ACA (Obamacare) updates for 2014

Rick wrote: If two million MORE people drop out of the workforce, it's reasonable to believe that many of those will be dependent on taxpayers forever. Work needs to be promoted because there needs to be more people paying into everything that's eventually going to run out of money.

Exactly right Rick. I warned about this 3 years ago.

Hey I'm all for slacking and early retirement, part time whatever. Just have to take responsibility to pay your way, not collect freebies from the Gubbermint that are means-tested "engineered" by your intentionally set lower part-time income. So predictable. Free stuff, come and get it!

You are so delusional in your blind partisanship. You really believe that more people leaving the workforce and getting on the dole is good for the economy?

And your math is just as bad as Obama's. The workforce participation is the lowest in decades and the ACA is going to make it even lower... no problem, we can just get the rich to make up the difference in SS, Medicare, Medicaid, ACA subsidies, the national debt, etc. etc. . It must be nice to live in your fantasy land.

Rick wrote: You are so delusional in your blind partisanship. You really believe that more people leaving the workforce and getting on the dole is good for the economy?

And your math is just as bad as Obama's. The workforce participation is the lowest in decades and the ACA is going to make it even lower... no problem, we can just get the rich to make up the difference in SS, Medicare, Medicaid, ACA subsidies, the national debt, etc. etc. . It must be nice to live in your fantasy land.

I'm really interested in the 1966 Cloward–Piven strategy that advocated "overloading" the US welfare system to force its collapse in the hopes that it would be replaced by "a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guaranteed_minimum_income

Something the Dog Said wrote: I know it is a good thing that additional jobs and hours will become available as workers CHOOSE to quit or reduce their hours since they no longer are dependent upon working SOLELY to get health insurance per the CBO report discussed in Ricks post. Why would that not be a good thing?

And this is the problem with the mentality in this country. I guess I would not have a problem IF they were paying their way on reduced hours without subsidies. Personally I would have a problem taking free money that I could earn myself if I worked for it. JMO

Spend some time in any age restricted communit, age 55+, and talk to the people who have the desire to retire, the money to retire, but can't until they are eligible for Medicare because there is no way they can get health insurance.. Many are past retirement age but hang onto their jobs so they can cover their younger spouses. They would like nothing better than to retire and let some younger person take that job. This is not a bad thing.

But Archer they now have increased those eligible for Medicaid.

FredHayek wrote: But Archer they now have increased those eligible for Medicaid.

What does that have to do with what I posted? These are hard working people, with the income and desire to retire, who are working because they have to, to get health insurance. They wouldn't be eligible for Medicaid.

Rick wrote: You are so delusional in your blind partisanship. You really believe that more people leaving the workforce and getting on the dole is good for the economy?

And your math is just as bad as Obama's. The workforce participation is the lowest in decades and the ACA is going to make it even lower... no problem, we can just get the rich to make up the difference in SS, Medicare, Medicaid, ACA subsidies, the national debt, etc. etc. . It must be nice to live in your fantasy land.

You think I am delusional? I present you with well thought documented facts, and you just ignore, make up outrageous lies just so you can keep on hatin'. There is not a single shred of evidence that these hardworking individuals are bums going on welfare, but are individuals taking early retirement to enjoy their hard earned retirement, moms going back to raise their children, students going to college full time, individuals pursuing their dreams, all because of the ability to purchase insurance through the ACA. But you have to smear them with your lies so you can keep on hatin'.

Come back when you actually have facts instead of hate.

If your facts are well documented, how about presenting some links to support it? And don't tell me someone else doesn't present links, because I do, not that I need to here because I'm just expressing my opinion in arguing your "facts".

So you are basically saying it's OK that 2 million leave the workforce because they get healthcare subsidies from the government? If so, why don't we pay even more subsidies so we can open up even more jobs? Why not pay 100% of healthcare for a few, and not the rest? Not that we are increasing jobs, we are just paying taxpayer dollars to some so they can quit their jobs. And this is nothing that I saw mentioned in the Washington Post article, just your interpretation. So why pay huge taxpayer dollars for no net change in unemployment???

This seems like an argument that if we put 2 million more on welfare (voluntarily, of course), we will free 2 million jobs. That's an example, not an equivalent.

Or from a more conservative standpoint let's double military salaries so we can free up millions of private sector jobs. Yeah, that makes sense too.

Bottom line is if you change the way people are taxed, people will make choices. And the CBO doesn't even get into the marriage penalty of the ACA. Many married people will find that they can save thousands with subsidies if they divorce and stay together. That's my opinion. The marriage penalty has to do with the fact that two single people can make about $46K and get major subsidies. Married people can only make about $62K. And there is a big cliff slightly below those amounts where you can get huge taxpayer subsidies.

edited to add...

Yeah, I could of provided a source for the $46k and $62k, but that's well known by now and I said "about". I might be off by a thousand or so, not that it matters for the overall argument and a source is so easy to find...

http://healthreform.kaiserpermanente.org/10-most-asked-questions

"Hate" has become the left's scare tactic. Add that to "racist." It would be nice if the left actually had hard facts and not a bunch of manufactured code words used to try to shut down the conversation.

It's not hate or racism, or any of the other worthless terms used to try to scare someone into silent submission. It's two side debating various facts, opinions and ideologies.

Most of the time it's nothing more or nothing less than that.