Daily Obamacare Thread: Good and Bad

[metis]

You know what's rather weird? Namely that there's this right-wing hype about 2.3 million jobs being "lost", even though the report points out that some of this figure will be from people voluntarily leaving, and yet where's the hype about the fact that nearly 30 million more Americans will be able to have health-care insurance, some for the first time. OK, that's 2.3 million versus 30 million-- not quite an equivalency.

Oh, I'm sorry; I forgot that the Fox groupies believe that the 2.3 million is actually more. Must be that "new math".

 

[esmith]

You know what's rather weird? Namely that there's this right-wing hype about 2.3 million jobs being "lost", even though the report points out that some of this figure will be from people voluntarily leaving, and yet where's the hype about the fact that nearly 30 million more Americans will be able to have health-care insurance, some for the first time. OK, that's 2.3 million versus 30 million-- not quite an equivalency.

Oh, I'm sorry; I forgot that the Fox groupies believe that the 2.3 million is actually more. Must be that "new math".

Where are those 30 million that are getting healthcare for the first time. As a matter of fact where are even 30 million that have signed up for Obamacare. Interesting article you need to read:
Warning: Ignore claims that 3.9 million people signed up for Medicaid because of Obamacare

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Now examine the following from CNN: Health law could mean fewer full-time workers, CBO says


So if you are an ACA supporter you will spin it to say that there will be 2.3 million additional part time jobs available since 2.3 million full time workers will move to part time. Is this your point? So now, we have 2.3 million more people drawing health care subsidizes thus costing the taxpayers more money. Now, may I also ask where are the additional low paying 2.3 million part time jobs coming from. Are you hypothesizing that Joe Blow employee goes to his or her employer and says "I don't want to work full time, I only want to work part time". What do you think the response of the employer be? "Sure no problem", or "Either work the hours you were hired to work or go find another job"? I vote the second option.

ehhh....!!!!.......


I get a different take from listening to the guy from the CBO about the actual meaning of the report released......

CBO director: Obamacare will reduce unemployment

[youtube]euGHP_VRfrs[/youtube]
CBO Director: ACA will *reduce* unemployment - YouTube



And this right here.....

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-cbo-20140204,0,3106578.story#axzz2sU9k1UbI

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.

 

[esmith]

Let take a look at what the CBO is saying: report Highlighting is mine.
For some people, the availability of exchange subsidies under the ACA will reduce incentives to work both through a substitution effect and through an income effect.

Subsidies clearly alter recipients’ incentives to work and can certainly influence the labor supply of those who would gain eligibility by working and earning slightly less. But most full-time workers do not confront that particular choice—either their income is well above400 percent of the FPL or they are offered employment based health insurance and thus are generally ineligible for subsidies regardless of their income. Even so, one line of research indicates that the subsidies will affect the labor supply of many full-time workers with health insurance from their employer—precisely because they effectively forgo exchange subsidies when they take or keep a job with health insurance. If instead a worker switched to a part-time job, which typically does not offer health insurance, that worker could become eligible for exchange subsidies. In that view, exchange subsidies effectively constitute a tax on labor supply for a broad range of workers.

Taking that research into account, CBO estimates that expanded Medicaid eligibility under the ACA will, on balance, reduce incentives to work. That effect has a relatively modest influence on total labor supply, however,because the expansion of eligibility for Medicaid primarily affects a relatively small segment of the total population—both because most people’s income will significantly exceed the cutoff for Medicaid eligibility and because some low-income people live in states that are not expected to expand Medicaid.

Under the ACA, employers with 50 or more full-time equivalent employees will face a penalty if they do not offer insurance (or if the insurance they offer does not meet certain criteria) and if at least one of their fulltime workers receives a subsidy through an exchange. Originally scheduled to take effect in 2014, that penalty is now scheduled to be enforced beginning in 2015. In CBO’s judgment, the costs of the penalty eventually will be borne primarily by workers in the form of reductions in wages or other compensation—just as the costs of a payroll tax levied on employers will generally be passed along to employees. Because the supply of labor is responsive to changes in compensation, the employer penalty will ultimately induce some workers to supply less labor. In the next few years, however, when wages probably will not adjust fully, those penalties will tend to reduce the demand for labor more than the supply. In the longer run, some businesses also may decide to reduce their hiring or shift their demand toward part-time hiring—either to stay below the threshold of 50 full-time equivalent
workers or to limit the number of full-time workers that generate penalty payments. But such shifts might not reduce the overall use of labor, as discussed below. (see page 122: Effects of Higher Marginal Tax Rates on
Labor Supply )

So what say you now. Seems to me that the CBO says that the ACA will induce some workers to work less so that they are on the public dime.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Let take a look at what the CBO is saying: report Highlighting is mine.
For some people, the availability of exchange subsidies under the ACA will reduce incentives to work both through a substitution effect and through an income effect.

Subsidies clearly alter recipients’ incentives to work and can certainly influence the labor supply of those who would gain eligibility by working and earning slightly less. But most full-time workers do not confront that particular choice—either their income is well above400 percent of the FPL or they are offered employment based health insurance and thus are generally ineligible for subsidies regardless of their income. Even so, one line of research indicates that the subsidies will affect the labor supply of many full-time workers with health insurance from their employer—precisely because they effectively forgo exchange subsidies when they take or keep a job with health insurance. If instead a worker switched to a part-time job, which typically does not offer health insurance, that worker could become eligible for exchange subsidies. In that view, exchange subsidies effectively constitute a tax on labor supply for a broad range of workers.

Taking that research into account, CBO estimates that expanded Medicaid eligibility under the ACA will, on balance, reduce incentives to work. That effect has a relatively modest influence on total labor supply, however,because the expansion of eligibility for Medicaid primarily affects a relatively small segment of the total population—both because most people’s income will significantly exceed the cutoff for Medicaid eligibility and because some low-income people live in states that are not expected to expand Medicaid.

Under the ACA, employers with 50 or more full-time equivalent employees will face a penalty if they do not offer insurance (or if the insurance they offer does not meet certain criteria) and if at least one of their fulltime workers receives a subsidy through an exchange. Originally scheduled to take effect in 2014, that penalty is now scheduled to be enforced beginning in 2015. In CBO’s judgment, the costs of the penalty eventually will be borne primarily by workers in the form of reductions in wages or other compensation—just as the costs of a payroll tax levied on employers will generally be passed along to employees. Because the supply of labor is responsive to changes in compensation, the employer penalty will ultimately induce some workers to supply less labor. In the next few years, however, when wages probably will not adjust fully, those penalties will tend to reduce the demand for labor more than the supply. In the longer run, some businesses also may decide to reduce their hiring or shift their demand toward part-time hiring—either to stay below the threshold of 50 full-time equivalent
workers or to limit the number of full-time workers that generate penalty payments. But such shifts might not reduce the overall use of labor, as discussed below. (see page 122: Effects of Higher Marginal Tax Rates on
Labor Supply )

So what say you now. Seems to me that the CBO says that the ACA will induce some workers to work less so that they are on the public dime.

The key word is "some".....

People will always find a way to works less while maintaining their current standard of living....But keep in mind...much of what they project is guestimation.

 

[esmith]

The key word is "some".....

People will always find a way to works less while maintaining their current standard of living....But keep in mind...much of what they project is guestimation.

but every time the CBO puts out a report favorable to those on the left they tout is as gospel. do you not agree that the CBO is saying that Obamacare entices people to work less (and in my words) basically subsist off those working full time.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

but every time the CBO puts out a report favorable to those on the left they tout is as gospel.

i wouldn't say "gospel" rather many of their predictions confirm what we've been saying. this report is no different. many of you on the right have been spouting for the past couple days since this report was released that it was going to kill over 2 million jobs except that's not what the CBO report says and every other site out there as well as analyst looking at the report are trying to explin to the seemingly uneducated what the report is actually saying.....

The ACA: Losing Jobs vs. Choosing Not to Work

he report estimated a reduction in full-time-equivalent employment of about 2.3 million by 2021. But the drop is “almost entirely” due to a reduction in “the amount of labor that workers choose to supply”

That last part — which notes that the drop is not due to an increase in unemployment or underemployment — makes clear that comments like Cantor’s are misleading.

Republicans also have made claims before about the ACA leading to an increase in part-time employment, but our previous analysis of trends in the number of people working part-time for economic reasons didn’t bear that out. And the CBO report confirms that “there is no compelling evidence that part-time employment has increased as a result of the ACA.”

the CBO report says in the short term (2014 to 2016) the law will increase employment while the economy is still weak.

With unemployment expected to remain higher than normal over the next few years, the CBO states, even if some people decide to work less, “other applicants will be readily available to fill those positions and the overall effect on employment will be muted.” Meanwhile, the report notes, health care subsidies to low-income Americans will lead to those people spending money on other things — which will create jobs

Finally, we should note that the CBO cautions that its ACA projections are “highly uncertain,” due to the government’s “limited experience with this type of program” as well as the “many uncertainties about how the market for health insurance will function under the ACA.”

at the link above they do touch on how a subsidy can produce an incentive not to work or work less but i'd like to point out that not everyone will want to work less as their current personal financial situation may not allow them to do that. While some will scale back and work less others will join the workforce at part and full time.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...oehner-says-obamacare-expected-destroy-23-mi/

Politifact corroborates with factcheck.org on this issues but counters the talking points of many conservatives, especially the rhetoric from John Boehner. We have three of the party leaders coming out in the past couple days simply loud and wrong but now that they've said it so the base believes it hook, line and sinker.

do you not agree that the CBO is saying that Obamacare entices people to work less (and in my words) basically subsist off those working full time.

see above. if your stance is that we should avoid this subsidy then let's make it totally fair and get rid of ALL subsidies. let's get rid of oil, farm, housing tax credit, Veterans Affairs..etc..etc... No more money to the states for anything...nothing. No SBA loans..I mean "absolutely nothing"....You won't be able to have your cake and eat it too. it's fine to rail against government about what they're supposedly giving other people you feel as though aren't worthy but when it starts to affect your pocket, your bottom line you begin to make special concessions.....

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

This seems like a good place to post this story. Personally, I think Obamacare isn't the way to go in universal healthcare, but it's what we have. But here's a personal story to illustrate it's good side.

I have a friend, who got hurt at work. He worked in a distribution warehouse, and drove a forklift. I'm not sure how exactly, but he got his foot stuck between a fork of the truck, and the wall. He had to have several surgeries, and lost two toes. Instead of his company insurance paying their portion of the bill, or even offering workman's comp, they dropped his insurance. Just like that. Having no other choice, he signed up for the ACA. Now, he's paying about half of what he was a month, to take care of him, his wife, and his four kids. So sometimes, it does do something right. I'd also like to point out how corporations such as the one he works for takes insurance away and doesn't pay workman's comp for work related injuries. It happened where I work as well. But since I'm not sure if that person ever got on the ACA or not, I'll leave that story for another time, so as to not derail this thread.

 

[Revoltingest]

This seems like a good place to post this story. Personally, I think Obamacare isn't the way to go in universal healthcare, but it's what we have. But here's a personal story to illustrate it's good side.

I have a friend, who got hurt at work. He worked in a distribution warehouse, and drove a forklift. I'm not sure how exactly, but he got his foot stuck between a fork of the truck, and the wall. He had to have several surgeries, and lost two toes. Instead of his company insurance paying their portion of the bill, or even offering workman's comp, they dropped his insurance. Just like that. Having no other choice, he signed up for the ACA. Now, he's paying about half of what he was a month, to take care of him, his wife, and his four kids. So sometimes, it does do something right. I'd also like to point out how corporations such as the one he works for takes insurance away and doesn't pay workman's comp for work related injuries. It happened where I work as well. But since I'm not sure if that person ever got on the ACA or not, I'll leave that story for another time, so as to not derail this thread.

What state do you live in?
For workers compensation insurance to not cover work related injuries is just bizarre.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

What state do you live in?
For workers compensation insurance to not cover work related injuries is just bizarre.

Just south of you, in Indiana.

 

[metis]

Where are those 30 million that are getting healthcare for the first time. As a matter of fact where are even 30 million that have signed up for Obamacare. Interesting article you need to read:
Warning: Ignore claims that 3.9 million people signed up for Medicaid because of Obamacare

There are roughly 50 million Americans w/o health insurance, and the various changes with both the ACA directly and indirectly (such as through Medicaid and individual state expansions) will provide coverage for up to 30 million. This is not exactly "new news", so it begs the question why you are unaware of this?

 

[metis]

So what say you now. Seems to me that the CBO says that the ACA will induce some workers to work less so that they are on the public dime.

It is the states that have regulations that limit welfare, plus even if a person quits a job, lets's say to retire earlier, that job ain't disappearing in most cases, so this opens up additional opportunities for others. Guess who proposed this before? None other than the Heritage Foundation and Paul Ryan in 2009, whereas both lamented what is called "job-lock", namely people being unable to switch jobs or move into earlier retirement because they can't afford to lose their insurance.

Therefore, what the ACA will do is to allow people to be more mobile in the marketplace, which you would think self-proclaimed "conservatives" would be in favor of.

 

[metis]

I have a friend, who got hurt at work...

And to go along with what you wrote here, I also have a friend who is alive today almost without a doubt because of the ACA. She is a cancer patient whose husband lost his job a couple of years ago, therefore he would have lost his insurance if it wasn't for the provisions in the ACA. Because of the high cost of cancer medication, there's no way they could have afforded to purchase it unless she were to be fortunate enough to be picked up to participate in an experimental program. Today, her cancer is in remission, and if anyone asks her what she thinks about the ACA, they'll get an earful in a hurry.

But then, what does the right-wing really care about human lives anyway because money they believe is just so much more important. Sorry to be snarky towards them, but I'm afraid that all too true in so many cases. It seems in these discussions with them that they honestly believe it's only money that really counts, and the health care of Americans is quite secondary. Of course they will deny that, but we can look back at this thread and some others on "Obamacare" and see for ourselves where their priorities really lie-- and I think that's just despicable.

 

[Revoltingest]

Just south of you, in Indiana.

Does your state require such insurance?
How would it not be applicable to workplace injuries?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

And to go along with what you wrote here, I also have a friend who is alive today almost without a doubt because of the ACA. She is a cancer patient whose husband lost his job a couple of years ago, therefore he would have lost his insurance if it wasn't for the provisions in the ACA. Because of the high cost of cancer medication, there's no way they could have afforded to purchase it unless she were to be fortunate enough to be picked up to participate in an experimental program. Today, her cancer is in remission, and if anyone asks her what she thinks about the ACA, they'll get an earful in a hurry.

But then, what does the right-wing really care about human lives anyway because money they believe is just so much more important. Sorry to be snarky towards them, but I'm afraid that all too true in so many cases. It seems in these discussions with them that they honestly believe it's only money that really counts, and the health care of Americans is quite secondary. Of course they will deny that, but we can look back at this thread and some others on "Obamacare" and see for ourselves where their priorities really lie-- and I think that's just despicable.

And...I'll chime in on this with...

My sister in-law was on dialysis and needed a new kidney. No one in the family, that I know of, was a match. Her childhood friend and boyfriend of 10 years (why they're not married is beyond me at this point)....he was a perfect match. Her previous insurance covered most of the surgery and her medications were extremely expensive. Her insurance company (Pre-ACA) wound up dropping her. With the help of friends, family she was able to get the medicine for a short wile. Her new job, still right before the ACA, insurance provider denied her because "pre-existing condition"......Now that the ACA is in effect she was able to get insurance cheaper than what she had before, medications are covered and they're cheaper as well.....Since those two (she and her boyfriend) are metaphorically joined at the hip I think it's time for a wedding.....(any excuse for me to get free cake).....:drool:

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Does your state require such insurance?
How would it not be applicable to workplace injuries?

Yes, and I have no idea. But I personally know know of several people who's companies were able to circumvent it somehow.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, and I have no idea. But I personally know know of several people who's companies were able to circumvent it somehow.

I've never heard of such a thing here.
Oh, well...you live in a hateful state.
Why?
I'm legally required to stop at truck weigh stations there.
I'm not in Michiganistan.

 

[esmith]

i wouldn't say "gospel" rather many of their predictions confirm what we've been saying. this report is no different. many of you on the right have been spouting for the past couple days since this report was released that it was going to kill over 2 million jobs except that's not what the CBO report says and every other site out there as well as analyst looking at the report are trying to explin to the seemingly uneducated what the report is actually saying.....

Maybe the word "gospel" was the incorrect word but it coveys the fact. You are using the term "you" very loosely here. I have never said that the CBO report indicated that X number of jobs would be lost to Obamacare. I think if you re-read what I said you will see that I made no claim that it would kill X number of jobs. All I did was copy various points from the CBO report. I did make one statement " ACA will induce some workers to work less so that they are on the public dime." Which is exactly what the report put forth.

The ACA: Losing Jobs vs. Choosing Not to Work

at the link above they do touch on how a subsidy can produce an incentive not to work or work less but i'd like to point out that not everyone will want to work less as their current personal financial situation may not allow them to do that. While some will scale back and work less others will join the workforce at part and full time.

And the CBO reported that the "some" was 2.3 million by 2021.

Politifact corroborates with factcheck.org on this issues but counters the talking points of many conservatives, especially the rhetoric from John Boehner. We have three of the party leaders coming out in the past couple days simply loud and wrong but now that they've said it so the base believes it hook, line and sinker.

I am not defending the idea that the CBO report says X number of jobs will be lost.

if your stance is that we should avoid this subsidy then let's make it totally fair and get rid of ALL subsidies. let's get rid of oil, farm, housing tax credit, Veterans Affairs..etc..etc... No more money to the states for anything...nothing. No SBA loans..I mean "absolutely nothing"....You won't be able to have your cake and eat it too. it's fine to rail against government about what they're supposedly giving other people you feel as though aren't worthy but when it starts to affect your pocket, your bottom line you begin to make special concessions.....

No, my stance is not that we should avoid subsidies. What I find hypocritical is on one hand this administration is touting income inequality on one hand and applauding the idea of earning less money by working at a lower paying job. When the government policies and programs make it more advantageous to earn less money by working less in order to qualify for government assistance is not what this country needs. What we need is the concept of working harder to better oneself not working less.

 

[esmith]

There are roughly 50 million Americans w/o health insurance, and the various changes with both the ACA directly and indirectly (such as through Medicaid and individual state expansions) will provide coverage for up to 30 million. This is not exactly "new news", so it begs the question why you are unaware of this?

Maybe so, but the CBO also stated that the number of uninsured will never fall below 30 million. I thought that the ACA was supposed in correct this. If not, what the heck did the Democrats do.
CBO: Uninsured Under Obamacare Never Falls Below 30 Million | The Weekly Standard
Note: for some reason my system will not open the PDF files linked in the report. I even when to the CBO web site and found the report and my system still reports that the file is corrupted and can not be opened (yes I have the most current Adobe PDF reader). I HATE COMPUTERS!!!!!!!

 

[esmith]

And the bad news keeps rolling in.

Duke University: 44% of U.S. firms consider cutting health care to current workers | WashingtonExaminer.com
Fewer than 2 million signed up for Medicaid under the health law, report says - The Washington Post
House committee to investigate why ObamaCare site has no appeals process | Fox News
Insurers Say Limited Doctor Choice Key To Plan Affordability Under Health Law - Kaiser Health News