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

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

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.

A few things, one I don't think it will directly effect labor in the field, it will just migrate to other areas that will receive more supply. Now it may affect labor indirectly. IE the suppliers of the hospitals will see a decline (or more to the point, not much growth) and that may affect their labor force.

Secondly, the whole demand curve side of things was already created by the government when it mandated emergency treatment.

Now if ObamaCare is ruled unconstitutional. The GOP has the duty to also repeal the previous mandate as well since it is linked. They need to stand up and say people without insurance who seek treatment MUST DIE.

Edited February 11, 2011 by Sousuke

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

800,000 of you will be unemployed because of this law.

You might have missed it but this is not what the CBO says.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

You might have missed it but this is not what the CBO says.

Right, he's basically saying healthcare labor growth will be curbed slightly.

[Dan J 277]

How many people are working for no reason other than to get cheaper health insurance? If this reason goes away, there will be certain people who will leave their jobs. This is not a bad thing. It opens up opportunities for people who actually do want to work.

There are others who wont leave their current job and start new companies because not having health coverage is too much of a risk.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

A few things, one I don't think it will directly effect labor in the field, it will just migrate to other areas that will receive more supply. Now it may affect labor indirectly. IE the suppliers of the hospitals will see a decline (or more to the point, not much growth) and that may affect their labor force.

Secondly, the whole demand curve side of things was already created by the government when it mandated emergency treatment.

Now if ObamaCare is ruled unconstitutional. The GOP has the duty to also repeal the previous mandate as well since it is linked. They need to stand up and say people without insurance who seek treatment MUST DIE.

If the labor migrates, there are no savings. If that is the case, then Obama should say so. In fact it is impossible in a labor intensive SERVICE industry to have savings and NOT have reduced employment. You cannot have both, it is impossible. Just say so when selling your "plan"

Why does the government have to (or what gives them the authority) to say that private business MUST turn away people who do not have insurance?

You miss the whole point, Sousuke. Government needs to STAY OUT! Government doesn't NEED to say anything, neither Republicans nor Democrats. Government does not have to mandate anything or do anything. It is not government business. It is not a government "duty". Your whole "if they don;t do this, then they MUSt do that" argument is silly. They should stay out of it. Medicine and insurance are not government entities and never should be. IF they were out of it and had never gotten into it, it would be a lot better.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Right, he's basically saying healthcare labor growth will be curbed slightly.

No, he's saying that primarily less people will make themselves available to the workforce - among others, those that are currently employed only to have access to employer provided group coverage.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

How many people are working for no reason other than to get cheaper health insurance? If this reason goes away, there will be certain people who will leave their jobs. This is not a bad thing. It opens up opportunities for people who actually do want to work.

There are others who wont leave their current job and start new companies because not having health coverage is too much of a risk.

I don't know. I say "none" Do you disagree? How many? How many people will leave their non-health related jobs because they no longer need them to get cheap insurance? Please tell us. I have no link to my estimate of none, and admit it could be wrong. Maybe you will provide some information on how the administration has allowed for this loss of employment they never told us about.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

How many people are working for no reason other than to get cheaper health insurance? If this reason goes away, there will be certain people who will leave their jobs.

Bingo! This is the primary reason the CBO cites for there to be less people in the workforce as a result of this law. The RWN just bent this statement to fit their preferred talking point: that this is a job-killing law. The only jobs killed are those that are non-productive anyways. If the rise in health care cost can actually be curbed, businesses will benefit greatly as the cost of doing business in the US would decrease.

I don't know. I say "none" Do you disagree? How many? How many people will leave their non-health related jobs because they no longer need them to get cheap insurance? Please tell us. I have no link to my estimate of none, and admit it could be wrong. Maybe you will provide some information on how the administration has allowed for this loss of employment they never told us about.

This is precisely what the CBO is saying. They have a website with the estimates and all. Look it up.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

No, he's saying that primarily less people will make themselves available to the workforce - among others, those that are currently employed only to have access to employer provided group coverage.

I love it when liberals argue over the miscues.

Actually he didn't say any of that.

Maybe one of the unconstitutional Obamacare supporters will enlighten us with an academic argument on how one can save money in a labor intensive service industry without reducing jobs.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Bingo! This is the primary reason the CBO cites for there to be less people in the workforce as a result of this law. The RWN just bent this statement to fit their preferred talking point: that this is a job-killing law. The only jobs killed are those that are non-productive anyways. If the rise in health care cost can actually be curbed, businesses will benefit greatly as the cost of doing business in the US would decrease.

This is precisely what the CBO is saying. They have a website with the estimates and all. Look it up.

Non productive jobs which cut into a corporation's bottom line become unemployed people that cut into government unemployment and no longer pay income tax at the rate they did. How is that good?

Again, I am not disagreeing, I ONLY say that Obama and the supporters of this should sell it for what it is. It will save money but cutting unproductive jobs. Just say so.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Non productive jobs which cut into a corporation's bottom line become unemployed people that cut into government unemployment and no longer pay income tax at the rate they did. How is that good?

Not quite. The health insurance bureaucracy is largely non-productive and it eats into the bottom lines of other companies. Those companies can't let them go. Rather, they make decisions on expanding or not expanding business in the US or on relocating the work where they're not burdened with this costly red tape. Taking the red tape out of the equation, will cost jobs in the insurance industry but it'll make doing business in the US overall less costly and the US a more attractive place to expand. That's where you gain productive jobs. So, you're looking at replacing dead weight with productive jobs and that is a good thing.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

If the labor migrates, there are no savings. If that is the case, then Obama should say so. In fact it is impossible in a labor intensive SERVICE industry to have savings and NOT have reduced employment. You cannot have both, it is impossible. Just say so when selling your "plan"

Why does the government have to (or what gives them the authority) to say that private business MUST turn away people who do not have insurance?

You miss the whole point, Sousuke. Government needs to STAY OUT! Government doesn't NEED to say anything, neither Republicans nor Democrats. Government does not have to mandate anything or do anything. It is not government business. It is not a government "duty". Your whole "if they don;t do this, then they MUSt do that" argument is silly. They should stay out of it. Medicine and insurance are not government entities and never should be. IF they were out of it and had never gotten into it, it would be a lot better.

Sure Ok. But previously hospitals DID turn people away. Not all but they did. If you are fine with that so be it.

No, he's saying that primarily less people will make themselves available to the workforce - among others, those that are currently employed only to have access to employer provided group coverage.

Oh I see, yes I do know a few people who will take a job not for the wage but just for the benefits.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Not quite. The health insurance bureaucracy is largely non-productive and it eats into the bottom lines of other companies. Those companies can't let them go. Rather, they make decisions on expanding or not expanding business in the US or on relocating the work where they're not burdened with this costly red tape. Taking the red tape out of the equation, will cost jobs in the insurance industry but it'll make doing business in the US overall less costly and the US a more attractive place to expand. That's where you gain productive jobs. So, you're looking at replacing dead weight with productive jobs and that is a good thing.

We could do the same by reducing government regulation of the insurance industry and making health insurance available across state lines so the insurance companies will compete for business. When we see GEICO health insurance commercials...we win.

Detach health insurance from employment. Allow insurance companies to offer group coverage to individuals, the individuals themselves creating groups of risk pools, just as with homeowners insurance, car insurance and life insurance. It is ridiculous that I can buy $200,000 of life insurance for $72 per month but health insurance would be $1000+ This is the effect of competition. employers should be mandated to add the amount that was being contributed (if any) to workers pay, OR they could alternately offer pools of money as benefits to be used for various options at the choice of the employee, tax free, OR allow the employee to take the cash and pay tax on it. Either way, you get your health insurance on your own, not from an employer.

Do these non-government things FIRST, make a FIRST attempt at a market based solution.

Sure Ok. But previously hospitals DID turn people away. Not all but they did. If you are fine with that so be it.

Oh I see, yes I do know a few people who will take a job not for the wage but just for the benefits.

And people used to employ 9 year olds in coal mines. Absent the law, do you think anyone still would? No. Because the "market" would not allow it.

Edited February 11, 2011 by Gary and Alla

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

We could do the same by reducing government regulation of the insurance industry and making health insurance available across state lines so the insurance companies will compete for business. When we see GEICO health insurance commercials...we win.

Detach health insurance from employment. Allow insurance companies to offer group coverage to individuals, the individuals themselves creating groups of risk pools, just as with homeowners insurance, car insurance and life insurance. It is ridiculous that I can buy $200,000 of life insurance for $72 per month but health insurance would be $1000+ This is the effect of competition. employers should be mandated to add the amount that was being contributed (if any) to workers pay, OR they could alternately offer pools of money as benefits to be used for various options at the choice of the employee, tax free, OR allow the employee to take the cash and pay tax on it. Either way, you get your health insurance on your own, not from an employer.

Do these non-government things FIRST, make a FIRST attempt at a market based solution.

The closest to a market based solution is what we have here. And the outcome is by far the worst. Thanks but no thanks. There are certain public interest services that are not best handled by the market. Your first responders, for example. If the market fixes all, the police and fire departments should all be private companies. There's a reason that they're not and that reason is not some union.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

And people used to employ 9 year olds in coal mines. Absent the law, do you think anyone still would? No. Because the "market" would not allow it.

How so? China has poor employment laws and we buy the goods. How is the market protecting them?