CBO Redux on the ACA

that logic doesn't make sense to me. If I am making more money, and my healthcare costs a bit more, I am probably still ending up with more money in my pocket at the end of the day. The subsidies aren't a hard cutoff, there is a sliding scale.

http://blogs.marketwatch.com/health-exchange/2014/02/04/cbo-says-obamacare-will-add-to-deficit-create-reluctant-work-force/

The VERY first line of this story.....

 "Editor’s note: This story was corrected to note that Obamacare insurance costs may not add to federal deficit."

IOWs: 60-something seniors can now retire in peace and working parents can now choose to stay home and tend to needy families. Because they no longer have to work simply to maintain insurance coverage.   I think those are Good Things?!

This story provides 'spin' material only.  Nothing to see here, folks! 

Has anyone checked out the Federal deficit numbers lately.  Goooooo, Obama! 

What u R, is in the wrong thread!  COJ, my friend.

lol, well i have to say that's an epic journalist fail.  Talk about a complete 180 from the first article.  It should have read more like, I misunderstood the CBO report and I wrote an article based on that information.  Please disregard.

So really it sounds like there's nothing new on the costs front.  I know the CBO had it as revenue neutral at the start and it was based on a lot of "projections".  The "projections" to date certainly haven't been holding true to form, so I can't see how everything stays revenue neutral over the long haul, but it's really nothing more than continued speculation on my part.

I'm still laughing at the correction.

I should introduce you to my extended family.  lol

I think this is one of the reasons I have a more skeptical view of things like this.  I grew up surrounded by multi-generations of people who thought EXACTLY like the report suggests.  It was all about what free ride to hitch onto next and manipulate the system in every way possible to do the least amount of work for the maximum benefit.  That pretty much describes most of my childhood and for some weird reason I rebelled against this mindset and refused to be less than I was capable of and never looked back.

Most of us here on BT are pretty successful in life so the logic in the report makes no sense at all.  So, I totally agree with what you're saying as it pertains to us.  However, many if not a large percentage of people do not think the way you and I do and I just so happen to be related to a lot of them.  

Originally posted by strykergt http://news.yahoo.com/obamacare-cut-hours-equivalent-2-million-jobs... I don't know if this is related to OPs topic. I posted it anyway and I am more interested in reading all your discussions

This reminded me of a concern I have for people working more than 30 hrs a week.

One of the things I'm disturbed by is that since 30 hours is considered full time why aren't employers compelled (that word sounds so much nicer than forced) to pay time and a half for workers who work more than full time hours (30). 

It's just not fair that people who work more than full time don't get compensated properly for overtime. 

I can certainly see why and how someone in your situation would benefit from the ACA.... and in your case ACA is an appropriate name for this legislation, however for the vast majority of the citizens it, isn't is it?

I've thought and said for most of my life that employer sponsored health care was in the big scheme of things a negative for our nation. You've pointed out why and did a good job of it, thanks.

If you look up the definition of "insurance" I think you'll see that the ACA has changed the rules enough that it doesn't meet that definition any longer.  

There could have been a lot of ways to go about providing health care for people who are in a situation similar to yours but the ACA wasn't about reducing costs it's a means to an end for a Government controlled health care system. It's about power and control for the Republican & Democratic party nothing more, nothing less. 

I'm glad it's working out for you and I truly mean that, it's a shame it's coming at such a high cost to our nation. 

Good luck with your future business.

my roomate was telling me earlier that 2.3 million people quit their jobs as a result of the ACA. Fox News is touting it as OBAMA MADE 2.3 MILLION LOSE THEIR JOBS.  In reality the majority are older folks who were working solely for the insurance benefits. Now that they can get their insurance through the ACA, they quit. That will open up jobs for younger people that want and need them.

I love the summary at the end:

Bored with your job? No worries—now you can quit, thanks to the generosity of other taxpayers. Want to retire early? No worries—now you can, thanks to the generosity of other taxpayers, and also thanks to the higher premiums that young people will be forced to pay on your behalf. The White House’s apparently sincere belief—echoed by progressive pundits at MSNBC, The New Republic, and the L.A. Times—is that it’s a good thing for fewer Americans to be economically self-sufficient.

I've noticed a real concerted effort by the progressives to pin everything on Fox News.  It's kind of funny, but anyways...

The 2 M number came from the CBO and every news organization including MSNBC is reporting on it.  If you go to MSNBC and search on CBO it's kind of funny because the first few articles are reporting it pretty much exactly how fox is reporting it with "bad news" type headlines and then they start shifting towards, "well it's really not that bad" and hey "look there's good news in the report" to "the republicans are all spinning this and the ACA is awesome".  Even the white house coming out and saying it's "good news" discussed in the Forbes article above.

Even your post about the "majority of the 2 million people are older folks who were working solely for the insurance benefits.  Really?  Where did you get that from?  The only thing the CBO report says about older folks is this (page 123)
Effects on Retirement Decisions and
Disabled Workers
Changes to the health insurance market under the ACA,
including provisions that prohibit insurers from denying
coverage to people with preexisting conditions and those
that restrict variability in premiums on the basis of age or
health status, will lower the cost of health insurance plans
offered to older workers outside the workplace. As a
result, some will choose to retire earlier than they otherwise
would

The CBO report also mentions (page 120):
Responses of Affected Groups. A number of studies
examining the impact of changes in Medicaid eligibility
for parents and children have shown either no effects or
small effects on the labor supply of single mothers; effects
on two-parent households appear to be somewhat larger,
in part because health insurance has stronger effects on
the labor supply of secondary earners.9

More recently, several studies have examined changes in
state policies that affect childless adults—who constitute
the majority of those gaining coverage through the Medicaid
expansion—and larger effects have been reported.
Some reductions in employment are reported among
people who have gained Medicaid eligibility, although the
findings differ regarding the magnitude and statistical significance
of that effect.10 Similarly, other research shows
a rise in employment rates with the withdrawal of Medicaid
coverage from childless adults who had previously
been turned down for private insurance.11 Because those
studies examined state-level policy initiatives affecting
program eligibility—instead of changes in eligibility
attributable to income changes, which could merely
reflect changes in employment—the results provide some
useful insights into the potential effects of the ACA (even
though other aspects of the studies raise questions about
their applicability to an analysis of the ACA).
Taking that research into account, CBO estimates that
expanded Medicaid eligibility under the ACA will, on
balance, reduce incentives to work.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45010-Outlook2014.pdf

So is there a concerted effort by the media to spin this?  Absolutely, but I think you might be missing the forest due to all the trees being in the way.

Just saw this and thought it was interesting and topical.  I didn't realize the cliff was so steep for income levels so low. 

Watch Out for Obamacare's Subsidy Cliff: Earn $1 More in Wages, and You Could Pay $20,000 More for Insurance

This was today's funny. Since I'm technically on the HHS payroll (NIH funded researcher), I get all their mailings. Today's was priceless:

(1796409_709153442448318_118031822_n.jpg)

Still my personal favorite (yes this is a legitimate ad):

(There's a ton of funny ones at doyougotinsurance.com  haha)

it is called knowing your target audience, bro.