Quote Originally Posted by Tgo01 View Post
HuffPost is funny.



Basically the story is saying it's actually a good thing that Obamacare is forcing some companies to cut back on their healthcare plans because now people are "free" to find better jobs.

I have a few questions I would like Latrin to answer in cwolff's absence:

1) Weren't people already free to find better jobs?
2) Assuming there isn't a full time, great paying job for each and every single American aren't some people going to have to take these shit jobs that now offer less benefits because of Obamacare?
3) Assuming the answer to number 2 is "yes" (because it is) how are these people now better off with jobs with less benefits?
First off, if his name was Edan Taliban he'd have had the political power to leave years ago.

Your summary of the article is off. Pre-ACA Mr. Luxembourg was free to take his new job so long as he didn't mind having no healthcare. Post-ACA he can have both. The answer to (3) is that the people who Trader Joseph now hires didn't have any job before. Here it is diagrammatically:

BEFORE
Mr. Andorra's talents are not capitalized at TJ and he has health insurance provided by the same.
Mr. Other Guy X's talents are not capitalized on the unemployment line and he does not have health insurance.

AFTER
Mr. Monaco's talents are capitalized and he has health insurance provided by LORD Obama.
Mr. Other Guy X's talents are not capitalized at TJ and he may or may not have health insurance.
Mr. Moneybags has one less welfare queen leech socialism no skin in the game Marxist to support and therefore hires another worker instead.
Mr. Third Guy Y gets hired and finally has enough money to sue Third Eye Blind for ripping off his name.

One job + ACA = three jobs. And that's why unemployment peaked in March/April 2010 (ACA was signed into law March 23rd) and has declined ever since.