New CBO estimates of the OBAMACAARE train wreck!

It keeps getting worse!

http://washingtonexaminer.com/cbo-s...cut-employment-by-2.5-million/article/2543414

 

View attachment 2287 View attachment 2288

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-nearly-25-million-american-jobs-report-says/

 

Let me get this straight. I might just be missing something here and maybe you can explain it. So 2.3 million people will not choose to seek employment because they can afford health care without working meaning that 2.3 million people are only working today for the health care benefit? So we are not actually losing those jobs, we are creating jobs for those that do choose to work? Last time I checked, less workers in the workforce equals more available jobs. What's wrong with my logic?

 

Just as I thought... More Right-wing distortions and outright lies. I should have known. Wait a minute... I did know!

Conservative Media Misreads New Report In Rush To Attack Obamacare

By JUSTIN BERRIER

Right-wing media figures rushed to claim the Affordable Care Act will destroy 2 million jobs, citing a new Congressional Budget Office report, but that's not what the report found -- the CBO report projected that the law will give workers the freedom to voluntarily reduce their employment after gaining health insurance.
The CBO released its Budget and Economic Outlook for the years 2014 to 2024 on February 4, which projected in part that the number of full-time workers would decline by about 2 million by 2017. Right-wing media quickly pounced on the report to distort the CBO's projections about the ACA's effect on future employment.
In a post on her Washington Post blog, Jennifer Rubin claimed the report "confirms what critics have been saying all along: Obamacare is killing jobs and squelching growth." On Fox, America's News HQ co-host Alisyn Camerota claimed "a bombshell new CBO report" found that "Obamacare will be much worse for the economy than previously predicted," and Fox Business host Lou Dobbs added it is "another round of devastating numbers for all Americans because the result of this is there will be fewer jobs":

The CBO makes it clear that the decrease in workers is not due to jobs being lost -- rather, the ACA will allow workers to choose to work less. The projected change is in the supply of labor, not the demand for labor, and thus the CBO noted that the decrease would not lead to a corresponding increase in unemployment or underemployment (emphasis added):

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 fulltime-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 businesses' 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 underemployment (such as part-time workers who would prefer to work more hours per week).​

In a Los Angeles Times post, Michael Hiltzik explained that the difference between a decrease in the supply of labor and demand for labor is significant, quoting economist Dean Baker who noted that the change "is, in fact, a beneficial effect of the law":

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 right-wing media's failure to correctly interpret the CBO's findings is not surprising, considering a similar report released in 2011 was seized on by conservatives who falsely claimed the law would eliminate 800,000 jobs.

 

I guess this thread will a die a well-deserved death since the morons that posted the false information from 2 separate Right-wing sources will unlikely want to be associated with such an obvious lie. But who knows, they never seem to learn from their mistakes.

I'm not saying that you should be embarrassed by this. I'm saying that you should be VERY embarrassed by this.

 

If the Right-wing news media has to go to this extent to lie about the ACA, don't you think that they might just be herding a bunch of really dumb sheepeople. Honest to God! I just heard old turtle face McConnell say the same lie on the floor of the Senate. Unreal. There isn't a sane human being in the GOP. I'm convinced.

 

It must be true. You are already off on the insults.

 

Now don't you feel stupid for believing the Right-wing media given what the CBO report actually says? Hum?

 

Why read the original source when all that matters is the spinning heads.

 

I suspect they'll go silent now.

 

Oh, I really doubt it.

 

What difference at this point does it make whether the reductions are voluntary or " from a net drop in businesses' demand for labor"? It is still a net loss of jobs and a net increase in the public doll just because of Obamacare.

 

Ahhhhh, NO! It is none of those things and you need to stop pushing something that has widely been called a scam perpetrated by the GOP. There is no net drop in businesses demand for labor, in fact, it is the exact opposite. Nowhere is there a loss of jobs, there is a loss of people needing to fill those jobs. Unless you want to continue to look stupid, you should crawl away with your tail between your legs puppy. Maybe that isn't so much an insult as it is a simple old fact. If you say stupid things, it isn't an insult to point them out.

CBO delivers welcome news to Obamacare backers

02/04/14 05:06 PM—Updated 02/05/14 01:53 AM
By Steve Benen

If Republican press releases and reports from conservative and major media outlets are any indication, the Congressional Budget Office’s findings on the Affordable Care Act are simply brutal. National Review, which probably published its report before actually looking at the CBO’s findings, ran this headline: “The CBO Just Nuked Obamacare.”

As we discussed earlier, the coverage has been profoundly misleading. Despite what Americans are being told, the CBO did not find that the health care reform law would cost the nation over 2 million jobs. What it actually said is that the law will empower more than 2 million Americans to leave the workforce if they want to, no longer feeling forced to stay at a job in order to have benefits for them and their family.

Why “Obamacare” critics consider this a bad thing remains unclear.

But Michael Hiltzik, to his credit, took the reporting one step further.

The Congressional Budget Office is out with its latest report on the Affordable Care Act, and here are a few bottom lines:​

​

— The ACA is cheaper than it expected.​

​

— It will “markedly increase” the number of Americans with health insurance.​

​

— The risk-adjustment provisions, which Congressional Republicans want to overturn as a “bailout” of the insurance industry, will actually turn a profit to the U.S. Treasury.​

​

Given all this, why are the first news headlines on the CBO report depicting it as calling Obamacare a job killer?​

Because a whole lot of congressional offices issued press statements before getting their facts straight? Because a few too many reporters don’t understand CBO reports as well as they should?

This is one of those strange days in which most of the political world seems to have gotten an important story backwards. The Affordable Care Act’s critics have spent the day eagerly touting a CBO report that offers a whole lot of good news for the Affordable Care Act’s supporters – and much of the media has played along in a depressing display.

Indeed, the CBO’s findings – which, again, are readily available online for all to see – actually add fresh evidence that discredits talking points pushed by the law’s detractors.

For Obamacare critics, the law has increased part-time employment over full-time employment. The CBO found “there is no compelling evidence” to support the argument.

For Obamacare critics, the law will worsen the nation’s finances. The CBO found that the Affordable Care Act will actually reduce the deficit by more than $1 trillion over the next 20 years.

For Obamacare critics, the law will force consumers to pay more for health care. The CBO found that the Affordable Care Act’s premiums are even better than originally projected.

For Obamacare critics, the law will cause the ranks of the uninsured to swell. The CBO found that the Affordable Care Act will bring coverage to 13 million Americans this year and 25 million Americans over the next two decades.

Conservatives who’ve spent the day urging Americans to look at the CBO report have inadvertently encouraged the public to review a document that supports the White House’s arguments.

 

So, Obamacare de-motivates workers from actually working?

 

Think about that! Seriously! 2.5 million people won't work the jobs, but "There is no net drop in businesses demand for labor". So where is the company going to get the people to fill the jobs? Ahhhhhhhhhhh, I know. They will go OVERSEAS. And then when the company mandate hits, the rest of the company goes overseas.

 

No, they have the freedom to stay home with their kids or retire without having to work for the health care benefits. That's a bad thing why?

 

Really kinda sums up the entire liberal agenda, doesn't it? Why work to pay your own way if the gov't is willing to make others pay, right? Thanks for that!

 

Hey, this gives me a fine idea. Perhaps they can start to offer a decent living wage to workers to entice them with a carrot since their big stick has been taken away? The Beatles can even write a song about it imagine workers rather than slaves.

 

Why would you assume that just because they are staying home with their kids while their spouse works or run a small business that they are not paying their own way? Why would you assume that people who have worked their entire lives, earned a pension, but can't leave the workforce because they need the health care benefits are not paying their own way? Answer, because Right-wingers always assume the worst about people.

 

I'm assuming nothing.
You said:
"'they have the freedom to stay home with their kids or retire without having to work for the health care benefits".

If one has the ability to work in order to pay for their health benefits why shouldn't they? If one is capable of paying their own way why should the gov't or the taxpayers be forced to pay?