No, it really does make a difference. You seem to be saying that 2 million workers will stop working. This is clearly not true at all.
However, your statement that nearly all of the work performed by those 2-million-equivalent jobs would be done by someone else is in fact supported by the report.
The policy question is more like: is it OK for someone making 110% of the FPL to have a disincentive to work more to earn 200% of FPL, knowing that they will lose Medicaid eligibility? And: does the fact that those extra hours will go to someone else (perhaps taking them from unemployed to underemployed) help ameliorate that distortion in the labor market.
I’m not qualified to provide a definitive answer (and I don’t think anybody really can with 100% certainty), but it’s not a black-and-white ACA-good/ACA-bad kind of thing.
Sort of right, as I read it. They are saying that AFTER 2016 there will be a net reduction, because they think that the overall economic output will be near its maximum sustainable level. Until then they think any reduction in hours worked will be absorbed by those seeking work. If the economy stays weaker than expected then I would think that those hours would be filled by job-seekers.
I’ll amend my last post to say that after 2016 they are predicting that not all of the reduction will be absorbed. That’s the 1.5-2.0% reduction in net hours worked. That, in turn, leads to a projected 1% reduction in labor compensation (since these reductions are projected to be in low-paying jobs).
Again, whether its a good or bad thing that, for example, a second parent in a working-poor household chooses not to work because they have health care via exchange subsidies (or expanded Medicaid) and know that working more will just cause them to lose some of their subsidy is a huge area of debate, and likely depends almost entirely on your political outlook.
The work is always done by someone else. Question is, will someone else be hired to do that work, or will the work be done by others without increasing the work force or even pay to that “someone else”.
Or perhaps taking them from employed to overworked (with same pay).
Yeah, it does:
[QUOTE=CBO report]
CBO anticipates that the unemployment rate will remain high for the next few years. If changes in incentives lead some workers to reduce the amount of hours they want to work or to leave the labor force altogether, many unemployed workers will be available to take those jobs—so the effect on overall employment of reductions in labor supply will be greatly dampened.
[/QUOTE]
I see that everyone seems to be talking about the just-released updated CBO Report. FWIW, I haven’t personally read it, though I’ve perused several articles online that have outlined what the CBO has divined. All in all, I’d say it’s a positive report for the ACA, and, if anything, provides a huge counterargument against the recent GOP rallying cry about how the Ocare risk corridors must be annihilated (given that the government is projected to save BILLIONS of dollars due to this quote-unquote “bailout” provision).
But of course, everybody on the right is crowing about the projected reduction of 2 million full-time workers. I’m obviously not an economist, but the following statement is really all I have to say about this issue:
These are the types of changes that take place when you finally eliminate job lock and decouple health insurance from employment. Because I say that health insurance has no gawddamn business being tied to where an individual works, I view this as a huge step in the right direction.
Oh, I guess I was just unaware that the scope of the effects of Obamacare, and the scope of this CBO report, only extends through “the next few years”, while unemployment is expected to still be too high. Here I was, naively thinking we were having an intellectually honest discussion about the full scope of the effects, including beyond “the next few years”. :rolleyes:
Look, I’ve been supplying cites from the report, while ACA detractors are just regurgitating what they heard on Fox News. If you really want to have an intellectually honest discussion, post some cites from the report that support your dire predictions. Otherwise, we will take your viewpoints for what they are; uninformed opinions.
I have directly quoted from the report and supported my argument. Post #1425. And right above these posts, Jas09 also refers directly to data from the report about effects beyond 2016. You blatantly cherry-picked the part that only covers “the next few years”. That’s not posting cites, that’s being deceptive. And I didn’t make “dire predictions”, how did you come up with that nonsense?
Since when did conservatives take the CBO seriously? I must have missed the memo when they accepted that the CBO said Obamacare would save money in the long run and that giving rich people tax breaks doesn’t create any jobs.
Only some CBO reports seem to be taken seriously. I have heard very little about this one which also came out today - and scores the Republican bill to scrap Risk Corridors as a deficit increase of $8 billion.
It’s interesting to me that the GOP now seems to care about what the CBO has to say about the ACA; never-minding the past 4+ years of official projections declaring that the law would dramatically reduce the deficit and cover tens of millions of more people than would have otherwise been left uninsured in the old system.
It’s all political theater, really. As long as the idiot party can misconstrue the CBO projections to fit the conservative talking points they’ll be all over what the agency has to say; otherwise, the GOP couldn’t give two shits about the CBO.
I also think it’s funny that the media is acting as if there’s going to be some massive fallout from these projections, as if the public is actually galvanized around anti-Ocare as a wedge issue. Pluralities continue to disapprove of the law, yes, but that discontent is dropping as more people start to directly benefit from it.
Politifact: Mostly False - “The CBO now says the president’s health care law will cut the number of full-time jobs in the United States by 2.3 million by 2021.”
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.