Reply With Quote
Obamacare is a fiasco -- even according some that voted for it -- and you see this as some sort of rhetorical victory?
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 Ins ute. "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 Mic e 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".
Obamacare is a fiasco -- even according some that voted for it -- and you see this as some sort of rhetorical victory?
Well, is 1/2 percent equal to 650,000 or not? They don't exactly say...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.
what specifically about obamacare is a fiasco?
Obamacare is a fiasco -- even according some that voted for it -- and you see this as some sort of rhetorical victory?
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 .
Where's the lie?
CBO said it would reduce jobs in the health care market by 1/2 of a percent.
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'?
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.
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.
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
I don't think I can make it any clearer.primarily by reducing the amount of labor that workers choose to supply," budget office number crunchers said in a report from last year
Except they don't explain why "workers" choose to supply less labor.
Why is demand lower? Fewer sick people?
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.
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...
Oh! He almost gets it!
Doh! Apparently he doesn't...Again, will there be 650,000 fewer health care jobs?
You get an F+ (I gave you credit for using the words "supply" and "demand")Doesn't supply follow demand, not the other way around?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
