Congressional Budget Office - ObamaCare creates ‘disincentive’ to work

[ivwshane]

All political shit aside...it's scary. People are actually trying to say that having less people in the workforce is a good thing? I can't afford any more taxes to pay for these people.

You understand supply and demand right?

Do we have more workers than jobs?



The best thing this country could do would be to adopt universal health care. Baby boomers would retire more instead of the current trend of working low wage jobs or sticking around after retirement age at any job just for medical coverage (which you need the most at that age). In response to the shrinking workforce either one of three things happens, a) more people find work to replace the boomers b) existing workers are paid more to fill such spots or c) a combination of both will happen.

Any of which scenarios will lead to workers spending more money, further boosting the economy, which in turn brings in more revenue for yet federal government, which would then go towards paying for universal health care.


How that wouldn't be a good thing? I have no idea and that's not even bringing into account all the benefits of workers not having to be "job locked".

 

[Matt1970]

Shame your business is terrible I guess.

It's better during the winter but I have a lot of other options for income when things are slow.

 

[boomerang]

All political shit aside...it's scary. People are actually trying to say that having less people in the workforce is a good thing? I can't afford any more taxes to pay for these people.

It's doublethink. What's bad is good. It's why it's not worth arguing the point unless of course you're one who liked to argue.

They want Obamacare and there are no unintended consequences that are a negative. I've said the following before. You have to remember that the left judges a program like Obamacare (any leftist program actually) on its intentions, not the results. So they are all a success. Collateral damage is to be ignored because the intention was good.

“War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.”

 

[boomerang]

Baby boomers would retire more instead of the current trend of working low wage jobs or sticking around after retirement age at any job just for medical coverage (which you need the most at that age). In response to the shrinking workforce either one of three things happens, a) more people find work to replace the boomers b) existing workers are paid more to fill such spots or c) a combination of both will happen.

Wow, now that's some shit there. You haven't thought any of that through have you? You fired up a fattie, and blasted that out thinking you've really got it going on. There's so much stupid in that paragraph that I don't really know where to start. Assumptions based on...feelings.

 

[ivwshane]

Wow, now that's some shit there. You haven't thought any of that through have you? You fired up a fattie, and blasted that out thinking you've really got it going on. There's so much stupid in that paragraph that I don't really know where to start. Assumptions based on...feelings.

You see the post you made prior to this one? Apply it to yourself!

Boom! Like a boomerang! Right back at'cha!

When you add something, anything relevant to a thread, I just might care what you think but until then, I just laugh at you

 

[Jhhnn]

If you're actually looking for no-spin...there's one small detail you left out...social security/medicare costs will rise significantly.

Heh. Medicare applies when you turn 65, regardless of employment status. Many group plans demand senior members sign up for it when eligible.

No SS until you're at least 62. Few take it that early unless forced or unless there are exigent circumstances allowing for it, like pension eligibility, working spouse & so forth.

That leaves a whole lot of other somewhat younger people for whom ACA subsidies mean the difference between staying home & working. Empty nesters, for example, where one can take care of the house & the other work. Lots of possibilities. Subsidies can make the difference between being a working mom & a stay at home mom, too.

None of which contradicts what I offered about jobs in the first place.

 

[Jhhnn]

All political shit aside...it's scary. People are actually trying to say that having less people in the workforce is a good thing? I can't afford any more taxes to pay for these people.

Gawd. We have an enormous surplus of workers or an enormous shortage of jobs, depending on how we describe it. Obviously, since the much ballyhooed Job Creators! don't see themselves in the position of creating more, you know, jobs, then the more people who can find reasonable ways to exit the work force, the better.

That's should be obvious to even the most well indoctrinated right wing fringe whack.

 

[Paul98]

Looks like a good report

 

[loganone]

So lame. When 2.3M people retire, 2.3M unemployed people get their jobs.

That's the no-spin version.

Not really. If 2.3 million employed people have an incentive to no longer work, then logic would dictate that a significant amount of unemployed would also have that same incentive to not work.

We aren't talking about middle class jobs opening up, they're referring to low wage/low skill jobs, many of which will likely end up being eliminated altogether.

 

[senseamp]

Not really. If 2.3 million employed people have an incentive to no longer work, then logic would dictate that a significant amount of unemployed would also have that same incentive to not work.

We aren't talking about middle class jobs opening up, they're referring to low wage/low skill jobs, many of which will likely end up being eliminated altogether.

We don't have a shortage of people willing to work, we have a shortage of jobs. Republicans somehow don't seem to understand for some strange reason.

 

[Bowfinger]

I recognize trying to start an intelligent discussion in P&N is just about as hopeless as unicorn hunting, but let's give it a shot. What's the basis for all the gloom and doom about a reduced labor participation rate? As has been pointed out repeatedly beginning with post #2 in this thread, there are plenty of jobless Americans who will be thrilled to fill the openings created by others retiring, starting their own businesses, etc. As long as the number of job seekers is greater than the number leaving the work force, what's the problem?

I'd also point out that while the labor participation rate has dropped from its peak, it's at the same level as it was in the 70s. Even more, it is still several points higher than it was in the 50s and 60s:

(From the BLS.) If we were fine then, why is it a crisis now?

 

[Jhhnn]

Not really. If 2.3 million employed people have an incentive to no longer work, then logic would dictate that a significant amount of unemployed would also have that same incentive to not work.

We aren't talking about middle class jobs opening up, they're referring to low wage/low skill jobs, many of which will likely end up being eliminated altogether.

So what?

If you're legitimately needful of employment & ACA subsidies allow you to not work, there's little difference from starting out employed in the greater scheme of things. It's generally not possible w/o a working & agreeable spouse, either, other income, small pension, something, a combination of somethings.The number of people who need to work still goes down.

None of this prevents people from re-entering the workforce should an actual opportunity arise, either.

 

[fskimospy]

Not really. If 2.3 million employed people have an incentive to no longer work, then logic would dictate that a significant amount of unemployed would also have that same incentive to not work.

We aren't talking about middle class jobs opening up, they're referring to low wage/low skill jobs, many of which will likely end up being eliminated altogether.

This is not supported by the report.

 

[sportage]

Well, first off FYI, ACA is not free.
As would faux news and republican nut jobs in congressmen imply next week.
You know, free healthcare with free food stamps.
It's not like Obama is giving away free food stamps with every ACA policy.
Oops. Another Faux news talking point soon to be.

People now will simply have the mobility to move into better jobs, despite healthcare.
A good thing? Yep! If you are an American believing in so called freedoms.
A bad thing ? Sure. If one prefers the third world slavery dictatorship.
Oops. Boehner busted again.

Look at it this way....
Better job, less on the job workers going postal.
Oops. Bad news for the NRA.
Alert faux news ASAP.

Damn. Could happier employers mean less guns?
Holy crap NRA. Didn't see that a comin.
Old Boehner better do something about that, and damn fast.
Which I'm Sure he will.

More small business ownership?
Hell... Wasn't it them same anti ACA republicans that always said small business was the # one American employer?
What... A turn about face old Johnny B ???

How about those traditional family values my republican friends?
Now old dad can find a better job, with less hours maybe, enjoy affordable family healthcare, and spend more time with the kids and less time in the office.
What.....? No more family values john? Eric? Rush?

This isn't rocket science.
A happy healthy employee makes a happy heathy America.
And a happy healthy family. With values.
Obviously a concept that republicans, some republicans, many republicans, most republicans, now despise.

Just whom is doing the so called "twisting" here?
Workers that want more flexibility and freedom?
Or... Satan loving, slavey worshiping, anti American commie republicans in congress?
Most of whom appear nightly on faux news.

And might I add, all of which should have their royal asses tosses out of our US congress.
The day that finally happens, I know dare is a God, as Sofia once said.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Discontent? Hell, who wants to work!?

Obama Is Going To Pay For My Gas And Mortgage!!!

Odd isn't it? You hear the voice but you don't see the person's face. She starts speaking, the film is cut and then shows Obama on stage while the apparently damning words are being spoken. But hey, it's on the interwebs, it has to be true.

 

[Victorian Gray]

It's a Fox news report. Therefore it is already twisted.

Proof: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-director-obamacare-will-reduce-unemployment/

What he really said: CBO director: Obamacare will reduce unemployment



But hey, let's not let facts get in the way of our outrage...

Damned CBO, what do they know and they're biased anyway. Probably all Democrats!!!

:biggrin:

 

[Victorian Gray]

Yeah, I remember back in 1984 when Canada passed Universal Health Care and every single one of those lazy Canadians quit there jobs. Same thing is going to happen here, I tell ya.

Americans are the laziest people on earth. Give them any assistance or safety nets and they'll just give up on working so they can sally up to Uncle Sugar's teet.

Actually, we were working up to it in 1957 and the modern version was implemented in 1966. Provincialy it started in 1946 in Saskatchewan.

And yeah, we really did all quit our jobs. We spend all our time sitting on the front porch eating back bacon and swigging Canadian beer while watching hockey. Something that all Americans can aspire to.

 

[michal1980]

CBO once again proves my statement that Liberals work to create more government dependents. The left want people on the government tit and not working.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I recognize trying to start an intelligent discussion in P&N is just about as hopeless as unicorn hunting, but let's give it a shot. What's the basis for all the gloom and doom about a reduced labor participation rate? As has been pointed out repeatedly beginning with post #2 in this thread, there are plenty of jobless Americans who will be thrilled to fill the openings created by others retiring, starting their own businesses, etc. As long as the number of job seekers is greater than the number leaving the work force, what's the problem?

I'd also point out that while the labor participation rate has dropped from its peak, it's at the same level as it was in the 70s. Even more, it is still several points higher than it was in the 50s and 60s:

(From the BLS.) If we were fine then, why is it a crisis now?

It's not a crisis...it's just another unexpected adverse impact of ACA.

 

[fskimospy]

It's not a crisis...it's just another unexpected adverse impact of ACA.

I know I keep asking this, but nobody will give an answer. Would you support tying other forms of insurance or necessary goods/services to employment in order to further increase the labor participation rate? If the decrease in labor participation due to no longer needing full time employment for insurance is bad, does that mean that if the US had a universal health plan that it would be a good thing to remove it in order to increase the labor participation rate?

Nobody seems able or willing to answer these questions.

 

[glenn1]

I know I keep asking this, but nobody will give an answer. Would you support tying other forms of insurance or necessary goods/services to employment in order to further increase the labor participation rate? If the decrease in labor participation due to no longer needing full time employment for insurance is bad, does that mean that if the US had a universal health plan that it would be a good thing to remove it in order to increase the labor participation rate?

Nobody seems able or willing to answer these questions.

No I wouldn't support it for that or other reasons, it's completely ridiculous on its face for plenty of reasons in addition to any impacts on net employment. Increase of the labor participation rate certainly wasn't the reason why Democrats originally created the link in the 1940s, and no one other than you has ever claimed it as such. And creating a counterfactual "what if the U.S. had a universal healthcare plan" and its imagined impacts on employment is hardly an argument for why we should install one.

At this point it seems the only reason you continue to support Obamacare is because your side passed it. Any fair minded person who was open to your supposed main objective of expanding coverage would see that it's a complete and utter failure at that goal. You're so in the tank for partisan reasons that you cannot admit how incompetently written and conceived the law is, and why you should go completely back to the drawing board. But then OMG THE REPUBLICANS WOULD WIN and you can't have that. Better we all suffer with a terrible law.

 

[fskimospy]

No I wouldn't support it for that or other reasons, it's completely ridiculous on its face for plenty of reasons in addition to any impacts on net employment. Increase of the labor participation rate certainly wasn't the reason why Democrats originally created the link in the 1940s, and no one other than you has ever claimed it as such. And creating a counterfactual "what if the U.S. had a universal healthcare plan" and its imagined impacts on employment is hardly an argument for why we should install one.

Your reading comprehension is really suffering here. No one has ever claimed the purpose of linking insurance to employment was done to increase labor participation or anything else you mention.

It is an exceedingly simple question and I'm not sure how you missed what it was: It seems that you guys are arguing that adding insurance makes people work less and that's bad; therefore the opposite of that should be that taking away insurance to make people work more is good. Do you hold that view?

At this point it seems the only reason you continue to support Obamacare is because your side passed it. Any fair minded person who was open to your supposed main objective of expanding coverage would see that it's a complete and utter failure at that goal. You're so in the tank for partisan reasons that you cannot admit how incompetently written and conceived the law is, and why you should go completely back to the drawing board. But then OMG THE REPUBLICANS WOULD WIN and you can't have that. Better we all suffer with a terrible law.

This is baffling in both its rabid partisanship and its basic and hilarious factual wrongness. The purpose of the ACA is to expand insurance coverage and in the same report that we're talking about here the CBO estimates that 25 million more people will be covered in the coming years than would be otherwise. On what planet is that a 'complete and utter failure'?

I think it's long since come time that you admit that you don't actually understand much of anything about this law, but you're really mad that the other team passed a law that people told you you aren't supposed to like.

 

[michal1980]

I am an obama spokesperson.

come on out.

 

[glenn1]

Your reading comprehension is really suffering here. No one has ever claimed the purpose of linking insurance to employment was done to increase labor participation or anything else you mention.

It is an exceedingly simple question and I'm not sure how you missed what it was: It seems that you guys are arguing that adding insurance makes people work less and that's bad; therefore the opposite of that should be that taking away insurance to make people work more is good. Do you hold that view?

This is baffling in both its rabid partisanship and its basic and hilarious factual wrongness. The purpose of the ACA is to expand insurance coverage and in the same report that we're talking about here the CBO estimates that 25 million more people will be covered in the coming years than would be otherwise. On what planet is that a 'complete and utter failure'?

I think it's long since come time that you admit that you don't actually understand much of anything about this law, but you're really mad that the other team passed a law that people told you you aren't supposed to like.

Funny you should mention "taking away insurance" there are huge numbers of anecdotal reports of employers dropping their sponsored health insurance plans and dumping their workers into the Obamacare exchanges. I guess we shall see who is correct in time about total coverage numbers. You predict "25 million more covered" and I predict an even larger number whose employer sponsored care is dropped, pretty much everyone experiencing higher costs, and any decrease in net uninsured (and I doubt there will be one) will be done at exponentially higher taxpayer cost than almost any other approach.

As far as "making people work less" you seem to be handling that just fine with your economic policies without even needing the extra push of healthcare overhauls.

As for your "really mad that the other team passed a law" comment, I've already explained multiple times why my problem with Obamacare is because it was incompetently writtten and conceived, not because I disagree with the net goals. Sorta like how Democrats often said they didn't oppose the general goals of the War on Terror, but thought the particulars involved with invading Iraq were stupid ideas.

 

[fskimospy]

Funny you should mention "taking away insurance" there are huge numbers of anecdotal reports of employers dropping their sponsored health insurance plans and dumping their workers into the Obamacare exchanges. I guess we shall see who is correct in time about total coverage numbers. You predict "25 million more covered" and I predict an even larger number whose employer sponsored care is dropped, pretty much everyone experiencing higher costs, and any decrease in net uninsured (and I doubt there will be one) will be done at exponentially higher taxpayer cost than almost any other approach.

Well then your complaint is with the CBO, not with me. They appear to be laboring under the delusion that after everything is taken into account 25 million more Americans will be insured than would be otherwise. Funny that you seem to accept the things they say that tell you what you want to hear but try to ignore it when it doesn't.

As far as "making people work less" you seem to be handling that just fine with your economic policies without even needing the extra push of healthcare overhauls.

Now you're just ranting and raving.

As for your "really mad that the other team passed a law" comment, I've already explained multiple times why my problem with Obamacare is because it was incompetently writtten and conceived, not because I disagree with the net goals. Sorta like how Democrats often said they didn't oppose the general goals of the War on Terror, but thought the particulars involved with invading Iraq were stupid ideas.

From what you've written here on the topic I find it highly unlikely that you have anywhere even remotely approaching the knowledge of the law necessary to make such a determination.

EDIT: I can't help but notice that this question remains unanswered:

It seems that you guys are arguing that adding insurance makes people work less and that's bad; therefore the opposite of that should be that taking away insurance to make people work more is good. Do you hold that view?