Larry

Uh, no, he did nothing of the kind.

Neither. I'm pointing out a stupid argument, by pointing at another one. ---------- Now, I certainly suppose that there ARE factors that go into the "good for the country" equation that aren't economic. Encouraging people to retire at 65 reduces the labor pool. But, is it bad for the country? Now, I do agree that, when we're talking about something whose impact is mostly economic? Then I suspect I agree with you, that measuring the economic impact is the part of the equation to look at.

And my point is that, even if we assume that all such reductions are voluntary, it's still likely that at least some of them are a negative for the economy.

1) I think you'll find that the argument that's being made, here, is a whole lot simpler. It's "If we say 'reduce the labor pool by 1 million jobs', a lot of people will think we said 'will eliminate 1 million jobs'." Like a lot of political arguments, it's a statement that's been carefully crafted to try to make people think you said something that you carefully didn't actually say. 2) Having said that, though, yes, reducing the number of hours that people want to work can be bad, (or not), in some cases. If some 62 year old guy decides to retire, and his job is filled by some 35 year old guy who wanted a job, but was unemployed, then the labor pool (the number of people who want to work) has gone down, but the number of jobs hasn't changed. Society, as a whole, has seen one person go from "employed" to "retired", and one person go from "unemployed" to "employed". I would assert that that is actually a net positive, to society. Similarly, if, say, we go from one guy working 80 hours a week, to two guys working 40 each, I'd say that's a net positive. However, if we go from one guy working 80 hours, to one guy working 40, and his employer doesn't hire anybody else? Yeah, that was a voluntary reduction in hours worked. But I could see that as a net negative for the economy. And, I suspect that 1) Yes, Obamacare might actually incent some people into working less. 2) And not all of them will be the "net good to society" reductions in work. (Some of them will be. Maybe even most. But certainly not all.)

I think you're making a valid point, but may be minimizing things a bit too much. In order to reduce the total hours worked, by the entire economy, by 2%, we could have, say, . . . 1). Everybody in the economy work 2% fewer hours. 2). 2% of the workforce, stop working entirely. But,what you CAN'T have, is a tiny portion of the economy, work a tiny portion less. If you do that, then it doesn't affect the total that much.

I haven't seen anybody say that it was. All I've seen is people saying that the government shouldn't be incentivizing people to NOT work. (And I agree with that opinion).

What was that, twa pulling claims out of his Philly?

I do agree with you that, in general, I think that IF some worker is in a situation where "if my employer gives me a raise, my paycheck will get smaller", then I think "there's something wrong with this picture". I've made that claim about lots of situations. With people claiming, say, that welfare mothers don't want to get a job because, if they do, they'll have to pay for day care, which costs more than the job pays. IMO, government subsidy programs should be structured so that there's always an incentive for the recipient to go out and earn more money.

What, that the economy, a decade from now, might not grow at the same rate it grew during his lifetime? He might well be right. That said, though, "We need to immediately repeal Obamacare, so we can save ourselves from a nightmare scenario in which we have so many jobs, there aren't enough Americans to do them all", makes about as much sense as "We must immediately pass this tax cut, to save ourselves from this nightmare projection that says we will completely pay off the national debt by 2015".

Yeah, I'm really worried about what will happen when there aren't enough Americans to fill all the jobs we're going to have. Makes me flash back to the Clinton days, when Rush was trying to inform people that the economy was in dire straits, because the unemployment rate was too low, and "this could lead to increasing wages, triggering inflation". In short, warning people of the danger that, after 20 years of trickle-down economics, it might trickle down.

Pointing out that "losing workers from the labor force" doesn't (necessarily) mean we have fewer workers. If twa retires, and his employer hires somebody else to replace him, (somebody who was unemployed), then twa has left the labor force, but the number of jobs has stayed the same.

Certainly seems believable. Anybody know what the relationship is, between people's income and the subsidy? For every dollar more I make, does the subsidy go down by a dollar? Ten cents? One cent? I also wonder how aware people are, of any thresholds. If there's a situation where, if some guy gets a 10 dollar raise, his insurance goes up 50 bucks, then is that person aware that he's close to that threshold?

Now you're trying to confuse the TOTAL cost of all widgets, and the MSRP of a SINGLE widget.

But if I didn't buy it, then it didn't cost me (or anybody else) anything.

Still haven't explained any possible way in which the two terms aren't interchangeable. Maybe I could argue that if I'm Dr Feelgood, and it costs me $120 to deliver a procedure, and I choose to sell it for $100, then can I claim that spending was $100, but costs were $120? That might be a hypothetical in which the two terms aren't interchangeable. But I think you'd have trouble convincing me that the reason health care total spending has slowed the rate of increase is because Obamacare is forcing the health care industry to sell things below cost, to that large an extent. Somehow, the health care industry, as a whole, doesn't strike me as being that generous.

You haven't defined either term. Let alone explained the difference. I spend $100 on a widget. Is that: 1). Spending. 2). Cost. 3). Both. They're two words for the same thing.

TSF, Suspect I share your opinion of "tort reform". But I confess I don't see where you get your assertion that it's unconstitutional.

The difference is?

You're right. How dare someone point out that your claim of "it would have gone up more, without Obamacare", not only was unsupported, but is pretty much impossible to support. We should all just accept claims like that, without any.

Wow. A correct observation, and a real whopper produced with not even an attempt at support whatsoever.

What fine? They aren't required to offer anything at all, o part time employees.

Don't know why, maybe it's just that I have a generally good opinion of Target, but this sounds like it may actually be a positive move for said employees. I'm ASSUMING that what they were offering wasn't very good. (Based on the low numbers participating). And the cash payout doesn't make it look like they're just doing it to take money away from their employees.

Thank you. And I will freely admit that it certainly looks much more like a real study than what I expected. Pointing out that "22 percent of respondents reduced hiring plans for the next 12 months and 21 percent were considering it." doesn't indicate fewer jobs, it indicates (possibly) fewer new hires. But that's far from the only point they made, and it's certainly not sufficient to dismiss the study. I have to at least assume that this is a valid estimate. I'm certainly not qualified to dispute it.

My plan has a $1,000 deductible, and pays 90% of everything after that.

Re: WD's article pointing out that over half of enrolees are over age 45. I just went to the us census web site. Called up their data on population by age. I then threw out the population under age 18 and over 65, because those people aren't part of obamacare's demographic. And I think it says that the median age of what's left is a bit over 40. But I'm on my iPhone, in my car, doing math in my head. Might be wrong. I would also assert that the article's blissful way of asserting that anybody who signs up for the so-called Gold Plan is sick is a real hoot. Granted, just personal anecdote, but my current plan is considerably better than the exchange's so-called Platinum level. And my total health care consumption, in the 10 years I've been insured, is like four doctor check ups.