that's not exactly what it says, and the distinction makes a pretty big difference. it says there will be less total hours worked. that's what they estimate, verbatim.

the GOP's narrative on this seems quite fair to me, given all the foot-stomping pelosi and obama did when they called it a job-killer.

i do agree that they are being totally hypocritical where they do not admit that this effect will also be present in any other bill they propose, if it tries to decouple health insurance from employment. decoupling them may be a worthy goal, but it does not come without some cost

ETA: side point. thinking about this, it seems that the existence of subsidized employer-based coverage as an incentive to work was possibly quite an underrated driver of the relatively low average unemployment rates in the US compared to many other advanced economies.

This post was edited on 2/7/14 at 1:22 pm

1 Jump to Post ...

Report Post Jump to Post

Posted by Stuckinthe90s

Dallas, TX

Member since Apr 2013

2596 posts

Posted on 2/7/14 at 1:40 pm to 90proofprofessional

90proprofessional, I kind of see your point now and tend to agree. To me, the dem spin is on the micro level... 1 worker choose to work less hours because ACA allows him to do that now and pursue other interests.

The republican narrative is on the macro level. 2.5 million full time(40 hour/week) jobs will be lost. and this is calculated by the reduction in X/Y=2.5 million where X = total reduction of labor hours and Y = yearly hours 1 full time worker works.

I tend to agree now that the article shows that the republicans spin is fair. On the Macro level there are 2.5 million jobs that are going unworked. Pubs should still hammer home the micro affects which is it that it is an incentive not to work.

2 Jump to Post ...

Report Post Jump to Post

Political Talk - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board