Obamacare...(new title): GOP DEATH PLAN: Don-Ryan's Express

[PeterMP]

The CBO is still projecting that the law total will lower the deficit and have minimal impacts on labor demand (i.e. jobs availible) long term.

I think it's the broader point that is most important.

 

Why do we have govt programs that make it MORE likely for people to need Govt programs?

 

Govt programs should exist to help people transition OFF Govt help.

 

A person sitting at home isnt helping the economy grow.

Bull****.  He got beaten up by the Obama administration and is in desperate backtrack mode.

 

It may reduce the rate, because the people who dont need to work because the Govt is providing everything, wont count on the unemployment numbers.

 

The two things aren't contradictory.

 

You can lose older/low income workers from the work force because it makes sense for them now not to work and if you gain higher income jobs, then more educated workers that make more money will be able to find jobs raising the employment numbers.

 

The disincentive to work is for a pretty small subset of workers.

 

Thought I do agree we need to look at practices/policies that do encourage work, but part of that is putting things in place that allows low income workers to gain skills that will make them higher income workers, which is hard to do if they can't have health insurance while doing things to gain those skills.

 

If you have to work 3 jobs so you can get health insurance, it is hard to take part in job training programs/classes that make you are more valuable worker.

 

Finding a balance is key.

[Kilmer17]

I'm calling bull*** on you. From the report...

 

 

What that means is that those who can afford to can retire and open up jobs for the millions of unemployed workers who need one.

 

Claiming "He got beaten up by the Obama administration" is your personal conspiracy theory.  

Sure, why work when you dont have to.  Dont worry, there will be plenty of people like me around to pull the sled.

[PeterMP]

Sure, why work when you dont have to.  Dont worry, there will be plenty of people like me around to pull the sled.

 

Because living pretty close to the poverty level is a pretty miserable existence and while federal progams do provide services there tend to be issues with quality and the hoops to jump through, which means your doing "work" for poor services.

[Kilmer17]

Because living pretty close to the poverty level is a pretty miserable existence and while federal progams do provide services there tend to be issues with quality and the hoops to jump through, which means your doing "work" for poor services.

I want a system that provides support, but also incentive to work and produce and move the economy in a positive direction.

 

I dont want a system that provides cradle to grave govt handouts.

[twa]

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?

it is rather complicated and varies by age...there seems a cliff at the top and bottom(but the bottom is less clear if a different subsidy comes in)

 

http://xpostfactoid.blogspot.com/2013/12/the-acas-subsidy-cliff-for-older-buyers.html

 

There is a serious flaw in the ACA subsidy formula. If you're young and single, subsidies taper gradually. If you're 50something, they fall to zero abruptly.  If you're fiftysomething with kids, they fall very abruptly. That's because premium prices (and thus subsidies) are higher for older adults, and subsidies (if you qualify) rise with each additional person covered by the plan. If there's three or four or five of you, and you don't qualify, you lose effectively three or four or five subsidies. It's primarily age that carves the cliff, though -- especially for two older adults.

If you're 27 and single and living in Essex County, NJ, premium subsidies taper quite gradually (though additional subsidies for out-of-pocket costs don't). The cheapest silver plan costs $260 per month unsubsidized. If your yearly income is $22k, your monthly subsidy is $152. At $27k, it's $91. At $32k, $27/month. At $34k, no subsidy. Fair enough. (All price quotes courtesy of ValuePenguin.)

If you're 55 and single, the cheapest silver plan, unsubsidized, is a bit more than double the premium for the 27 year-old -- $553 per month. That means the subsidies are much higher, because you're supposed to pay the same percentage of your income as a younger person -- if you qualify. Also, you qualify for subsidies at higher levels than the younger adult, because you're eligible if the plan costs more than 9.5% of your income. Hence, if your income is $32k, your subsidy is $317 per month, your monthly payment $236.  At $40k, the subsidy is $237. At $45k, $198.

If you earn $46k, however, your subsidy is zero.

The problem is exacerbated for a pair of 55 year-olds with a 23 year-old son or daughter. For them, the cheapest silver plan in New Jersey is $1,354 per month.  If the family income is $63k, the subsidy is $858, their monthly payment $496.  At $78k, the subsidy has dropped modestly, to $739. At $79k, it's -- zero.

A couple of caveats. First, there aren't too many couples with a MAGI of $79k and no access to employer-provided insurance. Second, if one of the earners is self-employed, and that person's business profit exceeds the premium cost, the whole premium is tax deductible -- which is a 25% subsidy at that income level, worth about $375 per month. [update: for the non-self-employed, there's the medical expense deduction for all med expenses including insurance that exceed 10% of income.**]  Third, if the couple is really near the cliff, they can top up their retirement contribution (or boost the self-employed person's business expenses) to get in under the cap. In my example, an extra $1,000 contributed to an individual 401k, taking the family income down from $79k to $78k, is worth $8870 in premium subsidies.

[PeterMP]

I want a system that provides support, but also incentive to work and produce and move the economy in a positive direction.

 

I dont want a system that provides cradle to grave govt handouts.

 

I think some cradle to grave programs are necessary.  There are going to be people that can't/won't take care of themselves and their children.  Whether is a diagnosable physical or mental issue something like addiciton (which I actually consider a disease) or for whatever reason a lack of incentive and a willingness to live near the poverty level.

 

Based on my experience with the foster care system (not as a child in it, but what I've seen in my interactions as an adult), what I'd like to see more of is the restriction of reproductive rights/ability based on the ability/willingness to provide for children independent of the government.

 

But I don't think that is going to happen in my lifetime and the left and right would fight it.

 

Right now, we have people that don't seem to have an issue with having kids they can't provide for, and I don't think that is going to change if you take away the government programs designed to assist them (I think those people will continue to have kids in many cases and just provide that much less for them), and I'm not comfortable saying you're a waste so we are going to let your kids die/live unhealthy lives.

 

The other thing, I think we need to talk about in terms of incentiving work is the emphasis/value our system through some government actions like the tax code currently puts on capital vs. labor.

Edited February 6, 2014 by PeterMP

[Kilmer17]

Of course.  But that's a small, and agreed necessary, piece of the Govt dole.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Personally, I fail to see how the CBO report can be viewed as a positive thing.  Does the CBO have credibility now?   That's hardly a question that can be possed to either Democrate or Republican.  Each side beats the other over the head with it when it's convenient to do so. 

 

Regardless of party affiliation, if the numbers are true.  If we lose 2 Million more workers from the labor force, over the next 3 or 4 years, we are in trouble. 

[Larry]

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. 

[twa]

Bad example, though if I retire another business will....or whoever I sell out to.

 

the real question is how many will outsource to another country and the increased medicaid/medicare and disability payments

 

or of course replace with automation and increased productivity from existing empolyees(the trend we have already been on w/o the added incentive of higher costs)

 

add

left out increased part-time hiring to replace full......I hope it works out for ya'll

Edited February 6, 2014 by twa

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Personally, I fail to see how the CBO report can be viewed as a positive thing.  Does the CBO have credibility now?   That's hardly a question that can be possed to either Democrate or Republican.  Each side beats the other over the head with it when it's convenient to do so. 

 

Regardless of party affiliation, if the numbers are true.  If we lose 2 Million more workers from the labor force, over the next 3 or 4 years, we are in trouble. 

 

Its seen as a positive thing because it seems there is evidence that a lot of those workers are leaving because they no longer need to work to maintain health insurance.  That actually is a very good thing for a few reasons.

 

First, if you're like me (and a lot of us), you believe that every human being has a right to at least some basic healthcare.  No longer do you have to have a job to get ACCESS to healthcare.  I don't believe the two should be tied together (job and access to healthcare), and a lot of people will agree with that.

 

Second, there is a very compelling argument that the people who are choosing to leave the market due to Obamacare, are people who only had a job to get access to healthcare.  These people are not invested in their jobs, as the argument goes, and are merely working "because they have to."  Studies show that those types of workers do not have the same productivity as someone who is invested in his job and/or wants to do his job for some reason other than pecuniary gain.

[ABQCOWBOY]

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. 

 

I think it does Larry.  As the population naturally increases, the Labor force should show an increase that essentially mirrors the population increase.

 

This suggests something different all together.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Its seen as a positive thing because it seems there is evidence that a lot of those workers are leaving because they no longer need to work to maintain health insurance.  That actually is a very good thing for a few reasons.

 

First, if you're like me (and a lot of us), you believe that every human being has a right to at least some basic healthcare.  No longer do you have to have a job to get ACCESS to healthcare.  I don't believe the two should be tied together (job and access to healthcare), and a lot of people will agree with that.

 

Second, there is a very compelling argument that the people who are choosing to leave the market due to Obamacare, are people who only had a job to get access to healthcare.  These people are not invested in their jobs, as the argument goes, and are merely working "because they have to."  Studies show that those types of workers do not have the same productivity as someone who is invested in his job and/or wants to do his job for some reason other than pecuniary gain.

 

 

No, I can't say that I am like you in this regard.  A person, IMO, has a right to the opportunity to better themselves.  They do not have the right to healthcare, above and beyond critical healthcare.   Healthcare that is not tied to work or the attempt to improve ones personal situation is unsustainable.  I think it must be tied to work.  I think that in the coming months and years, far more will disagree with the idea of Healthcare being untied to labor or work. 

 

As far as people working because they have to, well, my view on that is simple.  It's called work for a reason.  It's not called fun or vacation or retirement for a reason.  Very, very few people have jobs that they actually love, especially when you are first starting out.  It takes a long time, normally, to find a job you really like.  Allowing people to leave the work force is not going to change that.  The people coming behind them are not going to love doing those jobs either but here's the thing.  The work isn't going anyhwere.  Those jobs are still going to have to be done so how does that whole line of thought on productivity fix anything?  The best motivator is need, 

 

All this will do, IMO, is make the pool, from which we draw taxes to cover these expenses smaller.  I honestly don't see how anybody could come to the conclusion that it would result in anything else.  I know we are far apart here in our beliefs but honestly, if true, I don't see how this could be a good thing.

 

I guess we'll see.  

Edited February 6, 2014 by ABQCOWBOY

[twa]

"What effect [will] the reduced labor force participation have on the economy?"

(CBO director) Elmendorf's answer was simple, short, and devastating. "It is the central factor in slowing economic growth," he said. "After we get out of this current downturn, but later in this decade and beyond, the principal reason why we think the economic growth will be less than it was for most of my lifetime will be a slower rate of growth by the labor force.
 

"http://washingtonexaminer.com/cbo-director-falling-work-force-participation-including-obamacare-will-be-central-factor-in-slowing-economic-growth/article/2543524?custom_click=rss&utm_campaign=Weekly+Standard+Story+Box&utm_source=weeklystandard.com&utm_medium=referral

[Larry]

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. 

[twa]

so he is wrong?

[nonniey]

This defense which is what the ACA defenders are hanging their hats on is one of the most ludicrous positions I've ever seen taken. A consequence of a government program that is a disincentive to work is an absolute negative. It is not a benefit by any means what-so-ever. This effect is a cost and the way the CBO  briefed it they thought so as well. One can defend the program saying it's other benefits outweigh that cost but when you are claiming a cost is really a benefit you're getting into the surreal.

 

Its seen as a positive thing because it seems there is evidence that a lot of those workers are leaving because they no longer need to work to maintain health insurance.  That actually is a very good thing for a few reasons.

 

First, if you're like me (and a lot of us), you believe that every human being has a right to at least some basic healthcare.  No longer do you have to have a job to get ACCESS to healthcare.  I don't believe the two should be tied together (job and access to healthcare), and a lot of people will agree with that.

 

Second, there is a very compelling argument that the people who are choosing to leave the market due to Obamacare, are people who only had a job to get access to healthcare.  These people are not invested in their jobs, as the argument goes, and are merely working "because they have to."  Studies show that those types of workers do not have the same productivity as someone who is invested in his job and/or wants to do his job for some reason other than pecuniary gain.

Edited February 7, 2014 by nonniey

[Larry]

so he is wrong?

 

 

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". 

[Larry]

This defense which is what the ACA defenders are hanging their hats one is one of the most ludicrous positions I've ever seen taken. A consequence of a government program that is a disincentive to work is an absolute negative. It is not a benefit by any means what-so-ever. This effect is a cost and the way the CBO  briefed it they thought so as well. One can defend the program saying it's other benefits outweigh that cost but when you are claiming a cost is really a benefit you're getting into the surreal.

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.

[twa]

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. 

.

What was that ACA will slow the US economy

[Larry]

What was that ACA will slow the US economy

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

[twa]

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

 

will the ACA reduce labor participation rate by both his testimony and the report?....if so , it is not my Philly 

[Tulane Skins Fan]

This defense which is what the ACA defenders are hanging their hats on is one of the most ludicrous positions I've ever seen taken. A consequence of a government program that is a disincentive to work is an absolute negative. It is not a benefit by any means what-so-ever. This effect is a cost and the way the CBO  briefed it they thought so as well. One can defend the program saying it's other benefits outweigh that cost but when you are claiming a cost is really a benefit you're getting into the surreal.

I disagree that the government's job if to incentivize people to work. In fact, I think that is an insane statement.

I truly believe your post if the ludicrous one, not mine.

[nonniey]

I disagree that the government's job if to incentivize people to work. In fact, I think that is an insane statement.

I truly believe your post if the ludicrous one, not mine.

Whether it is or isn't the governments job to incentivize people to work is irrelevant, however what it absolutely should never do is to discourage work and that is what is happening with the ACA. So yeah saying that is a benefit is ludicrous.

[JMS]

Personally, I fail to see how the CBO report can be viewed as a positive thing. Does the CBO have credibility now? That's hardly a question that can be possed to either Democrate or Republican. Each side beats the other over the head with it when it's convenient to do so.

 

Regardless of party affiliation, if the numbers are true. If we lose 2 Million more workers from the labor force, over the next 3 or 4 years, we are in trouble.

 

Holy Guacamole... This is like the 4th time the GOP has blatantly lied about a CBO report.... Nothing has changed... Obamacare is still a net postive to our budget and economy to the tune of trillions of dollars... The Economy isn't going to create fewer jobs... All that's changed is folks who traditionally have to work two jobs to get by in our economy are going to opt to work a few hours less a week..  Workers will choose to work about 1-2% fewer hours by 2027 than was orginally projected by the CBO...

 

The economy isn't going to create fewer jobs because of Obamacare.. It's going to create more net jobs because of Obamacare... Obamacare isn't going to cost us more... it's not even going to cost us anything.. It's still going to save us a bucket full of cash... It's going to save private citizens money,  It's going to save the federal budet money...

 

But OH MY GOD.... poor folks have a little cushon because they are being offered affordable healthcare... a few of them are going to opt work  a few fewer hours a week... LIKE THAT's a BAD THING?

 

You know how you might fix that? You might raise the minimum wage!!... give them a little incentive to work. more...

 

Right out of the report....

 

"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 -- given the new taxes and other incentives they will face and the financial benefits some will receive."

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-the-cbo-report-on-obamacare-actually-says-about-jobs/

Edited February 7, 2014 by JMS