ACA (Obamacare) updates for 2014

Two perfect examples of what I observed, thanks RR.......

archer wrote: Two perfect examples of what I observed, thanks RR.......

Could you give some examples of anyone in this thread "hating" anyone else, other than possibly netdude?

All I'm asking for archer is just a counter to points made about the ACA in this thread... can you counter any of the points presented?

archer wrote: Two perfect examples of what I observed, thanks RR.......

And what was I doing to prove your examples?

Here's the head of the non-partisan CBO "hating" on the ACA stating emphatically that the ACA creates a disincentive for people to work.

[youtube:u1pw206y][/youtube:u1pw206y]

What a hater he is. He's probably racist too!

My view point is that the constant use of lies and misstruths to attack the ACA is hatin' not debatin'. For example, the claims that all of the 2 million job openings are solely due to individuals becoming welfare bums is not supported by a single fact. Yet the conservatives keep repeating as their gospel. That is not debate, that is simply hatin'.

They refuse to acknowledge or even factually rebut that as the CBO report describes that individuals will be leaving jobs that had been taken solely for health insurance for reasons including starting their own businesses, taking jobs better suited to their interests or skill sets, early retirement, going back to school to learn new skills, going back into the home to take care of their infants and toddlers or elderly parents, etc. Nope the only reason they claim is those individuals are becoming welfare bums.
Hatin not debating.

Reverend Revelant wrote: Here's the head of the non-partisan CBO "hating" on the ACA stating emphatically that the ACA creates a disincentive for people to work.

[youtube:qeyrhrhu]

[/youtube:qeyrhrhu]

What a hater he is. He's probably racist too!

That is not the head of the CBO. It is republican Paul Ryan. The head of the CBO did not make that statement but actualy stated that the ACA will increase employment. Don't know if he is a racist or why you believe that is relevant.

Increase employment? Yep, two people will have two 20 hour jobs instead of one person working for forty hours a week.

Something the Dog Said wrote:

Reverend Revelant wrote: Here's the head of the non-partisan CBO "hating" on the ACA stating emphatically that the ACA creates a disincentive for people to work.

[youtube:2os4rdom]

[/youtube:2os4rdom]

What a hater he is. He's probably racist too!

That is not the head of the CBO. It is republican Paul Ryan. The head of the CBO did not make that statement but actualy stated that the ACA will increase employment. Don't know if he is a racist or why you believe that is relevant.

My my... not paying attention. First off, I said nothing about increasing or decreasing employment did I? Show me where.

I said "Here's the head of the non-partisan CBO "hating" on the ACA stating emphatically that the ACA creates a disincentive for people to work."

And if you bothered to watch the video, that is the CBO Director Doug Elmendorf stating just that.

#doggyfailed

And to stay on the "disincentive for people to work" theme which Dog so cleverly missed.

It does mean many workers will have less incentive to work. Some will gain welcome flexibility — if they have clung to jobs just to keep employer-based health care, they will have access to coverage that’s not conditioned on holding a job.

But, and here’s where the impact is likely pernicious, some will quit or work less precisely because they’ll now qualify for Medicaid or for subsidies under the law. In effect, they’ll have a government incentive to be less productive. Some higher-income workers also will have a disincentive — higher taxes under Obamacare — for providing more labor. That is, a disincentive to work.

Government subsidies that persuade people to be less productive are not healthy for the nation. They’re also costly. Which goes to the more alarming news that came out of the CBO this week.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opin ... 8538.story

http://www.trbimg.com/img-52f31002/turbine/chi-stantis-obamacare-side-effects-20140206/600

That nasty Chicago Tribune hating on a native son.

Something the Dog Said wrote: Nope the only reason they claim is those individuals are becoming welfare bums.
Hatin not debating.

Who said the statement you just made and exactly who is being hated? Your use of the term "welfare bums" is YOUR OWN. You use those words as a way to paint your opponent as some uncaring asshole who hates the poor. This is a topic that can be debated for a long time and we will see the real outcomes... but by just throwing out terms nobody here is actually using is a dishonest and weak way to debate the topic.