Skip to main content

Douglas Elmendorf, Director of the Congressional Budget Office, addresses the National Association for Business Economics Policy conference in Alexandria, Virginia March 26, 2012. The U.S. economy needs to grow more quickly if it is to produce enough jobs to bring down the unemployment rate, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said on Monday, tamping down expectations of a quick reversal of monetary easing.  REUTERS/Gary Cameron   (UNITED STATES - Tags: POLITICS BUSINESS) - RTR2ZWGA
CBO Director Elmendorf, explaining it like we're really stupid.
It's a reflection of just how committed to lying about that Congressional Budget Office report Republicans are that the CBO felt compelled to put out another memo, this one reiterating what was clearly stated in the actual report: As many as 2.5 million people may choose to leave full-time work when they have the option of getting affordable health insurance elsewhere. Not that 2.5 million jobs would be lost. The CBO's Doug Elmendorf:
Q: Will 2.5 Million People Lose Their Jobs in 2024 Because of the ACA?

A: No, we would not describe our estimates in that way.

We wrote in the report: “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.” The reason for the reduction in the supply of labor is that the provisions of the ACA reduce the incentive to work for certain subsets of the population. [...]

Because the longer-term reduction in work is expected to come almost entirely from a decline in the amount of labor that workers choose to supply in response to the changes in their incentives, we do not think it is accurate to say that the reduction stems from people “losing” their jobs.

There's at least half a dozen more paragraphs there, explaining in the simplest possible terms what the CBO said about workers and health insurance. It should be clear now, not that it will make a difference with Republicans.

Originally posted to Joan McCarter on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 12:57 PM 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

  •  Tip Jar (51+ / 0-)

    "The NSA’s capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything. [...] There would be no place to hide."--Frank Church

    by Joan McCarter on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 12:57:48 PM PST

  •  "not that it will make a difference... (23+ / 0-)

    with Republicans"

    or apparently Cokie Roberts or many other inside the Beltway pundits and "journalists" either

    Blue is blue and must be that. But yellow is none the worse for it - Edith Sidebottom

    by kenwards on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 01:07:16 PM PST

    •  Bought Off? (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      anon004, Shawn87, ozsea1, Medman, Amber6541

      I've never quite been able to pinpoint if Cokie is intellectually stupid (she certainly presents herself as bright enough), is just so desperate to maintain status in the beltway cocktail circuit that she'll regurgitate talking points even when she knows they're dishonest.... or if there's something else going on behind the scenes. This gut sense that there's more than what we see, of course, applies to many of the other beltway pundits. I really wish some intrepid reporter would conduct a serious search into some of these folks incomes. I can only image what they might uncover.

      "One of the more serious temptations which stifles boldness and zeal is a defeatism which turns us into querulous and disillusioned pessimists, sourpusses." ― Pope Francis

      by GoodGod on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 04:51:20 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Republicans hop on key phrase, ignoring context (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Beastly Fool, tinfoilhat
      the provisions of the ACA reduce the incentive to work for certain subsets of the population.

      "Tax cuts for the 1% create jobs." -- Republicans, HAHAHA - in China

      by MartyM on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 05:42:34 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  CBO=Conservative Bulls**t Obliterator (7+ / 0-)

    Whether the issue is the stimulus, upper income tax rates, the debt, Obamacare or just about anything else, for Republicans CBO stands for Conservative Bulls**t Obliterator.

  •  Why do Democrats, Republicans or the press (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sweatyb, Amber6541

    treat CBO reports like they are facts? The CBO itself includes a very broad disclaimer on all of its reports. CBO reports are forecasts made by well meaning professionals but using very constrained models and scores of assumptions about the future. Why would anyone, including the press, treat the information like facts? That's always puzzled me

    "let's talk about that"

    by VClib on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 01:12:14 PM PST

    •  Facts v. Predictions (12+ / 0-)

      You raise an interesting and larger point about how much policymakers and the media should be relying on projections versus actual performance when evaluating policy choices.

      In this particular case, however, the reason Republicans were so eager to seize upon the CBO's projections about workers' choices is clear. They are trying to salvage their narrative about "Obamacare killing jobs," which is increasingly being undermined by the actual economic data:

      •  Jim - but the Dems used the CBOs estimates (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        of the both the job creating and budget saving prospects of the ACA when it was a piece of legislation as an essential part of their push to corral as many Democratic members of the House and Senate to vote for it in the first place. I just find it all very puzzling that the press, and the parties, don't start with the disclaimer that CBO reports are forecasts, the future is dynamic, and your results may vary.

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 01:40:27 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It is a bit more than just "forecasts." (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ozsea1, Amber6541

          Often each Party agrees with the CBO when they are in office, but picks it apart when the opposition is in power.

          Seriously, I found this very informative.  

          •  I don't think it has to do with being in power or (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            not each party touts the CBO when they agree with the CBO's analysis and complain when they don't. The CBO's work isn't more than just forecasts. When it comes to the impact of legislation the CBO's scoring system is highly flawed. However, if you understand how their system and models work they are very useful because they are applied consistently.

            My only point is that at times both parties treat CBO reports like facts, as does the press, which makes no sense.

            "let's talk about that"

            by VClib on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 10:02:49 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  And, here is when the lost art of (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              critical thinking comes in.  Since the advent of corporate-owned news sources the burden of weighing what you read and hear has become a scholarly pursuit.  

              Knowing how the CBO arrives at its conclusions, knowing that in the interim legislation can change it, is a responsibility of us all.

              I, personally, find their analyses very helpful in coming to my own conclusion, and find that their.

      •  The CBO spoke of an EQUIVALENCY of 2.5 million (8+ / 0-)

        full time jobs that might be left voluntarily.

        Does that not also mean that an equivalency of 2.5 million full time jobs worth of work then needs to be supplied by the labor force to make up for the loss? Creating more of a demand for labor?

        And if the demand for labor goes up, doesn't the average wage have to rise to meet the difference?

        Is this perhaps part of what the republicans don't want the rest of the world to consider?

        Mistakes are the portals of discovery. - James Joyce

        by Beastly Fool on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 03:37:53 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I was able to retire.... (8+ / 0-)

          because under the ACA I was able to cut free of my employer plan and  buy a policy on the exchange for my wife who was barred in the past by a serious pre-existing condition. The result of my opportunity to retire was a young man about 45 yrs my junior who was without a job was able to step into my position. Does this mean by Rethug standards I gave up on my "work ethic"? I guess 52 some years in the work force that I'm now some kind of worthless laggard who should have worked 'til he keeled over! Thank God for the ACA which allowed me to do EXACTLY what the CBO said it would do.

        •  Criminal incompetence (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          You are absolutely right and Democrats are criminally incompetent if they can't avoid playing defense on this one.  

          Consider if you will the typical 60-year-old who'd like to retire but couldn't because of Health Insurance.  Now he can.  Does this lead to a "problem" of net reduction in total hours worked?  NOT UNLESS THE EMPLOYER WAS ONLY KEEPING HIM ON THE PAYROLL OUT OF COMPASSION FOR HIS HEALTH CARE NEEDS!!!  In the real world the employer is going to have to find someone else, perhaps a recent college grad who's only been able to find unpaid internships before now.

          But Democrats seem constitutionally unable to argue this simple and obvious point and I include you too Paul Krugman in this.  Your last post on this subject got lost in the aggregate hours worked weeds.

          sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.

          by stivo on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 03:56:20 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  And it means (some degree of) worker empowerment (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Amber6541, Beastly Fool

          THAT is anathema (anna theema) to Repubs.

          Please know I am not rude. I cannot rec anything from this browser. When I rec or post diaries I am a guest at some exotic locale's computer. Ayn is the bane!

          by Floyd Blue on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 05:49:20 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Has the CBO... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      ever made an accurate prediction?

    •  I suppose its because (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ferg, ozsea1, Amber6541

      they have long been considered the closest thing we have to an unbiased source for financial predictions.  Naturally predicting is by its very nature an imprecise business.  Yet its useful to have SOME yardstick, hopefully less hysterical and more professional, which which to measure competing partisan claims.  

      "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

      by lgmcp on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 03:17:48 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I have a lot of respect for the CBO but they work (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        with handicaps, particularly when scoring legislation. Even when they take a long term look at laws like the ACA their models are constrained. I understand having a forecast group that is non-partisan and support it. However, I think everyone would be better served to start these conversations with the understanding that long term forecasts are inherently inaccurate, are really presented for discussion, and never intended to be used like facts

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 03:45:24 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Democrats once again are leting opportunity (12+ / 0-)

    slip away. In every discussion of these  2.5 Million  jobs  equivilancy for  hours less worked by those that  suffer  job lock, democrats should be trumpeting that this  is a good thing for employment prospects  of those just out of school that are  having a terrible time finding jobs. Unemployment for first time job seekers is higher than the national unemployment rate.  Those jobs are not going away, they can be filled by  those entering the workforce. this is  as it should be and is a benefit, not a dteriment to the economy!!!

    •  exactly, having to parse the lies and bs (5+ / 0-)

      is a feature of repub tactics, well said.

      letting people unhook from their insurance is a good thing.

      At an earlier point in time mandatory employer insurance was also a good thing...

      This is a great step forward to a more productive and happy citizenry.

      And thank you Joan for your relentless attention to all this..

      This machine kills Fascists.

      by KenBee on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 03:20:11 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The part I don't understand is if there is (13+ / 0-)

    still a demand for the services provided by those who opt not to work, why wouldn't the employers involved hire others to fill the empty slots?

    Is the underlying assumption that unemployment is going to be zero at this point in time and no "replacement" workers will be available?

    If so, that's kinda a happy factoid that could be touted.

    •  BINGO! (11+ / 0-)

      It puts 2.5 million job equivalents into the new employment pool. With so many people hungry for work, that should be a selling point for supporters, right?

      If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

      by CwV on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 01:36:11 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Wrong. The CBO is predicting a net reduction in (1+ / 2-)
        Recommended by:
        Mister T
        Hidden by:
        spritegeezer, cville townie

        hours worked.  Those jobs will not be filled.

        The reason for this is pretty simple.  Obamacare significantly increases marginal effective tax rates (including benefit reductions) for some people.  This is the combination of increases in taxes and reductions in benefits.

        The simplest way to understand this is to imagine a simple case - a person making $10.00 an hour who works 1,000 hours per year, gets benefits worth $10,000 / year, which decrease $.50 for each extra $1.00 he earns, and who pays a marginal tax rate of 10%.

        If he works an extra hour, he does not get an extra $10.  He gets an extra $4.  I think we can all see why he might not be motivated to increase his hours per year to 1100 and might even drop them down to 900.

        Now imagine you change that benefits decrease from $.50 / $1.00 earned to $.75 / $1.00 earned.  Now he only gets an extra $1.50 if he works an extra hour.  You can see how he is even less likely now to work more hours and more likely to work fewer hours.  That is the impact of Obamacare that the CBO is reporting on.

        I don't think people cutting back work because their effective marginal tax rate / benefit reduction rate is so high that they lose most of the benefit from making more money is a good thing.

        This also has other even more insidious impacts.  In the example above, the work disincentive is mostly eliminated once the worker's income is too high to get benefits.  So this discourages the poor from working more but not the rich. Great way to prevent income mobility, right?

        •  False (6+ / 0-)

          These people stop working because they no longer need to work in order to pay for or get health insurance.

          The people who stop working do not receive a cash benefit in their bank account for the insurance subsidy so they will absolutely forgo income (by stopping work) or decrease their income (by reducing hours worked) because they're no longer constrained by health insurance in the amount of work they need to do.

          The only reason they would change the amount of work they do is because the major reason they are working in the first place is to acquire health insurance. Either by working to earn money to pay for the premium, or working at a job that provides health insurance through a group plan that they would otherwise be unable to get on their own, probably because of a pre-existing condition they themselves or a family member have.

          Again, we know this because the premium subsidy is not paid directly to the person, it goes to the insurance company. Therefore, since these people choose to stop working due to the premium support provisions of the ACA we can assume that the majority of these people are working simply so they can acquire or afford health insurance.

          In other words, these people are no longer suffering from "Job Lock."
          This doesn't "discourag[es] the poor from working more" because the very poor can get Medicaid already, before the ACA.

          [Terrorists] are a dime a dozen, they are all over the world and for every one we lock up there will be three to take his place. --Digby

          by rabel on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 04:05:44 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Idiotic (0+ / 0-)

            Just because someone is only working because of health insurance doesn't mean her employer hired her so that he could give her health insurance!  He's hired her because he needs someone to do the work and that need should persist after she's gone.  Her hours will be replaced by someone else!

            Only an economist or a Democratic consultant could take something this simple and screw it up with statistics and turn a plus into a minus.  Can't anyone here play this game?

            sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.

            by stivo on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 04:06:51 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  However, there are now fewer people willing (0+ / 0-)

              to do this work, since some people are cutting back hours or dropping out of the work force.

              Simple supply and demand then comes into play.

              Supply of labor has decreased, price will increase, and demand at the new price will be less than before.

              At the margins, some McDonalds franchises will increase their salaries by $.10 / hour and start closing half an hour earlier.

          •  No. You don't understand how this works (0+ / 0-)

            Let's say Joe currently works 1500 hours per year at $10.00 / hour and is also eligible for public assistance.  At his current income he loses $.50 in public assistance for each additional $1.00 he earns and he also pays SS tax at 7.5%.  Therefore, if he works an additional hour he gets $4.25 in additional final income.  If he cuts back one hour he loses $4.25.  

            Now you enact Obamacare.  Let's say that Joe now has a subsidy for buying now required health insurance, but he loses $.25 in subsidy for each additional dollar of income.  So now, if he works an additional hour he gets $1.75 in final income, whereas if he works an hour less he loses only $1.75 in final income.

            It is very rational for Joe to sit down and ask himself if he would not be happier working less, given the much smaller amount of money he is keeping from each additional hour of work with the new subsidy.

            Notice that it is completely irrelevant whether or not Joe was getting insurance before Obamacare.  His changed incentives remain the same.  It is also irrelevant whether or not the premium subsidy is paid directly to Joe.  I have no idea why you think that would matter.

            •  Thinking too hard (0+ / 0-)

              I get what you're trying to say (although your numbers above don't agree with themselves) but it's even easier than that.

              Because the subsidy is not paid directly to Joe Worker that means that when he decides to cut back hours or stop working altogether he loses the entirety of the income he was making. You're calculating the subsidy as part of his income and from a strictly double-entry accounting system perspective you are correct.

              But Joe isn't a spreadsheet and since he's deciding to lose cash income in exchange for working less while still receiving health insurance it stands to reason that the main reason Joe is working is so that he can acquire health insurance. The only thing that is relevant here is that Joe could not get insurance prior to Obamacare but now he can.

              I'd sure like to see an actual case of someone making the decision as you outline above. That is, coldly crunching the numbers and deciding not to receive the income they get from working additional hours (be it $4.25 or $1.75) or quitting their job entirely and not receiving any income... because of the subsidy? The only reason the subsidy has any bearing on their decision is if they are in a "job lock" situation and could not get insurance coverage that they desperately need.

              The stories of this are starting to flood in. Many people work menial jobs simply so they can acquire health insurance on their employer's group plan (which cannot deny coverage due to pre-existing conditions) so that they can get coverage for their spouse who has a pre-existing condition in which private coverage would be too expensive or unavailable.

              Do you think those people are running the numbers like you're punching in above? Heck no, they can't wait to quit their job.

              [Terrorists] are a dime a dozen, they are all over the world and for every one we lock up there will be three to take his place. --Digby

              by rabel on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 06:24:34 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  So, every time someone cuts back voluntarily (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Tonedevil, stivo, Roadbed Guy, Amber6541

          on their hours, or leaves a job, their employer doesn't replace them?

          The business owner throws up his/her hands and simply resigns to the shrinkage in their workforce?

          How long do you suppose this will go on?

          And how many business owners do you think are so stupid they won't hire new workers to cover the hours necessary to keep their business successful, and to expand it where possible?

          New workers are clearly the answer, new jobs, more flexibility for workers, higher wages - what's not to like?

          Progress. What a concept.

          Mistakes are the portals of discovery. - James Joyce

          by Beastly Fool on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 04:07:22 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  No, the CBO report says this: (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Back In Blue, Jasonhouse, Amber6541
            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.

            The expanded federal subsidies for health insurance
            will stimulate demand for goods and services, and that
            effect will mostly occur over the next few years. That
            increase in demand will induce some employers to hire
            more workers or to increase their employees’ hours
            during that period.

            Seems to me that since labor supply outstrips demand right now, and has for a painfully long time, reducing supply can only be a good thing.  Should have a positive impact on wages, too, which is much needed!  Basic supply and demand, right?
          •  Because the same incentives apply to a whole (0+ / 0-)

            segment of the population that fills these jobs.

            So, every time someone cuts back voluntarily on their hours, or leaves a job, their employer doesn't replace them?

            The business owner throws up his/her hands and simply resigns to the shrinkage in their workforce?

            Assuming that these are low wage jobs primarily filled by low wage workers, then yes.  The same change in incentives caused by the difference in marginal after tax after benefits income applies to the vast majority of workers who would apply for these jobs.

            Another way to look at this is to compare with a minimum wage increase.

            A 100% tax on income below $15.00 per hour would obviously be the equivalent of setting the minimum wage to $15.00 per hour and would have a negative impact on employment - a lot of low wage businesses would either close, reduce their size, or find ways to automate.  

            Now, let's say that instead of a 100% tax you do a 50% tax.  You would still get some employment at under $15.00 per hour, but presumably less.  There would be a negative impact on employment, but not as large as in the first case.  The jobs would not just go to other workers because all workers at that wage level would be equally affected.  Companies would either have to increase their salaries or use less low wage labor.

            This is roughly the equivalent of the impact of the Obamacare subsidies.

        •  Pass me whatever you're smoking! (0+ / 0-)
    •  That's exactly it (15+ / 0-)

      You've nailed it.  If most of these people are only holding onto jobs to keep the benefits and are as a result of the ACA now able to finally retire, or stay at home to raise their children, etc., then the jobs they were holding will become available to those who currently are looking for jobs but have been unable to find them.

      I personally think this is part of the reason Republicans hate the ACA -- it give freedom to workers to leave a crappy job rather than hang onto it just for the benefits, and if the labor pool decreases, it gives workers more leverage in negotiating benefits and the like.  What a lot of people don't get is that a lot of businessfolk LIKE higher unemployment -- it means that there are a lot of hungry workers out there willing to work for peanuts and take tons of abuse from their employer because they'd have nowhere else to go.

    •  The 2.5 million jobs less is net (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DemInSeattle, Amber6541, Beastly Fool

      Some people are going to quit or work fewer hours, and this will be more than 2.5 million FTE-equivalents. Say it's 4 million FTE-equivalents.

      So that means 4 million FTE-equivalent jobs will be going begging. The employers want employees for those jobs, so they'll try to hire. But, and this is the good part, there won't be enough unemployed people to fill the jobs, because Obamacare will have reduced unemployment. Unemployment won't be zero, because it never is, but it'll be low.

  •  And still (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mrblifil, ferg, FiredUpInCA, dbm, MKSinSA, Amber6541

    CBO Director Elmendorf comes out with a mushy explanation concerning the mushy report.
    Why the hell can't he say, "the CBO is forecasting 2.5 million people who have been working in order to receive healthcare benefits will quit because they are now able to purchase affordable healthcare through the ACA."

    Or something like that. Why the hell do these "smart people" have to tell you how to build a clock when all you asked for is the time??  

    6% of scientists are republican. Scientists have no explanation why that number is so high.

    by fugwb on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 01:46:53 PM PST

    •  Because that's not what the CBO is forecasting (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mister T
    •  Because Facts Are Hard (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ozsea1, MKSinSA, Beastly Fool

      It's not the job of the CBO to dumb everything down. The politicians should be interpreting the facts and explaining them to the public. Unfortunately, facts are hard to explain and sound bites flow much faster when every media outlet is reporting the lies and obfuscation over the facts.

      But yeah, Dems are still failing on messaging, as usual.

      [Terrorists] are a dime a dozen, they are all over the world and for every one we lock up there will be three to take his place. --Digby

      by rabel on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 04:08:20 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The whole "incentive" question is insane (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tonedevil, Beastly Fool

    Who in their right mind would conclude that people will drop from the labor force because they have "affordable" health care. Even if you get cheaper health care you'll still need a job to pay for it! You'll still need to eat! The rent is still too damn high! Only an idiot would assume subsidized healthcare is some kind of gravy train for lazy people. Assholes!

  •  Won't it OPEN UP 2.5M jobs? nt (5+ / 0-)

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

    by Bob Love on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 02:45:05 PM PST

  •  Figure it out yet Chuck Todd? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tonedevil, wishingwell

    aka political hack.

  •  Got to find time to read that report because it (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    still confounds me.

    CBO must assume that we will reach full employment by then, so that's a good thing, but 9 years out...that's pretty much a crap shoot.

    But -- the reason I say they must assume full employment is that the only reason hours can go down if people decide to sit out is if other people are not available to take their place.

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

    by dinotrac on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 03:15:36 PM PST

  •  Personally I'm all in favor (8+ / 0-)

    of allowing people to quit their second job when they're no longer living in terror of medical bankruptcy.

    "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

    by lgmcp on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 03:20:08 PM PST

  •  keep on digging - "choose to supply", right (6+ / 0-)

    CBO mealy mouthing pedantic phraseology just confuses the point and gives the lazy and bias a "ACA kills jobs" banner.

    Talking about people considering their options continued working if health care coverage is not a factor as "choosing" not to supply labor is absolutely ludicrous.

    If one person "chooses" not supply his/her labor because he has options partly due to having ACA health coverage, then another person will most certainly "choose" to supply that labor.

    This metric is actually a great side effect of ACA.  Older workers can reduce hours or stop working and still have health coverage.  This will open up jobs for younger workers.

    Opening jobs for younger workers is exactly what we need.

    I said it once, I will say it again -

  •  But can he explain it in a way that Cokie Roberts (6+ / 0-)

    can understand it?


  •  Back to "DEATH PANELS!!!!" perhaps? n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    "Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous Communist plot we have ever had to face?" - General Jack D. Ripper

    by wilder5121 on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 03:31:50 PM PST

  •  Ack... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FiredUpInCA, Tonedevil, dbm, ozsea1

    Regardless of the CBO's abilities to accurately forecast years out, what is not in doubt is the rank spasmatic misrepresentation of the CBO's report by conservatives who collectively comprise a yawning sinkhole of ill-will. Frankly, I really can't fucking take it anymore...this constant gut wrenching need to correct the avalance of lies that come from the right. This maddening postmodern conceit of perception as reality delivered at the speed of light by blogs, and texts, and Twitter and and and. I can't take it, help me.

    Is that a real poncho, or is that a Sears' poncho? - Frank Zappa

    by JoesGarage on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 03:31:59 PM PST

  •  Republicans are willfully idiotic (7+ / 0-)

    And their megaphones in the popular media go along because that's how they "earn" their fat paychecks.

    If someone says, "I lost 45 pounds!" and their friend says, "Wow, that's like losing a small child," Republicans would say, "Oh my god! That person over there lost a small child! Why isn't everyone looking for it?! You all hate children!" And the GOP echo chamber would hold forth on how "those people" (and I think you know just who I mean, wink, wink) really hate children.

    Silly? Of course it is. Willfully idiotic? Yup. And now it's all over the popular media, who excuse their own tagging along on the idiocy by saying "If you're explaining, you're losing," as if truth is conferred only on the first stupid thing that falls out of some nitwit's mouth (or published on some nitwit's blog).

  •  In other words. . . (5+ / 0-)

    The ACA will make available 2.5 million jobs. Available to be filled by those who are seeking those jobs.

    I don't understand why the Dems are only focusing on the benefit to those individuals who choose to forego the extra employment.

  •  Obamacare Is A Job Creator...It Seems To Me (5+ / 0-)

    Folks will be able to make a more realistic judgment about retirement because they have health insurance. If they opt of of the job market, that is going to open opportunity for many others.

    GOP does not even recognize the creation of a jobs, jobs, jobs opportunity because they are blind and lie about anything connected with President Obama.

    The republican party is such a sorry excuse for a political party.

    "Obama inherited so much Republican-strewn garbage, it makes my head spin to think about it." Bill in Portland, Maine

    by wild hair on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 03:45:11 PM PST

  •  Paul Krugman wants to know (4+ / 0-)

    Why Do You Care How Much Other People Work?

    "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 Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 03:52:06 PM PST

  •  GOP Trolls: "Democrat Party spin" nt (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    buffie, annominous

    I swear we have a group of false flag trolls here on Daily Kos.

  •  Competition of a different sort (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tonedevil, Amber6541, Beastly Fool

    Presumably the effect of “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...” will result in greater competition for workers. This should pressure employers to increase wages.

    In the eyes of the monied interests, competition is positive only when it drives down wages. Unlike the progressive caucus, this is another negative in the Obamacare column.

  •  gop and the truth (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tonedevil, wishingwell, Beastly Fool

    They knew exactly what the cbo meant.  they are just pathologoiical lia(R)$

  •  healthcare (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Amber6541, Beastly Fool

    So that is why the gop house won't work, or do their jobs, THEY HAVE AFFORDABLE HEALTHCARE.

  •  Disbelief (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jasonhouse, Amber6541

    Even a child with a just a very basic understanding of politics in America could have predicted the right wing would mis-characterize the CBO report. So the real question becomes WHY, oh WHY did the CBO put this information out in the form it did? It's almost like they knew and intended to mislead the American people.
    I expect the right wing to spread disinformation. I don't expect the CBO to be so complicit.  

    •  Bean-counters at CBO are like climate scientists: (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Deeply immersed in their language of data, scenarios and probabilities. They're probably incapable of putting a positive "framing" on their conclusions, and even if they could, they'd regard such an act as professionally unethical.

      “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing
      he was never reasoned into” - Jonathan Swift

      by jjohnjj on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 06:22:50 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  And there will other people who have . . . (3+ / 0-)

    health insurance, will strike on their own and create their own small business. By removing the risk that lack of health insurance imposes someone can start up the business they have been dreaming about, leaving the crappy office job behind. The one they needed to have to cover the insurance bill for their family.  

  •  CBO (0+ / 0-)

    If you are explaining you are losing.  Little too late.  Anyway equivalent means equal so if a=b b is a.  Economic outcome is  the same.  Bottom line is more working less making less expanding income inequality.  for everyone who starts a successful business there will be ten just scraping by.

  •  let me share an observation... (0+ / 0-)

    let me share an observation and that observation is simply this:

    republicans elect chris christie to lead the republican governors association.

    now, how smart is that?

    republicans can't even get that simple task RIGHT.

  •  Sorry, it's not clear. The comments show it. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    It doesn't matter what else the CBO says.  It's quotable lines like this that supply the GOP with all that it needs:

    provisions of the ACA reduce the incentive to work
    But even if you ignore those lines, it's still not clear.  Just look at the comments in this thread.  There's still a lot of confusion even here among those who are at the very least sick of the GOP nonsense about Obamacare.

    America, where a rising tide lifts all boats! Unless you don't have a boat...uh...then it lifts all who can swim! Er, if you can't swim? SHAME ON YOU!

    by Back In Blue on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 05:17:27 PM PST

    •  Here's what I understand: I don't have to work (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Amber6541, Beastly Fool

      at a job anymore just for the insurance. That's all most people will take away from this. I couldn't give a hoot about the numbers some CBO guy crunched last week.

      •  Too bad everyone is not like you. (0+ / 0-)

        Most people I've spoken to (and it's a wide variety in the greater NYC metro area) don't get it period except that they buy the line the GOP, the mainstream media, and virtually every other news source is lazily repeating: jobs will be lost or lazy people will get health care for free.

        America, where a rising tide lifts all boats! Unless you don't have a boat...uh...then it lifts all who can swim! Er, if you can't swim? SHAME ON YOU!

        by Back In Blue on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 08:12:07 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I thought 'Pubs would lead with the "incentive" (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Amber6541, Beastly Fool

      angle - it's so easily bent to fit with their "takers" theme. But it wouldn't surprise me to see them to pivot that way now as the "job loss" canard loses steam.

      There's only one response that will drill through the noise:

      "Do Republicans lie about everything?

      “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing
      he was never reasoned into” - Jonathan Swift

      by jjohnjj on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 06:08:26 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's the one we've needed for a long time. (0+ / 0-)

        Some in our party think that it's not civil.  Obviously, I don't agree and wish they'd use the truth.  But if you want to parse it, by saying that line you're not calling any specific pub a liar but leaving those who don't (are there any?) to defend themselves as not part of that crowd.  They won't and they'll tell even bigger lies in response.

        Now, if only there was some way for people to know when a politician is lying...

        America, where a rising tide lifts all boats! Unless you don't have a boat...uh...then it lifts all who can swim! Er, if you can't swim? SHAME ON YOU!

        by Back In Blue on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 08:15:16 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Hey, this is the GOP we're talking about... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Amber6541, Beastly Fool

    …no fairness to be expected!

  •  I understand completely (0+ / 0-)

    I was a Federal Employee from 1966 to 2004.  When I was 39, I had open heart surgery to replace my Aorta valve and my ascending Aorta artery.  The Federal Health Care Program required that no one can be dropped, and I can move from plan to plan.  As a responsible person with a family, leaving my job was out of the question.  I was uninsurable anywhere else.
    Now, people with health insurance through or under the ACA can change jobs without a thought.  Employers should be happy if they can now recruit from a much larger pool, and employees win when their current companies do not support their employees will see the best and brightest leave.

  •  Who said it would kill jobs and (0+ / 0-)

    which media outlets reported it without checking the facts?

    Has anyone noticed a reluctance of media outlets to bust Fox News and other liars when they distort these things? Why aren't they outing them?

    We need a grassroots campaign to demand honesty and integrity in journalism, and encourage honest journalists to call out those who are dishonest, who fail to report fully and factually, and fail to check facts before reporting.

    Fox News, Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, Huckabee, Glenn Beck, Palin and others are consistently guilty of these abject failures. The failure of legitimate news organizations to call them on it consistently and loudly is partly responsible for their success among  Tea Party members, and others who inexplicably support the GOP/billionaire/corporation/Congressional complex.

    McCarthyism thrived because people were afraid to speak out against the lies. There are no repercussions against it now, such as blackballing-- yet the lies keep getting recycled. Crazy fringe-dwellers should not get their bizarre beliefs validated in mass media!

    Sell the Vatican and give the proceeds to the poor! The Catholic Church doesn't need the richest Palace on earth to house the Pope.

    by Tshane on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 09:31:46 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site