CBO Director Says ObamaCare Will Drive People From the Workforce

[WillowTree]

“For the economy outside the health sector, the most significant impact of the legislation will be through the labor market,” Elmendorf said on Oct. 22. “We estimated that the legislation, on net, will reduce the amount of labor used in the economy by roughly half a percent, primarily by reducing the amount that people choose to work.”

He explained that people would choose not to work because they could subsist on the generous federal insurance subsidies and Medicaid payments contained in the health care overhaul.

“Some provisions of the legislation will discourage people from working more hours or entering the workforce, and other provisions will encourage them to work more,” he said, adding that “[t]he net reduction in the supply of labor is largely attributable to the substantial expansion of Medicaid and the provision of subsidies through the new insurance exchanges.”

Read more:

CBO Director Says ObamaCare Will Drive People From the Workforce | CNSnews.com

Is this the same Fucktard who told us it would save us a shitload of money and "bend the cost curve" He can get bent for all I care.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Is the Dem-led Worst Congress in History gone yet? Maybe next time we'll have a Congress that actually reads Legislation before voting on it. I guess we'll see.

 

[The Rabbi]

Is the Dem-led Worst Congress in History gone yet? Maybe next time we'll have a Congress that actually reads Legislation before voting on it. I guess we'll see.

Read the bill????
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t32ckkdlcao&feature=related[/ame]

 

[beowolfe]

In my lifetime, the only people I've known who worked simply to have health insurance were elderly people who needed something more than medicare (before the supplement plans) or elderly people who were carrying their grandkids. If it is the elderly who decide to opt out of the workforce because healthcare is not available to their grandkids, I don't see that as a bad thing.

 

[Greenbeard]

If your the CFO of a company and your looking to cut costs I would think very expensive benefits would probably be the first thing that gets kicked to the curb. I'm sure they would rather pay the fine.

...rather pay the fine than what? Compensate their employees for their labor? Those benefits are not somehow something extra beyond one's earnings, they're part of your earnings. Your total compensation package is what you earn and that total value (wages + benefits) is the value your employer assigns to your labor. Presumably dropping health benefits would be accompanied by some degree of wage increase. Otherwise all you're saying here is "I'm sure they'd rather slash compensation to their employees [than not]." No kidding.

You may have noticed that over the past 60 years, there's been no penalty for an employer who decides not to offer health benefits. And yet employer-sponsored coverage became firmly entrenched in our system anyway. The reasons are straightforward: 1) due to the tax code, a dollar of compensation in the form of health benefits is worth more to employer and employee alike than a dollar in wages, and 2) employees tend to demand health coverage from their employers, in no small part because (pre-reform, i.e. before 2014) the group insurance market is a much more desirable place to get coverage than the individual market.

The argument for dropping health benefits isn't simply that they cost something, which seems to be the sentiment behind comments like this. Its that the cost growth of health benefits isn't under the employer's control. Hence the design of Utah's small business health insurance exchange, which is based on a defined employer contribution, regardless of the plan an employee chooses or the economic circumstances of that particular year:

There's no uncertainty about the size of the employee's total compensation package under that sort of arrangement. Employers can specify that a position pays X in wages and Y in health benefits and employees who choose a plan costing more than Y will make up the difference themselves.

Anyway, the point here is that paying the fine doesn't get you off the hook from paying your employees.

 

[thereisnospoon]

If your the CFO of a company and your looking to cut costs I would think very expensive benefits would probably be the first thing that gets kicked to the curb. I'm sure they would rather pay the fine.

...rather pay the fine than what? Compensate their employees for their labor? Those benefits are not somehow something extra beyond one's earnings, they're part of your earnings. Your total compensation package is what you earn and that total value (wages + benefits) is the value your employer assigns to your labor. Presumably dropping health benefits would be accompanied by some degree of wage increase. Otherwise all you're saying here is "I'm sure they'd rather slash compensation to their employees [than not]." No kidding.

You may have noticed that over the past 60 years, there's been no penalty for an employer who decides not to offer health benefits. And yet employer-sponsored coverage became firmly entrenched in our system anyway. The reasons are straightforward: 1) due to the tax code, a dollar of compensation in the form of health benefits is worth more to employer and employee alike than a dollar in wages, and 2) employees tend to demand health coverage from their employers, in no small part because (pre-reform, i.e. before 2014) the group insurance market is a much more desirable place to get coverage than the individual market.

The argument for dropping health benefits isn't simply that they cost something, which seems to be the sentiment behind comments like this. Its that the cost growth of health benefits isn't under the employer's control. Hence the design of Utah's small business health insurance exchange, which is based on a defined employer contribution, regardless of the plan an employee chooses or the economic circumstances of that particular year:

There's no uncertainty about the size of the employee's total compensation package under that sort of arrangement. Employers can specify that a position pays X in wages and Y in health benefits and employees who choose a plan costing more than Y will make up the difference themselves.

Anyway, the point here is that paying the fine doesn't get you off the hook from paying your employees.

Emplyer provided health insurance plans are NOT part of the employee's compensation. Employers provide insurance coverage as a "fringe benefit". Years ago as the job market became morfe competitive, employers added fringe benefits as a means to attract the best applicants for open positions.
If emplyer provided insurances were in fact part of the compensation package, the emplyee would then be taxed on the value of the policy. In fact this is what Obamacare would do to the employer insurances, tax the value of the policy as income.
The Obamacare plan makes no provision for employers that drop insursance coverage to do anything except pay the fine.
Where did you get the idea that companies would increase salaries? The idea of dropping coverage comes from Obamacare. That's why the fine ( tax) is so low. The desing is to make it easy for the employer to send the employee to the federal insurance( socialized medicine) policy.
Obamacare was desinged to do two things. First, thing was to make sure the pharma companies could still trun a profit( they helped write the bill) and second, shove as many people toward dependence on government for their health insurance as possible.

 

[The Rabbi]

No, Snotbeard is right that "fringe" benefits are part of your overall compensation. Lots of things are, like commute time and working conditions. It's why people sometimes take a job that pays less than one that pays more.
What he's wrong about is that employers will continue what they have done. Costs to employers have exploded. At some point it is not feasible to offer health insurance. And paying the penalty and dropping the plan will be cheaper. Every corporation that offers health benefits is having this very conversation with their accountant right now.
If every employer drops their plan then there is no competition.
The employees won't necessarily feel it because Obamacare will pay the part of their health insurance that their employer was paying previously. Eventually taxes will have to rise to pay for that, of course. Assuming the system doesn't bankrupt totally beforehand.

As to Utah's plan: That works fine while the employee's share is low enough. But as costs rise, as they do, the employee pays more and more until he can't afford it either.
No one has ever shown that such "exchanges" actually low insurance costs,btw.

 

[asterism]

These are teh people who were UNABLE to retire do to the costs of health insurance.

I have an uncle who was forced back to work after retiring because his wifes illness.

You mean Medicare didn't work?

Why is nationalizing Medicare a good option then?

 

[asterism]

In my lifetime, the only people I've known who worked simply to have health insurance were elderly people who needed something more than medicare (before the supplement plans) or elderly people who were carrying their grandkids. If it is the elderly who decide to opt out of the workforce because healthcare is not available to their grandkids, I don't see that as a bad thing.

A valid point, and that is the Progressive agenda. Why didn't they say that when they were selling this bill?

 

[asterism]

No, Snotbeard is right that "fringe" benefits are part of your overall compensation. Lots of things are, like commute time and working conditions. It's why people sometimes take a job that pays less than one that pays more.
What he's wrong about is that employers will continue what they have done. Costs to employers have exploded. At some point it is not feasible to offer health insurance. And paying the penalty and dropping the plan will be cheaper. Every corporation that offers health benefits is having this very conversation with their accountant right now.
If every employer drops their plan then there is no competition.
The employees won't necessarily feel it because Obamacare will pay the part of their health insurance that their employer was paying previously. Eventually taxes will have to rise to pay for that, of course. Assuming the system doesn't bankrupt totally beforehand.

As to Utah's plan: That works fine while the employee's share is low enough. But as costs rise, as they do, the employee pays more and more until he can't afford it either.
No one has ever shown that such "exchanges" actually low insurance costs,btw.

All sorts of people have ideas on what companies should do, but they lack the actual expertise to do it themselves.

And then they shit on companies for doing it themselves. This isn't about healthcare, it's about the Progressive agenda and more government control.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Seriously,we can't get rid of this Dem-led Worst U.S. Congress in History fast enough. Come on Nov.2nd!

 

[thereisnospoon]

These are teh people who were UNABLE to retire do to the costs of health insurance.

I have an uncle who was forced back to work after retiring because his wifes illness.

You mean Medicare didn't work?

Why is nationalizing Medicare a good option then?

The response to your query will be " well that's different!".
Liberalism is defined by repaeting the same mistakes and expecting a different result.
Whenever the policies of failure ( SS, welfare, toher entitlements) are called out, the freeloading libs all retort with some nonsense such as "well at least it's something". Or, "you conservatives hate people who are less fortunate"..
No reasoning. Just angry rhetoric. Because that is all the Left has.