Skip to main content

Republicans and the media mislead the public on the CBO/ACA report

A recent report released by the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) with regard to the Affordable Care Act has prompted Republicans to find the nearest right-wing reporter and many members of the media to catch the public's attention through misleading headlines. This is because the CBO declared that due to the Affordable Care Act (ACA), 2 million less people will be working.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor took that information to make the following statement:

"The CBO's latest report confirms what Republicans have been saying for years now.

Under Obamacare, millions of hardworking Americans will lose their jobs and those who keep them will see their hours and wages reduced."

However, that's not what the CBO actually stated in their report. The report actually said this:

"The estimated reduction stems almost entirely from a net decline in the amount of labor that workers choose to supply, rather than from a net drop in business' demand for labor, so it will appear almost entirely as a reduction in labor force participation and in hours worked relative to what would have occurred otherwise rather than as an increase in unemployment (such as part-time workers who would prefer to work more hours per week)."

In other words, the decrease in employment numbers won't actually be due to people losing their jobs, so much as people being afforded more options since they won't be fully dependent on their jobs for healthcare. So, it's safe to say that Eric Cantor, other members of the Republican Party, as well as many members of the media are misleading the public by saying otherwise.

The CBO also reported this:

"The ACA's subsidies for health insurance will both stimulate demand for health care services and allow low-income households to redirect some of the funds that they would have spent on that care toward the purchase of other goods and services - thereby increasing overall demand. That increase in overall demand while the economy remains somewhat weak will induce some employers to hire more workers or to increase the house of current employees during that period."

In other words, the ACA will wind up increasing job opportunities for people whom are actually looking for work, and will help to stimulate the economy since it will afford many families the chance to spend money on goods and services they would have otherwise spent on healthcare.

It's really a sad chain and trend we have going on in this country as far as news-reporting goes. Many reporters no longer fact-check politicians, and fact-checkers have gone on to fact-check both politicians and news-reporters. If this trend continues, I suggest "news"-reporters join reality television shows and fact-checkers become news-reporters, because it seems as if the only ones reporting the news anymore are fact-checkers.

http://www.factcheck.org/2014/02/the-aca-losing-job-vs-choosing-not-to-work/

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"