So why should I not be ticked off with the GOP right now?

[Polaris]

Maternity care for men has them quaking in their boots and they speak of psychiatric care in hushed whispers for fear the death panels will hear them!!!

I meant more about the cutting of hours. That'll teach me to post before reading all the links.

 

[Biscuit]

True. Have the Republicans proposed any of these fixes to the problem?

No. That would be constructive. It's much better to just hand over BS talking points and run with the horror stories.

 

[Biscuit]

I meant more about the cutting of hours. That'll teach me to post before reading all the links.

I think politifact estimates less than 10% of businesses will be cutting hours as over 90% of business that would be required to offer health insurance all ready do.

It's a stupid business move as those employers will be hiring the bottom of the talent pool as workers go to companies that care for them.

 

[Neally]

So the ADA suddenly made there be less work? If some people get cut to part time, others will have to be hired, no net gain or loss.
IXP

I'm sure that fact will make those people that have lost income as a result of Obamacare feel so much better. Goes back to my original post. You're worse off? Tough, I got mine.

I call shenanigans on this one. It all but ignores the subsidies and the one place it doesmention them gets its information from the Manhattan Institute.

Oh well then, we can just shoot the mailman and hand wave away anything he delivers.

Also ignores the effect of the subsidies.

And if they don't qualify for subsidies, they pay more now because of Obamacare. Too bad.

 

[marplots]

I think politifact estimates less than 10% of businesses will be cutting hours as over 90% of business that would be required to offer health insurance all ready do.

It's a stupid business move as those employers will be hiring the bottom of the talent pool as workers go to companies that care for them.

Interesting move by Walmart to move workers to full-time. Maybe they agree with you. This is from Forbes:

Wal-Mart, the nation’s largest employer, announced Monday that 35,000 part-time employees will soon be moved to full-time status, entitling them to the full healthcare benefits that were scheduled to be denied them as a result of Wal-Mart’s efforts to avoid the requirements of Obamacare

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickung...rs-obamacare-not-such-a-job-killer-after-all/

 

[elbe]

I think politifact estimates less than 10% of businesses will be cutting hours as over 90% of business that would be required to offer health insurance all ready do.

It's a stupid business move as those employers will be hiring the bottom of the talent pool as workers go to companies that care for them.

I've seen no reason to believe that the stories that have gone around so far weren't all politically motivated decisions by those companies.

 

[Upchurch]

Oh well then, we can just shoot the mailman and hand wave away anything he delivers.

Don't be so dramatic. I told you I wouldn't accept info from crappy sources and I did concede one of your points.

And if they don't qualify for subsidies, they pay more now because of Obamacare. Too bad.

If they don't qualify for subsidies, they are making 400% the poverty line. The horror story numbers given in those articles are for people clearly under that level. For those over that level, (1) they most likely have insurance from their employer and (2) the "more" that they would have to pay if they don't does not appear to be that much of a burden. Unless, that is, you have information that shows otherwise?

 

[Bob001]

....
Johnson's Great Society has noble intentions too, but was largely a failure, mostly gone in a decade. The last vestiges were eliminated in the 1990s.
....

Core elements of the Great Society were the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which restored and protected the rights of African Americans, and Medicare and Medicaid, which greatly expanded the availability of health services to the elderly and the poor. I guess I missed the memo about them all getting repealed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Society

Obamacare is on a shake-down cruise in rough seas. But in time, and not much time, the right to buy health insurance on reasonable terms will be part of the fabric of our society.

 

[DavidJames]

I'm sure that fact will make those people that have lost income as a result of Obamacare feel so much better. Goes back to my original post. You're worse off? Tough, I got mine.

Oh well then, we can just shoot the mailman and hand wave away anything he delivers.


And if they don't qualify for subsidies, they pay more now because of Obamacare. Too bad.

I see you ignored my request to find a balanced analysis. I even gave you a hint. Do you care about balance?

 

[Biscuit]

Interesting move by Walmart to move workers to full-time. Maybe they agree with you. This is from Forbes:



http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickung...rs-obamacare-not-such-a-job-killer-after-all/

Wow that is amazing.

I want you to look under your seats. Now I got health a health insurance, you got a health insurance, they got a health insurance, EVERYBODY GETS A HEALTH INSURANCE!!!

/Oprah

 

[Biscuit]

And if they don't qualify for subsidies, they pay more now because of Obamacare. Too bad.

Health insurance costs go up every year. Because of the ACA and some other factors they are going up less and people are getting better coverage. Too bad indeed.

 

[Neally]

I see you ignored my request to find a balanced analysis. I even gave you a hint. Do you care about balance?

Yes I ignored it because my point is that there are winners and losers. Many Obamacare fans are in denial that there are losers. GASP! As long as they are a winner, everyone else must be a winner, or alternatively, screw the losers. Anxiously await Travis response so that we can find out which category he fits into.

Don't be so dramatic. I told you I wouldn't accept info from crappy sources and I did concede one of your points.

Silly me, somehow I thought that I'd be debating someone that wouldn't resort to Ad hominem fallacies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

 

[Upchurch]

Silly me, somehow I thought that I'd be debating someone that wouldn't resort to Ad hominem fallacies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

...um, criticizing your sources is not an ad hominem. It's the exact opposite, in fact.

 

[DavidJames]

Yes I ignored it because my point is that there are winners and losers. Many Obamacare fans are in denial that there are losers. GASP! As long as they are a winner, everyone else must be a winner, or alternatively, screw the losers.

Many fans? Surely you can provide 5 quotes then who state what I put in bold.

 

[marplots]

I get the sense that the people on either side of this issue do not think the people on the other side really believe what they say they believe. That can't be good.

 

[Neally]

...um, criticizing your sources is not an ad hominem. It's the exact opposite, in fact.

"Ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false; this overlaps with the genetic fallacy (an argument that a claim is incorrect due to its source)." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

 

[A'isha]

"Ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false; this overlaps with the genetic fallacy (an argument that a claim is incorrect due to its source)." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem:

Doug Walton, Canadian academic and author, has argued that ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, and that in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue,[9] as when it directly involves hypocrisy, or actions contradicting the subject's words.

The philosopher Charles Taylor has argued that ad hominem reasoning is essential to understanding certain moral issues, and contrasts this sort of reasoning with the apodictic reasoning of philosophical naturalism.[10]

 

[uke2se]

"Ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false; this overlaps with the genetic fallacy (an argument that a claim is incorrect due to its source)." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

He isn't saying that the argument is wrong because the source is biased. He says the premise of the argument is untrustworthy because the source is biased. Skeptically evaluating sources is a corner stone of critical thinking.

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem:Quote:
Doug Walton, Canadian academic and author, has argued that ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, and that in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue,[9] as when it directly involves hypocrisy, or actions contradicting the subject's words.

The philosopher Charles Taylor has argued that ad hominem reasoning is essential to understanding certain moral issues, and contrasts this sort of reasoning with the apodictic reasoning of philosophical naturalism.[10]

???

How is any of this relevant?

 

[Neally]

He isn't saying that the argument is wrong because the source is biased. He says the premise of the argument is untrustworthy because the source is biased.

An excellent feat of mindreading or pure imagination. What he actually said,

"I wouldn't accept info from crappy sources"

and

"...gets its information from the Manhattan Institute."