Talking Points Memo's DYLAN SCOTT
Vs Examiner's Barry Secrest
This post from TPM really caught our eye as we endeavor to completely burn down this particularly silly talking point memo, from Dylan Scott:
So, now we have Statist bureaucratic media stenographers trying to make the case for the White House's latest talking points on the "Greatness of Obamacare."
Scott: Republicans have had a field day with the Congressional Budget Office report released this week, claiming it shows Obamacare will destroy the American work ethic and force people to rely on the government.
Secrest: Indeed, we have had a bit of a field day, however it's not exactly a news-shattering event to any of us with actual critical thinking skills.
Truly fascinating it is, that Dylan now refers to the CBO reports as "claiming" (when it does not fit with Progressive talking points) and most especially when the earlier CBO reports which promulgated Obamacare as a cost saving measure, were seen as Gospel by Dylan and his cohorts.
(But that was with a dataset which measured 4 years of increased taxes against no immediate Obamacare outlays, by the way, notwithstanding also the fact that this 2.3 million[ less jobs] number is probably low)
Scott: Never mind that reality is a bit more complicated than that. You could argue that the GOP should actually embrace the law because it could do the opposite: give Americans the freedom to start their own businesses.
Secrest: Reality? Dylan, my liberal friend, in your utopian haze, you Sir, would not recognize reality if it walked up to you and bit you in the arse, and then offered to bandage the blasted wound.
Dylan's world finds some form of bizarre reality in the fact that a business man or woman could now start a business because he or she has healthcare.
Dylan, probably not in the history of the world, has anyone ever started a business for the purposes of having, nor for the lack of having, health insurance, you blooming idiot.
Starting a business on the basis of the fact of whether one either has or doesn't have health insurance, would be akin to an individual's deciding to wash their car because lettuce sometimes grows healthily, in Siberia.
Scott: By offering people an alternative to employer-based insurance, the law could reduce what's known as "job lock," when people stay in a job largely because it's the only way they can get health coverage -- a goal that conservatives, too, have advocated for in the past.
Secrest: Aye, God....
Dylan, when one starts a business, one in effect becomes "an employer," with all the duties and respectivities associated with that title, including the ability to procure business health insurance, just like any other employer. Dutifully noted that this fact can easily escape someone who resides firmly with the clutches of Wonderland's blithe embrace.
Scott: The White House, in its growing effort to combat the GOP spin, forwarded that argument Thursday.
Secrest: More like the White House's ongoing effort to combat the truth, in that, the implication of the White House knowing about what's best for starting a business reads much like an arsonist knowing what's best in extinguishing structure fires.
Why would an arsonist care? Ditto the White House....
Scott: "By increasing workers’ mobility across jobs, secure access to health insurance helps them to find the job that is best for them," Jason Furman, chairman of President Barack Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, wrote in a blog post. "Moreover, reducing job lock encourages entrepreneurship, a critical ingredient for growth and job creation."
Secrest: Well, at least the apparatchiks of Obama's Leftist council on Commie economics got the job mobility part correct, if only partially.
There is, for a certainty, far more mobility when one has to drive to 2 or even 3 different part-time jobs during the day and night than as opposed to when one is forced to drive to only one job, during the day.
Now that is, indeed, increased mobility.
Scott: Outside the political realm, evidence does exist that Obamacare could be a catalyst for more entrepreneurship.
Secrest: Yes, speaking once again towards the real-world realm, the evidence suggests that because many businesses will be forced out of business, due to Obamacare, the vacuum left by missing small businesses could be partially subordinated by some even smaller micro-businesses.
But, we can be of help to the TPM cause, for instance, how does micro-employment opportunities sound, eh... pretty cool and high-tech, while meaning something else, entirely, huh?
You have my permission to use that, guys.....
Scott: Three economists released an analysis in 2011 that concluded employment-based health insurance had a negative effect on business creation.
Secrest: Yes, assuming that health insurance by employers has a negative effect on business creation, then by using equilateral reasoning--probably other employee benefits would have a negative effect on business creation also, such as employment- based pay-raises, for instance.
Ergo, the more one pays his or her employees, the less apt that employee is to create his or her own job....
Makes perfect sense in bizarro world.
So, why is the White House trying to raise the minimum wage, if employment gratuities such as health benefits and pay-raises, actually impair new business start-ups?
However, taken a step further, if job benefits have a deleterious effect on business creation, then why does not the White House eliminate all employment benefits for government workers, which , by using stated White House theory, would thereby create boundless employment opportunities in the private sector?
Scott: Because people tended to stay in their jobs to keep their health coverage, they were less likely to leave them and start their own businesses.
Secrest: Ipso facto, job pay-raises would also tend to keep people in their existing jobs making them far less likely to start their own jobs....So, in essence then, anything which an employer might do for the benefit of the employee in order to keep that employee, is creating less opportunity for job start-ups...
Isn't this, once again, a lot like stating that "employers creating well-paying jobs actually impairs an employee's impetus to start his or her own job?" Even while we are currently hearing how not having to work for a business in order to get and keep health insurance allows someone a lot more time with their family
(Never mind the fact of their having to live in a cardboard box, with their family, as a result because they have no job to support themselves...besides, one can tuck their children in within an arms-length away rather than having to go upstairs, and cardboard is easily obtainable and recyclable! Everybody wins!)
Scott: By reforming the individual and small-group insurance markets, Obamacare is intended to make the insurance offered there comparable to what large employers offer, giving people a legitimate alternative to employer-based coverage.
Secrest: Ah yes, and there is the crux of the thing.
Why continue to allow private businesses to help their employees and provide free benefits, when we can come up with a tremendously expensive, tax-payer funded subsidy program, which costs trillions, and which is driven by forced mandates, which allows a much more beneficent government to take business' place?
Well, my stars! Why didn't Marx think of that?...Oh, wait!
Scott: They analyzed various scenarios to reach that conclusion: Do people who had access to insurance through their spouse create more businesses? Do people who turn 65 and enroll in Medicare found more companies than people who are a little younger than 65?
Secrest: What in the hell are these Progressives on?
Dude! People who turn 65 are mostly looking to retire after a lifetime of hard work, albeit most are not looking to go through the often heart-stopping, extraordinarily risky and stressful business of starting up a brand new enterprise.
There is no greater stress inducement that exists, while further noting that about half of all new businesses fail in the first year, or maybe you folks missed that course, in Alinsky economics 101...
[But, One must point out, has anyone noticed how these pitifully painful arguments seem to bounce all over the place, while simultaneously making little if any actual sense?]
Scott: In both cases, they found that people without the alternatives -- those who couldn't obtain insurance through their spouse or couldn't enroll in Medicare -- were less likely to start their own business. That led to the following deduction:
Our estimates provide some evidence that “entrepreneurship lock” exists, which raises concerns that the bundling of health insurance and employment may create an inefficient level of business creation.
Secrest: Entrepreneurship lock? Seriously? Coming from the folks who bought us "You didn't build that, somebody else made that happen? Or my personal favorite "Belief in Capitalism is blind faith?"
Okay, we'll concede the point that people over 65 don't start businesses, but not because of entrepreneurship lock, you blasted fools, it's because starting a business requires enormous amounts of both risk, health, and energy, a thing which is not exactly synonymous with folks who find themselves at Medicare age.....and now, by the way, simply desire to spend more time on the shuffleboards of Florida, not that there's anything wrong with that mind you, in fact, those folks have ultimately earned their ultimate vacation.
Scott: Not many people quit their jobs to start their own companies: about 3 percent, according to the study. But if they had that alternative means of obtaining health insurance, which Obamacare helps provide, up to 4 percent would, the report projected, which would equal a 33 percent increase in the number of people starting their own business.
Secrest: So, 3 percent of all folks start companies--and-- if they have health insurance, that number would rise to 4 percent, a 33% increase, right Dylan?
So, On that same note and using the same reasoning, if we know that Obama discontinued the private health insurance of over 5% of the population, by mandate-- And--in as much as we assume that Dylan's report numbers are a fact, it would mean that Obama actually engineered a move which, by Dylan's report numbers once again, has actually reduced job creation by over 165 percent, and by their insurance coverage having been cancelled, if we use the study numbers.
Meaning 1 percentage point in increase or decrease is equal to about 33% of job creation or reduction.
Makes perfect sense.....Obama the job-slayer.
Scott: When asked about what those findings meant for Obamacare, Susan Gates, senior economist at RAND and one of the study's authors, told TPM that the law should lead to more people creating a business.
"Our study would suggest that if people have access to an alternative form of health insurance that is closer to what they could get from an employer," she said, "that they're going to be more likely to make that leap. They're going to be more likely leave a wage-and-salary job to start their own business."
Secrest: The major catch being that sub-standard insurance, which is defined by high-out-of-pocket co-insurance costs, soaring deductibles, and horrid network access, is not at all synonymous with any employer healthcare plan, of the present day.
So, where does that leave us tomorrow?