ObamaCare: The Job Destroyer

[boedicca]

The Obamanoids are quite fond of citing the CBO in defense of ObamaCare. It now turns out that the CBO believes ObamaCare will destroy 800,000 jobs.

How Hopey Change is that?

Chairman [Paul] Ryan: “[ I]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.”...

[…]

Rep. [John] Campbell: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, we'll -- and Dr. Elmendorf -- and we'll continue this conversation right now. First on health care, before I get to -- before I get to broader issues, you just mentioned that you believe -- or that in your estimate, that the health care law would reduce the labor used in the economy by about 1/2 of 1 percent, given that, I believe you say, there's 160 million full-time people working in '20-'21. That means that, in your estimation, the health care law would reduce employment by 800,000 in '20-'21. Is that correct?

Director Elmendorf: Yes. The way I would put it is that we do estimate, as you said, that...employment will be about 160 million by the end of the decade. Half a percent of that is 800,000.


CBO Director Says Obamacare Would Reduce Employment by 800,000 Workers | The Weekly Standard


Cue up the lame ass excuses that it will Save or Create other jobs.

 

[RDD_1210]

LMAO. This argument again?

What CBO actually said is that the impact of the health care law on supply and demand for labor would be small. Most of it would come from people who no longer have to work, or can downshift to less demanding employment, because insurance will be available outside the job.

"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,".
FactCheck: "Job Killing?" Bill

So because people will actually be able to afford health care on their own without having to get it through their employer means a small amount (800k) will remove themselves voluntarily from the workforce. That's more like quality of life improving and not so much job killing.

 

[boedicca]

800,000 jobs is quite a significant amount to the people who are out of work.

But leave it to a leftwing moonbat not to care about the little people.

 

[Greenbeard]

It now turns out that the CBO believes ObamaCare will destroy 800,000 jobs.

[...]

That means that, in your estimation, the health care law would reduce employment by 800,000 in '20-'21.

Do you not understand that these are different concepts?

 

[RDD_1210]

800,000 jobs is quite a significant amount to the people who are out of work.

But leave it to a leftwing moonbat not to care about the little people.

What don't you understand about they chose to remove themself from the workforce because they no longer need a job? They can get health insurance on their own without needing a job to purchase it through, and thus they don't need a job. Which part is confusing you?

 

[Annie]

It now turns out that the CBO believes ObamaCare will destroy 800,000 jobs.

[...]

That means that, in your estimation, the health care law would reduce employment by 800,000 in '20-'21.

Do you not understand that these are different concepts?

Please explain your take. Thanks.

 

[boedicca]

800,000 jobs is quite a significant amount to the people who are out of work.

But leave it to a leftwing moonbat not to care about the little people.

What don't you understand about they chose to remove themself from the workforce because they no longer need a job? They can get health insurance on their own without needing a job to purchase it through, and thus they don't need a job. Which part is confusing you?

Oh. So that's how we explain the recent drop in the official unemployment rate to 9%. People removed themselves from the job market because they "no longer needed a job" to purchase health insurance.

Right.

In the real world, they gave up looking due to lack of jobs - just like the future 800,000 who cannot find jobs will give up.

 

[The Infidel]

800,000 jobs is quite a significant amount to the people who are out of work.

But leave it to a leftwing moonbat not to care about the little people.

What don't you understand about they chose to remove themself from the workforce because they no longer need a job? They can get health insurance on their own without needing a job to purchase it through, and thus they don't need a job. Which part is confusing you?

How the Hell will they purchase it without a job?

 

[The Infidel]

800,000 jobs is quite a significant amount to the people who are out of work.

But leave it to a leftwing moonbat not to care about the little people.

What don't you understand about they chose to remove themself from the workforce because they no longer need a job? They can get health insurance on their own without needing a job to purchase it through, and thus they don't need a job. Which part is confusing you?

Oh. So that's how we explain the recent crop in the official unemployment rate to 9%. People removed themselves from the job market because they "no longer needed a job" to purchase health insurance.

Right.

In the real world, they gave up looking due to lack of jobs - just like the future 800,000 who cannot find jobs will give up.

Details details....

 

[boedicca]

They won't need to purchase health care because in ObamaLand, the magic unicorns make free health care for everyone!

 

[RDD_1210]

800,000 jobs is quite a significant amount to the people who are out of work.

But leave it to a leftwing moonbat not to care about the little people.

What don't you understand about they chose to remove themself from the workforce because they no longer need a job? They can get health insurance on their own without needing a job to purchase it through, and thus they don't need a job. Which part is confusing you?

How the Hell will they purchase it without a job?

Through the newly created group exchanges which aim to let people who can't or don't want to get it through work be able to afford it. One of the major benefits of this recent legislation.

 

[Publius1787]

The Obamanoids are quite fond of citing the CBO in defense of ObamaCare. It now turns out that the CBO believes ObamaCare will destroy 800,000 jobs.

How Hopey Change is that?

Chairman [Paul] Ryan: “[ I]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.”...

[…]

Rep. [John] Campbell: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, we'll -- and Dr. Elmendorf -- and we'll continue this conversation right now. First on health care, before I get to -- before I get to broader issues, you just mentioned that you believe -- or that in your estimate, that the health care law would reduce the labor used in the economy by about 1/2 of 1 percent, given that, I believe you say, there's 160 million full-time people working in '20-'21. That means that, in your estimation, the health care law would reduce employment by 800,000 in '20-'21. Is that correct?

Director Elmendorf: Yes. The way I would put it is that we do estimate, as you said, that...employment will be about 160 million by the end of the decade. Half a percent of that is 800,000.


CBO Director Says Obamacare Would Reduce Employment by 800,000 Workers | The Weekly Standard


Cue up the lame ass excuses that it will Save or Create other jobs.

Ouch! Always remember that people learn 80 percent of what they know through vision.

 

[Greenbeard]

Please explain your take. Thanks.

If a single-earner household becomes a dual earner household in order to afford health care, a law expanding health security may well eliminate the need for that second income in the household. A mother or father might choose to remain in the household and raise children, for example. That decision reduces labor force participation by one person. It does not, however, destroy the hypothetical job that person was taking in order to afford (or receive, through the employer) health benefits.

This is a statement about the supply of labor to fill jobs, not a statement about the number of jobs themselves.

Put differently:

The CBO estimates that other provisions may impact labor market participation, albeit negligibly. The increased excise (“Cadillac&#8221 tax on high-cost health insurance plans that will be imposed in 2018 will, over time, reduce workers’ after-tax compensation, thus encouraging them to work more. This effect will be offset, however, by the fact that the increased tax will increase the effective price of healthcare coverage, reducing the relative price of other goods, including leisure. The CBO estimates that the net effect will be a slight decline in labor participation.​

 

[boedicca]

What don't you understand about they chose to remove themself from the workforce because they no longer need a job? They can get health insurance on their own without needing a job to purchase it through, and thus they don't need a job. Which part is confusing you?

How the Hell will they purchase it without a job?

Through the newly created group exchanges which aim to let people who can't or don't want to get it through work be able to afford it. One of the major benefits of this recent legislation.

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha !!!!!!!!!!!



If they don't have a job, how will they have the money to purchase insurance from the exchanges?

Oh, yeah. The Magic Unicorns of ObamaLand will print Mo' Money and hand out bags full of money to everyone!

 

[RDD_1210]

Please explain your take. Thanks.

If a single-earner household becomes a dual earner household in order to afford health care, a law expanding health security may well eliminate the need for that second income in the household. A mother or father might choose to remain in the household and raise children, for example. That decision reduces labor force participation by one person. It does not, however, destroy the hypothetical job that person was taking in order to afford (or receive, through the employer) health benefits.

This is a statement about the supply of labor to fill jobs.

Put differently:

The CBO estimates that other provisions may impact labor market participation, albeit negligibly. The increased excise (“Cadillac”) tax on high-cost health insurance plans that will be imposed in 2018 will, over time, reduce workers’ after-tax compensation, thus encouraging them to work more. This effect will be offset, however, by the fact that the increased tax will increase the effective price of healthcare coverage, reducing the relative price of other goods, including leisure. The CBO estimates that the net effect will be a slight decline in labor participation.​

I'm somehow thinking that this will go right over their heads.

 

[boedicca]

Ah. I get it. One objective of ObamaCare is to undo the progress women have made in the workplace by destroying job creation so they will stay at home.

 

[Greenbeard]

I'm somehow thinking that this will go right over their heads.

And it only took one minute for your point to be made for you. Well played.

 

[RDD_1210]

Ah. I get it. One objective of ObamaCare is to undo the progress women have made in the workplace by destroying job creation so they will stay at home.

It's giving people choice. Work if you want to, but you don't have to anymore, just so you can afford health care. What do you insist on being stubborn?

 

[boedicca]

ObamaCare may "give" many things, but one of them most certainly is not CHOICE.

Just ask the people who will be forced to buy insurance against their will or pay a fine.

 

[Greenbeard]

ObamaCare may "give" many things, but one of them most certainly is not CHOICE.

Just ask the people who will be forced to buy insurance against their will or pay a fine.

Odd, that sounds like a choice.