If you believe it's killing jobs -- don't you find it ironic that it was first Romney's idea?
Funny story about that.
Will Health Reform Lead to Job Loss? Evidence from Massachusetts Says No.
Massachusetts has achieved its goal of near-universal health insurance coverage under its 2006 health reform initiative, with no indication of negative job consequences relative to other states as a result of health reform.
The recent recession, which began in December 2007, and the financial crisis that followed, have clearly taken a toll on economic growth in Massachusetts and the rest of the nation. However, employment trends in Massachusetts immediately after health reform was implemented (2006 to 2008) and over the period of the recession (2008 to 2010) closely mirrored those of the four states that had similar employment patterns to Massachusetts prior to health reform. Further, Massachusetts, which started out with a higher share of the working-age population employed than the rest of the nation prior to health reform, continued to have a much higher employment share in 2010.
Thus, there is no evidence of a more pronounced decline in overall employment in Massachusetts than in the rest of the nation over the 20062010 period, nor is there evidence of a more pronounced decline among the small firms, industries, and workers, where such declines would be predicted if health reform had dampened economic growth in the state. Although there are differences in the details between the Massachusetts health reform and the ACA, there are broad similarities that indicate that the impacts could be roughly similar under the ACA. The evidence from Massachusetts would suggest that national health reform does not imply job loss and stymied economic growth.
funny too, that you followed that rabbit hole, is the topic itself to tough for you? you're the resident expert....
here, can you help me with this then?
Some families to be priced out of health overhaul
snip-
Bruce Lesley, president of First Focus, an advocacy group for children, cited estimates that close to 500,000 children could remain uninsured because of the glitch. "The children's community is disappointed by the administration's decision to deny access to coverage for children based on a bogus definition of affordability," Lesley said in a statement.
The problem seems to be the way the law defined affordable.
Congress said affordable coverage can't cost more than 9.5 percent of family income. People with coverage the law considers affordable cannot get subsidies to go into the new insurance markets. The purpose of that restriction was to prevent a stampede away from employer coverage.
Congress went on to say that what counts as affordable is keyed to the cost of self-only coverage offered to an individual worker, not his or her family. A typical workplace plan costs about $5,600 for an individual worker. But the cost of family coverage is nearly three times higher, about $15,700, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.
So if the employer isn't willing to chip in for family premiums _ as most big companies already do _ some families will be out of luck. They may not be able to afford the full premium on their own, and they'd be locked out of the subsidies in the health care overhaul law.
Employers are relieved that the Obama administration didn't try to put the cost of providing family coverage on them.
"They are bound by the law and cannot extend further than what the law provides,"
Some families to be priced out of health overhaul - WTOP.com
Oh and the same question I have asked you oh, several ( at least) times?
Is ObamaCare budget neutral?
