• 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!

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

reduces revenues by 770 billion, to be exact---obamacare raises taxes more than three quarters of a T

it also cuts medicare by half a T while expanding its already overstrained rolls

it burdens states already bankrupt with 200B in the form of expanded medicaid, the ghetto of health care

it double counts a quarter T according to cbo

it fails to account for a quarter T of doc fix

it increases significantly er traffic and costs, painting as false one of obtuse obama's prime payfor's

it exacerbates the already severe shortage of medicare friendly practitioners

it relies on 10 years of taxes vs 6 of benefits to reach its bogus bottom line

it's forced to exempt already 800 too bigs, including a slew of seiu locals, from its yearly cap requirements, otherwise they'd dump their employees and expose as equally false obama's mantra-like pledge that americans who are happy with what they got can keep it
 
Notice, he said reduction in the LABOR MARKET. There will be less jobs because the healthcare law will cause some people to drop out of the labor force early.

A ‘Job-Killing’ Law? | FactCheck.org

Yep, Weekly Standard always gives you the whole story! Btw i don't even support the law.

Some have no conern for what is really being said. The Weekly Standard, who have serious standards issues, seem to be one of those not concerned with the truth.
 
says the fella who prefers wik to the cbc

for purposes of clarification and overview

LOL!
 
yup, mainstream sources routinely fail your wikky expectations

LOL!

meanwhile, obamacare cuts medicare half a T while massively expanding its membership, it burdens states already bankrupt with another quarter T of medicaid expansion, it double counts another quarter T according to cbo, it cuts another quarter T out of budget via its doc fix, it raises taxes three quarters of a T, it significantly increases er traffic and costs, it exacerbates an already severe shortage of medicare-friendly docs, and it's forced to exempt 800 too bigs from its yearly cap requirements in order to keep em from dumping employees

how many times did the presidential LIAR promise americans could keep their coverage if they liked it

would you like the LINKS, again---nyt, globe, wapo, the hill, cbo's site, hhs', bloomberg...

they're only a CLICK away

now, why don't you continue your endless little argument about the bill you WISH obamacare was

LOL!
 
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.



I've highlighted the language which I see as a "guess" from the CBO.

Regarding the universe which constitutes a "great majority":



The longer term effects:



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/doc12033/12-23-SelectedHealthcarePublications.pdf

I agree Ockham, the CBO is trying to predict what will occur as an effect of the legislation, however, if that prediction was good enough for the OP, than it should also be good enough for a rebuttal to the assumptions in the OP, given that its the same source. But yes, I agree, that the ifs and mays and etc, are all guesses.

I also agree, that the health care does not cut costs (we would need single payer to truly do that), however, that was outside the original scope of the argument made in the OP as well. But I agree, the bill did not do what I was supposed to do due to the pressures of the compromise necessary to get it passed. We have some very short sighted people in congress.
 
I also agree, that the health care does not cut costs (we would need single payer to truly do that), however, that was outside the original scope of the argument made in the OP as well. But I agree, the bill did not do what I was supposed to do due to the pressures of the compromise necessary to get it passed. We have some very short sighted people in congress.

Although government is 0-967 when it comes to reducing costs for anything..........

.........there are still those that believe in a first time..........for everything.
.
.
.
.
 
Although government is 0-967 when it comes to reducing costs for anything..........

.........there are still those that believe in a first time..........for everything.
.
.
.
.

I would be happy with just accurately reporting what the CBO actually said. :coffeepap
 
I would be happy with just accurately reporting what the CBO actually said. :coffeepap

Chairman [Paul] Ryan: “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.
.
.
.
.
 
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.
.
.
.
.

Some small references taken out of context and away from the overall original CBO report and statistics means absolutely nothing.
 
Chairman [Paul] Ryan: “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. ;)
 
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.
 
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?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
.
.
.
.
 
Back
Top Bottom