Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 68

Thread: CBO Director Says ObamaCare Would Reduce Employment by 800,000 Workers

  1. #41
    Guru
    BWG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    South Coast
    Last Seen
    12-04-17 @ 11:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,203

    Re: CBO Director Says ObamaCare Would Reduce Employment by 800,000 Workers

    Quote Originally Posted by megaprogman
    This is actually a good thing, because it should make room for those who do wish to work.
    But...but...the tan man told them that it was 'job killing', when in fact it does just the opposite. It opens up more positions, for more people that want to work to find employment.



    Cons are funny. Funny cons.
    “We just simply don’t know how to govern” - Rep. Steve Womack (R-AR) a member of the House Budget Committee

  2. #42
    Doesn't go below juicy
    tacomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Cleveland
    Last Seen
    05-20-16 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    31,781

    Re: CBO Director Says ObamaCare Would Reduce Employment by 800,000 Workers

    Quote Originally Posted by BWG View Post
    But...but...the tan man told them that it was 'job killing', when in fact it does just the opposite. It opens up more positions, for more people that want to work to find employment.



    Cons are funny. Funny cons.
    The problem seems to be that several posters here jumped to conclusions before looking at the facts of the situation.

  3. #43
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: CBO Director Says ObamaCare Would Reduce Employment by 800,000 Workers

    Quote Originally Posted by Sgt Meowenstein View Post
    Your own link trashes HR 2. So, once again, what was your point?
    LOL!

    elmendorf doesn't trash, he scores

    obamacare includes more than three quarters of a trillion in new taxes, fines, fees, mandates...

  4. #44
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    07-25-13 @ 08:55 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,951

    Re: CBO Director Says ObamaCare Would Reduce Employment by 800,000 Workers

    Quote Originally Posted by BWG View Post
    But...but...the tan man told them that it was 'job killing', when in fact it does just the opposite. It opens up more positions, for more people that want to work to find employment.



    Cons are funny. Funny cons.
    Right........and spending a Trillions dollars on ObamaCare "will save money" and "reduce the deficit"........"you can keep your current health plan if you like it"......gutting 500 Billion from Medicare will be countered by "eliminating fraud"......and mandating employers pay for health insurance or be fined "is going to help them create jobs"......

    .........and passing PORKULUS will keep unemployment below 8%.

    Liberalism and statism is testament to the fact you can fool some people all the time......
    .
    .
    .
    .

  5. #45
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,136

    Re: CBO Director Says ObamaCare Would Reduce Employment by 800,000 Workers

    Quote Originally Posted by Badmutha View Post
    The CBO/Liberal God has spoken......all the Democrat lies about ObamaCare "creating jobs" have been exposed.......and The Largest Job Killing piece of Legislation in US History takes another one on the chin.
    .
    .
    .
    .
    I don't think "job killing" and "reducing the propensity to work" are the same thing.

    What they are saying is that the new law would eliminate the incentive of 800,000 to work because the government will pick up the bill for their health care instead of having to find a job to cover it.

    Review & Outlook: 800,000 Fewer Workers - WSJ.com

    Speaking Thursday before the House Budget Committee, the Congressional Budget Office director estimated that ObamaCare will cause the labor force to shrink by about half a percentage point by the end of the next decade. That isn't the same as claiming that there will be 800,000 fewer jobs available, but rather, as Mr. Elmendorf said, that the law will reduce "the propensity to work." As with any other government subsidy, people receiving "free" health care won't have as much incentive to search for a job or work full time.

  6. #46
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: CBO Director Says ObamaCare Would Reduce Employment by 800,000 Workers

    Quote Originally Posted by megaprogman View Post
    http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/117xx/doc11705/08-18-Update.pdf

    In other words, people will have more incentive to retire, providing room for those who currently need jobs. Also, since this is the CBO's reasoning behind it, it means that further improvements to the health care industry (for example, of the Republican plan takes hold and does a great job) than the same logic in the OP will forecast further economic devastation.
    In neither case is that forecast accurate.
    Here we have to understand how many people, or what percentage, are we talking about. The updated version from the CBO is dated December 2010 (yours is August 2010), and the CBO tends to stay fairly consistent, however we get more details.

    Those provisions could encourage more people to retire before age 65, and they might lead some people to choose not to work at younger ages. The provisions might also lead to better matches between workers and jobs, because workers would not have to stay in less desirable jobs solely to maintain their health insurance.
    I've highlighted the language which I see as a "guess" from the CBO.

    Regarding the universe which constitutes a "great majority":

    Impact on the Labor Market

    This proposal, like others to reform the health insurance system, could affect labor markets in several ways.10

    In general:
    Requiring employers to offer health insurance—or pay a fee if they do not—would be
    likely
    to reduce employment, although the effect would probably be small.

    • Providing new subsidies for health insurance that decline in value as a person’s
    income rises could discourage some people from working more hours.
    • Increasing the availability of health insurance that is not related to employment could
    lead more people to retire before age 65
    or choose not to work at younger ages. It
    might also encourage other workers to take jobs that better match their skills, because
    they would not have to stay in less desirable jobs solely to maintain their health
    insurance.

    Under the proposal, employers with annual payroll above specified levels would be required to offer health insurance to their workers and contribute a significant share toward the premium or pay a tax equal to as much as 8 percent of their total payroll. For the firms that chose not to offer qualified insurance, that penalty would increase the cost of employing each worker by somewhat less than 8 percent (because total compensation generally exceeds the taxable payroll to which this fee would apply). The overall impact on employment would probably be muted, however, because employers would be expected to pass the costs of such fees on to workers in the form of lower wages than would otherwise be paid—just as the costs paid by employers for health insurance are generally passed on to workers. Because the requirement would not be instituted until 2013, employers would be able to plan for its implementation; CBO also projects that the economy will have largely recovered from the current recession by that date. Nonetheless, such a change would tend to reduce the hiring of workers at or near the minimum wage, because their wages might not be able to decline by the full amount of the fee (or by the costs of the health insurance that would have to be provided to avoid the fee). Still, the impact of the proposal on low-wage workers would probably be small because studies suggest that moderate increases in the minimum wage generally have limited effects on employment. An 8 percent increase in the cost of hiring a worker.
    The longer term effects:

    As long as overall spending for health care continued to expand as a share of the economy, people’s share of insurance costs would continue to rise faster than their income, or the government’s subsidy costs would continue to rise faster than the tax base, or both. The proposal limits the share of income that eligible people would have to pay when they purchased coverage in the insurance exchanges, and that share of income would not change over time. In addition, insurance plans offered through the exchanges would be required to pay a specified share of costs for covered services (on average), and that share also would not change over time. Combining those provisions, increases in health care spending in excess of the rate of growth in income would be borne entirely by the federal government in the form of higher subsidy payments—because those payments would have to cover the entire difference between the total premium for insurance coverage and the capped amount that enrollees would pay. Those factors help explain why the costs of the coverage provisions would continue to grow rapidly in the decade after 2019.
    So here's the summary: The CBO is totally guessing at the effects as identified by the language. They don't know the effects nor can they accurately predict the effects --- therefore, as the CBO itself states, the outcomes is uncertain. Second, when you say "great majority", we're talking about a very small universe as identified, but again, the CBO cannot fully know the number off people, but their guess is, it's pretty low. So technically your right: a great majority of a very small amount of people. Kudos.

    Third, the cost estimates and growth longer term (even more uncertain as this goes to 2017 and beyond) seems to increase - both in costs and subsidy by the Fed and costs associated with the employers/employed. What's very evident is that the HealthCare bill does NOT cut costs, it increases them and by a large margin and is expected to continue to increase both in Federal costs and employee costs. This is not a good bill, it never was.


    http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc...blications.pdf
    “I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on what’s being proposed here, he’d agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute.” - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  7. #47
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: CBO Director Says ObamaCare Would Reduce Employment by 800,000 Workers

    Quote Originally Posted by megaprogman View Post
    The problem seems to be that several posters here jumped to conclusions before looking at the facts of the situation.
    oh?

    are you referencing the conservatives at the nyt or wapo?

    at the hill, the globe, bloomberg, hhs, or the cbo?

    Capitol Briefing - Senate votes to keep Medicare cuts

    Director's Blog » Blog Archive » Additional Information on CBO’s Preliminary Analysis of H.R. 2

    Helping Americans Keep the Coverage They Have and Promoting Transparency | HHS.gov

    ER visits, costs in Mass. climb - The Boston Globe

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/02/bu.../02health.html

    Senate passes 1-year doc fix - The Hill's Healthwatch

    Budget Office Rebuts Democratic Claims on Medicare (Update1) - Bloomberg

    Governors balk over what healthcare bill will cost states - The Boston Globe

    obamacare raises taxes more than three quarters of a tril, it cuts medicare half a tril while expanding its already miserable membership, it burdens bankrupt states with a quarter tril unfunded, it double counts a quarter tril according to cbo, it cyncially cuts a quarter tril of doc fix out of its accounting, it increases er traffic and costs, it exacerbates an already serious shortage of medicare-friendly doctors...

    why did sebelius exempt the too bigs?

    what would have happened if she hadn't?

    what will she say to the next thousand applicants?

    why do so many want out?

    seeya at the polls, progressives

  8. #48
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    07-25-13 @ 08:55 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,951

    Re: CBO Director Says ObamaCare Would Reduce Employment by 800,000 Workers

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    I don't think "job killing" and "reducing the propensity to work" are the same thing.

    What they are saying is that the new law would eliminate the incentive of 800,000 to work because the government will pick up the bill for their health care instead of having to find a job to cover it.

    Review & Outlook: 800,000 Fewer Workers - WSJ.com
    Right........its "Free" Health Care all around.....everyone can quit their jobs and stop worrying.
    .
    .
    .
    .

  9. #49
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: CBO Director Says ObamaCare Would Reduce Employment by 800,000 Workers

    Quote Originally Posted by Badmutha View Post
    Right........and spending a Trillions dollars on ObamaCare "will save money" and "reduce the deficit"........"you can keep your current health plan if you like it"......gutting 500 Billion from Medicare will be countered by "eliminating fraud"......and mandating employers pay for health insurance or be fined "is going to help them create jobs"......

    .........and passing PORKULUS will keep unemployment below 8%.

    Liberalism and statism is testament to the fact you can fool some people all the time......
    .
    .
    .
    .
    Do not encourage the parrots.
    “I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on what’s being proposed here, he’d agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute.” - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  10. #50
    Educator Sgt Meowenstein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    07-22-17 @ 06:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    620

    Re: CBO Director Says ObamaCare Would Reduce Employment by 800,000 Workers

    Quote Originally Posted by The Prof View Post
    LOL!

    elmendorf doesn't trash, he scores

    obamacare includes more than three quarters of a trillion in new taxes, fines, fees, mandates...
    I guess you missed the part in your own source where it says that H.R. 2, the GOP's "Repeal the Job Killing blah blah blah" bill, will add billions to the deficit and reduce revenue by billions. I'm sure you'd like to ignore it, but I'll keep reminding you.


Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •