Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Consumer Reports implies that part time job with Obamacare is better than full time job without it
wordpress ^ | February 20, 2013 | Dan from Squirrel Hill

Posted on 02/21/2013 3:49:38 PM PST by grundle

Consumer Reports implies that a part time job with Obamacare is better than a full time job without it

First of all, I understand that Consumer Reports is big on protecting its copyrighted material. However, fair use does permit me to quote small excerpts for the purpose of commentary and criticism. I will keep these quotes down to the bare minimum that is necessary.

On page 15 of their March 2013 issue, a reader expresses concern about

“CEOs claiming that Obamacare will force them to reduce employees’ hours due to the cost of insuring them”

Consumer Reports responds by saying

“even if that happens, those low-paid employees will, for the first time in 2014, have access to good insurance they can afford”

Before I get to my main point of criticizing Consumer Reports on their response to the reader, I’d first like to address their statement of “even if that happens.”

It’s not a question of “if.”

In the real world, it is already happening.

I cited real world examples of it happening in these two previous blog posts: Obamacare is encouraging restaurants to replace full time jobs with part time jobs and Obamacare supporters are shocked that its opponents’ predictions of job destruction are coming true.

Therefore, Consumer Reports comment of “even if that happens” is an attempt at denying that Obamacare is definitely and has already caused some workers to be switched from full time to part time.

Given that the alleged mission of Consumer Reports is to help people, this denial on their part is disgusting and shocking.

Now, on to my main criticism.

Although Consumer Reports doesn’t specifically say that a part time job with Obamacare is better than a full time job without it, they do imply such a thing, based on their complete and total refusal to acknowledge that maybe, just maybe, some workers might be worse off as a result of this policy.

In the real world, this reduction in hours may cause some workers to be unable to pay their rent – but Consumer Reports implies that such a thing is OK, because at least they’ll have health insurance.

In the real world, if someone thought that having health insurance was a bigger priority than being able to pay the rent, they are perfectly capable of acting accordingly on their own, without the government making this decision for them. What Consumer Reports is saying in its response, then, is that people are too stupid to prioritize how they spend their own money, and that the government must make this decision for them.

Shame on Consumer Reports for glossing over and dismissing the readers’ concern for and the real world evidence that Obamacare is causing workers to switch from full time to part time.

And more importantly, shame on Consumer Reports for implying that people are too incompetent to prioritize how they spend their own money.

TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: mediabias; obamacare

1 posted on 02/21/2013 3:49:52 PM PST by grundle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: grundle

Of course it is. You get free health care because you aren’t making as much money. You probably will get Welfare, food stamps and a couple other government checks since you aren’t making as much money. And you can do whatever you want in the extra time you have during the week. Working full time is for suckers in Obama’s America.

2 posted on 02/21/2013 4:01:17 PM PST by Opinionated Blowhard ("When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grundle
Ah goody, our chocolate ration has been increased down again.

We need to layoff more people long term so the unemployment rate goes down further.

3 posted on 02/21/2013 4:07:03 PM PST by Repeat Offender (What good are conservative principles if we don't stand by them?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grundle

We all know that for years, Consumer Reports has been a left wing publication that takes very liberal positions. For that reason alone, I stopped subscribing years ago. Also because a lot of their product reviews just do not make sense, at least in my opinion.

4 posted on 02/21/2013 4:09:45 PM PST by CdMGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CdMGuy

CR has become just another far left arm of the ‘RAT party. They should stick to testing refrigerators.

5 posted on 02/21/2013 4:14:08 PM PST by Salvey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: grundle

So healthy young adults who wouldn’t have bought health insurance in the first place would now be forced to buy a policy from whomever .... read where lots of small businesses are pooling their resources to allow their employees to buy insurance at a cost much lower or nothing at all.

6 posted on 02/21/2013 4:18:01 PM PST by SkyDancer (Live your life in such a way that the Westboro church will want to picket your funeral.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grundle

Consumer Reports has its place - evaluating brands of Orange Juice, toasters, and other consumer purchases. When it comes to helping me decide whether freedom is worth it though, they have crossed the line. I stopped supporting them years ago. Now I read their reviews at the library when I need the information, but they will never get another dollar from me. I hope other Freepers will make them pay the price for their anti-freedom liberal bias.

7 posted on 02/21/2013 6:02:19 PM PST by Pollster1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvey

“They should stick to testing refrigerators.”

Even that is becoming pointless for its readers because CR focuses more on energy “savings” and “green” features than things that actually matter.

I quit subscribing decades ago because of their far-leftism.

8 posted on 02/21/2013 6:04:32 PM PST by catnipman (Cat Nipman: Vote Republican in 2012 and only be called racist one more time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: grundle
This is insanity.

This magazine is thinking employers are going to insure part-time employees! Consumer Reports is failing to notice the reason employers are reducing the hours is to stop buying insurance. Period. These people are being thrown out of the insurance market.

Obamacare is destroying the lowest paid among us, there is no doubt about it. And yet they'll vote for it all over again.

9 posted on 02/21/2013 6:14:43 PM PST by Cyber Liberty (I am a dissident. Will you join me? My name is John....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: catnipman

Same here, as well as Popular Science and Popular Mechanics after they were infected with Green Religion.

10 posted on 03/02/2013 11:03:32 AM PST by eyeamok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson