Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567
Results 61 to 68 of 68

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

  1. #61
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Badmutha View Post
    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.”...
    .
    .
    .
    .........The CBO/Liberal God has spoken.
    .
    .
    .
    .
    AS is quite right.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  2. #62
    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 Aunt Spiker View Post
    Some small references taken out of context and away from the overall original CBO report and statistics means absolutely nothing.
    more than THREE QUARTERS OF A TRILLION DOLLARS in new taxes is, sadly, NOT out of context

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

  3. #63
    Cheese
    Aunt Spiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Sasnakra
    Last Seen
    09-10-16 @ 06:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,433

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

    Quote Originally Posted by The Prof View Post
    more than THREE QUARTERS OF A TRILLION DOLLARS in new taxes is, sadly, NOT out of context

    Director's Blog Blog Archive Additional Information on CBO’s Preliminary Analysis of H.R. 2
    That's not even the subject of the OP 'article' though. . . that's a seperate post all together.
    A screaming comes across the sky.
    It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now.
    Pynchon - Gravity's Rainbow

  4. #64
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 10:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,766

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

    Ockham,

    Responding to your post #46, under our current tax system employers who offer health insurance to their employees receive a tax exemption for the cost they pay towards their employee's insurance. Does it not stand to reason that if employers are no longer offerring insurance to their employees they should no longer receive this tax exemption and, as such, the government should tax those funds?

    As for the CBO's job/labor estimates, the primary reason many of us stay with our jobs is because of the health insurance benefits. Therefore, it stands to reason that IF employees are allowed to purchase health insurance outside of their workplace, more employees would either choose to get their health insurance from the private sector or leave their current job in order to find cheaper health insurance elsewhere (hopefully with better pay as well).

    I can see the logic behind the reduction in the labor force when such rationale is placed behind the figures. Older employees, for example, would be more likely to stop working if their health insurance costs were reduced. And if they can purchase health insurance on the open market far cheaper than what they pay out of pocket via their employer, it just makes sound financial sense to drop the more costly insurance and go with the cheaper package that offers the same benefits or at least those benefits that suite your health care needs. Of course, in this hypethetical we're discussing the potential exodus of the elderly, but the same could be said about anyone in the labor force.

    Then you have to look at the types of insurance packages being offered, i.e., mini-med insurance. These packages offer very little in health care coverage, but cost nearly as much as a "standard" health insurance package. The reason some fast-food chains (i.e., McDonald's) and call centers (i.e., Verizon) have sought waivers is because they offer these such mini-med policies but under the new health care law they are now required to bring these policies up to minimum benefit standards which is a very reasonable request to ensure their employees do receive proper health care coverage without having to pay additional health care expenditures for "uncovered" health services. Fact is, if your job only offers these such policies - policies that cover so little but costs so much and also have high deductables - it's only the right thing to do to direct that every employer should offer the same basic coverage. Now, that doesn't mean that such coverage should cost the same for everyone across different insurance markets, but each policy should contain the same basic, standard health benefits regardless of who the employer may be.

    In bringing the insurance packages up to "standard", companies who have been granted waivers will need time to make the necessary adjustments. Some would argue that it's unfair for the government to force such a change. I would agree with that IF the employee had more control of what health insurance he could buy, but most of us don't have that luxury. Most of us are locked into obtaining our health insurance directly from our employer, and because the cost is so high on the open market, that's what we're stuck with - insurance our employer provides us. So, if my employer is going to provide me with a junk health insurance policy, I have the right the way the health insurance system now works to leave that job and find another that pays just as well but offers better benefits. But you do that only if you believe you still have employment options. Currently, many of us don't feel comfortable with leaving the job we now have because the economy is still in flux. But in a thriving economy, I can see such a migration taking shape. And the people would be right to exercise their right to choose. I see nothing wrong with that when you honestly believe your employer is "short-changing" you with the benefits they provide by law - and that was the case long before the health care law came into effect even partially.

  5. #65
    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 Boo Radley View Post
    AS is quite right.
    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.

    The CBO/Liberal God has spoken........again.....

    The CBO aside for a moment.......do you personally believe mandating employers provide health insurance/ or pay fines......will somehow help them create jobs anywhere besides Imaginationland?
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .

  6. #66
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 10:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,766

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

    Badmutha,

    Honestly, I seriously doubt one can create jobs via taxation or mandating a company must provide health insurance to their employees unless said jobs are within the health care and health insurance markets alone. They would be the only such industries to benefit from the mandate in particular. As for the taxation part, I already covered that in my last post (#64), but to reinterate: If an employer who was once receiving a tax exemption for providing health insurance to their employees but chooses to no longer provide said benefit, then the government has every right to recoup that tax right off under our current tax law. The PPAC only reinforces the responsibility (big) businesses have toward their tax liability should they renege on providing the very employee benefit they sought to use as a tax exemption to lure potential employees through their doors. Again, is it or is it not fair for the government to recoup those tax dollars under the law if the employer doesn't provide the benefit?

    As to the rest of your post (#65), most people fail to see that the projected "job losses" are estimates nearly a decade away. Speaking to such projections as if they would impacts the labor force in the here and now is beyond foolishness and only proves to insight fear and anxiety where none exists. I'm not saying we shouldn't look into such matters, but making such claims and espousing such as if it is happening TODAY is to be very dishonest and misleading.

  7. #67
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Badmutha View Post
    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.

    The CBO/Liberal God has spoken........again.....

    The CBO aside for a moment.......do you personally believe mandating employers provide health insurance/ or pay fines......will somehow help them create jobs anywhere besides Imaginationland?
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    Continue on. half a truth is a lie, which is why this was inaccurate. he explains the loss, not getting rid of jobs, but that people who are only working for insurance woudl not need to.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  8. #68
    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 Objective Voice View Post
    Badmutha,

    Honestly, I seriously doubt one can create jobs via taxation or mandating a company must provide health insurance to their employees unless said jobs are within the health care and health insurance markets alone. They would be the only such industries to benefit from the mandate in particular.
    So you would agree that Democrat claims of "ObamaCare creating millions of jobs" is based in Imaginationland......

    As for the taxation part, I already covered that in my last post (#64), but to reinterate: If an employer who was once receiving a tax exemption for providing health insurance to their employees but chooses to no longer provide said benefit, then the government has every right to recoup that tax right off under our current tax law. The PPAC only reinforces the responsibility (big) businesses have toward their tax liability should they renege on providing the very employee benefit they sought to use as a tax exemption to lure potential employees through their doors. Again, is it or is it not fair for the government to recoup those tax dollars under the law if the employer doesn't provide the benefit?
    There should be no law mandating employers provide Health Insurance........thats up to the Employer.....


    As to the rest of your post (#65), most people fail to see that the projected "job losses" are estimates nearly a decade away. Speaking to such projections as if they would impacts the labor force in the here and now is beyond foolishness and only proves to insight fear and anxiety where none exists. I'm not saying we shouldn't look into such matters, but making such claims and espousing such as if it is happening TODAY is to be very dishonest and misleading.
    Have you ever signed the front of a paycheck?

    ..........do you really think mandating employers provide health insurace or face fines.........is going to help any employer on this planet create or sustain jobs?
    .
    .
    .
    .

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567

Posting Permissions

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