You're assuming that this will mean full time workers will no longer work full time, as opposed to people retiring and those working ridiculous hours no longer having to in order to afford health care (the CBO explicitly states they don't try to differentiate the two). Now, some (like you) think this has to do with people choosing not to work so much in order to get more government money, which unless the system is exceptionally flawed would not make sense (i.e. the subsidies would have to get larger than the income one loses for it to make economic sense); this is as ridiculous as the argument people make that progressive tax systems discourage people from working.
Actually, I just went and read it and that's exactly what the CBO are saying.
So yes, I think the CBO can't do maths, or at least, they can't do sociology.
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 9/2/14 02:11 (UTC)You're assuming that this will mean full time workers will no longer work full time, as opposed to people retiring and those working ridiculous hours no longer having to in order to afford health care (the CBO explicitly states they don't try to differentiate the two). Now, some (like you) think this has to do with people choosing not to work so much in order to get more government money, which unless the system is exceptionally flawed would not make sense (i.e. the subsidies would have to get larger than the income one loses for it to make economic sense); this is as ridiculous as the argument people make that progressive tax systems discourage people from working.
Actually, I just went and read it and that's exactly what the CBO are saying.
So yes, I think the CBO can't do maths, or at least, they can't do sociology.