CBO: Obamacare Will Lead To 2 Million Fewer Workers In The Labor Force By 2017

[buck]

CBO: Obamacare Will Lead To 2 Million Fewer Workers In The Labor Force By 2017 - Yahoo Finance

The reduction in the numbers of hours worked projected by the CBO will lead to the equivalent of 2 million fewer workers in the labor force in 2017. That number will rise to about 2.5 million in 2024. Previously, the CBO had estimated the equivalent of 800,000 fewer workers by 2021.

" Although CBO projects that total employment (and compensation) will increase over the coming decade, that increase will be smaller than it would have been in the absence of the ACA," the CBO said in the report.

The CBO also revised its projection of 2014 enrollment in federal health exchanges, because of the early turmoil with the federal health exchange website HealthCare.gov . The office said that only 6 million people would likely sign up through the exchanges by a March deadline, down from an original projection of 7 million.

But the CBO expects the uptick in enrollment to continue for the next few years. By 2020, it said, only about 30 million people would be without insurance, down from 45 million this year.

Less workers in the labor force, less compensation for those workers that remain, lower projections of those that sign up for insurance... It's all great news for Obamacare... Or so we'll be told by some supporter shortly.

 

[The Man]

They may be out of work with no income to pay their bills, but at least they'll have health insurance! Right 274ina?

 

[buck]

They may be out of work with no income to pay their bills, but at least they'll have health insurance! Right 274ina?

Obama and the white house are trying to spin this as good news. Poor people can now choose not to work or even work less as they are no longer trapped in a job for insurance.

I don't think it's dawned on them that incentiving poor (per the CBO)people not to work with the insurance subsidies and actually punishing the poor workers for increasing hours and the like by taking away insurance subsidies (which is something else the CBO said) may not be such a great idea.

Regardless, this won't play well come election time. The ads rather write themselves and it's a difficult and convoluted explanation for democrats to attempt to make.

 

[MMC]

Obama and the white house are trying to spin this as good news. Poor people can now choose not to work or even work less as they are no longer trapped in a job for insurance.

I don't think it's dawned on them that incentiving poor (per the CBO)people not to work with the insurance subsidies and actually punishing the poor workers for increasing hours and the like by taking away insurance subsidies (which is something else the CBO said) may not be such a great idea.

Regardless, this won't play well come election time. The ads rather write themselves and it's a difficult and convoluted explanation for democrats to attempt to make.

Heya Buck.....Right now I have Hannity on the Radio. I rarely listned to this guy, But he is all over this today. Look at all the left wing New Sources headlines on this issue.

here is the Hills. From last month.



CFOs blame ObamaCare as they pass along costs......

A growing number of corporations are blaming ObamaCare as they pass further healthcare costs on to workers, according to a new survey of financial executives.

Consulting firm Deloitte reported that 42 percent of chief financial officers who have shifted additional healthcare costs to workers cited the Affordable Care Act as their impetus.

The number blaming the healthcare law rose to 63 percent for CFOs planning to shift costs in the next year.

The statistics suggest that ObamaCare is aggravating the trend of employers charging staff higher healthcare costs in order to contain spending, and came as most CFOs expressed rising optimism about their companies' prospects.

High-deductible plans are increasingly common for people receiving health insurance through their jobs, and experts predict they might account for half of all work-based health policies within a decade, up from about 10 percent in 2006.

Nearly two-thirds of CFOs have taken steps to control healthcare costs, primarily charging higher premiums or deductibles, according to Deloitte. Comparatively few have reduced the scope or value of benefits in order to reduce spending.

The survey highlights an unintended consequence of the Affordable Care Act, as employers cite the law in shifting further costs to workers.

Read more: CFOs blame ObamaCare as they pass along costs | TheHill
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

 

[ALiberalModerate]

There needs to be some clarification here. The CBO does not state that employers will reduce employees hours due the ACA. It states, specifically, that:

"The estimated reduction stems almost entirely from a net decline in the amount of labor that workers choose to supply, rather than from a net drop in businesses' demand for labor, so it will appear almost entirely as a reduction in labor force participation and in hours worked relative to what would have occurred otherwise rather than as an increase in unemployment (that is, more workers seeking but not finding jobs) or underemployment (such as part-time workers who would prefer to work more hours per week)."

So basically, the CBO is stating that employees will choose to retire on time or not work as many hours because they will no longer be worried about their health insurance so much. Whether that is good or bad is certainly debatable, but the CBO did not find that employers will be cutting full time employees due to the ACA.

 

[MMC]

Course then they are also saying this.....Right?

The analysis was done by the National Journal, which is hardly some right-wing, anti-ObamaCare outfit. It looked at what would happen to insurance costs for workers forced to buy coverage in an ObamaCare exchange after their employers canceled their benefits

To find out what these millions of workers will face, the Journal compared what the average worker pays toward employer-provided health insurance today with what they would pay in an ObamaCare exchange.

This year, the average worker pays between $862 and $1,065 a year for single coverage, with the employer picking up the rest of the tab. Families pay an average of up to $5,284 toward their work-based premiums.

If these workers are dumped into an ObamaCare exchange, most will end up paying far more, even with the taxpayer subsidies. The Journal found, for example, that workers earning more than $20,000 would pay more in the exchange than they do today, as would families making over $62,300.

In other words, 66% of all single workers and 57% of all families pushed into the exchanges will be worse off financially.

But a table buried in that report shows that Obama-Care actually will push premiums up 22% nationwide, when compared with the average cost of insurance available on the individual market today, "with several states experiencing an increase of 30% or more."

Yes, taxpayer subsidies will hide those huge cost hikes from many, but Rand admits that about a third won't be eligible for any subsidies. In any case, it hardly makes sense to vastly increase the cost of insurance and then try to cover it up with $1 trillion in taxpayer subsidies.....snip~

Read More At Investor's Business Daily: For Millions Of Workers, ObamaCare Is the 'Unaffordable Care Act' - Investors.com
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook

 

[buck]

There needs to be some clarification here. The CBO does not state that employers will reduce employees hours due the ACA. It states, specifically, that:

"The estimated reduction stems almost entirely from a net decline in the amount of labor that workers choose to supply, rather than from a net drop in businesses' demand for labor, so it will appear almost entirely as a reduction in labor force participation and in hours worked relative to what would have occurred otherwise rather than as an increase in unemployment (that is, more workers seeking but not finding jobs) or underemployment (such as part-time workers who would prefer to work more hours per week)."

So basically, the CBO is stating that employees will choose to retire on time or not work as many hours because they will no longer be worried about their health insurance so much. Whether that is good or bad is certainly debatable, but the CBO did not find that employers will be cutting full time employees due to the ACA.

Yes, I touched on that above. The CBO also stated it would be primarily poor people not working as much... I think that would tend to put it in the column of bad... and not so much good.

However, people whose employment or hours worked will be most affected by the ACA are expected to have below-average earnings because the effects of the subsidies that are available through exchanges and of expanded Medicaid eligibility on the amount of labor supplied by lower-income people are likely to be greater than the effects of increased taxes on the amount of labor supplied by higher-income people.

But, since you brought it up. Also from the CBO report:

It said businesses with at least 50 full-time employees may cut back or limit full-time staffing to avoid the penalty for not providing health insurance meeting minimum standards.

 

[joG]

CBO: Obamacare Will Lead To 2 Million Fewer Workers In The Labor Force By 2017 - Yahoo Finance





Less workers in the labor force, less compensation for those workers that remain, lower projections of those that sign up for insurance... It's all great news for Obamacare... Or so we'll be told by some supporter shortly.

How much is thst? 90 billions dollars pa of gdp? That would be a real pity. But it will probably smack the poor and the less successful minorities. So it isn't so bad for the man that can's people. Most of them won't understand that it was he.

 

[cabse5]

Giving heath care insurance to those who cannot afford or are not offered health care insurance is a worthy cause, but not this FUBAR Obamacare.

 

[MMC]

How much is thst? 90 billions dollars pa of gdp? That would be a real pity. But it will probably smack the poor and the less successful minorities. So it isn't so bad for the man that can's people. Most of them won't understand that it was he.

Heya JoG. :2wave: Oh its definitely going to hit the poor also with prices of groceries. Now with beef going up with dairy and produce. Inflation, cost of living, all going up and affecting them moreso than all else.


Obamacare to cut work hours by equivalent of 2 million jobs: CBO
Reuters.

The biggest impact would begin in 2017, CBO said, because major provisions of the law will be well under way by then. The CBO said there would be smaller declines in work hours that would occur before then.

Work hours would be reduced by the equivalent of 2.5 million jobs in 2024, said the agency, which earlier predicted 800,000 fewer fulltime jobs by 2021. The bottom line would be a slower rate of growth for employment and compensation in the coming decade, according to the report.

"It's not that the businesses are cutting those jobs," said Jason Furman, who chairs the White House Council of Economic Advisers. He said the CBO report showed an impact on labor supply rather than demand for workers from employers.

The CBO report offered some bright spots on the broader fiscal front, saying the U.S. budget deficit would be a smaller than expected $514 billion in the fiscal 2014 year ended September 30. That is down from a previous estimate of $560 billion and a fiscal 2013 deficit of $680 billion.

The CBO also said Obamacare would enroll 1 million fewer uninsured Americans than initially expected as a result of technical glitches that largely paralyzed the federal website HealthCare.gov in the first two months of open enrollment.

In a fresh forecast for 2014, the CBO estimated that 6 million people would sign up for private coverage through new health insurance marketplaces, down from an earlier forecast of 7 million. But the report predicted that the program would eventually overcome the deficit, signing up 24 million people by 2017.....snip~

Obamacare to cut work hours by equivalent of 2 million jobs: CBO | Reuters

 

[buck]

How much is thst? 90 billions dollars pa of gdp? That would be a real pity. But it will probably smack the poor and the less successful minorities. So it isn't so bad for the man that can's people. Most of them won't understand that it was he.

So, my question is that the CBO projection is that 15 million uninsured will get coverage due to this. Has anyone done any math to determine how much this law costs per newly insured individual?

CBO now projects 1.5 trillion cost then whatever the webiste cost, plus whatever else I am missing...

 

[MMC]

So, my question is that the CBO projection is that 15 million uninsured will get coverage due to this. Has anyone done any math to determine how much this law costs per newly insured individual?




CBO now projects 1.5 trillion cost then whatever the webiste cost, plus whatever else I am missing...

For Single coverage? We got it.

This year, the average worker pays between $862 and $1,065 a year for single coverage, with the employer picking up the rest of the tab. Families pay an average of up to $5,284 toward their work-based premiums.

If these workers are dumped into an ObamaCare exchange, most will end up paying far more, even with the taxpayer subsidies. The Journal found, for example, that workers earning more than $20,000 would pay more in the exchange than they do today, as would families making over $62,300.

In other words, 66% of all single workers and 57% of all families pushed into the exchanges will be worse off financially.....snip~

 

[MMC]

Anybody.....Wasn't there some report out saying that the average American worker only worked 33 and half hours a week now?

 

[eohrnberger]

When you subsidize something, you get more of it.

In this case, ObamaCare is subsidizing working less, therefore earning less, and also gaining more subsidizes fro the government that have to be paid by someone.

Are these things that we really want to be subsidizing? Are these things really wise to be subsidizing?

 

[Perotista]

CBO: Obamacare Will Lead To 2 Million Fewer Workers In The Labor Force By 2017 - Yahoo Finance





Less workers in the labor force, less compensation for those workers that remain, lower projections of those that sign up for insurance... It's all great news for Obamacare... Or so we'll be told by some supporter shortly.

I heard this on the news while I was picking my granddaughter up from school. It doesn't surprise me one bit. Yet the supporters of Obamacare will continue to tell us this is the best thing that came down the pike since sex and peanut butter. I suppose it is for the democrats, as they forced their agenda upon the American people even though they wanted none of the ACA. I wonder what excuse or who the Democrats will blame the job loss on? Any guesses? That and the fact the Obamacare will add another trillion to the debt over the next ten years if I heard the news right.

 

[MMC]

I heard this on the news while I was picking my granddaughter up from school. It doesn't surprise me one bit. Yet the supporters of Obamacare will continue to tell us this is the best thing that came down the pike since sex and peanut butter. I suppose it is for the democrats, as they forced their agenda upon the American people even though they wanted none of the ACA. I wonder what excuse or who the Democrats will blame the job loss on? Any guesses? That and the fact the Obamacare will add another trillion to the debt over the next ten years if I heard the news right.

Heya Pero :2wave: .....here is what I got from Reuters on it. Cost will increase......100 billion for 2015. The good news is.....now the MS media will have to come out of the tank for Obama and the Democrats. As economically its not going to be able to be hidden from the American people.


U.S. deficit to decline, then rise as labor market struggles: CBO.....

The Congressional Budget Office on Tuesday reduced its estimate of the U.S. budget deficit for the current fiscal year but said sluggish economic growth and stubbornly high unemployment will cause the improvement to be short-lived.

The deficit will decline to $478 billion in fiscal 2015, but the gap for that year will be $100 billion larger than previously estimated. The deficits will start to grow steadily thereafter as the economy struggles with an unemployment rate that fails to fall below 6.0 percent until late 2016, the non-partisan budget referee agency said.

The CBO sharply cut its projections of U.S. GDP growth in 2015 by a full percentage point to 3.4 percent, where it also stays for 2016, down nearly a full point from the CBO's previous estimates.

"CBO estimates that the economy will continue to have considerable unused labor and capital resources, or 'slack' for the next few years," the agency said in the report.

This will hold down revenue gains, causing cumulative deficits through 2023 to be $1 trillion higher than previously projected. The deficit will top $1 trillion again in 2022, a level roughly equivalent to last year's deficit as a percentage of economic output.....snip~

U.S. deficit to decline, then rise as labor market struggles: CBO | Reuters

 

[Perotista]

Heya Pero :2wave: .....here is what I got from Reuters on it. Cost will increase......100 billion for 2015. The good news is.....now the MS media will have to come out of the tank for Obama and the Democrats. As economically its not going to be able to be hidden from the American people.


U.S. deficit to decline, then rise as labor market struggles: CBO.....

The Congressional Budget Office on Tuesday reduced its estimate of the U.S. budget deficit for the current fiscal year but said sluggish economic growth and stubbornly high unemployment will cause the improvement to be short-lived.

The deficit will decline to $478 billion in fiscal 2015, but the gap for that year will be $100 billion larger than previously estimated. The deficits will start to grow steadily thereafter as the economy struggles with an unemployment rate that fails to fall below 6.0 percent until late 2016, the non-partisan budget referee agency said.

The CBO sharply cut its projections of U.S. GDP growth in 2015 by a full percentage point to 3.4 percent, where it also stays for 2016, down nearly a full point from the CBO's previous estimates.

"CBO estimates that the economy will continue to have considerable unused labor and capital resources, or 'slack' for the next few years," the agency said in the report.

This will hold down revenue gains, causing cumulative deficits through 2023 to be $1 trillion higher than previously projected. The deficit will top $1 trillion again in 2022, a level roughly equivalent to last year's deficit as a percentage of economic output.....snip~

U.S. deficit to decline, then rise as labor market struggles: CBO | Reuters

Thank you for clarifying that. I know I can always count on you. We will probably have fallen into that financial abyss by 2023, after all it is only paper money and we can print all we want.

 

[MMC]

Thank you for clarifying that. I know I can always count on you. We will probably have fallen into that financial abyss by 2023, after all it is only paper money and we can print all we want.

Yeah, I was flipping thru the radio channels and TV channels this was trending all day and the Senate passing the Farm Bill, finally.....which Obama says he will Sign.

 

[Lord of Planar]

We have lost numerous people through retirements and even deaths where I work over the last few years. My employer is not hiring, even though we are so short handed. Instead, those of us who are willing to work overtime are working a lot of hours. I'm normally working 50-54 hrs a week.

It's just too expensive for an employer to pay the extra insurances for extra people these day.

 

[Perotista]

Yeah, I was flipping thru the radio channels and TV channels this was trending all day and the Senate passing the Farm Bill, finally.....which Obama says he will Sign.

I guess that is a good thing.

 

[MMC]

We have lost numerous people through retirements and even deaths where I work over the last few years. My employer is not hiring, even though we are so short handed. Instead, those of us who are willing to work overtime are working a lot of hours. I'm normally working 50-54 hrs a week.

It's just too expensive for an employer to pay the extra insurances for extra people these day.

Heya LOP :2wave: .....not only that, all these Businesses that had made projections for how many they would be hiring for year 2014 already are now backwalking the numbers they had projected. Some even being national and now are saying they cutting jobs and or hours.

 

[Jack Hays]

There needs to be some clarification here. The CBO does not state that employers will reduce employees hours due the ACA. It states, specifically, that:

"The estimated reduction stems almost entirely from a net decline in the amount of labor that workers choose to supply, rather than from a net drop in businesses' demand for labor, so it will appear almost entirely as a reduction in labor force participation and in hours worked relative to what would have occurred otherwise rather than as an increase in unemployment (that is, more workers seeking but not finding jobs) or underemployment (such as part-time workers who would prefer to work more hours per week)."

So basically, the CBO is stating that employees will choose to retire on time or not work as many hours because they will no longer be worried about their health insurance so much. Whether that is good or bad is certainly debatable, but the CBO did not find that employers will be cutting full time employees due to the ACA.

Doesn't matter. It's political poison for Dems.eace

"Close your eyes for a minute and fast forward to October. And imagine yourself sitting in a Charlotte hotel room watching TV. And this ad comes on: "Kay Hagan voted for Obamacare, a law whose rollout was so botched that a million people decided to not even sign up for health coverage. And the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office says Obamacare will cost America 2 million jobs. Kay Hagan voted wrong. Now it's time to vote her out." That's a VERY tough hit on any Democratic incumbent who voted for the Affordable Care Act."

The Fix: Bad news for Democrats

 

[MMC]

Doesn't matter. It's political poison for Dems.eace

"Close your eyes for a minute and fast forward to October. And imagine yourself sitting in a Charlotte hotel room watching TV. And this ad comes on: "Kay Hagan voted for Obamacare, a law whose rollout was so botched that a million people decided to not even sign up for health coverage. And the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office says Obamacare will cost America 2 million jobs. Kay Hagan voted wrong. Now it's time to vote her out." That's a VERY tough hit on any Democratic incumbent who voted for the Affordable Care Act."

The Fix: Bad news for Democrats

Heya Jack. :2wave: The best part is.....they can't run from it, no matter what they do.

(What they do)
(They smile in your face)
All the time they want to take your place
The back stabbers (back stabbers)
(They smile in your face)
All the time they want to take your place
The back stabbers (back stabbers).....so sayeth the OJays. :mrgreen:

 

[cpgrad08]

So it just confirms what we already knew what the ACA would do to the economy.

 

[MMC]

So it just confirms what we already knew what the ACA would do to the economy.

Heya CPG. :2wave: Well.....until the left starts spinning how it is working. More people are joining etc etc. Obama would never lie......the CBO added numbers wrong or something. Look they have been wrong before. So it shouldn't matter. The Republicans just want Obama to fail its their fault even though they had no part in writing it. :roll:

I give it a few hours and all the talking points will be passed out as to how they should respond. :mrgreen: