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

[Cancel 2018. 3]

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.

i know they're choosing, but his plan is obviously creating a desire to not work. it doesn't necessarily mean those jobs will be filled....and he stated that the bill will not create jobs. he said the opposite is true. but the standard weekly did mislead that it would be jobs lost by 800K. but the guy did say it would not create jobs, he said the opposite is true.

 

[DamnYankee]

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

Isn't it his goal? More on welfare = more Democrat votes.

 

[DamnYankee]

...

Am I close?

No.

 

[tinfoil]

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.

My god you are a simpleton.
Yeah, that's the only possible result!! durrrhhhh!!


What's likely to happen is many jobs will be lost because employers can not afford to pay for health insurance on employees that do not provide enough profit to justify the expense. for example, food service jobs.

But we'll just wait and see. The left wings economic idiots think people will be able to afford $10 burgers

 

[tinfoil]

Nigel doesn't get that "create jobs" and "increase labor market participation" are essentially the same thing.

 

[Cancel9]

Ever notice that some folks quote the CBO when the CBO seems to favor their argument but deride the CBO as a source when it doesn't?

 

[Bonestorm]

Whose money.

Their money and money provided through subsidies.

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.

No, it's a made up number. It assumes that 800,000 full time employees will decide not to work when the reality is that the labor output will reduce by the equivalent of 800,000 full time employees.

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.

No, you have people who would otherwise not work as much not working as much. Again, it isn't 800,000 people and it isn't safe to assume that they are not in good health.

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.

Whatever.

 

[Damocles]

Ever notice that some folks quote the CBO when the CBO seems to favor their argument but deride the CBO as a source when it doesn't?

I notice that pretty much everybody does that. They also do it with opinion pieces from various newspapers, etc.

Me. I pretty much always say the CBO is just guessing and can't even use realistic numbers if it is clear the Congress' presented numbers are simply fabrication based on the result they want.

I do find it amazing that with even that going for them, they couldn't present the CBO with numbers that would reflect the result that they wanted.

 

[Schadenfreude]

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

it is not that the jobs will be lost but that the holders of those jobs will quit them because they only keep the jobs for the health insurance

next time try getting the whole truth instead of a fraction

 

[Good Luck]

Talk about the lamest spin on the face of the planet. The original claim is that the HCR law will CREATE jobs. Now, the director of CBO is saying it will "do the opposite". What is the opposite of creating jobs? Seems to me that means we are going to start losing jobs due to HCR.

Clue: if people will start leaving their positions because HCR allows them to retire earlier (LOL - who the fuck actually believes that tripe?) that would open those positions to others who are currently unemployed. Yet "quite the opposite" (of creating jobs) does NOT describe a scenario where jobs are opened up to the unemployed, does it?

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

it is not that the jobs will be lost but that the holders of those jobs will quit them because they only keep the jobs for the health insurance

next time try getting the whole truth instead of a fraction

and you guys ignore that he said the h/c bill will NOT create jobs, it will do the opposite....practice what you preach

 

[Bonestorm]

I notice that pretty much everybody does that. They also do it with opinion pieces from various newspapers, etc.

Me. I pretty much always say the CBO is just guessing and can't even use realistic numbers if it is clear the Congress' presented numbers are simply fabrication based on the result they want.

You're basically saying all economics is guessing. Well, that's helpful.

And the Congress doesn't present the CBO with numbers, let alone fabricated numbers. This oft-repeated claim is simply Republican bullshit that is stated over and over and over and over and over again by Republican hacks notwithstanding its falsity because reality has a liberal bias.

I do find it amazing that with even that going for them, they couldn't present the CBO with numbers that would reflect the result that they wanted.

Right. Like the GOP and the repeal bill? Again, if what you claim is true and Congress can simply give the GOP garbage data to get garbage results then the GOP would have done that with the repeal bill. But that ain't what happened.

Jackass.

 

[Damocles]

You're basically saying all economics is guessing. Well, that's helpful.

And the Congress doesn't present the CBO with numbers, let alone fabricated numbers. This oft-repeated claim is simply Republican bullshit that is stated over and over and over and over and over again by Republican hacks notwithstanding its falsity because reality has a liberal bias.



Right. Like the GOP and the repeal bill? Again, if what you claim is true and Congress can simply give the GOP garbage data to get garbage results then the GOP would have done that with the repeal bill. But that ain't what happened.

Jackass.

No, that isn't what I am saying. I am saying that garbage in equals garbage out.

When they are directly under a provision that says they cannot use any numbers but the presumed numbers given them by Congress, they can only get the preconceived result that Congress gives them numbers to produce.

If the CBO wasn't under the restriction to use the presented numbers given by Congress and to presume that tax law will not change from the present, I believe we could and would get more accurate reports from the CBO. But since they are under those restrictions, we only get reports that state what they were carefully designed to create by the majority in Congress.

 

[Bonestorm]

No, that isn't what I am saying. I am saying that garbage in equals garbage out.

When they are directly under a provision that says they cannot use any numbers but the presumed numbers given them by Congress, they can only get the preconceived result that Congress gives them numbers to produce.

If the CBO wasn't under the restriction to use the presented numbers given by Congress and to presume that tax law will not change from the present, I believe we could and would get more accurate reports from the CBO. But since they are under those restrictions, we only get reports that state what they were carefully designed to create by the majority in Congress.

Except that, again, if that were true, then the House GOP majority would have given the CBO the necessary garbage data to get a garbage CBO report that the repeal law would not increase the deficit. But again, that's not what happened. And that's not what happened, because you are not correct.

 

[Bfgrn]

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.

EXACTLY

 

[Damocles]

Except that, again, if that were true, then the House GOP majority would have given the CBO the necessary garbage data to get a garbage CBO report that the repeal law would not increase the deficit. But again, that's not what happened. And that's not what happened, because you are not correct.

It would depend on if they thought it would be an effective tool. In this case the GOP holds only one majority and doesn't control all of the data, they seem to think it is more effective to point out the "garbage in" that created the original report rather than generate an equal and opposite "garbage in" report.

Throughout they have effectively pointed this out, so much that we constantly hear how "the message" wasn't effectively communicated by the Administration.

Simply pointing out the truth appears to be having the desired effect. I suspect the GOP will create their own "garbage in" report when they present their alternative, at that point we will have another battle of "message".

If the CBO was the only tool to get out a "message" then your zero sum argument would make sense, but since in reality there are many methods of "message" battle, it doesn't necessarily follow that they would use only that one method.

 

[Bfgrn]

Republicans sponsored a bill they call the Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act, which is likely to come up for a vote early next week. The bill will probably pass the House, where the Republicans have a majority, but will likely fail in the Democrat-controlled Senate. Even if it passed the Senate, though, President Obama would certainly veto the proposal.

The Republicans have based their claim that the law will kill 1.6 million jobs on an August 2010 report by the Congressional Budget Office, which said the Affordable Care Act would reduce the amount of labor in the economy by about 0.5%, because more people would choose to retire earlier, thanks to the reduced cost of health insurance.

But as an analysis by FactCheck.org points out, having people leave the job market because it has become financially possible for them to retire is entirely different from killing jobs. The FactCheck report says, in part: "The House Republican leadership. . . badly misrepresents what the Congressional Budget Office has said about the law. In fact, CBO is among those saying the effect 'will probably be small.'"

Daily Finance

Summary

When it comes to truth in labeling, House Republicans are getting off to a poor start with their constantly repeated references to the new health care law as "job-killing."

We find:

* Independent, nonpartisan experts project only a "small" or "minimal" impact on jobs, even before taking likely job gains in the health care and insurance industries into account.

* The House Republican leadership, in a report issued Jan. 6, badly misrepresents what the Congressional Budget Office has said about the law. In fact, CBO is among those saying the effect "will probably be small."

* The GOP also cites a study projecting a 1.6 million job loss — but fails to mention that the study refers to a hypothetical employer mandate that is not part of the new law.

* The same study cited by the GOP also predicts an offsetting gain of 890,000 jobs in hospitals, doctors’ offices and insurance companies — a factor not mentioned by the House leadership.

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

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Their money and money provided through subsidies.

Its ok.... you can say it... it will be paid for with their money and OTHER peoples money

No, it's a made up number. It assumes that 800,000 full time employees will decide not to work when the reality is that the labor output will reduce by the equivalent of 800,000 full time employees.

It is an estimate, so if you want to stomp your feet about it being made up, then I suppose I won't argue it as every estimate is 'made up'. So I guess you have proven that the budget surplus numbers were made up numbers as well. I am sure they weren't based on anything either.

No, you have people who would otherwise not work as much not working as much. Again, it isn't 800,000 people and it isn't safe to assume that they are not in good health.

1) If people were working just to get health care insurance then it IS safe to say they are not insurable on their own. Otherwise they would get insured on their own... which is typically far cheaper than being in a corporate plan.

2) your first sentence is comical. you just can't bring yourself to say it can you.... the estimate is that 800k people would leave the labor force due to Obama care. That is the estimate. You can either tell us you think the government is wrong on that or you can accept it. Your choice.

Whatever.

I am 100% positive it will add to the deficit. There is no doubt. The ONLY reason the bill came back showing it would reduce the deficit is because they took out the Medicare fix and put it in a bill on its own. You and I both know that is completely dishonest.

 

[Bonestorm]

Its ok.... you can say it... it will be paid for with their money and OTHER peoples money

Right, their money and subsidies.

It is an estimate, so if you want to stomp your feet about it being made up, then I suppose I won't argue it as every estimate is 'made up'. So I guess you have proven that the budget surplus numbers were made up numbers as well. I am sure they weren't based on anything either.

It isn't an estimate. It's an equivalence. There is a difference. If the estimate were that 800,000 people would stop working, that's what Elmendorf would have said. He didn't. Instead, he said that labor market participate would decline from what it otherwise would be in 2019 by 0.5%.

1) If people were working just to get health care insurance then it IS safe to say they are not insurable on their own. Otherwise they would get insured on their own... which is typically far cheaper than being in a corporate plan.

Not really.

2) your first sentence is comical. you just can't bring yourself to say it can you.... the estimate is that 800k people would leave the labor force due to Obama care. That is the estimate. You can either tell us you think the government is wrong on that or you can accept it. Your choice.

No, the estimate is that labor market participate would decline by 0.5% from what it otherwise would be, which is equivalent, in terms of hours worked, to 800,000 full time people choosing not to work. It doesn't mean that 800,000 full time people will leave the labor force.

I am 100% positive it will add to the deficit. There is no doubt. The ONLY reason the bill came back showing it would reduce the deficit is because they took out the Medicare fix and put it in a bill on its own. You and I both know that is completely dishonest.

The law is projected to decrease the deficit. Medicare reimbursement rates are a different matter.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Right, their money and subsidies.

LMAO... you just can't admit it is OTHER people's money

It isn't an estimate. It's an equivalence. There is a difference. If the estimate were that 800,000 people would stop working, that's what Elmendorf would have said. He didn't. Instead, he said that labor market participate would decline from what it otherwise would be in 2019 by 0.5%.

Oh... do please explain the difference between an estimate and an equivalence.

Then show us how your last sentence is not an estimate.

Not really.

Not really what? Not really insurance isn't cheaper for those that can get it on their own? It is. Hands down. It isn't even close.

Thus, for people who claim they are only working so that they can get health care... it IS safe to say they are not healthy enough to qualify for health care on their own.

No, the estimate is that labor market participate would decline by 0.5% from what it otherwise would be, which is equivalent, in terms of hours worked, to 800,000 full time people choosing not to work. It doesn't mean that 800,000 full time people will leave the labor force.

I really don't comprehend why it is you are flailing away on this topic with a bunch of semantics. Elmendorf stated that the labor for would be reduced by 0.5% due to people CHOOSING not to work. That equates to 800k people. Now tell us genius.... why would someone who CHOSE to no longer work, still work?

So yes, it DOES mean they are estimating that around 800k people would leave the labor pool.

The law is projected to decrease the deficit. Medicare reimbursement rates are a different matter.

LMAO.... so you buy into the dishonest smoke and mirrors. Not surprising really. You have always shown yourself to be a complete hack for your Dem masters.

Dem masters: 'Hey I know.... let's factor all the savings into one bill... and champion how much it will reduce the deficit. Then we can have a second bill that contains the major expenses and will raise the deficit. We will pretend the second bill has nothing to do with the first. '

Nigel: 'that is a great idea master. I will now run around and parrot your message that the health care bill lowers the deficit'

Dem Masters: 'good little parrot. here is your cracker for the day'