ACA will cost 2 trillion over 10 years, slow job creation and retard economic growth (1 Viewer)

[KLATTU]

CBO: Health Law To Cut Into Labor Force - WSJ
The Affordable Care Act will also reduce the number of fulltime workers by more than 2 million in coming years, congressional budget analysts said in the most detailed analysis of the law’s impact on jobs. The CBO said the law’s impact on jobs would be mostly felt starting after 2016. The agency previously estimated that the economy would have 800,000 fewer jobs as a result of the law. The impact is likely to be most felt, the CBO said, among low-wage workers. The agency said that most of the effect would come from Americans deciding not to seek work as a result of the ACA’s impact on the economy. Some workers may forgo employment, while others may reduce hours, for a equivalent of at least 2 million fulltime workers dropping out of the labor force.

 

[eohrnberger]

Re: ACA will cost 2 trillion over 10 years, slow job creation and retard economic gr

CBO: Health Law To Cut Into Labor Force - WSJ
The Affordable Care Act will also reduce the number of fulltime workers by more than 2 million in coming years, congressional budget analysts said in the most detailed analysis of the law’s impact on jobs. The CBO said the law’s impact on jobs would be mostly felt starting after 2016. The agency previously estimated that the economy would have 800,000 fewer jobs as a result of the law. The impact is likely to be most felt, the CBO said, among low-wage workers. The agency said that most of the effect would come from Americans deciding not to seek work as a result of the ACA’s impact on the economy. Some workers may forgo employment, while others may reduce hours, for a equivalent of at least 2 million fulltime workers dropping out of the labor force.

Hmm. This sounds awfully familiar to what was warned before Obamacare was passed from a great many sources.

 

[MrWonka]

Re: ACA will cost 2 trillion over 10 years, slow job creation and retard economic gr

CBO: Health Law To Cut Into Labor Force - WSJ
The Affordable Care Act will also reduce the number of fulltime workers by more than 2 million in coming years, congressional budget analysts said in the most detailed analysis of the law’s impact on jobs. The CBO said the law’s impact on jobs would be mostly felt starting after 2016. The agency previously estimated that the economy would have 800,000 fewer jobs as a result of the law. The impact is likely to be most felt, the CBO said, among low-wage workers. The agency said that most of the effect would come from Americans deciding not to seek work as a result of the ACA’s impact on the economy. Some workers may forgo employment, while others may reduce hours, for a equivalent of at least 2 million fulltime workers dropping out of the labor force.

This isn't a negative it's a benefit. We're not losing jobs here. People are choosing not to work because they don't need to anymore. For many people in this country needing employee sponsored health insurance was the only reason they couldn't retire. This allows them to vacate the work force and let someone younger have their job.

 

[Fearandloathing]

Re: ACA will cost 2 trillion over 10 years, slow job creation and retard economic gr

CBO: Health Law To Cut Into Labor Force - WSJ
The Affordable Care Act will also reduce the number of fulltime workers by more than 2 million in coming years, congressional budget analysts said in the most detailed analysis of the law’s impact on jobs. The CBO said the law’s impact on jobs would be mostly felt starting after 2016. The agency previously estimated that the economy would have 800,000 fewer jobs as a result of the law. The impact is likely to be most felt, the CBO said, among low-wage workers. The agency said that most of the effect would come from Americans deciding not to seek work as a result of the ACA’s impact on the economy. Some workers may forgo employment, while others may reduce hours, for a equivalent of at least 2 million fulltime workers dropping out of the labor force.

When Obama went to Boston to try to lay off the Obamacare mess on Romney in the wake of the discovery of 25 million plans that couldn't be kept, I said there are going to more, much more worrisome problems in the years to come. If Obama was ready to take the heat on his "you can keep your plan*, then there were, for sure, other, much bigger lies in waiting.

Most of what's wrong with the ACA comes into effect after Obama's gone.

Whether anyone will admit it or not, Mr. Obama's legacy will be the most expensive and most corrupt health system in the know universe.

 

[cpwill]

Re: ACA will cost 2 trillion over 10 years, slow job creation and retard economic gr

CBO: Health Law To Cut Into Labor Force - WSJ
The Affordable Care Act will also reduce the number of fulltime workers by more than 2 million in coming years, congressional budget analysts said in the most detailed analysis of the law’s impact on jobs. The CBO said the law’s impact on jobs would be mostly felt starting after 2016. The agency previously estimated that the economy would have 800,000 fewer jobs as a result of the law. The impact is likely to be most felt, the CBO said, among low-wage workers. The agency said that most of the effect would come from Americans deciding not to seek work as a result of the ACA’s impact on the economy. Some workers may forgo employment, while others may reduce hours, for a equivalent of at least 2 million fulltime workers dropping out of the labor force.

:lol:


Remember back when Democrats were claiming that Obamacare was going to create jobs and lower the deficit?

Good times, good times...

 

[KLATTU]

Re: ACA will cost 2 trillion over 10 years, slow job creation and retard economic gr

Hmm. This sounds awfully familiar to what was warned before Obamacare was passed from a great many sources.

Sometimes you have to pass a bill to find out what's in . LOL

 

[KLATTU]

Re: ACA will cost 2 trillion over 10 years, slow job creation and retard economic gr

:lol:


Remember back when Democrats were claiming that Obamacare was going to create jobs and lower the deficit?

Good times, good times...

9/9/09: Obama Promises ObamaCare Won't Add "One Dime To The Deficit"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGAdrQ2RpdM

That whopper should have gotten lie of the year. HE knew DAMM well it was lie too.

 

[MrWonka]

Re: ACA will cost 2 trillion over 10 years, slow job creation and retard economic gr

Remember back when Democrats were claiming that Obamacare was going to create jobs and lower the deficit?

Which it has and does. Did you not read the article or did you just not understand the article. It doesn't say that it will cost jobs, it says it will reduce workers. That's actually not a bad thing. In fact it will likely increase competition for workers and drive up wages. The bill is talking about people who are voluntarily able to leave the work force because they can afford to retire now that their health care is affordable without an employer assistance.

 

[shagg]

Re: ACA will cost 2 trillion over 10 years, slow job creation and retard economic gr

CBO: Health Law To Cut Into Labor Force - WSJ
The Affordable Care Act will also reduce the number of fulltime workers by more than 2 million in coming years, congressional budget analysts said in the most detailed analysis of the law’s impact on jobs. The CBO said the law’s impact on jobs would be mostly felt starting after 2016. The agency previously estimated that the economy would have 800,000 fewer jobs as a result of the law. The impact is likely to be most felt, the CBO said, among low-wage workers. The agency said that most of the effect would come from Americans deciding not to seek work as a result of the ACA’s impact on the economy. Some workers may forgo employment, while others may reduce hours, for a equivalent of at least 2 million fulltime workers dropping out of the labor force.

I agree, UHC would have been much better than a government protected marketplace for health insurance providers, where (most) everyone has to go buy the product being sold. Imagine if businesses were relieved of the cost of providing their employees health insurance.

 

[MrWonka]

Re: ACA will cost 2 trillion over 10 years, slow job creation and retard economic gr

That whopper should have gotten lie of the year. HE knew DAMM well it was lie too.

Ummm......we're now seven years into the ACA, and the deficit is actually approximately the same as it was under Bush.

 

[MrWonka]

Re: ACA will cost 2 trillion over 10 years, slow job creation and retard economic gr

Imagine if businesses were relieved of the cost of providing their employees health insurance.

They would just have to pay them higher wages in exchange, and or pay higher taxes to match. It would be largely irrelevant.

 

[cpwill]

Re: ACA will cost 2 trillion over 10 years, slow job creation and retard economic gr

This isn't a negative it's a benefit. We're not losing jobs here. People are choosing not to work because they don't need to anymore. For many people in this country needing employee sponsored health insurance was the only reason they couldn't retire. This allows them to vacate the work force and let someone younger have their job.

Remember back when Democrats were claiming that Obamacare was going to create jobs and lower the deficit?

Which it has and does.

:lamo

Look dude, you can argue that it's a good thing that Obamacare is reducing the number of jobs, or you can argue that Obamacare is creating jobs, but you can't argue both

Did you not read the article or did you just not understand the article. It doesn't say that it will cost jobs, it says it will reduce workers. That's actually not a bad thing.

So you are arguing that... more workers will be working two or three jobs instead of one? And that's.... a good thing.

In fact it will likely increase competition for workers and drive up wages.

Well, this analysis was done back in 2013. Is that what we've seen since then? Dramatic wage growth?

 

[katzgar]

Re: ACA will cost 2 trillion over 10 years, slow job creation and retard economic gr

the right wing uneducated hysterics are out in force.

 

[eohrnberger]

Re: ACA will cost 2 trillion over 10 years, slow job creation and retard economic gr

Sometimes you have to pass a bill to find out what's in . LOL

Nancy Pelosi said: “We have to pass it, to find out what’s in it.” A Doctor called to a radio show & said: "That's the definition of a stool sample"

 

[Greenbeard]

Re: ACA will cost 2 trillion over 10 years, slow job creation and retard economic gr

Look dude, you can argue that it's a good thing that Obamacare is reducing the number of jobs, or you can argue that Obamacare is creating jobs, but you can't argue both

Where has anyone been discussing impact on "the number of jobs"? The OP is about the supply of labor.

FTEs as expressed here doesn't reflect actual positions, they're a way of quantifying the amount of labor for sale.

 

[eohrnberger]

Re: ACA will cost 2 trillion over 10 years, slow job creation and retard economic gr

When Obama went to Boston to try to lay off the Obamacare mess on Romney in the wake of the discovery of 25 million plans that couldn't be kept, I said there are going to more, much more worrisome problems in the years to come. If Obama was ready to take the heat on his "you can keep your plan*, then there were, for sure, other, much bigger lies in waiting.

Most of what's wrong with the ACA comes into effect after Obama's gone.

Whether anyone will admit it or not, Mr. Obama's legacy will be the most expensive and most corrupt health system in the know universe.

Suitable. Every year when the November ObamaCare sign ups are happening, it's just before the elections. It'll give everyone who's voting a reminder, and I'm OK with that.

:lol:


Remember back when Democrats were claiming that Obamacare was going to create jobs and lower the deficit?

Good times, good times...

I think what you mean to say is 'Good delusions'.

9/9/09: Obama Promises ObamaCare Won't Add "One Dime To The Deficit"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGAdrQ2RpdM

That whopper should have gotten lie of the year. HE knew DAMM well it was lie too.

Finally identified the leftists standard operating procedure?

 

[Fearandloathing]

Re: ACA will cost 2 trillion over 10 years, slow job creation and retard economic gr

Hmm. This sounds awfully familiar to what was warned before Obamacare was passed from a great many sources.

It should. You may recall that a group of Canadian health economists offered their opinion in the early going. It received no coverage there and scant coverage here, but during the process met with a group of Republican lawmakers. The outcome from the Obama-fed press was "Republicans reject Canadian suggestion of one payer."

As far as I know single payer was never discussed, but they wanted to hear the economists' thoughts on the ACA as it was understood at the time.

After it was introduced, some Republicans made mention of some of that material which all seems to have been correct.

One thing I will say. We screwed up health care with the way it was brought in in the 60's and it almost killed us as a country. We had to learn how to do this that hard way, with waiting lists and people dying waiting for surgery. So we know where the hell holes are. Most Americans simply didn't want to listen

 

[Henrin]

Re: ACA will cost 2 trillion over 10 years, slow job creation and retard economic gr

I agree, UHC would have been much better than a government protected marketplace for health insurance providers, where (most) everyone has to go buy the product being sold. Imagine if businesses were relieved of the cost of providing their employees health insurance.

You do realize that UHC would require a tax increase on those businesses, right? How is moving the bill they are paying from one place to another somehow lower their costs?

 

[eohrnberger]

Re: ACA will cost 2 trillion over 10 years, slow job creation and retard economic gr

It should. You may recall that a group of Canadian health economists offered their opinion in the early going. It received no coverage there and scant coverage here, but during the process met with a group of Republican lawmakers. The outcome from the Obama-fed press was "Republicans reject Canadian suggestion of one payer."

As far as I know single payer was never discussed, but they wanted to hear the economists' thoughts on the ACA as it was understood at the time.

After it was introduced, some Republicans made mention of some of that material which all seems to have been correct.

One thing I will say. We screwed up health care with the way it was brought in in the 60's and it almost killed us as a country. We had to learn how to do this that hard way, with waiting lists and people dying waiting for surgery. So we know where the hell holes are. Most Americans simply didn't want to listen

Yeah. I know. These dire predictions were great in number and validity, but as you posted there, the Obama-fed press didn't want to bother with it.

When you say 'Most Americans', I think that would only include those left of center, and those willing to believe the lying leftists that shoved ObamaCare down the nation's throats by force.

The Democrats own this turd for ever more, and rightfully so. As I've posted, it's nice that the electorate gets a reminder every year late October / early November, just before the elections on election years.

 

[MrWonka]

Re: ACA will cost 2 trillion over 10 years, slow job creation and retard economic gr

Look dude, you can argue that it's a good thing that Obamacare is reducing the number of jobs, or you can argue that Obamacare is creating jobs, but you can't argue both

Again.... you FAIL basic reading comprehension. The article does not say that Obamacare is reducing the number of Jobs. It says it's reducing the number of workers to do those jobs.

So you are arguing that... more workers will be working two or three jobs instead of one? And that's.... a good thing.

No, i'm saying people will be able to retire sooner. That will open up jobs for younger workers to replace them.

Well, this analysis was done back in 2013. Is that what we've seen since then? Dramatic wage growth?

The analysis is about what will happen over the course of 10 years. Nobody is saying we'll get Dramatic wage growth, but it's certainly a possibility.

Right now in this country we have a record number of jobs available. http://www.debatepolitics.com/government-spending-and-debt/255315-record-number-jobs-available.html

There is really only two explanations for this...
1.) The workers looking for jobs aren't qualified to do the jobs that are available...

2.) The jobs available don't pay enough for the workers to bother taking them...

In either case it will require employers to start raising wages soon in order to attract the talent they apparently need.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Re: ACA will cost 2 trillion over 10 years, slow job creation and retard economic gr

Which it has and does. Did you not read the article or did you just not understand the article. It doesn't say that it will cost jobs, it says it will reduce workers. That's actually not a bad thing. In fact it will likely increase competition for workers and drive up wages. The bill is talking about people who are voluntarily able to leave the work force because they can afford to retire now that their health care is affordable without an employer assistance.

Your defense is really laughable. Basically, what you're saying is that now that the Federal Government is going to spend in excess of $2 trillion over the next 10 years, many low-wage workers can go on the dole because the government will pay for their health care instead of their employer doing so. But, in fact, the vast majority of low-wage workers don't now have employer funded healthcare insurance and, based on their level of income, the ACA would cover their healthcare insurance costs anyway. They're not going to quit their jobs because they now get cheap or free healthcare insurance, but if they work in a company where 50 or more are employed, they are likely going to lose their job because the employer doesn't want to have to start paying for their healthcare insurance or pay a fine instead.

 

[MrWonka]

Re: ACA will cost 2 trillion over 10 years, slow job creation and retard economic gr

You do realize that UHC would require a tax increase on those businesses, right? How is moving the bill they are paying from one place to another somehow lower their costs?

Well one possible savings would be on administrative costs since employers likely wouldn't need as many HR people to manage fewer benefits.

 

[MrWonka]

Re: ACA will cost 2 trillion over 10 years, slow job creation and retard economic gr

Your defense is really laughable. Basically, what you're saying is that now that the Federal Government is going to spend in excess of $2 trillion over the next 10 years, many low-wage workers can go on the dole because the government will pay for their health care instead of their employer doing so.

Actually, if you people ever read anything carefully you'd see that I was referring more to slightly older people who actually make very good money and would otherwise be able to afford retirement if it weren't for the fact that they'd lose their health insurance benefits. That is primarily the type of worker that the CBO is referring to.

 

[Greenbeard]

Re: ACA will cost 2 trillion over 10 years, slow job creation and retard economic gr

They're not going to quit their jobs because they now get cheap or free healthcare insurance, but if they work in a company where 50 or more are employed, they are likely going to lose their job because the employer doesn't want to have to start paying for their healthcare insurance or pay a fine instead.

In the U.S., 96% of firms with 50 or more employees already offer health insurance.

 

[cpwill]

Re: ACA will cost 2 trillion over 10 years, slow job creation and retard economic gr

Look dude, you can argue that it's a good thing that Obamacare is reducing the number of jobs, or you can argue that Obamacare is creating jobs, but you can't argue both

Again.... you FAIL basic reading comprehension. The article does not say that Obamacare is reducing the number of Jobs. It says it's reducing the number of workers to do those jobs.

So you are arguing that... more workers will be working two or three jobs instead of one? And that's.... a good thing.

No, i'm saying people will be able to retire sooner. That will open up jobs for younger workers to replace them.

Okedoke. Let's do some basic arithmetic. Let's say that, given normal flow in and out of the workforce, we have (making figures up) 60,000,000 workers in the work force, holding 70,000,000 jobs.


Then, along comes Obamacare. 5% of those workers quit. Now we have 57,000,000 workers.

Three things are going to happen: A) Either the number of jobs is going to shrink by 3,000,00, B) 3,000,000 workers are going to pick up an additional job, or C), Some Combination of both reduction in the number of jobs and increases in the number of people holding multiple jobs.

What's not going to happen is that we get A) Fewer workers and B) More jobs while C) not having workers holding more jobs per worker.

The analysis is about what will happen over the course of 10 years. Nobody is saying we'll get Dramatic wage growth, but it's certainly a possibility

It's been a few years. Show me some numbers

Right now in this country we have a record number of jobs available. http://www.debatepolitics.com/government-spending-and-debt/255315-record-number-jobs-available.html

There is really only two explanations for this...
1.) The workers looking for jobs aren't qualified to do the jobs that are available...
2.) The jobs available don't pay enough for the workers to bother taking them...

In either case it will require employers to start raising wages soon in order to attract the talent they apparently need.

Hopefully. We could use good news. Whether they can afford to do so, unfortunately, is a separate question.