CBO Director: Obama Health Law Will Cost 800,000 Jobs

Yep, the CBO lies when it is against Obama, but is perfectly accurate when they are for him. go figure.

They didn't lie...they told the truth according to their forecasts...but this article, and most right-wingers, when they don't like the results, take the CBO results out of context, twist them around, and come to a totally false conclusions.

Health care reform means fewer disabled and elderly people will have to work in order to afford health insurance in order to stay alive...

Harvard economist David Cutler: “People who are working solely to get health care” will “no longer need to do that.” Health economist and Harvard professor David Cutler, who also advised Obama’s presidential campaign, told Media Matters via email:

There are several things wrong with this. First, the CBO noted that there were many effects in different directions. In fact, they are particularly conservative in their estimate of the cost savings to firms, which are a huge driver in employment. Second, most of the possible employment losses come from people who are working solely to get health care, who no longer need to do that. Why we need disabled people and people who would prefer to be home raising a family to instead be crammed into the work force is beyond me.

Fox Trumpets Misleading Report on Health Care Reform Effects

redsfan

They didn't lie...they told the truth according to their forecasts...but this article, and most right-wingers, when they don't like the results, take the CBO results out of context, twist them around, and come to a totally false conclusions.

In order for this to be a twisting of words, it would have to be 800,000 older workers would be replaced by new workers. If there are 800,000 retirements, and no rehiring, then yes this would be a loss of 800,000 jobs.

So is the wording 800k would retire with no replacement, or would 800k retire and people would fill those posts. There is a very key difference between the two.

Your line of attacks is similar to those on the Madrid study stating there were 2.2 jobs lost for every green job created due to green initiatives in Spain. The study has held up to scrutiny. So unless I hear audio, I can't make an inference. I don't believe you can make an inference either.

Really, now! More patients = more activity in the medical center = more to do, produce, sell, record, etc.

Just the fact that all medical offices will have to computerize their records by (2013? 2014?), means a surge in medical/IT work.

I'm back at school, studying for medical and IT certificates so that, in 2012, I will have a great new career I can take all over the country. One of my programs, medical assisting, has been seeing new hires while the students are still finishing up the program.

Medicine is just one of those fields that doesn't go away. Health Care Reform means things like free annual exams and mammograms. If you think that won't increase the patient load, I have an orange grove in the South Pole for sale....

I have an orange grove in the South Pole for sale....

So that's where frozen orange juice comes from ... I'm in!

Really, now! More patients = more activity in the medical center = more to do, produce, sell, record, etc.

Just the fact that all medical offices will have to computerize their records by (2013? 2014?), means a surge in medical/IT work.

Where's the money going to come from Ellen? It's going to come from higher taxes on the people and corporations who might have hired more people but now won't because their costs went up. Those aren't job creators just in the health care industry who won't be hiring, they're in every industry that's still in the country. Actually, I can easily see even more businesses taking more jobs offshore to avoid such costs than we have leaving now.

"I can easily see even more businesses taking more jobs offshore to avoid such costs than we have leaving now."

Right.... what are you basing that on? It's like saying that tax cuts lead to more jobs.... It sounds nice BUT there aren't any studies that point to a concrete relationship.

So to help explain how the ACA will be paid for... (mind you that you don't pay for all of it once)

- Buy cutting taxes:

"Reducing the“hidden tax” on insured Americans: By making sure insurance covers people who are most at risk, there will be less uncompensated care and the amount of cost shifting among those who have coverage today will be reduced by up to $1 billion in 2013."

-http://www.healthreform.gov/newsroom/new_patients_bill_of_rights.html

- New jobs bring increased revenue from TAXES that remain unchanged, and Tax Credits give American more of their OWN MONEY to spend on something beside chemotherapy:

"...The Affordable Care Act includes tax credits to help make health care affordable for working families. Small businesses can begin claiming tax credits to help provide insurance to their employees this year. All told, the Affordable Care Act includes the largest middle-class tax cut for health care in American history. Additionally, independent experts predict that the new law will create jobs - estimated at more than 250,000 per year."

-http://www.whitehouse.gov/healthreform/myths-and-facts

By reducing Medicare advantage:

FactCheck.org: Cost Saving Provisions "Not A Slashing Of The Current Medicare Budget Or Benefits." According to FactCheck.org: "Whatever you want to call them, it's a $500 billion reduction in the growth of future spending over 10 years, not a slashing of the current Medicare budget or benefits. It's true that those who get their coverage through Medicare Advantage's private plans (about 22 percent of Medicare enrollees) would see fewer add-on benefits; the bill aims to reduce the heftier payments made by the government to Medicare Advantage plans, compared with regular fee-for-service Medicare. The Democrats' bill also boosts certain benefits: It makes preventive care free and closes the 'doughnut hole,' a current gap in prescription drug coverage for seniors." [FactCheck.org, 3/19/10]

Medicare Advantage Costs Taxpayers 14% More Than Traditional Medicare. As reported by PolitiFact.com:

Let's back-up for a minute and explain Medicare Advantage: There are two basic ways most people get Medicare coverage. They enroll in traditional Medicare and a prescription drug plan through the government and maybe buy a supplemental policy to cover most out-of-pocket costs. Or they enroll in Medicare Advantage programs (they include drug plans), which are run by private insurers. Medicare Advantage programs typically have more generous benefits such as dental and vision coverage. Some plans even pay the patient's monthly Medicare premium, which can amount to about $100.

The Medicare Advantage program was intended to bring more efficiency from the private sector to the Medicare program, but it hasn't worked as planned. A June 2009 analysis from the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission said that the Advantage programs costs taxpayers on average of 14 percent more than the traditional Medicare plan. President Barack Obama has said repeatedly that the Medicare Advantage plan wastes public money that could be put to better use.

[PolitiFact.com, 9/20/10]

- http://politicalcorrection.org/factcheck/201101250005

What was it you where talking about again... Oh Yeah RASING TAXES TO PAY FOR OBAMA CARE:

It’s worth remembering that the Affordable Care Act will give over one million Ohioans a middle class tax cuts to help them pay for health coverage.

- http://ohioconsumersforhealth.org/content/middle-class-tax-cuts-–-don’t-forget-affordable-care-act

For 2010, the major change for employers is the Small Employers Tax Credit, which is available for businesses with fewer than 25 employees and average wages of less than $50,000. Eligible employers can receive a tax credit of up to 35 percent (50% starting in 2014) of the employer’s contribution toward the employee’s premium. The credit will be computed along with the employer’s year end income tax return. Different rules apply to non-profit organizations.

- http://www.amper.com/publications/Tax-Patient-Protection-Care-Act-1010.asp

• The tax credit, which is effective immediately, can cover up to 35 percent of the premiums a small business pays to cover its workers. In 2014, the rate will increase to 50 percent.
• The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the tax credit will save small businesses $40 billion by 2019.

- http://www.sba.gov/about-offices-content/2/3104/news/5577

SO you want to claim that the Affordable Care act is going to raise taxes... Should I continue proving you wrong, because I can.

The Affordable Care act included more than 40 billion dollars in middle class and small business tax cuts.

(Sorry for the lengthy post folks.... but it was necessary to prove a point.)

If most of the jobs lost are Insurance paper pushers and death panels then good riddance to these blood-sucking bastards.

If most of the jobs lost are Insurance paper pushers and death panels then good riddance to these blood-sucking bastards.

Can we include government employees in your list as they are some of the "suckiest" blood suckers out there ...

I've never heard of that law. Do you live in the USA?

Adam Maybe you should read the Affordable Care Act .....

-http://docs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf

The ACA does nothing but increase competition between PRIVATE insurance companies by setting up insurance exchanges where private individuals acting as a larger private group get better rates and MORE CHOICES for what companies you want to pay for insurance. This isn't government run health care... It's Capitalism.

"Job-Killing" Health Care was the 2010 "Lie of the Year" from the 2009 Pulitzer prize winning St. Petersburg times Political blog "Politifact."

"Republicans have used the "job-killing" claim hundreds of times -- so often that they used the phrase in the name of the bill. It implies that job losses will be one of the most significant effects of the law. But they have flimsy evidence to back it up.

The phrase suggests a massive decline in employment, but the data doesn't support that. The Republican evidence is extrapolated from a report that was talking about a reduction in the labor supply rather than the loss of jobs, or based on measures that weren't included in the final health care law. We rate the statement False."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jan/20/eric-cantor/health-care-law-job-killer-evidence-falls-short/

One Half Percent decline over 10 years in the number of jobs NEEDED in the economy is NOT the same as Job- Killing, slashing, destroying or whatever other iteration Republicans can think of. A perfect example of misinformation combined with repetition....

"Job-Killing" Health Care was the 2010 "Lie of the Year" from the 2009 Pulitzer prize winning St. Petersburg times Political blog "Politifact."

Worth repeating! And so true!

This blog is so much more believable than the CBO(if it is supporting opponents of Obama's policies,but not if it supports his policies)? Typical left wing defense

Bob... I fully respect the CBO. Here's the thing, and you can read it here: http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201101070001

Republican CONGRESSMEN are doing what your say is the "typical left wing defense"...... They tout the CBO when it agree with them.... and they ridicule it when they disagree with them...

I have a much bigger problem with elected officials doing this then some liberals on a blog site...

Why not be critical and non partisan about the non partisan outcome the CBO comes to.

A perfect example of this is Paul Ryan who touted the CBO's mediocre estimate of his "Road Map for America" :

RYAN: Whatever you put in CBO — in front of them — they have to score what you put in front of them. They put this health care, we put the health care bill in front of them; the health care bill is full of gimmicks and spending tricks. [...]

So, what they have is a piece of paper that they've manipulated to say this thing reduces the deficit.

Conversely, here's a press release from Ryan's website hyping the CBO report on his entitlement-slashing "Roadmap for America's Future" budget plan:

According to CBO, A Roadmap for America's Future provides reforms that make possible a growing and prosperous U.S. economy. It ensures the Medicare program does not go bankrupt and makes Social Security permanently solvent. It does so without changing benefits for those who are currently 55 and older. It balances the budget and pays off the debt. In short, CBO concludes that the Roadmap would put the budget and economy on sustainable path compared to current policies that will bankrupt America.

Steve Benen's assessment (in the Washington Monthly) of the problem continues to ring true: "the GOP just loves the Congressional Budget Office, just so long as the party likes what it's hearing. On the other hand, Republicans consider the CBO unreliable and worthless when its information runs counter to their agenda."

http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201101070001

Paul Ryan STILL has infomation quoting the CBO, Using CBO data to build up the case for his "Road Map" - Ryan's website hyping the CBO report. The hypocrisy is astonishing!

Nobody can argue that health care dint need to be reformed,but making people buy it,and shifting the cost on businesses in the middle of a recession was very ignorant.There is no tort reform to control outrageous and sometimes frivolous lawsuits,which needed to be addressed as well as price controls for health insurers and pharmacuetical companies.I took my daughter to the emergency roon a few months back,after she fell into the bed frame in her room,the wound required some medical glue and sterilization creme which took the docter under 10 minutes to put on,and that was after waiting almost 3 hours in the E.R. waiting room,The hospital billed my insurance $1345.00.The docter we actually saw for under 2 minutes and the nurse di the rest which took 8 minutes.It took at least 20 minutes for me to fill out paperwork and answer insurance and payment questions.Also I payed a $100.00 deductible at the hospital that day.Final bill $1445.00.That was grossly over priced and nothing but robbery by the whole system on itself and me!!!!!!!!

@ lisaed...... the House hasn't accomplished ANYTHING... They can't even pass an extension of the Patriot Act... What are you talking about? Beohner has been completely inept so far as the House Leader examples here: ( http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201102100004) AND a Republican House representative (Chris Lee, R-NY) HAS RESIGNED after an online sex scandal... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH Yup what a great job the GOP HOUSE is doing.... (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2011/02/rep_chris_lee_r-craigslist.html)

How delusional can the fake republicans get?

Repealing Healthcare (which the GOP failed to do) as pointed out by Economist Divd Cutler, would have cost added more than 230 billion dollars to the deficit, and cost more than 400,000 jobs over the next decade -http://thinkprogress.org/2011/01/07/hcr-repeal-costs-jobs/

The HOUSE GOP spent two weeks working and then TOOK A TWO WEEK VACATION! They just got back to work after the Superbowl....

AND NOW they're working on passing HR 3 which is an ANTI ABORTION Bill... lisaed how is attacking a womans body going to CREATE JOBS?

How can you "shine a light on the job killing policies of President Barack Obama" WHEN WE HAVE HAD 11 STRAIGHT MONTHS OF POSITIVE JOB GROWTH AFTER more than 22 months under Bush era policies that saw NEGATIVE job numbers. One month before Obama took office the US LOST 800,000 jobs... under Bush.... in ONE MONTH!

If Obama's policies are "JOB KILLING" why then has the unemployment been steadily drooping for the last year. Why has there been POSITIVE job growth under Obama if his policies Kill Jobs....

Your claims are as baseless as the politicians you follow... The CLAIM "job Killing" has been refuted and proven WRONG time and time again. It's tired political rhetoric that doesn't stand up to the facts.

did you read what the CBO director said in his testimony my friend

Yeah..... I don't remember him talking about the "job killing obamacare" do you?

Reducing the workforce by "one half of one percent" is not the same as "KILLING" jobs. It's not as cut and dry as you'd like to think...

Here's a post from CBO director Douglas Elmendorf's blog from Jan 14th 2011:

I began by reviewing the budget estimates done by CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT):

• In combination, the initial legislation and the subsequent reconciliation act that modified it will generate changes in direct spending and revenue that will reduce federal deficits by $143 billion during the 2010-2019 period.

• The legislation will increase the size of the federal budget by increasing outlays by $411 billion and revenues by $525 billion over the next 10 years (excluding the provisions of the reconciliation act related to education, which will reduce spending by about $19 billion over that period).

• The legislation will increase the federal budgetary commitment to health care (the sum of net federal outlays for health programs and tax preferences for health care) by $390 billion over the next 10 years

- http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=650

It reduces the number of jobs in the workforce, reduces the federal deficit by more than 140 billion dollars and increases revenue by more than 500 billion dollars over the next 10 to 20 years....

Sounds like a win win for me. Especially considering the number of jobs that will NEVER come back as a result of the Bush Recession...

Albert

I am obviously not as smart as you, because the circular nature of your logic escapes me.

If the work force is reduced by 800,000 shouldn't we assume that these are jobs lost, otherwise why would they be part of the "work force"?

And just because other jobs wont come back from overseas has nothing to do with this.

With the logic presented, you should be in Congress not blogging about it

Albert,

ANYTHING to keep Obama in office and make him look good, right?

Huh?

I'm trying to explain that there is a difference between a reduction in the supply of labor and a reduction in the supply of jobs..... Maybe you don't understand that a reduction in labor isn't even close to JOB KILLING... G W Bush's last term was JOB KILLING... an example to compare.

This info was in the CBO report last August....

ANYTHING? How about truthfully representing the FACTS....

If employers not in the health care field lay off workers and export more jobs overseas in order to offset the increases in health care, how does that reduce the supply of labor? It isn't even close to being offset by an increased number of jobs within the health care field. Result; a loss of jobs that is JOB KILLING.

Reducing the workforce by "one half of one percent" is not the same as "KILLING" jobs.

It reduces the number of jobs in the workforce,

That's exactly what it is by your own admission.

Employers in the health care field are adding jobs and workers because so many more people will have health insurance under the new law and will be able to seek medical care that they couldn't afford previously...and because businesses health insurance costs will be less under the new law, they can afford to hire more workers.

New Jobs Through Better Health Care

Businesses health care costs will not be lower under the new law. They have already started up.

and because businesses health insurance costs will be less under the new law, they can afford to hire more workers

Redsfan--yeah....so we've been told.

Super

And just as ironic that the liberal left is downplaying this new information

Albert

You posted this yesterday and I commented then that reducing the workforce by 800,000 was eliminating jobs and not good with high unemployment.

You disagreed, I acknowledged that disagreement.

I feel the same way today.

I am saying that when the CBO states something that supports one side or the other, that side embraces it as the gospel and when it doesn't it is crazy political talk.

Get over yourself just a little

I appreciate the links to the sites, many of which I had seen, but some i had not.

I am not trying gain anything because, I want everyone to win, while you want to be right and to have the other side lose. You are a partisan first and an American second and that disgusts me.

Rob you're not comprehending this.... I didn't post ANY of what I just posted yesterday, These are two DIFFERENT articles explaining how Paul Ryan is misrepresenting what Douglas Elmendorf SAID.

This isn't ELIMINATING jobs for the sake of firing people.... what that 800,000 number represents are people that are primarily overworking to afford their insurance or predatory mortgage rates. Now that Employers must offer insurance that cost is taken OFF OF THE WORKFORCE. 800,000 jobs over the course of 10 years Rob. That won't effect the unemployment rate ONE BIT....

I'm over myself... I can't get over the misrepresentation of what was issued by the CBO in August and what was repeated by Elmendorf the other day.

A reduction in labor doesn't equal JOB LOSSES for individual Americans, and it doesn't effect the unemployment rate (which has been drooping btw) It's a "reduction in the amount of labor workers choose to supply" In other words... Workforce Optimization.

I understand you don't FEEL that there's a difference... I don't FEEL the moon but I know it's there.

Facts don't change according to your feeling AND THERE IS.... a difference between a reduction in the supply of labor (what this is) and a reduction in the supply of jobs (what YOU'RE talking about.

Partisan first? We've reached that point in the debate then?

....I'm a registered Republican, Rob.... I live in Massachusetts.... I voted against John Kerry his last campaign run, I voted for Scott Brown, who was running against... you guessed it a LIBERAL .... Should I tell you why I voted for Barney Frank over Sean Bielat? or what about my vote for the MA Gov whose a dem, but a middle man.... Here's the thing:

I support our President, whoever that person is. Like I supported Bush... and Clinton.... and Bush..... as long as their positions on issues are bolstered by vetted and tediously criticized FACTS.

The facts here don't change because you FEEL like a reduction in labor supply over the course of a decade is the same thing as JOB KILLING... it's not!

Here is another article explaining how the right-wing hysteria over this testimony is totally wrong...

In other words, people who are only working because they desperately need employer-sponsored health insurance will no longer do so. They're not going on the public dole -- they're just people who have the means not to work full-time and will be free to make employment decisions that aren't premised upon an individual health insurance market that shuts them out. Some workers will choose to retire early because they now have the ability to buy their own health insurance. This is what Republicans call "destroying jobs."

Sorry, The CBO Did Not Say Health Reform Kills 800,000 Jobs