Yes, ObamaCare will kill jobs (video)

Turns out Republicans were right when they labeled ObamaCare a “job-killing” law. According to the Congressional Budget Office, it’s an 800,000-jobs-killing law:

Keep in mind, I have repeatedly said the CBO has been working with overly rosy assumptions about ObamaCare (forced onto them by the congressional Democrats who wrote the law; CBO must score bills and laws as they’re written, not as they’re most likely to turn out). So, it seems likely that a job loss of just half a percentage point — those 800,000 jobs — is the best-case scenario.

The retort from Democrats seems to be that the loss of these 800,000 jobs is OK, because the figure represents workers who will choose not to work — because they won’t need to work just to have health insurance — rather than workers who won’t be able to find jobs.

Actually, I think that’s even worse: The implication is that taxpayers — 800,000 fewer taxpayers than there would otherwise be, remember — will be footing the bill for these non-workers. That’s exactly the opposite of what we need, and another example of why those rosy deficit-reduction numbers for ObamaCare will never come to pass.

– By Kyle Wingfield

Find me on Facebook

70 comments Add your comment

carlosgvv

February 11th, 2011
11:51 am

No, ObamaCare won’t kill jobs. What it probably will do is give employers an excuse to drop employee insurance coverage and blame the Government when the real reason is their greed.

JoJo

February 11th, 2011
11:54 am

Carlos is the prime example of head-in-the-sand. The facts are here, and all he can do is stamp his feet and insist, “You’re wrong!”

wallbanger

February 11th, 2011
11:57 am

I think the legislators have their heads up their bums. I am on medicare. I cannot, ever, switch doctors, because I cannot be accepted by a new doctor because medicare reimbursement is so low as to make it impractical for them to take me. I have to offer to pay cash for medical care. What are the so-called middle class going to do when they turn 65 and can’t get medical care? I guess there will always be the bottom feeding doctors to serve them, but what kind of care??? And with Obamacare it is bound to be even worse.

Toby

February 11th, 2011
12:03 pm

wallbanger, I’m on medicare and your a fool or lieing, which is it?

The Anti-Wooten

February 11th, 2011
12:08 pm

How many hundreds of thousands of families will have to declare personal bankruptcy due to lack of coverage when a family member breaks a leg?

Ricardo40

February 11th, 2011
12:10 pm

Umh, whom should I believe, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) or Carlos the clueless blogger??? Yes, I think I will go with the CBO.

And yes, I agree with wallbanger, the 800,000 job loss due to ObamaCare is more than likely the best case scenario and that is just unbelievably trajic for our current employment situation. Well that is why Democrats rammed ObamaCare into our lives and why Pelosi said we had to pass the bill before whe could find out what was in it.

CJ

February 11th, 2011
12:13 pm

I don’t think that giving people the freedom to quit a job that they don’t want can accurately be described as “job killing”—especially since it frees up spots for people who are actively looking for jobs. (People who don’t want a job are, reasonably, excluded from unemployment figures.)

I know a couple that will benefit directly from this “job killing” health care law in the way that Kyle describes above.

My friend, Brad, owns his own company, a commercial cleaning company (he and his employees are the ones who empty your trash cans after you’ve left for the day). Brad has been in business for several years and had been doing well.

Unfortunately, Brad has diabetes. As a result, no insurance company will sell him health insurance for an annual premium that is anything less than the cost of a house—coverage for any complications arising out of diabetes excluded. Brad earns enough money from his business to support his family and raise his children. His wife, Sara, had always been a stay-at-home mother. But once Brad was diagnosed with diabetes, he suddenly found himself without health insurance because he couldn’t possibly afford what was offered. As a result, Sara took a full-time job working in a chain store, for one reason only, specifically to get health insurance for Brad via her employer’s group family coverage. She has worked at this store for years now.

Now, with the health care law, Sara will be able to quit her job and be home with the kids or spend her time however she chooses. If she chooses not to work, by the way, it won’t be taxpayers who are “footing the bill” for Sara (as Kyle suggests); it’ll be Brad. (By the way, whose footing the bill for all those people who go to emergency rooms, but don’t have any health insurance?)

Others who couldn’t otherwise find affordable health insurance can now quit there jobs to start their own businesses and, perhaps, create more jobs. Evidently, there are hundreds of thousands like them—800,000 or so.

Maybe I misunderstood, but Kyle seem to be believe that a health insurance market that forces Sara to work at a job that she wouldn’t otherwise take is a good thing (since it forces her to pay income taxes?) and restructuring that health insurance market to give people the freedom to live their lives how they choose is a bad thing. As you might suspect, I disagree.

CJ

February 11th, 2011
12:16 pm

whose = who’s

I need an editor of my own.

wallbanger

February 11th, 2011
12:24 pm

Toby, try to get a gynecologist. I am experiencing it, and in fact, called Northside Hospital referring, and was told simply that many doctors won’t take medicare, and that almost no gynecologists will. so, I have had to offer to pay cash. So I lived it. Go ahead, make the call, and prove it to yourself. I am not a fool nor am I a liar, and it is knee jerk for you to name call without checking.

Toby

February 11th, 2011
12:24 pm

I’m sure Kyle is well informed and must fall down laughing at all of you that never read the rest of what the CBO said. We’ll keep it our little secret. And Wallbanger, get a gap policy or check the internet for Drs. that accept full payment from medicare, their all over the place.

The Anti-Wooten

February 11th, 2011
12:41 pm

@Toby 12:24 – Tell me it ain’t so!! You’re implying that Lyle WingnutField would cherry-pick the video segments that he places here! We all know that he’s an honorable Teabaglican that cares abot human life and dignity…until they’re born.

The Anti-Wooten

February 11th, 2011
12:48 pm

@wallbanger, I have empathy for your situation and yes, you’re dealing with a system that’s less than perfect.

However, since you’re of an age where you are eligible for Medicare then I know that you are also old enough to recall what it was like prior to the implementation of Medicare. Were that the case you wouldn’t be blogging here, you’d be on the street because you’d be too poor to have to worry about a gynecologist.

The Anti-Wooten

February 11th, 2011
12:50 pm

Either that or trying to find the next can of cat food to feed yourself.

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Get Govt Works 4 Us , senatorisakson. senatorisakson said: #JustTheFacts: Yesterday, the director of the CBO said that the Democratic health care law will eliminate 800,000 jobs. http://j.mp/dOF0m7 [...]

Ragnar Danneskjöld

February 11th, 2011
1:22 pm

Good afternoon all. I think a more accurate economic assessment would be that the presence of ObamaCare, adding a per-worker expense for healthcare either directly or indirectly, would be a job-aborter, not a job-killer. By forcing an association of higher costs with every added-employee, the government pushes jobs overseas (where that is possible for the productive enterprises) or prevents the creation of positions in the first place.

Linda

February 11th, 2011
1:32 pm

There has been a shortage of doctors for years. Some states & certain areas in some states have a serious problem. There are fewer & fewer doctors who accept Medicare & especially Medicaid, especially new Medicare & Medicaid patients. Even the Mayo Clinics have eliminated patients who they accept.
There is also a trend for doctors not to process insurance. They do not care if you have insurance or not. They save much overhead. All patients pay the same prices in cash. If you do have insurance, you process your claim, fight with your provider & wait to be reimbursed.

[...] changed the entire debate over the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA).  In an exchange with Chairman Paul Ryan, Mr. Elmendorf divulged what most objective health policy analysts have [...]

John

February 11th, 2011
1:55 pm

Kyle…just another GOP spin. Look at the video again. How did you get there would be 800,000 less taxpayers. If you notice, what they’re talking about is full time employment. Which means, some may choose to work part time. Part time employees still pay taxes. You also do not account for those who would retire but can’t due to a pre-existing condition or other reasons where they are dependent on health insurance though their employer. Are you saying everyone should work to the day they die? As you pointed out, those full time workers will be will be footing the bill for these non-workers.

Linda

February 11th, 2011
1:58 pm

Oops, Obamacare mandates that Americans must have health care insurance (or pay a fine) but does mandate that doctors must see new patients.
Oops, when these newly insured patients get sick & can’t see a doctor, where will they go? They’ll keep going to the ER.

stands for decibels

February 11th, 2011
2:02 pm

I don’t think that giving people the freedom to quit a job that they don’t want can accurately be described as “job killing”—especially since it frees up spots for people who are actively looking for jobs.

yup.

If republicans really want to run with this–to say, effectively, “we gotta kill Obamacare because you stupid proles need to stay in sh–ty jobs you can’t stand, dammit!”–I’m fine with that. Go for it.

The Anti-Wooten

February 11th, 2011
2:06 pm

@Linda, that’s where they go now and your taxes and mine already foot that bill. Either that or the hosptials raise all rates to cover their costs.

Kyle Wingfield

February 11th, 2011
2:08 pm

@John: He referred to people working the average number of hours at the average wage, so full-time equivalents. Yes, it could be 1,600,000 part-time jobs at 20 hours per week. The point is that, whatever the precise combination of jobs and workers affected, it’s the equivalent of 800,000 full-time workers — and thus, from a tax perspective, the equivalent of 800,000 full-time taxpayers, so to speak.

If it’s 1,600,000 full-time workers going to part-time work, for instance, that’s still a loss equivalent to 800,000 full-time workers.

I’m not sure what you’re getting at with the “work to the day they die” line, but none of what we’re talking about today changes Medicare eligibility, which of course begins at 65.

The Anti-Wooten

February 11th, 2011
2:09 pm

@John, Kyle is NOT saying that everyone needs to work until they die. He carries forth with the true Tebaglican credo regarding healthcare coverage – If you must get sick, die quickly so that you’re not a burden on those of us that have our tax breaks for the uber-rich.

John

February 11th, 2011
2:12 pm

Kyle…please show me where in the CBO projections does it claim these 800,000 people would be financially dependent on the taxpayers who are still working full time. I have read the CBO projections and do not see it.

Kyle Wingfield

February 11th, 2011
2:13 pm

Anti-Wooten @ 2:09: Wow. So much ridiculousness in so few words.

Linda

February 11th, 2011
2:14 pm

Anti-Wooten@2:06, That’s my point. People are going to the ER now without health care insurance. They will continue to go to the ER with health care insurance because they will be unable to find primary care physicians. What’s the difference?

Kyle Wingfield

February 11th, 2011
2:15 pm

@John: It’s not in the CBO projections. I never said it was.

John

February 11th, 2011
2:15 pm

So Kyle, are you saying that someone who has enough money to live on their investments should be forced to work since they would not be paying payrolls taxes, thus living off the taxpayers working full time?

Linda

February 11th, 2011
2:18 pm

“The penalties for employers to provide health care to employees & for individuals to buy health care are LESS than the premiums. It is ironic that the law that mandates employers to provide insurance is really an incentive NOT to provide insurance to them at all.”
Joe Olivo, Owner/CEO, Perfect Printing, sworn testimony before congressional hearing

The Anti-Wooten

February 11th, 2011
2:18 pm

Kyle, I’m sure that you don’t really understand that I’m questioning your humanity and that of all of your right wing colleagues. If this law is overturned by the Teabaglicans they will do not one thing to help their fellow Americans and the healthcare coverage problems in this country will become far worse than they previously were. The insurers will be even further emboldened to deny coverage to a broader segment of Americans.

So yes, I question your humanity and concern for anyone or anything other than the coprorate bottom line.

John

February 11th, 2011
2:22 pm

@Kyle…you’re right that you didn’t claim it’s in the CBO projections but you the implication is…

My question is how do you figure it implies that full time employees will be footing the bill for these 800,000 non full time employees. My make the assumption that these will be deadbeats living off the federal government.

Kyle Wingfield

February 11th, 2011
2:25 pm

@John: That’s not even close to what I’m saying. Working or saving to provide for one’s self is one thing. Not working anymore because the government has created a new entitlement to cover some of your costs is quite another.

But you are proving yourself quite adept at misstating what I’ve said and then criticizing me for what I didn’t say. You’re not the only person on here who does that, and frankly this method of faux debate is pointless, and getting old fast.

Kyle Wingfield

February 11th, 2011
2:25 pm

Anti-Wooten: I understand perfectly what you’re saying about me, and I stand by my evaluation of your opinion: “ridiculousness.”

Intown

February 11th, 2011
2:25 pm

Whatever Kyle. Republicans are still in the wrong on this as with so much else. One comment from one dweeb whose job NOW depends on pleasing the Republican majority does not make your case.

John

February 11th, 2011
2:25 pm

Kyle, you still haven’t made the case of how people choosing not to work kills jobs. If I leave my employment today, my employer would have a job vacancy to fill. My leaving didn’t kill that position.

Blue Man on a Red Island

February 11th, 2011
2:31 pm

Kyle, I typically enjoy your columns as they are generally thought provoking even though I rarely agree with you. Unfortunately, today you chose to post something that you must know is not true in the manner you described it. I won’t repeat what has already been said but these jobs are taken by people who can’t afford to quit them due to the cost of healthcare.

For you and your fellow Republicans to attempt to spin this CBO report as proof this bill is a “job killer” is dispicable and ranks right up there with equating end of life discussions as “death panels”.

I hope you will comment on this topic, as you usually do, and explain how you could possibly watch that entire video and post a column that is a flat out lie.

Citizen of the World

February 11th, 2011
2:32 pm

NOW the Republicans believe the CBO?

When they didn’t like what the CBO was saying, that the health care reform bill would reduce the deficit in the long run, they said they didn’t believe it.

When they DO like what the CBO is saying (or at least can twist it to support their rhetoric), then it’s the gospel truth.

John

February 11th, 2011
2:32 pm

What do you mean faux debate…here is your statement…

“The implication is that taxpayers — 800,000 fewer taxpayers than there would otherwise be, remember — will be footing the bill for these non-workers. ”

I’m not debating some people will decide not to work full time. But by your statement, you’re trying to make the case that full time workers will be footing the bill for these non-workers. What I’m saying, you’re not taking into account those that could afford to quit working but can’t do to the fact they count on employer based heath insurance since under our old system, they could not get it privately. The CBO projections didn’t categorize by number or by percentage different groups or reasons of why people would choose not to work full time.

Insurance agent

February 11th, 2011
2:33 pm

CJ,

You are correct in most of what you say. However, the insurance reform law was written so that pre-existing conditions will in fact be covered but the insurance company can in fact charge you a premium for that condition. So if you have cancer your premium for your new policy will be $15,000 a month. And the premium for Brad will in fact be very, very expensive due to diabetes. He will be covered but he’s going to pay for it- a lot.

If it were my choice I would have Brad pay an extra premium but I would also have a state fund that we all pay into that subsidizes higher risk applicants. It would be similar to the worker’s comp insurance where higher risk occupations such as roofing pay a higher premium into a state pool to compensate for their higher risk. We all would chip into this state subsidized pool to help keep premiums lower for the higher risk applicants. A little bit socialistic? Yes. It is. But as a conservative and an agent I would be willing to go along with this because everybody on this board knows someone who is higher risk and get get insurance at a reasonable cost. Let’s put a human face on it folks.

Also,

I sell Medicare supplements and govt subsidized Medicare Advantage plans. Due to the new insurance reform law several local doctor’s groups- Piedmont physicians group in particular- have quit accepting the medicare advantage plans which are immensely popular with seniors- especially low income and middle class seniors.

Obama was wrong when he spoke about “you can still keep your doctor” as this has put beneficiaries in a tough quandary- they must either purchase an expensive medicare supplement and stand alone part D drug plan- roughly $200-250 more per month- or they can keep their medicare advantage plan but lose their doctor or doctors. This is what’s going on in the real world. Benefits are also decreasing with Medicare advantage plans and or premiums are rising at the same time but that could be for a number of reasons and not solely attributed to Obamacare. In fairness to Obama health care premiums have been rising anyway- just not as exponentially as recently.

People are gradually being forced off of medicare advantage plans and into the medicare supplement private insurance plans. Who benefits from the sales of private supplement insurance plans- AARP and any insurance co. that sells them. That’s who.

On the under 65 health insurance policy side I can tell you that premiums are skyrocketing as a result of the new law, healthy customers have been dropping their plans due to the expense, and you can no longer write 19 and under children only policies as a direct result of the new law.

Bottom line- there are some things I like about the law and some things I don’t like. On the pre-existing conditions clause I think people better understand that its going to make things very expensive. We all want to have a heart and cover people with illnesses but you have to understand that giving someone coverage after they contract a condition defeats the whole purpose of insurance which is to protect against unforeseen and catastrophic events. Its similar to writing a car insurance policy to someone who just wrecked their uninsured car- it makes no sense.

The one thing I really do like is the removal of the cap on care since I’ve seen a hemophiliac and a child with muscular dystrophy hit the 7 million dollar cap and then get booted. These instances are rare though and the insurance companies have already said their effect is negligible on overall premiums and so removing the lifetime cap is a great thing.

Overall I do believe its going to be worse for America- it will continously raise costs- there is nothing in the new law that really brings costs down. Nothing. And that is the most disappointing aspect of the law. Sorry for the long post but I just wanted some of you to hear from someone who sees every day directly the effect the law is having.

Citizen of the World

February 11th, 2011
2:43 pm

BTW, I cannot even consider leaving my job or being without a job because my husband, a self-employed consultant, cannot get health insurance on the open market due to a pre-existing condition. If he could, I might be able to freelance myself (still paying taxes, mind you), thus freeing up a job for someone else.

Having health insurance security tied to one’s job is an archaic and oppressive system, one that it seems the Republicans are happy to maintain since they have offered no alternatives.

bob

February 11th, 2011
2:43 pm

Anti wooten, 12:08, I think you had a type o, hundreds of thousands will declare bankruptcy over broken legs ? Are we headed for a broken leg epidemic ?

The Anti-Wooten

February 11th, 2011
2:49 pm

Bob, broken legs was meant to be analogous, it could just as easily have been auto accidents, diabetes, staph infections or mental illneses such as being Republics.

Linda

February 11th, 2011
2:52 pm

Anti@2:18, If this law is overturned, it will not be by the Tea Party members AND it will not be by congress because Obama would veto any such bill. It has ALREADY been overturned in federal courts. It will ultimately be overturned by the Supreme Court.

The Dems.’ talking points deliberately intended for their followers to use your euphemism. Health care & health care insurance are two different things. Everyone in this country has health care but not everyone has health care insurance. Having health care insurance DOES NOT insure that the patient will have any more or any better health care than a patient who is not insured. It has nothing to do with humanity.

Citizen of the World

February 11th, 2011
3:01 pm

Earth to Linda… Earth to Linda… Are you there, Linda?

John

February 11th, 2011
3:11 pm

Linda@2:52, Two judges appointed by Republican presidents has ruled the law unconstitutional…one ruled only the mandate is unconstitutional and one ruled the entire law is. But neither has stopped it’s implementation. You also failed to mention, two judges ruled the law as constitutional. Both of these judges were appointed by Democratic presidents. And several, I think 12, have dismissed the case. I would hardly called that being overturned. As you pointed out, it will be up to the Supreme Court.

As far as health care and health insurance, you’re right…everyone in this country has health care but not everyone pays for it. Those who have health insurance pays more than what they should to help cover the health care cost for those who don’t have insurance. Do you think those who have health insurance should continue to cover the health care cost for those who do not have insurance? As for as having health care insurance DOES NOT insure that the patient will have any more or any better health care…try going into a private hospital for a procedure without health insurance or a means to pay for it. See if they accept you and give you the same care.

Linda

February 11th, 2011
3:13 pm

Citizen@2:43, I agree that “having health insurance security tied to one’s job is an archaic & oppressive system” but it is not a Rep. policy. In fact, the trend began with the fed. govt.’s meddling in the economy & private businesses once again. It was the Dem./Progressive FDR who froze wages during WWII & led to employers offering benefits instead. The trend will reverse with the new law.

Linda

February 11th, 2011
3:26 pm

John@3:11, When the debate about hc began, 85% of the population had hc insurance & most were satisfied with it. Half of the 30 M people were mandated to buy hc insurance. The other half of the 30 M people are being forced into Medicaid.
You are right that everyone is not paying for their health care. I am unable to see how ANY of the people who are insured today will be paying for their health care under this law. There will be fewer people with health care insurance.
Would you like for me to explain or do you get it?

CJ

February 11th, 2011
3:38 pm

Insurance Agent,

You’re mistaken on some very significant issues.

First, you wrote that “the insurance reform law was written so that pre-existing conditions will in fact be covered but the insurance company can in fact charge you a premium for that condition.” That’s incorrect. The law requires both guarantee issue and community rating for plans offered in the exchange. Insurers will be required to offer coverage for the same premium to applicants of the same age, gender, and geographic location. Pre-existing conditions will not effect premiums. This reform was one of the fundamental reasons for passing the health care law.

Second, you wrote that there is nothing in the new law that really brings costs down. That’s incorrect too. There are several provisions in the law intended to bring costs down. One that kicked in this year is that insurers’ medical loss ratios can’t be any lower than 80 percent (85 percent for non-profits such as Blue Cross)—any excess must be returned in the form of a rebate. The health insurance exchange will create competition where there wasn’t any (some states only had two or three insurers where the exchange is expected to have several). Free check-ups and preventive care will drive down costs. Access to early treatment for the newly insured will drive down costs. And, among the biggest health care cost containment approaches in the new law is the Independent Payment Advisory Board. These cost containment measures are just off the top of my head. There are others.

You also wrote that “on the under 65 health insurance policy side I can tell you that premiums are skyrocketing as a result of the new law.” You qualified that statement earlier by saying the such increases haven’t been as high as in previous years. If so, then you can’t possibly blame premium increases on the new law. It sounds like you should be attributing the new law with lowering premium increases, which is precisely what the law intended to do.

John

February 11th, 2011
3:41 pm

Linda@3:26, I don’t think I would agree that most people were satisfied with it before…people have been complaining for years about health insurance, especially the cost, but also realized they needed it. The alternative is not great.

What do you mean you don’t see how ANY of the people who are insured today will be paying for their health care under this law…it requires us to health insurance. That will mean more people with health care insurance…not less.

The Anti-Wooten

February 11th, 2011
4:15 pm

CJ, I think Insurance Agent works for the firm of Dewey, Snookem and Howe.