sw: That's a yes on all counts IF the workforce continues to shrink.
But there's no reason to believe subsidizing healthcare in this manner is going to cause the workforce to shrink to that extent. Has that happened in European countries which subsidize workers even more?
sw: The fact that you're trying to paint unemployment as "increased flexibility and freedom" is proof of just how far around the bend you are on this topic.
It most certainly is "increased flexibility and freedom" when you have the option of working less, or not working at all. Any rational adult reading this knows it. When my Dad retired at a relatively early age (he was a living refutation of the claim that liberals can't run businesses) it was not at all the same as if he'd been fired or laid off unwillingly.
Any rational adult reading this knows it, and your attempting to equate this with rising unemployment is just another example of your arguments' sheer disconnection from reality.
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
(no subject)
Date: 9/2/14 23:26 (UTC)But there's no reason to believe subsidizing healthcare in this manner is going to cause the workforce to shrink to that extent. Has that happened in European countries which subsidize workers even more?
sw: The fact that you're trying to paint unemployment as "increased flexibility and freedom" is proof of just how far around the bend you are on this topic.
It most certainly is "increased flexibility and freedom" when you have the option of working less, or not working at all. Any rational adult reading this knows it. When my Dad retired at a relatively early age (he was a living refutation of the claim that liberals can't run businesses) it was not at all the same as if he'd been fired or laid off unwillingly.
Any rational adult reading this knows it, and your attempting to equate this with rising unemployment is just another example of your arguments' sheer disconnection from reality.