bcspace wrote:Do you have any idea what you are talking about? What do you think it means to "have to buy insurance on a reduced salary or no salary"? By "salary" do you mean premium?
All you seem to be aware of is Democratic talking points. People are having their hours reduced to part time so they can be kicked off insurance (not to mention those not hired due to a depressed economy exacerbated by Obamacare). Such a person now is required to purchase health insurance and, because of reduced hours, they have 25% less income to do it with.
That's what you are talking about--from your garbled use of terminology, I couldn't tell. Hourly workers receive "wages", not "salaries." When somebody has a crappy job that doesn't pay benefits, it truly sucks to get your hours cut backed. But the good news is that this doesn't change the total demand for hourly work. So, people will end up with two crappy part-time jobs rather than one crappy full-time job. On average, nobody will be making less money.
bcspace wrote:What are you talking about? What is "overall share of total out of pocket spending" and what is "out of pocket spending by individuals?"
You've never had insurance before and had to pay out of pocket?
Of course I know what "out of pocket spending" is. I just don't understand how it can go up and down at the same time as you claimed.
bcspace wrote:I just listed having to purchase insurance with reduced salary and increased out of pocket.
By "increased out of pocket" are you talking about the Chris Conover article in the OP? The one where he cherry-picked numbers out a large report and then distorts them in a way that he admits is simplistic?