Skip to main content

U.S. President Barack Obama delivers remarks alongside Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius (R) and other Americans the White House says will benefit from the opening of health insurance marketplaces under the Affordable Care Act, in the Rose Garden
The right wing is slathering over headlines like this:
CBO: Obamacare killing 2 million jobs...
But, as usual, that ignores what the CBO really says. The new report [pdf] does say that yes, by 2024 the law will reduce full-time employment by 2 million. But that's not 2 million jobs killed. In fact, the CBO actually confirms one of the things supporters of the new law said it would do: provide people who can't or don't want to work full time, who want to quit their jobs to stay at home with their children or to start a new business, the freedom to do just that. Right there in the report on page 117 (yes, that's a lot of pages for conservatives to read) it says:
"The estimated reduction [in CBO's projections of hours worked] stems almost entirely from a net decline in the amount of labor that workers choose to supply rather than a net drop in businesses demand for labor. [...]"
The CBO is not assuming that the law will lead employers to eliminate jobs or reduce hours, and actually says that there is "no compelling evidence that part-time employment has increased as a result of the ACA." It also says this:
The ACA's subsidies for health insurance will both stimulate demand for health care services and allow low-income households to redirect some of the funds that they would have spent on that care toward the purchase of other goods and services—thereby increasing overall demand. That increase in overall demand while the economy remains somewhat weak will induce some employers to hire more workers or to increase the hours of current employees during that period.
Okay, so that's debunked. Now about that "insurance company bailout" that the Republicans have tossed around as their ransom for taking the debt ceiling hostage. A reminder, the "bailout" is actually something called "risk corridors," a stability mechanism that pools money from insurers that have profits in the first few years of the law to make up the difference for other insurers who end up taking on more expensive customers. That stabilizes the markets and helps keep premiums lower. It also, CBO says, cuts the deficit: "CBO now projects that, over the 2015–2024 period, risk corridor payments from the federal government to health insurers will total $8 billion and the corresponding collections from insurers will amount to $16 billion, yielding net savings for the federal government of $8 billion." So much for that.

Originally posted to Joan McCarter on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 10:30 AM PST.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Drudge versus dKos (9+ / 0-)

    Drudge will be picked up and amplified by the media and rightwing Congresscritters.

    Dkos? Not even Democratic Congresscritters would absorb and amplify this truth. Instead, the middle will spend a lot of time sympathizing with the rightwing.

    C'est la vie.

    Shall we go? Yes, let's go.

    by whenwego on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 10:35:49 AM PST

  •  Freedom (8+ / 0-)

    Gee, I thought the right wingers were for freedom.  Oh yeah, just some freedoms.    

    I for one have always thought that the ability to leave one's job and not lose insurance was one of the great features of the ACA.  

  •  In the future.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    it all works out.  Relax.  Trust the Gubmint and the CBO..Don't think about the consequences  of elections coming up.

    No really, just trust it all....

    Hmmmm, sheeple.

    "When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains, And the women come out to cut up what remains, Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains An' go to your Gawd like a soldier." Rudyard Kipling

    by EdMass on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 10:54:01 AM PST

    •  Do you mean we should despair bc Thugs lie? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Thugs lie. So what else is new?
      Thug and Thug-co-opted media repeat and amplify those lies...  So what else is new?
      Drudge and Faux really, really, really lie... so, what else is new?

      Near as I can see all this means is Ds need to ramp up their campaign in defense of ACA and attack Thugs for lying.

      Not only bc the best defense is a good offense, but bc there is no alternative.  U think voters will suddenly think Ds have nothing to do with ACA if they hide like frightened rabbits?

    •  The logic behind the CBOs reasoning is sound (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      It makes sense that some will leave the FT job market to secure more personal time or to start businesses if they're not afraid of losing health insurance or being gouged for it. That makes sense, so there us no reason to be surprised at CBO report.
      It is terrific that people will be more able to leave jobs or move between them.

  •  JMO, it will add jobs (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    chrismorgan, tb mare, kefauver

    as more people have access to affordable health care, we should see an increase in health care industry workers.

    Money is property, not speech. Overturn Citizens United.

    by Betty Pinson on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 10:57:24 AM PST

  •  yeah, but (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    death panels!

    and benghazi, too!

    The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

    by Laurence Lewis on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 11:01:45 AM PST

  •  So 2 million will be able to retire rather than (7+ / 0-)

    work till they die.

    Dick Cheney 2/14/10: "I was a big supporter of waterboarding"

    by Bob Love on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 11:03:19 AM PST

  •  Try explaining the difference between (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AoT, RustyBrown, TheLizardKing, myboo

    voluntary and involuntary employment, to a would_be 'Slave drive'. I plan on retiring at 55, "Repubs be damned".

    •  Republicans do know the difference... (0+ / 0-)

      ...the problem is that they don't want to see more voluntary unemployment, because that puts choices with individuals, which is not where the choices belong in their world view.

      Remember that the 99% exist for the purpose of allowing the 1% (really, more like the 0.01%) to maximize the value of their investments.  When the 99% have choices, we become less easy to use...

      Political Compass: -6.75, -3.08

      by TexasTom on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 06:13:37 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  This is a good thing! 2 million job openings.. (9+ / 0-)

    This is nuts. 2 million folks dropping out of the labor market means that there will be 2 million job openings for the millions of unemployed workers looking for work. This seems like a good thing to me.

    •  Exactly, it means 2 million more WORKERS+more smal (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      whenwego, RustyBrown, True North, MPociask

      small businesses.  

      If 2 million retire or become small business folks - the supposedly Thuglican holy grail... unless Obama does it, of course - and 2 million workers need to be hired for those jobs that means ACA = 2 million more workers and more small business and you don't have to work until you die just so you have crappy junk health insurance.

      Where is the bad in that?

      •  No, it doesn't (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MGross, hmi

        The CBO specifically says that employment will be 2.5 FTEs less in 2024 than it would have been absent the ACA.

        •  WRONG! NO 'net drop in businesses demand for labor (0+ / 0-)

          Can you not read or do basic logic?

          'demand for labor' = jobs.

          What else could you possibly think it means? Businesses having babies?

          •  Can YOU not read? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            READ THE REPORT. Read the CBO report itself. Do not rely on someone else.


            CBO estimates that the ACA
            will 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
            •  Fang, you are wasting your time. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Cardinal Fang

              You are debating our equivalent of creationist. No amount of facts will change their minds.

              New Republic: So are the left-wing blogs as bad as the Tea Party ones in this case? -------------------------Chuck Schumer: Left-wing blogs are the mirror image. They just have less credibility and less clout.

              by AlexDrew on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 03:01:41 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  So Chris Hayes and Josh Barro are Creationsist-eqv (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:


                And btw, how would someone who joined 4 months ago Oct. 2013 know anything about who is or is not 'equivalent' of whatever here?

                •  I was a lurker here from 2005-Mid 2007 (0+ / 0-)

                  Moved to London that year; moved back in September. Anything else?

                  New Republic: So are the left-wing blogs as bad as the Tea Party ones in this case? -------------------------Chuck Schumer: Left-wing blogs are the mirror image. They just have less credibility and less clout.

                  by AlexDrew on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 12:32:48 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I noticed you did not respond to substantive pt in (0+ / 0-)

                    my comment: i.e., your and Thugs spin on CBO report re: ACA & employment is wrong and I am correct.

                    Now add CBO director to that list, see his testimony today that ACA will increase # of jobs.

                •  Because Dude is an Anti-ACA Troll. (0+ / 0-)

                  I mean, just look when he joined this site.

                  They always pop up in these diaries to support the anti-ACA talking points.

                  I'm a "right-wing freak show," or at least that's what one nobody on DKOS seems to think.

                  by kefauver on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 12:55:38 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  If workers choose to supply less labor (0+ / 0-)

              To start a business or raise their families or pursue their passion, what's wrong with that? It's not like big businesses have lacked for labor or increases in productivity.

              •  Nothing's wrong with it (0+ / 0-)

                But it's going to lower GDP.

                •  Jezuz, do you know English? 2 m work less hrs, (0+ / 0-)

                  but 'demand for labor' does not fall = must hire more to cover the hours/labor-demand the 2 m are not now filling.

                  Chris Hayes covered this on his show tonight.  

                  •  Jesus, do you know how to read? (0+ / 0-)

                    If you do, then you can read the report and see what it says. Otherwise, you are making yourself look foolish by asserting it says the opposite of what it actually does say.

                    •  Guess CBO director can't read like me? See, (0+ / 0-)


                      He testified today that ACA will decrease unemployment.

                      Now, when I read the report I read the whole report.  Below are excepts of relevant part on ACA.  You are confusing 'labor participation' with # of jobs.  The report itself says the unemployment rate will fall during the 10 year projection and not simply bc folks over 65, who are just about the only folks who have increase labor participation since the '90s, will not have to work on their deathbeds bc of ACA.  That is a good thing.  Obviously, if ACA reduced # of jobs, the report would say that, it does not.

                      What it does say is that some folks now working will retire (starting business or not) or work less, with by far the largest grp being the former.  It also says demand for labor will not be reduced by ACA.

                      Your problem appears to be that, for some reason, you will not ask the next question, i.e., if some people work less, but employers still the same amount of labor, how will they meet that gap in labor demand?  They will hire more (or have existing workers work longer, but bc of various factors, not least overtime rules and worker resistence, the cheapest/most easy is to simply hire more people).  

                      Thus, rather than ACA costing jobs, as Thugs claim and you, for some reason apparently want to agree with Thugs but CBO expressly denies, the proper conclusion is ACA will increase the # of people employed to fill the gap with labor demand created by existing employees working less or retiring.  

                      IOW, more jobs for those who want to work, rather than those Thugs would force to work until they die.

                      CBO report excerpts:
                      Pg14-"However, CBO expects, the cyclical recovery in
                      participation will be more than offset by the downward
                      pressure on participation stemming from other changes.
                      The most significant effect will come from the aging of
                      the population (and other demographic changes), but
                      federal tax and spending policies will also play a role.
                      The Affordable Care Act (ACA) will tend to reduce participation,
                      with the largest impact stemming from new
                      subsidies that reduce the cost of health insurance purchased
                      through exchanges.23 Specifically, by providing
                      subsidies that decline with rising income (and increase
                      with falling income) and by making some people financially
                      better off, the ACA will create an incentive for some
                      people to choose to work less.24 The structure of the
                      tax code—in which rising incomes push some people
                      into higher tax brackets—will also reduce labor force
                      participation slightly.

                      The further projected decline in the participation rate
                      after 2017 primarily reflects the ongoing aging of the
                      population, with smaller further effects of the federal
                      fiscal policies just discussed. Those effects are offset in
                      part by a reduction in the number of people who will
                      have permanently stopped looking for work because of
                      the recession and slow recovery; many of them would, by
                      that period, have left the labor force anyway through
                      retirement or by some other means. Still, CBO estimates
                      that the lasting effects of the recession and slow recovery
                      will depress labor force participation by 0.4 percentage
                      points in 2024.""

                      challenge lies in projecting the effect of the ACA on participation;
                      if that legislation has more or less effect than
                      CBO estimates, employment will differ in the long run
                      from what CBO projects."

                      •  It will decrease unemployment (0+ / 0-)

                        And it will ALSO decrease the total number of jobs (FTE job-equivalents) that people have. BOTH of those will be true, according to CBO projections.

                        Some people will leave the workforce or reduce their hours because of the ACA. That will open up jobs, and some of those jobs won't be filled.

                        •  You obviously do not understand supply vs demand (0+ / 0-)

                          When demand stays the same but supply is reduced, you have to get more supply, i.e. hire new workers.

                          Its simple.  The only reason you won't see it is you don't want to.

                          •  I understand supply and demand (0+ / 0-)

                            Neither supply nor demand is a number. Both are functions, in this case functions from wages to hours (that you want to work/that you want to hire someone to work).

                            The CBO is assuming that labor demand is unchanged: businesses still are wanting to hire the same number of people, given the same wage. And of course demand curves slope down, so a business is willing to hire fewer people if they have to pay them more, and more people if they have to pay them less.

                            But supply has lessened. Now fewer people are willing to work for any given wage. And naturally, supply curves slope up: the more you pay people, the more hours they are willing to work.

                            So what happens, compared to the situation if supply were unchanged? Total hours worked goes DOWN, and wages per hour go UP.

                          •  Yeah, nevermind all the jobless who'd be happy to (0+ / 0-)

                            take the jobs even at today's wages.  

                            But, let's assume your correct, that means higher wages.  Which in turn means greater gross demand for goods and services, which means more jobs to meet that demand.

                            Either way, it means ACA=more jobs, not less.

                            But you can just keep being hypnotized by FTE and jargon that mean nothing in this context - which is why COB expressly said they weren't saying it would reduce # of jobs ! - instead of looking at the forest and applying basic logic and econ 101.

                            Apparently doom and gloom suits you or something.  

    •  No, that's not what they're saying. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      naus, Cardinal Fang, hmi

      The CBO report states a reduction in labor demand due to the PPACA will lead to 2 million less positions.

      That's jobs eliminated and not replaced.  Discussion starts on p. 130 of the PDF (p. 124 as numbered in the document) and continues for several pages.

      CBO’s updated estimate of the decrease in hours worked
      translates to a reduction in full-time-equivalent employ-
      ment of about 2.0 million in 2017, rising to about
      2.5 million in 2024, compared with what would have
      occurred in the absence of the ACA. Previously, the
      agency estimated that if the ACA did not affect the aver-
      age number of hours worked per employed person, it
      would reduce household employment in 2021 by about

      By way of comparison, CBO’s current esti-
      mate for 2021 is a reduction in full-time-equivalent
      employment of about 2.3 million.

    •  AND... (0+ / 0-)

      Wages might go up as a consequence.

  •  Wing Nuts are Right in Name Only! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RustyBrown, overratedbutnottoday

    Now, really, when was a Republican really right, I mean, correct, about any thing?  Especially, when it comes down to economics?

    Republicans are Wrong for America.  And, it is WRONG, to allow them to continue to be called Right, about anything!

    My wife, daughter and granddaughters should have more privacy in their doctor's office than I have buying another rifle or shotgun.

    by NM Ray on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 11:07:42 AM PST

  •  Not what it says - See Appendix C - pg 127 (9+ / 0-)

    Saying the ACA doesn't cost jobs is putting an insanely good spin on the report.  The report says that the CBO previously estimated that the equivalent of 800,000 full time jobs would be lost due to the ACA.  They based this on the assumption that ACA would not impact average number of hours worked.  They are now raising that estimate to the equivalent of 2.3 million full time jobs (avg number of hours in a full time job x 2.3 million).  

    The CBO says some losses will be because people choose to cut back (whether because they no longer need to work the extra hours for health insurance, or because they have an economic incentive to reduce their incomes to get subsidies - is not analyzed).  It doesn't say the majority will fall into these categories - it didn't analyze that issue (last paragraph pg 127).

    But, when the diary says there is no evidence that hours are being cut or jobs lost that seems to fly in the face of what the report does say.

    Also, the report says the vast bulk of the jobs that aren't created will be lower wage jobs - which would seem to hurt the poor and under educated.

    •  Yes, I saw the same thing. Too much spinning (7+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cardinal Fang, MGross, Pi Li, naus, hmi, AlexDrew, VClib

      going on here.

      This gives a LOT of ammunition to people running against incumbent Senate Democrats like Mary Landrieu here in Louisiana.  

      I think people like here are extremely unhappy right now.  

    •  But I would balance that loss against (0+ / 0-)

      higher paying jobs (e.g. data analytics) from companies using as a platform for innovation.

      Shall we go? Yes, let's go.

      by whenwego on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 11:25:48 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  CBO says the reductions come from worker choice (6+ / 0-)

      It says that by 2024, employment will be reduced by 2.5 million FTEs because workers will choose to work less. People will be able to retire early and still have health insurance, people in expansion states will be able to work less and still have Medicaid, people who have low-wage jobs will have less of an incentive to work more hours because if they do their exchange subsidies will be reduced.

      CBO estimates that the ACA
      will 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.
      (p. 117)
      •  it doesn't say retire (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        naus, hmi

        it says 'supply less labor'. If i understand this, there are thresholds that when you cross them, you subsidies get sharply reduced. Working more hours could mean less take home money.

        So people will choose to work less to avoid losing thier subsidies. That does no sound like a well designed provision of the law.

        •  Supply less labor may mean retire (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MPociask, kefauver

          or it may mean work fewer hours.

          I agree that the subsidy "cliff" is a poorly designed provision of the law. But that bad design is not the main driver of the lower employment the CBO predicts, according to their report.

        •  As a 60 yr old baby-boomer, (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MPociask, Reepicheep, kefauver

          I'm planning to "supply less labor" by early semi-retirement because I can now buy affordable health insurance. My old full-time job is being advertised as we speak.

          Yes, just an anecdote. But I'd guess there are tons of people just like me out there.

          Almost everything you do will seem insignificant, but it is important that you do it. - Mahatma Gandhi

          by NLinStPaul on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 01:22:31 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Labor (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        It could also mean I choose to cut my income because then I'll qualify for gov't subsidies.  Economically that's kind of perverse.

        •  Not really. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MPociask, FishOutofWater, kefauver

          From an economic standpoint, it is not perverse at all.  You provide labor for a price, and you can negotiate for that price.  If the person paying for your work really needs you for more hours, they should pay you what that is worth. They burden is on the employer to make it worth your while.  

          "YOPP!" --Horton Hears a Who

          by Reepicheep on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 04:55:39 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Actually, the CBO report is neoliberal nonsense (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          There is no labor shortage in the U.S. and there will continue to be no labor shortage. The reason we have poor job creation is a lack of demand because the middle class is under continuous downward pressure. Over the past 30 years, every time we get close to full employment, corporations, with assistance from the government, ship jobs overseas and hire more undocumented workers.

          look for my eSci diary series Thursday evening.

          by FishOutofWater on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 05:36:31 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  People Will Work Less & Have More Family Time (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hilltopper, MPociask

    What a tragedy. What if it leads to more vacation time? The ACA is destroying American work culture. We are doomed.

  •  Good news for artists and musicians (0+ / 0-)

    And people with children who want to cut back on the hours for a few years. Also entrepreneurs and the children of the back end of the baby boom who are just starting out.

  •  Word Police Alert! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cardinal Fang

    I'm sorry, but... "slathering" is probably not what you meant. :-)

    Came for the politics, stayed for the pooties.

    by DreamyAJ on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 11:10:01 AM PST

  •  It sure looked damning (0+ / 0-)

    I am glad you presented that here because at first blush, this sure looked damning.


  •  Hmmm...seems like a job CREATOR (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    So if 2 million people choose to withdraw from the labor market and we assume that the businesses involved still need those 2 million workers that sounds like creating 2 million jobs to me.  

    One of the biggest issues we are facing right now is those damn Baby Boomers wont retire and free up good high paying jobs at the top of organizations.  So if access to non-employee health care leads to people leaving the workforce that is a good thing.

    here is the other dirty little job making secret of ACA - its a boon to start-ups.  healthcare is a HUGE reason people are reluctant to quit their oppressive day jobs to strike out on their own (to be oppressed by their new boss - customers!).  Now we have taken the first step in delinking health and employers.

    It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

    by ksuwildkat on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 11:11:14 AM PST

    •  But that is not what the report says (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      It says that employment will be lower than it would be, because some workers will choose to work less or retire.

      •  yes that is what it says (0+ / 0-)

        and you actually are confirming it--some people choose to work less or retire, which means more job openings and opportunities created due to those retirements or reduced hours.
        It doesn't say that the jobs are eliminated when people retire.  

        •  Yes it does (0+ / 0-)

          Here is what it says:

          CBO estimates that the ACA
          will 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
          Read the report for yourself. It clearly says that in 2024, employment will be reduced by the equivalent of 2.5 million full time jobs. It talks about employment, not about the number of people who have jobs or are looking. Employment will be reduced.
          •  I believe you (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MPociask, FishOutofWater

            but that would seem to indicate we have an EXCESS of 2.5 million jobs.  Given our productivity is the highest in the world and company profits are at record levels it seems doubtful we can squeeze 2.5 million jobs out of the economy through productivity.  

            I get what it says but I dont believe in magic.  

            It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

            by ksuwildkat on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 12:42:06 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Not through productivity (0+ / 0-)

              It doesn't say we have an excess of 2.5 million jobs. It merely says that we will the equivalent of 2.5 million fewer jobs in 2040 than we would have had.  People will not take a third job, people will be able to retire earlier, parents will decide to stay home with the kids instead of being in the workforce.

              It's not obvious to me why this change isn't compensated for by lower unemployment rather than fewer jobs. But that's what the CBO is projecting.

              •  theory (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                in theory employment always seeks equilibrium - when there is an excess of labor wages go down and it is cheaper to hire more people than invest in productivity.  When labor is short wages go up and it becomes cheaper to invest in productivity.  

                When there is excess labor it becomes less expensive to start new businesses and some of the excess labor decides to become self employed instead of seeking a job with someone else.

                The dot com boom was partially driven by low unemployment and rising wages in the 90's (productivity investment = cisco router sales).  Low unemployment was partially driven by the Bush (1) recession creating opportunities for unemployed workers to strike off on their own.

                So in theory is 2.5 million full time jobs are withdrawn we have to make that up with productivity or face a labor shortage.  The only other explanation is businesses are over employing by 2.5 million now and the withdrawn hours are excess.  that is harder to believe than a Paul Ryan marathon time.

                It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

                by ksuwildkat on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 01:46:25 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  The CBO is spouting neoliberal nonsense (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            There is no labor shortage in the U.S. CBO's predictions won't happen because they are based on false assumptions and wrong theories.

            We have a shortage of jobs now because there's weak demand because wages have stagnated. The ACA is not so stimulative that it will make labor supply the limiting factor in job creation. The CBO is promoting tooth fairy economics.

            look for my eSci diary series Thursday evening.

            by FishOutofWater on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 05:44:11 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  CNN just slobbered over themselves with headline (3+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    MPociask, PorridgeGun, fcvaguy
    Hidden by:

    Boy they ate that shit up quick.  CBO projects 2 million jobs lost due to ACA. What a crock. They actually had someone on who explained it a bit more and discussed the type of jobs supposedly being lost (i.e. low wage jobs), but the vast majority of people scanning through CNN just sees the headline that fits the GOP narrative.


    Lawrence, KS - From ashes to immortality

    by MisterOpus1 on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 11:11:41 AM PST

  •  If the Democrats allow the GOP to convince (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hilltopper, tb mare, PorridgeGun

    the 2014 electorate that the ACA is killing jobs then a pox on them.  Unify your damn messaging!

  •  Seems to be the meme of the week: (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MPociask, SueDe, myboo

    From Jim DeMint's appointed replacement on Maul The Press last McCainday:

    If we think about the decimation of the 40-hour work week as a part of Obamacare, I took a bus ride throughout the city, by cities in South Carolina, to figure out what real people were saying in their environments. And what I learned was that too many people are stuck now working 30 hours a week because Obamacare eliminates a 40-hour work week. If we had an opportunity to eliminate that aspect of Obamacare, I think we could find more money in the take-home paychecks of many Americans.
    No, Junior DeMint, employers are eliminating a 40 hour work week.

    I should also note David Gregory's response to that crap - and I quote:


    Fox News: Redistribution Of Ignorance.

    by here4tehbeer on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 11:13:32 AM PST

  •  Also in the CBO report (2+ / 0-)
    WASHINGTON (AP) — A new report released Tuesday says the government's budget deficit is set to fall to $514 billion for the current year, down substantially from last year and the lowest by far since President Barack Obama took office five years ago.[...]

    Obama inherited an economy in crisis and first-ever deficits exceeding $1 trillion. The 2009 deficit, swelled by the costs of the Wall Street bailout, hit a record $1.4 trillion, while the deficits of 2010 and 2011 both registered $1.3 trillion.

    I wonder which part of the report will get more news coverage and attention by the commentariat?

    "I am not interested in picking up crumbs of compassion thrown from the table of someone who considers himself my master. I want the full menu of rights." (From "You Said a Mouthful" by Bishop Desmond Tutu - South African bishop & activist, b.1931)

    by FiredUpInCA on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 11:13:52 AM PST

    •  Republicans take "credit" for the falling deficit (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      by bragging that they forced Obama into austerity.  But that's not the point; the point is the economy would be growing more and faster if all politicians had not been obsessed with the deficit and austerity in the first place.  They should have been obsessed by the need to create jobs - living wage jobs.

      "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

      by SueDe on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 11:34:12 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Should (0+ / 0-)

    Dems simply poll the ultimate question whether workers would rather lose some hours for good quality healthcare or keep crappy insurance that makes you go bankrupt if you get sick.  We need to know before a defense can be mounted.

  •  Labor angle (8+ / 1-)
  •  The RW will just spin this into 2 million (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    people going on the government dole.  Sure they could work but why should they when they can coast and let the taxpayers pick up the bill.  

    If I comply with non-compliance am I complying?

    by thestructureguy on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 11:20:04 AM PST

    • fact (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      they will do both, they will claim that ACA will cost us 2+ million jobs AND they will claim those 2 million people are just going to be TAKERS (tm) and live on food stamp lobster and filet mignon w/ free government healthcare.

      Honesty may be the best policy, but it's important to remember that apparently, by elimination, dishonesty is the second-best policy.

      by fauxrs on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 11:35:48 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  "Slathering????" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cardinal Fang

    How about "slavering," which means "drooling," instead of "slathering" -- which means "to spread or smear liberally."  Another way to tell them apart--"slathering" requires an object--you slather something, like mustard on a hot dog.  You don't slather OVER something.

    I thought the OTHER side was the stupid party.

  •  The Part Time Economy Sprang Up Under Bush nt (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Men are so necessarily mad, that not to be mad would amount to another form of madness. -Pascal

    by bernardpliers on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 11:24:56 AM PST

  •  But, but... (0+ / 0-)

    reading is so hard.

    Common Sense is not Common

    by RustyBrown on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 11:26:27 AM PST

  •  Just got through seeing Andrea Mitchell and (5+ / 0-)

    Chris Cilizza carrying the gop's pig manure on this.

    You can't make this stuff up.

    by David54 on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 11:27:33 AM PST

  •  Hours and rates (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MPociask, FiredUpInCA

    Workers don't control the total number of hours.  If somebody drops out or chooses to go part time or passes up overtime, somebody else will be hired. This projection by the CBO is just dumb - they don't know enough to really project something like this.

    The thing about "risk corridors" is that it allows insurance companies to offer low rates to begin with.  Combined with the low penalties for the first couple of years, it may mean that rates will have to increase later on.  The system is set up to insure that rates are low at first. The situation will not be stabilized for several years.

  •  Fewer People Working To Pay For Chemotherapy (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VirginiaJeff, Mortifyd

    Most of us have seen this - someone that is literally dying on their feet but somehow struggling to ride the bus to their job so they can have junk benefits.

    Men are so necessarily mad, that not to be mad would amount to another form of madness. -Pascal

    by bernardpliers on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 11:31:28 AM PST

  •  You want to kill jobs? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    red rabbit

    Just pass some more of that good ol' pro-1% "Free Trade".

    Like Obama / Democrats' Free Trade with Columbia, Panama, and S. Korea.

    Like Obama's pushing for the Trans Pacific Partnership.

    Now that will kill some jobs.

    Those meanie Republicans, saying all these mean things about Romneycare, er I mean Obamacare, and pretending to give a shit about jobs, unlike the "Free Trade" lovin' D's.

    The 1% are Purists: They only support Candidates that Deliver Results They Can Bank On. Don't they know they should compromise? /sarcasm

    by Johnathan Ivan on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 11:32:25 AM PST

    •  agree (0+ / 0-)

      I used to defer to Clinton and Gore back when I was younger and more naive, when they were pushing NAFTA.  

      Not falling for it this time around.  This is like the pipeline, when so many Repubs are so vocal in their support, I just follow the money and realize that most of the country will get screwed.  
      "Free" trade=freedom to treat workers and the environment like shit.  

  •  Supply siders (0+ / 0-)

    Everyone who wants to supply their labor will see the market create a job for them as a result; if 2 million withdraw their supply of labor therefore two million jobs will go poof.

    Did I get that right?

    Fake candidates nominated by the GOP for the recalls: 6 out of 7. Fake signatures on the recall petitions: 4 out of 1,860,283.

    by GeoffT on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 11:33:36 AM PST

  •  Okay, so that's debunked. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GeoffT, hmi, AlexDrew, MPociask

    Wow. Doesn't take much to debunk anything around here, does it. To be fair, "debunkers" almost never do very much, so that's hardly a DK specialty.

    But - honestly,

    People have to be looking the other way awfully hard not to see the coercive effect of the old status quo and it's negative impact on both families and small business.

    How many people have held onto jobs just for the benefits?
    How many people have not pursued inviting opportunities for fear of leaving their families exposed?

    Eliminating that fear is actually a step forward if we actually care about free markets, entrepreneurship, and succeeding on your own merits.

    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

    by dinotrac on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 11:33:59 AM PST

  •  In other news . . . (0+ / 0-)

    tighter job market forces Walmart to pay employees more.

    /snark Though I hope this is true.

  •  From page 117 of the report (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MGross, naus, hmi
    CBO estimates that the ACA will 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.
    So the Act will provide a dis-incentive for people to work based on the taxes due and the subsidies received. People working less may be a good thing for some individuals, but doesn't sound like a good idea for the economy.
    Because the largest declines in labor supply will probably occur among lower-wage workers, the reduction in aggregate compensation (wages, salaries, and fringe benefits) and the impact on the overall economy will be proportionally smaller than the reduction in hours worked. Specifically, CBO estimates that the ACA will cause a reduction of roughly 1 percent in aggregate labor compensation over the 2017–2024 period, compared
    So it's mostly the poor who will end up making less money. And overall, Americans will earn 1% less than they otherwise would. That also does not sound like a good thing.
    •  The 1% less is not a problem (0+ / 0-)

      Because the subsidies make up for it-- that's the whole argument about why employment will decrease. People will have more disposable income, because they won't be spending it on health insurance and health care. The report  says, on p. 125:

      CBO estimates that, over the next few years, the various
      provisions of the ACA that affect federal revenues and
      outlays will increase demand for goods and services, on
      net. Most important, the expansion of Medicaid coverage
      and the provision of exchange subsidies (and the resulting
      rise in health insurance coverage) will not only stimulate
      greater demand for health care services but also allow
      lower-income households that gain subsidized coverage
      to increase their spending on other goods and services—

      thereby raising overall demand in the economy.
  •  But Chuck Todd says it will "feel" like a tax (2+ / 0-)

    increase.  Stupid fucker.

    Once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right.

    by darthstar on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 11:48:23 AM PST

  •  Hmmmmm. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    naus, hmi, AlexDrew

    "no compelling evidence that part-time employment has increased as a result of the ACA."

    Travel Centers of America, where my wife works as a waitress, has been told she can't have over 29 hours "because of Obamacare".  

    I've heard this here in Ohio from a few friends at other places who have complained about not getting enough hours.  They are told it's because of Obamacare that they "can't offer any more hours"

    It really sucks, she's very good at the job, and the 3 days she does work she makes between $75 to $100 each day.  If she could be full time we would be in such better shape financially.

    I think we'll start hearing more about this in the near future as we get closer to the election.  

    "To make democracy work, we must be a nation of participants, not simply observers. One who does not vote has no right to complain." - Louis L'Amour

    by Drokkenian on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 11:50:33 AM PST

  •  The report is here (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    naus, AlexDrew

    Right here.

    We need to stop saying the report doesn't predict lower employment. The CBO report clearly says there will be 2.5 million fewer FTE-hours worked in 2024 than there would be without an ACA. If you don't believe that's what the report says, go and read it for yourself. On p. 117, we find this clear statement:

    The reduction in CBO’s projections of hours worked
    represents 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.
    You might not like those numbers. You might not believe them. But stop misrepresenting what the CBO is saying, folks.
  •  Thank you so much (4+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    MPociask, fcvaguy, cville townie, kefauver
    Hidden by:

    for posting this.  When I first heard the claim that "Two Million Jobs Are Going To Be Lost Due to ACA," I didn't think that made sense.

    I've already begun forwarding your link to my friends.

    I'm a Christian, therefore I'm a liberal.

    by VirginiaJeff on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 11:51:43 AM PST

  •  A lot of spin going on here, I think. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dillonfence, naus, hmi, AlexDrew

    Look, I agree that there's a lot of spinning going on by the right.  But it's equally unreasonable for people here to see this report as a positive thing.  

    Here's the bottom line.  We already have the lowest labor force participation rate since 1978, and the number of on disability has soared, now up to 14 million.  Those are people who -- even for those who truly are unable to work -- are supported by the rest of us.  Yes, the safety net is necessary, but clearly we are no longer talking only about people who are completely unable to work when we talk about why the labor force participation rate is so high.  We're talking also about people who can't find the good paying jobs they want, and prefer disability status to taking a low-paying job (assuming they can find one).  

    This report says that the ACA will cause  more people to drop out of the labor force.   And the 2.3 million jobs "lost" are only partly due to the projection that some people will choose to remain out of the labor force and have their health insurance subsidized rather than work and pay for health insurance.  Those are not good projections no matter how much you spin it.  

    No, it's NOT as bad as those on the right are saying.  Yes, there's a LOT of over-reaction going on by the right.  

    But I guarantee you it gives people running against incumbents like Mary Landrieu a lot of ammunition.  

    •  Good post. Drudge is spinning the wrong... (2+ / 0-)

      bad message - there won't be 2 million fewer jobs as he implies - just 2 million people who won't be looking for them.  

      •  And the reason is they want to keep subsidies. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        That's the part that's really not good.  

        From WaPo

        The CBO previously estimated that the economy would have 800,000 fewer jobs in 2021 as a result of the law. In that analysis, the CBO looked primarily at how employers would respond to a new penalty for failing to offer insurance to employees who work more than 30 hours a week. That response would include cutting people’s hours, hiring fewer workers and lowering wages for new jobs.

        On Tuesday, the agency released a more detailed estimate that includes how ordinary Americans would react to those changes by employers. Some would choose to keep Medicaid rather than take a job at reduced wages. Others, who typically do not work full-time, would delay returning to work in order to keep subsidies for private insurance that are provided under the law.

        As a result, by 2021, the number of full-time positions would be reduced by 2.3 million, the report said.

        The report today says a lot of those 2.3 million people will chose not to get a job so that the can keep either Medicaid or a subsidy.  

        This is what the average person working and paying taxes will hear:  The ACA  means 2.3 million more people who could work will choose to live off the taxpayers rather than get a job.  

        I can't imagine why anyone thinks this is something really positive for the President or the Democrats.  

    •  you honestly believe that people who are disabled (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MPociask, kefauver

      never paid into the system and are just moochers?  That the vast majority of people on disability are just lazy?  Do you have any idea how hard is it to get on disability? It's not easy.  You don't just file some papers and get a cheque the following week - it takes years to get disability - and you have to have worked in most cases for years to qualify in the first place.  Are you so inhumane that those who can't work and the minority who can't ever work should simply starve in the street in the name of business?

      The idea that people have no value other than the hours they work - that their family time, their dreams, ambitions and aspirations have no meaning unless they are working for someone else is utter bullshit.

      Louisiana didn't roll out shit.  No one in Louisiana is getting benefits out of the ACA on the whole - because there was no Medicaid expansion, no subsidies - a whole lot of nothing down here.  It's business as usual in Jindal land.   Your faux concern for the working poor you think would really rather sit on their asses and get "free money" is noted.

      Maybe Landrieu should get off her ass and run a campaign.

      I'm so fat! Oh, they're going to love me, I'm so marbled! - Jack LeMans, Bounty Killer

      by Mortifyd on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 04:11:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Job lock is bad, but so is 2 million people... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    naus, hmi, AlexDrew

    voluntarily dropping off payrolls.

    2 million people joining the ranks of the voluntarily unemployed are 2 million people more than likely to get Medicaid or heavily subsidized ACA insurance....not exactly the pool of employed "healthies" the system needs to be cost effective. It's 2 million people more likely than not to have a net less contribution to the tax base. 2 million people who will likely see a significant dip in net income - not exactly the catalyst for increased demand as this diary suggests.

    I'm glad we're starting to untangle the employer based insurance concept...this is VERY important. To imply this is a good thing, however, because these folks will now "go start their own business" or whatever sounds like wishful thinking. Let's come back to the reality based community, folks.

  •  80% bailout (0+ / 0-)

    According to Wonkblog, the government could pay up to 80% of cost overruns. So yes, it's a "bailout". But I guess if we had single payer that would be 100% bailout, but hopefully without insurance companies taking a cut.

  •  NYT made the same mistake (3+ / 0-)

    earlier, and has posted this correction:

    "An earlier version of a headline accompanying this article on the home page was incorrect. The health law is projected to result in two million fewer workers, according to the Congressional Budget Office, not two million fewer jobs."

    I'm a Christian, therefore I'm a liberal.

    by VirginiaJeff on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 12:14:23 PM PST

  •  i was wondering how that headline was going... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FiredUpInCA, MPociask play with the wingers when i saw it this morning.  surprising it was the NY Times with that very headline.  you'd think they would go a bit more in depth to actually understand the CBO report so as not to use such a misleading headline.

    I'm a blue drop in a red bucket.

    by blue drop on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 12:21:25 PM PST

  •  When you don't have to work for your health (4+ / 0-)

    insurance, you have the freedom to ...

    A. Start your own business
    B. Retire
    C. Stay home and raise the kids
    D. Quit that second job.

  •  Methinks Obama better address this sharpish (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    The librul media, nevermind wingnuts, are running with this bullshit.

    If they can make fictional "death panels" stick...

  •  It sucks for the oligarchs (0+ / 0-)

    It makes it that much harder to force people to accept Walmart jobs.

  •  Check this out... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    More Questions Than Answers

    On AOL News/Mail page:

    Headline:  Report By Congressional Budget Office Says Obamacare Will Cause Loss Of 2.5 Million Full-Time Jobs

    When you click on article at HP, Headline:
    Obamacare Isn't Killing Jobs -- It Gives Workers A Choice

    What the HECK?!!

    I'm a Kennedy Catholic.

    by EquiStar on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 12:53:23 PM PST

  •  One thing I don't understand (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MPociask, amsterdam, orrg1

    The CBO predicts that in 2024, the equivalent of 2.5 million fulltime workers will have quit their jobs. The CBO also rosily predicts that by 2024, we'll be at full employment, so there won't be anyone to take those jobs (which is a little odd).

    But this is more odd: if those 2.5 million FTE-equivalents are going begging, why will this not cause wages to go up? And wouldn't it also lure people into the workforce... teenagers, for example?

    Let's say Mary Kossack quits her job at McDonalds to stay home with the kids. Now, McDonalds hired her because they wanted someone to make hamburgers, and they still want someone to make hamburgers. But they can't hire anyone, because all the potential hires either work somewhere else, or they don't want a job. Isn't McDonalds going to start offering more money, to lure away people from Walmart and Burger King?

    •  If CBO didn't assume full employment, then (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cardinal Fang

      there is no way that a labor reduction equal to 2.5 million full time jobs could result from voluntary reductions by workers. Even if a new equilibrium were reached, much of that reduction would be replaced by new hiring and increased working hours for existing employees, unless no additional labor was available .

      So all Dems have to say is that the CBO in its projection assumes full employment, so that additional workers would not be available to replace those who didn't need to stay in a particular job to keep their health care. Otherwise, the result would be a reduction in unemployment, which is also projected by the CBO to result from the ACA for other reasons.

      Is that so hard?

      "The only thing we have to fear - is fear itself." - Franklin Delano Roosevelt

      by orrg1 on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 04:16:16 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  But then why aren't they projecting wage increases (0+ / 0-)

        Your analysis seems fine as far as it goes, but if the CBO is assuming full employment and a reduction in the labor force, why don't they also project wage increases? If the situation is as they assume, with no reduction in demand for labor, and a reduction in supply of labor, then we should see wage increases.

        If Mary Kossack quits McDonalds, and McDonalds wants to lure Javier Blogger away from Burger King to replace her, they'll have to give him a raise. That should offset the GDP drop to some extent.

  •  Media has been looking for a negative OCare story (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    More Questions Than Answers

    Ever since the exchanges got back up working again the media has been waiting eagerly for another negative story about Obamacare to break it's sad how the coverage of it is so overwhelmingly negative I can't think of any positive stories I've read about it in the media anywhere. Obamacare just can't catch a break people see stuff like this in the news and it only further erodes support for an already unpopular law until the media comes around or there are a wave of positive Obamacare stories its just gonna get worse.

  •  Ted Cruz knows that he's crazy? (0+ / 0-)

    I thought crazy people didn't know that they are crazy. I'm sure Michele Bachman and Steve King think they are sane and everyone else is crazy.

    ''Over the last 30 odd years, Democrats have moved to the right and the right has moved into the mental hospital."-Bill Maher

    by shoeless on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 01:21:17 PM PST

  •  NYT has a second error in its story: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MPociask, Cardinal Fang

    The Times corrected its earlier claim about "Two Million Jobs Lost." But it makes another grievous error:

    In the fourth paragraph, reporter Annie Lowrey makes this specious claim about the ACA: "It will also have an effect on businesses, the report said, including by encouraging them to reduce employee hours to avoid the so-called 'employer mandate.'”

    In fact, the report does NOT say the ACA "will" have an effect on businesses.  Nor does it claim that the ACA will encourage businesses to make cuts. The closest the report comes to saying anything remotely like that is on page 122, where the CBO speculates, "In the longer run, some businesses may decide to reduce their hiring or shift their demand toward part-time hiring -- either to stay below the threshold of 50 full-time equivalent workers or to limit the number of full-time workers that generate penalty payments. But such shifts might not reduce the overall use of labor..."

    "May ... might ..."  That's not remotely the same as "will."  And, in fact, if you look at the preceding pages of the report, the CBO had already indicated that such a scenario isn't particularly likely.

    If anyone wants to encourage the NYT to make another correction, the reporter for this piece can be contacted via this page.

    I'm a Christian, therefore I'm a liberal.

    by VirginiaJeff on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 01:46:03 PM PST

  •  I am a worker.... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    amsterdam, VirginiaJeff

    not supplying my labor anymore as a result of ACA. Without the provision for 'pre-existing condition" in the ACA I would not have been able to retire and get my wife on a policy I shopped for on the exchange since she is in remission from a form of cancer. I was tied to working to provide an employer based policy which she could not have exited if the old system were in effect. Yeah, but what the hell rethugs, let's get every damn fairy tale out there to repeal the damn thing! What f'ing criminals!

  •  Voluntary reduction (0+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    Hidden by:
    cville townie

    In other words, workers are given incentives to not work, resulting in more workers not working than previously estimated, and their not-working will be a greater drag on the overall all economy that previously stated. Is that a fair summary?

  •  So It Created 2 Million Jobs (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    The CBO says Obamacare didn't reduce the business demand for jobs. But it did allow 2 million jobholders to leave their jobs once they didn't need those jobs for the health insurance.

    So now there's 2 million more jobs open to people who didn't have them before. 2 million more people can be employed.

    To say nothing of the jobs created by that increase in employment, as new employees spend money elsewhere.

    That sounds like a huge jobs creation programme. Of course Republicans are against it.

    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

    by DocGonzo on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 03:06:24 PM PST

  •  99 and 44/100ths pure spin (0+ / 0-)

    "It also, CBO says, cuts the deficit"

    Talk about selective reading. Yes, for 3 years the CBO projects deficit cuts. Then over the following decade deficits will be $1.4 trillion higher than previous projected, in part as a result of the new GDP projections of 2.2% 2018-24.

    Here's part of the report Ms. McCarter seems to have missed:

    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. CBO estimates that federal debt held by the public will equal 74 percent of GDP at the end of this year and 79 percent in 2024 (the end of the current 10-year projection period). Such large and growing federal debt could have serious negative consequences, including restraining economic growth in the long term, giving policymakers less flexibility to respond to unexpected challenges, and eventually increasing the risk of a fiscal crisis (in which investors would demand high interest rates to buy the government’s debt)...
    By comparison, as recently as the end of 2007, such debt equaled 35 percent of GDP
  •  This report, unfortunately, plays right into the (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Repubs' hands. A complicated explanation will never see the light of day in the MSM, but the cheap headlines and sound bites we are already seeing and hearing from the RW and the MSM could be very injurious to the Dems' this fall.

    I doubt if it was intentional on the CBO's part, but just rotten timing and maybe a poor choice of words on their part. I'm at a loss as to why a report with this kind of information in it is even desirable at this point. I would think maybe in five years it might be, but right now, at the very start of the ACA??

    We will never hear the end of this from the Repubs. They will lie and milk it for all they are worth, and I think it will stick.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site