And neither is political spin.

The first part of your linked source does not provide any actual documentation to support the claim of Obamacare NOT being a jobs killer.

“… there is slim evidence that jobs have been lost.”

The only problem is the evidence is not presented for me to make my own decisions. So, in this age of biased journalism, one has to assume that the author of the article is making his own conclusion instead of reporting the facts.

As for this talking point — Obamacare has caused an increase in part-time employment. Your linked source is being quite disingenuous. The study they performed focus on the time period from 2005–2015.

Obamacare was not passed until 2010 with the actual impact being felt starting in 2014. So, of course there is no noticeable change in part-time employment over the course of that time frame. The law was not actually being implemented.

However —

“… except for a 0.18 percentage point increase in the likelihood of working 25 to 29 hours per week between 2013 and 2014…”

Which the author immediately tried to qualify by saying that the trend predated the ACA. Well, duh…the time period for the study mostly predates the ACA. So, what other finding would they get.

Now, if you took the that statement in terms of the context of when the ACA was passed and when it took effect. That is the beginning of the trend.

And since this nothing more than political spin relying solely on statistical jargon to make an invalid point —

Why should anyone take this seriously?