CBO: Obamacare will cost 2.5M workers by 2024.

From the article:

The new healthcare law will cost the nation the equivalent of 2.5 million workers in the next decade, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated in a report released Tuesday. The nonpartisan agency found the reform law’s negative effects on employment would be “substantially larger” than what it had previously anticipated. It said the equivalent of 2.3 million workers would be lost by 2021, compared to its previous estimate of 800,000, and that 2.5 million workers would be lost by 2024. It also projected that labor force compensation would be reduced by 1 percent from 2017 to 2024 — twice its previous estimate.

Although the CBO projects that total employment and compensation will increase over the coming decade, that increase will be smaller than it would have been in the absence of the healthcare law.

The CBO is not saying employers will fire millions of workers because of the law. It instead found that the healthcare law will create disincentives for people to work and that this in turn will cut into the labor supply, hurt the economy, lower tax collection and cause higher deficits. Some people will leave the workforce or reduce their hours in response to lower wages because of the healthcare law, while others will leave or reduce their hours because they have insurance coverage and do not need to work full time to keep it, the CBO said.

“All our analysis led us to conclude the effects of the [healthcare law] on labor force participation would be a good deal larger than we had thought originally,” CBO Director Doug Elmendorf said. “Fundamentally, the Affordable Care Act provides subsidies to lower income people and those subsidies phase out ... that will have some effects on discouraging labor supply.”

The CBO’s annual update contained rosier near-term deficit projections, but projected that $1 trillion more than previously thought would be added to deficits over the next decade because of slower economic growth. Instead of adding $6.3 trillion in deficits from 2014 to 2023, the government will add $7.3 trillion, the CBO now projects. By 2023, the gross debt of the United States will be $26 trillion, up from a projected $25 trillion. A year later, the debt will rise to $27 trillion as the $1.074 trillion deficit for fiscal 2024 is added in.

The CBO also said the botched ObamaCare rollout will result in 6 million people signing up for coverage through the insurance exchanges this year — 1 million fewer than projected last year. One million fewer people will enroll in Medicaid and children’s health insurance through the healthcare law, and 1 million more people will be uninsured in 2014.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

O-Care will cost 2.5M workers by 2024

CBO: Troubled ObamaCare rollout to reduce sign-ups by 1M

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/02/04/five-takeaways-on-new-health-care-projections/?KEYWORDS=cbo+obamacare

Obamacare will push 2 million workers out of labor market: CBO

Do the forums look slightly different then they did say the other day

This story has already been handled terribly by every major new agency out there. Its surprising how bad the media is at reading reports.

As you heard rep. Van Hollen said twice, CBO estimates a boost overall demand for good and services for the next few years. That doesn't conflict with my point that the workforce would be reduce by the equivalent of 2.5M workers by 2024. You know, the long term look. So there goes your point.

And I see that you focused on the headline but what about:

• the fact that Although the CBO projects that total employment and compensation will increase over the coming decade, that increase will be smaller than it would have been in the absence of the healthcare law.
• the fact that the healthcare law will create disincentives for people to work and that this in turn will cut into the labor supply...lower tax collection and cause higher deficits.
• What about the fact that this law, which was written so no people would go uninsured, with the entire health care industry shaken up, hundreds of millions of families impacted....and the #1 thing it set out to solve--the uninsured--remains unchanged. CBO projects that 31M will remain uninsured in 2021 and each year on forward.

I will need to look into this some more

Well here is to hoping it only happens to Obama supporters. Let them reap the benefits of their great leader. *rolls eyes*

Here's hoping people discern the real truth

Yes, it happened a few hours ago.

I like this new look

It seems a bit faster

Imo, if you really want to increase the standard of living and mobility of poor in a way that doesn't really hurt the economy, implement single payer healthcare and a negative income tax system and/or wage subsidies, all funded by more taxes on the wealthy and cuts in other kinds of social programs + the military.

The "equivalent" of 2.5 million workers out of an American workforce of ~160 million is actually a pretty small proportion, similarly $1 trillion extra debt or a 1% reduction in labour force compensation over a 10 year period are not very large numbers in the context of the U.S. economy. Also, Obamacare certainly has "changed" the magnitude of the insurance problem - you cite 31 million by 2024 but neglect to mention that it used to be 56 million, also ignoring population growth and the fact that "uninsured as a % of the population" is probably a more relevant figure. Also, "hundreds of millions of families impacted"? What? Are you from the John McCain School of Pulling Numbers Out Of Your Ass or something?

Yeah it will reduce the labor supply, but not the demand for labor. People who are near the poverty line may choose to forgo working more hours and having second jobs to pay for health insurance. The CBO believes that because these people are working less that 'unemployed workers will be available to take those jobs—so the effect on overall employment of reductions in labor supply will be greatly dampened.' Thus lowering unemployment and raising demand for goods and services.

I'd suggest actually skimming through the report. As you'll see there are plenty of variables that can't be properly quantified, like healthier workers with coverage adding to productivity or employers hiring more full time workers to skirt the law. They openly admit to this in the report various time.

Its Friday so I don't have much time to give a more robust response at the moment. I've always found it a good rule of thumb to read the actual source instead of 'journalist' interpretations of it though.

Should have been single payer anyway.

I was reading this the other day, and it seemed pretty clear that the "loss" of jobs was due to people being able to voluntarily drop out of the labor force due to the loss of their job lock.

Which is perplexing because this "job lock" due to the healthcare system is something that Republicans have been decrying for years (and in recent years, no less). It doesn't make sense to characterize the loss of it as a negative now.

Politically it makes sense to say its a negative.

But I'm guessing that's part of your point

Indeed. And even then, it only makes sense if you assume that the people you're doing it for don't pay attention to your past statements/stances.

Sounds bad, but if I had the option of working less due to the fact that if I get hospitalized I most likely won't go bankrupt I don't think I would consider it a bad thing.

Why are there nay sayers? Obama and Obamacare are both failures, get it through your heads.

@ristactionjakso: people should be willing to look into the claims of all points.

There isn't a whole lot of good Obama has done as President. Obamacare is a failure too.

@ristactionjakso: even if so, the topic is about the cbo thing

So we dont need to raise the minimum wage because workers arent forced to work for minimum wage. But we cant give people healthcare because they wont feel forced to work. Yea that makes perfect sense. stay classy conservatives.

Honestly, this really seems like modern day slavery.

This thread went in a very predictable way. The ignorant Obama and Obamacare haters said their talking points and ignored what the CBO actually says, just like more major media outlets.

What will people do when Obamacare is deemed to be a moderate success, and Obama is out of office? Oh right, Hillary Clinton will be in the crosshairs next.

I'm not sure how a Hillary presidency would play out. There was once speculation that the ultra partisan atmosphere would dissipate once a new president arrived, but I'm not sure that's likely at this point.There would probably need to be a drop in the Tea Party influence because I just don't see them becoming reasonable in the near future and they currently hold a strong sway over the base\primaries.

I'm not very knowledgeable of the Tea Party's strength and polling numbers. Would their power in 2016 basically be dictated by the U.S's fiscal situation over the next 3 years? Seeing as their dead horse seems to be the national debt.

Basically on this years mid terms it looks like the GOP will retain the House and pick up seats on the Senate but the question is whether they will pick enough seats to take control. It to early to look forward to 2016. If the GOP doesn't get control of the Senate then we get status quo divided government so the economy and health care will loom large on 2016.

If the Republicans do get control of the Senate Obama will be playing defense for the rest of his term trying to fend of attacks from the GOP to his legacy, basically he will star vetoing legislation. Now this is a two way street. If GOP were to get control they would need to show that they could work, where possible, with the President and not simply obstruct large portions of the President agenda. The other side is that the President would be force to recognize that the public isn't with him, like it happened in 2010, so he would have to show that he is willing to make real, concrete concessions on Health Care since that would clearly is what Republicans are going to run on 2014 and what would take them to control the Senate.

Like I have said before, we have to wait for the Employer Mandate to go into effect and see if businesses start dumping their employees into the exchanges. That would case simmering anger among a lot of voters, regardless of whether on the margins the benefit or not, since the whole "If you like your health plan. you can keep it" would be back front and center right before the mid terms.

The Tea Party is in an odd situation. Among the electorate at large, they poll very poorly. Among Republicans, they poll significantly better but still not great.

Among Republican primary voters and in deep red districts, however, they have significant backing.

Tea Party members have an over sized influence right now because A) only a small portion (and the more extreme portion) of the electorate votes in primaries and B) many of the Tea Party members operate in deep red districts where there is no incentive compromise or move to the center.

To address your last question directly, I don't think their influence is directly related to any single cause. Listening to them, they don't fly their banner under a single issue and their influence has not, to this point, dropped in relation to the drop in deficits.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/feb/05/john-boehner/john-boehner-says-obamacare-expected-destroy-23-mi/

Politifacts just checked the articles, and while the numbers are accurate, the statement is misleading because it does not factor in voluntary actions or part timers who quit their job, leaving vacancies for others.

In his tweet, Boehner said that Obama’s health care law is "expected to destroy 2.3 million jobs."

Boehner’s use of the word "destroy" mischaracterizes what is going on, since the reduction will come from voluntary actions by workers, rather than layoffs by employers. The law would not push up unemployment. In fact, some people at the low end of the wage ladder would find it easier to find work as a result of the predicted shifts in the workforce.

In addition, it’s misleading to refer to 2.3 million "jobs," since CBO combined all incremental losses of hours worked into full-time-job equivalents. Under this scenario, we would expect many more than 2.3 million people to be affected, but many of them would cut their hours a few at a time, rather than quitting their jobs entirely.

It can be easy to miss the distinction between jobs and workers -- and the CBO report is not all rosy for the nation’s economic future. But Boehner’s statement remains flawed. We rate the claim Mostly False.

Good to know. You also accept that "If you like your health care plan, you can keep it" was the lie of the year for 2013, don't you?

@Master_Live: What does that have to do with Boehmer saying that 2.3 million jobs will be destroyed by Obamacare when factors such as retirement and voluntary actions should be accounted for?

Politifact, by nature, is a fact checking organization that provides a vital part of democracy by informing the public and fact checking statements made by politicians and public figures. So yes, I do accept "If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it" as lie of the year. A lie is a lie, regardless of which end of the spectrum it came from.

It's not such a small proportion if you're ONE of the 2.5 million. Just saying...

A reduction of Work force is not a reduction in jobs.

I don't understand why this is such a hard statement for some to discern.

The jobs are still there, and will be filled by workers who actually want to work them, while the people who only work to afford Healthcare, or who want to retire but can't because they wouldn't have healthcare now can.

What is this even supposed to mean?

I mean, that if you're one of the 2.5 million that loses their job it won't seem like such a small statistic to you.

Sure, but nobody's saying that 2.5 million people are going to lose their jobs.

While others subsidize them, you know, other people who also work to pay their bills including health care. But hey, who gives a ****, that is what I'm here for.

I'll take your strawman as admission that you concede the point

This is the worst economy/jobs participation rate since Jimmy Carter was president.

Of course, if you get your news and info from

ABC, .

CBS, .

NBC, .

CNN Headline, .

CNN, .

MSNBC, .

NPR, .

PBS, .

BET, .

VH1, .

MTV,

The Cartoon Network,

Lifetime

The Orprah Winfrey Network,

The Comedy Channel

or the public schools, . . . you wouldn't know that

Wat is going to happen is people aren't goin to pay more for coverage that doesn't cover anything, they won't go to work to pay for this load of bs, and wat are they going to do? Arrest and jail, or felony and fine all the lower class or paycheck to paycheck or no income ppl cuz it's outrageously pathetic n expensive for insurance that doesn't cover anything? Gov't needs to stay the frick outta private industry, unless they want an American revolution against themselves just like we fought against England, where our wat happened to the constitution America???!!!!!

It has been rendered invalid ever since FDR took office

had a funny pic to go along, but this website is coded by monkys

so... real wages are stagnant or falling, hours are being cut, jobs are being lost, but this cluster F-bomb of compounding trends are good because it comes from the fallout of a historic D figurehead?

the same legislation created to insure more people at a more reasonable price, if you believed political pitch lines, that has on average decreased consumer value and increased consumer costs.

but wait! there is more, in recent months this signature legislation has been spun to be the brain child of the party that did not support the bill at all.

republicans can suck the saltiest part of my taint, but their mess had and has zero to do with this snowballing failure.


but who would have thought a legislation that makes it illegal for companies who assess risk to assess risk would cause problems? i wonder how well that would work in other industries....

what if bakers were not allowed to measure weights or volumes?

what if chemists were not allowed to know what materials they were working with?

what if hunters had to be blindfolded?

what if farmers could not know what seeds they were planting?

Ill just be the first to say, nobody has a clue what you said. You are all over the place man.

I actually have seen many people who identify as republican argue that if you don't like your job than you should just leave without acknowledging that doing so would mean poverty and/or homelessness for millions of people in this position. If Obamacare gets people out of this sort of bind, then people could actually utilize that bit of advice.

What a ****ing terrible graph. I'm not here to comment on Obamacare, just that looking at that graph makes my eyes hurt. It is useless.