FACT CHECK: Shaky health care job loss estimate

Unsurprisingly, and not for the first time, GOP warnings of doom and gloom concerning the impact of something they don't like don't quite pan out.

I am sure the Kool-aid drinkers will be lining up for their next portion of political spin though. -RG

---------------------------------------------
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health...eal_fact_check

WASHINGTON – Republicans pushing to repeal President Barack Obama's health care overhaul warn that 650,000 jobs will be lost if the law is allowed to stand.

But the widely cited estimate by House GOP leaders is shaky. It's the latest creative use of statistics in the health care debate, which has seen plenty of examples from both sides.

Republicans are calling their thumbs-down legislation the "Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act." Postponed after the mass shootings in Tucson, a House vote on the divisive issue is now expected Wednesday, although Democrats promise they'll block repeal in the Senate.

[ For complete coverage of politics and policy, go to Yahoo! Politics ]


A recent report by House GOP leaders says "independent analyses have determined that the health care law will cause significant job losses for the U.S. economy."

It cites the 650,000 lost jobs as Exhibit A, and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office as the source of the original analysis behind that estimate. But the budget office, which referees the costs and consequences of legislation, never produced the number.

What follows is a story of how statistics get used and abused in Washington.

What CBO actually said is that the impact of the health care law on supply and demand for labor would be small. Most of it would come from people who no longer have to work, or can downshift to less demanding employment, because insurance will be available outside the job.

"The legislation, on net, will reduce the amount of labor used in the economy by a small amount _roughly half a percent_ primarily by reducing the amount of labor that workers choose to supply," budget office number crunchers said in a report from last year.

That's not how it got translated in the new report from Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and other top Republicans.

CBO "has determined that the law will reduce the 'amount of labor used in the economy by.roughly half a percent.,' an estimate that adds up to roughly 650,000 jobs lost," the GOP version said.

Gone was the caveat that the impact would be small, mainly due to people working less. Added was the estimate of 650,000 jobs lost.

The Republican translation doesn't track, said economist Paul Fronstin of the nonpartisan Employee Benefit Research Institute. "People voluntarily working less isn't the same as employers cutting jobs," he explained.

For example, CBO said some people might decide to retire earlier because it would be easier to get health care, instead of waiting until they become eligible for Medicare at age 65.

The law "reduces the amount of labor supplied, but it's not reducing the ability of people to find jobs, which is what the job-killing slogan is intended to convey," said economist Paul Van de Water of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The center advocates for low-income people, and supports the health care law.

In theory, any legislation that increases costs for employers can lead to job loss. But with the health care law, companies can also decide to pass on added costs to their workers, as some have already done this year.

To put things in perspective, there are currently about 131 million jobs in the economy. CBO projects that unemployment will be significantly lower in 2014, when the law's major coverage expansion starts.

A spokeswoman for House Ways and Means Committee Republicans pointed out that CBO's report did flag that some employers would cut hiring. "The CBO analysis does not claim that the entire response is people exiting the labor market," said Michelle Dimarob.

The law's penalties on employers who don't provide health insurance might cause some companies to hire fewer low-wage workers, or to hire more part-timers instead of full-time employees, the budget office said. But the main consequence would still be from more people choosing not to work.

That still doesn't answer the question of how Republicans came up with the estimate of 650,000 lost jobs.

Dimarob said staffers took the 131 million jobs and multiplied that by half a percent, the number from the CBO analysis. The result: 650,000 jobs feared to be in jeopardy.

"For ordinary Americans who could fall into that half a percent, that is a vitally important stat, and it is reasonable to suggest they would not characterize the effect as small," she said.

But Fronstin said that approach is also questionable, since the budget office and the GOP staffers used different yardsticks to measure overall jobs and hours worked. The differences would have to be adjusted first in order to produce an accurate estimate.

Said Van de Water, "The number doesn't mean what they say it means."

--------------------------------------------

That said, I don't think that Obamacare is going to do all that its supporters said it would either.

I am fully willing to try *something*, since our current system is in what is known in the insurance industry as a "death spiral".

:lmao

Obamacare is a fiasco -- even according some that voted for it -- and you see this as some sort of rhetorical victory?

:lmao

Quote:

---

CBO "has determined that the law will reduce the 'amount of labor used in the economy by.roughly half a percent.,' an estimate that adds up to roughly 650,000 jobs lost," the GOP version said.

Gone was the caveat that the impact would be small, mainly due to people working less. Added was the estimate of 650,000 jobs lost.

---

Well, is 1/2 percent equal to 650,000 or not? They don't exactly say...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

:lmao

Obamacare is a fiasco -- even according some that voted for it -- and you see this as some sort of rhetorical victory?

:lmao

---

what specifically about obamacare is a fiasco?

oh I get it..Yoni's cool with outrtight lying as long as his side does it...

Obamacare is not a good as it could have been due to the compromises and gutting extorted by Repugs and corps.

Yoni buttresses his rep a extreme right-wing, knee-jerking nutcase, with the numbers of Americans who want Obamacare repealed continues to drop, now in the 20%s, sorta where the numbers are that approve of his girlfriend pitbull bitch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

oh I get it..Yoni's cool with outrtight lying as long as his side does it...

---

Where's the lie?

CBO said it would reduce jobs in the health care market by 1/2 of a percent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

Well, is 1/2 percent equal to 650,000 or not? They don't exactly say...

---

Quote:

---

But the main consequence would still be from more people choosing not to work.

---

Why does the GOP have to use gimmicks like this considering 'they were voted in to repeal Obamacare'?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

Where's the lie?

CBO said it would reduce jobs in the health care market by 1/2 of a percent.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by what it actually said, had you bothered to read the OP

"The legislation, on net, will reduce the amount of labor used in the economy by a small amount _roughly half a percent_ primarily by reducing the amount of labor that workers choose to supply," budget office number crunchers said in a report from last year.

---

I read that part.

And, in Obama's "jobs saved or created" parlance, those are jobs lost. If employee A chooses to retire early or not continue in the job, does that mean that unemployed worker B can step in? No. It means the job goes away.

That 650,000 jobs lost. With an unemployment rate of over 10%, that's a negative impact of Obamacare.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

I read that part.

And, in Obama's "jobs saved or created" parlance, those are jobs lost. If employee A chooses to retire early or not continue in the job, does that mean that unemployed worker B can step in? No. It means the job goes away.

That 650,000 jobs lost. With an unemployment rate of over 10%, that's a negative impact of Obamacare.

---

Economics fail.

Supply does not equal demand.

The SUPPLY of labor (people wanting to work) went down, not the DEMAND (number of jobs needing workers).

Do all Republican talking points require that people need to be ignorant of economics and free markets for them to work, or just this one?

Republican talking points require people to be ignorant and gullible, which is always the base the Repugs target.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Economics fail.

Supply does not equal demand.

The SUPPLY of labor (people wanting to work) went down, not the DEMAND (number of jobs needing workers).

Do all Republican talking points require that people need to be ignorant of economics and free markets for them to work, or just this one?

---

Will there, or will there not, be 650,000 fewer health care jobs?

No one said the demand went down, just that people opted to leave early. Absorbing jobs through attrition is a popular way to cut the budget when funding dries up.

Are you seriously claiming Obamacare reduced the need for Health Care jobs?

I'm pretty sure the Republicans who produced this report had no intention of supplying any critical thinking as a filter. Yoni, a reduction of labor used >< labor lost...it's not an equivalence.
Pretty typical use of CBO stats...nothing terribly new here.

BTW, always a fan of CBO analysis...projections, not so much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

Will there, or will there not, be 650,000 fewer health care jobs?

No one said the demand went down, just that people opted to leave early. Absorbing jobs through attrition is a popular way to cut the budget when funding dries up.

Are you seriously claiming Obamacare reduced the need for Health Care jobs?

---

Yes, actually you said exactly that demand went down, when you say "health care jobs". It isn't even "health care" jobs that the OMB was referring to, by the way.

You are wrong on several counts here, and provably so.

supply= labor
demand = jobs

Quote:

---

primarily by reducing the amount of labor that workers choose to supply," budget office number crunchers said in a report from last year

---

I don't think I can make it any clearer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

I don't think I can make it any clearer.

---

Except they don't explain why "workers" choose to supply less labor.

Why is demand lower? Fewer sick people?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

Except they don't explain why "workers" choose to supply less labor.

---

Yes, actually they do. For the 3rd time, if you had really read the OP you might know that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Yes, actually they do. For the 3rd time, if you had really read the OP you might know that.

---

Choosing to supply less labor doesn't necessarily equal less demand.

Again, will there be 650,000 fewer health care jobs?

Doesn't supply follow demand, not the other way around?

650K jobs lost is nothing but a Repug lie, a straw man, scare-mongering.

But Yoni falls for these sterile distractions every time, promotes them actually, shilling lies for the those who dictate his thoughts.

With America continuing to inflict itself with avoidable diseases, there's no way there will be job loss in health.

Nearly Half of Americans Under 65 Have Preexisting Conditions, GOP Risks Them For Healthcare Repeal

Before the health care bill banned it, Americans with “preexisting conditions” were frequently rejected for health coverage by private insurers -- it was one of the hot button issues during the initial debate. Today, the Washington Post reports that 129 million Americans under the age of 65 are afflicted with preexisting conditions -- up to half of the nation's population that does not yet qualify for Medicare.

On Wednesday House Republicans will move to repeal the Affordable Care Act; that likely won't pass the Senate, but it will set a precedent for the GOP to begin dismantling its tenets -- including the clause banning rejection for “preexisting conditions.” Should they succeed, they will continue a disastrous practice that will leave an astounding amount of Americans vulnerable

650,000 Americans were denied health coverage by four top insurers between 2007-2009. The Post's report claims the GOP dismissed both reports as a PR move on the eve of their vote, but the fact remains.

http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews...thcare_repeal/

============

Repugs never met a "disaster" they'd refused to make into a real disaster.

yoni wants octogenarians to work 50 hour weeks.

The statistics prove it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

yoni wants octogenarians to work 50 hour weeks.

The statistics prove it.

---

Statistics also prove that the primary cause of personal bankruptcy is medical bills.

If Joe can't make his car/house/credit card payments because of an uninsured illness or hospitalization, then his lack of health insurance causes a definite capital drain and loss to the economy, as the assets (loans) are written off on the creditors' books.

That's why they work so hard for you to get "credit insurance". It doesn't really cover *your* losses so much as *theirs*.

I wonder what kind of job losses we accept every day by dint of millions of people not being insured?

If the GOP hates Obamacare, fine.

Repeal it, but give me some solution to this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Statistics also prove that the primary cause of personal bankruptcy is medical bills.

If Joe can't make his car/house/credit card payments because of an uninsured illness or hospitalization, then his lack of health insurance causes a definite capital drain and loss to the economy, as the assets (loans) are written off on the creditors' books.

That's why they work so hard for you to get "credit insurance". It doesn't really cover *your* losses so much as *theirs*.

I wonder what kind of job losses we accept every day by dint of millions of people not being insured?

If the GOP hates Obamacare, fine.

Repeal it, but give me some solution to this.

---

They have, tort reform and free market driven principles.

Silly man...you can't fight Republicans with facts...what's wrong with you...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

Choosing to supply less labor doesn't necessarily equal less demand.

---

Oh! He almost gets it!

Quote:

---

Again, will there be 650,000 fewer health care jobs?

---

Doh! Apparently he doesn't...

Quote:

---

Doesn't supply follow demand, not the other way around?

---

You get an F+ (I gave you credit for using the words "supply" and "demand")

A hint for you when you go back to the dumb-dumb drawing board, Yoni. Not even the folks claiming Obamacare is "job killing" are saying it would result in 650,000 fewer health care jobs. At least make the effort to familiarize yourself with the bullshit you're defending beforehand.

:lmao

"So it IS job killing, in the sense that getting more sleep at night is 'awake-killing'"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

Well, is 1/2 percent equal to 650,000 or not? They don't exactly say...

---

To be fair, a 0.5% loss of employment would be closer to 700,000, wouldn't it?


Employment Situation Summary:

Quote:

---

The number of unemployed persons decreased by 556,000 to 14.5 million
in December, and the unemployment rate dropped to 9.4 percent. Over
the year, these measures were down from 15.2 million and 9.9 percent,
respectively. (See table A-1.)

---

So if I read that right, a 9.4% unemployment with 14.5 million unemployed means a workforce of 154 million. Minus the 14.5 million unemployed means 140,000,000 employed. 0.5% of that is 700,000. These numbers are rounded:

Code:

---

unemployed    14,500,000
Workforce    154,255,319
employed      139,755,319
loss at 0.5%      698,777

---

With 10s of Ms of (low income, iow, unhealthy) uninsured to be provided health care, there will certainly be an increase in health care jobs.

Even the for-profit, greedy health insurers do not want ACA killed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scott

A hint for you when you go back to the dumb-dumb drawing board, Yoni. Not even the folks claiming Obamacare is "job killing" are saying it would result in 650,000 fewer health care jobs. At least make the effort to familiarize yourself with the bullshit you're defending beforehand.

---

My bad, I misread the article. The CBO claimed it [passage of Obamacare] would result in a .5% reduction of the workforce. That's over 650,000 jobs.

Correct?

Now, can we get back to whether or not the loss of those jobs is due to Obamacare or not?

:lmao

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

My bad, I misread the article. The CBO claimed it [passage of Obamacare] would result in a .5% reduction of the workforce. That's over 650,000 jobs.

Correct?

Now, can we get back to whether or not the loss of those jobs is due to Obamacare or not?

---

It's not...again, read the OP. Focus on this "The legislation, on net, will reduce the amount of labor used in the economy by a small amount _roughly half a percent_ primarily by reducing the amount of labor that workers choose to supply," (emphasis mine) budget office number crunchers said in a report from last year."

There are days where I read posts on here I and really hope that those people are just great trolls because the idea of being so damn stupid and unable to comprehend what the entire thread is explaining to you in simple English is sad.

Today is one of those days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue

It's not...again, read the OP. Focus on this "The legislation, on net, will reduce the amount of labor used in the economy by a small amount _roughly half a percent_ primarily by reducing the amount of labor that workers choose to supply," (emphasis mine) budget office number crunchers said in a report from last year."

---

So, some of the over 10% of unemployed will "choose" to supply it again. Right?

What does it mean they "choose to supply" labor? If its needed, someone will be needed to provide it. If it's not needed, there must be a corresponding reduction in demand.

I know y'all are getting caught up in the semantics of how the government chose to word this but, the bottom line is this; the enactment of Obamacare (according to the CBO) will result in a .5% reduction in the workforce. I don't care who "chooses" to reduce that workforce, it's still a reduction of approximately 650,000 jobs. And, if the demand for that labor isn't also reduced (which I would find hard to believe right now), then we're talking about a system where there isn't enough resources to replace the required labor that has "chosen" to stop working.

That's the effect of Obamacare on labor. That's what the CBO is saying.

supply of labor =/= jobs. God damn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

supply of labor =/= jobs. God damn.

---

Okay, put me some knowledge. What is the "supply of labor" if not jobs?

What is the supply of anything Yoni? If I choose to work, I've entered the supply of labor whether or not there is a job available. I am an available worker. I have neither created a job nor destroyed a job but I have added to the supply of available labor. If I choose to not work, say by retiring, then I have no created or destroyed a job but I have removed myself from the supply of available labor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

What is the supply of anything Yoni? If I choose to work, I've entered the supply of labor whether or not there is a job available. I am an available worker. I have neither created a job nor destroyed a job but I have added to the supply of available labor. If I choose to not work, say by retiring, then I have no created or destroyed a job but I have removed myself from the supply of available labor.

---

I get what you're saying. So, with 10% unemployment, what the fuck does it matter if a labor supply, not being used, is reduced or increased?

Obviously it matters. A smaller supply of labor is a good thing for workers, bad for companies (very generally speaking).

That, however, is not the point of the OP. Republicans incorrectly used the stat as you did, and the OP was refuting that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

Obviously it matters. A smaller supply of labor is a good thing for workers, bad for companies (very generally speaking).

---

In an environment where companies aren't hiring labor, I don't see how it's bad for them. A change in the workforce a neutral thing for industries that have no positions or no resources to fill the openings they do have.

If this isn't true, we should see a rise in health care wages. After all, a shortage in supply usually results in a rise in cost.

But, if you ask me, this .5% that is voluntarily leaving the workforce is no different than those unemployed that quit looking for work and, therefore, get lost in the unemployment numbers.

They're both used to skew the truth. More people, than the government is admitting, are not working.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

That, however, is not the point of the OP. Republicans incorrectly used the stat as you did, and the OP was refuting that.

---

I think it's all a bunch of semantics played by the government to make the simple so complex as to be able to say just about anything they want to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

In an environment where companies aren't hiring labor, I don't see how it's bad for them. A change in the workforce a neutral thing for industries that have no positions or no resources to fill the openings they do have.

If this isn't true, we should see a rise in health care wages. After all, a shortage in supply usually results in a rise in cost.

But, if you ask me, this .5% that is voluntarily leaving the workforce is no different than those unemployed that quit looking for work and, therefore, get lost in the unemployment numbers.

They're both used to skew the truth. More people, than the government is admitting, are not working.

---

Retiring is not the same as not looking for work. (the completely .5 talked about are not all retiring but thats besides the point) One is voluntarily leaving a job while the other is the inability to find a job. What is it with you and trying to misconstrue meanings today? Marklar?

Also, your first two paragraphs are contradictory. If wages go up that is bad for companies. They are always hiring to an extent, and the larger the supply the more leverage they have.

Quote:

---

I think it's all a bunch of semantics played by the government to make the simple so complex as to be able to say just about anything they want to.

---

It is what it is. The GOP is trying to use that language in their favor by pretty much lying about what it means.

yoni admits this issue is too complex for him to understand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

Okay, put me some knowledge. What is the "supply of labor" if not jobs?

---

In the labor market the employer is the consumer and the pool of labor is the supply. Thus labor supply you fucking dimwits.

John, Jerry and Josh all work at the parts changing company with Wild Cobra. John and Jerry decide they are going to retire. There are now two less people employed at PartsChange Inc. Because they are retired they are no longer in the labor pool.

What this does is reduce supply in the labor market and thus the price (read wages) goes up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

In the labor market the employer is the consumer and the pool of labor is the supply. Thus labor supply you fucking dimwits.

John, Jerry and Josh all work at the parts changing company with Wild Cobra. John and Jerry decide they are going to retire. There are now two less people employed at PartsChange Inc. Because they are retired they are no longer in the labor pool.

What this does is reduce supply in the labor market and thus the price (read wages) goes up.

---

:lol

So how many people have taken a stab (pardon the vitriol) at explaining this to yoni?

Good lord. Yoni epitomizes why republicans can get away with selling their teabagging constituents just about anything.

Democrats are just as dumb, so I imagine their propaganda works just as well.

Yoni's quite the piece of work, tho. I never talked to anyone so hard-headed.




(Who knows,maybe there is some unforeseeable advantage to having an adamantine skull or being impervious to clear, concise explanations.)

Yoni: too enclosed in his own pettifoggery to see what is in plain view to others?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Yoni: too enclosed in his own pettifoggery to see what is in plain view to others?

---

This is the hallmark of all TeaBaggers. Darrin and Wild Cobra are just as bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMX7

This is the hallmark of all TeaBaggers. Darrin and Wild Cobra are just as bad.

---

Too bad they don't have a monopoly on it.

If they did, the problem could be addressed rather easily, don't you think?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Democrats are just as dumb, so I imagine their propaganda works just as well.

---

*are* or *can be*?

Sorry, while I will readily admit to a certain level of dumbassery on the part of liberals/Democrats, I do think that the core of modern conservatism seems to be deeply logically flawed, and I think that has profound implications when it comes to the types of people who are attracted to that set of beliefs.

Sure Yoni has a ready-made opposite in boutons, but is there a conservative/republican Randomguy? Chumpdumper?

101A seems to be closest in my mind, when he has the time.

This experience parallels other mixed forums I have seen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

*are* or *can be*?

Sorry, while I will readily admit to a certain level of dumbassery on the part of liberals/Democrats, I do think that the core of modern conservatism seems to be deeply logically flawed, and I think that has profound implications when it comes to the types of people who are attracted to that set of beliefs.

Sure Yoni has a ready-made opposite in boutons, but is there a conservative/republican Randomguy? Chumpdumper?

101A seems to be closest in my mind, when he has the time.

This experience parallels other mixed forums I have seen.

---

I'm curious. What traits would the conservative/republican Randomguy need to possess?

Yoni's opposite is NBADan. Both are relatively intelligent and emotionally stable liars. boutons' closest opposite is ducks, but ducks doesn't post nearly as much.

There are plenty of reasonable people on this board on both ends.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

*are* or *can be*?

---

Take your pick. Both work for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Sorry, while I will readily admit to a certain level of dumbassery on the part of liberals/Democrats, I do think that the core of modern conservatism seems to be deeply logically flawed, and I think that has profound implications when it comes to the types of people who are attracted to that set of beliefs.

---

Confirmation bias?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Sure Yoni has a ready-made opposite in boutons, but is there a conservative/republican Randomguy? Chumpdumper?

---

Maybe the conservative RG has better things to do with his time than lord it over bulletin board lightweights all day, and ChumpDumper has been known to support Republican candidates in the past. (According to ChumpDumper)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

This experience parallels other mixed forums I have seen.

---

Good story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

*are* or *can be*?

Sorry, while I will readily admit to a certain level of dumbassery on the part of liberals/Democrats, I do think that the core of modern conservatism seems to be deeply logically flawed, and I think that has profound implications when it comes to the types of people who are attracted to that set of beliefs.

Sure Yoni has a ready-made opposite in boutons, but is there a conservative/republican Randomguy? Chumpdumper?

101A seems to be closest in my mind, when he has the time.

This experience parallels other mixed forums I have seen.

---

What an arrogant prick.


Bizzarro RG would be likeable, humble, and polite.

The idea that the GOP has some kind of lock on stupidity or fallaciousness is itself a piece of colossal stupidity and fallacious to boot, but apparently it's still good propaganda.

That said, the Dems are much worse at the ideology game and are institutionally maybe a decade or two behind the GOP. Better get cracking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue

I'm curious. What traits would the conservative/republican Randomguy need to possess?

---

Exit stage left!:lol

http://www.bankruptcylitigationblog....%20left(2).jpg

Come back Yoni,

It's going to be great when 650,000 able bodied Americans leave the supply pool.

because

A. They "no longer have to work". -- (i.e. lottery winners)
B. They "can downshift to less demanding employment" (i.e. drug dealing)
C. "because insurance will be available outside the job" (bought and paid for by the millions who chose not to exit the supply pool)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Take your pick. Both work for me.

Confirmation bias?
Maybe the conservative RG has better things to do with his time than lord it over bulletin board lightweights all day, and ChumpDumper has been known to support Republican candidates in the past. (According to ChumpDumper)
Good story.

---

Maybe I will stick to vacuous one-liners. Much better solution.