CBO Admits Obamacare will kill 800,000 Jobs

Post Reply New Topic

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/02/10/v ... 0000-jobs/

Looks like the Democrats either lied or were delusional when they said Obamacare would be good for the economy.

Umm.... reducing costs is good for the economy. If this kind of logic worked, then it would make sense to require every company hire a worker to stand around and shovel dirt using a spoon, or to create a big dome to block the sun so that electric companies, light-bulb manufacturers, and construction workers would have more employment. This is poor economics, and frankly, it is kind of funny because generally pro-market economists have been very cynical towards a focus on "jobs" instead focusing on making markets work better and cheaper.

I fail to see how raising the costs to even hire an employee and adding all kinds of red tape to force employers to stop paying for employee health insurance actually helps the economy.

Your point of problem was that this decreased labor costs. Decreasing costs is a good thing. Talking about increasing costs elsewhere is irrelevant to your original point.

Frankly, I am not actually trying to support the health-care bill, but your argument is just entirely wrong. The reason why your argument is wrong was pointed out by Frederic Bastiat, a pro-market economist, back in the 19th century. If this decreases costs, and stops labor from being wasted, then this is a good thing, period. If you want to attack the health-care bill, that's fine, but attack it using arguments that aren't long-discredited in economics, especially not ones so thoroughly discredited that institutions like CATO, Heritage, and the AEI go around trumpeting this as a fallacy.

Your idea of decreasing labor cost is not being able to hire as many people due to taxes, mandates, etc.

That hurts business, it doesn't improve efficiency.

Oops, actually I misheard the video. I thought I heard "costs" in there.

In any case, that being said, the question is still relatively irrelevant as talking about "number of jobs" is usually a sign of a lack of intelligence in economics. The real issue is still going to be efficiency. "Jobs destroyed" doesn't really talk about efficiency.

How can an unconstitutional piece of trash that raises the costs for businesses to actually do business be good for the economy?

Silly quote mining. Notice how they are carefully culling what was actually said.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49273.html

http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?cat=5



So the estimate is that people who are ill and only working (or working x hours) for health benefits, will voluntarily reduce their hours. They are, you know, sick or caring for a sick person and it will become easier to afford health care.

And since when was the CBO credible anyway? I thought the far right hated the CBO for it's cost projections on health care? Maybe theyve changed their minds and accept it now.

Anyway, the point is not about lost jobs, it's about voluntary labor reduction by the ill.

@ simon_says

Cause some people would no longer have to work to find health insurance? Excuse me simon_says but that makes no sense unless they're living off welfare instead of getting a job.


The video of what he actually said is on Hotair.

So having been shown that your posts are inaccurate, your response is what? What I find interesting is that you don't even think to correct it.

It's not killing jobs, it's reducing available labor by a small fraction and he specifically said that it can be quantified in terms of jobs but really that's an abstraction to show a reduction in voluntary labor. It can be a reduction in individual hours that when taken in total nationally, add up to x 40 hour positions at an average wage.

Put simply, some people will no longer have to work x hours to make sure they have access to employer insurance. It linked this specifically to the expansion in medicaid and the subsidies available for insurance coverage. They said some others will have to work more hours but the net estimate they came up with was a slight reduction. So they might get cheaper care without knocking themselves out to meet the hours required for the employers plan. It might also affect people working 2 or 3 jobs to pay off massive medical bills.

If you have such a high degree of confidence in CBO estimates, then you shouldnt worry. They also found that health care was deficit friendly and that repealing it would deepen the deficit.

The only way that Obamacare reduces the deficit is the billions in new taxes that will be imposed on the American People + Bernie Madoff style accounting.

First, I couldn't care less that Politico is saying Obamacare is such a wonderful thing, especially since basic math and common sense contradicts their stance completely.

Here is why your entire interpretation is debunked.

1. Increasing the costs for employers to hire people, making them unable to hire part-time people as well is going to hurt the economy not help it. BASIC COMMON SENSE!

2. Forcing employers to dump employees off of health insurance so Government can have their Government Run Healthcare doesn't help the economy either. It just gives Government more control over people's lives.

3. Obamacare is currently null and void until an appeals court overturns the Judge in Florida, every state that was a part of the lawsuit in Florida can currently tell the Democrats to take their Obamacare and shove it.

You came into another person's thread in a hostile manner, accused them of "quote mining" which is essentially insinuating intentional deception, and then you are surprised that he didn't take your word for it that he's being intentionally deceptive and correct it to what you consider to be correct. Do you see why this would be going nowhere fast? Why would you expect anyone to absorb accusations of being a liar and say "thank you, you're absolutely right!"? Would that fly with you?

You seem to have trouble comprehending English. These are neither the claims of Politico nor myself. These are CBO claims. You brought up the CBO, misinterpreted what they said, and now appear to be moving off into other territory to cover your error. I'm just noting the irony of you both approvingly citing and then demonizing the CBO estimates in a single thread. You don't seem to know what you believe beyond what is convenient for you to say at any given moment.




The quote mining was on the part of the right wing blog. The error of the OP was in repeating it without really understanding it.

Let me get this through your head, I don't care what a blog site and Politico says, I care what teh CBO Director TESTIFIED before congress which is if I recall is under oath and lieing would be perjury.

Furthermore, the deficit reduction assumes an input of 10 years in revenue and an output of 6 years of service in order to reach the deficit reduction numbers. So the input the CBO was given was bad to begin with. They are required to calculate only the information they are given. If they were given bad numbers they will spit out a bad result.

You want to accuse me of not knowing what I am talking about when the Hotair article actually posts a video. You can give me a song and dance from politico and a blog site, I really don't care, what I care about is what their Director Testified under oath not what he supposedly posted in a blog which probably had to be cleared with the White House.

That's not a "blog site". It's the CBO blog at a .gov address, which references an official CBO paper giving details and even supplies the link to it. He's talking about something that came out last August. None of it is new.

See, this is why your opinion is not respected here, and probably elsewhere. You are irrational and cling to falsehoods. I don't know why.

Except that people have already pointed out that the old CBO scores are bogus because the Democrats gave them bad numbers.



I'm not the one being irrational.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jskjci1ZL9Q

The estimate of .5 percent is out of 160 million jobs which is kinda a rosy estimate given the way the economy is going. That equals 800,000 Jobs.


Additionally, Obamacare discourages people from working.
http://www.openmarket.org/2010/10/28/cb ... ages-work/

I really don't care what the CBO's blog says, I really don't give what Politico says, I care about what the CBO Director testified UNDER OATH before congress.