GOP BS vs. Reality (no more "Job Lock")
(p.s. the GOP used to be against it, too)
Graphic from the Washington Post Right on Target
GOP Looking for Route to 2014
The final cake with lots of icing, which the GOP hates, follows this short update about the ACA (Obama-care) curing the "job lock" question:
- Now the two new segments:
The “job-lock” principle:
Paul Ryan in May 2009 said, “The key question that ought to be
addressed in any health care reform legislation is, are we going to continue
job-lock or are we going to allow individuals more choice and portability to
fit the 21st century workforce?"
The Heritage Foundation in 2008, praising a health care plan
proposed by then-GOP presidential nominee John McCain wrote: “Individuals who wish to take a
better job, change careers or leave the workforce to raise a family or to
retire early take substantial risks. This health insurance obstacle to labor
mobility is some times called job-lock.”
Ryan felt the need to get things straight at his recent House hearing on
this CBO report asking CBO director, “Just to understand, it's not that employers
are laying people off?”
“That's right,” Elmendorf replied.
- Now the two new segments:
Finally, I hope, from the horses's mouth (CBO Director) today in front of Congress:
Updated (February 5, 2014): Good rundown on the truth from these two segments.
Second from here - with very good explanation:
Original Post (February 5, 2014) of the following story from Politico here, in part (my edited version for this blog):
So, Mr. and Mrs. GOP: Settle down. This is another one of your non-issue issues.
Original and various versions of this same story are all over the news (and most are in the typical GOP anti-Obama-try-anything that-might-stick fashion). And, man-oh-man, the GOP tweets and comments about the story are priceless. Most follow this line: “Obama-care kills 2.5 millions jobs — see we told you so. Nah, nah, nah!!!”
Second from here - with very good explanation:
Original Post (February 5, 2014) of the following story from Politico here, in part (my edited version for this blog):
Claims by mostly the entire GOP “...that the Affordable Care Act (Obama-care) hurts jobs and that 2.5 million will lose their jobs” are simply belied by the facts in the CBO report, which it seems most of the GOPers didn’t bother to read and analyze.
The key CBO finding about the real subject: job supply vs. job demand “... is not driven by an assumption that ACA will lead employers to eliminate jobs or reduce hours.” In fact, the report itself says that there is “no compelling evidence that part-time employment has increased as a result of the ACA.”
While the report suggests that workers may pull back on the number of hours they work each week, that choice would be theirs based on their situation and not one forced on them by their employer. If they are comfortable working fewer hours, then decision would be theirs, not their bosses mandate.
In essence, the ACA should improve overall health therefore reduce absenteeism, and that will boost worker productivity (and surely make the employers happy at the same time). This is something I would think the GOP could cling to ... stronger, growing economy.
Having the availability of affordable health insurance may allow a worker to be able cut back their hours a few each week and still be able to afford the same quality of life. But, as I said and CBO reports says, that would be their call based on their situation.
The key CBO finding about the real subject: job supply vs. job demand “... is not driven by an assumption that ACA will lead employers to eliminate jobs or reduce hours.” In fact, the report itself says that there is “no compelling evidence that part-time employment has increased as a result of the ACA.”
While the report suggests that workers may pull back on the number of hours they work each week, that choice would be theirs based on their situation and not one forced on them by their employer. If they are comfortable working fewer hours, then decision would be theirs, not their bosses mandate.
In essence, the ACA should improve overall health therefore reduce absenteeism, and that will boost worker productivity (and surely make the employers happy at the same time). This is something I would think the GOP could cling to ... stronger, growing economy.
Having the availability of affordable health insurance may allow a worker to be able cut back their hours a few each week and still be able to afford the same quality of life. But, as I said and CBO reports says, that would be their call based on their situation.
Some workers now with ACA can/and some will I am sure cut back on their workload if they are comfortable. However, I also think most low-income/part-time employees probably would not – but again, it’s their call.
Original and various versions of this same story are all over the news (and most are in the typical GOP anti-Obama-try-anything that-might-stick fashion). And, man-oh-man, the GOP tweets and comments about the story are priceless. Most follow this line: “Obama-care kills 2.5 millions jobs — see we told you so. Nah, nah, nah!!!”
The three Pinocchios from the WaPo are very apropos. Hell, I would have given this weak-ass GOP reaction 5 Pinocchios. They earned every one of them.
So, Mr. and Mrs. GOP, in plain English: The crux of the issue lies in the reason for the reduction in worker hours, estimated to be “about 1.5 percent to 2.0 percent during the period from 2017 to 2024.” It is not, as some of you have suggested, because employers will stop hiring full-time workers. It’s because those workers will voluntarily decide to work slightly less. Essentially, it’s an issue of supply rather than demand.
Oh, yeah, my reference to you GOPers don't know your ass from a hole in the ground. Check the posted photo above. Seems you all are still looking for an issue that will carry you through 2014. But, remember though, where you ass is when your head is stuck in the sand.
No comments:
Post a Comment