• 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

Are you really so clueless that you believe what you wrote or just think everyone else is a dope. Personal income taxes are down because PEOPLE ARE NOT WORKING.

On another point that you and the CBO say HR2 would increase the deficit. The bill calls for cutting 500 billion of medicare waste and abuse. Does anyone believe that if Obamacare is repealed we will say that it is OK for fraud to continue? Does anyone believe that you can add 30 million consumers of anything without increasing supply that costs will not rise.

A person would have to have their head totally up their a** to believe the assumptions that get us to the CBO savings.

If the CBO is totally bound by the crappy assumptions given them and their job is just to add it up, get rid of the CBO and hire two clerks!

Somebody is clueless alright. Are you sure you're not 'slightly conservative'? You sure have all of the idiotic rightie talking points down.
 
The entire law hasn't even gone into effect, and already it's a job-killing, deficit-growing, freedom-hating piece of legislation?

Yes. It doesn't have to go into effect to be all of those things.

It is a job killer: Will health care reform really cost 650,000 jobs? By how much is still up for debate, but there is no doubt in any one's mind...liberal or conservative...that the bill will cause a reduction in the work force. I.e. It kills jobs.

It does contribute to the deficit: Health care reform: Where the money will come from - Mar. 20, 2010 Beyond the wild speculation of reduced health care costs (which won't materialize) and increased wages, the CBO still forecasts increased deficits beyond 10 years. The minor savings is based on unrealistic speculation and won't likely materialize.

As for freedom hating, any time legislation forces people to do anything it is hard to label the legislation as anything other than freedom hating.

LMAO...You people are a joke.

Do you feel better pretending that I am a "joke"? That should make it easier to ignore facts.

The cost of care going up has nothing to do with this law. Get real.

Ok, let's get "real."

Under this law, there are new or increased taxes on health care, developing medications, Medicare payroll, BCBS has been singled out for new taxes, insurers, employer provided benefits, investment income and more. When you tax medicine and insurance, those taxes are passed down to the consumer...you. New taxes + old costs = more than you are paying now.

Comprehensive List of Tax Hikes in Obamacare

By the way, under the Obama administration, you are paying less in taxes than you did under Bush. Taxes are at the lowest point since the 1960's. So, what was your point again?

No I'm not. In fact, my withholdings went up this year...as a percentage. The overall decrease is due to the crushing debt that has eaten up all available capital and reduced profits and the workforce in the country. We collected fewer taxes because there was so much less economic activity. Even the Huffington Post agrees with me on that:

Tax Revenues Post Biggest Drop Since Depression
 
I don't know what point you're trying to make

LOL!

"CBO anticipates that enacting H.R. 2 would probably yield, for the 2012-2021 period, a reduction in revenues in the neighborhood of $770 billion"

obamacare also cuts medicare HALF A TRIL while simultaneously expanding its membership massively, it burdens bankrupt states with TWO HUNDRED BIL of the bill, it double counts a QUARTER TRIL according to cbo, it does a QUARTER TRIL doc fix unpaid for, it significantly increases er traffic and costs, it greatly exacerbates a serious shortage of medicare-friendly doctors, and it's forced to exempt hundreds of too bigs in the first few months of implementation to keep the whole thing from crashing

thanks for the opportunity to clarify
 
Are you really so clueless that you believe what you wrote or just think everyone else is a dope. Personal income taxes are down because PEOPLE ARE NOT WORKING.
It's not so much either one, I view most rhetoric like the Sgt's to be banking on the unwillingness of people to investigate it for themselves.

On another point that you and the CBO say HR2 would increase the deficit. The bill calls for cutting 500 billion of medicare waste and abuse. Does anyone believe that if Obamacare is repealed we will say that it is OK for fraud to continue? Does anyone believe that you can add 30 million consumers of anything without increasing supply that costs will not rise.
Apparently yes, but that seems acceptable to some who believe the rich should be tapped for their savings and they should pay for it because, well... they're rich.

A person would have to have their head totally up their a** to believe the assumptions that get us to the CBO savings.

If the CBO is totally bound by the crappy assumptions given them and their job is just to add it up, get rid of the CBO and hire two clerks!

Too true!!
 
This news story is BS and disinfo, IMO
 
This article is short on details and does not go into why 800,000 jobs are projected to be lost. I wonder how much of this represents wasted work that is not necessary for our health care system.
 
LOL!

"CBO anticipates that enacting H.R. 2 would probably yield, for the 2012-2021 period, a reduction in revenues in the neighborhood of $770 billion"

obamacare also cuts medicare HALF A TRIL while simultaneously expanding its membership massively, it burdens bankrupt states with TWO HUNDRED BIL of the bill, it double counts a QUARTER TRIL according to cbo, it does a QUARTER TRIL doc fix unpaid for, it significantly increases er traffic and costs, it greatly exacerbates a serious shortage of medicare-friendly doctors, and it's forced to exempt hundreds of too bigs in the first few months of implementation to keep the whole thing from crashing

thanks for the opportunity to clarify

You're confused again. HR 2 is the GOP's "Repealing the Job Killing blah blah blah". Your own link trashes HR 2. So, once again, what was your point?
 
Yes. It doesn't have to go into effect to be all of those things.

It is a job killer: Will health care reform really cost 650,000 jobs? By how much is still up for debate, but there is no doubt in any one's mind...liberal or conservative...that the bill will cause a reduction in the work force. I.e. It kills jobs.

Oh really? From your own source:

A recent report by House GOP leaders says "independent analyses have determined that the health care law will cause significant job losses for the U.S. economy."

It cites the 650,000 lost jobs as Exhibit A, and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office as the source of the original analysis behind that estimate. But the budget office, which referees the costs and consequences of legislation, never produced the number.

What follows is a story of how statistics get used and abused in Washington.

What CBO actually said is that the impact of the health care law on supply and demand for labor would be small. Most of it would come from people who no longer have to work, or can downshift to less demanding employment, because insurance will be available outside the job.

"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," budget office number crunchers said in a report from last year.

A reduction in the labor force is a whole lot different than saying the legislation kils jobs. Since the mandate requires all Americans to purchase health insurance, the labor force may be reduced because fewer Americans will choose to work longer, or less will choose to work for the sole purpose of receiving health insurance through an employer. Nice try, but you fail on that one.

It does contribute to the deficit: Health care reform: Where the money will come from - Mar. 20, 2010 Beyond the wild speculation of reduced health care costs (which won't materialize) and increased wages, the CBO still forecasts increased deficits beyond 10 years. The minor savings is based on unrealistic speculation and won't likely materialize.

Again, from your own source:

By contrast, supporters of reform say the CBO underestimates the bill's potential savings, because the agency doesn't credit the bill's experimental measures designed to make the health care delivery system more cost-efficient.

As for freedom hating, any time legislation forces people to do anything it is hard to label the legislation as anything other than freedom hating.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Do you feel better pretending that I am a "joke"?

Yes. Did you read the above quote?

No I'm not.

Yes, you are. Read my previous post which has a link debunking your bogus claim.
 
Last edited:
Oh really? From your own source:



A reduction in the labor force is a whole lot different than saying the legislation kils jobs. Since the mandate requires all Americans to purchase health insurance, the labor force may be reduced because fewer Americans will choose to work longer, or less will choose to work for the sole purpose of receiving health insurance through an employer. Nice try, but you fail on that one.

Are you serious? There is no difference. That's exactly the same thing.



Again, from your own source:

Oh....the "supporters" say it will work. Well, I don't know how I missed that. Obviously "supporters" an unbiased and well qualified to make that judgement. My opinion has completely changed. Clearly the bill is a magical piece of legislation that creates something from nothing. This bill manages to reduce taxes and increase spending without while increasing revenue and decreasing costs. [/sarcasm]


BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Don't cry...we know you don't have a legitimate counter point...its ok...no liberal ever does ;)

Yes. Did you read the above quote?

Yes. Care to counter?


Yes, you are. Read my previous post which has a link debunking your bogus claim.[/QUOTE]
 
Having studied the issue, it seems that a great majority of those who would leave their jobs would do so voluntarily due to them not needing health care tying them to a job. This is actually a good thing, because it should make room for those who do wish to work.
 
Having studied the issue, it seems that a great majority of those who would leave their jobs would do so voluntarily due to them not needing health care tying them to a job. This is actually a good thing, because it should make room for those who do wish to work.

Can you show me what material you have studied which supports your "great majority" comment?
 
Can you show me what material you have studied which supports your "great majority" comment?

http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/117xx/doc11705/08-18-Update.pdf

The expansion of Medicaid and the availability of
subsidies through the exchanges will effectively
increase beneficiaries’ financial resources. Those additional
resources will encourage some people to work
fewer hours or to withdraw from the labor market.

Other provisions in the legislation are also likely to
diminish people’s incentives to work. Changes to the
insurance market, including provisions that prohibit
insurers from denying coverage to people because of
preexisting conditions and that restrict how much
prices can vary with an individual’s age or health
status, will increase the appeal of health insurance
plans offered outside the workplace for older workers.
As a result, some older workers will choose to retire
earlier than they otherwise would.

The net reduction in the supply of labor is largely
attributable to the substantial expansion of Medicaid
and the provision of subsidies that will reduce the
cost of insurance obtained through the newly created
exchanges, beginning in 2014.

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.
 
Last edited:
This isn't disney. Welcome to reality.

There is no magic wand to be waved around and provide everyone with a pretty dress to attend the ball. Sacrifices simply have to be made, something that Americans obviously have no clue about.

Oh really, then who does?
 
Having studied the issue, it seems that a great majority of those who would leave their jobs would do so voluntarily due to them not needing health care tying them to a job. This is actually a good thing, because it should make room for those who do wish to work.

:beam:

:aliens3:
 
megaprogman said:
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.
 
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.
 
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...
 
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......
.
.
.
.
 
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.
 
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/doc12033/12-23-SelectedHealthcarePublications.pdf
 
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/business/retirementspecial/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
 
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.
.
.
.
.
 
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. :wink:
 
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom