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

[Bonestorm]

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

You can spin it any way you like.

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

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

I'm sure that if your employer decided to pay you in the Twinkie equivalent of your annual dollar salary you would understand the difference.

The last sentence is an estimate, but it is an estimate of the decline in labor market participation, not an estimate of the number of full time employees that would withdraw from the work force. There is a difference.

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.

For some people it is cheaper. For others it is not.

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.

It is probably safe to say that they could not obtain affordable health insurance in the individual market comparable to what they get from their employers.

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?

And 400,000 Little Debbie's snack cakes equate to $100,000, but they ain't the same thing.

Some people would choose not to work at all while others may choose to work on a part time basis.

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

No, it doesn't It means that they are estimating that the the number of hours worked would be reduced by the equivalent of 800,000 full time employees. There is a difference.

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'

The Meidcare reimbursement rates have nothing to do with the law. They are an entirely separate matter. If "Obamacare" never existed, the Medicare reimbursement rate issue would still exist and would still be an issue, as it has been every year since 2003.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I'm sure that if your employer decided to pay you in the Twinkie equivalent of your annual dollar salary you would understand the difference.

So in other words, you are not going to tell us what the difference is? Why is that Nigel. You implied there is a clear difference, yet you are unable to describe it to us???

The last sentence is an estimate, but it is an estimate of the decline in labor market participation, not an estimate of the number of full time employees that would withdraw from the work force. There is a difference.

Again, you are stamping your feet and whining about semantics. It is in effect an estimate in the drop of labor participation.

For some people it is cheaper. For others it is not.

100% incorrect. For those that are insurable, qualifying for insurance on your own is always cheaper vs. being a part of a guaranteed plan. Always.

The reason is that with a guaranteed plan you are subsidizing those that would not be able to get insurance on their own.

It is probably safe to say that they could not obtain affordable health insurance in the individual market comparable to what they get from their employers.

LOL... wrong again. You know nothing of the insurance world if you believe that. The above is only true if they CAN'T qualify for insurance on their own or if their employer is paying 100% of the health care costs.

The Meidcare reimbursement rates have nothing to do with the law. They are an entirely separate matter. If "Obamacare" never existed, the Medicare reimbursement rate issue would still exist and would still be an issue, as it has been every year since 2003.

yeah, that is why they pulled it out of the bill... because they knew it would come back as adding to the deficit. You can pretend Medicare reimbursement has nothing to do with our nations health care costs all you want. But when you EXPAND the medicare/medicaid rolls in one bill (adding the benefit) without including medicare reimbursement costs, you are being completely dishonest to say that the bill is deficit reducing. You cannot include the benefit without including the cost.... unless you are a dishonest hack. Especially when the 'deficit reduction' is dependent upon your making those cuts.... those cuts that NEVER happen.