[quote]The last part is important, since the projected job loss will not be a result of employers firing workers; instead, workers who find themselves with lower wages (due to the bill) may reduce their hours, and workers who find that they don't need their employer for health insurance may drop out altogether.[/quote]
I'm still trying to grasp that concept.
I don't need to work for health care, so I'm going to give up getting money (going from + to 0), and then pay more money for my health insurance (going from 0 to -).
...
How the -blam!- does this make sense?
English
-
The article went into the issue briefly. [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/02/04/no-cbo-did-not-say-obamacare-will-kill-2-million-jobs/]Here is an explanation from the Washington Post.[/url] [quote]One big issue: the health insurance subsidies in the law. That’s a substantial benefit that decreases as people earn more money, so at a certain point, a person has to choose between earning more money or continuing to get the maximum help with health insurance payments. In other words, people might work longer and harder, but actually earn no more, or earn even less, money. That is a disincentive to work. (The same thing happens when people qualify for food stamps or other social services.) Thus, some people might decide to work part-time, not full time, in order to keep getting health-care subsidies. Thus, they are reducing their supply of labor to the market. Other people near retirement age might decide they no longer need to hold onto their job just because it provides health insurance, and they also leave the work force.[/quote]
-
Then the subsidies are too good and should be reduced in value. They need to be a tool to help people get back on their feet, not a wheelchair for them to roll around in for the rest of their lives while their legs work.