The Affordable Care Act

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by 4-2-7

So does that mean you take the wording and spin on the CBO report over the CBO report itself?

How Much Will the ACA Reduce
Employment in the Longer Term?

The ACA’s largest impact on labor markets will probably occur after 2016, once its major provisions have taken full effect and overall economic output nears its maxi- mum sustainable level. 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—given the new taxes and other incentives they will face and the financial benefits some will receive. Because the largest declines in labor supply will probably occur among lower-wage workers, the reduction in aggregate compensation (wages, salaries, and fringe benefits) and the impact on the overall econ- omy will be proportionally smaller than the reduction in hours worked. Specifically, CBO estimates that the ACA will cause a reduction of roughly 1 percent in aggregate labor compensation over the 2017–2024 period, com- pared with what it would have been otherwise. Although such effects are likely to continue after 2024 (the end of the current 10-year budget window), CBO has not esti- mated their magnitude or duration over a longer period.
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. Although 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 ACA. The decline in full- time-equivalent employment stemming from the ACA will consist of some people not being employed at all and other people working fewer hours; however, CBO has not tried to quantify those two components of the overall effect. 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 busi- nesses’ 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 underemploy- ment (such as part-time workers who would prefer to work more hours per week).
CBO’s estimate that the ACA will reduce employment reflects some of the inherent trade-offs involved in designing such legislation. Subsidies that help lower- income people purchase an expensive product like health insurance must be relatively large to encourage a significant proportion of eligible people to enroll. If those subsidies are phased out with rising income in order to limit their total costs, the phaseout effectively raises peo- ple’s marginal tax rates (the tax rates applying to their last dollar of income), thus discouraging work. In addi- tion, if the subsidies are financed at least in part by higher taxes, those taxes will further discourage work or create other economic distortions, depending on how the taxes are designed. Alternatively, if subsidies are not phased out or eliminated with rising income, then the increase in taxes required to finance the subsidies would be much larger.
CBO’s estimate of the ACA’s impact on labor markets is subject to substantial uncertainty, which arises in part because many of the ACA’s provisions have never been implemented on such a broad scale and in part because available estimates of many key responses vary consider- ably. CBO seeks to provide estimates that lie in the middle of the distribution of potential outcomes, but the actual effects could differ notably from those esti- mates. For example, if fewer people obtain subsidized insurance coverage through exchanges than CBO expects, then the effects of the ACA on employment would be smaller than CBO estimates in this report. Alternatively, if more people obtain subsidized coverage through exchanges, then the impact on the labor market would be larger.



The long and short of this is the government is providing an incentive not to work.

Looks like you can't read as well as you can't write. No where does that say that 2.5 million jobs will be lost as you claimed a few pages back. Try again sonny. Not everyone has the attention span of a gnat, as you apparently do.

[4-2-7]

PS:
finnbow again I do respect your opinion and feel you are one smart cookie.

[4-2-7]

Originally Posted by bobabode

Looks like you can't read as well as you can't write. No where does that say that 2.5 million jobs will be lost as you claimed a few pages back. Try again sonny. Not everyone has the attention span of a gnat, as you apparently do.

It's not 2.5 million jobs lost!! It's 2.5 million Full Time jobs lost.

The jobs will switch to Part Time and utilize more employees to do the same work. God dam what a ass.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by 4-2-7

My post the other day

You're still wrong and repeating something that's wrong twice doesn't make it right. The CBO never once said that there would be 2.5 million jobs lost. It spoke of 2.5 million workers voluntarily choosing to leave the work force for reasons such as retirement or starting a business now that they would have access to health care from someplace other than their employer, exactly as McCain and Paul Ryan insisted health care reform should provide for. This was a deliberate and desirable objective of health care reform.

At first, the media also misread the report just as you continue to do (as does the GOP, while knowing better). Subsequently, this mistaken impression has been clarified everywhere other than Fox, Talk Radio and from the mouths of Republican politicians.

Honestly, your head is so full of misinformation it's incredible. You should reboot your brain and start with a blank slate and avoid Fox and Talk Radio like the plague. It makes you angry and misinformed while leading you to believe that you actually understand this stuff. You don't.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by 4-2-7

It's not 2.5 million jobs lost!! It's 2.5 million Full Time jobs lost.

The jobs will switch to Part Time and utilize more employees to do the same work. God dam what a ass.

Thanks for the compliment. After all, I am a registered Democrat.

You still haven't proved your point in any way, shape or form. Where exactly in the CBO report does it back up your assertion that the PPACA will kill off 2.5 million jobs? Full time or otherwise.

Have you ever considered a little remedial education? I'm sure there are many community colleges in the Bay area that could help you out with that.

[4-2-7]

Originally Posted by finnbow

You're still wrong and repeating something that's wrong twice doesn't make it right. The CBO never once said that there would be 2.5 million jobs lost. It spoke of 2.5 million workers voluntarily choosing to leave the work force for reasons such as retirement or starting a business now that they would have access to health care from someplace other than their employer, exactly as McCain and Paul Ryan insisted health care reform should provide for. This was a deliberate and desirable objective of health care reform.

At first, the media also misread the report just as you continue to do (as does the GOP, while knowing better). Subsequently, this mistaken impression has been clarified everywhere other than Fox, Talk Radio and from the mouths of Republican politicians.

Honestly, your head is so full of misinformation it's incredible. You should reboot your brain and start with a blank slate and avoid Fox and Talk Radio like the plague. It makes you angry and misinformed while leading you to believe that you actually understand this stuff. You don't.

I totally understand what various section refer to. You have to look at the entirety of the report to grasp what they are saying in the report as a whole.
Not pick and chose a sentence here and there. I read the report and not coming to a conclusion from anybody but the report.

Are you yourself still reading just portions provided by WP. Everybody is complaining about how difficult it is to make ends meet these days. Do you belive 2.5 million people are Willing/Voluntarily Choosing to make less money.
Some poor people it will help but it's targeting the middle class by reducing their income. The ones that have to work because of responsibilities and commitments.

I posted this the other day and not just the opening of the report for a reason. The report starts off with some overall conclusions and then insus to break it down.

Effects of the Employer Penalty on the
Demand for Labor
Beginning in 2015, employers of 50 or more full-time- equivalent workers that do not offer health insurance
(or that offer health insurance that does not meet certain criteria) will generally pay a penalty. That penalty will initially reduce employers’ demand for labor and thereby tend to lower employment. Over time, CBO expects, the penalty will be borne primarily by workers in the form of reduced wages or other compensation, at which point the penalty will have little effect on labor demand but will reduce labor supply and will lower employment slightly through that channel.
Businesses face two constraints, however, in seeking to shift the costs of the penalty to workers. First, there is considerable evidence that employers refrain from cutting their employees’ wages, even when unemployment is high (a phenomenon sometimes referred to as sticky wages).

19 For that reason, some employers might leave wages unchanged and instead employ a smaller workforce. That effect will probably dissipate entirely over several years for most workers because companies that face the penalty can restrain wage growth until workers have absorbed the cost of the penalty—thus gradually eliminating the negative effect on labor demand that comes from sticky wages.

A second and more durable constraint is that businesses generally cannot reduce workers’ wages below the statu- tory minimum wage.20 As a result, some employers will respond to the penalty by hiring fewer people at or just above the minimum wage—an effect that would be simi- lar to the impact of raising the minimum wage for those companies’ employees. Over time, as worker productivity rises and inflation erodes the value of the minimum wage, that effect is projected to decline because wages for fewer jobs will be constrained by the minimum wage.
The effect will not disappear completely over the next 10 years, however, because some wages are still projected to be constrained (that is, wages for some jobs will be at or just above the minimum wage).

Businesses also may respond to the employer penalty by seeking to reduce or limit their full-time staffing and to hire more part-time employees. Those responses might occur because the employer penalty will apply only to businesses with 50 or more full-time-equivalent employ- ees, and employers will be charged only for each full-time employee (not counting the first 30 employees). People are generally considered full time under the ACA if
they work 30 hours or more per week, on average, so offset the effects of changes in federal spending and taxes. Over time, however, those effects are expected to dissipate as overall economic output moves back toward its maximum sustainable level.



Part time work has exploded in this country because of this law. Many are still unemployed because of it and the Bottom Line. Many people working part time now would prefer to have a full time job. You can try add spin this as some glorious sabbatical provided by our illustrious government and I laugh at that.

[bobabode]

<sigh>

[icenine]

If Obama ends of being the guy that divorced health care from being provided by employers to it being provided to the consumer directly, either through the insurance companies or Medicaid it would be historic.


Perhaps it will evolve into a sort of single payer wherein everyone goes into an exchange and gets taxed accordingly based on how much income they earned during a year and how many dependents they have. We may have to cut an aircraft carrier or two and do away with the United States Marine Corp but maybe this will be the United States in 50 years.

[4-2-7]

Originally Posted by bobabode

<sigh>

Bob you said you are busy at work right! Me too.

I think I'll reduce the hours I work so I can mooch off you. I don't have any large commitment or own anything that will stop me from getting the full gamut of handouts. In fact maybe early retirement that way I can get SSI before it's all gone.

Just bought a $25,000 McIntosh system so Im set on toons. I kind of spend money like water and push my earning back into the economy. But really why would anyone need to work. I really don't need anything but a roof over my head and some food. We can all mooch off the Tax Base which will dwindle rapidly without new infusion of funds.

Sounds like the best move a leader can do for the economy. Obamanomics.

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by 4-2-7

Bob you said you are busy at work right! Me too.

I think I'll reduce the hours I work so I can mooch off you. I don't have any large commitment or own anything that will stop me from getting the full gamut of handouts. In fact maybe early retirement that way I can get SSI before it's all gone.

Just bought a $25,000 McIntosh system so Im set on toons. I kind of spend money like water and push my earning back into the economy. But really why would anyone need to work. I really don't need anything but a roof over my head and some food. We can all mooch off the Tax Base which will dwindle rapidly without new infusion of funds.

Sounds like the best move a leader can do for the economy. Obamanomics.

Sounds like a simplistic view of the economic/political landscape to me. Someone has bought into the stereotypes of dependence. Sad really, but its getting boring. I've heard these talking points so many times that i could spout them myself, if I wanted to sound so ill informed. Later.

Regards,

D-Ray