800,000 Jobs Gone: CBO Admits Health Care Law Will Kill Jobs

[Peter Pan]

800,000 Jobs Gone: CBO Admits Health Care Law Will Kill Jobs
Posted on February 10, 2011 at 4:23pm by Naked Emperor News Print » Email »


http://www.theblaze.com/stories/8000...ill-kill-jobs/


From the unbiased CBO, fast track the Health Care Law to the Supreme Court and there decision will let us know if Govt will be able to control our entire lives, jobs, seems we know where some are kill the bill

[ChasC5]

CBO: Health law to cut workforce by 800,000 - J. Lester Feder and Kate Nocera - POLITICO.com

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).


The report, published in August, said, "The Congressional Budget Office 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 … That net effect reflects changes in incentives in the labor market that operate in both directions: Some provisions of the legislation will discourage people from working more hours or entering the workforce, and other provisions will encourage them to work more.”

Republicans gleefully seized on the admission, eagerly promoting it as evidence of what they call the law’s job-killing effect.

“More bad news for American families,” was how Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s office described the report in a release.

“Since day one Republicans have opposed Obamacare for a simple reason: it would destroy jobs. Minority Leader Pelosi, Leader Reid and others said we were wrong. Guess not," said John Murray, deputy chief of staff for Majority Leader Eric Cantor.

How many of us know Women who are working only for supplement or supply insurance ONLY?

[Exotix]

What about this one from comments ...

by laughing_dingo
Posted on February 10, 2011 at 4:59pm


This is a distortion of what the CBO said.

This is what is in the actual CBO report–

“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.

That net effect reflects changes in incentives in the labor market that operate in both directions: Some provisions of the legislation will discourage people from working more hours or entering the workforce, and other provisions will encourage them to work more.

Moreover, many people will be unaffected by those provisions and will face the same incentives regarding work as they do under current law.”

Basically, the CBO is saying that some people right now are working mostly to keep their health insurance.

Once they have other options — to enroll in Medicaid, or to qualify for tax breaks to buy insurance from a health exchange — they might choose to work less.

The CBO describes this as a “small segment” of the population.

And, because the CBO is describing REDUCED HOURS rather than lost jobs, it never uses the 650,000 number that the Republican document cites.

The Republican extrapolated that number from the CBO’s estimate of one-half percent of the labor supply.

Finally, a person who voluntarily chooses to work less is not having their job “killed” by federal legislation.

[ChasC5]

Originally Posted by Exotix

What about this one from comments ...

by laughing_dingo
Posted on February 10, 2011 at 4:59pm


This is a distortion of what the CBO said.

This is what is in the actual CBO report–

“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.

That net effect reflects changes in incentives in the labor market that operate in both directions: Some provisions of the legislation will discourage people from working more hours or entering the workforce, and other provisions will encourage them to work more.

Moreover, many people will be unaffected by those provisions and will face the same incentives regarding work as they do under current law.”

Basically, the CBO is saying that some people right now are working mostly to keep their health insurance.

Once they have other options — to enroll in Medicaid, or to qualify for tax breaks to buy insurance from a health exchange — they might choose to work less.

The CBO describes this as a “small segment” of the population.

And, because the CBO is describing REDUCED HOURS rather than lost jobs, it never uses the 650,000 number that the Republican document cites.

The Republican extrapolated that number from the CBO’s estimate of one-half percent of the labor supply.

Finally, a person who voluntarily chooses to work less is not having their job “killed” by federal legislation.

Oh my GOD; say it ain’t so … you mean it will actually be more efficient?

WTF; we can’t let that happen!

[Exotix]

Originally Posted by ChasC5

Oh my GOD; say it ain’t so … you mean it will actually be more efficient?

WTF; we can’t let that happen!

Why do you think he calls himself Peter Pan ... just like the entire (neo) congressional (R)/Tea Party apparatus ..

[ChasC5]

Originally Posted by Exotix

Why do you think he calls himself Peter Pan ... just like the entire (neo) congressional (R)/Tea Party apparatus ..

Sound like Fiscal Conservationism is a bad thing now.

[Exotix]

Originally Posted by ChasC5

Sound like Fiscal Conservationism is a bad thing now.

Doesn't make sense ... the entire conservative political body wants to erode public trust while at the same time wanting you to believe them by atttacking Social Security and Medicare for the purpose of their destruction ... by calling themselves Reagan ... this is how you say Bush & Cheney never existed by inviting them to CPAC ? ...

[ChasC5]

Originally Posted by Exotix

Doesn't make sense ... the entire conservative political body wants to erode public trust while at the same time wanting you to believe them by atttacking Social Security and Medicare for the purpose of their destruction ... by calling themselves Reagan ... this is how you say Bush & Cheney never existed by inviting them to CPAC ? ...

So yes or no … do they what to cut the fat “EVERYWHERE” of NOT?

[Exotix]

Originally Posted by ChasC5

So yes or no … do they what to cut the fat “EVERYWHERE” of NOT?

Here's Virginia *Ginnie Chin Chin* Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, who will be ruling on the constitutionality of Healthcare reform ... with her *Give me Liberty of Give me Death* Tiara ... she likes herself fat, so that should answer the question ...

[Z06PDQ]

so...what do we have here? another attempt at distortion of the truth by the Reich?...yep....moving right along.

[ChasC5]

Originally Posted by Z06PDQ

so...what do we have here? another attempt at distortion of the truth by the Reich?...yep....moving right along.

Just another day in the life of the GOP.

Misinformation; keep them stupid and they'll believe.

[RetiredSFC 97]

so we have people actually working so that they may provide for themself.

Now they have no need to because the government will provide what they were working for.

Do you people actually read what you type? Don't answer I know the question.

Question?

Who is the pivot man in your circle jerks? don't answer that either as I'm sure you fight for the honor.

[Exotix]

Originally Posted by RetiredSFC 97

so we have people actually working so that they may provide for themself.

Now they have no need to because the government will provide what they were working for.

Do you people actually read what you type? Don't answer I know the question.

Question?

Who is the pivot man in your circle jerks? don't answer that either as I'm sure you fight for the honor.

That's one way to look at it ... another way to look at it is the Tea Baggers at yesterdays CPAC ... *cut-em off and they will have to get up and go find a job* ... nice consolation to the 36,000 Iraq & Afghanistan Veterans permanantly disabled and paraplegics and quadraplegics ...

[Z06PDQ]

Originally Posted by RetiredSFC 97

so we have people actually working so that they may provide for themself.

Now they have no need to because the government will provide what they were working for.

Do you people actually read what you type? Don't answer I know the question.

Question?

Who is the pivot man in your circle jerks? don't answer that either as I'm sure you fight for the honor.

yeah suuuure, they enjoy the same lifestyle they had before they lost their homes in a bankruptcy caused by the number one reason people are losing these things [ personal health care crisis]. don't look now, but there's circle jerk goo all over your hypocrisy.

[Exotix]

Originally Posted by Z06PDQ

yeah suuuure, they enjoy the same lifestyle they had before they lost their homes in a bankruptcy caused by the number one reason people are losing these things [ personal health care crisis]. don't look now, but there's circle jerk goo all over your hypocrisy.

He only comes over here after *servicing Grumpy, mhill, seafive and all the other gay reich-wingers* ... what a weirdo ...

[RetiredSFC 97]

you clowns don't get it, you will never get it. You're lazy and looking for a handout.


As far as the injured military members. They have and will always have VA benefits.

but how would I expect a bunch of clowns who never wore a uniform to know that

And now the head pivot man wants to call me a weirdo. WTF ever, get a life and earn it.

[Exotix]

Originally Posted by RetiredSFC 97

you clowns don't get it, you will never get it. You're lazy and looking for a handout.


As far as the injured military members. They have and will always have VA benefits.

but how would I expect a bunch of clowns who never wore a uniform to know that

And now the head pivot man wants to call me a weirdo. WTF ever, get a life and earn it.

Your buddy _Will is here explaining how poor-people, old-people and all the wretched of society are the reason for catastrophic deficts that have brought America down since Reagan ... surely you have something to add besides coming over here from CFPR&C with the same'ol-angry'ol-man-who's-finished-in life shit ...

[ChasC5]

Originally Posted by Exotix

He only comes over here after *servicing Grumpy, mhill, seafive and all the other gay reich-wingers* ... what a weirdo ...

[Z06PDQ]

GOP supported Single Payer HC in IRAQ, why not US?

Article 31 of the Iraqi Constitution, drafted by the Bush administration in 2005 and ratified by the Iraqi people, includes state-guaranteed (single payer) healthcare for life for every Iraqi citizen.

Article 31 reads:
"First: Every citizen has the right to health care. The State shall maintain public health and provide the means of prevention and treatment by building different types of hospitals and health institutions.

Second: Individuals and entities have the right to build hospitals, clinics, or
private health care centers under the supervision of the State, and this shall be regulated by law."

There are other health care guarantees, including special provisions for children, the elderly, and the handicapped elsewhere in the 43-page document.

Under force of arms, President Bush imposed his particular idea of democracy on a people not asking for it - perhaps a noble undertaking in one context and a criminal violation of international law in another. Bush's followers are proud of the Iraqi Constitution, a model for the world, they told us.

So, according to the American political right-wing, government-guaranteed health care is good for Iraqis, but not good for us. Not good for you. They decry even a limited public option for you, but gleefully imposed upon the Iraqis what they label here as "socialism," with much Democratic Party member support.

Indeed, reading the Iraqi Constitution so near to the 8th anniversary of September 11, 2001 is instructive. It is the very definition of American right-wing hypocrisy.

We have (thus far) sacrificed more blood to wrest Iraq from tyranny than we lost on 9/11.
In addition, according to the Congressional Research Service, as of May 15, 2009 (Report 7-5700/RL33110) we have spent and/or authorized $864 Billion in military operations on Operation Enduring Freedom, which includes Iraq and Afghanistan. The overwhelming majority of those funds have been for the war in Iraq. Additional secret funding has been authorized for intelligence and special operations.

The total is more than (or, in the worst case, equal to) the funding required to guarantee minimally decent health care here.

In other words, the most senior members of the Republican establishment - and some Democrats like Max Baucus (D-MT) - have gladly spent more taxpayer funds to ensure health care as a Constitutional right in Iraq than they are willing to spend to give you any level of guaranteed coverage.

The source document I used is from the official United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq. If you'd like to download and review the full Iraqi Constitution, click HERE

This news is an example of the benefit of our online viral information age. The situation was first called to my attention late yesterday (September 8) by a long-term blogger, Korkie Moore-Bruno, on a think tank list of Obama supporters. Korkie posted an alert from her Facebook friend Jubal Harshaw. Give them credit for the heads-up; all I've done was verify the rumor with the United Nations.

It would seem that U. S. citizens might find out if their Representative and/or Senators have supported or voted to fund the war in Iraq. If so, do they support health care as a civil right for you?

If the answers to those questions are "yes" and "no," respectively, you might consider less hypocritical representation.



News Videos: Top News & Daily Political News Videos // Current...

[Exotix]

Originally Posted by Z06PDQ

GOP supported Single Payer HC in IRAQ, why not US ?

Article 31 of the Iraqi Constitution, drafted by the Bush administration in 2005 and ratified by the Iraqi people, includes state-guaranteed (single payer) healthcare for life for every Iraqi citizen.

Article 31 reads:
"First: Every citizen has the right to health care. The State shall maintain public health and provide the means of prevention and treatment by building different types of hospitals and health institutions.

Second: Individuals and entities have the right to build hospitals, clinics, or
private health care centers under the supervision of the State, and this shall be regulated by law."

There are other health care guarantees, including special provisions for children, the elderly, and the handicapped elsewhere in the 43-page document.

Under force of arms, President Bush imposed his particular idea of democracy on a people not asking for it - perhaps a noble undertaking in one context and a criminal violation of international law in another.

Bush's followers are proud of the Iraqi Constitution, a model for the world, they told us.

So, according to the American political right-wing, government-guaranteed health care is good for Iraqis, but not good for us.
Not good for you.
They decry even a limited public option for you, but gleefully imposed upon the Iraqis what they label here as "socialism," with much Democratic Party member support.