Obamacare to unleash the American “entrepreneurial spirit”

Vern · Feb 25, 2014

buck said:
Sorry, Obamacare "costs the equivalent of 2.3 million jobs" is sufficient. The "hours reduced" that you feel the need to add is redundant, as that would obviously be covered in the word "equivalent".

But buck, if that’s sufficient then you are admitting that “Obamacare kills 2.3 million jobs” is not sufficient and hence a lie. Just so you know, I don’t find your statement sufficient but at least it cant be labeled a lie like the republican narrative that “Obamacare kills 2.3 million jobs”

It's a good thing I learned not to expect much from you following the confusion you had about the word "net". That way I am no longer saddened for all of humanity by the silly arguments you make.

I have no confusion about the word “net” or the phrase “on net”. I found it somewhat confusing that the CBO said the jobs would be filled. Its clearly a contradiction. so if in reality the net hours worked is reduced , are they really saying the number of hours less will be the equivalent of about 4 million jobs? (we have a solid and conservative number for the increase in self employed but not for early retirees.) so if the hours really add up that much, it will definitely do a number on unemployment but I find the statement “effect on employment will be muted” also contradictory.

and how funny is that you think by deflecting to my “confusion” you can avoid addressing your blatant falsehood that the “CBO said Obamacare increases the deficit”. I can say blatant because that garbled mess you posted was a classic conservative babble to make it look like you were proving your point. Oh and I say falsehood because the CBO clearly stated it reduces the deficit. All the garbled mess in the world cant change that. Should I assume “deflection” will be your automatic response every time I mention your claim that “CBO said Obamacare increases the deficit”?

buck · Feb 25, 2014

Vern said:
But buck, if that’s sufficient then you are admitting that “Obamacare kills 2.3 million jobs” is not sufficient and hence a lie. Just so you know, I don’t find your statement sufficient but at least it cant be labeled a lie like the republican narrative that “Obamacare kills 2.3 million jobs”

Not really. But because it's ridiculous and who cares.. Sure. "Obamcare will cost the economy 2.3 million net jobs" and "Obamacare will cost the economy 2.3 million equivalent net jobs" are entirely different statements. One is the biggest lie and the other is just truth. Hug whichever one you prefer.

I have no confusion about the word “net” or the phrase “on net”. I found it somewhat confusing that the CBO said the jobs would be filled. Its clearly a contradiction.

No, not really. It's just further misunderstanding by you of what is occuring and how both can be accurate.

so if in reality the net hours worked is reduced , are they really saying the number of hours less will be the equivalent of about 4 million jobs?

No.

In my experience people that don't have an argument, retract to grasping on words and playing semantics. Thank you for keeping that tradition alive.

Vern · Feb 25, 2014

Samhain said:
They state they only used the FKG study, whose findings was "that the increase in probability of owning a business once an individual reaches the age of 65 represents an an increase of 13 percent"

Sam, the report reviewed 2 studies with 3 different methods to determine the self employment increase after Obamacare has been implemented. It’s just a known fact that our health care system is a detriment to self employment. You don’t get to call that poppycock.

“The empirical economics literature strongly supports the notion that reforms which guarantee issue coverage and those which provide financial support to purchasers outside the employment context significantly increase the likelihood of self-employment.”

“Two recent papers have empirically analyzed the effect of insurance market reforms on entrepreneurship. We use findings from these studies as benchmarks to predict state-specific increases in self-employment under the ACA”

they applied the medicare ‘method’ to the 35 states that had no reforms. And that was conservative compared to the Upjohn study. The Upjohn study showed a 14-20 % increase in self employment. Again, they used that value it in states that “without prior reforms”. They lowered the value in 13 states that had some sort of reform prior to Obamacare.

Prior to stating this, they note that none of the previous studies are "perfect corollaries", but they then still use the FKG rate as their base rate anyway.

And that will be the phrase you cling to so you can ignore the multiple studies they used in their conservative estimate. not being "perfect corollaries" doesn’t invalidate the report, the studies it referenced or its conclusions. As a con, you're simply not used to be sources of information trying to be factual and accurate so you just assume everybody is a liar like the conservative entertainment complex.

iguanaman · Feb 25, 2014

buck said:
Even if this study by a left leaning organization is accurate...

The CBO indicates an equivalent of 2.5 million less jobs in the economy due to Obamcare. So, I guess that was really 4 million minus the 1.5 million that will start their own business = the 2.5 million equivalent jobs lost to the economy. Wonderful news!

How does what the CBO said mean less jobs in the economy? Those that quit because they no longer must work to keep their insurance will leave job OPENINGS for the unemployed. That IS good news.

Vern · Feb 25, 2014

buck said:
Not really. But because it's ridiculous and who cares.. Sure. "Obamcare will cost the economy 2.3 million net jobs" and "Obamacare will cost the economy 2.3 million equivalent net jobs" are entirely different statements. One is the biggest lie and the other is just truth. Hug whichever one you prefer.

Again, we agree that the republican narrative "Obamacare kills 2.3 million jobs" is a lie. And you attempted to "hug" lie after you attempted to justify it.

No, not really. It's just further misunderstanding by you of what is occuring and how both can be accurate..

see how you claim I'm wrong without explaining why I'm wrong. It's a classic conservative stalling tactic.

No

And here you raise it to an art form. If I contest your new and convenient definition of "net" you'll just claim you meant "no" to some other point. Here's a question for you "no what?"

In my experience people that don't have an argument, retract to grasping on words and playing semantics. Thank you for keeping that tradition alive.

that's hysterical buck, the guy who posted this nonsense to "prove" the "cbo said Obamacare raises the deficit" says I have to "retract to grasping on words and playing semantics".

buck said:
If not for Obamcare the increased taxes could be used for deficit reduction. Because of obamcare, the government now has less ability to increase income and less ability to control the deficit. Howeer, I also believe that once they look at a full 10 years of costs and a full 10 years of collections, they will find it is not even deficit neutral in itself.

Look at nonsense you posted. Saying you had to "retract to grasping on words and playing semantics" is a compliment to that incoherent babble. Oh and Buck, see how the CBO doesn't have to "retract to grasping on words and playing semantics" when they said Obamacare reduces the deficit. But you knew that, its why you had to "retract to grasping on words and playing semantics" when called out on your 'claim'

"Taking the coverage provisions and other provisions together, CBO and JCT have estimated that the ACA will reduce deficits over the next 10 years and in the subsequent decade. (We have not updated our estimate of the total budgetary impact of the ACA since last summer; for that most recent estimate, see Letter to the Honorable John Boehner providing an estimate for H.R. 6079, the Repeal of Obamacare Act.) "

CBO

Please don't "retract to grasping on words and playing semantics" again to dispute the fact that the CBO says Obamacare reduces the deficit

buck · Feb 25, 2014

iguanaman said:
How does what the CBO said mean less jobs in the economy? Those that quit because they no longer must work to keep their insurance will leave job OPENINGS for the unemployed. That IS good news.

According to the CBO report, not all jobs/hours will be replaced with workers. As that nets out to a loss of 2.3 million jobs, I am not sure why that would be good news. But, we all have different definition of what is good or not.

buck · Feb 25, 2014

Vern said:
see how you claim I'm wrong without explaining why I'm wrong. It's a classic conservative stalling tactic.

Considering you don't understand "net" or why a mandate will not work without guaranteed coverage... I pretty much gave up on your ability to understand issues. I realize you suffer from the classic liberal problem.

iguanaman · Feb 25, 2014

buck said:
According to the CBO report, not all jobs/hours will be replaced with workers. As that nets out to a loss of 2.3 million jobs, I am not sure why that would be good news. But, we all have different definition of what is good or not.

LOL Don't be ridiculous, people retire all the time and it opens up a position for someone else. Obamacare is not reducing the need for work, it is simply allowing some to retire early, especially those with health problems. You just hate that I know. More coddling of the people to buy votes, right? Let them work their fingers to the bone, having diabetes is no excuse. And then you wonder why your share of the electorate keeps shrinking?

buck · Feb 25, 2014

iguanaman said:
LOL Don't be ridiculous, people retire all the time and it opens up a position for someone else. Obamacare is not reducing the need for work, it is simply allowing some to retire early, especially those with health problems. You just hate that I know. More coddling of the people to buy votes, right? Let them work their fingers to the bone, having diabetes is no excuse. And then you wonder why your share of the electorate keeps shrinking?

Sorry. It's a net loss of jobs to the economy. At least if you want to believe the CBO. That's your choice not if you don't want to.

Linc · Feb 25, 2014

With Governors like Pence talking of taking the Medicaid Extension, GOP posters and politicians are screaming even louder.
It's actually scary to think of what the House GOP might still do to blow up ACA, and the Nation with it.

Linc · Feb 25, 2014

The GOP is like a nail in jelly when it comes to what they like and don't like with CBO statements .

SBu · Feb 25, 2014

Vern said:
Isn't “entrepreneurial spirit” a republican slogan? Cons usually support vague and weak narratives to unleash the American “entrepreneurial spirit”. anyhoo, thanks to Obamacare, 1.5 million more people will be self employed.

"Overall, we estimate that the number of self-employed people in the United States will be about 1.5 million higher following the universal availability of non-group coverage, the financial assistance available for it, and other related market reforms."

http://www.rwjf.org/content/dam/farm...013/rwjf406367

Now that is funny. Self employed because it is too much of a pain in the ass to employ other people. Yeah, nice job libs? Why is it so hard for liberals to think clearly when it comes to business and economy? If they spent half the time devoted to improving economy and business that they do on false narratives regarding social justice, then we might actually be getting somewhere.

iguanaman · Feb 25, 2014

SBu said:
Now that is funny. Self employed because it is too much of a pain in the ass to employ other people. Yeah, nice job libs? Why is it so hard for liberals to think clearly when it comes to business and economy? If they spent half the time devoted to improving economy and business that they do on false narratives regarding social justice, then we might actually be getting somewhere.

Self-employed does not mean they have no employees Einstein. Your mistake is typical of why we got into so much trouble under the last Administration.
Its not easy when you have to undo all the mistakes made by Republican rule that came before them first and then get the economy back on track. Clinton did fine job with the economy and then.............

buck · Feb 26, 2014

iguanaman said:
Self-employed does not mean they have no employees Einstein. Your mistake is typical of why we got into so much trouble under the last Administration.
Its not easy when you have to undo all the mistakes made by Republican rule that came before them first and then get the economy back on track. Clinton did fine job with the economy and then.............

.... he led the country right into recession. Was that how you wanted to finish that sentence?

Vern · Feb 26, 2014

buck said:
Considering you don't understand "net" or why a mandate will not work without guaranteed coverage... I pretty much gave up on your ability to understand issues. I realize you suffer from the classic liberal problem.

no no silly, your false narrative is that a “guarantee cant work without a mandate”. Wait are you trying to “ retract to grasping on words and playing semantics" again? yes you are. Again, your false narrative was “ you cant have a guarantee without a mandate” to try to spin Phil Gramm’s non-position on mandates . And I was clear and straightforward about my issue with the CBO’s “net”. I just wanted some clarification. And whats funny and nit hypocricky about you continuing to claim I’m confused about “net” is you said this.

buck said:
The CBO indicates an equivalent of 2.5 million less jobs in the economy due to Obamcare. So, I guess that was really 4 million minus the 1.5 million that will start their own business = the 2.5 million equivalent jobs lost to the economy. Wonderful news!

When I said the exact same thing you said I was wrong and continued to claim I didn’t understand “net”. Maybe I just don’t understand your special definition of “net”. What’s with your special definition of “guarantee” or “deficit” or “hasty retreat”, you are amassing quite an alternative vocabulary.

hey before you “retract to grasping on words and playing semantics" can you acknowledge that the CBO clearly stated Obamcare reduces the deficit. here’s where you “proved” your claim that the “cbo stated Obamacare increases the deficit”.

buck said:
If not for Obamcare the increased taxes could be used for deficit reduction. Because of obamcare, the government now has less ability to increase income and less ability to control the deficit. Howeer, I also believe that once they look at a full 10 years of costs and a full 10 years of collections, they will find it is not even deficit neutral in itself.

man, that gets funnier every time I read it. Anyhoo, notice you were trying to explain something instead of quoting the CBO. shouldn’t a claim of “cbo said X” be backed up with a quote of the CBO saying “X”? I guess since the quote you needed doesn’t exist you had to “retract to grasping on words and playing semantics". Classic

buck · Feb 26, 2014

Vern said:
no no silly, your false narrative is that a “guarantee cant work without a mandate”. Wait are you trying to “ retract to grasping on words and playing semantics" again? yes you are. Again, your false narrative was “ you cant have a guarantee without a mandate” to try to spin Phil Gramm’s non-position on mandates . And I was clear and straightforward about my issue with the CBO’s “net”. I just wanted some clarification. And whats funny and nit hypocricky about you continuing to claim I’m confused about “net” is you said this.

Yes, succes like less insurance companies participating, much higher premiums, more uninsured. Now that's how you spell success to Vern.

Of the 8 states that were stupid enough to try guarantees without mandates, 3 realized their error and got rid of it, one (MA) added mandates under Romneycare, and of the remaining 4, at least one was trying to undo guarantees, since they did not (what was that word you liked? Oh that's right) "work".

Based on the stupidity involved, I would bet that guarantees without mandates was the idea of some wellmeaning but clueless democrat/liberal.

Vern · Feb 26, 2014

buck said:
Yes, succes like less insurance companies participating, much higher premiums, more uninsured. Now that's how you spell success to Vern.

buck buck buck, don't be like other cons and attack things I didn't say. I've made no claim about success or failure "guaranteed access without mandates". I've simply proven (yes proven, not claimed) that "guarantee doesn't equal mandate". And not for nothing buck, if you think guaranteed access is stupid without mandates, then surely you support mandates. Please don't tell me that you don't support "guaranteed access"? Did you just argue yourself into a corner? I think you did.

Now buck, when you try to explain this away, don't deflect or make it about me.

Of the 8 states that were stupid enough to try guarantees without mandates, 3 realized their error and got rid of it, one (MA) added mandates under Romneycare, and of the remaining 4, at least one was trying to undo guarantees, since they did not (what was that word you liked? Oh that's right) "work".

Based on the stupidity involved, I would bet that guarantees without mandates was the idea of some wellmeaning but clueless democrat/liberal.

really, the latest magic republican alternative to Obamacare has guaranteed access without mandates. Of course you said its "stupid" to have guaranteed access without mandates. It sure looks like you support mandates. But "guaranteed access without mandates" simply requires bigger subsidies as it drives up the cost. Ouch! I forgot, subsidies conflicts with the ideology you obediently believe and obediently post.

again, when you try to to explain this away, don't deflect or make it about me. And when you try to explain it, don't forget your ideology

Subsidies bad
Mandates bad
guaranteed access without mandates bad

buck · Feb 26, 2014

Vern said:
buck buck buck, don't be like other cons and attack things I didn't say. I've made no claim about success or failure "guaranteed access without mandates".

No, you're right. You never said that.

Quote Originally Posted by Vern View Post
They clearly succeeded in guaranteeing coverage.

Buck Replied: Yes, clearly succeeded.

Vern Continued: they just didnt succeed in making it more affordable.

Buck's reply: Well, chased off a bunch of companies, caused more uninsured in their states and made it more expsive for those that want insurance. THat;s the very definiton of "success" to vern and his ilk.

Now buck, when you try to explain this away, don't deflect or make it about me.

really, the latest magic republican alternative to Obamacare has guaranteed access without mandates. Of course you said its "stupid" to have guaranteed access without mandates. It sure looks like you support mandates. But "guaranteed access without mandates" simply requires bigger subsidies as it drives up the cost. Ouch! I forgot, subsidies conflicts with the ideology you obediently believe and obediently post.

At least you now acknowledge that guarantees without mandates is "magic" and that's the "latest republican alternative" - which means that was obviously not the republican plan back in 1994 other wise it wouldn't be the "latest". Additionally, that is such a stupid idea that completely ignore economics and reality, it was almost certainly democrats and not republicans that predominantly created this ridiculousness.

From politifact - that RW spin machine if you want to believe Vern:

The Times, in a June 23, 1994, story on the later Chafee effort, called it the "moderates’" proposal. The newspaper reported that Sen. Phil Gramm, R-Texas, one of the GOP’s leading conservatives, said that any plan that "got his support and that of most Republicans" would not "guarantee anything." And not having a guarantee of coverage would have meant not having an individual mandate.

Now, having said all that, feel free to claim victory. I am unlikely to respond to you again. Conservative said it best in the other thread.

Vern · Feb 27, 2014

buck said:
At least you now acknowledge that guarantees without mandates is "magic" and that's the "latest republican alternative" - which means that was obviously not the republican plan back in 1994 other wise it wouldn't be the "latest":

Look how you again have to "retract to grasping on words and playing semantics" (and you're very good at it). The republican plan in 94 had mandates. You've not found one republican on record opposing mandates before President Obama supported them. I even let you pretend Gramm was against them but you still wouldn't explain why every republican except gramm only opposed mandates after President Obama supported them.

From politifact - that RW spin machine if you want to believe Vern:

Being a moderate proposal doesn't mean conservatives opposed it. Again, gramm is only on record opposing guarantees. The author of the article assumes you cant have a guarantee without mandates. The states I listed prove otherwise. Guarantees without mandates simply require bigger subsidies. either have a larger pool of people or have bigger subsidies. pick one.

Now, having said all that, feel free to claim victory. I am unlikely to respond to you again.

Of course I won. I basically showed how you were against subsidies, against mandates (only after 2009) and against guaranteed access without mandates. So don't beat a hasty retreat (an actual hasty retreat, not your special definition) just yet tell us what you are for?

buck · Feb 27, 2014

Vern said:
Of course I won. I basically showed how you were against subsidies, against mandates (only after 2009) and against guaranteed access without mandates. So don't beat a hasty retreat (an actual hasty retreat, not your special definition) just yet tell us what you are for?

Sure, just like Gramm (and most republicans), I am against guarantees. And we all know guarantees without mandates do not work - Just as most republicans would know. Even with that, I am sure you still won't understand what I am "for". You seem to have a problem with understanding.

The Times, in a June 23, 1994, story on the later Chafee effort, called it the "moderates’" proposal. The newspaper reported that Sen. Phil Gramm, R-Texas, one of the GOP’s leading conservatives, said that any plan that "got his support and that of most Republicans" would not "guarantee anything." And not having a guarantee of coverage would have meant not having an individual mandate.

Vern · Feb 27, 2014

buck said:
Sure, just like Gramm (and most republicans), I am against guarantees. And we all know guarantees without mandates do not work - Just as most republicans would know.

oh buck, they just require bigger subsidies that nobody wants to pay for. But if guarantees don't work as you claim, why did republicans propose them in 2010 and 2014? Those proposals as well as the states that had guarantees with no mandates prove "guarantee does not equal mandate". That means the one republican you think you found opposing mandates before 2009 only opposed guarantees because that's what he said. Quote him again buck. And make it big and bold too.

buck said:
Even with that, I am sure you still won't understand what I am "for". You seem to have a problem with understanding.

and there it is again, the conservative stall with the classic "wah wah its you vern" . Think about it, you bothered to post after you said you wouldn't but you didn't bother to be clear and specific. Yea, you're not the first silly con I've dealt with. Why couldn't you just state what you are for? I know, because I just shredded you beyond all recognition. Let me list the things you have stated

You are against subsidies
you are against mandates (only since 2009)
You are against guarantees without mandates
and now you are against guarantees

And that's why you are not stating what you are for, even your powers to "retract to grasping on words and playing semantics" cant get you of the corner you painted yourself into. Quick blame me again. it seems to make you feel better.

buck · Feb 27, 2014

Vern said:
Think about it, you bothered to post after you said you wouldn't

Yes, simply because you asked a question and I thoguht I could answer it quickly. I realize you think you did wonderfully, so just enjoy your supposed victory. Since you know you really didn't win, though, I susepect you won't let it go.

Vern · Feb 28, 2014

buck said:
Yes, simply because you asked a question and I thoguht I could answer it quickly.

Its funny you say that because you didn’t answer the question. see how once again your version of ‘reality’ cant withstand the slightest scrutiny. Just admit you don’t know what you are for because you ‘painted yourself into a corner’ trying to prove “guarantee = mandate”. And I asked another question also

Vern said:
But if guarantees don't work as you claim, why did republicans propose them in 2010 and 2014?

the reason I ask is because you said this

Based on the stupidity involved, I would bet that guarantees without mandates was the idea of some wellmeaning but clueless democrat/liberal.

You’ve clearly stated “guarantees without mandates” is stupid. so in your ‘world’ it’s so stupid it had to be “wellmeaning clueless democrat/liberal”. But the only thing we do know is republicans have proposed exactly that in 2010 and 2014. We know they are not “wellmeaning”. Are they clueless liars or just clueless?

so just to sum up
you didn’t answer the question you pretended to answer
you didn’t answer why republican keep proposing “guarantees without mandates”

buck said:
I realize you think you did wonderfully, so just enjoy your supposed victory. Since you know you really didn't win, though, I susepect you won't let it go.

If I didn’t really win, why have tried so hard (desperately so) to "retract to grasping on words and playing semantics" in response to my posts? (that’s more of a rhetorical question so you don’t have to pretend to answer it)

Vern · Mar 4, 2014

buck said:
Yes, simply because you asked a question and I thoguht I could answer it quickly. I realize you think you did wonderfully, so just enjoy your supposed victory. Since you know you really didn't win, though, I susepect you won't let it go.

Hey Buck, looks like you beat a hasty retreat (an actual hasty retreat, not your “special definition”) because you still haven’t stated what you are for. Its not difficult to figure out> You oppose guarantees like Gramm, you oppose mandates like all republicans only since 2009 and you oppose subsidies. You are obviously for the status quo. Why do you lack the courage to say so? Hey use some of your “special definitions” to say it or as you would say "retract to grasping on words and playing semantics". Here’s a list of phrases you have “special definitions” for:

“guarantee” means mandate
“less popular” means opposed
“not embraced” means opposed
“not a co-sponsor” means opposed (except for GSE reform)
“beating a hasty retreat” means continuing to reply with clear straight forward factual posts
“CBO said” means garbled mess

buck · Mar 4, 2014

Vern said:
Hey Buck, looks like you beat a hasty retreat (an actual hasty retreat, not your “special definition”) because you still haven’t stated what you are for. Its not difficult to figure out> You oppose guarantees like Gramm, you oppose mandates like all republicans only since 2009 and you oppose subsidies. You are obviously for the status quo. Why do you lack the courage to say so? Hey use some of your “special definitions” to say it or as you would say "retract to grasping on words and playing semantics". Here’s a list of phrases you have “special definitions” for:

“guarantee” means mandate
“less popular” means opposed
“not embraced” means opposed
“not a co-sponsor” means opposed (except for GSE reform)
“beating a hasty retreat” means continuing to reply with clear straight forward factual posts
“CBO said” means garbled mess

So confident in your "victory" that you had to reply again? Hah. Anyway, I don't really have anything more to say, other than I'll let my prior posts on the subject speak for themselves. Politifact says what it says, and no amount of obfuscation from you wil change it.

Obamacare to unleash the American “entrepreneurial spirit”

Vern

back from Vegas

buck

Vern

back from Vegas

iguanaman

Vern

back from Vegas

buck

buck

iguanaman

buck

Linc

NIMBY

Linc

NIMBY

SBu

iguanaman

buck

Vern

back from Vegas

buck

Vern

back from Vegas

buck

Vern

back from Vegas

buck

Vern

back from Vegas

buck

Vern

back from Vegas

Vern

back from Vegas

buck