ObamaCare: The Job Destroyer

[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.

Odd, that sounds like a choice.

Oh that's great.

So when a mugger says to you "give me your wallet or I'll beat you up", those are valid freely made choices?

You have an appalling value system.

 

[Greenbeard]

"Choice" doesn't imply total lack of constraint. You'll understand that when you reach adulthood.

 

[boedicca]

Hobson would recognize you quite well.


The kind of Choice you think of as a Choice is Coercion.

Adults with a moral core understand this. Unsurprisingly, the concept eludes you.

 

[Annie]

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”) 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.​

and a single payer becomes a dual payer for what reasons? Seems to be built of sand here. Yes, folks get married, but that is already factored in.

 

[Greenbeard]

and a single payer becomes a dual payer for what reasons? Seems to be built of sand here. Yes, folks get married, but that is already factored in.

...because a spouse takes a job. It's an example; you can just as easily consider a 59-year-old who's ready to retire but has to keep working until 65 out of a need for affordable insurance. Reasonable rates through an exchange with no denials allows him to retire without penalty. Again, this is an example. This is academic anyway as we're not talking about jobs we're talking about FTEs. If everybody in the country reduces the amount they work per week on average by 0.5%, you get the result Elmendorf was describing. No one actually has to quit or not take a job, though in reality it will be a mix to yield the small effect he describes.

 

[Flopper]

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.

Read more: CBO: Health law to cut workforce by 800,000 - J. Lester Feder and Kate Nocera - POLITICO.com

This is quite a bit different than what is being reported. We know there are many people seeking early retirement at 62 but are not eligible for Medicare and cannot get private insurance. There are also many people who do have insurance through their job and must depend on a spouse working to provide health insurance for the family.

Also being neglected by the committee is the increase in jobs in the healthcare industry to support an addition 38million people that will have health insurance.


FactCheck.org: Health care law has minimal impact on jobs:

FactCheck.org published an article that says Republican claims that the
new health care law is "job-killing" is disingenuous and that the law
will have only a minimal impact on jobs.

FactCheck.org is a nonpartisan, nonprofit project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, which seeks to "reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics."
FactCheck.org: Health care law has minimal impact on jobs | MLive.com

 

[Cuyo]

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.

Discouraged workers are a net neutral, and in this case a red herring. They're never counted, not in the before, nor the after; So the higher unemployment rates didn't count them and neither do the emerging lower ones. It's a wash.

 

[Trajan]

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.

 

[Cuyo]

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.

Buying a house is a choice - If you and I make exactly the same money, you own, and I rent, your tax liabilities are lower because you get to write off interest and I don't get to write off any rent.

The concept is not so terribly difficult to grasp.

 

[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?

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.

Discouraged workers are a net neutral, and in this case a red herring. They're never counted, not in the before, nor the after; So the higher unemployment rates didn't count them and neither do the emerging lower ones. It's a wash.

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.

 

[boedicca]

Odd, that sounds like a choice.

Buying a house is a choice - If you and I make exactly the same money, you own, and I rent, your tax liabilities are lower because you get to write off interest and I don't get to write off any rent.

The concept is not so terribly difficult to grasp.

No it's not. You are not coerced into either buying a house or renting.

The government threatening you with a fine if you didn't buy the house would be more analogous to ObamaCare's form of blackmail-choice.

 

[Cuyo]

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.

Discouraged workers are a net neutral, and in this case a red herring. They're never counted, not in the before, nor the after; So the higher unemployment rates didn't count them and neither do the emerging lower ones. It's a wash.

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.

 

[Trajan]

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.

thats an intellectually bankrupt statement . but hey.......policy implementation? yup, you've found a home.

 

[Trajan]

Buying a house is a choice - If you and I make exactly the same money, you own, and I rent, your tax liabilities are lower because you get to write off interest and I don't get to write off any rent.

The concept is not so terribly difficult to grasp.

No it's not. You are not coerced into either buying a house or renting.

The government threatening you with a fine if you didn't buy the house would be more analogous to ObamaCare's form of blackmail-choice.

you're wasting your time. hes got so much at stake in this he cannot be honest any longer,assuming he was.
But really? I don't blame him, hes a type grown in gov. the world over. ask him why Sibelius has to tear part CLASS, he'll tell you its just a burp, will be well. Its pathological.

 

[boedicca]

Discouraged workers are a net neutral, and in this case a red herring. They're never counted, not in the before, nor the after; So the higher unemployment rates didn't count them and neither do the emerging lower ones. It's a wash.

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.

That is absolute garbage. At one point, many of them were counted until they gave up looking.

And how Humane of you to not give a rat's ass that millions of people have no prospect of finding a job and are no longer counted. You are a fine representation of Liberal Compassion.

 

[Greenbeard]

No it's not. You are not coerced into either buying a house or renting.

The government threatening you with a fine if you didn't buy the house would be more analogous to ObamaCare's form of blackmail-choice.

Choices affect tax burdens. If I reject my current health plan and instead negotiate for its equivalent in wages, my tax burden goes up. Same with a number of things. The existence of an incentive (positive or negative) does not remove choice. It shapes choice by altering rational calculation, that's the point of any incentive.

 

[boedicca]

Ah, perhaps you are seeing the light and are are beginning to realize that the government should not use the tax code and the law to socially engineer society.

But I doubt it.

 

[rdean]

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".

 

[Trajan]

No it's not. You are not coerced into either buying a house or renting.

The government threatening you with a fine if you didn't buy the house would be more analogous to ObamaCare's form of blackmail-choice.

Choices affect tax burdens. If I reject my current health plan and instead negotiate for its equivalent in wages, my tax burden goes up. Same with a number of things. The existence of an incentive (positive or negative) does not remove choice. It shapes choice by altering rational calculation, that's the point of any incentive.

ah so the mandate is a tax now? Can I quote you on that?( not that I agree just want to see if you'll go on the record).

 

[Toro]

So, did the CBO guy say that Obamacare would destroy 800k jobs or not?

It sounds like he is saying that there won't be a need for 800k people to work. That sounds very different than 800k jobs being destroyed.




Not that he as any idea whether it will or won't.