And the left is calling this a good thing......

The subsidies that help low-income people buy expensive health insurance are a ‘disincentive for people to work,” Douglas Elmendorf, director of the Congressional Budget Office, told Congress on Wednesday.

“What the Affordable Care Act does, is to provide subsidies focused on lower- and lower-middle-income people to buy health insurance. And in order to encourage a sufficient number of people to buy an expensive product like health insurance, the subsidies are fairly large in dollar terms. Those subsidies are then withdrawn over time — withdrawn from people as their income rises.

“And by providing heavily subsidized health insurance to people with very low income, and then withdrawing those subsidies as income rises, the (Affordable Care) Act creates a disincentive for people to work, relative to what would have been the case in the absence of that Act,” Elmendorf told the House Budget Committee.

He added that the subsidies “make those lower-income people better off…but they do have less of an incentive to work.”

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jo...eople-work

Proof positive that common sense isn't common.

Healthcare benefits aren't as salient as a larger paycheck, and I don't think a lot of people are smart enough to look past that. For that reason, I don't think many people would pass up a better job for a larger healthcare subsidies.

(02-05-2014 04:02 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  Healthcare benefits aren't as salient as a larger paycheck, and I don't think a lot of people are smart enough to look past that. For that reason, I don't think many people would pass up a better job for a larger healthcare subsidies.

No offense but you're a very naive young man. We have plenty of people in this country that are more than content feed off the government teat than find a job or a "better" job.

(02-05-2014 04:13 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(02-05-2014 04:02 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  Healthcare benefits aren't as salient as a larger paycheck, and I don't think a lot of people are smart enough to look past that. For that reason, I don't think many people would pass up a better job for a larger healthcare subsidies.

No offense but you're a very naive young man. We have plenty of people in this country that are more than content feed off the government teat than find a job or a "better" job.

So you're speculating that poor people, who are not known for making sound financial decisions, would give up more money for cigarettes and booze for healthcare benefits? No way in hell.

It's a simple enough thing to figure out: ask someone if they'd rather have X income and Y healthcare coverage, or X+1000 income and Y-1000 healthcare coverage. Not only would they pick to have a higher income, I'm willing to bet that many would choose to lose more healthcare coverage in the interest of a bigger paycheck (think X+1000 and Y-1200). Go on survey monkey and get people to answer that kind of question.

(02-05-2014 04:19 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(02-05-2014 04:13 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(02-05-2014 04:02 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  Healthcare benefits aren't as salient as a larger paycheck, and I don't think a lot of people are smart enough to look past that. For that reason, I don't think many people would pass up a better job for a larger healthcare subsidies.

No offense but you're a very naive young man. We have plenty of people in this country that are more than content feed off the government teat than find a job or a "better" job.

So you're speculating that poor people, who are not known for making sound financial decisions, would give up more money for cigarettes and booze for healthcare benefits? No way in hell.

It's a simple enough thing to figure out: ask someone if they'd rather have X income and Y healthcare coverage, or X+1000 income and Y-1000 healthcare coverage. Not only would they pick to have a higher income, I'm willing to bet that many would choose to lose more healthcare coverage in the interest of a bigger paycheck (think X+1000 and Y-1200). Go on survey monkey and get people to answer that kind of question.

The CBO evaluated just those scenarios you are suggesting and came to the conclusion that Obamacare disincentivizes working full-time to qualify for subsidies. Part of their research is survey and survey data analysis.

Anecdotally, I worked with a woman who would never work more than 31 hours a week or it would kick her income over the SNAP qualifying threshold. She never got very good reviews because of her unwillingness to work any more hours but she absolutely wanted to maintain SNAP.

Even though it doesn't make sense to hold yourself back from improving your employment prospects (i.e. working more hours when your employer asks) there are plenty of people who only look at their bottom line TODAY and want only to maintain their freebies from their government daddy.

Just another example of 'the nanny state'. This is often characterized by the left as not wanting to help people... and that isn't the case... It should just be important that the 'help' ENCOURAGE, rather than discourage people who are able from seeking work.

The more this is talked about, the more I get comfortable with a 'reverse' payroll tax rather than welfare for the vast majority of recipients. What this means is, the more you work, the more, rather than less help you get.

There is a way to make this work, but it STARTS with an end to the rhetoric and a focus on solutions... so of COURSE, partisans want no part of it.

(02-05-2014 04:19 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(02-05-2014 04:13 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(02-05-2014 04:02 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  Healthcare benefits aren't as salient as a larger paycheck, and I don't think a lot of people are smart enough to look past that. For that reason, I don't think many people would pass up a better job for a larger healthcare subsidies.

No offense but you're a very naive young man. We have plenty of people in this country that are more than content feed off the government teat than find a job or a "better" job.

So you're speculating that poor people, who are not known for making sound financial decisions, would give up more money for cigarettes and booze for healthcare benefits? No way in hell.

It's a simple enough thing to figure out: ask someone if they'd rather have X income and Y healthcare coverage, or X+1000 income and Y-1000 healthcare coverage. Not only would they pick to have a higher income, I'm willing to bet that many would choose to lose more healthcare coverage in the interest of a bigger paycheck (think X+1000 and Y-1200). Go on survey monkey and get people to answer that kind of question.

Not making sound financial decisions and knowing how to game or work the system are two very different things. You don't think a LOT of these people know exactly where the limits are? The ceilings that can't be breached, the limits on income that they have to stay eligible?

And remember you can't lose "more" healthcare coverage. You either have it or not. If not you get penalized. If it's being handed to you essentially for free, and you go to work and make xx,xxx + $.01 you stand to lose thousands in subsidies, depending on the formula and their family situation.

You don't think the CBO is capable of making these judgements? That Carney stand-in yesterday trying to spin the ever living schit out of this thing was a complete embarrassment and he was embarrassed to be trying to make the argument he was. It was apparent just watching him.

(02-05-2014 04:19 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(02-05-2014 04:13 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(02-05-2014 04:02 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  Healthcare benefits aren't as salient as a larger paycheck, and I don't think a lot of people are smart enough to look past that. For that reason, I don't think many people would pass up a better job for a larger healthcare subsidies.

No offense but you're a very naive young man. We have plenty of people in this country that are more than content feed off the government teat than find a job or a "better" job.

So you're speculating that poor people, who are not known for making sound financial decisions, would give up more money for cigarettes and booze for healthcare benefits? No way in hell.

It's a simple enough thing to figure out: ask someone if they'd rather have X income and Y healthcare coverage, or X+1000 income and Y-1000 healthcare coverage. Not only would they pick to have a higher income, I'm willing to bet that many would choose to lose more healthcare coverage in the interest of a bigger paycheck (think X+1000 and Y-1200). Go on survey monkey and get people to answer that kind of question.

You missed my point completely. I was addressing the entire entitlement mentality we continue to enable in the US. One of the other posters addressed a very specific example of what I'm talking about. These folks will game the system any way they can to get things for free or as cheap as possible and guess what? They don't care one bit about getting a "better job" b/c they don't give a **** about working or advancing their life in any way, shape or form. I don't know about Idaho, but this **** happens in other parts of the country all the time. It seems illogical to you and me but it's something that has been bred into a lot of people.

You can't complain about a shrinking middle class and then tell people to work less and pursue your dreams.

Working 8 less hours is not going to be the difference maker in me earning my PGA tour card.