Obamanomics meets Obamacare: CBO Director says that Obamacare would Reduce Employment by 800,000 Workers … JOBS, JOBS, JOBS
So much for Obama focusing on jobs like a laser. Barack Obama claims that his main focus will be jobs. Of course he said the same thing last year and the year before that. However, it appears that Obama’s signature legislation, Obamacare, will cost America jobs. CBO director says that Obamacare would reduce employment by 800,000 workers. Is there ever a moment when Obama is not trying to kill jobs?
Doug Elmendorf, Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Director confirmed in a House Budget Committee that Obamacarewould kill 800K jobs. It is yet another false promise of Obamacare. Initially Obama promised that the government take over of health care would lower costs and let people keep their own insurance. That was proved to be false.
Chairman [Paul] Ryan: “[I]t’s been argued…that the new health care law will create jobs and increase labor force participation. But if I recall from your analysis, it was quite the opposite. Is that not the case?”
Director [Douglas] Elmendorf : “Yes.”…
Rep. [John] Campbell: … First on health care, … you just mentioned that you believe — or that in your estimate, that the health care law would reduce the labor used in the economy by about 1/2 of 1 percent, given that, I believe you say, there’s 160 million full-time people working in ’20-’21. That means that, in your estimation, the health care law would reduce employment by 800,000 in ’20-’21. Is that correct?
Director Elmendorf: Yes. The way I would put it is that we do estimate, as you said, that…employment will be about 160 million by the end of the decade. Half a percent of that is 800,000.
Is it any wonder why the people want to repeal Obamacare?
Posted February 10, 2011 by Scared Monkeys
Barack Obama, CBO, Economy, Government, Healthcare, Jobs, Obamacare, Obamanation, Obamanomics, Unemployment | 8 comments
If you liked this post, you may also like these:
8 Responses to “Obamanomics meets Obamacare: CBO Director says that Obamacare would Reduce Employment by 800,000 Workers … JOBS, JOBS, JOBS”
Leave a Reply
Obama’s legacy is a nightmare called “Obamacare”.
“CBO director says that Obamacare would reduce employment by 800,000 workers.”
Although these words are true, this partial quote misses the context entirely because of incomplete ideas from the hearing. Here is a report of the exchange in a more complete version.
– — –
CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf told the House Budget Committee on Thursday that the health care law will reduce employment by 0.5 percent by 2021 because some people will no longer have to work just to afford health insurance.
“That means that if the reduction in the labor used was workers working the average number of hours in the economy and earning the average wage, that there would be a reduction of 800,000 workers,” Elmendorf said in an exchange with Rep. John Campbell (R-CA).
– — –
For those wondering what this means; there will be workers voluntarily leaving the workforce because they don’t need to stay in their job to keep their health insurance. That is the opposite of what some might have thought prior to hearing these details I’ve presented.
And here is the best part; for the employers of these people that want to maintain their current productivity, they will actually have to hire replacement workers to keep things going. The true effect of health care reform will be a likely increase of 800,000 workers.
SM: Sorry Steve, I work in the industry and you can try and pull up all the data you want. The “insider” truth of the matter is that many dr’s are going to leave the industry because they have had it, many will retire and there is no replacement for them. All that and more patients will be forced on to the system. We are already seeing hospitals close and those that were scheduled to be built, canceled.
Obamacare is a complete disaster because it never did what it claimed to do. Sorry.
RE: “let people keep their own insurance. That was proved to be false.”
I beg to differ. When this topic was last discussed, I was attacked personally, although with little impact on the relevant discussion. One point made at that time was the idea that it would be impossible for anyone to state someone could keep their insurance if desired. The point was supported by the ability of an employer to change insurance carriers, and therefore one is not keeping their insurance (or doctors under some circumstances). I concede the point that there is no 100% guarantee for the status quo when employers make such changes.
However, I do not believe that people taking a serious read of the comment often made by Obama defending HCR by claiming: “If you like your doctor or insurance, and want to keep them, you can” ever thought this would eliminate employer rights to change insurance benefits. Or that Obama was talking about this subject. The only reasonable inference I know of, is that Obama was defending HCR by letting Americans know there would be no provisions introduced to affect the patient-doctor-insurance relationship. Everything in place before passage would remain after passage; the new law had no plans to affect this critical part of an individuals health care.
SM: Nice revisionist history. Obama made a blanket statement and it was meant for people to infere that with the advent of Obamacare, anyone who wanted to could keep their insurance and dr’s. That was a 100% bold faced lie.
The whole point of Obamacare was to force people to a govt-type option that would cost employers less $’s. Thus the employees would be put in a govt-sponsored healthcare plan, ie Medicaid. No dr these days participates in Medicaid.
Sorry Steve, but there is a reason why democrats and Obama pushed thru such an unpopular healthcare plan. It was the ends justifying the means.
As I said, your interpretation of Obama’s comments on keeping insurance is too extreme to be reasonable and believable. It is therefore, IMO, driven by a partisan bias, and not an objective examination of events.
Someone in the industry should know the obvious; that the ability of the government to force employers to change their practice of periodically changing carriers as a business practice is not a credible belief. Unless the exact nature of your opinion is found in Obama’s words, I don’t find your position supportable. Sorry, but these are my opinions.
Beyond discussions on this specific point, that your comments add, your opinion on the intent of HCR is not factual. If only we had a Medicare for all, then real progress would be possible. Alas, that was never one of the options in the main-stream HCR debate. To claim so would be clear revisionist history.
Sm: It is Obama’s comments that are too extreme. Sorry dude and and everyone knows it.
Nice deflection to change the subject, without any attempt to refute my comment. My guess is that it is difficult to refute the truth of what Elmendorf actually said. I guess data has a liberal bias.
SM: nope, not at all,
As I understand it, one of the Obamacare cost saving measures is to reduce paperwork by storing information digitally. Does that not mean that people will no longer be needed to file that paperwork or are they talking about the actual cost of the paper?
Kind of like our utility company will cut cost (turn a larger profit, not reduce rates) by digitalizing the meters and fire the meter readers.
Our turnpike soon will no longer accept cash at the toll booths and they will all be digital in the near future. More lost jobs.
It seems that anything that needs to work more efficiently needs to pay it’s employees less or loose some of them.
Here are actual statements from the Aug 2010 report from the CBO that Reps. Ryan & Campbell were asking about (P. 48):
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the legislation, on net, will reduce the amount of labor used in the economy by a small amount—roughly half a percent—primarily by reducing the amount of labor that workers choose to supply.
“The expansion of Medicaid and the availability of subsidies through the exchanges will effectively increase beneficiaries’ financial resources. Those additional resources will encourage some people to work fewer hours or to withdraw from the labor market.”
These statements are a matter of fact, not opinion. Killing jobs is not discussed, only workers. If anything, a worker voluntarily leaving the workforce creates the possibility of their former job being filled.
SM: The expansion of Medicaid, good grief … you really do not understand state run insurance do you? As I said, yawn, its impossible to discuss anything with one who has no grasp of healthcare and a program so unpopular in the medical community that no one participates in it.
However, 800K are supposed to leave and be replaced by new eh? Thats what you think?
The main point of the CBO report regarding workers was that they would voluntarily leave the workforce. They would choose to withdraw from the labor force. The report is very clear on these points. I only mention this again as you didn’t acknowledge or comment on these report excerpts.
And as for me; this is not a matter of what I think, but what the CBO report says. I linked and quoted the report to present relevant statements; to show I’m not trying to shade the story. However, Reps. Ryan and Campbell apparently chose to use just enough information to “prove” a point. Showing complete sentences from the report lets Americans see for themselves, and they can form their own opinion on how the report was used.
I have not given an opinion of Medicaid; that was what the report said. I really have no desire to discuss it, and I didn’t raise the topic. I also didn’t claim anything about 800k workers leaving or being replaced. My simple observation was that when one worker leaves a job, there is a possibility it will be filled. At least, that is something that has happened hundreds of times at companies that I know of.