[detbuch]

QUOTE[=spence;1031128]
The CBO report didn't say the impact of the ACA would be less jobs, it was that the supply of labor would potentially be reduced.

Isn't that a distinction without a difference? If there is not enough labor to fill a job, does that job exist? If the business must perform in spite of an unfilled current "job," it distributes the work to its existing labor force, and there is one less theoretical job.

If the economy is stable or growing that person leaving the workforce would likely translate into a job for someone else.

If the reason the person left the workforce is because it was more economically rational to do so because he would be better off with government subsidies than by continuing a particular job, wouldn't it be likely that potential employees to fill the job would come to the same conclusion and take the government subsidies rather than the job? And isn't that one of the reasons the CBO claimed would be the cause of less jobs?

Also consider that with the baby boomers increasingly leaving the workforce the supply of labor will be dropping even more. This is a far bigger challenge to economic growth than the impact of the ACA.

So why add the impact of the ACA on top of that? Is the sensible point of view "oh its going to be bad, so why not make it worse?"

To assume people choosing to leave the workforce so they can get on the government doll is offensive to say the least. My neighbor worked up until retirement at a very low paying job -- across the state -- just to keep the health insurance for her and her husband. Had the ACA been in effect she would have quit over 10 years previous...that's a lot of life gone down the drain.

-spence[/QUOTE]

Aren't you saying that if the ACA had been in effect she would have quit over 10 years previous in order to get on a government subsidy (dole) rather than continuing at a very low paying job? Are you offended by that--to say the least? And it is very interesting that you characterize their lives as going down the drain those 10 years. That seems to be the underlying, if not explicit, progressive message that without government assistance life is little worth living. Or, at least, needed to make life worthwhile--except, of course, for the "rich."

I don't know if 10 or 20 years down the road the ACA will make health care more "affordable" or not. Nor if constant government tweaking and forcing the "economy" to perform in prescribed ways will make life worthwhile. Maybe it will. Of course, "worthwhile" is in the eye of the beholder. So far, socialist systems and schemes have constantly needed just a few more tweaks or "programs" to make life better. So far, it hasn't been quite enough--often worse than what was replaced, but perpetual (permanent) progress, I guess, works that way. There is always room for "improvement." There will always be bumps along the way, but eventually, in the visible bright horizon, all will be well and just and fair--and affordable.

Though I'm not sure, I have very strong doubts about that. I like that adage that life is more interesting, meaningful, in what happens as you struggle to reach a goal than it is when that goal is reached. And that it's less meaningful if the struggle is eliminated by a third party (government) and the goal is defined and provided by that party.

But that's just "old school." And the Brave New World of the Big Society casting its net of benevolence over all has now become necessary in order for the personal satisfaction of each to be realized--and affordable. In that new world order, everyone will have the leisure to achieve the great, or wonderful, or satisfying works that make society the utopia which was only previously dreamed of. We can all be artists, or builders, or scientists, or just lay back and enjoy watching the wonders unfolding before us. Of course, if some, or more likely many or most, become watchers, either that will be OK and affordable, or the government can create a program to make them more productive.

Debating whether the ACA, or the endless other federal "programs" for our well being will "work" seems to get nowhere. "Sides" have been solidified, and arguments, rationalizations, butt horns without changes of opinion. If something "works" or not seems to be a matter of opinion, with various "facts," substantially connected to the arguments, or not. Or something always to be determined--the argument eventually forgotten in some distant future when the "program" has metastasized as a fact and merely to be reformed to be made right. Ad infinitum.

I don't know if the ACA will eventually "work." Some will see that it does. That will be a matter of opinion on what "work" is. And that is the divide. It may "work" for those receiving benefits. It may not for those who pay for it. It may "work" for those who prefer to be free to spectate without the discomfort of having to provide the freedom, and it may not for those who wish to be free on more personal terms, and must provide the entertainment for the rest, and be free from the government coercion to do so in the limited prescribed way that the government dictates.