Skip to main content

Office of the Press Secretary
February 4, 2014

Statement by the Press Secretary on Today’s CBO Report and the Affordable Care Act

Since the Affordable Care Act passed into law in March 2010 the private sector has added 8.1 million jobs. That is the strongest 45 month job growth since the late 1990s and contrasts with the 3.8 million private sector jobs lost in the decade before the Affordable Care Act passed.

Claims that the Affordable Care Act hurts jobs are simply belied by the facts in the CBO report. CBO’s findings are not driven by an assumption that ACA will lead employers to eliminate jobs or reduce hours, in fact, the report itself says that there is “no compelling evidence that part-time employment has increased as a result of the ACA.”

While many factors affect job growth, the actual performance of businesses refutes those who predicted that the Affordable Care Act would dramatically hurt the economy.

What the CBO report does find is one key immediate effect of the Affordable Care Act is to “induce some employers to hire more workers or to increase the hours of current employees” during the 2014-16 period. Over the longer run, CBO finds that because of this law, individuals will be empowered to make choices about their own lives and livelihoods, like retiring on time rather than working into their elderly years or choosing to spend more time with their families. At the beginning of this year, we noted that as part of this new day in health care, Americans would no longer be trapped in a job just to provide coverage for their families, and would have the opportunity to pursue their dreams. This CBO report bears that out, and the Republican plan to repeal the ACA would strip those hard-working Americans of that opportunity.

In addition, the CBO itself confirms that this analysis of the implications of the ACA on the labor force is incomplete, does not take into account the impact that ACA’s slowing health care cost growth which experts have estimated that slower growth in health costs due to the ACA will cause the economy to add an additional 250,000 to 400,000 jobs per year by the end of the decade. Moreover, CBO does not take into account positive impacts on worker productivity due to the ACA’s role in improving workers’ health, including reduced absenteeism.

Finally, as it has since the enactment of the ACA, CBO continues to confirm that the ACA is projected to reduce the deficit by more than $1 trillion over the next two decades.


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

  •  Are these people reading (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    the same CBO report?

    The new healthcare law will cost the nation the equivalent of 2.3 million workers by 2021, contributing to a $1 trillion increase in projected deficits, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated in a report released Tuesday.
    •  Yep, same report (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      They are reading the actual report. You seem to be reading The HIll's interpretation of the parts of the report that make for good political theater, and the parts most selectively quoted out of context by Republicans.

      For variety you might want to check out this LA Times take

      Or WaPo

      And both of those above link directly to the actual report so you can even draw your own conclusions.

      “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

      by Catte Nappe on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 12:50:42 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I dunno', this passage (0+ / 0-)
        that increase will be smaller than it would have been in the absence of the aCA.
        seems to say that there will be decline in employment as a rest of the ACA. And frankly I cannot follow Sergeant's line of reasoning. If the ACA results in a disincentive for work why is that a positive?
        •  Why is it a negative? (0+ / 0-)

          Why is it a negative for an older person to finally retire instead of struggling against physical limitations to continue working, solely to maintain health coverage for their family?

          Why is it a negative for a parent to quit feeling like an indentured servant to their employer in order to be sure there is health coverage for their child; instead of seeking more rewarding work, returning to school to upgrade skills,  or starting their own business?

          Why is it a negative that a parent gives up working a high stress job that assured their family has health coverage so they can scale back hours or travel demands, or even become a stay-at-home mom/dad?

          IMHO it is a known that the need for health care has been an unhealthy "incentive to work" in many situations for many whose personal and family needs would be better met if they had the option to temporarily or permanently leave the traditional work force.

          “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

          by Catte Nappe on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 05:40:46 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Those could be (0+ / 0-)

            good but that isn't what the CBO says.

            •  That is exactly what the CBO says (0+ / 0-)
              The decline in fulltime-equivalent employment stemming from the ACA will consist of some people not being employed at all and other people working fewer hours; however, CBO has not tried to quantify those two components of the overall effect. The estimated reduction stems almost entirely from a net decline in the amount of labor that workers choose to supply,
              There are many reasons for people to withdraw from the traditional work force. I have listed a goodly number of them. It is irrational to think many, if any, would leave the workforce simply to maximize their eligibility for ACA subsidies. That would be comparable to the number of people who refuse promotions and raises so they can reduce their tax burden.

              “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

              by Catte Nappe on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 06:13:35 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  no it is not (0+ / 0-)

                It does not say that at all. It does state the numbers will be mostly at the very bottom end of the wage scale. Thus it DOES suggest that working less is a result of the ACA because of the penalties of taxes (for working) and the benefits (not working):

                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.
                That's pretty clear. There are tons of other great things in the report that we should focus on (more coverage, less expensive that originally thought, etc.) but the spin that this particular stat is somehow a "positive" belies logic.
  •  Ask Chuck Todd..... (0+ / 0-)

    He said the CBO report on Obamacare essentially proves the GOP talking points.  While you're at it, ask Chuck who taught him to read.  Was it the same teacher who taught Mitch McConnell?

    Some people were holding onto jobs way past their retirement age because it provided healthcare.  Some people
    were forced to work two part time jobs in order to pay for
    premiums on their catastrophic-bare bones healthcare policies.
    Now the older can finally retire & the hard working might be
    able to drop one of their jobs because of Obamacare.

    What's not to understand?

    If cats could blog, they wouldn't

    by crystal eyes on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 12:26:46 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site