CBO Director Says Obamacare Would Reduce Employment by 800,000 Workers

[JohnSmith2007 353]

CBO Director Says Obamacare Would Reduce Employment by 800,000 Workers

Testifying today before the House Budget Committee, Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Director Doug Elmendorf confirmed that Obamacare is expected to reduce the number of jobs in the labor market by an estimated 800,000. Here are excerpts from the exchange:

Chairman [Paul] Ryan: “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: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, we'll -- and Dr. Elmendorf -- and we'll continue this conversation right now. First on health care, before I get to -- before I get to broader issues, 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.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cbo-director-says-obamacare-would-reduce-employment-800000-workers_547288.html

[luckytxn 2,265]

Don't worry Obama the Socialist will fix it.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Interesting that he can see the effects down to 1/2 a percent a decade from now, but clearly we can't figure out employment percentages for the next quarter...or even next month.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

what is the surprise? Obama keeps saying that the plan will "save billions". How? Where do you THINK those billions come from? When someone "saves" someone else doesn't get paid! The person who WAS getting paid is not going to like not getting paid anymore. Since the majority of medical COSTS involve personnel, that is PEOPLE working for wages, the majority of the savings are going to be from people losing their jobs. How else can they "save"? Negotiate better prices with suppliers? What about the suppliers employees? Maybe they will work for minimum wage? Or maybe some will be laid off? It is NOT POSSIBLE to "save" money on medical care or "reduce medical expenses" without PEOPLE losing the same amount of money, dollar for dollar.

In a perfect world, the people that lose their jobs in the medical field will be replaced by people who make the money where it is then spent (somewhere other than the medical field) but when the majority of the spending is only deficit spending, it won't be shifted somewhere else. It just shrinks the economy.

It is nice and tidy to IMAGINE that the savings will come from "waste" (as if to imagine that people were shoveling money into an incinerator somewhere) but private business has a rather better record for eliminating WASTE (to result in PROFIT) than the government does.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

what is the surprise? Obama keeps saying that the plan will "save billions". How? Where do you THINK those billions come from? When someone "saves" someone else doesn't get paid! The person who WAS getting paid is not going to like not getting paid anymore. Since the majority of medical COSTS involve personnel, that is PEOPLE working for wages, the majority of the savings are going to be from people losing their jobs. How else can they "save"? Negotiate better prices with suppliers? What about the suppliers employees? Maybe they will work for minimum wage? Or maybe some will be laid off? It is NOT POSSIBLE to "save" money on medical care or "reduce medical expenses" without PEOPLE losing the same amount of money, dollar for dollar.

In a perfect world, the people that lose their jobs in the medical field will be replaced by people who make the money where it is then spent (somewhere other than the medical field) but when the majority of the spending is only deficit spending, it won't be shifted somewhere else. It just shrinks the economy.

It is nice and tidy to IMAGINE that the savings will come from "waste" (as if to imagine that people were shoveling money into an incinerator somewhere) but private business has a rather better record for eliminating WASTE (to result in PROFIT) than the government does.

The way I see it, this bill fixes the hole created 20 something years ago. Instead of propping up the entire healthcare system on the employer based system its trying to spread the costs over the entire population.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

The way I see it, this bill fixes the hole created 20 something years ago. Instead of propping up the entire healthcare system on the employer based system its trying to spread the costs over the entire population.

How?

Explain how it will "save billions" without a whole bunch of people, who were formerly PAID those billions, losing their jobs.

The way I see it, this bill fixes the hole created 20 something years ago. Instead of propping up the entire healthcare system on the employer based system its trying to spread the costs over the entire population.

How?

Explain how it will "save billions" without a whole bunch of people, who were formerly PAID those billions, losing their jobs.

[rika60607 215]

Well, but it is wonderful that all those medical billing specialists will lose their jobs, isn't it?

All that personnel that was doing useless paperwork shuffling and causing lots of aggravation to the insured by denying their claims will be doing either something else or nothing!

In reality, if you can pay people to do useless work or pay people to do nothing (unemployment insurance/handouts) - which one is better?

How?

Explain how it will "save billions" without a whole bunch of people, who were formerly PAID those billions, losing their jobs.

How?

Explain how it will "save billions" without a whole bunch of people, who were formerly PAID those billions, losing their jobs.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

How?

Explain how it will "save billions" without a whole bunch of people, who were formerly PAID those billions, losing their jobs.

How?

Explain how it will "save billions" without a whole bunch of people, who were formerly PAID those billions, losing their jobs.

Do I need to explain twice?

Do I think it will save billions? No, though I agree there will be savings. My understanding is that the primary savings will occur through the reduction of emergency services. IE if people have doctors they can go to, they can be treated before their health declines further and naturally costs more.

The laws before this bill were such that they could only be treated in an emergency situation. Unfortunately that law never provided a way to pay for the mandate. Fast forward a few decades and you have a large group of people that use one of the most expensive parts of our system for free. If you can keep someone healthy for 300 USD and avoid a 2,000 ambulance ride and a 5,000 dollar hospital stay, thats a huge savings.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

What the CBO really says: The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the legislation, on net, will reduce the amount of labor used in the economy by a small amountroughly half a percentprimarily by reducing the amount of labor that workers choose to supply.

But hey, that doesn't go with the GOP talking point that the affordable health care act is a job-killing bill. So we just have the fine folks over at the Weekly Standard bend the truth a little. Nothing new here, let's move on.

Edited February 11, 2011 by Mr. Big Dog

[Ban Hammer 13,545]

Well, but it is wonderful that all those medical billing specialists will lose their jobs, isn't it?

All that personnel that was doing useless paperwork shuffling and causing lots of aggravation to the insured by denying their claims will be doing either something else or nothing!

In reality, if you can pay people to do useless work or pay people to do nothing (unemployment insurance/handouts) - which one is better?

i figure they'll just go to work for the government version of it and do the same thing.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Do I need to explain twice?

Do I think it will save billions? No, though I agree there will be savings. My understanding is that the primary savings will occur through the reduction of emergency services. IE if people have doctors they can go to, they can be treated before their health declines further and naturally costs more.

The laws before this bill were such that they could only be treated in an emergency situation. Unfortunately that law never provided a way to pay for the mandate. Fast forward a few decades and you have a large group of people that use one of the most expensive parts of our system for free. If you can keep someone healthy for 300 USD and avoid a 2,000 ambulance ride and a 5,000 dollar hospital stay, thats a huge savings.

What happens to the people that worked in the emergency and were paid for the ER visits? Do they go work for the Doctors offices? For free? If their health is prevented from declining (a stitch in time saves 9, right) then what about the people that used to get paid for the 9 stitches?

what about the ambulance workers? what about the hospital employees paid by the $5000 hospital stay? If someone only pays $300, then someone else only makes $300 and that does not employ as many people as $7000 does.

One man's savings is another man's loss. Obamacare WILL devastate 18% of our country's economy.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Well, but it is wonderful that all those medical billing specialists will lose their jobs, isn't it?

All that personnel that was doing useless paperwork shuffling and causing lots of aggravation to the insured by denying their claims will be doing either something else or nothing!

In reality, if you can pay people to do useless work or pay people to do nothing (unemployment insurance/handouts) - which one is better?

Except now YOU will be paying their unemployment benefits rather than the policy holders paying their salaries. One has an interest and some control in the process, you and I do not. And if we pay people for doing nothing, then we are not saving money.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

What the CBO really says: 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.

But hey, that doesn't go with the GOP talking point that the affordable health care act is a job-killing bill. So we just have the fine folks over at the Weekly Standard bend the truth a little. Nothing new here, let's move on.

Really, lets move on. It has been declared unconstitutional anyway and the Repubs will de-fund it later this week, just for good measure. Bye bye Obamacare.

but hey, that doesn't go with the Dems talking points so...too effin' bad for them. Losing elections has consequences. Deal with it.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

What happens to the people that worked in the emergency and were paid for the ER visits? Do they go work for the Doctors offices? For free? If their health is prevented from declining (a stitch in time saves 9, right) then what about the people that used to get paid for the 9 stitches?

what about the ambulance workers? what about the hospital employees paid by the $5000 hospital stay? If someone only pays $300, then someone else only makes $300 and that does not employ as many people as $7000 does.

One man's savings is another man's loss. Obamacare WILL devastate 18% of our country's economy.

Would you use the same argument for manufacturing? Should factories stop updating to increase employment?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Would you use the same argument for manufacturing? Should factories stop updating to increase employment?

Of course I would use the same argument. In fact, I will...

When private business "updates" with new equipment to "save money", people lose jobs. That is the POINT of updating. That is the point I am making exactly. Thank you for helping me out.

Obama says his plan will "save money". The ONLY way to do so is to eliminate a lot of jobs. Just say so. TELL everyone that a lot of people will lose their jobs if Obamacare is passed, be HONEST. "800,000 of you will be unemployed because of this law. THAT is how we are going to save money" If Obama will say that, then I have no quarrel.

Maybe he can use Rika's brilliant argument "Folks, a lot of you are going to get laid off because of this, but you are the medical records people and insurance people that no one likes, so it is OK"

Private business is honest about what it does, and answers to stockholders for their actions. I ask that the government do the same.

Oh well, it is academic. Obamacare is unconstitutional anyway. It is deader than a doornail.