CBO DIRECTOR says Obamaocare would reduce employment by 800,000 workers
-
Anyway...
To all of you who aren't Cal or T, the CBO did not say that the bill would eliminate 800,000 jobs. It said it would reduce the supply of labor by about half a percentage point over ten years:
"The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the legislation, on net, will reduce the amount of labor used in the economy by a small amount—roughly half a percent—primarily by reducing the amount of labor that workers choose to supply."
Essentially, what they're saying is that the program will make people better off, and that some people who now only work in order to keep their health insurance benefits will be able to find better options, like working less and buying insurance on their own, or retiring and buying insurance on their own.
It's a measure of workers, mostly the elderly, who will be able to choose to work less because the law provides them more affordable health care options. It's not a measure of jobs that employers will eliminate.
Hope that helps.
Anyway...
To all of you who aren't Cal or T, the CBO did not say that the bill would eliminate 800,000 jobs. It said it would reduce the supply of labor by about half a percentage point over ten years:
"The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the legislation, on net, will reduce the amount of labor used in the economy by a small amount—roughly half a percent—primarily by reducing the amount of labor that workers choose to supply."
Essentially, what they're saying is that the program will make people better off, and that some people who now only work in order to keep their health insurance benefits will be able to find better options, like working less and buying insurance on their own, or retiring and buying insurance on their own.
It's a measure of workers, mostly the elderly, who will be able to choose to work less because the law provides them more affordable health care options. It's not a measure of jobs that employers will eliminate.
Hope that helps.
So we get some free shit then work less. So less taxes paid from a reduction of work will help pay for the new health care? I am not knocking on anyones gang here, but this seems to be a precursor for elimination of social security
-
So correct me if I'm actually wrong.
You're saying that this number is those who could now not have to work in order to get health coverage and could choose to leave the workforce.
And that most will be elderly, correct?
Aren't the elderly already on Medicare and if so are you saying the out of pocket for medicare recipients will be lower?
I've not heard that from either side.
WSS
-
Anyway...
To all of you who aren't Cal or T, the CBO did not say that the bill would eliminate 800,000 jobs. It said it would reduce the supply of labor by about half a percentage point over ten years:
"The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the legislation, on net, will reduce the amount of labor used in the economy by a small amount—roughly half a percent—primarily by reducing the amount of labor that workers choose to supply."
Essentially, what they're saying is that the program will make people better off, and that some people who now only work in order to keep their health insurance benefits will be able to find better options, like working less and buying insurance on their own, or retiring and buying insurance on their own.
It's a measure of workers, mostly the elderly, who will be able to choose to work less because the law provides them more affordable health care options. It's not a measure of jobs that employers will eliminate.
Hope that helps.
So we get some free shit then work less. So less taxes paid from a reduction of work will help pay for the new health care? I am not knocking on anyones gang here, but this seems to be a precursor for elimination of social security
So we get some free shit then work less. So less taxes paid from a reduction of work will help pay for the new health care? I am not knocking on anyones gang here, but this seems to be a precursor for elimination of social security
No, sort of, and no.
For the last time, it's not free. (Of course, I don't imagine this will be the last time someone will suggest that it's "free shit" or "handouts", but I can dream.) People are going to pay for their health insurance. It's still going to be expensive.
Secondly, while a reduction in hours worked will reduce the amount those specific people pay in taxes, it's not a large amount of people and it's not going to have an major effect on whether or not the bill gets paid for. According to the CBO, of course, the bill is paid for - and then some. It reduces the deficit.
Again, let me remind you: when Bush put through a prescription drug bill that cost almost the same amount as Obama's health care bill, he did it without paying for one cent of it. No new taxes were raised. No new funding mechanisms were proposed. He didn't cut anything to offset the costs. He put it all on the credit card. And not one of you said a thing. Not one.
Obama's plan uses a combination of tax hikes, cuts in services, and finds efficiencies to pay for his plan. And the right freaks. And gives speeches about fiscal responsibility. It's a little too much to take without laughing.
And Social Security has nothing to do with this.
-
So correct me if I'm actually wrong.
You're saying that this number is those who could now not have to work in order to get health coverage and could choose to leave the workforce.
And that most will be elderly, correct?
Aren't the elderly already on Medicare and if so are you saying the out of pocket for medicare recipients will be lower?
I've not heard that from either side.
WSS
So correct me if I'm actually wrong.
You're saying that this number is those who could now not have to work in order to get health coverage and could choose to leave the workforce.
And that most will be elderly, correct?
WSS
Yes. But I should sub in "older people" for "elderly." Most of them will be people of means who can afford to retire or reduce their work hours earlier because there's a way to ensure health insurance coverage without having to get it through their employer.
Take a 60 year-old guy who isn't on Medicare yet, but has made and saved enough that he can go out into the individual market and buy insurance for his family. He chooses to do that instead. Of course, people can do that now. This is saying that it will allow more people to do that.
His job doesn't disappear. He simply leaves the work force. Someone else will do his job.
-
<H1 class=header>CBO Director Says Obamacare Would Reduce Employment by 800,000 Workers
**************************
Twist it anyway you want. But it's exactly opposite of what Obamao promised.
That is the point, Heck.</H1>
-
I'm not twisting anything. I'm explaining exactly what the CBO means. You're trying to twist it to have it mean something it doesn't mean - that the health care bill would eliminate 800,000 jobs. And so are many Republicans. But that's not what it means. And then you accuse me of twisting it. Ah, it's rich.
And the real explanation isn't counter to what Obama promised at all; it's exactly they wanted the health care bill to do - give people more health care options so that people aren't working simply to keep their benefits. That was a problem they wanted to address.
But hey, Cal, thanks for bringing it to everyone's attention. Glad we could clear this up.
-
Right hand, blue.
-
I'm not twisting anything. I'm explaining exactly what the CBO means. You're trying to twist it to have it mean something it doesn't mean - that the health care bill would eliminate 800,000 jobs. And so are many Republicans. But that's not what it means. And then you accuse me of twisting it. Ah, it's rich.
And the real explanation isn't counter to what Obama promised at all; it's exactly they wanted the health care bill to do - give people more health care options so that people aren't working simply to keep their benefits. That was a problem they wanted to address.
But hey, Cal, thanks for bringing it to everyone's attention. Glad we could clear this up.
I'm not twisting anything. I'm explaining exactly what the CBO means. You're trying to twist it to have it mean something it doesn't mean - that the health care bill would eliminate 800,000 jobs. And so are many Republicans. But that's not what it means. And then you accuse me of twisting it. Ah, it's rich.
And the real explanation isn't counter to what Obama promised at all; it's exactly they wanted the health care bill to do - give people more health care options so that people aren't working simply to keep their benefits. That was a problem they wanted to address.
But hey, Cal, thanks for bringing it to everyone's attention. Glad we could clear this up.
Umm. A lot of folks will need to pick up an extra part time job because they are being told that they have to buy healthcare insurance or they will get fined!!
And if employers dont want to give every mininum wage earner who works for them a raise, they will simply just cut them loose or make them part time workers. Either way everyone will have to buy health care insurance even if they have to work 3 part time jobs to pay for it.
Does it sound fair to the average Joe who only earns no more than $10 bucks an hour to tell them they have to buy something when everything in their world is going up due to inflation and devaluation of our dollar. And dont tell me these folks will get it for free; because everyone knows that somebody is going to pay for it.
-
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.”...
**************************************
so the director admits that the hc law WHICH IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, will DECREASE the work force then,
by 800.00 jobs, instead of CREATING JOBS.
What the hell are you arguing about? The effect of the bill, in all sorts of parts, does NOT do what it says it will do.
Very few Dems who voted for it, READ it.
It's a bad, very, very bad bill. And our country cannot afford it, by anyone's estimation, who has any honesty about it.
Even Obamao admits some parts have to be fixed or eliminated.
The entire bill is unConstitutional, so much so, that the left is trying desperately to stack the deck on the U.S.
Supreme Court by trying to intimidate a conservative Justice to not be a part of the vote. Hah.
Smaller "labor supply" means fewer jobs = Obamaocare is a gigantic farce that will not be funded.
-
No, Cal. There's a difference between the labor supply and net job creation. They're two different subjects. This is the whole point, which you're missing.
-
Oh, stop your quibbling.
Labor supply is creating employment for people, right?
Or not?
What's the freakin definition of "is", now ???
-
No, that's not what the labor supply is.
-
Then you should have started your own thread.
Go talk to the CBO director if ya don't like his message.
I TOLD ya that the entire Obamaocare bill was UNConstitutional. But no-o-o-o-o-oo-,
you wouldn't listen. "Can you hear me now?"
-
Um, sure.
(Backs away slowly.)
-
I'd be a little skeptical of that job windfall as it looks like lots of peoples care is going to cost more forcing them to stay in or return to the labor pool.
We'll see.
WSS
-
As long as we understand what the CBO is saying, you can be skeptical all you like. Of course, your skepticism is based on your hunch rather than any evidence or data, while the CBO's figures are based on dozens of people crunching numbers for months, but I can't do anything to make you value the latter more than the former, even though you should.
As long as we know changes to the labor supply are different than job creation/elimination, I'm good.
Yay.
-
I admit it still seems like smoke and mirrors, double talk,
and what the definition of "is" is.
And I don't think it's my fault.
And, I think that if Heck won't take the bet HE again initiated, because of the tomatoes
clause, then he's a stimply, oogly-moogly, hopscotch-skipping, egg-laying doosel-wug.
-
Cal, you're priceless.
You post something the CBO said about the health care bill because you think it's devastating to the liberal cause. Then you say I'll probably ignore it because it's devastating to the liberal cause.
I post that you don't understand what the man is saying, and then explain what he's saying. Suddenly, the CBO man you were just touting and daring me to recognize is saying something that "seems like smoke and mirrors, double talk, and what the definition of "is" is."
And it's not your fault that you didn't know what he meant.
And for the millionth time, I'll admit I'm ashamed to point out that an idiot doesn't know anything.
-
Nonetheless the report is based on too many ifs to use as a selling point.
IMO.
WSS
-
Then why do it at all?
The point is to use the best available data to measure the effects of legislation. It's not always precise. It's terribly complicated. But we can't ignore the conclusions when they're inconvenient to our arguments, and then trot them out when they say what we want them to say.
Plus, we should at least know what the arguments are before we trot them out.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login