ObamaCare: The Job Destroyer

[boedicca]

Yes they are. If the number employed is 800,000 less than it otherwise would have been, then there are 800,000 less jobs.

The people you claim will not have to work because of ObamaCare will not be hired; but other people would be hired in their place if the jobs were created in the first place.

800,000 less employed means 800,000 less jobs.

 

[Care4all]

i don't know if someone said this already, as I have not gone through all posts...but you would THINK that once the Health Care bill was in force, there would be a huge increase in Hospital jobs, like doctors, nurses, Lab techs, construction on larger facilities, production of more lab machinery like CAT scans or MRI's or chemical analysis machines and laboratories etc....

an increase in jobs at medical schools to increase our numbers in Doctors, and an increase in size and jobs at nursing schools etc....

It seems odd that one would not recognize all of the jobs that would have to be created with Obamacare....that could at the minimum offset the losses?

Am i missing something?

 

[boedicca]

Considering the trend of doctors dropping Medicare patients due to low fees, the prognosis is that there will be less supply under ObamaCare, not more.

Demand with price controls does not encourage increased supply.

 

[RDD_1210]

Yes they are. If the number employed is 800,000 less than it otherwise would have been, then there are 800,000 less jobs.

The people you claim will not have to work because of ObamaCare will not be hired; but other people would be hired in their place if the jobs were created in the first place.

800,000 less employed means 800,000 less jobs.

Umm, no 800,000 less employed means 800,000 less employed. Nothing more.


Look at it like this (using simple numbers for easy illustration)


- Let's say there are 500 open jobs available
- Let's say there are 1000 people looking for jobs
- If 5 people decided to stop looking for a job because they no longer need employment there are now:
- 995 people looking for jobs
- But still 500 jobs available.

So you can see, there are STILL the same amount of jobs available, but just fewer people who need those jobs. Does that make sense?

 

[Trajan]

i don't know if someone said this already, as I have not gone through all posts...but you would THINK that once the Health Care bill was in force, there would be a huge increase in Hospital jobs, like doctors, nurses, Lab techs, construction on larger facilities, production of more lab machinery like CAT scans or MRI's or chemical analysis machines and laboratories etc....

an increase in jobs at medical schools to increase our numbers in Doctors, and an increase in size and jobs at nursing schools etc....

It seems odd that one would not recognize all of the jobs that would have to be created with Obamacare....that could at the minimum offset the losses?

Am i missing something?

not sure but....

well, you apparently(?) feel that capital expenditures on those items will flow at a greater rate once the gov. has organized everything, my question is then- why don't they now?

And what is the comparative yardstick? who pays for it?The cost curve was never addressed, whatever problems we have in that area have not been addressed.*shrugs*.

I mean they plan on surcharging-taxing medical equipment manufactures for instance don't they? how is that helpful?

 

[Flopper]

hummm,interesting, is there any data that speaks to a dual worker HH doing so strictly for the benefit of purchasing HC?

I doubt it, but it's very common. I have a friend who was a landscaping designer and had no heath insurance and couldn't get it because he had cancer. His wife works for the school district as a teacher's aid, just to get the insurance. A few years ago, I worked with a girl whose husband was a construction worker and had no insurance. She wanted to quit work and raise a family but she was tied to her job in order keep the insurance. I think there are an awful lot of people like this.

The real tragedy is the thousands of people that work in jobs they hate, but they can't leave because of the insurance issue. I know at one time in my life I passed up a great opportunity in a startup company to take a shit job in order to get good insurance because my wife was very ill at the time.

There are a lot of benefits in the healthcare law that you can't put a dollar figure on, but that doesn't mean the're worthless. How much is it worth to have a healthier America where people can take jobs they excel at rather than jobs they hate with good health insurance?

well, first I'd say welcome to the real world to them, and shit happens....no one is guaranteed anything no matter how hard the gov. trys to make it so.... because my wife and I have taken or done jobs we'd prefer not to or didn't enjoy to keep our lifestyle aside from benefits, or keep our kids in private school, or put braces on their teeth, it all depends on what one values.

And a since a huge portion of 20-late 30 somethings don't buy insurance if they don't get thru an employer because they think they will live forever or never need it adds another segment to consider. those we can count with a lot more certitude.

old sc justice, I think Holmes once said people after all have a right to go to hell the way they want to....but thats changed apparently.

Taking a job that you hate in order to provide life saving medical care for your family is quite a bit different than taking that job so you can afford nicer vacations, a fancy home and a second car.

 

[Trajan]

I doubt it, but it's very common. I have a friend who was a landscaping designer and had no heath insurance and couldn't get it because he had cancer. His wife works for the school district as a teacher's aid, just to get the insurance. A few years ago, I worked with a girl whose husband was a construction worker and had no insurance. She wanted to quit work and raise a family but she was tied to her job in order keep the insurance. I think there are an awful lot of people like this.

The real tragedy is the thousands of people that work in jobs they hate, but they can't leave because of the insurance issue. I know at one time in my life I passed up a great opportunity in a startup company to take a shit job in order to get good insurance because my wife was very ill at the time.

There are a lot of benefits in the healthcare law that you can't put a dollar figure on, but that doesn't mean the're worthless. How much is it worth to have a healthier America where people can take jobs they excel at rather than jobs they hate with good health insurance?

well, first I'd say welcome to the real world to them, and shit happens....no one is guaranteed anything no matter how hard the gov. trys to make it so.... because my wife and I have taken or done jobs we'd prefer not to or didn't enjoy to keep our lifestyle aside from benefits, or keep our kids in private school, or put braces on their teeth, it all depends on what one values.

And a since a huge portion of 20-late 30 somethings don't buy insurance if they don't get thru an employer because they think they will live forever or never need it adds another segment to consider. those we can count with a lot more certitude.

old sc justice, I think Holmes once said people after all have a right to go to hell the way they want to....but thats changed apparently.

Taking a job that you hate in order to provide life saving medical care for your family is quite a bit different than taking that job so you can afford nicer vacations, a fancy home and a second car.

at first blush sure, but thats a severe way of putting it and a stretch imho, life saving care as if its a done deal, if it were and it was a must they wold not be getting coverage outside an employer plan and then the other spouse could always quit and stay at home...right ? no, they continue because they enjoy the second income and once they see what than can bring most stay with it even after a move by the first spouse may put them in a position to acquire coverage via an employer plan. I would wager that not many of those at all quit after a change where in they don't have to keep the job they hate amnd took just for benes.....

and this is really not much of debate because neither of us can prove much of this, aside from the sheer number of 2 parent working households even in an a household were both are covered by employer plans and feel 'safe'.

and employer based aside from an article I recently read, where in ( Harvard study) that says 62% of the 1.5 million individual/family bankruptcies in 07-09 were due to medical costs.......and this is trumpeted as proof of a system out of control and is based on a random sample of 2,400 people. be that as it may.....

lets put this in perspective- 62% of 1.5 million is approx. 930K....(?)

there are roughly 300 million people in the US, 125 million 'families' or households, ( thats an estimate I heard , feel free to double check, but lets 110 million for now) so, out of 110 million families/HH's and assorted individuals adding in another 30-40 million adults unattached, we have 930k, lets say 1 million, who go belly up due to medical costs.....thats less than .75%?

what am I missing here?

 

[Flopper]

well, first I'd say welcome to the real world to them, and shit happens....no one is guaranteed anything no matter how hard the gov. trys to make it so.... because my wife and I have taken or done jobs we'd prefer not to or didn't enjoy to keep our lifestyle aside from benefits, or keep our kids in private school, or put braces on their teeth, it all depends on what one values.

And a since a huge portion of 20-late 30 somethings don't buy insurance if they don't get thru an employer because they think they will live forever or never need it adds another segment to consider. those we can count with a lot more certitude.

old sc justice, I think Holmes once said people after all have a right to go to hell the way they want to....but thats changed apparently.

Taking a job that you hate in order to provide life saving medical care for your family is quite a bit different than taking that job so you can afford nicer vacations, a fancy home and a second car.

at first blush sure, but thats a severe way of putting it and a stretch imho, life saving care as if its a done deal, if it were and it was a must they wold not be getting coverage outside an employer plan and then the other spouse could always quit and stay at home...right ? no, they continue because they enjoy the second income and once they see what than can bring most stay with it even after a move by the first spouse may put them in a position to acquire coverage via an employer plan. I would wager that not many of those at all quit after a change where in they don't have to keep the job they hate amnd took just for benes.....

and this is really not much of debate because neither of us can prove much of this, aside from the sheer number of 2 parent working households even in an a household were both are covered by employer plans and feel 'safe'.

and employer based aside from an article I recently read, where in ( Harvard study) that says 62% of the 1.5 million individual/family bankruptcies in 07-09 were due to medical costs.......and this is trumpeted as proof of a system out of control and is based on a random sample of 2,400 people. be that as it may.....

lets put this in perspective- 62% of 1.5 million is approx. 930K....(?)

there are roughly 300 million people in the US, 125 million 'families' or households, ( thats an estimate I heard , feel free to double check, but lets 110 million for now) so, out of 110 million families/HH's and assorted individuals adding in another 30-40 million adults unattached, we have 930k, lets say 1 million, who go belly up due to medical costs.....thats less than .75%?

what am I missing here?

The need for universal healthcare coverage is not because of the bankruptcies caused by medical costs, working in jobs just to get healthcare coverage, denial of coverage, loss of coverage, lack of competition among insurers, closing the Medicare donut hole, elimination of the lifetime limits on coverage, or the guaranteed right to appeal insurance, but all of the above and more.

 

[Flopper]

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.

"Medicare Chief Dodges Republican Health Law Questions in House Testimony"

FoxNews.com - Medicare Chief Dodges Republican Health Law Questions in House Testimony

That's not what the CBO said. There is big difference between a half percent of the people leaving their jobs and half percent of jobs disappearing.

 

[boedicca]

Yes they are. If the number employed is 800,000 less than it otherwise would have been, then there are 800,000 less jobs.

The people you claim will not have to work because of ObamaCare will not be hired; but other people would be hired in their place if the jobs were created in the first place.

800,000 less employed means 800,000 less jobs.

Umm, no 800,000 less employed means 800,000 less employed. Nothing more.


Look at it like this (using simple numbers for easy illustration)


- Let's say there are 500 open jobs available
- Let's say there are 1000 people looking for jobs
- If 5 people decided to stop looking for a job because they no longer need employment there are now:
- 995 people looking for jobs
- But still 500 jobs available.

So you can see, there are STILL the same amount of jobs available, but just fewer people who need those jobs. Does that make sense?

Uh dude.

If 800,000 people decide they no longer want to work, they create 800,000 job openings when they quit their jobs.

Other people will apply and get hired if the jobs exist.

If total employed decreased by 800,000 instead, the jobs were eliminated, i.e., destroyed.

 

[RDD_1210]

Yes they are. If the number employed is 800,000 less than it otherwise would have been, then there are 800,000 less jobs.

The people you claim will not have to work because of ObamaCare will not be hired; but other people would be hired in their place if the jobs were created in the first place.

800,000 less employed means 800,000 less jobs.

Umm, no 800,000 less employed means 800,000 less employed. Nothing more.


Look at it like this (using simple numbers for easy illustration)


- Let's say there are 500 open jobs available
- Let's say there are 1000 people looking for jobs
- If 5 people decided to stop looking for a job because they no longer need employment there are now:
- 995 people looking for jobs
- But still 500 jobs available.

So you can see, there are STILL the same amount of jobs available, but just fewer people who need those jobs. Does that make sense?

Uh dude.

If 800,000 people decide they no longer want to work, they create 800,000 job openings when they quit their jobs.

Other people will apply and get hired if the jobs exist.

You just said yourself exactly what is happening. There are actually job opportunities being created! More people can get hired now because these people are leaving the workforce and creating new openings for others to fill.

If total employed decreased by 800,000 instead, the jobs were eliminated, i.e., destroyed.

So let's say a woman decides to give up her factory job because she no longer needs to work. Does the job she just left automatically just get eliminated because she isn't there or do they go out and hire someone to replace her?

 

[Flopper]

Yes they are. If the number employed is 800,000 less than it otherwise would have been, then there are 800,000 less jobs.

The people you claim will not have to work because of ObamaCare will not be hired; but other people would be hired in their place if the jobs were created in the first place.

800,000 less employed means 800,000 less jobs.

"800,000 less employed means 800,000 less jobs."

That a pretty silly statement. The job exist whether someone is filling the position or not. It is the 800,000 employees that are gone, not the 800,000 jobs.

 

[RDD_1210]

Yes they are. If the number employed is 800,000 less than it otherwise would have been, then there are 800,000 less jobs.

The people you claim will not have to work because of ObamaCare will not be hired; but other people would be hired in their place if the jobs were created in the first place.

800,000 less employed means 800,000 less jobs.

"800,000 less employed means 800,000 less jobs."

That a pretty silly statement. The job exist whether someone is filling the position or not. It is the 800,000 employees that are gone, not the 800,000 jobs.

This is going right over her head. That or she's ridiculously stubborn.

 

[boedicca]

It's pretty clear that you morons don't understand that to be employed means to have a job and that if there are less employed, there are less jobs.

So be it. Your experience at having jobs is likely rather inadequate.

 

[RDD_1210]

It's pretty clear that you morons don't understand that to be employed means to have a job and that if there are less employed, there are less jobs.

So be it. Your experience at having jobs is likely rather inadequate.

Why did you ignore my last question to you?

"So let's say a woman decides to give up her factory job because she no longer needs to work. Does the job she just left automatically just get eliminated because she isn't there or do they go out and hire someone to replace her?"

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yes, actually it does mean they're not counted (as unemployed) and it does mean they're net neutral (regarding unemployment percentage). Discouraged workers are not, by definition, unemployed.

They are, by definition, unemployed. What they are not is looking for work, or settling for part time, or other less than optimal, work. They are counted, despite your insistence that they are not.

What they are not is reported as part of the unemployment statistics.

I'm not saying I agree with the practice, and I'm not saying I don't; But like retirees and voluntarily non-working spouses, discouraged workers are not part of the equation that determines the unemployment rate.

We're talking about what is... Not what should be... My opinion on the matter is irrelevant. The important thing to understand is that the rules HAVE NOT changed. Obamaniacs like to use discouraged workers to insinuate that discouraged workers are SUDDENLY not being counted, and that's the reason UE is dropping - Truth is, even when it was 10+, those numbers DID NOT use discouraged workers in the calculation.

So, lets say for the sake of discussion that 800k will voluntarily leave the work force as the study suggests. Those 800k will not be described as 'Unemployed,' because they're not looking for work. They will presumably, however, leave 800k unfilled positions which now can be filled by people who ARE looking for work.

End result - Unemployment rate goes DOWN, not up.

The actual end result is totally unpredictable, other than that the average tax burden goes up for the working class for every unemployed, underemployed, discouraged, retired, or otherwise non taxpaying person in the US.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I love the way Republicans put a spin on these things.

No one is saying 800,000 jobs will be cut. What they are saying is that with Obama care, there are some people who don't have to work and so they will quit. 1/2 of 1% or about 800,000. BUT THEIR JOBS ARE STILL THERE!!!!

Get it? The jobs are still there. Someone else took them.

Now, who are these people who quit working? Oh, I don't know. Perhaps it's those kids who are on their parents health care while they go to school? YA THINK??????????

Come on people. Use those brains you say your Gawd "magically created".

Are you trying to tell me that, as a result of Obamacare, there will actually be more jobs than workers? If so, you are even dumber than I thought you were, which is a bar I thought was impossible to lower.

There will be slightly less (800k approx) people who NEED jobs because of this legislation. How stubborn can you possibly be?

Stubborn enough to call out the idiot rdean whenever it strikes mt fancy. Did you ever actually respond to any of the facts I posted?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Wow.

And you think I am uneducated because I don't understand how things work, which gives you license to ignore the facts I post.

Those group exchanges will still require money, and people get money by working. Those are actually designed for the self empoyed, not the unemployed.

Idiot.

So people can ONLY purchase things while actively working? Someone can't save and want to retire early? A housewife can't have her job as a home maker which doesn't bring in money?

Keep calling me names without using your brain doesn't make you look very good.

Newsflash.

If they are not working they will be eligible for the expanded Medicaid roles, they will not be purchasing insurance through an exchange. You are attempting to argue something that makes no sense, and you are acting like I am stupid because I insist on calling you on your idiocy.

As for calling you names, it does not mean I am not using my brain, it is just me expressing my total contempt for you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If I hold a gun to your head and ask you for your money the law says I am forcing you to give it to me. To put it another way, I am taking away your choices. Yet, somehow, the government doing the same thing is actually giving me a choice.

You're right, the penalty for noncompliance is the death penalty. Good catch!

What they never tell you is that those new IRS employees will actually be trained assassins, not paper-pushers.

The IRS routinely pursues people who fail to pay taxes, and has even been known to throw them in jail. You might call that a choice, but that does not make it true. There is a lot of difference between constraint and coercion, even if you do not want to admit it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

i don't know if someone said this already, as I have not gone through all posts...but you would THINK that once the Health Care bill was in force, there would be a huge increase in Hospital jobs, like doctors, nurses, Lab techs, construction on larger facilities, production of more lab machinery like CAT scans or MRI's or chemical analysis machines and laboratories etc....

an increase in jobs at medical schools to increase our numbers in Doctors, and an increase in size and jobs at nursing schools etc....

It seems odd that one would not recognize all of the jobs that would have to be created with Obamacare....that could at the minimum offset the losses?

Am i missing something?

And this is all going to happen overnight, and doctors will suddenly decide that they are wrong to want to pay back there student loans and just give away their services.

Or maybe, what will actually happen, is that insurance will start covering stupid things like homeopathy and faith healing. Did you know that health care in the UK covers stupid shit? Could that be because they have fewer doctors per capita than we do, even though they have universal health care?

An artificially created increase in demand does not lead to an increase in supply. anymore than an increase in supply leads to an increased demand. The market will balance them eventually, if it is free to do so.