6 ms·

I think its important to note their correction: "An earlier version of a headline accompanying this article on the home page was incorrect. The health law is p

I think its important to note their correction: "An earlier version of a headline accompanying this article on the home page was incorrect. The health law is projected to result in a voluntary reduction in the work force equal to 2.5 million full-time workers, according to the Congressional Budget Office, not two million fewer jobs."

coldcode 13y ago
Seems like a rather glaring error to make. It's a huge difference between retirees and the unemployed.
- 300bps 13y ago
  I think it would also be a glaring error to assume these are retirees. What evidence do you have that they are retirees and not 30 year olds that are purposely holding back productivity because of the incentive the government is now giving to not work?
  - jeremymcanally 13y ago
    Uh, what? The government isn't really giving an incentive at all. If I were young and didn't have a lifestyle that required a full-time salary, I certainly wouldn't be shackled to a full-time job just to keep insurance. I think that's the case for a ton of people. You also have to consider the small business case. I can't tell you how many technology workers I know who have health issues and would otherwise be building a startup or working as a consultant, but before the ACA they could never dream of getting or keeping health insurance. I mean I'm a relatively healthy 20-something and was denied health insurance several times, and when I was approved, was paying ridiculous amounts per month because I was 10 pounds overweight. Putting those prices back in line for most people and not tying health insurance to a full-time job is the whole point. I fail to see how this is government offering an incentive of any sort, unless that's what you meant and it was poorly phrased?
    - yummyfajitas 13y ago
      If I were young and didn't have a lifestyle that required a full-time salary, I certainly wouldn't be shackled to a full-time job just to keep insurance. I think that's the case for a ton of people. So you are saying you might produce less as a result of subsidies given to you if you choose not to have a full time job? You are agreeing with 300bps.
      - jeremymcanally 13y ago
        What I'm saying is if, for example, my spouse and I could work enough to pay our bills without working full-time jobs I absolutely would. And that would not require taking advantage of a government subsidy. If I worked 10 hours a week as a consultant at $120/hour, that's over $60k, well out of the realm of any real "subsidy" from the government for insurance. So, no, I do not agree with him.
        yummyfajitas 13y ago
        Requiring insurance companies to charge you and a person at a healthy weight the same price is a subsidy (and applies at all income levels). You agree with his claims, just not his tone.
    - 300bps 13y ago
      The government isn't really giving an incentive at all This statement is incredibly naive and shows a complete lack of knowledge of economics. When the government gives incentives for making less money, then they are giving an incentive to make less money. It's that simple, but let me explain. To get a bronze family plan on healthcare.gov, I was quoted $12,000 per year with a $12,700 deductible. Basically, I'd be paying $24,000 per year for healthcare. That's the list price, which is what I have to pay if my wife and I make more than $96,000 per year (1/4 of the income goes toward healthcare). The cost goes down the less I make below $96,000. This is government giving me an incentive to make less money.
      - byoung2 13y ago

coldcode 13y ago

Seems like a rather glaring error to make. It's a huge difference between retirees and the unemployed.

300bps 13y ago
I think it would also be a glaring error to assume these are retirees. What evidence do you have that they are retirees and not 30 year olds that are purposely holding back productivity because of the incentive the government is now giving to not work?
- jeremymcanally 13y ago
  Uh, what? The government isn't really giving an incentive at all. If I were young and didn't have a lifestyle that required a full-time salary, I certainly wouldn't be shackled to a full-time job just to keep insurance. I think that's the case for a ton of people. You also have to consider the small business case. I can't tell you how many technology workers I know who have health issues and would otherwise be building a startup or working as a consultant, but before the ACA they could never dream of getting or keeping health insurance. I mean I'm a relatively healthy 20-something and was denied health insurance several times, and when I was approved, was paying ridiculous amounts per month because I was 10 pounds overweight. Putting those prices back in line for most people and not tying health insurance to a full-time job is the whole point. I fail to see how this is government offering an incentive of any sort, unless that's what you meant and it was poorly phrased?
  - yummyfajitas 13y ago
    If I were young and didn't have a lifestyle that required a full-time salary, I certainly wouldn't be shackled to a full-time job just to keep insurance. I think that's the case for a ton of people. So you are saying you might produce less as a result of subsidies given to you if you choose not to have a full time job? You are agreeing with 300bps.
    - jeremymcanally 13y ago
      What I'm saying is if, for example, my spouse and I could work enough to pay our bills without working full-time jobs I absolutely would. And that would not require taking advantage of a government subsidy. If I worked 10 hours a week as a consultant at $120/hour, that's over $60k, well out of the realm of any real "subsidy" from the government for insurance. So, no, I do not agree with him.
      - yummyfajitas 13y ago
        Requiring insurance companies to charge you and a person at a healthy weight the same price is a subsidy (and applies at all income levels). You agree with his claims, just not his tone.
  - 300bps 13y ago
    The government isn't really giving an incentive at all This statement is incredibly naive and shows a complete lack of knowledge of economics. When the government gives incentives for making less money, then they are giving an incentive to make less money. It's that simple, but let me explain. To get a bronze family plan on healthcare.gov, I was quoted $12,000 per year with a $12,700 deductible. Basically, I'd be paying $24,000 per year for healthcare. That's the list price, which is what I have to pay if my wife and I make more than $96,000 per year (1/4 of the income goes toward healthcare). The cost goes down the less I make below $96,000. This is government giving me an incentive to make less money.
    - byoung2 13y ago