Press "Enter" to skip to content

ACA Reduces Labor Supply, Increases Liberty

Jana and I are quite happy to see the Affordable Care Act working just the way we expected to end job lock. We are dismayed to see the media working as we have come to expect, getting the story wrong in the urge to spin the ACA as killing jobs.

The Congressional Budget Office released its 2014–2024 Budget and Economic Outlook Tuesday. The CBO's analysis includes an estimate that the Affordable Care Act will reduce the number of hours people work by 2.0 million full-time equivalent positions by 2017 and 2.5 million FTE by 2024.

My conservative friends are quick to conclude that Obamacare is putting people out of work. My conservative friends are wrong. The Affordable Care Act is making possible what almost every one of you working stiffs will be wishing today around 3:30 p.m. (or tomorrow when you get up for the early shift at 3:30 a.m.): that you didn't have to spend so much time working.

The Affordable Care Act is not taking jobs away from people. It is reducing Americans' need to do crappy jobs:

CBO estimates that the ACA will reduce the total number of hours worked, on net, by about 1.5 percent to 2.0 percent during the period from 2017 to 2024, almost entirely because workers will choose to supply less labor—given the new taxes and other incentives they will face and the financial benefits some will receive. Because the largest declines in labor supply will probably occur among lower-wage workers, the reduction in aggregate compensation (wages, salaries, and fringe benefits) and the impact on the overall economy will be proportionally smaller than the reduction in hours worked [Congressional Budget Office, "The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2014 to 2024," February 2014, p. 117].

Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, millions of Americans won't have to take that second part-time job to cover their health insurance premiums. Americans hoping to start their own businesses will feel a little freer to let go of a job they do for someone else just to hang onto a health insurance policy. Folks approaching retirement won't be quite as stuck doing unsatisfying jobs just for the sake of keeping health coverage until they qualify for Medicare.

Yes, yes, work is noble. Work builds character. Work gives us purpose. But work also wears us down. Work makes us miss our kids' dance recitals and track meets. Work subjects us to the will of other people and corporate policy manuals. Work makes us say and do things that we would not do if we did have to take orders from the boss.

By allowing millions of people to choose to work less without risking their families' physical and fiscal health, the Affordable Care Act expands liberty. By reducing the labor supply without equal reductions in labor demand, the Affordable Care Act creates more opportunities for folks who do want to work extra hours.

Think about when you feel the greatest liberty. It's probably not when you're in the office, hurrying to finish the report the boss wants by the end of the day. It's probably Friday night when you don't have to set the alarm, or maybe Saturday when you wake up to enjoy a leisurely breakfast with your kids, or that one day a week when neither job calls you in and you can walk around town in your jeans, knowing you've paid your bills for the month and can afford to buy a book or a new toolbox. Or maybe it's that one blessed day when you can finally show your pain-in-the-neck boss your backside and leave for a job you really want.

The Affordable Care Act makes more days like that possible. The ACA doesn't kill jobs. It doesn't promote laziness. It promotes liberty—daily, practical liberty.


  1. owen reitzel 2014.02.06

    Republicans are great at distortions

  2. DB 2014.02.06

    Incentivizing people to do less. The reality show "Becoming Greece"....continues on.

  3. Mike Buckingham 2014.02.06


    Just curious who has to pay the bill for those who want the freedom to work less.

  4. Mark Vargo 2014.02.06

    Are you really sure that you're thrilled about all those full-time jobs becoming part-time jobs so the employer doesn't come under the ACA? Because that is also a highly predictable part of Obamacare. How much freedom do those people have with 3/4 of a salary and, often, getting cut off from the other benefits like sick and vacation leave that usually accompany full-time work?

  5. Jenny 2014.02.06

    Do you blame them? People want affordable healthcare, to me it's not any worse than the 1% moving their money offshore or having a fake address in SD to avoid paying taxes.

  6. owen reitzel 2014.02.06

    thanks to Obamacare I have health insurance. Believe it or not DB I want to work and I actually have a job interview on Monday.
    Incentivizing people to do less is a load of crap.

  7. Jerry 2014.02.06

    All one has to do is look at municipalities as an example of how this ACA will help reduce the cost of insurance and also give employees there an opportunity to look elsewhere for work or simply retire and take care of themselves now that they have an affordable option. The teaching profession also has employees there that would not be teaching if it were not for the health insurance. I think that will make that profession even more in need of replacement professionals as well. You know what that means...higher wages to meet the demand. This ACA will mean higher wages and more employment that is for sure. We all have friends or family that work for places with the only reason for doing so is for health insurance for themselves or a family member that is sick. Freedom baby Freedom, from this point on.

    Here is how the capitalism part of this would work Mr. Buckingham. First, there must be a demand for the workers and with that demand comes wages and the wages must be in line with what the employee chooses, not what is just put on the table. In other words, negotiated. It will be nice when points of education that teach trades and so on get on the thinking caps to promote their crafts at schools to let their students know of the opportunities out there now for them to be entrepreneurs if they choose to be. Instead of working for a pain the butt businessman, they can be there own. But alas, it seems that schools may be too politically indoctrinated to be able to present that to their paying students.

    Second, with higher wages comes higher a higher standard of living and thus taxes that will be paid. What this then will do is off set the initial investment taxpayers will make to subsidize those health plans that qualify for the subsidy. By the way, taxpayers right now subsidize health plans through visits to the emergency rooms for example and also by paying higher local property tax to subsidize local municipal insurance premiums.

    In short, a win win for all and especially for the working men and women who make the trains run on time and the little birdies sing.

  8. caheidelberger Post author | 2014.02.06

    Back up, Mark: the majority of the job changes are not because employers are demanding fewer hours. The majority of the change is from workers choosing to supply less labor.

  9. caheidelberger Post author | 2014.02.06

    Mike, Jerry's got your answer. If labor supply goes down, wages go up, right? Plus, if more people have coverage, they'll get care sooner, incur fewer big costs that end up uncompensated and spread through the system, and save us all money.

    And really, Mike, what price liberty?

  10. Thad Wasson 2014.02.06

    With my health care subsidy, section 8 housing voucher, energy assistance, food stamps and college loan deferment life is good in the age of Obama. Just hope my stays free for the people!

  11. Jerry 2014.02.06

    Thank you Thad Wasson for reminding me to "ring the tip jar" for the Madvilletimes! You are right, life is not so bad with the age of Obama and for that I say "ring the jar for Thad Wasson"!

  12. Bill Dithmer 2014.02.06

    "The estimated reduction stems almost entirely from a net decline in the amount of labor that workers choose to supply, rather than from a net drop in businesses’ demand for labor, so it will appear almost entirely as a reduction in labor force participation and in hours worked. . . .”

    I don't see this as a reduction in labor at all. If those people choose to work less, or none at all, it doesn't mean the need for that labor has also diminished. Far from it.

    Wouldn't it mean more people would have to be hired to complete the labor that needed to be done?

    After all, an employer isn't going to set around crying "oh lordy me some of my workers quit, what am I going to do." No that employer is going to go right out and hire people to fill out his workforce. Doesn't that equal the same number, but different workers? Wouldn't that also translate into job opportunities for that portion of unemployed or under employed that everyone wants to see get jobs? It doesn't matter if those jobs are part time or full time, that work still needs to be done for a company to enjoy the same level of productivity.

    I don't see how it could be any other way.

    The Blindman

  13. Jerry 2014.02.06

    Exactly Jana, only idiots would think that austerity works. Thankfully, Obama has rejected them for the most part.

  14. Les 2014.02.06

    I have yet to meet a family with not only a reduced premium but a family that hasn't been hit with massive increases in premium.
    Yes they may be able to get out of Wellmark and hit the exchange, but for a much different coverage and liability.
    Wages are not going up if bennies are provided Cory, you can pay slightly better than minimum wage along with bennies and get all the help you want. Or, pay a little more for part time no bennies. Makes those teacher salaries look pretty good..
    I see no municipalities using the ACA other than prob Detroit and others of similar financial prowess.
    Not sure how many more we have to put on entitlements to get the labor supply to go down and how to find that cost effective Cory?

  15. DB 2014.02.06

    Jana, thanks for posting a link to support my opinion. We aren't greece, we are becoming Greece. Give it 20 years and more Democrat policy and the have-nots will be voting themselves everything. Whether we borrow the money or print it, we only reduce our own currencies value. Inflation and high interest rates are not far out. I hope you are ready when they stop pumping money into the economy and all this propping up comes crashing down. The writing is on the wall.....can you see it?

  16. Jerry 2014.02.06

    Maybe you should speak with Owen Reitzel Les, or folks like him. The subsidy is not for the well heeled and it never was designed as such, you are getting a farm subsidy and a healthcare subsidy confused I feel.

    When you say this " Yes they may be able to get out of Wellmark and hit the exchange, but for a much different coverage and liability." Are you saying that Avera, Sanford and Dakotacare are inferior to Wellmark? I think Wellmark is what Rounds peddles so I guess that speaks for itself in your corner.

    Municipialities at this point, do not use the ACA. This will be coming in the groups that are 50 and under for this coming year and for the year 2015, groups of 100 and under, so this will be a factor Les, without a doubt. In fact, what may be coming is small groups just not offering plans at all to allow their employees to benefit from the ACA entirely.

    The labor market will tend to regulate itself with the supply and demand as workers will begin to see that there is indeed another way to provide needed coverage for themselves and family members.

    All of this would not be necessary if Weiland would be elected and his program would be implemented. It is as smart of a business venture as I have seen to eliminate a program that has long passed its shelf life. Les, as a republican, I would think you would welcome the elimination of an employer provided healthcare program that your party has hated since it came into being after World War II.

  17. interested party 2014.02.06

    "Supporters of Medicaid Expansion tout the federal government will be paying for the total cost of expansion for the first three years. That’s true, but that clock already started ticking at the beginning of this year. If the Healthy Montana Initiative is enacted, the state would miss half of that higher federal funding period. Montana would end up paying 10 percent of the cost of expansion, or what’s expected to be more than $23 million dollars annually, by 2020."

  18. Les 2014.02.06

    Our state exchange care options in SD are very much limited to the Wellmark policy and no, I don't buy from Rounds or his associates. Travel out of network and see how you are treated with the exchange. I also find no exchange dental or eye care you were talking about in an earlier post.
    Owen had similar care without any insurance through the E/door.

  19. Les 2014.02.06

    As I understand the Medicaid expansion, they want their money back if you are covered at an age under 65? Lien on homes, biz etc?

  20. Jerry 2014.02.06

    Wellmark is not involved with the marketplace exchange for this current year. The only ones involved are Avera, Sanford and Dakotacare. All three have the same extensive network that Wellmark currently has as that was a prerequisite for being able to offer coverage in the marketplace.

    With any plan, including Wellmark, if you go out of network for services, you must pay more. That has always been the case since networks were first involved all those years ago.

    As you are not familiar with how all plans work after the 1st of January 2014, I will tell you. All plans, including those that are not in the marketplace (Wellmark for one) must offer pediatric dental plans along with pediatric vision. When you shop in the marketplace, you will see that there is dental offered through the marketplace for adults.

    I do not know what the E/door you are referring to regarding Owen, kindly explain.

  21. Jerry 2014.02.06

    @Blindman, you are correct! That is exactly how it is and exactly how explained. Even Paul Ryan got it! What would make this an even better deal for workers and for employers would be Medicare for all!

  22. barry freed 2014.02.06

    IP, went and looked, $23 million would be just over 5% of Montana's current SURPLUS, a fraction that does not even register withing their total budget. Next year, they plan to give $400 to each homeowner and still have a $300 Million surplus. One could say they have energy we don't, but we have great Sun, Water, and Wind. We are instead investing in slaughter houses and paying welders to move here. Montana may have had oil and coal within it's borders, but it took Leadership to fund and develop it.
    Daugarrd has given $10 million to adult rich people in Dakota Dunes who knowingly built below the flood level, $5 million to adult rich land owners with bugs on their $5k+ per acre land. Those two bailouts of adults who actually have the assets to fix their problems, cost 10 times more than the ACA and saved not one life.
    Every day, he gives much more money to another group, but is condescending of the minimum wage earner who can't afford $500+ per month to one of the only three HC Monopolies he choose for us.
    There is no crossing of State Lines in this redest of red states.
    ;/, muyhgn b k

  23. Jerry 2014.02.06

    Regarding liens on homes through Medicaid, we already have that in place. When you go to a nursing home, you sign over everything that can be considered an asset. This only makes sense as taxpayers are footing the bill for your expensive stay.

    Regarding the ACA, you will have to show me that in the law Les. I have read that thing a couple of years ago and do not remember seeing that. Show me where that is located.

  24. Les 2014.02.06

    Emergency room door, Jer.
    I can travel worldwide with coverage through Wellmark. Understand, I am no friend of Wellmark after staying healthy for life and having them hit me like I'm a Dr shopper.
    I do not believe from what I saw in the exchange plans that I would feel at all good about getting a major health issue in LA or Miami or Houston. Wellmark definitely has network in those areas.

  25. Les 2014.02.06

    Yes Medicaid has that Jer, so the 58 year old gets on Medicaid, gets sick and uses it. Not just the cost to insure this poor soul, but the entire cost of his treatment goes into a lien. Nice wake up call when he could have previously just used the e

  26. Les 2014.02.06

    emergency door.

  27. Jerry 2014.02.06

    Emergency room would not cover cancer treatments as a case in point for starters.

  28. Jerry 2014.02.06

    With all plans, if it is an emergency, you are treated as if you are in network. Sanford, Avera have agreements with other networks. I am not so sure about Dakotacare as that is an HMO.

    If you want to go out of country for a surgical procedure, you can make arrangements with you healthcare provider for that as well. Some of the best and cheapest heart surgical centers are in India and Spain and orthopedic surgery in Thailand. I have had friends that have gone to both with very happy results. Got a vacation and saved some moolah, lots of moolah. Now if you are traveling, you are in network if an emergency should happen to you.

  29. Jerry 2014.02.06

    Here are the qualifications for that 58 year old. He or she must earn less than $11,500.00 per year or $5.52 per hour for a 40 hour week. Somehow I just do not believe that the 58 year old worker would have a huge estate to go after for the treatment of his cancer.

  30. Les 2014.02.06

    I'm not sure where you get the non cancer treatment.
    A customer of mine no insurance, zip, nada, had a very late stage of prostate and spent a considerable amount of time getting treatment at st Alexis in Bismarck. He then was also able to get experimental at Rochester, but needed something like 10,000 for some odd reason so a fund raiser got him some cash and he is now post treatment a year later back n his truck. Yea, they'll want some money, but I'll bet they will be happy with not taking his life apart and getting something.

  31. Les 2014.02.06

    I hear you on out of country, have a friend who just returned from getting a knee in Costa Rica. $4500. I can go to dentist in Mexico, get a 2000 cap for $500. I need to support my local so he's here when I need him tho.

  32. Jerry 2014.02.06

    That is not treatment through an emergency room then Les. That is pro gratis work that is done by hospitals and doctors as they see fit to do. If this were available to all like your customer, then we would not need insurance at all.

    In order to get treatment at the emergency room, it must be for treatment needed at that time. No chemo would be administered and certainly no experimental treatment. So that is why complete coverage like Owen is now getting will help him with his life.

  33. Jerry 2014.02.06

    When we support the local here when you need him, aren't we then the problem? We use the insurance to subsidize the practice they have so why can't we then demand of them to be more competitive? We are hitting the nail with the hammer of where the real problems are, the medical profession and the way they charge us for services rendered. Why are these costs so high and why are they so different from one part of the country to the next? Control medical costs and pharma costs and we would not have such high premiums.

  34. Les 2014.02.06

    I agree Jer! just putting him out of biz solves nothing. Pharma, insurance, tort, regulations,,the list goes on and on Jer. That is where reform is needed.

  35. Steve O'Brien 2014.02.06

    Thad: "With my health care subsidy, section 8 housing voucher, energy assistance, food stamps and college loan deferment life is good in the age of Obama."

    I still do not buy into the view that the impoverished somehow have it "good" even when on benefits to allow them to eek out survival. I have never imagined a day where I would prefer their lot and choose to take the "easy way out" of welfare. Being poor is nothing to envy and to do so is disingenuous.

    Finally, don't let the discussion shift from the true villains: it is the greed of the employers that have stagnated wages at the level that health care becomes an unaffordable option for workers. It is the booming health care industry that prices the poor out of services needed to maintain health. It is our national obsession with "rights" that allow the poor the "right" to go without care if they cannot afford it.

    I will not blame or romanticize the victim.

  36. Jerry 2014.02.06

    Well said Steve O'Brien, well said. When the rich will give it all up to be the poor, then we have something to talk about, until then, we have what we have.

  37. Jerry 2014.02.06

    Then we can agree with a vote for Weiland as his Medicare for all is a plan that would control all you mention Les and then some. Why would you support rounds are those like him that will only tighten the yoke around our necks.

  38. Les 2014.02.06

    When the so called Rich give it all up to the poor, who will subsidize the poor then? They say, if the poor had all the money, it would be spent in to the hands of the rich in short order. I'm assuming you are calling those who worked 9 day weeks to build an estate the rich.

  39. Jerry 2014.02.06

    No Les, I am saying that when the rich give it all up to the poor, I, believe them. Until then, they have no standing whatsoever on how the poor live or die for that matter. Regarding the 9 day a week dude or dudette that works...They are not rich by any means. They are workers just like the rest of us.

  40. Steve O'Brien 2014.02.06

    A civilized society would not create an industry to profit from the health care needs of its people. Health care should be a right bestowed on every member of a society - not a commodity limited to those who can afford it.

    I applaude the employers who provide coverage for their employees, but let us be clear, that is at the cost of other compensations. The government has off-set this societal cost to the consumers (indirectly through employers). It is time to nationalize health care.

  41. Donald Pay 2014.02.06

    Thad: "With my health care subsidy, section 8 housing voucher, energy assistance, food stamps and college loan deferment life is good in the age of Obama."

    Let's understand who is subsidized. The health care subsidy ultimately goes to the health insurer, who is insuring someone who likely would not have been insured otherwise. If that person would have gone to the emergency room for care or had a major medical issue, that health care subsidy goes to the medical providers and to the property tax payer, who otherwise would have had to pay the bill for the non-covered individuals.

    Section 8 housing vouchers go directly to the landlord. Energy assistance goes to the utility company.

  42. Roger Cornelius 2014.02.06


    Don't forget SNAP benefits that go to Walmart, grocery chains and your hometown grocer.

  43. mike from iowa 2014.02.06

    Businesses started dumping workers before the ACA was ever officially signed into law. They worked hand in hand with wingnuts to threaten employees with pink slips,trying to blackmail the government with threats. Had Dems done this,there would be no end of caterwauling,whining and tears from SOH Boner about un-'murrican Libs trying to destroy the country.

  44. Lanny V Stricherz 2014.02.06

    DB, The Fed has been printing money like a drunken sailor for over 10 years, first in the overnight lending by the Fed during the Bush years and now in Quantitative Easing for the past 5 or so years. When the workers were getting decent cost of living wage increases as well as merit raises, the Fed went nuts with the interest rates because they said that the workers pay increases were inflationary. For at least the past twenty years. workers pay has been stagnant while management and higher end earners' pay has multiplied by 20, 30, 50 and even 100 fold and yet the interest rate is far and away the lowest that it has been in my lifetime. Why isn't that pay inflationary? It is a rigged game for those at the top, and one is forced to put their life savings into risky ventures in order to maintain it's worth, because the real inflation rate is higher than the COLA published by the government.

  45. Les 2014.02.06

    It is hard to understand why the dollars printed(80Bil/month easing) don't come home to roost(inflation) Lanny. I guess the Fed/Bankers have everything so rigged it will happen when they wish it to happen.

  46. Lanny V Stricherz 2014.02.07

    You hit the nail on the head, Les. All the years that I worked and what I saved, I got a decent rate of interest up to 6 1/2 % on passbook savings. I watched the guys with money to play with get much higher than that on CDs. I looked forward to being able to save much more the last years before I retired and did. But then the interest rates kept coming down until today they are a joke. But why should a bank or any financial broker pay more than the paltry 1 or maybe a little more % when the Fed is giving them money for next to nothing, and that is the money that the FED is printing and as most of us know, will come back to haunt us eventually. It will be like Germany after WWI, when one could bring a whole wheelbarrow full of Deutchmarks to the store and not even be abel to buy a loaf of bread. I hope it doesn't happen here, but it sure appears that it might.

  47. Porter Lansing 2014.02.07

    It's being said that seniors age 60-65 NOT having to stay in a job just for the healthcare is going to ruin our economy? Hmmm...we old folks are going to have to go a ways to top corporate tax loopholes and outsourcing jobs to China. 1. When a senior retires or goes part time the hours are given to a younger worker raising a family or even an unemployed worker. 2. With the cost of day care Grandparents make quite proper baby sitters. Seniors are a formidable voting block and shouldn't be discounted by the conservatives.

  48. Les 2014.02.07

    I take it you are a 60-65 male, PL.? Willing to put the security of home or asset ownership on the line by going on Medicaid for a few years? I'd love to save my children's daycare costs and raise my grandchildren, but I'd rather work, help them pay daycare and pay my own insurance than to chance an astronomical lien on my property with hopefully many days of life left to spend that time and money on my pleasures.
    You'll become an angry male if you get seriously ill and lose your life's labors to Medicaid. The $11,000 single person number was mentioned on getting Medicaid. That is nonissue if we quit working.

  49. Jerry 2014.02.07

    Wow Les, you have a rabbit trail with the droppings regarding this nonsense about the security of home or asset on the line by using Medicaid for a few years. Incredible that you are so far from the truth. I shall try again to enlighten you. If you are earning less than 11,500 bucks a year, in South Dakota, you get squat for help for your health coverage. If Denny and henchmen were to expand Medicaid, you would then qualify. Take a look around and tell me one person in your circle of friends that makes less than 11,500 and has a home or asset that would be on the line if he took Medicaid money for healthcare. 11,500.00 per year in income is not very much Les, you are insulting yourself by acting as if this is a factor. I am not talking about investments either, just income itself of 11,500.00 or less. If you really want to get on the high horse, tell your friends and neighbors that if they do not have insurance that will pay for their stay in the old folks home, Medicaid will most definitely come to take their house and their assets to pay for their stay in the nursing home.

  50. Les 2014.02.07

    You really believe, average husband and wife would have a large line 21 on the 1040a if they quit working, Jer.

  51. Jerry 2014.02.07

    Les, If you voluntarily quit working, but still have an income of over 11,500.00, you get subsidized. That income may come from sources other than wages. It could mean the taxable amount of a pension, annuity or Social Security benefits. Business income, farm income, capital gains, the lists go on for whatever your income may come from other than wages.

    As long as it is above 11,500.00 buckeroos and less than about 60,000.00, you can qualify for a subsidy as a single.

    If your total Modified Adjusted Gross Income is less than 11,500.00 and the state of South Dakota grants a Medicaid expansion, then you would qualify for Medicaid. It would be up the state of South Dakota if they want to pursuit you for collecting Medicaid or not. Presently, the state of South Dakota will go after assets if you go to a nursing home and utilize Medicaid for your stay there and they will be able to get reimbursed as much as possible for the help they provide. To date, I have not heard or seen any complaints on that.

  52. Les 2014.02.07

    I understand Jer. My post was in reference to PL's statement on the new ease of 60-65 quitting and allowing the job market to pick up the share they opened up. For those folks to think they can just quit work and grab Medicaid without consequence from a major medical illness is not without a liability.
    Most average citizens under 62 would have little income if they quit work. Under the threshold for Medicaid for those couples is not beyond reality.

  53. Porter Lansing 2014.02.08

    @Les - It's impossible to give your opinions validity when you live where the citizens are repressed by no Medicaid expansion. Medicaid is means tested and is determined by income not wealth. You're welcome to your state's "self-imposed suffer fest" but things in the 25 states with thriving Obamacare are doing very well, thank-you. PS- Obamacare is here to stay...your loss is our gain, pilgrim.

  54. Jerry 2014.02.08

    Porter Lansing, I must correct you on the statement of 25 states, it is now 26 states as New Hampshire has seen the light and will allow its working poor health coverage. Yet another victory for the working families of America! Of course, here in South Dakota, the republican regime hates providing a safety net for the working poor, they feel that they must punish them in order to feel superior.

  55. Porter Lansing 2014.02.08

    Thank you, Jerry. That's a spot on analysis of the OAWM (older angry white male) conservative Republican agenda. Their selfishness is how they keep score in their game of denying aid to the needy. PS- There are three times as many voters in the 26 states as the 24 obstructionist states. Obamacare will be around as long as the sun shines and the grass is green...or until the Vikings win the big one. lol

  56. Porter Lansing 2014.02.08

    @Les: There's no gain in spending time educating low value voters such as yourself (i.e.- voters with their mind made up) but learn this. Seniors or anyone really that qualify for Medicaid will NOT have liens put on property or have to repay anything. "Stick that in your teacup and dunk it."

  57. Lanny V Stricherz 2014.02.08

    Mr Lansing, You wrote, " Seniors or anyone really that qualify for Medicaid will NOT have liens put on property or have to repay anything. "Stick that in your teacup and dunk it."

    Not sure that you have your facts straight on that. When my Mom went into the nursing home with dementia, Dad had just passed away the year before. What money they had and the money from the sale of their home, plus Dad's pension and both of their social security, plus a legal settlement that Mom got when she got hurt at work, which was paid on a monthly basis, went to pay for the nursing home until after a couple of years the money ran out. Then and only then did medicaid kick in to pay for her nursing home care. She was in the nursing home for ten years, so I would estimate that her medicaid bill was North of a half million dollars.

  58. Jerry 2014.02.08

    The irony of the OAWM (I like that one) is that it is directed against the working poor that in the case of South Dakota, is poor white workers. The fact is that the Natives have the IHS as a safety net, the white working poor have nothing, Nata, zip. So these elitist in the regime in Pierre and those that elect them, can only feel superior to the white working poor, what an honor for them. One day, the white working poor will unite with the people of color and deny the white power-brokers their crowns. In other words, they will come to the realization that the game is fixed and their only hope is to work together as one for their future and the future of their children.

  59. Les 2014.02.08

    There ya go Jer. Now you're cooking.

  60. Jerry 2014.02.08

    That is exactly how it works with nursing homes Lanny Stricherz. Most folks understand that and feel that it is a tradeoff they can and must afford to do. I am sorry about the dementia as that is the most expensive form of nursing home care. At present, North of $100,000.00 per year per resident. So yes, the state picked up a huge bill there and there only recourse was to impoverish your parents to pay the bill.

    It may well work the same if Medicaid expansion comes into being. If we assume that, then we must assume that Medicaid children that are born into poor families will have that burden around their necks as they mature and have families of their own. I really don't see how that could be, but it is possible. So then they would come full circle and be indentured servants for the rest of their lives.

  61. Porter Lansing 2014.02.08

    Gentlemen, The ACA is for affordable healthcare insurance and the Medicaid expansion helps low income people buy healthcare policies NOT nursing home insurance. If you have none you must be indigent to qualify for Medicaid nursing home coverage. I have friends in their 60's who now qualify for help paying part of their healthcare insurance with no lien on their home now or ever. Medicaid does not pay any of their nursing home insurance.

  62. Porter Lansing 2014.02.08

    Q: But Cory, who's going to pay for this wonderful program?
    Porter's Answer: The Democrats are going to pay for it! Every month we liberals in our liberal states reach into our paychecks and send SoDak money so you can pay your damn bills. In fact your little state gets three dollars from our Federal Gov't for every dollar you send in. That makes South Dakota little more than a just a welfare state and a nat'l burden, men. The irony is that we liberals support your happy rear ends and you refuse to help your own needy citizens with the money...ingrates. Maybe y'all should raise taxes and stop living on Federal handouts from we blue states. Hmmm?

  63. Lanny V Stricherz 2014.02.08

    I am not complaining Mr Lansing. That was as it should be. I just feel bad that Mom lived in the nursing home for ten years the last six of which she was in a state that looked like she was comatose. If anything, I would be complaining about the fact that SD does not have assisted suicide, like Washington, Oregon and Montana. With an aging population due to the advances in medicine, that is an issue that has to come into the discussion. Having DNR is not enough. When a person's quality of life has gone out the window, it is time to allow them to die with dignity and grace. Don't keep them hanging on by a thread so that the hospitals and nursing homes can use them as a bed filler.

  64. Les 2014.02.08

    We may get 1.55 for every buck sent PL. Don't be exageratin, she may not be pretty, but she's the only sister we have. You're losing your cred buckwheat.

  65. Porter Lansing 2014.02.09

    @Les the Mess - Your figures are nine years old and about 50% to low. Your cred is manure. Tell us where you get the BS that Obamacare Medicaid puts liens on people's homes who get help buying insurance.

  66. Brian 2014.02.09

    Republicans opposing the idea of people *gasp* spending more time with their families instead of putting in 50-60 hours/week at the office for ever-increasingly less pay and fewer benefits are showing their true colors. The self-professed party of "family values" and "freedom" and "liberty" is nothing more than a puppet for big corporations and wealthy individuals to continue sucking up the wealth of hard-working Americans, leaving them to struggle with the table scraps that are thrown down to them. GOP = George Orwell Party.

  67. Les 2014.02.09

    My info is 3 years old PL.
    Porter, your reading comp is less than adequate. I stated, if you go on Medicaid, med care can then be held against your assets. I said nothing of subsidized insurance causing a liability in itself.
    Brian, I've worked 60-70 hour weeks all my life and considered it a privilege to be able to succeed at the level I wished to drive for. Only someone on the dole or of the entitlement mentality expects to drive new SUV's, big screen tv, vactions etc on 40 hours or less. It's all there for 40 hours if you don't feel you need to live like the guy putting in 70.

  68. Jerry 2014.02.09

    So then Les, if your argument is against Medicaid Expansion because of "I stated, if you go on Medicaid, med care can then be held against your assets." What difference would it make then, in that case, if it is expanded or not?

    If your "facts" are proven, then tell us how that works with children covered under Medicaid right now. Are we to believe that either them or their parents are liable for their healthcare coverage? How about the person that has end stage renal failure? Tell us how that works Les.

  69. caheidelberger Post author | 2014.02.10

    Brian, that's a really important point. Liberty isn't just an abstract ideal to give folks goose bumps in campaign speeches. It's a practical state of being tied closely to our economic quality of life. Liberty doesn't mean much if people don't have the time and money to exercise it.

  70. Les 2014.02.10

    Obviously our country has a great amount of that liberty you speak of Cory with all the dead ass weight highly visible. You're an educator Cory, figure out the meaning of Liberty. The results of personal choice hardly define liberty.
    Jer, why don't you read what I say instead of trying to read my mind. I said folks quitting their job as Porter says, just to stop working for insurance and getting on Medicaid need to understand there is a liability that goes with Medicaid if used. I said nothing of insurance subsidy or why or why not anyone deserves health care..
    Why aren't children under Medicaid subjecting their parents to a liability? Medicaid is welfare, what is there to get from their parents?
    Again, Im not arguing against Medicaid Jer, read my lips, Im saying, if I have assets at 60 and quit my job to take Medicaid, I can be held responsible for costs of an illness.

  71. Jerry 2014.02.10

    What if you presently have a job at your company and are on your companies group health insurance. The person is 60 an has assets, but develop diabetes and have kidney failure. Are you advocating that they stay on your small group health insurance and keep working, even though they must go through 3 days of dialysis for their renal failure, per week. Keep in mind that you are paying some of the premiums if not all of the premiums for this case, at least 70%. Or would you rather have them quit their job to take care of themselves and go on Medicaid for that treatment and save your group from catastrophic rate increases?

  72. Porter Lansing 2014.02.10

    FACTS: There are many parts to Medicaid. The newest part, aka the Medicaid expansion helps lower income people buy healthcare insurance which all Americans now must have to eliminate the "free riders" which drove up costs. ATTN LES: "If you're 60 with assets and you quit your job and then qualify to use the new part of Medicaid for assistance in buying healthcare insurance and subsequently get an illness YOU WILL NOT be held responsible for the costs of the illness...your insurance company will."
    In Conclusion: What have we learned here? Americans have a RIGHT to affordable healthcare insurance as ruled by our Supreme Court. 26 red states (with only about 30% of American voters living there) have chosen a "self-imposed suffer-fest" and denied their children and grandchildren a lower cost future by refusing the Medicaid expansion, also allowed by the Supreme Court. The liberals in their liberal states send SoDak at the lowest estimates 50% more money than SoDak contributes to our country and in fact are paying for the Medicaid expansion South Dakota is sure to accept, eventually.
    IMHO: This denial of help to SoDak's low income voters is due to not wanting the liberal President to suceed at anything thus figuratively "cutting off your nose because you're upset that your face is so ugly."
    The last word is your's.....

  73. Jenny 2014.02.10

    Oh stop it, Porter! You're going to hurt their SD prides! Can't you see -SD men are real self-made men. They don't tek any handouts frum no'ne, yes'm not no'ne, least of all that dat dang gubmint!

  74. Porter Lansing 2014.02.10

    Right, Jenny. SoDak men are like men everywhere. They do what their wives tell them to do and when it comes to saving money women don't listen to nonsense. Most of these really extreme conservative's wives have left them years ago, though...for being an incompatable horses ass. Luckily there aren't enough in USA to win a national election.

  75. Jerry 2014.02.11

    What every republican should do to prove that ACA takes away the desire to work is to pass the Jobs Bills that have failed in the past. That would prove once and for all their theory that we are a bunch of lazy 47% ers. Lets rally behind the republican and ask they show us the way with the jobs bills they have sat on for years.

Comments are closed.