Skip to main content

View Diary: Abbreviated Pundit Round-up (122 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  "Job killing" policies? (4+ / 0-)

    Is this snark? Because employment in the health care sector is one of the fastest growing in the nation right now.

    “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” -Barack Obama

    by skohayes on Sun May 05, 2013 at 06:41:52 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  He's using a Repub talking point. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      happymisanthropy, skohayes

      They call it "job killing" because a study showed that one of the results of Obamacare is that older workers may be able to retire earlier.

      Repubs twisted that to mean -- less people working = less jobs = "job killing"

      Repubs want old people to work until they're in the grave.

      "Michael Moore, who was filming a movie about corporate welfare called 'Capitalism: A Love Story,' sought and received incentives."

      by Bush Bites on Sun May 05, 2013 at 07:29:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You haven't been keeping up (0+ / 0-)

      or you would have seen the tons of articles letting us know just how big a disaster will be for businesses, and most especially, employees.

      The Coming ObamaCare Shock

      In recent weeks, there have been increasing expressions of concern from surprising quarters about the implementation of ObamaCare. Montana Sen. Max Baucus, a Democrat, called it a "train wreck." A Democratic colleague, West Virginia's Sen. Jay Rockefeller, described the massive Affordable Care Act as "beyond comprehension." Henry Chao, the government's chief technical officer in charge of putting in place the insurance exchanges mandated by the law, was quoted in the Congressional Quarterly as saying "I'm pretty nervous . . . Let's just make sure it's not a third-world experience."
      None of this counts the people whose employment opportunities will suffer because of disincentives under ObamaCare. Some, whose employers have to pay a tax penalty because their policies do not carry sufficiently generous insurance, will see their wages fall. Others will lose their jobs or see their hours reduced.

      Anecdotal evidence already suggests that these disincentives will really matter in the job market, as full-time jobs are converted to part time. Why would employers do this? Because they aren't subject to a tax penalty for employees who work less than 30 hours per week.

      There is some debate over how large these effects will be, and how long they will take to manifest.  However, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports on a category of workers who will almost surely be involuntarily underemployed as a result of health reform: the 10 million part-timers who now work 30-34 hours per week.
      I would argue we are already seeing these effects.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site