“Congressional Budget Office sends death-blow to ObamaCare”


From the great Michael Ramirez


Here’s an item from about two weeks ago that shouldn’t be missed:




Posted from Waikoloa, Hawai’i



Latter-day Saint humanitarian work
“5 places women shouldn’t spend their travel dollars”
“Taking a leaf from the Armenians’ book”
Meet Earth’s other moon!
  • DanielPeterson

    I can’t think of anybody who has predicted that, in 2024, 2.5 million people will lose their jobs.

    • ahermit

      That’s the subject of the 9th through 12th paragraphs of that hysterical article.

      • kiwi57

        Is it?

        Here are pargraphs 9 and 10:

        If that’s not startling enough, there’s also the telling projection about ObamaCare’s affect on employment — “a decline in the number of full-time-equivalent workers of about 2.0 million in 2017, rising to about 2.5 million in 2024.”

        Overall employment will rise, the report says, but not steady, secure, long-term assured employment. The possibility of securing government-provided healthcare without employment will give people a new incentive to avoid it. “The estimated reduction stems almost entirely from a net decline in the amount of labor that workers choose to supply,” the report says.

        So the article says that hardly anybody will “lose their jobs,” but an awful lot of people will decide the game is not worth the candle.

        At least, that’s the article I read. You might have read something different.

        • utex

          I have to ask, is the ACA mentality not exactly the same one that incentivized “generational welfare”? Short term thinking says that this is a good thing. The longer view might be much different.

  • Brock Lesnar

    Dan interesting article. However, some interesting and important points were not discussed. Indeed, when one looks at the whole story, it’s difficult to understand the GOP spin.

    From the article: ““The estimated reduction stems almost entirely from a net decline in the amount of labor that workers choose to supply,” the report says.”

    So, it appears that this “unemployment” will be a choice by some workers who will no longer have to work just to keep thier health insurance.

    Further, here is the rest of the COB quote, that the article did not include: “The estimated reduction stems almost entirely from a net decline in the amount of labor that workers choose to supply, rather than from a net drop in businesses’ demand for labor, so it will appear almost entirely as a reduction in labor force participation and in hours worked relative to what would have occurred otherwise rather than as an increase in unemployment (that is, more workers seeking but not finding jobs) or underemployment (such as part-time workers who would prefer to work more hours per week).” http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/02/04/no-cbo-did-not-say-obamacare-will-kill-2-million-jobs/

    So let’s review. This reduction in employment/hours will happen “almost entirely because workers will choose to supply less labor” — because they will now have more options. So, people like new mothers, significantly sick people, and ailing retirees won’t have to work as much, or at all in some cases, because the Affordable Care Act made their health care costs much more manageable. Is this awful or good? You be the judge.

    As Paul Harvey was famous for saying, now you know the rest of the story.

    • kiwi57

      The experience here in New Zealand is that people on too-comfortable, too-easily continuable welfare will indeed choose not to work, because if they do, they see themselves as financially worse off.

      Not too many people here see this as a good thing. Just FWIW.

      • Jeremy Alleman

        I saw that on my mission in the Netherlands. People would “work” one day a month to fill out their government benefit papers, then go about living a supplimented life. Everyone else had to pay about 40-60% of their income to supplement these people.

        I also had a family in my ward where the dad lost his job, and the mom was in a position to do substitute teaching to suppliment their income. While this doesn’t provide enough money to really do much, she would have earned too much money to qualify for Medicare and WIC. My personal opinion is that any system that prevents people from getting back on their feet is worthless.

    • utex

      Oops! Not quite the rest of the story. The medical bills of people who choose not to work do not vanish but must be picked up by those who are still working; thereby, making their medical “bill” more “unmanageable”. The responsibility for the creation of the “wealth” that pays for all of this falls on the shoulders of fewer people. The resulting perception of unfairness among those who work becomes a disincentive to them. It is a cycle that must be accounted for in order to gain a better understanding of the outcome.

  • kjus

    This should clear things up. It’s straight from the CBO http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45096

    • Brock Lesnar


      Thanks. That certainly does clear things up. From the CBO:

      “Q: Will 2.5 Million People Lose Their Jobs in 2024 Because of the ACA?

      A: No, we would not describe our estimates in that way.

      We wrote in the report: “CBO estimates that the ACA will reduce the total number of hours worked, on net, by about 1.5 percent to 2.0 percent during the period from 2017 to 2024, almost entirely because workers will choose to supply less labor.” The reason for the reduction in the supply of labor is that the provisions of the ACA reduce the incentive to work for certain subsets of the population.”

      Looks like reality is almost the exact opposite of the OP.

      • brotheroflogan

        Sounds like an enormous drop in the productivity of our economy which, in my mind, cannot help but have an adverse effect on job growth. So, indirectly, I think this represents huge job losses over the next few years, and lower standards of living.

      • kiwi57

        No. It looks like reality does not support the wild misreadings of the article.

        The OP itself takes no position.