CBO Director Says Obamacare Would Reduce Employment by 800,000 Workers

[Cancel 2018. 3]

CBO Director Says Obamacare Would Reduce Employment by 800,000 Workers

Testifying today before the House Budget Committee, Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Director Doug Elmendorf confirmed that Obamacare is expected to reduce the number of jobs in the labor market by an estimated 800,000. Here are excerpts from the exchange:

Chairman [Paul] Ryan: “t’s been argued...that the new health care law will create jobs and increase labor force participation. But if I recall from your analysis, it was quite the opposite. Is that not the case?”

Director [Douglas] Elmendorf : “Yes.”...

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs...-reduce-employment-800000-workers_547288.html

 

[Topspin]

If you added up all the jobs that could be lost from his socialist bent the reporst release might cause the depression they falsely warned off to get thier turbo-lib bucket list passed.

 

[Bonestorm]

CBO Director Says Obamacare Would Reduce Employment by 800,000 Workers

Testifying today before the House Budget Committee, Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Director Doug Elmendorf confirmed that Obamacare is expected to reduce the number of jobs in the labor market by an estimated 800,000. Here are excerpts from the exchange:

Chairman [Paul] Ryan: “t’s been argued...that the new health care law will create jobs and increase labor force participation. But if I recall from your analysis, it was quite the opposite. Is that not the case?”

Director [Douglas] Elmendorf : “Yes.”...

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs...-reduce-employment-800000-workers_547288.html

Please divulge for the rest of us why "labor force participation" is projected to decrease. I'll give you a hint, there is a very good reason that Ryan did not say that the law with "increase unemployment" by 800,000 or that "unemployment would increase by 0.5%."

 

[Phantasmal]

Please divulge for the rest of us why "labor force participation" is projected to decrease. I'll give you a hint, there is a very good reason that Ryan did not say that the law with "increase unemployment" by 800,000 or that "unemployment would increase by 0.5%."

Just another lie, people have insurance now and access to health care will use it, this should increase jobs! It will also decrease the number of dead beats who use the emergency room for health care and then don't pay, a Republican idea that they hate now, but they once liked it!

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/01/a-job-killing-law/

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Please divulge for the rest of us why "labor force participation" is projected to decrease. I'll give you a hint, there is a very good reason that Ryan did not say that the law with "increase unemployment" by 800,000 or that "unemployment would increase by 0.5%."

so losing 800,000 jobs is a good thing? i thought it was supposed to create new jobs, but that isn't true.

i don't know why he came up with that estimate, you seem to know, so enlighten us

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Just another lie, people have insurance now and access to health care will use it, this should increase jobs! It will also decrease the number of dead beats who use the emergency room for health care and then don't pay, a Republican idea that they hate now, but they once liked it!

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/01/a-job-killing-law/

you're calling the director a liar?

Chairman [Paul] Ryan: “t’s been argued...that the new health care law will create jobs and increase labor force participation. But if I recall from your analysis, it was quite the opposite. Is that not the case?”

Director [Douglas] Elmendorf : “Yes.”...

 

[Phantasmal]

you're calling the director a liar?

yep, I guess that I am, more people using health care and having insurance will cause a growth in the industry and it will mean more jobs.

 

[Bonestorm]

so losing 800,000 jobs is a good thing? i thought it was supposed to create new jobs, but that isn't true.

You are being imprecise in your terminology. Your statement is incorrect. We will not lose jobs. Instead, "labor market participation" will decline. When you get the bottom of why you will see your error.

i don't know why he came up with that estimate, you seem to know, so enlighten us

I'd rather you go figure it out for yourself. It can be a learning experience for you. Basically, the Weekly Standard lies (here, by omission) to its readers.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

You are being imprecise in your terminology. Your statement is incorrect. We will not lose jobs. Instead, "labor market participation" will decline. When you get the bottom of why you will see your error.




I'd rather you go figure it out for yourself. It can be a learning experience for you. Basically, the Weekly Standard lies (here, by omission) to its readers.

....if you have a link that shows the weekly standard is lying, i would like to see it. its silly of you to claim their lying and then demand i figure it out. you made the claim, back it up big boy.

further, he said in the beginning that it is not true it will create jobs, he said the opposite is true.....so obama and pelosi lied?

 

[zappasguitar]

Please divulge for the rest of us why "labor force participation" is projected to decrease. I'll give you a hint, there is a very good reason that Ryan did not say that the law with "increase unemployment" by 800,000 or that "unemployment would increase by 0.5%."

Well, since Yurt's going to play stupid on this one...can I take a shot?

I think they arrived at the number because, after HCR is implemented, many people who had previously remained employed so they could have access to "affordable" healthcare through their job, will simply retire or take a part time job.

Am I close?

 

[Liberty]

For all you anti-marxist out there.

This is some of what a bunch of good for nothing marxists want for you.

Why they love it like they do, I'll never know.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HnkxIh62dQ*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HnkxIh62dQ

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Well, since Yurt's going to play stupid on this one...can I take a shot?

I think they arrived at the number because, after HCR is implemented, many people who had previously remained employed so they could have access to "affordable" healthcare through their job, will simply retire or take a part time job.

Am I close?

Chairman [Paul] Ryan: “t’s been argued...that the new health care law will create jobs and increase labor force participation. But if I recall from your analysis, it was quite the opposite. Is that not the case?”

Director [Douglas] Elmendorf : “Yes.”...

 

[Bonestorm]

....if you have a link that shows the weekly standard is lying, i would like to see it. its silly of you to claim their lying and then demand i figure it out. you made the claim, back it up big boy.

I'd rather leave you twisting in the wind. You should pay more attention to both the precision of the language used (and that you ignore) and the Weekly Standard's use of elipses. You might also benefit from attempting to locate the CBO analysis that is being discussed.

further, he said in the beginning that it is not true it will create jobs, he said the opposite is true.....so obama and pelosi lied?

No, he said it would decrease labor market participation, which is different from saying it will result in a loss of jobs and is different from saying it will reduce employment by 800,000 workers. Again, pay close attention to the precise language used. You should not that even in the clipped excepts from the Weekly Standard there is no testimony that the law "will not create jobs."

 

[zappasguitar]

I'd rather leave you twisting in the wind. You should pay more attention to both the precision of the language used (and that you ignore) and the Weekly Standard's use of elipses. You might also benefit from attempting to locate the CBO analysis that is being discussed.




No, he said it would decrease labor market participation, which is different from saying it will result in a loss of jobs and is different from saying it will reduce employment by 800,000 workers. Again, pay close attention to the precise language used. You should not that even in the clipped excepts from the Weekly Standard there is no testimony that the law "will not create jobs."

Right.

This means that roughly 800,000 workers will opt to retire and not remain a "Labor Market Participant" when Healthcare becomes available somewhere other than their through their employer.

 

[Bonestorm]

Well, since Yurt's going to play stupid on this one...can I take a shot?

I think they arrived at the number because, after HCR is implemented, many people who had previously remained employed so they could have access to "affordable" healthcare through their job, will simply retire or take a part time job.

Am I close?

And we have a winner. The 0.5% reduction in labor market participation is based on projections that people that currently work full time jobs just so that they get health insurance will no longer work full time jobs. Or, as the CBO Director put it:

The legislation will reduce the amount of labor used in the economy by roughly half a percent, primarily by reducing the amount of labor that workers choose to supply.

http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/119xx/doc11945/USC10-22-10.pdf

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

And we have a winner. The 0.5% reduction in labor market participation is based on projections that people that currently work full time jobs just so that they get health insurance will no longer work full time jobs. Or, as the CBO Director put it:



http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/119xx/doc11945/USC10-22-10.pdf

So without jobs, how exactly are they going to pay for the health care now?

Are these 800k people then people who cannot get insurance on their own?

Because the only reason you would go to work solely to get health insurance would be because you can't qualify for insurance on your own.

Yeah... I can see how Obamacare will reduce the deficit.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

I'd rather leave you twisting in the wind. You should pay more attention to both the precision of the language used (and that you ignore) and the Weekly Standard's use of elipses. You might also benefit from attempting to locate the CBO analysis that is being discussed.




No, he said it would decrease labor market participation, which is different from saying it will result in a loss of jobs and is different from saying it will reduce employment by 800,000 workers. Again, pay close attention to the precise language used. You should not that even in the clipped excepts from the Weekly Standard there is no testimony that the law "will not create jobs."

Chairman [Paul] Ryan: “t’s been argued...that the new health care law will create jobs and increase labor force participation. But if I recall from your analysis, it was quite the opposite. Is that not the case?”

Director [Douglas] Elmendorf : “Yes.”...

precise language.....claim - will create jobs - reality -quite the opposite - YES

 

[Bonestorm]

So without jobs, how exactly are they going to pay for the health care now?

With money.

Are these 800k people then people who cannot get insurance on their own?

The are no 800,000 people. That's a made up number.

Because the only reason you would go to work solely to get health insurance would be because you can't qualify for insurance on your own.

Yes, and?

Yeah... I can see how Obamacare will reduce the deficit.

Good.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

With money.

Whose money.

The are no 800,000 people. That's a made up number.

It is not a made up number. It is math. If 0.5% of people leave the labor pool, that equates to roughly 800k people. I know math is not typically a liberals strong suit, but come on.... that one is pretty simple.

Yes, and?

So you have 800k people who are not in good health jumping on the Obamacare. I am sure they will be paying for it all on their own.

Good.

Sorry, forgot I have to spell things out for morons like you. That was sarcasm. there is no way in hell Obama care won't add to the deficit.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Chairman [Paul] Ryan: “t’s been argued...that the new health care law will create jobs and increase labor force participation. But if I recall from your analysis, it was quite the opposite. Is that not the case?”

Director [Douglas] Elmendorf : “Yes.”...

precise language.....claim - will create jobs - reality -quite the opposite - YES

There is a difference Yurt.

800k people CHOOSING to leave the labor force is a guesstimate for one. It is not that Obamacare will FORCE them out or cause companies to fire them.

In actuality, by their CHOOSING to leave the labor force, it could actually increase job openings for those that want them, thus reducing the unemployment rate.