What the CPO actually Said

[Loneiguana]

You may want to sit down for this, because it may shock you, but...

Why the new CBO report on Obamacare is good news

The Congressional Budget Office is out with its latest report on the Affordable Care Act, and here are a few bottom lines:
— The ACA is cheaper than it expected.
— It will "markedly increase" the number of Americans with health insurance.
— The risk-adjustment provisions, which Congressional Republicans want to overturn as a "bailout" of the insurance industry, will actually turn a profit to the U.S. Treasury.

Given all this, why are the first news headlines on the CBO report depicting it as calling Obamacare a job killer?

You can chalk up some of that to the crudity of headline-writing, and some to basic innumeracy in the press. But it's important to examine what the CBO actually says about the ACA's impact on the labor market. (You can find it at pages 117-127, excerpted here.)

The CBO projects that the act will reduce the supply of labor, not the availability of jobs. There's a big difference. In fact, it suggests that aggregate demand for labor (that is, the number of jobs) will increase, not decrease; but that many workers or would-be workers will be prompted by the ACA to leave the labor force, many of them voluntarily.

As economist Dean Baker points out, this is, in fact, a beneficial effect of the law, and a sign that it will achieve an important goal. It helps "older workers with serious health conditions who are working now because this is the only way to get health insurance. And (one for the family-values crowd) many young mothers who return to work earlier than they would like because they need health insurance. This is a huge plus."

The ACA will reduce the total hours worked by about 1.5% to 2% in 2017 to 2024, the CBO forecasts, "almost entirely because workers will choose to supply less labor — given the new taxes and other incentives they will face and the financial benefits some will receive." That translates into about 2.5 million full-time equivalents by 2024 — not the number of workers, because some will reduce their number of hours worked rather than leaving the workforce entirely.

The overall impact on the community will be muted, moreover, because most of that effect will be seen at the lowest levels of the wage-earning scale. The effect will be "small or negligible for most categories of workers," the CBO says, because there will be almost no impact on workers who get their insurance from their employers or who earn more than 400% of the federal poverty line (for a family of three, that's $78,120), the point at which eligibility for federal premium disappears.

As for labor demand, the CBO estimates that on balance, the ACA will increase aggregate demand for goods and services, in part by relieving lower-income people of the burden of health insurance or healthcare expenses, so they can increase their spending on other things. In turn, that will "boost demand for labor," especially in the near term, while the economy remains slack.

The rest of the CBO's economic and budgetary analysis has only modest changes from previous projections. It reduced its estimate of the net costs of the ACA by a vanishingly small $9 billion over 10 years compared to its previous estimate, issued in May. In part this is because many states failed to expand Medicaid, which would be almost entirely paid for by the federal government, and also because premiums are lower than it previously projected. Also, the problems of the healthcare.gov website reduced enrollments, cutting the government's bill for premium subsidies. Overall, the CBO reaffirmed its conclusion that that "the total effect of the ACA would be to reduce federal deficits."

The CBO report cuts the legs out from the GOP's attack on "risk corridors," a provision of the ACA that balances costs and expenses for insurance companies participating in the act by paying insurers whose coverage expenses exceed expectations by a certain margin in the first few years of the act, and collecting excess revenues from those whose expenses come in unexpectedly lower.

We've previously identified this GOP position as the most cynical attack on the ACA of all — the Republicans choose to call it a "bailout" of insurers; actually, it's a way of keeping premiums for some plans from getting out of hand, until the industry has more experience dealing with its new clientele. Unsurprisingly, the GOP is doubling down on this dishonesty by talking about eliminating the risk corridors as a condition for raising the federal debt limit.
The CBO, in any case, says that in 2015-2024, the government will pay out $8 billion in risk subsidies to the insurers but collect $16 billion. Real-world math says this is a gain to the Treasury of $8 billion; GOP math says it's a "bailout." You be the judge.

Regarding its most important bottom-line finding, the CBO says enrollment in individual insurance exchanges may reach only 6 million this year, down from its previous estimate of 7 million, thanks to the problems with the federal enrollment website, healthcare.gov. But it says enrollment will likely surge as the April 1 deadline for signing up approaches, and the 7-million goal is still attainable.

The ACA will increase the number of Americans with health insurance by 13 million this year, 20 million next year, and 25 million each year from then through 2024. Some 80% of those enrollees will be receiving federal subsidies to keep their coverage affordable.
There will be fewer uninsured people living in the United States, and most of those with individual coverage will be getting help to pay for it. Is there another other conclusion to draw from those statistics than the Affordable Care Act is working?

http://www.latimes.com/business/hilt...#axzz2sOnNHEGd

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by Loneiguana

So the CBO says "our economy will lose the equivalent of 2+ million jobs."

Not "The CBO projects that the act will reduce the supply of labor, not the availability of jobs."?

Too stupid to understand the difference between labor supply and job supply, eh?

Because the CBO says "In fact, it suggests that aggregate demand for labor (that is, the number of jobs) will increase, not decrease"

How can we lose 2 million jobs and the number of jobs increase?

Wait, we can't, you guys are full of B.S., stupid, or most likely both.

I actually read the relevant section of the report (Appendix C, for those too lazy to find it) and if you weren't an ignorant lazy twat you would have as well. What amazes me is that you can;t understand that the CBO CONCLUSION was that there will be a reduction of ~2 million jobs worth of hours worked. Period. That is the FINAL CONCLUSION. Get it? You don't get to go back and say ... "but this or that will mean MORE HOURS WORKED!" That IS NOT what the report says. They may be wrong, hell if I know... but I can at least ****ing READ THE REPORT.

Once again.. this is a quote FROM THE REPORT.

The reduction in CBO’s projections of hours worked
represents 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.

[mlyonsd]

Originally Posted by Loneiguana

No.

Feel free to provide any evidence.

I'm sure it is out there easy to find.

Not worth my time. I was just trying to see if you agreed with what the CBO Chief basically said in a hearing today.

[RedNeckRaider]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

You are truly one dumb sonofabitch.

That's EXACTLY what it says. READ THE DAMN REPORT YOU LAZY ****.



You then go on to say that the CBO report says that there will be an increase in demand therefore more jobs! Except that is not what they are saying. If you weren't a moron you'd be able to see that. The report takes all of that into account and gives a FINAL ANALYSIS that states HOURS WORKED will be reduced. Period.

I am not saying the report is accurate or that I endorse it... I am only stating that YOU obviously are clueless on what it actually says.

I'd encourage you to read it but let's be honest, there's not a chance in hell you'd understand it.

This clown is the energizer bunny. He will keep repeating the same thing over and over. He is a total waste of time~

[blake5676]

Originally Posted by Loneiguana

That huge number you guys like to throw around, equals 1.5% to 2% of the total hours worked. Not a big deal. Also, according to the CBO "almost entirely because workers will choose to supply less labor — given the new taxes and other incentives they will face and the financial benefits some will receive."

So, your repetitive argument is that there are no hours of labor lost because someone new will come take those jobs.
---Most would agree. We have plenty unemployed who want to work

Your next argument is that the CBO states people will have more money to spend and demand will increase, leading to more new jobs.
---I'm not sure it's a direct correlation like that, but I'll give it to you for the sake of this argument.

The thing I really want to know is this:

If people are working less hours and leaving their jobs because they don't need them for health insurance, yet also spending more money on goods....WHERE THE HELL ARE THEY GETTING THIS EXTRA MONEY???? This is so puzzling to me. A person is no longer going to work because they don't have to in order to get employer sponsored insurance, yet they are also going to be having more to spend even though they aren't earning an income. How does this happen? Because they are getting subsidized health insurance! But nobody actually really pays for that. It's just fake play money, right?

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by Loneiguana

It says that in part of a much larger context. It does not SPECIFICALLY state that. Read the rest of the report. You lie by omission.

I've actually read it, and wait.. wait... I ACTUALLY UNDERSTOOD IT!

Originally Posted by Loneiguana

No, the report says this:
And you claim to have read it? Lie more.

At no point in any of my posts have I stated that the report says the availability of jobs will be reduced. Not once. The report doesn't say that.

It simply states that the NUMBER OF HOURS WORKED will be reduced. Period. end of story. There is no way around this. It is what the report states very clearly for anyone with an ounce of reading comprehension.

You keep stating that it does not. Obviously you are clueless.

[HonestChieffan]

People can quit jobs and taxpayers will supply Health care. Food stamps, Section 8…its Lones perfect world….

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by blake5676

So, your repetitive argument is that there are no hours of labor lost because someone new will come take those jobs.
---Most would agree. We have plenty unemployed who want to work

Except that isn't how the report works. It doesn't say that X number of people will cut back on their hours to the tune of ~2 million workers and maybe Y will come pick up those hours. The report says that AFTER accounting for X and Y the FINAL number will be a reduction in hours worked.

LoneVillageIdiot can't seem to grasp this very simple concept.

[blake5676]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

Except that isn't how the report works. It doesn't say that X number of people will cut back on their hours to the tune of ~2 million workers and maybe Y will come pick up those hours. The report says that AFTER accounting for X and Y the FINAL number will be a reduction in hours worked.

LoneVillageIdiot can't seem to grasp this very simple concept.

Yeah, I know. But I was giving him benefit of the doubt and conceding to his misguided interpretation in hopes he would explain my ending question of where the F%$# this extra money is coming from for these people no longer working for their healthcare.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by blake5676

Yeah, I know. But I was giving him benefit of the doubt and conceding to his misguided interpretation in hopes he would explain my ending question of where the F%$# this extra money is coming from for these people no longer working for their healthcare.

Don't bother, he lives in a fantasy world.

you made a damn good point though, sadly lost on his ilk.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by blake5676

So, your repetitive argument is that there are no hours of labor lost because someone new will come take those jobs.
---Most would agree. We have plenty unemployed who want to work

Your next argument is that the CBO states people will have more money to spend and demand will increase, leading to more new jobs.
---I'm not sure it's a direct correlation like that, but I'll give it to you for the sake of this argument.

The thing I really want to know is this:

If people are working less hours and leaving their jobs because they don't need them for health insurance, yet also spending more money on goods....WHERE THE HELL ARE THEY GETTING THIS EXTRA MONEY???? This is so puzzling to me. A person is no longer going to work because they don't have to in order to get employer sponsored insurance, yet they are also going to be having more to spend even though they aren't earning an income. How does this happen? Because they are getting subsidized health insurance! But nobody actually really pays for that. It's just fake play money, right?

I believe the "extra money" is coming from the previously unemployed who get the jobs of the people that voluntarily left.

There are a large number of people who are ready to retire but need health insurance which would be very expensive at their age, particularly with pre-existing conditions a lot people have as they get older. These are generally people with a few years to go until Medicare kicks in. They need to continue insurance until then, so they keep working.

[Loneiguana]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

I actually read the relevant section of the report (Appendix C, for those too lazy to find it) and if you weren't an ignorant lazy twat you would have as well. What amazes me is that you can;t understand that the CBO CONCLUSION was that there will be a reduction of ~2 million jobs worth of hours worked. Period. That is the FINAL CONCLUSION. Get it? You don't get to go back and say ... "but this or that will mean MORE HOURS WORKED!" That IS NOT what the report says. They may be wrong, hell if I know... but I can at least ****ing READ THE REPORT.

Once again.. this is a quote FROM THE REPORT.

You are lying by omission and leaving out everything else the Report says.

Pathetic, even for you.

Look, When Paul Ryan is calling saying your wrong, you should just stop.

Paul Ryan Fact-Checks Republicans On Obamacare Job 'Costs

At least one Republican is setting the record straight on what the Congressional Budget Office actually said this week about Obamacare and its effect on jobs.

House Budget Chair Paul Ryan (R-WI) explained in a Wednesday hearing with CBO director Doug Elmendorf that the health care reform law wouldn't cost the U.S. economy more than 2 million jobs, as many of his colleagues alleged, but that Americans would choose to work less.

"I want to make sure we accurately understand what it is you are saying," Ryan said, before leading Elmendorf through a series of questions to explain the report and its findings.

Ryan and Elmendorf combined to explain that Obamacare would lead to a decrease in the number of hours worked by up to 2 percent in 2024. Most of that drop, the CBO said, would be the result of Americans choosing not to work, for various reasons, but not because employers would want to hire fewer workers on account of the law. Translate those lost hours into full-time employment and it equals up to 2.5 million jobs by 2024. But that's not the same as jobs being cut.

"Just to understand, it is not that employers are laying people off," Ryan said.

"That is right," Elmendorf said.

That's a pretty direct contradiction for the attack adopted by many GOPers following the report's release. Senate Republicans blasted out an email, saying that Obamacare would "print more pink slips." Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and others alleged that the law would "cost" the country more than 2 million jobs. A number of conservative outlets framed the report as "pushing" Americans out of the workforce, rather than it being of their own volition.

To be clear, Ryan wasn't thrilled with the CBO's finding. He said he was "troubled" by the report because it suggested that Obamacare was encouraging Americans "not to get on the ladder of life, to begin working, getting the dignity of work, getting more opportunities, rising the income, joining the middle class."

"This means fewer people will do that," he said.

But, after a day in which official Washington spent most of its energy debating what the CBO report actually said, Ryan did make a point to get the truth out in the open.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewir...gop-job-losses

Still has some derp. But at least he isn't lying like you are.

[Loneiguana]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

I've actually read it, and wait.. wait... I ACTUALLY UNDERSTOOD IT!


At no point in any of my posts have I stated that the report says the availability of jobs will be reduced. Not once. The report doesn't say that.

It simply states that the NUMBER OF HOURS WORKED will be reduced. Period. end of story. There is no way around this. It is what the report states very clearly for anyone with an ounce of reading comprehension.

You keep stating that it does not. Obviously you are clueless.

Well, outside of where you agreed with patty stance, I know that.

What I'm saying is you are lying by omission by leaving out large parts of what else the CBO says. Not period.

Ignore this all you want, but its right there:L
"The CBO projects that the act will reduce the supply of labor, not the availability of jobs. There's a big difference. In fact, it suggests that aggregate demand for labor (that is, the number of jobs) will increase, not decrease;"

How can the number of hours be reduced and jobs be created?

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by Loneiguana

You are lying by omission and leaving out everything else the Report says.

Pathetic, even for you.

Look, When Paul Ryan is calling saying your wrong, you should just stop.

Paul Ryan Fact-Checks Republicans On Obamacare Job 'Costs


http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewir...gop-job-losses

Still has some derp. But at least he isn't lying like you are.

Nothing you just posted contradicts ANYTHING I have said. Nor does it support your FALSE claim that total HOURS worked won't be reduced. If you weren't a complete moron you'd see that.

I am not omitting anything that is relevant to the ONE point I have made, which is that you are DEAD wrong in your claim that the CBO report states total hours worked will not be reduced.

[Loneiguana]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

Except that isn't how the report works. It doesn't say that X number of people will cut back on their hours to the tune of ~2 million workers and maybe Y will come pick up those hours. The report says that AFTER accounting for X and Y the FINAL number will be a reduction in hours worked.

LoneVillageIdiot can't seem to grasp this very simple concept.

Because it doesn't say that.

You keep lying.

"The CBO projects that the act will reduce the supply of labor, not the availability of jobs. There's a big difference. In fact, it suggests that aggregate demand for labor (that is, the number of jobs) will increase, not decrease"

You still don't understand the difference between supply of labor and supply of jobs.

And when accounting for everything, the report says.

"As for labor demand, the CBO estimates that on balance, the ACA will increase aggregate demand for goods and services, in part by relieving lower-income people of the burden of health insurance or healthcare expenses, so they can increase their spending on other things. In turn, that will "boost demand for labor," especially in the near term, while the economy remains slack. "

Lie more.

[Loneiguana]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

Nothing you just posted contradicts ANYTHING I have said. Nor does it support your FALSE claim that total HOURS worked won't be reduced. If you weren't a complete moron you'd see that.

I am not omitting anything that is relevant to the ONE point I have made, which is that you are DEAD wrong in your claim that the CBO report states total hours worked will not be reduced.

Until you figure out that the total hours worked is in the supply of labor, not the supply of jobs, I'm going to continue to laugh at you.