# What is your ongoing opinion of the Affordable Care Act? (Title Edited) **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [January 17, 2013, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-ongoing-opinion-of-the-affordable-care-act-title-edited/647561 "2013-01-17T23:21:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 75
**Author:** ![jasg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f0a364/32.png) [@jasg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jasg)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2014, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-ongoing-opinion-of-the-affordable-care-act-title-edited/647561/1482 "2014-02-06T16:16:28Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > This column explains the CBO thing perfectly. The headline is perfect too: > > “Willful stupidity in the Obamacare debate” > > [http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ej-dionne-willful-stupidity-in-the-obamacare-debate/2014/02/05/d49d1448-8e9a-11e3-b46a-5a3d0d2130da\_story.html](http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ej-dionne-willful-stupidity-in-the-obamacare-debate/2014/02/05/d49d1448-8e9a-11e3-b46a-5a3d0d2130da_story.html) The concluding paragraph is worth quoting here > [@E. J. Dionne - Washington Post](#): > > The reaction to the CBO study is an example of how willfully stupid — there’s no other word — the debate over Obamacare has become. Opponents don’t look to a painstaking analysis for enlightenment. They twist its findings and turn them into dishonest slogans. Too often, the media go along by highlighting the study’s political impact rather than focusing on what it actually says. My bet is that citizens are smarter than this. They will ignore the noise and judge Obamacare by how it works. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2014, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-ongoing-opinion-of-the-affordable-care-act-title-edited/647561/1483 "2014-02-06T16:32:04Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > lol… So this is the best you’ve got? That statement isn’t necessarily true (it could be, worst case scenario, though it’s not likely) but your statement is 100% false. Completely, totally and utterly. The claim that the CBO found in this report that ACA will cause a loss of jobs or increase unemployment is 100% false. Completely, totally and utterly. To quote the report: “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.)” [http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45010-Outlook2014.pdf](http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45010-Outlook2014.pdf) p. 117-118 It’s fair to say that this could lead to a LOWERING of the unemployment rate, rather than an increase, since it would open jobs to new workers. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2014, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-ongoing-opinion-of-the-affordable-care-act-title-edited/647561/1484 "2014-02-06T16:51:42Z")
Am I recalling correctly that increased worker mobility (due to not being tied to specific jobs due to health insurance constraints) would - in theory - have a net economic benefit? ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2014, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-ongoing-opinion-of-the-affordable-care-act-title-edited/647561/1485 "2014-02-06T18:33:25Z")
The great thing about conservative willful stupidity like those being demonstrated on this board is that they will always be taken by surprise during the elections and will never prepare to run properly. The more they twist the facts, the more they lose, and the more the facts go in opposite of their beliefs ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2014, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-ongoing-opinion-of-the-affordable-care-act-title-edited/647561/1486 "2014-02-06T22:58:26Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > lol… So this is the best you’ve got? That statement isn’t necessarily true (it could be, worst case scenario, though it’s not likely) but your statement is 100% false. Completely, totally and utterly. Omg another content-free post. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2014, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-ongoing-opinion-of-the-affordable-care-act-title-edited/647561/1487 "2014-02-07T01:50:49Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > No, because the report does not say 2 million jobs are going away; it says 2 miillion workers will choose to leave the workforce voluntarily, creating jobs for 2 million unemployed. This is a positive thing for the economy, with no reduction in tax revenue. Actually, you’re mistaken. The CBO said a net 2 million job loss, not that 2 million people would leave and 2 million would take their place. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2014, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-ongoing-opinion-of-the-affordable-care-act-title-edited/647561/1488 "2014-02-07T01:54:00Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Actually, you’re mistaken. The CBO said a net 2 million job loss… No they didn’t. They said 2 million people would leave the workforce, because Obamacare benefits gave them more choice. I have cited it many times, so you can go back and read them again. But simple gainsaying everything I have cited is not debate. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2014, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-ongoing-opinion-of-the-affordable-care-act-title-edited/647561/1489 "2014-02-07T01:54:58Z")
The other thing liberals are glossing over in their rush to put the best spin on the CBO report is that the voluntary job leaving isn’t just due to the end of job lock. It’s also because the subsidies create implicit marginal tax hikes that are pretty huge, making it less profitable for people to get that second job or take that promotion. Unlike with income taxes, where only the last dollar is taxed at a higher rate, so that you can’t lose money when you get a raise or promotion, the ACA actually does put workers in a position of having to take a short-term loss sometimes when they get a better job, or add a second job. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2014, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-ongoing-opinion-of-the-affordable-care-act-title-edited/647561/1490 "2014-02-07T01:56:19Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > No they didn’t. They said 2 million people would leave the workforce, because Obamacare benefits gave them more choice. I have cited it many times, so you can go back and read them again. But simple gainsaying everything I have cited is not debate. The key word here is “net”. The CBO didn’t say 2 million people would leave the workforce, they said 2 million NET would leave the workforce. And you’re still glossing over the fact that the CBO said the implicit marginal tax increases associated with the phasing out of ACA subsidies at higher income levels is also a contributor to people leaving the workforce. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2014, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-ongoing-opinion-of-the-affordable-care-act-title-edited/647561/1491 "2014-02-07T02:00:46Z")
From your cite: > [@](#): > > At the same time, more than 2.5 million people are likely to reduce the amount of labor they choose to supply to some degree because of the ACA, even though many of them will not leave the labor force entirely. People who leave entirely have been redeemed from job lock. Now they can go and start a business or retire early. However, people who choose to reduce the amount of labor they contribute are doing so because of the phase out of subsidies as their income increases. Even many of the people who leave the workforce entirely, many of them will be doing it because ACA just doesn’t make it pay. Second incomes will often result in the loss of subsidies. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2014, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-ongoing-opinion-of-the-affordable-care-act-title-edited/647561/1492 "2014-02-07T02:03:35Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The CBO said a net 2 million job loss, not that 2 million people would leave and 2 million would take their place. > [@adaher](#): > > The CBO didn’t say 2 million people would leave the workforce, they said 2 million NET would leave the workforce. One of these is not like the other. A person leaving the workforce is not a job loss. So which is it? Or are you going to make up a yet another interpretation… ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2014, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-ongoing-opinion-of-the-affordable-care-act-title-edited/647561/1493 "2014-02-07T04:23:46Z")
Despite what **Fear Itself** keeps repeating, the CBO report did not say that millions are leaving the workforce. Washington Post fact checker says [No, CBO did not say Obamacare will kill 2 million jobs](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/02/04/no-cbo-did-not-say-obamacare-will-kill-2-million-jobs/). > [@WaPo Fact Checker](#): > > …Advocates of the Affordable Care Act should not jump to the conclusion that departing workers will be simply replaced by other workers. Assuming a “normal” unemployment rate of five percent, employers’ demand for jobs would equal 95 percent of the supply of workers. Fewer workers initially would lead to higher wages as employers competed to hire people. But over time, the nation ends up with a slightly smaller economy because of the smaller workforce. > > Finally, we should note that the figures (2 million, etc.) are shorthand for full-time equivalent workers — a combination of two conclusions: fewer people looking for work and some people choosing to work fewer hours. The CBO added those two things and produced a hard number, but it actually does not mean 2 million fewer workers. … [CBSNews](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-the-cbo-report-on-obamacare-actually-says-about-jobs/) says, “According to the report, this decline will come as a result of choices that workers make – not because of the job cutting. …” Other media sources seem able to parse the distinction. A net reduction of 2 million full time equivalents could be 500,000 leaving the workforce entirely + 15,000,000 dropping 10% of their hours. or absolutely zero jobs lost but 40,000,000 workers experiencing a 5% reduction in hours worked or any other combination of (jobs gained \* average hours/job) - (jobs lost \* average hours/job) + hours gained - hours lost… Why is this so damn difficult for some to understand? ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2014, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-ongoing-opinion-of-the-affordable-care-act-title-edited/647561/1494 "2014-02-07T15:06:30Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > Why is this so damn difficult for some to understand? Because they don’t want to understand. Understanding and accepting the facts would make them too uncomfortable, so they choose to live in the comfort of deception and misinformation. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2014, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-ongoing-opinion-of-the-affordable-care-act-title-edited/647561/1495 "2014-02-07T16:03:33Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Actually, you’re mistaken. The CBO said a net 2 million job loss, not that 2 million people would leave and 2 million would take their place. False. It said that a net 2 million people would choose to stop working. **It did not say any jobs would be lost.** If 2 million people stop working (net), that could make room for a net of 2 million to take their place though. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2014, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-ongoing-opinion-of-the-affordable-care-act-title-edited/647561/1496 "2014-02-07T16:11:13Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > False. It said that a net 2 million people would choose to stop working. **It did not say any jobs would be lost.** > > If 2 million people stop working (net), that could make room for a net of 2 million to take their place though. For the nth time, it didn’t say “2 million people would choose to stop working”. It said that the equivalent of 2 million people would. For example, if 100 million people reduced their work by one hour a week from 40 to 39, that would be the equivalent of 2.5 million people stopping work. Do you think that eventuality would “make room for a net 2 million to take their place”? ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2014, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-ongoing-opinion-of-the-affordable-care-act-title-edited/647561/1497 "2014-02-07T16:29:25Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > For the nth time, it didn’t say “2 million people would choose to stop working”. It said that the equivalent of 2 million people would. For example, if 100 million people reduced their work by one hour a week from 40 to 39, that would be the equivalent of 2.5 million people stopping work. Do you think that eventuality would “make room for a net 2 million to take their place”? So these employers are not going to look to add back that lost labor? They’ll just get by with less work? Then why were these people employed in the first place if their employers view them as totally unnecessary? Doesn’t make much sense for an employer to operate that way, seems pretty inefficient to have so much surplus and totally unneeded labor on the books. ---
**Author:** ![Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omg_a_Black_Conservative)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2014, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-ongoing-opinion-of-the-affordable-care-act-title-edited/647561/1498 "2014-02-07T16:50:18Z")
So we’ve gone from “Obamacare week add 4 million jobs” to “worker choice”. Interesting how those goalposts keep moving. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2014, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-ongoing-opinion-of-the-affordable-care-act-title-edited/647561/1499 "2014-02-07T16:52:51Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > So these employers are not going to look to add back that lost labor? They’ll just get by with less work? Not “less work”. But will some employers get by with “less work hours” - definitely. See [http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/assets\_c/2010/03/productivity%2010-03%20-%201-thumb-570x377-22594.png](http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/assets_c/2010/03/productivity%2010-03%20-%201-thumb-570x377-22594.png) > [@](#): > > Then why were these people employed in the first place if their employers view them as totally unnecessary? Doesn’t make much sense for an employer to operate that way, seems pretty inefficient to have so much surplus and totally unneeded labor on the books. “So much surplus”? In the example I gave the surplus was 2.5%. Look at the graph I gave above. Some years the productivity jumped more than that. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2014, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-ongoing-opinion-of-the-affordable-care-act-title-edited/647561/1500 "2014-02-07T17:07:48Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > So we’ve gone from “Obamacare week add 4 million jobs” to “worker choice”. Interesting how those goalposts keep moving. Those were barely sentences. Explain. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2014, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-ongoing-opinion-of-the-affordable-care-act-title-edited/647561/1501 "2014-02-07T18:16:03Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > For the nth time, it didn’t say “2 million people would choose to stop working”. It said that the equivalent of 2 million people would. For example, if 100 million people reduced their work by one hour a week from 40 to 39, that would be the equivalent of 2.5 million people stopping work. Do you think that eventuality would “make room for a net 2 million to take their place”? Yes, we all know that, thanks. I said it COULD result in more people taking their place. Which is true. If, for instance, 40 employees of a store work only 39 hours instead of 40, that’s 40 hours that need to be worked, which could mean one new worker is hired. But it doesn’t necessarily mean this will involve all 2.5 million net workers being replaced by 2.5 million more. We already know this. That’s a side issue. The point is that the CBO did NOT say that any jobs would be eliminated. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-ongoing-opinion-of-the-affordable-care-act-title-edited/647561.md?page=74) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-ongoing-opinion-of-the-affordable-care-act-title-edited/647561.md?page=76)