ObamaCare: The Job Destroyer

[Greenbeard]

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.

Correct:

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148) and the Health Care Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-152) will affect some individuals’ decisions about whether and how much to work and employers’ decisions about hiring workers.1 The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that 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.​

 

[Flopper]

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.

True, the law does not allow you to say no to insurance, then become a leach on society when you become very ill and cannot afford to pay for your healthcare. However, the law does provide a lot of choice. Employers can buy group insurance as they do now, or through health exchanges. Employees in small companies will be able to get insurance through the exchanges or through their employer if they offer group coverage. Young people can stay on their parents policies our get insurance through their employer or school. States will be allowed to form compacts so more insurers can operate nationwide increasing competition and choice.

 

[Trajan]

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.

yes I agree, that is a finer point that needs to be addressed. frankly I don't expect the gov. is capable of answering that question, I don't think they are qualified and even care if there is a difference.

But gov. being gov. they are in the bus. of featherbedding and creating bureaucracy, if the private industry could do without say, 800K they would jettison them we both know this, I suspect the gov. would never ever see it that way, they would see them as votes to be garnered and subsidized, ipso- they would create them even if they weren't there or keep them even if given the choice of letting them go as deadwood.

 

[Cuyo]

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.

Imbecile, call it garbage with any adjective of your choosing, it won't change how wrong you are or how stupid you look as always.

When it was 10+, discouraged workers didn't count.
When it was 5, discouraged workers didn't count.
Now, hovering around 9, discouraged workers still don't count.

My "Liberal compassion" has utterly nothing to do with it. 9 is better than 10; The statistic of discouraged workers has no bearing on it.

 

[rdean]

Oh, don't forget, "Obama took a trip to Asia that cost 200 billion trillion gazillion dollars a minute".

 

[boedicca]

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.

Imbecile, call it garbage with any adjective of your choosing, it won't change how wrong you are or how stupid you look as always.

When it was 10+, discouraged workers didn't count.
When it was 5, discouraged workers didn't count.
Now, hovering around 9, discouraged workers still don't count.

My "Liberal compassion" has utterly nothing to do with it. 9 is better than 10; The statistic of discouraged workers has no bearing on it.

God you are an idiot.

Learn what the Labor Force Participation Rate is, and why it does matter whether or not people participate.

Labor Force Participation Plunges To Fresh 26 Year Low | zero hedge

 

[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. 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.

 

[Cuyo]

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.

Imbecile, call it garbage with any adjective of your choosing, it won't change how wrong you are or how stupid you look as always.

When it was 10+, discouraged workers didn't count.
When it was 5, discouraged workers didn't count.
Now, hovering around 9, discouraged workers still don't count.

My "Liberal compassion" has utterly nothing to do with it. 9 is better than 10; The statistic of discouraged workers has no bearing on it.

God you are an idiot.

Learn what the Labor Force Participation Rate is, and why it does matter whether or not people participate.

Labor Force Participation Plunges To Fresh 26 Year Low | zero hedge

Do you really want to engage me again? I don't think you should. Should'a learned your lesson last time, child.

 

[Trajan]

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?

 

[rdean]

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?

 

[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. 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?

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?

 

[Trajan]

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?

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.

 

[Trajan]

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?

ah huh and that 1.5 million......out of over 300 million ( or 190 million families) , do the math...so what?and of you were following along you would speak to how many of those had ins. before they went belly up ( 38%) and how many had both parents working or dual incomes which I didn't see data on. causation minus correlation.

 

[Ava]

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

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

So, less people working is not less people working if they don't want to work?




Funny thing is, that will increase the cost for everyone else, again. Or do you think that these people who decide not to work because they suddenly can afford health insurance are making that decision because they have another source of income that is not coming out of people's taxes?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

Shhhh

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

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.

 

[Article 15]

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.

That's exactly what is sounds like they are saying. I don't know if it will or not either but I do know that those saying it will kill 800,000 jobs are based of that report are either reading or wrong or they are lying. If anything it opens up 800,000 jobs. Considering the OP and that this has already been debunked on the board a few times I'm going with lying.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Funny thing.

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.

Amazing.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

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.