ObamaCare: The Job Destroyer

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.
 
CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf told the House Budget Committee on Thursday that the health care law will reduce employment by 0.5 percent by 2021 because some people will no longer have to work just to afford health insurance. The Director did not say the jobs were going away. That's Republican spin. He said .5% will leave those jobs because they don't need to keep them in order to maintain health insurance. The jobs are still there.

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

Since the number one cause of bankruptcies are "medical bills", I suspect the answer would be yes. Don't you?

How many times do you have to be called on that?
 
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.

That's interesting.

Who will be losing their jobs, exactly?
 
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?

So going from being productive to in all sense and purposes a welfare state is a good thing?

There are various reasons why people remove themselves from the work force. Age, lack of jobs, lack of motivation, whatever. But one thing is for sure, at a time when more and more Baby-boomers are reaching retirement age do you seriously think it's a good idea to increase the number of Americans in retirement?

Doesn't this mean less revenue going into the Treasury?

Isn't it a bad thing that so many are collecting Social Security going on a fixed income right when inflation is beginning to sky-rocket, thus erasing the buying power of their retirement plans?
 
Last edited:
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.

That's interesting.

Who will be losing their jobs, exactly?

Thousands of insurance providers. Obama's draconian regulations will force thousands into the unemployment lines after their companies close their doors. Imagine the loss in revenue after putting hundreds of insurance companies out of business.

It's utter lunacy to allow a Single-payer advocate the power to regulate the industry, but that is what we have today. We have to trust Obama not to try to regulate the competition out of business.
 
Last edited:
That is complete and utter garbage.

More than 2M people have quit looking for work in the past year and are no longer counted in the labor force. Their long term unemployment is not a net neutral for them.

The discouraged worker aspect is statistically net neutral. Deflection:Fail. Discouraged workers are never counted. You act like they changed the rules to make the situation appear better than it really is, and they didn't.

They are counted. The BLS know the population of the US, the number of people who have jobs, the civilian labor force, the number of people who are retired, the number of farm workers, the number of people who are disables, and the number of people who are receiving unemployment. In fact, they probably know a few things I have not thought of. Just because someone gives up looking does not mean they are not counted, and they are definitely not net neutral.

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.

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.
 
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?

So going from being productive to in all sense and purposes a welfare state is a good thing?

There are various reasons why people remove themselves from the work force. Age, lack of jobs, lack of motivation, whatever.
Sure, and also people who worked hard, saved and can retire. Or home makers who don't have a paying job but play a very important role in running the household. But you can go ahead and ignore those people since they don't fit in to your narrow view point.

But one thing is for sure, at a time when more and more Baby-boomers are reaching retirement age do you seriously think it's a good idea to increase the number of Americans in retirement?

Doesn't this mean less revenue going into the Treasury?

Isn't it a bad thing that so many are collecting Social Security going on a fixed income right when inflation is beginning to sky-rocket, thus erasing the buying power of their retirement plans?

So retiring is a bad thing now? People should work til they drop dead? Housewives aren't useful if they aren't bringing in a paycheck? :eusa_eh:
 
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?
 
How the Hell will they purchase it without a job? :confused:

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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
The discouraged worker aspect is statistically net neutral. Deflection:Fail. Discouraged workers are never counted. You act like they changed the rules to make the situation appear better than it really is, and they didn't.

They are counted. The BLS know the population of the US, the number of people who have jobs, the civilian labor force, the number of people who are retired, the number of farm workers, the number of people who are disables, and the number of people who are receiving unemployment. In fact, they probably know a few things I have not thought of. Just because someone gives up looking does not mean they are not counted, and they are definitely not net neutral.

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.

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 Unemployment rate going down because more people leave the workforce and lower the participation rate is not a good thing.

One example of why:

The ratio of tapayers to SS beneficiary has declined from 40:1 to 3.1. It is headed towards 2:1. The real answer, of course, is privatization, but as one who does believe in the validity of SS, shrinking the workforce should alarm you greatly.

But it's clear you have no ability how to make judgments about what is really in your own best interest, let alone that of society in general.
 
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?


There will be 800,000 less jobs.

That's what the forecast says.
 
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?


There will be 800,000 less jobs.

That's what the forecast says.

Actually, it doesn't say that at all. That's what you want to see.
 
There will be slightly less (800k approx) people who NEED jobs because of this legislation. How stubborn can you possibly be?


There will be 800,000 less jobs.

That's what the forecast says.

Actually, it doesn't say that at all. That's what you want to see.


It forecasts total employment at 160M. If 800,000 chose not to work, other workers will fill the jobs, unless you think we are going to have a full employment unemployment rate by then (highly doubtful unless Obamanomics is unwound).

160M employed mean 160M jobs are filled.
 
There will be 800,000 less jobs.

That's what the forecast says.

Actually, it doesn't say that at all. That's what you want to see.


It forecasts total employment at 160M. If 800,000 chose not to work, other workers will fill the jobs, unless you think we are going to have a full employment unemployment rate by then (highly doubtful unless Obamanomics is unwound).

160M employed mean 160M jobs are filled.

I highlighted the key part for you. You said it yourself, those people will CHOOSE not to work. The jobs they would have filled didn't evaporate, someone else needing a job filled them. So in reality, this is more of job creating bill then it is a job killing bill. Thanks for pointing that out!
 
And other people will choose to work. The economy is predicted to have 160M employed, 800K less than would have been employed without ObamaCare. That is a loss of 800K jobs. If the jobs were created, we'd just have a lower unemployment rate with other people filling those jobs.
 
And other people will choose to work. The economy is predicted to have 160M employed, 800K less than would have been employed without ObamaCare. That is a loss of 800K jobs. If the jobs were created, we'd just have a lower unemployment rate with other people filling those jobs.

So now you're looking at totally people employed? I thought this was about "jobs" being killed. The number of people actually working is what is predicted to decrease, not total number of jobs available. That stays the same, there are just fewer people now who need those jobs. Get it?
 
Well, employed people generally have jobs.

It's rather hard to be employed without one.

I'll refer you back to the OP. I've been very consistent that the issue was destruction of jobs.
 
Last edited:
Well, employed people generally have jobs.

It's rather hard to be employed without one.

I'll refer you back to the OP. I've been very consistent that the issue was destruction of jobs.

What?

Yes, employed people have jobs. Obviously.

But the number of jobs available aren't being reduced. It's the number of people who need jobs. So no jobs are being killed.

Tell me which part doesn't make sense.
 

Forum List

Back
Top