Do you think the majority of SOH users actually understood the question regarding the recent ACA CBO report before voting?
The ACA is so destructive to our economy and to people's lives and income. Hopefully we will repeal it.
I tried to word it as clearly and fairly as possible and even linked a somewhat left-leaning assessment from NPR. I think people are capable of understanding the issue and making their own informed judgement.
On a side note, it's a major pet peeve of mine when people assume disagreement means stupidity. Intelligent people see the same data and reach different conclusions all the time. To say they must just be stupid or lazy is disrespectful.
The wording was fine. Their understanding is not.
Yes, I think the question was very well written.
However it was clear through the language used by many commenters that many thought The CBO report claimed that 2 million people would actually LOSE their jobs as a result of the ACA.
You and I both know that is simply untrue. It might just be coincidence, but I believe it to be a result of inadequate reading comprehension, sustained by sensationalism in the media over the report.
Tony I think the difference can quickly be ascertained by the objective evidence and well-rationalized facts that people offer in support of their given position. You're right in that sometimes people aren't stupid...but other times they are!
I too believe the vast majority of people are capable of coming to intelligent conclusions, but some people chose not too.
Tony, if people were criticizing your question, you are not alone. I worded my question basically the same, and many called me uninformed.
And it seems like 82% of people agree with me here.
Maybe. I thought I did. It was reported in fairly easy to understand language. On the other hand, I think you could get a 50/50 out of this question if you replaced "ACA CBO report" with "___ ___ ______”, and asked it again on any random day.
I hate to say it, but there are a lot of SoH users who are high school educated (maybe) and act like rocket scientists. Not to be elitist, but it is a valid observation.
I didn't vote on that because I don't really know anything about it.
Republicans act like it's going to crash the stock market and cost 650,000 jobs a month. Oh wait, they would probably support it if it did that.
No. It seems the majority of SOH users didn't even bother to read the 1 page summary in the link.
Isn't it obvious? Fox News has told them what they want to hear, and they believe because they want to.
Once again proving these people aren't dealing with reality.
Try reading the actual CBO report and get back to us.
I could say the same to you kscott.
I've read most of it and have accurately quoted it
Your excusing the the Fox News false reporting by cherry picking points you think will turn out negative.
You want the ACA to lose jobs, even if it won't.
I haven't even mentioned or cited anything from Fox. Every point I've made his come directly from the CBO report.
You're just trained to regurgitate "You believe everything Faux News says!" Even Obama does it now. Too hilarious!
It seems like most users just wrongfully assumed 2 million people would get fired and voted bad. That is a shame as the question was fairly written, and the only thing that could mean is bad reading comprehension.
They sure did. Now, do you think the left's furious effort to attempt to spin what the CBO report said was really necessary?
No, it just demonstrated most people have terrible reading comprehension. Again. 2 million people aren't losing their jobs.
They realized that less full time workers is bad for America and they answered accordingly with that in mind - that it is bad news.
Folks will now have the FREEDOM to work less excessive hours if they so chose, because they no long will need to work so many to get the health benefits they need. The total hours adds up to about 2 million jobs.
*Facepalm* if Americans are more able to work the amount of hours they actually want to work, then that is GOOD. If businesses need to hire MORE people than they will, that is also GOOD, as unemployment will go DOWN.
That's a nice spin but wholly inaccurate, Reid. Read page 119 in Appendix C:Labor Market Effects of the ACA: Updates estimates. More specifically the titled section: Effects of Insurance Subsidies on the Supply of Labor. Completely negates everything
you just said. It is directly from the actual CBO report, no bias or Fox News or whatever other excuse you'd like to use.
It's too much to copy and paste for you but if you have any trouble understanding it I can paraphrase.
Kscott, you should know me well enough to understand that I would never comment or make a decision on a document I had not yet read. Even when you cite a creationist conspiracy theory style website, I read it before I dismiss it, because you never
Know. Maybe I will change my mind. Like Bill Nye, and unlike Ken Ham, I am open to being convinced with evidence. I did read the report, and after you commented, I made sure to read it again.
My comments are fully in line with Jason Furman's explanation of the Report, and I don't see anything in the full document that I missed the first time.
You do realize a reduction in employment does not result in an increase in unemployment. Like the report said, this reduction will be driven by a reduction in labor force workers will choose to supply,
Rather than a reduction in worker demand by employers.
I'll try again:
"If those subsidies are phased out with rising income in order to limit their total costs, the phaseout effectively raises people’s marginal tax rates (the tax rates applying to their last dollar of income), thus discouraging work.
In addition, if the subsidies are financed at least in part by higher taxes, those taxes will further discourage work or create other economic distortions, depending on how the taxes are designed.
Alternatively, if subsidies are not phased out or eliminated with rising income, then the increase in taxes required to finance the subsidies would be much larger."
NOWHERE have I said it results in an increase in unemployment. You started the poll saying ppl thought the CBO report meant ppl would lose their jobs. I have maintained they will leave on their own because of the attraction to those just over the FPL
Kscott, you aren't helping you point, everything I said, is still true. My comments are still fully in line with Jason's. The parts you cite aren't the main contributor of that 2.5 million figure.People will still be voluntarily reducing their hours.
receiving welfare benefits and health insurance subsidies versus going to a job and earning a living. It will disincentivize those at those lower wage jobs. They aren't leaving due to the "freedom" of not needing to work now that they have coverage
like you claimed.
Ok, I apologize if I misinterpreted your position, there are others who believe the report said 2 million people would actually lose their jobs as you may have noticed. I thought you where one of those.
The issue is your statement about WHY they are leaving the workforce. If by "freedom" to leave you mean the rest of the workforce will pay for their lazy asses then yes. If you think it's bc they really don't need the money you're just wrong.
If people are reducing their hours, it is because they feel that is the best choice for them.
Yes, you're right. It's in their best interest to stay home and collect welfare for the same amount of money. Conservatives didn't miss that point. Is that a good thing that ppl will leave bc welfare will support them the same?
No! Democrats won't believe it, conservatives won't let it go!