New CBO numbers: Obamacare will cost the US 2.5 million jobs

it sounds like you are spinning this backwards. Had you said that productivity would be down....then you might be on to something. Originally Posted by WTF

Possible Effects on Labor Supply

Through Productivity

In addition to the effects discussed above, the ACA could

shape the labor market or the operations of the health

sector in ways that affect labor productivity. For example,

to the extent that increases in insurance coverage lead to

improved health among workers, labor productivity

could be enhanced. In addition, the ACA could influence

labor productivity indirectly by making it easier for some

employees to obtain health insurance outside the workplace

and thereby prompting those workers to take jobs

that better match their skills, regardless of whether those

jobs offered employment-based insurance.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.document...bor-report.pdf Originally Posted by WTF

Hey WTFuglyass, which is it? Will Odumbocare make productivity go up or down? You seem confused and waffling and unable to make up your mind on this point...

And nice job cherry-picking the CBO report... after you flipped and decided to argue for higher productivity (you were probably too stupid to remember what you posted earlier), you lifted a single paragraph out of the CBO report and omitted the one immediately following it:

"Some employers, however, might invest less in their
workers—by reducing training, for example—if the
turnover of employees increased because their health
insurance was no longer tied so closely to their jobs.
Furthermore, productivity could be reduced if businesses
shifted toward hiring more part-time employees to avoid
paying the employer penalty and if part-time workers
operated less efficiently than full-time workers did."

The CBO concluded that these effects were "difficult to quantify and they influence labor productivity in offsetting directions" so it punted on the question of whether Odumbocare will make overall productivity go up or down. You get a C- for actually reading part of the CBO report - and an F for not understanding or explaining it properly, and another F for being inconsistent and contradictory in your own views.

I get your lying spinning picture...Now some facts about just wtf the CBO said. Originally Posted by WTF

Paul Krugman is the most liberal economist on the planet - and even he admits that the withdrawal of labor supply due to Odumbocare will result in slower economic growth:

"When someone chooses to work less, he or she imposes a hidden cost on everyone else, because he or she ends up paying less in taxes – or in some cases gets to collect more in means-tested benefits... How big is this effect? If we believe the CBO estimate, labor withdrawal should reduce GDP by slightly over 0.5 percent... If we assume a marginal tax rate of 40 percent for the relevant workers, this is a bit over 0.2 percent of GDP."

He also estimates how much everyone will be forced to fork over in subsidies under Odumbocare:

"We know that Obamacare has costs to the subsidizers, in the form of the subsidies that must be paid – about 0.9 percent of GDP — and that eventually must be reflected in higher taxes or lower spending than would otherwise take place."

Do the math - 0.9% of GDP means the makers will be paying around $140 billion a year to subsidize the takers.

So there you have it folks, straight from the mouth of the most liberal economist on the planet. Now be smart and make sure you reduce YOUR work hours so YOU can collect Odumbo's fat new government handout (averaging $5,510 per person).


http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/201...-people-work/?

Can this $5500 be gotten in cash, or does it have to be worthless insurance that doesn't do shit?

Paul Krugman is the most liberal economist on the planet - and even he admits that the withdrawal of labor supply due to Odumbocare will result in slower economic growth:

"When someone chooses to work less, he or she imposes a hidden cost on everyone else, because he or she ends up paying less in taxes – or in some cases gets to collect more in means-tested benefits... How big is this effect? If we believe the CBO estimate, labor withdrawal should reduce GDP by slightly over 0.5 percent... If we assume a marginal tax rate of 40 percent for the relevant workers, this is a bit over 0.2 percent of GDP."

He also estimates how much everyone will be forced to fork over in subsidies under Odumbocare:

"We know that Obamacare has costs to the subsidizers, in the form of the subsidies that must be paid – about 0.9 percent of GDP — and that eventually must be reflected in higher taxes or lower spending than would otherwise take place."

Do the math - 0.9% of GDP means the makers will be paying around $140 billion a year to subsidize the takers.

So there you have it folks, straight from the mouth of the most liberal economist on the planet. Now be smart and make sure you reduce YOUR work hours so YOU can collect Odumbo's fat new government handout (averaging $5,510 per person).


http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/201...-people-work/? Originally Posted by lustylad

Krugman goes on to say at the bottom of the article:

"But when you take paternalism and prejudice out of the picture, what you’re left with is some pretty prosaic economics. Should you care how much other people work? Yes, a little – but not so much that it should change anyone’s views about health reform."

This does not sound like a push to go back to the old system individual market and leave 40 million people uninsured.

This does not sound like a push to go back to the old system individual market and leave 40 million people uninsured. Originally Posted by flghtr65

But this sounds like one of those scratchy 78 records that keep bouncing the needle.

"The old system individual market" ....

..do you mean the one we still have?

"Socialized Health Care Creap" .. If we keep repeating it someone will start believing it!

That's because the LIBERALS think they are talking to first graders.

"Socialized Health Care Creap" .. If we keep repeating it someone will start believing it!
Originally Posted by LexusLover

LexusLover, I have a question for you. When your tax dollar and my tax dollar goes to help senior citizens (people over age 65) pay for medications that can't afford on their own (Bush - Medicare Part D prescription drug plan) is this Socialism? The estimated cost by the CBO is 800 billion. Do you support this legislation? If you do does that make you a socialist? Does it make Bush a socialist? Bush signed the bill into law.

Krugman goes on to say at the bottom of the article:

"But when you take paternalism and prejudice out of the picture, what you’re left with is some pretty prosaic economics. Should you care how much other people work? Yes, a little – but not so much that it should change anyone’s views about health reform."

This does not sound like a push to go back to the old system individual market and leave 40 million people uninsured. Originally Posted by flghtr65

What did you expect? Did you think the most liberal economist on the planet would NOT be a big defender of Odumbocare? Now that you know, here's what you should do for the sake of accuracy - go back and double or triple Krugman's estimates of the ACA's costs, since he is always trying to downplay and minimize them.

As far as caring how much other people work - I already said I don't care. Provided the rest of us don't have to PAY them for not working.

Oh, and about the "40 million uninsured" you keep whining about. Do you know how many will STILL be uninsured after Odumbocare is fully implemented in 2023? Over 30 million! And that's not my forecast - it's from the CBO. What makes you keep defending a program that will only help a fraction of the uninsured and will permanently fuck up the healthcare system for everyone else?

Are you familiar with the saying "the cure is worse than the disease"?

LUSTYLADYBOY...I said productivity would be down. I then quoted the CBO report that discusses where i could be wrong. Furthermore i clearly stated that It is a individual opinion if this is a good thing. If you want productivity to really go up we could go back to slavery. We as a society have decided that is not a good thing. So society has made productivity vs quality of life choices throughout time. This is just a classic labor vs management issue.

Oh, and about the "40 million uninsured" you keep whining about. Do you know how many will STILL be uninsured after Odumbocare is fully implemented in 2023? Over 30 million! And that's not my forecast - it's from the CBO. What makes you keep defending a program that will only help a fraction of the uninsured and will permanently fuck up the healthcare system for everyone else?
Originally Posted by lustylad

You have stated how many will be left uninsured. You did not state how many will be insured due to the ACA. According to the CBO 32 million will be insured after 2019. Here is an accounting of the number of people who will be left uninsured. There are 8 million illegal aliens who don't qualify for the ACA or Medicaid. Some people will be eligible for Medicaid, but will not sign up for it. Some people will choose to not get health insurance and pay the tax. The 32 million people who will get health insurance due to the ACA need health insurance too. The individual market old system will not insure these people. From the link below.

The ACA has two primary mechanisms for increasing insurance coverage: expanding Medicaid eligibility to include individuals within 138% of the federal poverty level,[43] and creating state-based insurance exchanges where individuals and small business can buy health insurance plans—those individuals with incomes between 100% and 400% of the federal poverty level will be eligible for subsidies to do so.[38][30] The CBO originally estimated that the legislation will reduce the number of uninsured residents by 32 million, leaving 23 million uninsured residents in 2019 after the bill's provisions have all taken effect.[121][122][123] With the elderly covered by Medicare, the CBO estimate projected that the law would raise the proportion of insured non-elderly citizens from 83% to 94%.[121] A July 2012 CBO estimate raised the expected number of uninsured by 3 million, reflecting the successful legal challenge to the ACA's expansion of Medicaid.[124][125]
Among the people who will remain uninsured:

• Illegal immigrants, estimated at around 8 million—or roughly a third of the 23 million projection—will be ineligible for insurance subsidies and Medicaid.[121][126] They will also be exempt from the health insurance mandate but will remain eligible for emergency services under provisions in the 1986 Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA).
• Citizens not enrolled in Medicaid despite being eligible.[127]
• Citizens not otherwise covered and opting to pay the annual penalty instead of purchasing insurance, mostly younger and single Americans.[127]
• Citizens whose insurance coverage would cost more than 8% of household income and are exempt from paying the annual penalty.[127]
• Citizens who live in states that opt out of the Medicaid expansion and who qualify for neither existing Medicaid coverage nor subsidized coverage through the states' new insurance exchanges.[125]

ACA drafters believed that increasing insurance coverage would not only improve quality of life but also help reduce medical bankruptcies (currently the leading cause of bankruptcy in America[128]) and job lock.[129] In addition, many believed that expanding coverage would help ensure that the cost controls successfully function; healthcare providers could more easily adapt to payment system reforms that incentivize value over quantity if their costs were partially offset—for example, hospitals having to do less charity care or insurers having larger and more stable risk pools to distribute costs over.[130]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient...dable_Care_Act

LUSTYLADYBOY...I said productivity would be down. I then quoted the CBO report that discusses where i could be wrong. Furthermore i clearly stated that It is a individual opinion if this is a good thing. If you want productivity to really go up we could go back to slavery. We as a society have decided that is not a good thing. So society has made productivity vs quality of life choices throughout time. This is just a classic labor vs management issue. Originally Posted by WTF

Don't be such an idiot. You won't find a single economist who thinks raising productivity is not a good thing. Producing more with less makes the pie grow larger, since it frees up people to work in other areas where labor is needed. Since you've flip-flopped again and are now saying the ACA will cause productivity to go down, that's one more strike against Odumbocare.

You probably never heard of Milton Friedman since your understanding of economics is so shallow. Back in the 1960s he was touring an Asian country and visited a worksite where a new canal was being built. He was shocked to see that the workers all had shovels instead of modern earth-moving equipment. When he asked why there were so few machines, the government bureaucrat explained: “This is a jobs program.” Milton replied: "If it’s jobs you want, then why don't you give the workers spoons?”

You still have 40 million people uninsured from what I can tell. The ACA has resulted in less or about the same number of people with private insurance. Again, you are lying about the pre-existing conditions. They could get insurance, they'd just have to pay more or get a job with a larger company.

Originally Posted by gnadfly

If it is that easy to find a job at a large company, why are so many people still unemployed? Why have so many people stop looking for work? The unemployment rate the DOL calculates is 6.7%. Those on the right keep saying it is much higher than that. Sending a resume and a cover letter to some large company does not mean you will get hired. The state high risk, risk pools have two problems. The premiums are not affordable. In some states you have to be uninsured for 6 months before you can get into the high risk pool. See the link below.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-m-...153017542.html

BOOHOO..... The feds fucked up romneycare... LOL

http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/heal...4iCJ/blog.html

White Coat Notes
02/13/2014 | 8:40 PM

By Michael Levenson / Globe Staff


The head of the state’s beleaguered health insurance marketplace, which was once a national model, broke down in tears Thursday, as she described how demoralizing it has been for her staff to struggle with a broken website that has left an unknown number of people without coverage.

Jean Yang, the executive director of the Massachusetts Health Connector, wept at a board meeting, where it was disclosed that 50,000 applications for health insurance are sitting in a pile, and have yet to be entered into a computer system.

Each one of those applications requires two hours to process, adding to a mountain of work facing Connector staff as they scramble to prevent people from losing insurance, officials said.

“These people came here to lead and innovate, and instead they’re doing manual workarounds, and they are embarrassed to tell friends and family that they work for the Health Connector,” Yang said at the board meeting.

Yang made clear she was not looking for sympathy.

“We have to work harder,” she said. “That means I need tell the staff members they’re not doing a good enough job and I’m telling them that, even though they have been doing this tirelessly for months, and they’re exhausted.”

The state’s health insurance website was working smoothly until October, when it was revamped to comply with the more complicated requirements of the federal health care law. Since then, it has been bedeviled by error messages and is often very sluggish or crashes entirely, officials said. That prompted the state to resort to old-fashioned paper applications, and to put many people in to temporary health plans. But an unknown number of others may be ununinsured because of the paperwork backlog.

Sarah Iselin, a health insurance executive charged with fixing the state’s broken website, said the first ordre of business is winnowing that pile of 50,000 applications. She said the state may bring as many as 300 people from an outside company hired by the state. The state is also working on developing a faster data-entry system, though that task alone could take threre weeks, she said.

“We’ve got to catch up,” Iselin said. “That’s priority number one. We have to get those people into the system.”

Yang’s unusual display of emotion at a meeting normally focused on dry policy discussions came a day after she and other state health insurance officials were grilled by angry legislators, who complained bitterly that many of their constituents have been unable to find coverage.

Yang said those concerns have been driving her and her staff to lose sleep. “The market cannot wait and people need help,” she said. “That’s what keeps me up at night.”

Dolores L. Mitchell, a Connector board member, thanked Yang. “A shaky voice every now and then sends a powerful message about how much you care,” Mitchell told Yang. “You’re going to get it right. I know you are.”

Despite the many problems, officials said they had received some encouraging news: On Wednesday night, federal officials granted a 3-month extension for 124,000 people with subsidized health insurance who were set to lose their coverage on March 31 because it didn’t comply with the federal law. The state had requested a six-month extension, but Iselin said the three months will give the state extra time to enroll those people in plans of their choosing.

This does not sound like a push to go back to the old system individual market and leave 40 million people uninsured. Originally Posted by flghtr65

You mean go back to the 2013 system that had more privately insured people than now with the individual mandate in full affect?

...If you want productivity to really go up we could go back to slavery. We as a society have decided that is not a good thing. ... Originally Posted by WTF

Classic racist moronic buffoonery! Your hero would be proud!

If it is that easy to find a job at a large company, why are so many people still unemployed? .... The state high risk, risk pools have two problems. The premiums are not affordable. In some states you have to be uninsured for 6 months before you can get into the high risk pool. See the link below. Originally Posted by flghtr65

You are correct in that its difficult to get a job with a large company today and that there are some states that do not offer high risk pool s and that they are more expensive.

My point is that Obama is lying when he says absolutely (which he does all the time with no qualifier) that people can't get insurance because of preexisting conditions. Just like he's lying about insurance companies dropping folks because they got sick. It is just not true or rarely happens today.

Just like Obama lied about his mother being sick and the insurance company dropped her coverage and he had to use his legal expertise to force them to cover her.

Obama is lying. Lying by outright falsehood, lying by omission, and lying by absolutely stating things that are rarely happening.

Maybe part of the issue is y'all weighing so heavily the opinion of economists. Economists don't stitch wounds, feed people, build shelter, or create anything of value. They only create self-serving hypotheses. Economists sit in their own feces masturbating. Fuck economists.

You probably never heard of Milton Friedman since your understanding of economics is so shallow. Back in the 1960s he was touring an Asian country and visited a worksite where a new canal was being built. He was shocked to see that the workers all had shovels instead of modern earth-moving equipment. When he asked why there were so few machines, the government bureaucrat explained: “This is a jobs program.” Milton replied: "If it’s jobs you want, then why don't you give the workers spoons?” Originally Posted by lustylad

Surprised you didn't mention Chile and their Death Squads. .
http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...ile-earthquake

As for the argument that Friedmanite policies are the reason Chileans live in "houses of brick" instead of "straw", it's clear that Stephens knows nothing of pre-coup Chile. The Chile of the 1960s had the best health and education systems on the continent, as well as a vibrant industrial sector and a rapidly expanding middle class. Chileans believed in their state, which is why they elected Allende to take the project even further.
After the coup and the death of Allende, Pinochet and his Chicago Boys did their best to dismantle Chile's public sphere, auctioning off state enterprises and slashing financial and trade regulations. Enormous wealth was created in this period but at a terrible cost: by the early 80s, Pinochet's Friedman-prescribed policies had caused rapid de-industrialisation, a tenfold increase in unemployment and an explosion of distinctly unstable shantytowns. They also led to a crisis of corruption and debt so severe that, in 1982, Pinochet was forced to fire his key Chicago Boy advisers and nationalise several of the large deregulated financial institutions. (Sound familiar?)


Personally I agree with this assessment

http://myweb.liu.edu/~uroy/eco54/his...dKeynes-SP.htm

The dirty little secret is that there are few scientific truths in economics analogous to the laws of thermodynamics or genetics. Economics is a social science, not a physical one, in which people and systems are constantly adapting to changing conditions. The policies that may be good for one era may not be right for the next. And it is the truly great economists who spot the changing dynamics, acknowledge the inadequacy of the old prescriptions and are clever enough to come up with something better.


Friedman wasn't always right. His dogmatic monetarism clouded his economic predictions during the 1980s and '90s, in part because of globalization and new financial instruments that made it difficult to measure the money supply, let alone control it. And after the success of the Greenspan era at the Federal Reserve, Friedman was forced to acknowledge that maybe humans could do a better job managing monetary policy than the computer he once recommended.
Friedman's abiding distrust of government action also blinded him to its successes. But it would be wrong to confuse his libertarian instincts with lack of human sympathy. He was an early proponent of the negative income tax, now known as the earned income tax credit -- which supplements the wages of millions of low-income workers. And while he opposed rent control, public education and Social Security, he promoted government vouchers to help people buy housing, education and medical care