CBO Makes Predictions re: ObamaCare

The CBO came out with some facts today, and many Republicans immediately jumped on their bandwagon touting that ObamaCare will cause the loss of many, many jobs. However, the CBO was really saying that these job losses will be voluntary, and thus open to immediate re-filling by each company. The possible reasons given for these voluntary job leavings were one parent maybe wanting to be able to spend more time at home with a child or children, or those persons who are fairly close to retirement age, but certainly not old enough for Medicare, or maybe one parent in a family wants to go back to school, and a myriad of other reasons. This position was re-stated by the CBO to say that NOT millions of jobs would be lost, BUT millions of workers would choose not to work. As mentioned above, this represents an opportunity for the millions of Americans now un-employed or under-employed.
Thus the moral of this thread is that, once again, ObamaCare, or the ACA, has once again offered a surprising additional benefit after its official opening.

 

They said more than just that.

They said exchange premiums are lower than they expected (by about 15%), so projections of federal spending on exchange subsidies have dropped.

They said the risk corridors "bailout" of the insurance industry will actual net the government $8 billion.

They said Medicare cost growth has slowed even more than they thought it had last year.

They saw "no compelling evidence that part-time employment has increased as a result of the ACA" and see no more people transitioning out of the nongroup market (say, due to canceled policies) than they did a year ago.

 

Thanks Greenbeard for the additional facts.

 

Not really what the report concluded or says at all. They do not expect 2.3 million fewer jobs --they expect that due to the ACA, many people will elect to work fewer hours and when you combine all those fewer hours together they add up to the equivalent of 2.3 million fewer workers in terms of hours worked. They expect people to cut back about 1.5% on the amount of time they work which is unlikely to create many jobs.

 

I understand your point, but all I was saying was that with people working those 2.3 million fewer hours, that should open up some real opportunities for the unemployed to reverse their situations, at least a significant number of them.

 

Now in February, the numbers of the youth are beginning to rise significantly, just as the overall participation is also surging to bigger numbers. More than 1.1 million people signed up in January alone, bringing the total number to 3.3 million now covered by private plans. While still short of the 4.4 million number that HHS had projected BEFORE the troubling opening and the web-site issues, the number of enrollees is approaching the level that was hoped for. With 6 weeks left in the enrollment period, it sure looks like the program has rebounded and has an excellent chance of making its original goals in time.

 

If one of the effects of the law is that it encourages people to work few hours to stay within the income limits to get the subsidies, doesn't that increase income inequality by incentivizing low incomes?

 

I was not saying that the law encourages people to work few hours, I was saying that it gave them the opportunity to QUIT so they could be with their family member or members, or any other of the original reasons I listed above. Then when they actually did quit, this would open the door for the currently-unemployed to get some employment.

 

Well I'm not sure where you got that then, because the CBO report said that they would work fewer hours, not quit outright. But that still goes to my point that this gives incentives that increase income inequality.

 

Let's say they WERE working maybe 30 or even 40 hours per week. If they quit, they now work 0 hours, and the CBO is still correct ion saying they will work fewer hours. After all, zero is fewer than ANY other amount, so it is still fewer hours.

 

I suddenly realize that you are not the least bit serious.

 

Let me suggest that you actually go to school, where you MIGHT be able to learn how to realize things as they really are, instead of YOUR normal DUH!

 

What field of study could I possibly take that would allow be to swallow talking points, no matter how ridiculous they are? Journalism maybe?

The CBO's intent was clear. You are trying to spin their comments into absurdity. The issue the CBO was addressing was that people would work less in order to keep their income below the amount to maintain subsidies. So that's a program that incentivizes low incomes.

The result? Greater income inequality since people that otherwise would be able to work and put themselves in a higher income group will voluntarily keep their income low. You've been dodging that for a couple of posts now. Still waiting on a response.

 

The CBO had no intent, they were mainly stating their interpretation of the fact that a significant number of the workforce, whose main reason for working was to have an insurance policy for their family, NOT to try and make more money or to try and grow their bank accounts, CAN now still get that insurance policy without being employed. I'll guarantee you that the vast majority of these people are not the poor workers who barely make it, they are rather those that have saved or invested sufficient funds to pay for their new policies without having to work, and chose to do so.

 

???

So you think there is a large population of people who have saved enough to stop working all together now that they can get Obamacare for free.... or actually at a zero income, Medicaid?

There is a part of me that wants to tell you to stop while you're behind, but there is another part that wants you to continue this in depth policy analysis.

 

I never mentioned they would get the care for free, I merely said that they were smart enough to save their money while working, and can now afford those monthly payments without a government gift. When I was working I saved enough for my retirement and medicare payments, so others can surely do the same.

 

The CBO's last "report" that "scored" the PPACA as deficit neutral was flawed. It only scored based on the information the democrats submitted for scoring. In fact, if you read the entire report you will find that the CBO pointed out several factors that could lead to their score being inaccurate. I emailed CBO and advised that if they were aware that their score was not accurate if apply know factors and information not submitted for them to take into account when scoring the democrats request, it was an injustice to the American people. But, since they can only score on the parameters submitted to them, they replied they could only suggest other outcomes that might occur and could not include them in scoring what was submitted to them. What a crock of you know what.

I don't put much faith now in anything the CBO reports. I give more credit to independent, non-partisan studies and my own knowledge, experience and research.

 

Let the CBO score whatever projects they evaluate, but they should stop at that. Their job is NOT to advise the American people of how "good" or "bad" their opinion is of anything, but rather the economic feasibility of whatever facts they have in front of them. It is their responsibility to gather the facts, and if they do a poor job, the onus is on them. But it is NOT their responsibility to offer comments on the quality of what they evaluate, JUST the economic feasibility.

 

It WILL cut down on the unemployment rate.

 

Very well-written. When the current workforce members either cut back or quit, the jobs openings rise, thus providing employment for the UNemployed. Ergo: the unemployment rate drops.

 

If you cut your hours back to zero, as you stated, then your income is zero, so you would qualify for Medicaid, which is...free.

 

WRONG----I have no job, and thus no income of THAT type, but I cannot qualify for Medicaid because I have over $20K/year just in S.S. in income, and my wife has over half that. I paid into medicare for many years, as did my wife, and thus we have plans where they subtract our monthly premiums from our S.S. checks before we get them. I wouldn't want Medicaid anyway, I have never taken any freebies from the government.

 

I was speaking generally, not your specific situation. but if you are getting 20K a year from Social Security, your income isn't zero.

 

My income has never been ZERO, but I have no "earned income" either. No job = no earned income. So are you saying that since I have no earned income, I can get medicaid? I think not.

 

Depending on one's SS income (family SS income) one can get medicaid as a supplement to medicare. Especially if you are put into a nursing home it is common. Medicare only covers 30 of nursing home care at 80%.