CBO pointed it out this week in a revised estimate on the future impact of Obamacare... saying implementation will cost the U.S. far more than previously forecast, having 2.5 million jobs lost. But, that view isn't exactly correct, critics point out, because they're not saying "2.5 million jobs will be lost", but that "2.5 million jobs equivalent of work time" will be lost...
So, what that REALLY means... is that instead of providing healthcare benefits for people... Obamacare means providing incentives requiring that 25 million people, 50 million people, or as many as 100 million people will be moved from full time work, to part time work... to produce that aggregate in lost work time... with that change meaning that many people will be LOSING their existing full time benefits... and not just LOSING their health care benefits... in the process.
The math... 2.5 million jobs equivalent... times 40 hours a week... is 100 million work hours. So, the CBO numbers could mean 100 million people being moved from full time work (40 hours) to part time work (39 hours)... and losing ALL their benefits ?
Thanks a lot, dill weeds.
Why its so hard for liberals to understand that hitting people with a stick is going to hurt them, and modify their behavior... to avoid the stick... I find incomprehensible.
Why it is so hard for them to understand that any change made... will have an impact that is passed along from employers to others, as a cost ? That means... a cost imposed on employers... will be a cost coming out of some other hide... either that of employees... or customers ?
The only other difference between that and global warming policy ?
Obamacare offers a solution that can't possibly work, to fix a problem that does exist, by imposing costs that make things vastly worse.
Global warming policy, instead, offers a solution that can't possibly work, to fix a problem that doesn't exist, by imposing costs that make things vastly worse.
I think I detect a trend... How many scientists should it take to figure it out ? |
