’t working in the workforce, aren’t supplying labor,” he posited.

“That is right,” Elmendorf replied.

Oh, and there’s also no evidence that employers are moving employeees to part-time jobs

And as for the Republicans’ other criticism, that Obamacare has forced employers to move employees from full-time to part-time – yeah, that’s bogus too.  More from the CBO report:

In CBO’s judgment, there is no compelling evidence that part-time employment has increased as a result of the ACA. On the one hand, there have been anecdotal reports of firms responding to the employer penalty by limiting workers’ hours, and the share of workers in part- time jobs has declined relatively slowly since the end of the recent recession. On the other hand, the share of workers in part-time jobs generally declines slowly after recessions, so whether that share would have declined more quickly during the past few years in the absence of the ACA is difficult to determine.21 In any event, because the employer penalty will not take effect until 2015, the current lack of direct evidence may not be very informative about the ultimate effects of the ACA.

Fox News would like you to stop following your dream

You can reach your own conclusions as to whether it’s a good thing or a bad thing that because of Obamacare two million more people will be able to choose whether or not they want to leave a job they don’t want.  Fox News, of course, thinks it’s a terrible idea:


Caputo, who writes for the Miami Herald, is right.  CBO didn’t say that.  Not to mention, Greta, exactly what part of “follow your dream” is bad advice?

If the worst thing Fox News can say about Obamacare is that it lets two million more Americans follow their dream, then the battle over the ACA is over, and we won.

(I’m told that in order to better see my Facebook posts in your feed, you need to “follow” me.)

Follow me on Twitter: @aravosis | @americablog | @americabloggay | Facebook | Instagram | Google+ | LinkedIn. John Aravosis is the Executive Editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown; and has worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, the United Nations Development Programme, and as a stringer for the Economist. He is a frequent TV pundit, having appeared on the O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline, AM Joy & Reliable Sources, among others. John lives in Washington, DC. .

Share This Post

71 Responses to “GOP’s latest Obamacare lie is a real doozie”

  1. repubes=bad says:


  2. Indigo says:

    That’s a lot of Pisces! Enjoy!

  3. BeccaM says:

    Thanks dear — but I’m a Pisces. Triple, in fact: Sun, moon, and rising. :-)

  4. spectral_ev says:

    Sometimes parents have to keep a job that does not offset their child care costs just to maintain family insurance. ACA gives more choice. Also, small employers have to consider employee insurance eligibility when they might want to cut hours– so ACA takes a burden off employers too.

  5. Indigo says:

    I see you are stalking me. Go away.

  6. nestazhe265 says:

    Uncle Michael recently got a stunning black Mercedes-Benz GL-Class GL63 AMG
    only from working part time off a home pc. navigate to this web-site B­i­g­4­1­.­ℂ­o­m

  7. Guest says:

    Uncle Zachary recently got a 9 month old Mercedes-Benz CL-Class CL63 AMG only
    from working off a home pc… go now B­i­g­4­1­.­ℂ­o­m

  8. Indigo says:

    Sorry to be late to this conversation, the power was out all day yesterday. Thank you, Florida Power. The amazing contempt the Republicans carry in their hearts for the general public just keeps piling up. Their theory is that the American public are too lazy to work and must be forced to it by little gestures like health insurance. It’s as if they’d like to un-do Lincoln’s dedication to abolition and restore slavery. Disgusting!

  9. Indigo says:

    What karmanot said. Aquarians rule!

  10. Indigo says:

    Mine’s today (the 7th) as it happens. 73 years! OMG!

  11. fieval says:

    Not a lie…but the truth

  12. Texon says:

    Todd is a toad. Cashing in on selling out.

  13. Drew2u says:

    There’s a lot of mugging for the camera with LOD, and I see the same in MHP and Alex Wagner. With LOD, I see a lot of, “Remember when I wrote for The West Wing?” No, no I don’t.
    And usually by that point of the night, the same story (see: Christie) had been rehashed 6 or 7 times before. That’s not a fault of the show, but MSNBC, turning into essentially an all-politics network, is filled with redundancies.
    (and nothing against gingers, one of my best friends is a hot ginger! Always great on a cold night)

  14. therling says:

    Furthermore, not everyone is fortunate like you to have good employer-provided insurance. What if you didn’t, like many people? Would you rather have to wait, or have your wife wait, until you are eligible for Medicare? Oh, and if you quit your job and went on Medicare, and your wife wasn’t covered, that she’d find she couldn’t buy coverage because of a “pre-existing condition?”

    What if you died before she was eligible for Medicare? Then what? No insurance until she reached 65?

  15. therling says:

    I’ve already been paying for your Medicare for the last 35 years, and I’ve been paying for other people’s health insurance for just as long through my premiums.

    Would you rather have it so that in your hypothetical case that if there weren’t ACA marketplace insurance available, that you’d have no choice but to keep working past 65 so that your wife could have coverage? What if you weren’t able to work past 65 because of infirmity?

  16. perljammer says:

    You are correct, of course — with some very specific exceptions, people younger than 65 are not eligible for Medicare. So, let’s work through this.

    I’m married to a woman several years older than I am. I work and she doesn’t; I have good employer provided health insurance that covers both of us. My wife qualifies for Medicare, but isn’t enrolled because she’s covered under my insurance. My full Social Security retirement age is 66, so when I retire, my wife and I will both qualify for Medicare, so ACA is of no interest for either of us.

    But what if my wife were a couple of years younger than I am? If I retire, I’m eligible for Medicare, but she isn’t. One choice is, I work until she’s eligible. I retire, we’re both on Medicare, and life is good. The other choice is, I retire now and we get her a policy from the ACA Marketplace. Because we have only our meager retirement income, the policy qualifies for a generous subsidy. So, I get to stop working, and you get to pay for my wife’s health insurance. Clearly a win-win.

  17. Mike_in_the_Tundra says:

    Say what you want about Tweety (Matthews), but leave Lawrence O’Donnell alone. He’s a hot ginger who seems to be pretty hard hitting, but most importantly, he’s a hot ginger.

  18. BeccaM says:

    Plus there would be at least a little relief on the downward pressure on wages and salaries.

  19. BeccaM says:

    It’s not simply — or exclusively — opposition to anything the Dems propose, even though this is a GOP/conservative idea.

    It’s also because the GOP has moved far, far to the right, so far to the extreme they’ll deride their own proposals from a decade or two ago as ‘radically socialist.’

  20. gratuitous says:

    “Journamalism,” karmanot. It’s pronounced “journamalism.”

  21. Drew2u says:

    Again, that goes back the Old Boys’ Club that I see, especially with Chris Matthews and how he addresses certain topics – like marriage equality. Go back a couple of years and listen to how he approaches the topic; almost naively, but with a good heart.
    I don’t know what the camaraderie was like in congress at that time, but I will agree with him that congresspeople need more recreational apolitical get-togethers. At the same time, the quid pro quo is almost null due to such an ideological rift between the parties.
    It must’ve been nice for Chris Matthews or Lawrence O’Donnell to be so buddy-buddy with the white house “back in the day”, but I’m not sure how well that translates into journalistic investigation.

  22. karmanot says:

    Happy Birthday coming up. Mine too, I”be 17 years older than you. :-)

  23. pappyvet says:

    It figures that anything that gives Americans even a modicum of real freedom and choice would send the repubes into a spin.

  24. BeccaM says:

    Their use of buzzwords they clearly culled from Faux News — for example, ‘redistribution’ — is usually a dead giveaway.

    What’s especially fascinating to me is if you ask them to actually define the epithets and loaded words they like to throw around — redistribution, dividing, distracting, Socialism, Sharia Law…whatever the term — most of them seem literally incapable of putting together coherent thoughts to express what they actually mean.

    And the rest of the time, it’s nothing but projection, like when they accuse LGBTs of being intolerant. Or insisting that it’s progressives who want to limit women’s freedoms.

  25. BeccaM says:

    My wife and I kind of like catching the first 5-10 minutes of Chris Hayes, because it’s often a useful touchpoint as to one of the important news events of the day. Then, as soon as he brings in the talking heads pundits, we switch to our DVR’d previous night recordings of The Daily Show and Colbert Report.

    But due to the vagaries of when our dinner cooking is complete, we often will inadvertently catch the last 5 minutes of Chris Matthews’ “Hardball” — and for the last six months or more, he’s been constantly shilling his “new” book “Tip and the Gipper” — a paean of sloppy Reagan worship and excusing all the Democratic complicity during the 80s as they helped dismantle the social safety net.

    No criticism of what Reagan was doing. Just this unseemly fawning obsequiousness, as if “getting things done” is the measure of progress and success, with no thought at all as to WHAT is being done. (As most of use here on this blog know, what happened was the beginning of the massive shift in wealth towards the rich (tax cuts, union-breaking), the repeal of necessary regulations (S&N scandal), and the era of no accountability for breaking U.S. and international law (i.e., the Iran-Contra scandal).

    It became a derisive joke in our house, “So when’s Chris going to mention his Reagan-fellating book again?” (pause for about 10 seconds) “And there it is!”

  26. karmanot says:

    I can totally relate to that am glad you are better!

  27. karmanot says:

    Chuck Todd wins the Homer Simpson Award for Journalism.

  28. BeccaM says:

    I’ve got two examples, one personal and the other being good friends of ours. I’ll start with the latter.

    These friends married a few years ago. She’s younger, he’s older and suffered from a serious bout of cancer (treated, and in remission now). They had a child together not that long ago. Since he spent much of his life as a rather frugal man, they do have a decent nest-egg and a small house in the SF Bay Area that’s both paid off and worth a fair amount due to its location. He’s told me many times he’d rather retire from his high-pressure programming job and maybe start up a small consulting business — but due to his cancer and his family, he simply could not. He had to stay put — both in terms of employment and location — so he could keep his health insurance, for obvious reasons.

    Now, if he wants to pursue his dream and leave the rat-race, he can. Heck, they’ve even talked about moving away from the Bay Area to some other part of the country. These choices didn’t exist for them before. Now they do.

    The second example is me. I’ll be 51 in a few weeks. I’ve been in independent consulting since the late 1980s (with just a short couple-year stint back as an employee in the mid 90s). I spent the years from 2003 until 2012 uninsured — due to ridiculous pre-existing condition denials, after having lost the small group insurance I’d been getting through a professional association.

    I like being independent and running my own business. The hours are flexible, and if I want to take a month or two off and we have the money saved up, I can do that, given a bit of planning. I can usually choose my clients (love some, others I’ve learned not to work with). The money can be very good at times. But two weeks ago, a manager for whom I did some work in 2012 contacted me and said she was interested in hiring me, full-time.

    I don’t want to do that. Until ACA’s guaranteed issue and (where I live) not-insane premium rates for decent coverage at a level I haven’t seen since I left salaried employment, I was increasingly resigned to the idea that sometime in my late 40s or early 50s, I would have no rational choice but to set aside this consulting business I spent more than two decades building, just so I could have health insurance again. Because this is the age when preventive care is essential and when little problems just start cropping up — like the knee tendon I partially tore last October. Or the fact I’d like to be able to see a doctor to deal with the migraines and seasonal hayfever allergies that caused my insurance rejections in the first place. (Which had gone untreated since I was last able to afford a doctor, when we were in India.)

    In other words, the return to the previous status quo was about to force me back into the regular job market again, where I don’t want to be. Simply being able to buy individual insurance means I can continue to be the entrepreneur I’ve been for the last twenty five-odd years.

    Our friends might very well be among those 2 million cited. I have no idea if I’d be counted among them, but I know for a fact that to rephrase what Hue-Man says below, “I would like to stay independent, but I can’t get access to health insurance at a reasonable cost due to my pre-existing conditions and my age” — which means I’d have to accept the indentured servitude of finding a salaried job somewhere, even though I really don’t want to.

  29. Silver_Witch says:

    Thankfully the world is getting better – albeit baby steps at a time.

  30. therling says:

    What about the husband or wife of someone who retires and receives Medicare? According to AARP, a spouse has to be 65 or older to qualify under his/her spouse’s Medicare. So if your husband or wife is on Medicare, and you’re under 65, you have to have your own insurance.

  31. therling says:

    My first job out of grad school–with a frickin’ Ph.D.!–was part-time, no benefits. I managed to convince my school to keep me on the rolls as a student for a semester so I could at least have some sort of catastrophic health insurance coverage.

  32. BeccaM says:

    The use of that word on Debra’s part, ‘redistributed’, suggested to me a Fox News watcher.

  33. BeccaM says:

    You’re missing the point completely — and really, if someone can earn enough to live on with part-time work and wants to do so, but is forced to work full-time because that’s the only way to get health insurance, how is that a good thing?

  34. Silver_Witch says:

    For me my full-time job with benefits is Unicorns and Rainbow and a few sparkly stars as well.

  35. therling says:

    BTW, not an uncommon story among those who had recently graduated college, before Obamacare provided that those young people be allowed to stay on their parents’ insurance while trying to establish a career.

    There’s also those who would like to leave a full-time position to go back to school to get more education so that when they return to the labor market they can get better jobs.

    Then again, the way workers are treated nowadays, maybe a full-time job with benefits is the equivalent of “unicorns and rainbows.”

  36. Hue-Man says:

    Watching the Obamacare debate from a land of socialized medicine, I’ve wondered how many American workers are health-care “indentured servants” (I wanted to say slaves but know it’s a loaded term). Workers with pre-existing conditions who can’t switch jobs because they won’t be hired if their next employer knows about their condition. Workers who are unable to complain about unsafe work conditions because they can’t afford to be fired and therefore uninsured. Workers who are unable to access their legal rights because they can’t afford to be fired. The 2 million appear mainly in the category of “I would quit but I can’t get access to health insurance at a reasonable cost due to my pre-existing conditions and/or my age.”

    Sane people should be celebrating that 2 million people will choose to leave jobs that they held, essentially under duress. With high unemployment, these dispirited employees should be replaced by motivated employees who have been promoted or new hires from the ranks of the long-term unemployed. (The reality often is that many of the 2 million have skills and expertise that are not easily replaced. Twenty or thirty years’ experience can’t be immediately replaced by someone whose last job was saying “May I take your order, please?”)

  37. perljammer says:

    LOL. This is a pretty silly issue. Of course people who want to quit or cut back their work hours are free to do so. I just hope they realize they won’t be eligible for unemployment benefits if they voluntarily leave their jobs.

    The CBO report actually forecasts that most of the people who decide to
    stop working or cut back their hours will be lower income workers who
    are looking to stay under the income caps for Medicaid or ACA
    subsidies. People quitting work because they become filthy rich are probably not going to make up a statistically significant share of people leaving the work force, and they’re certainly not going to be motivated by health insurance costs. And age-based mandatory retirement is just flat-out illegal per the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, with a very few exceptions affecting an extremely small segment of the population.

    P.S. That grey translucent bar is still there at the bottom of the page.

  38. cole3244 says:

    the msm should take this as a definite, how can you tell when a goper is lying, their mouth is moving that will help avoid a lot of misinformation and confusion.

  39. Lawerence Collins says:

    Thousands of Americans die each year from chronic treatable illnesses ! I was fast on my way to becoming one of those statistics, I have Evans Disease, I’ve not been able to work since 2011. I’ve been hospitalized numerous times. I’ve been close to death on at least 2 occasions.
    I am alive today because of the ACA , Medicaid expansion! This is the truth the GOP and it’s Koch whores don’t want told .

  40. Silver_Witch says:

    I think it is that many of us old-timers thought they would be doing away with Medicare (going to vouchers or some crazy shite). Imagine being well past 60 and retiring and then trying to find a job if we lost medicare.

    I think the ACA might give people a sense that Medicare is secure now and so now more people will feel secure in finally retiring, if they can.

    As for me – I will be working until the day I die as I could never survive on social security and never was in a financial position to get a retirement 401K in place. Such is the life of the lower middle-class woman.

  41. perljammer says:

    I understand the philosophy of continuing to work mainly for health benefits when a person’s employer is making a significant contribution to premium costs. What I don’t understand is the attraction that ACA would have as opposed to Medicare, for someone contemplating retiring “on time”. For that matter, I don’t know (and have been unable to find a definitive answer) whether an individual who qualifies for Medicare is even eligible for coverage under ACA. Does anyone here know?

  42. SkippyFlipjack says:

    I agree, that line is sort of goofy — people who are medicare-eligible now have the ACA option of paying more than medicare for similar care once they retire, so I’m not sure that’s holding them at their jobs.

  43. Silver_Witch says:

    Breathe John breathe – you know you can’t change the stripes of a Zebra…Debra is a zebra…let her be!

    You do make excellent points though. Can I be a millionaire please I promise I will immediately quit my job to make room for an unemployed person.

  44. Silver_Witch says:

    Excellent example therling.

  45. Silver_Witch says:

    Perl, I think the CBO overstated the “retire on time” theory – as I posted above I work with a lot of women that can’t quit because they need the insurance through work. Either they believe we will be losing medicare at some point in the future or medicare provides such poor care (compared to employer provided plans) that they feel they have to continue to work. For me personally, I would not quit because my employer provided insurance is “free” meaning I don’t pay real world money – it is part of my benefits,

    Maybe they just mean older people can now feel better that medicare will be around because the ACA supports that idea. Believe me there are lots of us that thought it would be lost for the voucher program and have held tightly to our jobs for insurance reasons only.

  46. Buford says:

    I think it’s simpler. The model for the ACA was actually created by the Heritage Foundation… it’s a Republican-designed alternative to full single-payer. The reason they NOW oppose it is simply that it’s a winner for Dems… so they simply need this to fail (or to be misperceived as a failure) in order to win elections in the future.

  47. caphillprof says:

    The net effect would not be zero, it would be a plus for lowering the unemployment rate.

  48. caphillprof says:

    Chuck Todd is a tool. As for the Republicans, whenever they talk they are lying.

  49. Silver_Witch says:

    I have seen so many seniors who continue to work over fears that medicare will not adequately cover their health concerns. Some way past the age of retirement and eligible for Social Security at the higher levels (over 67$)…yet they continue to work. Mostly women, many who lost their savings in their 401ks and are very afraid. Not sure that they will be effected by the ACA – as they are already eligible for medicare and yet continue to work to get the “better” healthcare.

    I think the CBO report assumes many who are working while ill to keep their insurance, or working at a job they hate for same will now be free to move about and get either a better job or take a break from work while they recover. How many people have we all seen who are getting chemo or heavy treatments for cancer or terminal illness that drag themselves to work to keep their insurance. Too many.

  50. Monophylos Fortikos says:

    Oh, I know. I just think it’s funny when a Republican pretends to care about job security.

  51. gratuitous says:

    I’ll go out on a limb and say that the real reason Republicans hate this is that workers will gain a measure of security, and not have to work their butts off for less pay, which has been the Republican business model for the last 35 years. Worker hours and productivity are way up since 1980, but wages have remained stagnant. All that Wealth generated by Labor is going somewhere, but not into the pockets of the workers creating it.

    Curious, isn’t it? And the Republicans are throwing everything they’ve got into propping up this horrible system of wealth redistribution from the creators to the elites.

  52. therling says:

    Here’s an example of life in the good old days before Obamacare:

    One of my students was hesitant to quit her job in retail to pursue her career goal in the media industries, for which she spent four years in college. She had a crummy retail job that she felt she had to stay in just for the medical benefits, as she needed anti-depressants. When you’re starting out in some fields, it often means taking a series of temporary or multiple part-time jobs that offer no benefits. She finally decided to “just tough it out,” and after a while she eventually got a decent job with benefits in her chosen career field and was soon making more money than she had in her retail job, and with higher pay, paying more in taxes.

  53. Buford says:

    You’re right… that’s the whole topic of this post! CBO says something… clearly… and Fox Newsies hear the exact, polar opposite.

  54. I was going to say that it’s hard to lie with quotes and references, but actually Fox and the religious right do that every day.

  55. The report makes clear that there’s no evidence to back up that assertion.

  56. Oh, and if you bothered reading the CBO report, you’d see that they found no evidence that companiees are changing employees from full to part time. Good try though.

  57. You know what else isn’t an incentive to work, becoming a millionaire. The best way to convince someone to stop working is to let him become filthy rich. I know it would cure my desire to work. So let’s stop people from becoming wealthy, oh and let’s repeal any laws mandating retirement ages, because they provide incentives not to work too. As do retirement accounts.

  58. perljammer says:

    Yes, the GOP screwed up on this one. But I’d like to look at this story from a different angle.

    According to a Gallup poll conducted in September of last year, 70% of Americans either “hate their jobs” or “feel disengaged from their work”.

    So people who dislike their jobs and are working only for the employer provided health plan, can quit or cut back to part time and have their ACA policies or Medicaid coverage subsidized by people who dislike their jobs but can’t afford to quit or cut back to part time? I haven’t seen any CBO estimate of the impact on Marketplace premiums and/or taxes/fees from the increased subsidization, but I imagine that the increase will have to be paid for somehow.

    Finally, there is one comment from the CBO that makes no sense at all to me; perhaps someone here can explain it: “CBO finds that because of this law, individuals will be empowered to make choices about their own lives and livelihoods, like retiring on time rather than working into their elderly years or choosing to spend more time with their families,” said the statement. Wouldn’t someone “working into their elderly years” and wanting to “retire on time” be looking at Social Security and Medicare? What attraction would the ACA hold for such a person?

  59. Monophylos Fortikos says:

    “They are basically redistributing full time to part time.” Oh, like Walmart?

  60. NCMan says:

    It’s a good thing for a person to work part-time instead of full-time if that is what they want to do.

    It’s only a bad thing if it is being forced upon them by their employer. Quite clearly the CBO said it was the choice of the workers.

    Obamacare is an incentive NOT to work if you don’t NEED TO WORK. What do you find objectionable about that? That leaves more jobs available for those people who do want and need them, doesn’t it?

  61. Drew2u says:

    Chuck Todd and to an extent Chris Matthews, to me, represent “the old guard” of newscasters as both are seemingly so entrenched in politics that they have tenure at MSNBC.
    This is sort of awkward with the changeovers MSNBC decided to do in its lineup the past few years (since the buy-out by Comcast) that seemed to try to bring in the younger, albeit more naive, college-aged audience. The channel turned into Politics 24/7 (except prison) while CNN continued with non-politic stories and FOX’s format mimics the local news format.
    Of course with the changeover, heads had to roll, and it seems like people like Dylan Ratigan, Martin Bashir, Keith Olbermann, and Cenk Ugyur – all who advocated for particular, actual change and accountability in politics, were canned. Formats of shows even changed from Reporting and Interviewing to Roundtable and bloviating expository; a kind of “what if statements” that is pretty much devoid of substance despite the noise.
    So yeah, Chuck Todd is an anachronism, but that’s the least, but still part, of MSNBC’s problems as a network.
    Oh, and that intern who got fired over tweeting about a new biracial commercial? Yeah, after the racist vomit over the Super Bowl Coca-Cola ad, MSNBC’s lost me as a viewer. I squarely blame Phil Griffin.

  62. Buford says:

    Just watch this… from the CBO Director’s own lips… “ACA reduces unemployment”

  63. Buford says:

    I’m convinced that the man is just not very smart… and that ca.1998 goatee is Exhibit A.

  64. Buford says:

    Some quotes and references might help your credibility here.

  65. Debra says:

    I actually watched the meeting/committee. What they said was that people would ‘choose’ not to work as many hours. They said that income taxes would increase over the 10 years. One said that someone could quit working, keep Obamacare and take care of an elderly parent so that Medicare would not have to pay for the elderly parent. They are basically redistributing full time to part time. Watch for yourself. These blogs don’t tell the full truth. The Democrats were acting as if it is a good thing for a person to only work part time. How? If you are raising income taxes, how can it be better to cut your hours? Personally, I think that they are dreaming of unicorns and rainbows. The CBO made it very clear (over and over) that Obamacare is an incentive NOT to work.

  66. NCMan says:

    I understand the argument completely. The only outstanding question I have that no one seems to be addressing is this. If people choose to leaves jobs they don’t like or work fewer hours because they no longer needs to work themselves to death to gain healthcare etc, etc. Why are the employers unable or unwilling to fill those positions that were left or find others to work those hours that were being worked?

    If those jobs, or those additional hours were needed by the employers, shouldn’t the net effect end up at zero as the employers replace those people who left or reduced their hours with new workers to fill in the demand?

    If the job wasn’t eliminated by the employer, but instead by an employee quitting, that indicates the job was needed and the employer would need to hire someone else, right?

  67. Drew2u says:

    Chuck Todd: because MSNBC is so liberal?

© 2019 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS