Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

News & Politics News & Politics

Obamacare will push 2 million workers out of labor market: CBO

Posted by   + Show Post

Obamacare will push the equivalent of about 2 million workers out of the labor market by 2017 as employees decide either to work fewer hours or drop out altogether, according to the latest estimates Tuesday from the Congressional Budget Office.

That’s a major jump in the nonpartisan budget agency’s projections and it suggests the health care law’s incentives are driving businesses and people to choose government-sponsored benefits rather than work.


CBO estimates that the ACA will reduce the total number of hours worked, on net, by about 1.5 to 2 percent during the period from 2017 to 2024, almost entirely because workers will choose to supply less labor — given the new taxes and other incentives they will face and the financial benefits some will receive,” CBO analysts wrote in their new economic outlook.

The scorekeepers also said the rollout problems with the Affordable Care Act last year will mean only 6 million people sign up through the state-based exchanges, rather than the 7 million the CBO had originally projected.

But over the long run, Obamacare will eventually catch up and by 2020 only about 30 million people will be without insurance coverage — down from 45 million this year. That will mean about 92 percent of legal U.S. residents without guaranteed access to Medicare will have insurance coverage.

Taking the budget as a whole, the CBO said Congress has made substantial headway on cutting spending and raising taxes, which has cut the deficit in 2014 to just $514 billion.

That deficit will continue to drop in 2015, but will then begin to quickly rise, once again topping $1 trillion in 2022.

The CBO analysis said the economy isn’t rebounding as fast as usual after such a deep recession, and said that poor growth means less revenue coming in to the Treasury Department — which means the cumulative deficit over the next decade will be $1 trillion more than projected just last year.


Debt, which is the accumulation of those annual deficits, is already at its highest level since the aftermath of World War II, and the CBO says debt held by the public will be nearly 80 percent of gross domestic product by 2024, which is the end of the budget window.

The new report will give ammunition to those who argued that tax increases or spending cuts should have been delayed while the government pursued more stimulus spending to boost economic growth over the last few years.

But the CBO’s report also suggests that the problems are more structural, given the aging U.S. population and women’s participation in the labor force.



 

by on Feb. 4, 2014 at 12:10 PM
Replies (41-50):
sweet-a-kins
by Ruby Member on Feb. 6, 2014 at 7:27 AM
the actual truth

Quoting Carpy:

The Politifact spin.

Quoting sweet-a-kins: John Boehner says Obamacare is “expected to destroy 2.3 million jobs”



Share this story:







House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, sent this tweet after the CBO published a new report that addressed the impact of President Obama's health care law on jobs, among other things. But is it accurate?



Ever since President Barack Obama shepherded the Affordable Care Act to enactment, critics have called the health care law a job killer. Now, many of the critics are saying that a new report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office proves their point.

The CBO estimated that by 2017, there would be about 2 million fewer workers than there would be in the absence of the law. CBO said that number would grow to about 2.5 million by 2024.

Shortly after the report was released on Feb. 4, 2014, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, joined many Republicans and conservatives in highlighting this finding via social media.

Boehner tweeted, "Pres. Obama’s #hcr law expected to destroy 2.3 million jobs http://on.wsj.com/1kM33oN via @WSJ." (Wonk alert: #hcr is shorthand for "health care reform.)

In short order, Democrats and liberal commentators took issue with such characterizations, saying Obama’s critics were misreading the report. A full-fledged war of facts and spin ensued.

We have addressed previous CBO projections of this sort and found reasons to be skeptical of interpretations like Boehner’s.

The key problem here is that claims by Boehner -- and other critics -- overlook the difference between workers and jobs, and Boehner was misleading when he used the word "destroyed." He made it sound as if jobs are going away because businesses don’t create them or because they eliminate existing jobs. The CBO report, though, was referring to workers who decide on their own to leave the workforce.

The CBO figured that, when presented with new options for purchasing health insurance outside their job, millions of people would decide they don’t need to work as much.

"Workers who now have access to less expensive health insurance through Medicaid or with refundable federal tax credits that help them pay for premiums will not want to work such long hours after the ACA becomes fully implemented," said Gary Burtless, an economist at the Brookings Institution.

The CBO estimated that Obamacare would "reduce the total number of hours worked, on net, by about 1.5 percent to 2.0 percent during the period from 2017 to 2024, almost entirely because workers will choose to supply less labor — given the new taxes and other incentives they will face and the financial benefits some will receive." This would equal a "decline in the number of full-time-equivalent workers of about 2.0 million in 2017, rising to about 2.5 million in 2024," the report continued.

These changes, CBO said, would not result in "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)."

To be clear, the report predicts that total employment will still rise. It just won’t rise as much as it would if the ACA did not exist.

Another key point: The CBO did not specify how many of the 2 million figure would include full-time positions, as compared to cases of an employee keeping their job but working fewer hours, or keeping one job while quitting a separate, part-time job.

In some ways, a drop in the number of people who feel the need to work actually could be a boon to the unemployed. As we’ve noted, there are about three job seekers for every job vacancy in today’s economy -- a high ratio by historical standards. Some of these people could pick up the slack once vacancies open up -- and they should be able to, since CBO said it didn’t expect a major change in companies’ demand for workers. In essence, you’d be trading workers unhappy to be working for those who are desperate to be working.

"Unemployed workers who really need to find jobs to support their families, rather than to obtain health coverage, will find it easier to get jobs," Burtless said. "After all, they will not face as much competition from the workers who were mainly remaining in the labor force to get a job with health coverage."

We see a few problems with Boehner’s phrasing -- that the law is "expected to destroy 2.3 million jobs." (We have no quarrel with the 2.3 million figure; it’s the mid-point between 2.0 million and 2.5 million.)

The first problem is the word "destroy." It’s inaccurate because it suggests that CBO says employers will be making 2.3 million layoffs. That's not correct -- the reduction will come primarily from voluntary choices by workers, not by by employers, the CBO said.

The second problem is the word "jobs." Using that word glosses over the fact that CBO didn’t cite a number of jobs that will be reduced; it referred to full-time-equivalents of jobs. That may sound like a technical distinction, but it’s important. These job equivalents will be made of a lot of bits and pieces of hours per week that people will choose to drop. Many of these people might be working two or three jobs, in excess of 40 hours a week, and will choose to cut back to a more reasonable one or two jobs.

All this said, it’s also worth pointing out a few less positive conclusions of the CBO report.

As more people choose to work less, the labor force participation rate should decline, putting a larger burden for supporting the social safety net on those who remain working. Any change in labor force participation comes on top of an already major shift toward retirement driven by the aging of the baby boom.

Also, some commentators have expressed concern about having people work less because taxpayer-subsidized insurance is available. Ultimately, it boils down to a tradeoff, said Tara Sinclair, a George Washington University economist.

"Admittedly there are some touchy issues with the government potentially paying or subsidizing the health care costs for people who could work but choose not to," Sinclair said. "But overall I think separating health care from employment, at least making it like any other service where employment may provide the money to pay for it but where we work doesn't determine our choices, is a good thing."

Sinclair said Boehner has a reasonable point in terms of the larger economic impact of these changes, but adds that he’s largely wrong in how he framed the labor-market question.

"In a macroeconomic sense, this still means fewer people working, even if that is their choice," she said. On the other hand, she added, "it also probably means relatively higher wages and better bargaining power for those who are looking for a job. This is very different than the short-run effects of employers cutting positions, where we would see unemployment rates go up, less bargaining power for workers, and potentially relatively lower wages. So, the description of the source of the cut -- whether it’s from supply or demand -- does matter, but not for the count of ‘jobs.’ "

When we checked with Boehner’s office, spokesman Brendan Buck reiterated that the CBO report shows that "there will be that many fewer people working – that many fewer people in jobs. Whether a result of a change in supply or demand for labor, that’s still bad for the economy. If there’s an error, it’s for tweeting in English instead of ‘economist.’"

Our ruling



In his tweet, Boehner said that Obama’s health care law is "expected to destroy 2.3 million jobs."

Boehner’s use of the word "destroy" mischaracterizes what is going on, since the reduction will come from voluntary actions by workers, rather than layoffs by employers. The law would not push up unemployment. In fact, some people at the low end of the wage ladder would find it easier to find work as a result of the predicted shifts in the workforce.

In addition, it’s misleading to refer to 2.3 million "jobs," since CBO combined all incremental losses of hours worked into full-time-job equivalents. Under this scenario, we would expect many more than 2.3 million people to be affected, but many of them would cut their hours a few at a time, rather than quitting their jobs entirely.

It can be easy to miss the distinction between jobs and workers -- and the CBO report is not all rosy for the nation’s economic future. But Boehner’s statement remains flawed. We rate the claim Mostly False.


Posted on CafeMom Mobile
Carpy
by Platinum Member on Feb. 6, 2014 at 7:36 AM
3 moms liked this

So much from the left, that you have purported to be the truth and backed up with "facts" has proven to be a lie.  This is no different, but you keep pushing on to the next lie, and claiming it to be truth.  Just like the Obama adm, you just leave it in the dustbin of history and forge ahead with another lie.

Quoting sweet-a-kins: the actual truth

Quoting Carpy:

The Politifact spin.

Quoting sweet-a-kins: John Boehner says Obamacare is “expected to destroy 2.3 million jobs”



Share this story:







House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, sent this tweet after the CBO published a new report that addressed the impact of President Obama's health care law on jobs, among other things. But is it accurate?



Ever since President Barack Obama shepherded the Affordable Care Act to enactment, critics have called the health care law a job killer. Now, many of the critics are saying that a new report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office proves their point.

The CBO estimated that by 2017, there would be about 2 million fewer workers than there would be in the absence of the law. CBO said that number would grow to about 2.5 million by 2024.

Shortly after the report was released on Feb. 4, 2014, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, joined many Republicans and conservatives in highlighting this finding via social media.

Boehner tweeted, "Pres. Obama’s #hcr law expected to destroy 2.3 million jobs http://on.wsj.com/1kM33oN via @WSJ." (Wonk alert: #hcr is shorthand for "health care reform.)

In short order, Democrats and liberal commentators took issue with such characterizations, saying Obama’s critics were misreading the report. A full-fledged war of facts and spin ensued.

We have addressed previous CBO projections of this sort and found reasons to be skeptical of interpretations like Boehner’s.

The key problem here is that claims by Boehner -- and other critics -- overlook the difference between workers and jobs, and Boehner was misleading when he used the word "destroyed." He made it sound as if jobs are going away because businesses don’t create them or because they eliminate existing jobs. The CBO report, though, was referring to workers who decide on their own to leave the workforce.

The CBO figured that, when presented with new options for purchasing health insurance outside their job, millions of people would decide they don’t need to work as much.

"Workers who now have access to less expensive health insurance through Medicaid or with refundable federal tax credits that help them pay for premiums will not want to work such long hours after the ACA becomes fully implemented," said Gary Burtless, an economist at the Brookings Institution.

The CBO estimated that Obamacare would "reduce the total number of hours worked, on net, by about 1.5 percent to 2.0 percent during the period from 2017 to 2024, almost entirely because workers will choose to supply less labor — given the new taxes and other incentives they will face and the financial benefits some will receive." This would equal a "decline in the number of full-time-equivalent workers of about 2.0 million in 2017, rising to about 2.5 million in 2024," the report continued.

These changes, CBO said, would not result in "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)."

To be clear, the report predicts that total employment will still rise. It just won’t rise as much as it would if the ACA did not exist.

Another key point: The CBO did not specify how many of the 2 million figure would include full-time positions, as compared to cases of an employee keeping their job but working fewer hours, or keeping one job while quitting a separate, part-time job.

In some ways, a drop in the number of people who feel the need to work actually could be a boon to the unemployed. As we’ve noted, there are about three job seekers for every job vacancy in today’s economy -- a high ratio by historical standards. Some of these people could pick up the slack once vacancies open up -- and they should be able to, since CBO said it didn’t expect a major change in companies’ demand for workers. In essence, you’d be trading workers unhappy to be working for those who are desperate to be working.

"Unemployed workers who really need to find jobs to support their families, rather than to obtain health coverage, will find it easier to get jobs," Burtless said. "After all, they will not face as much competition from the workers who were mainly remaining in the labor force to get a job with health coverage."

We see a few problems with Boehner’s phrasing -- that the law is "expected to destroy 2.3 million jobs." (We have no quarrel with the 2.3 million figure; it’s the mid-point between 2.0 million and 2.5 million.)

The first problem is the word "destroy." It’s inaccurate because it suggests that CBO says employers will be making 2.3 million layoffs. That's not correct -- the reduction will come primarily from voluntary choices by workers, not by by employers, the CBO said.

The second problem is the word "jobs." Using that word glosses over the fact that CBO didn’t cite a number of jobs that will be reduced; it referred to full-time-equivalents of jobs. That may sound like a technical distinction, but it’s important. These job equivalents will be made of a lot of bits and pieces of hours per week that people will choose to drop. Many of these people might be working two or three jobs, in excess of 40 hours a week, and will choose to cut back to a more reasonable one or two jobs.

All this said, it’s also worth pointing out a few less positive conclusions of the CBO report.

As more people choose to work less, the labor force participation rate should decline, putting a larger burden for supporting the social safety net on those who remain working. Any change in labor force participation comes on top of an already major shift toward retirement driven by the aging of the baby boom.

Also, some commentators have expressed concern about having people work less because taxpayer-subsidized insurance is available. Ultimately, it boils down to a tradeoff, said Tara Sinclair, a George Washington University economist.

"Admittedly there are some touchy issues with the government potentially paying or subsidizing the health care costs for people who could work but choose not to," Sinclair said. "But overall I think separating health care from employment, at least making it like any other service where employment may provide the money to pay for it but where we work doesn't determine our choices, is a good thing."

Sinclair said Boehner has a reasonable point in terms of the larger economic impact of these changes, but adds that he’s largely wrong in how he framed the labor-market question.

"In a macroeconomic sense, this still means fewer people working, even if that is their choice," she said. On the other hand, she added, "it also probably means relatively higher wages and better bargaining power for those who are looking for a job. This is very different than the short-run effects of employers cutting positions, where we would see unemployment rates go up, less bargaining power for workers, and potentially relatively lower wages. So, the description of the source of the cut -- whether it’s from supply or demand -- does matter, but not for the count of ‘jobs.’ "

When we checked with Boehner’s office, spokesman Brendan Buck reiterated that the CBO report shows that "there will be that many fewer people working – that many fewer people in jobs. Whether a result of a change in supply or demand for labor, that’s still bad for the economy. If there’s an error, it’s for tweeting in English instead of ‘economist.’"

Our ruling



In his tweet, Boehner said that Obama’s health care law is "expected to destroy 2.3 million jobs."

Boehner’s use of the word "destroy" mischaracterizes what is going on, since the reduction will come from voluntary actions by workers, rather than layoffs by employers. The law would not push up unemployment. In fact, some people at the low end of the wage ladder would find it easier to find work as a result of the predicted shifts in the workforce.

In addition, it’s misleading to refer to 2.3 million "jobs," since CBO combined all incremental losses of hours worked into full-time-job equivalents. Under this scenario, we would expect many more than 2.3 million people to be affected, but many of them would cut their hours a few at a time, rather than quitting their jobs entirely.

It can be easy to miss the distinction between jobs and workers -- and the CBO report is not all rosy for the nation’s economic future. But Boehner’s statement remains flawed. We rate the claim Mostly False.



GrannyM.
by Bronze Member on Feb. 6, 2014 at 7:49 AM
by Bronze Member on Feb. 6, 2014 at 7:21 AM

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/no-obamacare-isnt-firing-2-million-workers   

In my humble opinion and/or humanely speaking equal healthcare for all Americans is the only way to go. It's not a political ploy it's common sense..

vic270
by Vic on Feb. 6, 2014 at 8:40 AM
1 mom liked this

 the Bible tells us that we are to respect the office and I like You do that, it doesn't say we have to respect the one that holds the office. I think we would be sinning if we did.(especially in this case)

Quoting blondekosmic15:

Obama's an habitual liar. I don't believe anything he says. He lost credibility a long time ago. I respect the Office but not the person sitting in the Oval Office. 

Quoting vic270:

 the sad part is that is one he repeated dozens of times, how many more are still out there, its like everyone has forgotten about all of those ( you know how all those ppl were gonna be held accountable that got promoted) but this one. it wasn't that long ago i wondered what the lie of the day from him or his adm. was going to be

Quoting blondekosmic15:


Quoting sweet-a-kins: The liars on the right doing their job

hmm..Obama you can keep your insurance. You can keep your Dr. Anyone with intelligence & common sense knows who the liar is. 

 


 

sweet-a-kins
by Ruby Member on Feb. 6, 2014 at 10:33 AM

 No, it hasn't

 

  

 

but here is another source for the republican liars

 

FACT CHECK: GOP I-told-you-so chorus over health overhaul study misrepresents its conclusions

Associated Press
By Calvin Woodward, Associated Press 7 hours ago  
0 shares
FACT CHECK: Anti-Obamacare chorus is off key
.

View photo

 

Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Director Douglas Elmendorf, right, talks with House Budget Committee member Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore. on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Feb. 5, 2014, prior to Elmendorf testifying before the committee's hearing on the CBO budget and economic outlook. New estimates that President Barack Obama's health care law will encourage millions of Americans to leave the workforce or reduce their work hours have touched off an I-told-you-so chorus from Republicans, who've claimed all along that the law will kill jobs. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

 

 

 WASHINGTON (AP) -- New estimates that President Barack Obama's health care law will encourage millions of Americans to leave the workforce or reduce their work hours have touched off an I-told-you-so chorus from Republicans, who've claimed all along that the law will kill jobs. But some aren't telling it straight.

The analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicts the law will give several million people an opportunity to work less or not at all, because they won't be stuck in jobs just for the sake of keeping the health insurance they get from employers. To some Republicans, that amounts to "wreaking havoc on working families," ''dire consequences for workers" and a shower of pink slips across the land - conclusions unsupported by the report.

The study estimates that the workforce will be reduced by the equivalent of 2.3 million full-time workers by 2021 as people choose to leave it. More would take early retirement, work fewer hours or otherwise rearrange their work-home balance to take advantage of new subsidies for health insurance and new markets for individual policies that don't depend on having a job.

In a key point overlooked in the GOP response, the report says, "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."

In other words, workers aren't being laid off. They are taking themselves out of the workforce, in many cases opening job opportunities for others.

As if recognizing that fellow Republicans were getting a bit overheated, Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, House Budget Committee chairman, introduced a reality check when questioning Douglas Elmendorf, budget office director, during a hearing Wednesday. "So just to understand this, it's not that employers are laying people off, it's that ... people aren't working in the workforce, aren't supplying labor," he posited.

"That is right," Elmendorf replied.

A look at some of the Republican claims and how they compare with the facts:

SEN. MARCO RUBIO of Florida: "Just yesterday, the Congressional Budget Office found that Obamacare will cost millions of Americans their jobs."

REP. JOHN KLINE of Minnesota: "The president's health care law is destroying full-time jobs. ... This fatally flawed health care scheme is wreaking havoc on working families nationwide."

REP. PHIL GINGREY of Georgia: Obamacare creates "unprecedented uncertainty for job creators that, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, will leave millions of people looking for work in the next few years."

___

 

THE FACTS: No one knows whether the health care law will turn out to be good or bad for jobs and the economy. Everything is guesswork, however educated the guess.

 

The budget office, generally respected by both sides but not infallible, predicts some elements of the health care law will help job growth and other parts will hurt it.

 

On the plus side, for example, it expects lower-income people to have more money to spend because more of them will have their health insurance partially or fully paid for by government under the law. On the negative side, Elmendorf told Ryan's committee that in the short run, the law would increase employers' costs for their workers and reduce the number of people they hire. Over time, this could put downward pressure on wages, he said.

 

But those effects, good and bad, are expected to be modest. Of more consequence is the expectation that millions will take themselves voluntarily out of the labor force because they can afford to.

 

The budget office forecast that over the next several years, there will be plenty of unemployed people available to fill those jobs. But over the longer term as the economy improves, the supply will shrink, and because of that, total employment and the number of hours people work will be less than it would have been without the health care law.

 

A smaller workforce means fewer people producing goods and services, which translates into slower economic growth. The CBO report also forecasts that an aging population will cause more Americans to retire, further reducing the workforce. That's the main reason it expects growth to average roughly 2.5 percent over the next 10 years, below its long-run pace of about 3 percent.

 

Some Republicans picked their words more carefully than others in reacting to the report.

 

House Speaker John Boehner, for example, said the report backs up Republican arguments that Obamacare "hurts take-home pay," a plausible point as far as it goes. Ryan said the availability of health insurance subsidies will be a disincentive to find work, a claim supported by the study.

 

But the predicted withdrawal from the labor market is no more a killer of jobs than today's surge of retirements by baby boomers entering old age. If anything, it could open job opportunities for people who can't get in the workforce now.

 

 

Quoting Carpy:

So much from the left, that you have purported to be the truth and backed up with "facts" has proven to be a lie.  This is no different, but you keep pushing on to the next lie, and claiming it to be truth.  Just like the Obama adm, you just leave it in the dustbin of history and forge ahead with another lie.

 

MsDenuninani
by Bronze Member on Feb. 6, 2014 at 11:03 AM
1 mom liked this

Ah, yes, a dis-incentive to provide labor is a dis-incentive to succeed. . .couldn't possibly because they, maybe, want to spend more time with their family.  Couldn't possibly be because they were killing themselves with two full-time jobs.  Couldn't possibly be because they like weekends, couldn't possibly be because now the wife can stay home with the kids. . .must be because they are lazy bums.

(As for the arrogant comment. . .Hi, I'm kettle.  Nice to meet you, pot.)

Quoting Billiejeens:

 Not that you are arrogant or anything - but yeah we do.

People will choose to supply less labor - due to the dis-incentive to succeed.

Quoting MsDenuninani:

Quote from OP:

CBO estimates that the ACA will reduce the total number of hours worked, on net, by about 1.5 to 2 percent during the period from 2017 to 2024, almost entirely because workers will choose to supply less labor — given the new taxes and other incentives they will face and the financial benefits some will receive,” CBO analysts wrote in their new economic outlook."

I'm not entirely convinced any of the posters so far understand what this actually means.

 

 

numbr1wmn
by Nikki on Feb. 6, 2014 at 12:42 PM

http://www.worldmag.com/2014/02/cbo_obamacare_hurts_workers_sickens_economy

WASHINGTON—After months of reports on higher premiums and lost coverage, the Congressional Budget Office on Tuesday confirmed what most Americans already knew: Obamacare is hurting workers. In the latest CBO report, non-partisan budget crunchers project the Affordable Care Act will cost the economy the equivalent 2.3 million full-time jobs by 2021 and will continually stifle economic growth, especially after 2016. 

The CBO previously estimated the president’s healthcare law would result in 800,000 fewer jobs, but it revised the numbers based on a variety of factors, including employers reducing full-time workers to part-time hours, and people who may choose to remain unemployed to keep government subsidies. For those already in the workforce, the report notes subsidies phase out as income rises, “creating an implicit tax on additional earnings—whereas for other people the act imposes higher taxes on labor income directly.” 

Congressional Republicans pounced on the news: “Today’s CBO report confirms the devastating effects that Obamacare is having on jobs and the economy,” said Rep. Diane Black, R-Tenn., a member of the House Ways and Means Committee. 

We see you’ve been enjoying the content on our exclusive member website. Ready to get unlimited access to all of WORLD’s member content?
Get your risk-free, 30-Day FREE Trial Membership right now.
(Don’t worry. It only takes a sec—and you don’t have to give us payment information right now.)

Get your risk-free, 30-Day FREE Trial Membership right now.

The CBO estimates the botched Obamacare rollout will result in 1 million fewer enrollees this year—which experts told WORLD could result in a death spiral for the law—but it acknowledges the program may see a late surge as the March 31 enrollment deadline nears. 

Regardless, the long-term economic outlook remains bleak. Last week in his State of the Union address, President Barack Obama boasted about the shrinking federal budget deficit, projected to drop to $514 billion this year and $478 billion in 2015. But the CBO says the downward trend won’t continue: It anticipates the annual deficit will again top $1 trillion by 2022, and the federal debt will move from 74 percent of the country’s gross domestic product (GDP) this year to 79 percent in 2024. Interest on the debt is expected to quadruple in the next decade as the debt soars above $27 trillion.

“The large budget deficits recorded in recent years have substantially increased federal debt, and the amount of debt relative to the size of the economy is now very high by historical standards,” the report said. “Such large and growing federal debt could have serious negative consequences.”

The CBO projects the labor participation rate, already historically low, will only get worse as Obamacare takes full effect, reducing the total net number of hours worked between 1.5 and 2 percent (with the largest decline among low-income workers) and reducing aggregate wages by 1 percent between 2017 and 2024. This is “almost entirely because workers will choose to supply less labor—given the new taxes and other incentives they will face and the financial benefits some will receive.”

White House press secretary Jay Carney called the CBO’s work incomplete and said the fact that people have the freedom to choose to work less is a good thing. 

Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., chairman of the House Budget Committee, said the report is a call to action for lawmakers. “Today’s report is an important reminder that the debt won’t take care of itself,” he said. “CBO says autopilot spending and interest payments are the main drivers of our debt. In other words, we still have a spending problem.”

The report ensures healthcare will be a central issue in the mid-term elections this fall and could lead to growing support for Republican alternatives to Obamacare. Last week Sens. Richard Burr, R-N.C., Tom Coburn, R-Okla., and Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, unveiled the Patient Choice, Affordability, Responsibility, and Empowerment (CARE) Act, which they say will use market-based approaches to increase access to coverage—including those with pre-existing conditions—lower costs, and incentivize, rather than mandate, insurance coverage. 

Some experts think the plan could work: The Center for Health and Economy released a report predicting the proposal would lower healthcare costs, lower premiums, and cover roughly as many people as Obamacare. The report also found the alternative plan would increase medical productivity 2 to 3 percent and cut almost $1.5 trillion from the national debt over 10 years. 

“For millions of Americans, Obamacare itself has become a preexisting condition that has caused them to lose their insurance, their doctors and their choices," Coburn said. “Congress has a responsibility to not only repeal this misguided law but replace it with a plan that will provide better care at a lower cost, and will help preserve programs like Medicaid instead of driving them closer to bankruptcy.”

MsDenuninani
by Bronze Member on Feb. 6, 2014 at 3:25 PM
1 mom liked this

I'm not familiar with worldmag.com. but what they are reporting right there is false.

From bj's own post: Obamacare will push the equivalent of about 2 million workers out of the labor market by 2017 as employees decide either to work fewer hours or drop out altogether, according to the latest estimates Tuesday from the Congressional Budget Office.

Do you understand the difference? Just because people will decide not to work means that the jobs will disappear.  In fact, it is entirely possible that people currently unemployed will simply fill the positions. 

Again, I am not familiar with worldmag.com, but that sentence right there strongly suggest to me that the reporter does not actually understand the difference between supply and demand, which is kinda scary given what s/he's chosen to write about.

 

Quoting numbr1wmn:

http://www.worldmag.com/2014/02/cbo_obamacare_hurts_workers_sickens_economy

WASHINGTON—After months of reports on higher premiums and lost coverage, the Congressional Budget Office on Tuesday confirmed what most Americans already knew: Obamacare is hurting workers. In the latest CBO report, non-partisan budget crunchers project the Affordable Care Act will cost the economy the equivalent 2.3 million full-time jobs by 2021 and will continually stifle economic growth, especially after 2016. 

 

 

numbr1wmn
by Nikki on Feb. 6, 2014 at 3:35 PM

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/04/us-usa-fiscal-obamacare-idUSBREA131B120140204

 

Here is another.  Jobs downsizing and going FT to PT etc hurts everyone.

sweet-a-kins
by Ruby Member on Feb. 6, 2014 at 8:37 PM

 Director of the CBO actually has to say about jobs and Obamacare!

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN