Turns Out That The Train Wreck Is Really The GOP Going Off The Rails

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.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/02/04/conservatives-misread-new-report-in-rush-to-att/197916

 

But that’s not the part of the CBO report the right is most eager to talk about.
This is.

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.​

 

Why do I see Scruffy, the janitor, pointing to a room full of @#$% where the toilet used to be while saying "There's the problem"?

 

You have to wonder if they are so willing to put out such an obvious lie that is so easy to disprove, who is their target audience? Is it their idiotic base that will take their word over the actual report they are referrencing or did they simply say this because they know their audience is too damn stupid to ever bother checking what they say but like the publicity for saying it? You really have to wonder.

 

I wouldn't go so far as to say they, the moderates, are stupid. My feeling is that they are more along the lines of being mislead. "Peer pressure", or something similar, is probably a big component of the problem. By that I mean, when all your peers, your family and acquaintances, constantly tell you "This is that, and that is this", you eventually want to conform to it too. Some are able to rebel against that type of pressure, most can't, at least not until that "Ah-hah!" moment, that epiphany, that allows them to see that what they've been taught, what they've been pressured to accept as "gospel", is wrong.

My hope is that people can eventually find truths for themselves, as they individually see it, even under that enormous pressure to conform to the beliefs of their peers. My hope is that they accept what "rings true" and ignore the "extraneous noise" of the popular opinions around them that makes the truth tougher to "hear". It ain't easy to be the "black sheep" of the family say, or the "rebel", but I hope they have the strength to see that it's better to be shunned by a bunch of noisy bastards than to be denied the chance to understand issues based on the merits of each point and counter-point.

I think they'll succeed, given enough opportunities to have that epiphany. I have faith that people know deep down inside what is right and wrong, they just need to find the will to consider which is which, without having that pressure on them to conform to something that is obviously wrong to them, on some subconscious level.

 

How do explain our politically active Right-wingers here that are under no pressure to believe these spoon fed lies and yet post them freely and in tandem? Are they just programmed at this point?

 

What difference at this point does it make? 2.5 million jobs will not be filled and those people will instead live off Uncle Sugar.

I guess the companies are supposed to fill this 2.5 million jobs from the people who decide not to work OVERSEAS. Loverly. And then the liberals can gritch some more about those greedy companies.

And, BTW, that estimate did not include the company mandates so God only knows how many more will join the 2.5 million.

 

You really don't know the difference between people needing to work for the health benefits only and people needing to work for the income do you? The truth is that many seniors cannot afford to retire because of health insurance not that they don't have enough money saved to retire. You simply don't have any idea what you're talking about as usual.

 

You have to keep in mind that some peeps actually think creationism is science, BHO is an alien, they alone are entitled and better than everyone else, their sky friend will save them and all that sort of rot. There is no expectation that they will understand anything from the CBO.

 

And you experience with retirement is?

Regardless, the reason they do not work is immaterial. It has exactly the same affect if the want to be a stay-at-home sitter because Obamacare pays for your health care or retire on full government support. No workers and more government dole!

 

The ACA is actually about insurance requirement for all and subsidies (partial to full) for the poorest amongst us. I looked around the market exchanges and the fully subsidized plans have big deductibles and co-payments. How do you figure that equates to health care? If they can't afford a premium how do they afford deducts and co-pays that add up to even more?

 

Why should I know that? Obama passed Pelosi's bill. Pelosi said' "We have to pass the bill to find out what is in it..." Ask her.

 

Wasn't one of the BO's original promises something about rescuing us from the high deductible, big co-pay plans that were being forced on us by the evil insurance companies?

 

Reading irrelevant crap on the web - free, getting caught up in irrelevant partisan hype - also free, actually understanding the CBO report - PRICELESS

 

I cannot keep up with all of his lies. I do remember that it was supposed to cost $2500 less, no one was supposed to have a tax increase earning less than $200,000 or $250,000, etc.

 

Yes. An education is in order. It's under way.

 

An education is underway by whom? An unemployed, toothless garbage man with his hands out? Good luck with that. Go take your medicine, grandpa.

View attachment 2296

 

yawn

 

Yeah, some rantings are just so useless, it's best to ignore them completely.