CBO: Health-care law will mean 2 million fewer workers

[Redfairen]

Last edited Tue Feb 4, 2014, 02:51 PM - Edit history (1)

Source: Washington Post

The Affordable Care Act will reduce the number of full-time workers by more than two million in coming years, congressional budget analysts said Tuesday in the most detailed analysis of the law’s impact on jobs.

After obtaining coverage through the health law, some workers may forgo employment, while others may reduce hours, according to a report by the Congressional Budget Office. Low-wage workers are the most likely to drop out of the workforce as a result of the law, it said. The CBO said the law’s impact on jobs mostly would be felt after 2016.

The agency previously estimated that the economy would have 800,000 fewer jobs in 2021 as a result of the law. In that analysis, the CBO looked primarily at how employers would respond to a new penalty for failing to offer insurance to employees who work more than 30 hours a week. That response would include cutting people’s hours, hiring fewer workers and lowering wages for new jobs.

On Tuesday, the agency released a more detailed estimate that includes how ordinary Americans would react to those changes by employers. Some would choose to keep Medicaid rather than take a job at reduced wages. Others, who typically do not work full-time, would delay returning to work in order to keep subsidies for private insurance that are provided under the law.



Read more: http://m.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/cbo-botched-health-care-law-rollout-will-reduce-signups-by-1-million-people/2014/02/04/c78577d0-8dac-11e3-98ab-fe5228217bd1_story.html?tid=HP_lede

[PeteSelman]

1. Oh my.

The right wing floodgates open in 3…2…1…

[azureblue]

65. uh, no

From DailyKos:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/02/04/1274963/-No-the-latest-CBO-report-doesn-t-say-Obamacare-kills-jobs


But, as usual, that ignores what the CBO really says. The new report [pdf] does say that yes, by 2024 the law will reduce full-time employment by 2 million. But that's not 2 million jobs killed. In fact, the CBO actually confirms one of the things supporters of the new law said it would do: provide people who can't or don't want to work full time, who want to quit their jobs to stay at home with their children or to start a new business, the freedom to do just that. Right there in the report on page 117 (yes, that's a lot of pages for conservatives to read) it says:

"The estimated reduction [in CBO's projections of hours worked] stems almost entirely from a net decline in the amount of labor that workers choose to supply rather than a net drop in businesses demand for labor. [...]"

The CBO is not assuming that the law will lead employers to eliminate jobs or reduce hours, and actually says that there is "no compelling evidence that part-time employment has increased as a result of the ACA." It also says this:

The ACA's subsidies for health insurance will both stimulate demand for health care services and allow low-income households to redirect some of the funds that they would have spent on that care toward the purchase of other goods and services—thereby increasing overall demand. That increase in overall demand while the economy remains somewhat weak will induce some employers to hire more workers or to increase the hours of current employees during that period.

[PeteSelman]

72. You're saying they're NOT going to run with this?

You're giving me facts. Since when do the RWNJs give a shit about facts?

[factsarenotfair]

2. Yes, but I believe that a lot of people will start their own businesses now that many of them can

get affordable health insurance.

[okaawhatever]

20. That was one of my big concerns when I looked at leaving corporate America and opening up my own

business years ago. It's a very real dilemma.

[factsarenotfair]

21. Also, I think a lot of people will be taking early retirement for the same reason. n/t

[kelly1mm]

79. Yep! Got 4 more months till the school year ends and me and the wife are RETIRED! nt

[factsarenotfair]

84. That's wonderful!

I hope you and your wife have a great retirement.

[Doctor_J]

96. Exactly

One of the benefits of being able to purchase individual policies. I suppose if we had Medicare for all and 6 million 60-year-old decided to retire because they COULD, Fox "News" would be blaring about "6 million new unemployed people".

[Chakaconcarne]

3. Possibly, but.....

The number of health-care related jobs are going to skyrocket to meet the demand of the newly insured. I find it interesting that I never hear in the media about the number of jobs that are going to be required to support this system.

[former9thward]

24. That is not going to happen.

Insurance companies have reported most ACA sign ups are people who were already insured. Only 11% are those who were not insured before. There will be no major increases in the health care sector.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304149404579326992266662838?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304149404579326992266662838.html

[VanillaRhapsody]

37. BUNK! Because NOW those people get FREE wellness care...and will now

see an actual doctor instead of paying insurance for "just in case".

[former9thward]

42. So what?

We would be seeing reports of people packing doctor's offices. Not happening. There is no expected employment increase in the healthcare area no matter what the plans now cover.

[VanillaRhapsody]

43. Do what? How does this have to do with what I just said?

You expected the doors to blow off the doctors offices the first month in? Hardly....

[former9thward]

48. So when are they going to blow off?

When are all these newly insured going to rush to the doctor's office for their "wellness" appointment? When is the healthcare sector going to jump in employment? That's right, eventually..... Never any kind of date that someone can be held to.

[VanillaRhapsody]

51. they are going...but most still don't understand what they have....

this is an educational experience...Americans are not used to actual Healthcare....give it time....

[0rganism]

4. funny how this headline looks a lot worse than the data it presents

Looks like there are 2 main groups: those who get cut because the law requires employers to have healthcare, and those who quit their shitty jobs that they only kept for the healthcare in the first place. And the 2nd group is much larger.

What this says to me is employers have less leverage through insurance benefits to hold people hostage to low wages and lousy working conditions.

[AllyCat]

18. My thoughts too Org.

If I could get insurance and not be tied to a crummy low-wage job, I'd quit too...then be able to train for a decent job in health care.

[okaawhatever]

23. There are a lot of over age 50 types who work for insurance. I know a few women who work (one as a

school bus driver) so they can have insurance for their families. The ones I'm thinking of have husbands who are self-employed. Another bus driver used to own a Century 21 office and when she moved here took a job driving a school bus after her cobra ran out. It wasn't really that they needed the money from the job, just access to the benefits. They own a lot of real estate, but her husband is a sales rep and an independent contractor.

[0rganism]

29. Right! and now that they don't need the job for the insurance anymore...

...they'll open up those positions to people who also want the salary. And if no one will do the work for the salary, the employer will need to provide fair monetary compensation for services provided. This is a win-win situation for workers, and the headline paints it like a doomsday scenario for the workforce.

[okaawhatever]

32. Surprised by that? The media in America today has not interest in educating the American public. nt

[0rganism]

33. more outraged than surprised, unfortunately

i'm especially outraged that their low estimation of the public's ability to comprehend information of this sort appears to be justified.

[PsychGrad]

25. Yep.

I have stayed at many jobs in the past, terrible jobs, even one job that threatened my professional licensure (I did report to the proper authorities about fraud happening and unethical treatment of clients, but to no avail, and did end up leaving and losing insurance as I couldn't even pretend to be able to afford the COBRA benefits) simply bc I needed the health insurance. AS someone with pre-existing conditions, all congenital and none "my fault", that was a HUGE weigh in when it came to jobs/employment. I did start my own business, and went without insurance for two years, really bad idea as I nearly died from not having my health concerns treated, but I felt I had no choice at the time. Some folks are so healthy that they just don't consider this at all - others of us are not so lucky.

[geardaddy]

45. ^^^This^^^

Bravo.

[bigdarryl]

5. That's not good news going into 2014 election year

Bottom line Obama should of stuck to his 2008 Campaign promise to get Single Payers health insurance.Instead once again he wanted to try this bipartisan shit because the current law was a republican idea.

[okaawhatever]

27. Obama never campaigned on single payer. From Fact Check.org:

We debunked this falsehood when Sen. John McCain said it during the third presidential debate. McCain claimed that “as he said, his object is a single payer system.” But as a presidential candidate, Obama didn’t say that at all. And the plan he proposed wasn’t a single-payer system, one in which everyone is covered by health insurance through the government. As we said in our Oct. 16 article, Obama said at a town hall meeting in Albuquerque last summer that a single payer system would “probably” be his first choice “if” he were “designing a system from scratch.” But instead, he said, his “attitude is let’s build up the system we got, let’s make it more efficient, we may be over time – as we make the system more efficient and everybody’s covered – decide that there are other ways for us to provide care more effectively.”
Six years ago, Obama did say at an AFL-CIO forum that he was “a proponent of a single-payer universal health care program.” But that was 2003, and that’s not what he campaigned on as a presidential candidate. He has recently taken heat from single-payer advocates for not including them in discussions about overhauling the health care system.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/06/campaigning-on-single-payer/

Obama has always like single payer, but didn't campaign on it. Please quote him accurately. Of course, Breitbart and other right wing sites say he did, but like most of what they report it isn't true.

[VanillaRhapsody]

39. Something I have pointed out to other people on the Left over and over again...

and it was why I initially supported Hillary over Obama...knowing that on most other things they were comparable. But when Obama won the Primary...I was on board. But I am glad that more likely than not Hillary WILL be the next President and perhaps she will fix that flaw!

[okaawhatever]

44. I think many here know the truth and want to keep the lie going. Look at how many posters were

making that claim shortly after the ACA rollout started. There have been too many corrections on this website for people to keep making that claim.

[VanillaRhapsody]

50. You would think....but there are far too many here that just cannot stand the man

for whatever reason....and they want so badly to believe this to be true. But it simply isn't. I ALWAYS thought Hillary was closer to Single Payer than Barack Obama was....Could she have pulled it off under the circumstances...I don't think so...I think we got the best we could get for the moment. Thankfully there is nothing to prevent her from making those changes now that people have accepted the ACA for the most part.

[okaawhatever]

54. Hillary and health care reform go back to Bill's first years in office. It had a massive pushback

and is a big part of why there was such a routing at the mid-term elections. It will still have to be addressed gingerly. A lot of people would be out of work in the insurance industry. I don't even know if Hillary could pull it off in a first term. I think it will take a few years of having the ACA in place. Of course, if the ACA is tweaked to deal with problems that arise it may satisfy a lot of single-payer advocates.

[VanillaRhapsody]

57. there is also that built in function to allow States to create their own Single Payer System

so we just have to let this play out and see what happens. But no doubt we are all better off with what we have now versus what we did...

[okaawhatever]

60. I'm glad you reminded me of the state singlle=payer. I'll bet some of the better managed states do

that and lead by example. Even Kentucky is turning into a great example of what the ACA can do. Thanks again

[Doctor_J]

97. He campaigned on the public option

you know, a way out from under Big Insurance. He then abandoned that without a fight. A lot of DINO sites like to omit that.

[okaawhatever]

98. And what proof do you have? Obama hasn't publicly supported single payer since a campaign speech in

2003 and that was questionable because he mentioned universal health care which is what ACA is. Please don't lie about what the President has supported. What he has said, and did, was give a single payer option for each state. That is in the ACA so that promise was kept.

In February 2004, about a month before the primary election in the U.S. Senate race, the Associated Press reported the stance of all the candidates on universal health care. "Obama says he supports the idea of universal health care but does not think a single-payer government system is feasible. He says the government should be the health care provider of last resort for the uninsured." In a rundown of all the candidates' positions, the Associated Press summarized Obama's position as "Support, but 'probably not at this stage,' a single-payer government system."

In his book The Audacity of Hope , published in October 2006 when he was a U.S. senator, Obama described single-payer as the hope of the left, while those on the right wanted a market-based approach. "It's time we broke this impasse by acknowledging a few simple truths," Obama wrote, suggesting a system much like the one he supports today.

In April 2007, a few months after he declared his candidacy for presidency, the Chicago Tribune reported, "Obama has pledged that, if elected, all Americans would have health care coverage by the end of his first term. He has said he is reluctant to switch to a 'single-payer' national health insurance system because of the difficulty in making a quick transition from the employer-based private system."

Obama's statement in Portsmouth, he said, "I have not said that I was a single-payer supporter because, frankly, we historically have had a employer-based system in this country with private insurers, and for us to transition to a system like that I believe would be too disruptive."

[Doctor_J]

99. Well

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2009/12/22/74682/obama-repeatedly-touted-public/

– In the 2008 Obama-Biden health care plan on the campaign’s website, candidate Obama promised that “any American will have the opportunity to enroll in [a] new public plan.” [2008]
– During a speech at the American Medical Association, President Obama told thousands of doctors that one of the plans included in the new health insurance exchanges “needs to be a public option that will give people a broader range of choices and inject competition into the health care market.” [6/15/09]
– While speaking to the nation during his weekly address, the President said that “any plan” he signs “must include…a public option.” [7/17/09]
– During a conference call with progressive bloggers, the President said he continues “to believe that a robust public option would be the best way to go.” [7/20/09]
– Obama told NBC’s David Gregory that a public option “should be a part of this [health care bill],” while rebuking claims that the plan was “dead.” [9/20/09]

He also campaigned during the primaries AGAINST individual mandates, which Clinton and Edwards favored.

I am sorry you need to cling to this idea that the president is too nice/dignified to lie the way that all politicians lie. But facing the truth can be liberating if you let it.

[okaawhatever]

101. Well, the initial comment was on single payer but you've moved to the public option, stating

He campaigned on a public option,,
you know, a way out from under Big Insurance. He then abandoned that without a fight. A lot of DINO sites like to omit that.


He didn't abandon it without a fight.

It was included in the original ACA. The house passed a version and it never made it out of committee in the Senate. He continue to promote it until the final ACA was passed.

But the original complaint was about single-payer.

[JDPriestly]

6. But it sounds like the jobs are not gone, rather the employees quit.

So if the jobs are at all decent, won't unemployed people step in and take the abandoned jobs? And won't employers feel the loss and try to make their workplaces more decent? better places to work?

Aren't some of the people who quit those who are working while sick or in need of medical care?

[RedSpartan]

11. Exactly.

Many of these people are only working so they have health insurance, but don't otherwise need the job.

[DURHAM D]

7. "Low-wage workers are the most likely to drop out of the workforce..."

Really? And do what? Watch TV? Do volunteer work? Meditate 12 hours a day?

This report seems off.

[jsr]

8. Precisely.

[Dawson Leery]

10. +1

[okaawhatever]

31. No I believe they're referring to a two income household where one person works just for the

insurance benefits. Or even someone who is older and doesn't need the money but wants the benefits. For someone who is 50 or 60 working 20 hours a week at minimum wage (say a grocery store) that provides medical benefits saves a lot of money compared to paying 600-700 per month for insurance.

[VanillaRhapsody]

40. yes....

[jeff47]

87. They're working for the insurance.

A low-wage job basically pays for insurance for a family. So often someone will work such a job just for the insurance benefits while their "real" income is from elsewhere. (Spouse, semi-retired, etc.)

With cheaper options via Medicaid or the Exchanges, there's little reason for such a person to keep working that job. Meanwhile, non-low-wage jobs pay well enough that people are more likely to keep working them just for the cash.

[aquart]

9. Are they saying businesses do not need the employees they will lose?

Because, if they do need them, they will have a problem with their greed-based policies (burning in Hell for a seven deadly being only one).

[rtracey]

12. read close

The reduction in employment from the health care law “includes some people choosing not to work at all and other people choosing to work fewer hours than they would have in the absence of the law,” the CBO said. It does not say that the jobs are due to the ACA being created, just that some low wage workers MAY drop out....

[liberal N proud]

13. "some workers may forgo employment, while others may reduce hours"

[Wait Wut]

16. ...

You said it perfectly.

The way this article is worded made me do a golden retriever head tilt.

[davidthegnome]

14. I'm a low wage worker...

The thing is, it doesn't matter whether or not I quit my job. I still won't be able to get health insurance. My state's republican governor is eagerly cutting Medicaid and Mainecare (our state health insurance program) and will likely continue to do so for some time. Unless we manage to vote him out of office in the upcoming elections... which is a good possibility, but not a certainty.

The ACA does not qualify me for insurance - I make too little income to qualify for the programs and subsidies, so my solution would be to apply for Medicaid, or Mainecare - both of which are unavailable to me because I'm not disabled enough and my household income (my parents make a living wage, imagine that) is too high.

It really sucks being a low wage worker. It's not just the exhaustion of working ridiculous shifts and putting up with tyrannical, cruel and selfish management, but it's also the simple knowledge that there are hundreds of people who are ready to take your place. Does it make you mad that you don't get breaks? There's the door. Does it bother you when your employer cusses you out, or cusses out your fellow employees? Again, there's the door. Are you unhappy that you're earning slave wages? Hey, feel free to go find another job, they're growing on trees and shit.

I'm debating putting in my resignation if I get enough in my income tax return to make my car payment for a few months. This is because I'm exhausted, and because my job is little better than a gilded prison. Maybe I'll try to become a successful writer, maybe I'll go live out in the woods like a hermit. Maybe I'll join a cult. I don't know. There have to be better options than being working poor forever.

Every month, more effort, more work, more hours are demanded of me. I give them, yet the wage does not go up, benefits do not become available. Every month now, employees at my place of business are simply not showing up. They don't call in to offer a reason for it, they just don't go. Some quit, some are fired... but what it comes down to is that the life of the working poor is nightmarish, shitty beyond belief for those who have not lived it.

What I'd love to do one day, is have my own land - learn how to farm, how to sustain myself and my family through simple hard work. No matter how hard I work for these rich bastards, it's never going to be enough to earn me that.

[renate]

80. here's an idea for a book

You're an eloquent writer. A book written by you based on interviews with the real people stuck on this low-wage treadmill would be powerful and amazing.

I think the tide is (slowly) turning; the popular support for a minimum wage and the new talk about income inequality would make a proposal for a book like that very sellable and the market for it very big.

[mac56]

15. The content tells a very different story than the headline does.

"Some workers may forgo employment, while others may reduce hours."

"Some would choose to keep Medicaid rather than take a job at reduced wages. Others, who typically do not work full-time, would delay returning to work in order to keep subsidies for private insurance that are provided under the law."

[DallasNE]

17. Americans Are Lazy Bums

According to this CBO report. As I read this I expected it to conclude that the 47% that are takers would opt out of the work force right after Hillary is elected President.

After obtaining coverage through the health law, some workers may forgo employment, while others may reduce hours, according to a report by the Congressional Budget Office. Low-wage workers are the most likely to drop out of the workforce as a result of the law, it said. The CBO said the law’s impact on jobs mostly would be felt after 2016.

I normally support the CBO as a non-partisan group but this report insults the American people. Why in the world would any rational person think that a health insurance subsidy would cause people to quit their job. Indeed, insurance is an expense, affordable or not, making it necessary for people to attempt to find a better job so they can pay the insurance premium AND put food on the table. Everything about this CBO prediction is backwards when it comes to the American people. Now there is no doubt, on the other hand, that American companies will cut hours to avoid the mandate and other things that screw their employees so they do get some things right here but there is no way to describe this CBO report as other than a hatchet job. It is certainly not based on any empirical data.

[Demenace]

81. You need to read this report again...

... because it is also saying these numbers may represent those who do not have to hang on to shitty jobs and bosses because that was the source of Insurance coverage. It is also saying in those numbers, some may choose to go into business for themselves because now they can get the insurance that is affordable and not tied to getting employed by some corporation.

But here is the bottom line, as these people move on or reduce hours, others will have the opportunity to join the work force because those leaving will need to be replaced at some point, no?

[DallasNE]

92. But Churn Was Not Part Of The CBO Analysis

And I agree that some of this will occur because change always brings some churn. Same with companies that reduce hours. They will have to staff up to offset those lost hours - another form of churn.

If someone saves $150 a month for insurance under ACA I don't see how someone would be able to quit a job over $150. I would think that they would see that as finally being able to finally afford some item they have been putting off because they didn't have the money so they would continue working. I suppose it could move the needle for a few but not many at all and only those that are seeing a reduction of at least double that amount.

[jeff47]

88. No, it says people were working just for the insurance coverage.

With other options for insurance, people who get their "real" income elsewhere (spouse, semi-retired, etc) will stop working those jobs.

[lobodons]

19. The freedom loving TPGOP should be all over this

It seems that the ACA will give people more FREEDOM to choose where to work instead of being forced to stay in a lousy or dead in job they do not like just for the benefits.

[rtracey]

30. It may

But the CBO report is very misleading. It says “includes some people choosing not to work at all and other people choosing to work fewer hours than they would have in the absence of the law,” The point is unless these people are not working because they will receive Medicare, and social security, how can anyone get health insurance, then quit....this is very misleading...

[AlbertCat]

22. how ordinary Americans would react to those changes by employers.

So....


It's NOT the ACA, now is it.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

26. There's a difference between two million workers and two million jobs

What the CBO says is that up to two million workers will retire early, remain employed part-time instead of full-time, or otherwise not participate in the workforce because they now have adequate insurance coverage under Obamacare. It does not say that two million jobs will disappear. The jobs will still be there, just with fewer workers to fill them. If fact, the report suggests that the loss of two million workers might cause the demand for labor to rise.

What does that mean? It means that if you're currently unemployed, or underemployed, you'll have a better chance at landing a fulltime job because there will be two million fewer workers competing for the same number of positions.

[okaawhatever]

36. Thanks for summarizing the article so clearly. Sadly, we won't see anything as accurate as your

assessment in the media.

[Blue Idaho]

28. Remind me again - how many unemployed in the US?

If these folks in the CBO report are near retirement, need no income, and are simply working to cover heal care expenses I say good for them. That may be a way to shift younger unemployed people into the workforce.

[kelly1mm]

82. My situation exactly. Did not want to shell out 15k for family HI. Now with ACA our premiums

will be about $1200 per year ($1192 to be exact). 4 more months till the end of the school year and retirement for my wife and I.

[Blue Idaho]

86. Congratulations!

Congratulations on your retirement and just think - a brand new teacher gets to live their dream.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

34. thank you Washington Post for spinning information to make the ACA sound bad.

Oooooo!!! Danger Danger!!!!!

Healthcare demand will increase exponentially, jobs will need to be opened up…..people will have more freedom to get away from slave-wages for the sake of healthcare. People quitting work voluntarily will open spaces for others wanting work.

You'd almost think there was an agenda at the editor's office.

[okaawhatever]

38. Yeah, remind me again who bought WaPo? Jeff Bezos? Champion of underpaid slave labor? nt

[BlancheSplanchnik]

75. I'm not that up on events--didn't know that.

gee. Quelle surprise.

[brett_jv]

46. Of course there is ... it's called 'click bait' ...

You know how many bajillions of wing-nuts will post this to Facebook and everywhere else, with this headline?

[BlancheSplanchnik]

74. didn't know there was a specific name for it.

sounds like another trick I've seen lately on FB. pics in the right hand sidebar of a cute puppy or starving dog, and the head line "Care about Animals? Click here" Takes you to CONservative sites and--SURPRISE!!!--nothing whatsoever to do with animal protection.



makes. me. PUKE!!!!! goddammm lying scumbag &^%$^*$##

[okaawhatever]

77. I didn't know that. I hope msm or left leaning media will pick up these stories. That trick

combined with the websites that look like they support a candidate but you're actually donating to some right wing cause shows a trend. The story should be "If their message is so good, why do they have to trick people into supporting it?"

[BlancheSplanchnik]

78. I agree.....sooooo sick of this culture of mass produced lies.

the FB thing is about racking up "likes"....and getting their shit posted on people's page, I guess. "Like this if you care about animals"....

[loudsue]

35. Wow!! Bring on the propaganda!! You can sure tell the Post has changed hands.

What a pile of crap. Like...now that I have health insurance, I can quit work and, therefore, quit eating, having electricity, gas, a car, a house.

What in the hell kinds of idiots are the people who write this crap? There will need to be far more workers, and seniors are getting older by the minute...the boomers...and aides and nurses and diaper changers, etc will be needed....just from the health care industry. How does that create a JOB LOSS???

Fuckin' assholes.

[okaawhatever]

41. Sue, you fell for the propoganda. It doesn't say fewer jobs, it says fewer workers. Meaning, the

employment situation will be better for those looking for a job. There are many two income households where one works solely for the insurance and not for the income. Think of a man/woman who are self=employed with the other working in a job for the benefits. Same with the older population. Many are working solely for the insurance before Medicare kicks in. \
what's good is that now these jobs will open up to the unemployed.


You called it, this is the new Jeff Bezos Washngton Post. He is just furthering his anti-labor neo-con beliefs.

[loudsue]

52. ooops.

[Redfairen]

47. LA Times: "Why the new CBO report on Obamacare is good news"

http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-79163149/

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. 

[Hoyt]

68. That's the key. We'll see if the tbaggers get it, or care.

[okaawhatever]

49. Guidelines for LBN are to use the EXACT HEADLINE. Why did you change it to support a right-wing meme

The headline doesn't say 2 Million jobs will be lost. It says CBO: Health-care law will mean 2 million fewer workers

[Redfairen]

55. The WaPo has changed their headline since I started this thread.

I copied and pasted the original headline when I began the thread. I'm sure the WaPo is right now hearing the same kind reactions as we see on this thread and has changed their headline accordingly.

[okaawhatever]

56. Okay, thanks. I'll clear my objections. nt

[okaawhatever]

63. The damage has been done, and I suspect WaPo knew that. Several media outlets have spoken of

the story (CNN for one). By quoting the bogus headline they give themselves cover for reporting inaccurately. They knew the truth the entire time. Sadly, the rest of American media won't call them out on it.

[FSogol]

53. something is rotten in the state of denmark

[anasv]

59. nothing is rotten in the state of Denmark

Denmark makes the U.S. look like, at best, purgatory.

[FSogol]

61. Whoosh.

Hint: it is quote.

[anasv]

67. oh, gosh, I had no idea

Of course I know it's a quote. A very offensive quote.

[FSogol]

69. How is it offensive? It means, "something is wrong?"

[freshwest]

94. I got it. Those acquainted with theatre or Shakespeare know the reference. A quick explanation:

In the fourth scene of the first act of Hamlet, Marcellus sees the ghost of Hamlet's father along the castle wall and later says "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark." I don't know if ghosts smell, though...

The King had been murdered, and his ghost informs his son all about the crime. The King's brother wanted the throne, then married Hamlet's mother. Which drove Hamlet crazy. Almost no one survived. IOW, the play did not end well.

I'm sure you know the play. It means something's not right, as you said. Or something is sinister or it stinks. Like the Washington Post.

My stepmother used the phrase every time she thought something untrue was said. And it fits the theme here.

I think this article is worded to hurt Obama and the ACA. So many lies are being told about it to defeat Democrats running for office this year.

Just think, it's only January...

[FSogol]

95. Thanks. Hard to believe someone here thinks it is a slur on the Danes.

[freshwest]

100. Yeah, that was an odd argument. Or just a reason to argue, not discuss. n/t

[anasv]

58. nonsense

The CBO has gone nuts. It thinks people don't want jobs, like, they're rolling in money, so they're going to quit once they get healthcare. When the fact is that this law is a life raft for people who are lucky if they have any job.

And what companies are these they will be reducing full time to part time workers? Chinamart is already doing that well before this law.

Nothing to see here, folks, move along.

[kelly1mm]

83. Not rolling in money but my wife and I are retiring in our mid 40's due to the ACA

and the availability of decently priced, decent health care coverage.

[OKNancy]

62. as Josh Marshall says - it will reduce employment like Social Security reduced employment. n/t

[TomCADem]

93. ^^^^^THIS^^^^^^

Then again, Republicans want to end Social Security, so why not take that out too based on this talking point.

[rtracey]

64. WTF

WTF Washington Post....Try to be a real media company not a f'n SHILL.....Here is the original headline..."CBO: Health-care law will reduce jobs by two million" ... now look at the headline of this share "CBO: Obamacare to lead to 2 million fewer workers" 2 million less jobs, WRONG...by allowing workers to get health insurance at a better rate, this will allow 2 million workers, like your grandmother, father or older uncle and aunt not to work at McDonalds to pay for healthcare. This will free up those jobs for others.

[factsarenotfair]

66. Brilliant analysis.

Thank you.

[Herself]

70. not extending unemployment is going to play a huge role in the numbers game n/t

[Myrina]

71. After obtaining coverage, some workers may forego employment ..." ???

Yeah because they don't need to eat or pay the rent or any other bills, right?

[kelly1mm]

85. They are talking about potential early retirees who, before ACA, would continue working

for health care benefits. My situation is that it would cost over $15,000 per year in HI premiums pre ACA, if we did not have HI through my wife's work. With ACA that reduces down to $1192. We can swing that where we could not swing the extra 15k.

[the_sly_pig]

73. Maybe more parents will make a choice

and become 'homemakers'. My intent in saying this is to be very careful not to assign a gender. I value homemakers. I wish our society valued them. I believe them to be essential to the health of future generations.

[ebbie15644]

76. Could this mean increased wages to compete for the workers?

[grahamhgreen]

89. Medicare for All would solve this. You take a Republican plan and look what you get. Idiocy and

greed on the march.

OK - Medicare for All now, thank you

[phleshdef]

90. Would solve what? Theres no problem here to be solved in regard to the actual story.

The story here is that 2 million people will work less because they CAN. On no planet is that a bad thing.

I'm all for single payer, but please read the actual story.

[grahamhgreen]

91. Well, what I read was

"The agency previously estimated that the economy would have 800,000 fewer jobs in 2021 as a result of the law. In that analysis, the CBO looked primarily at how employers would respond to a new penalty for failing to offer insurance to employees who work more than 30 hours a week. That response would include cutting people’s hours, hiring fewer workers...."

"Some would choose to keep Medicaid rather than take a job at reduced wages. Others, who typically do not work full-time, would delay returning to work in order to keep subsidies for private insurance that are provided under the law."

What it says to me is they are not working less because they can, but because if they work more they lose their health care.

When everyone is covered regardless of work, there is no reason not to work.

[Doctor_J]

102. Should read "2 million fewer will be FORCED to work"

Leave it to Big Media to print a right-wing lie