level.eleven
Shooter
- May 12, 2009
- 4,673
- 48
No, not good - it is just not as simple as people make it out to be.
I would not expect everyone to understand my point, because in the minds of most people it has to be either completely negative or positive - and complicated things are not always a result of the simple explanation people hold up when pointing the finger of blame.
Without the ACA the companies that are laying off employees would not be on solid ground. Companies that were on solid ground before the ACA - are not firing employees as a result of the legislation.
Some positions will pay less... some will pay roughly the same... some will increase (not attributed to the ACA) ....some people will gain benefits that they did not have previously....
The cries that the sky is falling, and blame being attributed to the ACA for every price increase and layoff is in many cases an exaggeration.
In many instances, the ACA is being used to justify layoffs and price increases that are not at all attributed to the legislation - because many business owners know that it is an unpopular piece of legislation, and that people will buy it. Couple that with the extreme fallout of butthurt after an unpopular incumbent president wins a second term, and the resulting frenzy of blame occurs.
I don't want to hear ACA blamed for every normal market fluctuation for 4 years.