• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

ObamaCare to reduce workforce by 2 million jobs' worth of hours, CBO says

Renae

Renae

Banned
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
50,241
Reaction score
19,243
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
ObamaCare will reduce work hours equivalent to 2 million jobs in the next decade amid a host of incentives not to work or to work less, a new Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report says -- the latest blow to President Obama’s signature health insurance plan.The report estimates the Affordable Care Act, or ACA, will make the labor supply shrink by 0.86 percent in 2025. This amounts to a shrinkage equivalent to approximately 2 million full-time workers.
The nonpartisan CBO estimates that the decline will come primarily due to workers responding to changes made by the law to federal programs and tax policy. The agency points to the introduction of health care subsidies tied to income as a key factor -- which in turn raises effective tax rates as someone’s earnings rise, therefore reducing the amount of work Americans choose to do
Click to expand...
ObamaCare to reduce workforce by 2 million jobs' worth of hours, CBO says | Fox News

There's a shock, a law written by people that never "worked", never ran a business being bad for workers and business. Shocked I tell you I'm so shocked.
 
That creates more Obama jobs. If Joe chooses to works fewer hours (to get those wonderful taxpayer subsidies) then those hours can then be worked by, currently unemployed, Fred so that he can then get those subsidies too. ;)
 
Renae said:
ObamaCare to reduce workforce by 2 million jobs' worth of hours, CBO says | Fox News

There's a shock, a law written by people that never "worked", never ran a business being bad for workers and business. Shocked I tell you I'm so shocked.
Click to expand...

Renae, this is great news. About two years ago the CBO said it would reduce the amount people choose to work the equivalent of 2.5 million hours. Here a blurb from the Feb 2014 report

"The reduction in CBO’s projections of hours worked represents a decline in the number of full-time-equivalent workers of about 2.0 million in 2017, rising to about 2.5 million in 2024."

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45010-breakout-AppendixC.pdf

Here's a thread about it

http://www.debatepolitics.com/obama...us-jobs-report-says.html?highlight=equivalent

Its a pretty funny thread to read. some conservatives actually thought it meant the loss of 2.5 million jobs. wait, your fox link said "the latest blow to President Obama’s signature health insurance plan." that doesn't make any sense. Its not a blow to Obamacare that people can work less if they chose because they're not job locked for health insurance and it's not the "latest blow". it's literally a two year old issue. If cons want to obediently categorize it as bad then its actually an improvement from the last CBO estimate. Is fox really trying to portray this as new and bad when its actually neither?
 
Vern said:
Renae, this is great news. About two years ago the CBO said it would reduce the amount people choose to work the equivalent of 2.5 million hours. Here a blurb from the Feb 2014 report

"The reduction in CBO’s projections of hours worked represents a decline in the number of full-time-equivalent workers of about 2.0 million in 2017, rising to about 2.5 million in 2024."

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45010-breakout-AppendixC.pdf

Here's a thread about it

http://www.debatepolitics.com/obama...us-jobs-report-says.html?highlight=equivalent

Its a pretty funny thread to read. some conservatives actually thought it meant the loss of 2.5 million jobs. wait, your fox link said "the latest blow to President Obama’s signature health insurance plan." that doesn't make any sense. Its not a blow to Obamacare that people can work less if they chose because they're not job locked for health insurance and it's not the "latest blow". it's literally a two year old issue. If cons want to obediently categorize it as bad then its actually an improvement from the last CBO estimate. Is fox really trying to portray this as new and bad when its actually neither?
Click to expand...

I see, so for you, people forced to work less because of the ACA, lowering their income and general SOL is a good thing, because they now have high deductible insurance mandated they carry is a good thing. How... interesting.
 
Renae said:
I see, so for you, people forced to work less because of the ACA, lowering their income and general SOL is a good thing, because they now have high deductible insurance mandated they carry is a good thing. How... interesting.
Click to expand...

It's even better. The people that will be working less.. Will be doing so because they want to ensure they get the maximum subsidy. In other words, these are predominantly poorer people that will be working less. Why should someone have to work when the democrats can just give them a bunch of freebies taken by force from the work of others? It's utopia.
 
buck said:
It's even better. The people that will be working less.. Will be doing so because they want to ensure they get the maximum subsidy. In other words, these are predominantly poorer people that will be working less. Why should someone have to work when the democrats can just give them a bunch of freebies taken by force from the work of others? It's utopia.
Click to expand...

Can you point out where the CBO said that the people will be working less because they want a bigger subsidy?
 
roughdraft274 said:
Can you point out where the CBO said that the people will be working less because they want a bigger subsidy?
Click to expand...

Some provisions
of the law will raise effective tax rates on earnings from labor—for instance, by phasing out health
insurance subsidies as people’s income rises—and thus reduce the amount of labor that workers choose to
supply
 
jonny5 said:
Some provisions
of the law will raise effective tax rates on earnings from labor—for instance, by phasing out health
insurance subsidies as people’s income rises—and thus reduce the amount of labor that workers choose to
supply
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how you're reply fits in to my question. Buck made a very exact claim and I asked him where in this study agrees with him. You're merely repeating kind of sort of what he said if I understand you correctly.
 
Renae said:
I see, so for you, people forced to work less because of the ACA, lowering their income and general SOL is a good thing, because they now have high deductible insurance mandated they carry is a good thing. How... interesting.
Click to expand...

mmmm, since you seem locked in on not really understanding what the CBO is saying lets discuss the typical lying spin from Fox. they said "the latest blow to President Obama’s signature health insurance plan." As you see, this was brought up 2 years ago (and obediently 'trumpeted' by conservatives). At some point conservatives have to realize they're being "played" by the conservative media.
 
Vern said:
mmmm, since you seem locked in on not really understanding what the CBO is saying lets discuss the typical lying spin from Fox. they said "the latest blow to President Obama’s signature health insurance plan." As you see, this was brought up 2 years ago (and obediently 'trumpeted' by conservatives). At some point conservatives have to realize they're being "played" by the conservative media.
Click to expand...

That's humorous coming from someone that thinks the ACA is a good thing. I think I'll pass on trying to parse your logic, I have enough to make me laugh today.
 
roughdraft274 said:
Can you point out where the CBO said that the people will be working less because they want a bigger subsidy?
Click to expand...

Sure.

CBO’s estimate that the ACA will reduce employment reflects some of the inherent trade-offs involved in designing such legislation. Subsidies that help lowerincome people purchase an expensive product like health insurance must be relatively large to encourage a significant proportion of eligible people to enroll. If those subsidies are phased out with rising income in order to limit their total costs, the phaseout effectively raises people’s marginal tax rates (the tax rates applying to their last dollar of income), thus discouraging work. In addition, if the subsidies are financed at least in part by higher taxes, those taxes will further discourage work or create other economic distortions, depending on how the taxes are designed. Alternatively, if subsidies are not phased out or eliminated with rising income, then the increase in taxes required to finance the subsidies would be much larger.
Click to expand...

Simply: if they work more, they will lose that subsidy. By working less, they get to keep more of that subsidy.

In CBO’s view, the ACA’s effects on labor supply will stem mainly from the following provisions, roughly in order of importance:
The subsidies for health insurance purchased through
exchanges;
 The expansion of eligibility for Medicaid;
 The penalties on employers that decline to offer
insurance; and
 The new taxes imposed on labor income
Click to expand...

Effects of Insurance Subsidies on the Supply of Labor Beginning in 2014, many people who purchase insurance through exchanges will be eligible for federal tax credits to defray the cost of their premiums, and some also will be eligible for cost-sharing subsidies to reduce out-ofpocket expenditures for health care. Those subsidies are largest for people whose income is near the federal poverty guideline (also known as the federal poverty level, or FPL), and they decline with rising income.
Click to expand...
 
This is the 3rd (to the best of my memory) over almost 2 years Faux Noise has promoted this tripe as news…………it has been debunked yet Faux continues to repeat the “story” as it is a current news story………It seems when news slows down or there is news does not want to cover ……. they resurrect a “old news” story………...with a different headline and/or different spin……….

How Faux devotees do not recognize and/or put up with this kind of “ gutter journalism” is beyond my understanding……………….


It only took two days for a Senate candidate to air a TV ad distorting the Affordable Care Act’s effect on the labor market in a way that the Congressional Budget Office (and fact-checkers) warned would be wrong.

The ad from Republican Thom Tillis, a North Carolina Senate candidate, accuses his Democratic opponent, Sen. Kay Hagan, of supporting a health care law that would cause more than 2 million to “lose their jobs.” On the screen, it states, “Congressional Budget Office estimates 2 million lost jobs due to Obamacare.”

………. When a number of Republicans claimed that the new CBO report confirmed that the health care law would “kill” more than 2 million jobs, fact-checkers were quick to point out the inaccuracy. (See AP, The Washington Post Fact Checker, PolitiFact, and of course, our report). Still, the Republican talking point endured…………..”

“………Republicans who have misused the CBO report:


Sid Dinsdale of Nebraska, candidate for U.S. Senate, April 19: The largest expansion of government overreach. Taking control of one-sixth of our economy. Putting government between doctors and patients. Higher taxes and two-and-a-half million lost jobs. (Source: Sid Dinsdale for U.S. Senate TV ad.)

Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, Feb. 4: [T]he Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) Budget and Economic Outlook found that the President’s health care law would eliminate 2.3 million American jobs in 2021 — 1.5 million more than the previous estimate of 800,000 jobs lost. (Source: Press release on Senate Committee on Finance website)

Rep. Luke Messer of Indiana, Feb. 4: According to the report, the President’s health care law will reduce labor force compensation and push as many as 2.3 million people out of the workforce over the next seven years. That is unacceptable. (Source: Messer’s congressional website)

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Feb. 4: The CBO report is certainly not pretty if you’re interested in creating jobs in America. As we all know they estimate up to 2 million fewer jobs will be created as a result of ObamaCare. Honestly, it’s not a surprising report. All the anecdotes you hear all across the country are that premiums are going up and jobs are being lost. (Source: Fox News)

Rep. Leonard Lance of New Jersey, Feb. 4: The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office projects that the President’s healthcare law will slow economic growth over the next decade, costing the Nation about 2.3 million jobs and contributing to a $1 trillion increase in projected deficits. (Source: Lance’s congressional website)

Rep. Joe Pitts of Pennsylvania, Feb. 4: This morning, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office released a report showing that the Affordable Care Act could cost the nation 2.5 million jobs and increases the federal deficit by $1 trillion over the next ten years. (Source: Pitts’ congressional website)

‘Lost Jobs’ from Obamacare
Ingraham: Obamacare 'is costing 2 million jobs' | PunditFact
Obamacare Myths
 
Renae said:
That's humorous coming from someone that thinks the ACA is a good thing. I think I'll pass on trying to parse your logic, I have enough to make me laugh today.
Click to expand...

mmmm, that's odd, my logic was pretty clear. Fox is trying to claim something from 2 years ago is the "the latest blow to President Obama’s signature health insurance plan" That's obviously just more lies and spin from Fox. And renae, I don't have to lie and spin to defend 17.6 million newly insured, increasing the quality of healthcare and lowering the deficit. which brings up a good point. If Obamacare is so bad why do Fox and all have to lie and spin about Obamacare?
 
Vern said:
mmmm, since you seem locked in on not really understanding what the CBO is saying lets discuss the typical lying spin from Fox. they said "the latest blow to President Obama’s signature health insurance plan." As you see, this was brought up 2 years ago (and obediently 'trumpeted' by conservatives). At some point conservatives have to realize they're being "played" by the conservative media.
Click to expand...

for a while, FOX news was running the same report about "ISIS slaughtering Christians in Iraq", over and over again, in a way that made it look like every time they ran the same story it was a new incident. I see this type of thing happen a lot.
 
Renae said:
That's humorous coming from someone that thinks the ACA is a good thing. I think I'll pass on trying to parse your logic, I have enough to make me laugh today.
Click to expand...

I know that you weren't responding to me, but the ACA is neither good, nor is it the evil that so many conservatives claim it to be. It simply is what it is. Didn't cause insurance to become cheaper, but it didn't collapse our economy, it didn't cause all employers to drop their coverage, it didn't make all doctors retire, etc.

The propaganda from both sides has been proven to be false.
 
imagep said:
I know that you weren't responding to me, but the ACA is neither good, nor is it the evil that so many conservatives claim it to be. It simply is what it is. Didn't cause insurance to become cheaper, but it didn't collapse our economy, it didn't cause all employers to drop their coverage, it didn't make all doctors retire, etc.

The propaganda from both sides has been proven to be false.
Click to expand...

It hasn't been good for the economy, and it hasn't been full implemented yet. The really damaging stuff kicks in after the man that pushed it leaves office.
 
imagep said:
I know that you weren't responding to me, but the ACA is neither good, nor is it the evil that so many conservatives claim it to be. It simply is what it is. Didn't cause insurance to become cheaper, but it didn't collapse our economy, it didn't cause all employers to drop their coverage, it didn't make all doctors retire, etc.

The propaganda from both sides has been proven to be false.
Click to expand...

Very true.

Buck is right. There are people that will choose to work less hours.. mainly because they don't want to get kicked off Medicaid now that Medicaid is expanded (this has been going on for a while prior to Obamacare but the expansion of Medicaid increased this).

Some people will choose to work less hours because they will not want to lose their subsidy (but this I think will be very small. The subsidy is not that substantial.. compared to Medicaid)

Now Vern is right. Some people were working because they needed healthcare. They may have been ready to retire.. at say 62 when they could take social security or their pension but they would lose healthcare and not get medicare until 65 and now.. they will choose early retirement and with subsidy, or Medicaid, be able to be covered until they reach 65.

Of course their are other factors as well. Some people will be forced to work less hours because employers will want to avoid having to pay for healthcare insurance. Because of the mandate on employers.. which is pretty arbitrary. Hiring that one person over the limit means you have to provide healthcare to EVERYONE which is a sizable increase in cost. There will be a significant amount of manipulation of hours and reductions to avoid the arbitrary limits.
 
jaeger19 said:
Very true.

Buck is right. There are people that will choose to work less hours.. mainly because they don't want to get kicked off Medicaid now that Medicaid is expanded (this has been going on for a while prior to Obamacare but the expansion of Medicaid increased this).

Some people will choose to work less hours because they will not want to lose their subsidy (but this I think will be very small. The subsidy is not that substantial.. compared to Medicaid)
Click to expand...

May I just point out that according to the CBO the biggest contributor to the working hours decreasing is the potential loss of the subsidy. Loss of medicaid is second.
 
Renae said:
It hasn't been good for the economy, and it hasn't been full implemented yet. The really damaging stuff kicks in after the man that pushed it leaves office.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that it is pretty much fully implemented. Which parts do you think haven't been implimented?
 
buck said:
Sure.



Simply: if they work more, they will lose that subsidy. By working less, they get to keep more of that subsidy.
Click to expand...

None of those are quotes from the actual report correct?

I can't find anything in the report that even somewhat agrees with your original statement.
 
Renae said:
It hasn't been good for the economy, and it hasn't been full implemented yet. The really damaging stuff kicks in after the man that pushed it leaves office.
Click to expand...

Renae said:
https://www.irs.gov/Affordable-Care-Act/Employers/Employer-Shared-Responsibility-Provisions
Click to expand...

sorry Renae, I didn't see the "damaging stuff" you think kicks in in 2017 in your link. Your link was about the employer mandate for "applicable large employers ". could you clarify exactly what you are referring to? thanks in advance.
 
Vern said:
sorry Renae, I didn't see the "damaging stuff" you think kicks in in 2017 in your link. Your link was about the employer mandate for "applicable large employers ". could you clarify exactly what you are referring to? thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

Of course you don't see it. Does employer mandate mean anything to you? It kicks in fully with no recourse. Of course you may not realize how that is going to change a lot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom