NYT editorial board: "Obamacare cutting 2.5 million jobs is a GOOD thing."

The NY Times--like virtually all the Lying Mainstream Media--has always supported Obama (and all Democrats).  So as their king's mis-steps become increasingly obvious, they've had to do some amazing leaps of illogic in their editorials trying to rationalize his incompetence (if that's what it is).

The pretzel-logic makes for some amazing reading.  Case in point is this Times editorial published yesterday, titled "Freeing Workers From the Insurance Trap," in which the paper's editorial board actually claims that cutting the number of full-time Americans with jobs by 2.5 million is a good thing.

That's not a typo.  They really did claim that.  Take a look:

A new report found that by reducing the number of full-time workers over the coming decade, the health care law will have a liberating impact for millions.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated on Tuesday that the Affordable Care Act will reduce the number of full-time workers by 2.5 million over the next decade. That is mostly a good thing, a liberating result of the law.

Of course, Republicans immediately tried to brand the findings as “devastating” and stark evidence of President Obama’s health care reform as a failure and a job killer. It is no such thing.

The report estimated that thanks to an increase in insurance coverage under the act, and to the availability of subsidies to help pay the premiums, many workers who felt obliged to stay in a job that provided health benefits would now be able to leave those jobs or choose to work fewer hours than they otherwise would have. In other words, the report is about the choices workers can make when they are no longer tethered to an employer because of health benefits. The cumulative effect on the labor supply will be the equivalent of 2.5 million fewer full-time workers by 2024.

Employees with a pre-existing condition will now be able to quit their job because insurers now have to insure all Americans regardless of their health status, at the same premium as everyone else. Some may have felt they needed to keep working to pay for health insurance, but now new government subsidies will help pay premiums, making it easier for them to quit their jobs.

The report clearly stated that health reform would not produce an increase in unemployment (workers unable to find jobs) or underemployment (part-time workers who would prefer to work more hours per week). It also found “no compelling evidence” that, as of now, part-time employment has increased as a result of the reform law, a frequent claim of critics. Whether that will hold up after a mandate that requires employers to provide coverage, which was delayed until 2015, kicks in is uncertain.

Holy shit.  Hard to see that much crap in such a short space and still function.

Can someone tell me how 2.5 MILLION fewer full-time workers can translate to NO increase in unemployment?  Of course I'm just an unenlightened resident of Flyover Country, so I prolly don't understand that sophisticated NY logic.

Yeh, dat's it.

Next thing ya know the Times will be claiming that massive layoffs of their employees is also "liberating."  Cuz, you know, all them enlightened types would rather collect unemployment than have a job.

It is *such* a drag having to get up and go to work every day.  Won't it be great when NO ONE has to work anymore?  After the Democrats have gotten the government to pay for all our food, clothing, housing and entertainment, and brought in millions of immigrants to keep our houses clean?  I am *so* looking forward to that! 

Wait, are you saying there's already a pressure group formed to let the *newly legalized, formerly-illegal immigrants get the same no-work deal as us?  But then who'll do the *work*?  If this no-one-has-to-work scheme was being pushed by anyone but Democrats I might even think it has a cleverly-hidden flaw that no one has yet discovered!

Do I need to add the /sarc tag?