Obamacare will reduce U.S. workforce

Obamacare will reduce U.S. workforce

BBC: The Congressional Budget Office reports President Obama's health care law will cut the workforce by the equivalent of more than two million workers.

Lower-income workers will be hardest hit, limiting their hours to avoid losing federal subsidies.

Read more here.

Comments   

 
Guest
-1 #1 Deceptive headlineGuest 2014-02-05 19:36:18
People who were only in the workforce in order to get health insurance benefits may quit their jobs. Won't that create jobs for jobseekers? I would think in the end it would reduce the unemployment rate.
Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Guest
+1 #2 Not NecessarilyGuest 2014-02-06 19:05:56
Do you really think millions of people are only in the workforce to get healthcare? Sure there are probably some but the reality is that the fewer people in the workforce the lower the tax revenues which are needed to pay the subsidies. It's just like Social Security, without a lot of people still working there is less to pay benefits to those who have retired.

Besides why should you and I pay for able bodied people to stay home and get subsidies for healthcare? Although unemployment is high there are areas where the jobs go unfilled. In Oregon the majority of people applying for manufacturing jobs fail drug tests. The jobs are there, we just need a clean, sober and trained workforce. Telling some stoner he can stay home and let the rest of us pay so he can toke instead of work is not my idea of a great way to run a country.
Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Guest
+1 #3 desert ratGuest 2014-02-06 23:38:14
#2 is right on the mark. Fewer people paying taxes is going to limit the amount of subsidies, unless OUR GOVT figures another way to tax the working folk. I'm tired of paying taxes, going to the grocerystore, buying stewmeat, and watching food stamps pay for Tbones for the one in front of me. Have long been an advocate of "no work, no pay", insurance benefits or otherwise. Maybe we all need to go to the Potomac and throw a few elected folk in the river! The tea in Boston harbor worked for awhile, but has apparently gotten pretty weak.
Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Guest
-1 #4 DonnaLGuest 2014-02-09 03:05:08
Given the number of people looking for jobs who can't find them, having some folks be able to choose to not work - for a myriad of good reasons, starting with all the two-parent, two-worker families who would like to be two-parent, one-worker, one-stay-at-hom e-parent - it seems to me to be a win-win. By the way, we are the only industrialized country that pins healthcare to employment. That tie should be severed.
Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Guest
+1 #5 But Who Will Pay for It?Guest 2014-02-10 19:17:07
I know it's a dream that we can all live on Other People's Money (OPM) but as Margaret Thatcher said, eventually we run out. I have no objection to severing the tie between employment and insurance but again since healthcare costs money, if it is no longer a tax free benefit but coming out of a person's pocket, it will in effect be more expensive. Further the mess Obamacare has made of the marketplace has REDUCED not increased options. Providing subsidies that can be paid into health savings accounts so the patient can decide how and where to spend his healthcare dollars is far more effective than the idiotic Obmaacare mandate that has60 year old single men paying for maternity care. People can make their own decisions using their own money but simply cutting people loose is not going to provide what we need and that is patient centered and market driven healthcare, NOT one size fits all dictated from Washington mess that has been created.

This is the world I live in. I can tell you or Obama or Kathleen Sebelius how to provide better care for less money but they had no interest in consulting with anyone who knew anything about healthcare.

As to the idea that fewer people working is a good thing...OK who is going to pay taxes if fewer people are working or if married couples have lower incomes? They create taxpayer based funding and then enact laws that discourage people from working.

They seem really stuck on stupid.
Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Guest
0 #6 DonnaLGuest 2014-02-10 19:25:27
Try reading some real reporting:
Affordable Care Act will prompt some to work less, report says
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obamacare-impact-20140205,0,7487166.story#axzz2sfATIWCL
In that the writer presents views from both Republicans and Democrats in their own words, without a lot of interpretation. In other words, real reporting.

The good news from CBO report on Obamacare:
Law may succeed in stabilizing insurance premiums, study suggests
By Jonnelle Marte, MarketWatch
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-good-news-from-cbo-report-on-obamacare-2014-02-05

Why It's Wrong to Say Obamacare Kills Jobs
Chad Stone
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/economic-intelligence/2014/02/07/the-cbo-did-not-say-obamacare-kills-jobs
Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Guest
+1 #7 Reporting of Opinions is Still Just OpinionsGuest 2014-02-10 19:40:52
Donna L you need to understand that an opinion reported is not particularly credible. The LA Times is notably left of center, a major reason that it along with the other left of center papers are circling the drain. Market Watch is part of WSJ and has dueling opinions on Obamacare. This is but one. US News is also an opinion piece. Opinions are great, everyone has them but please don't conflate them to some kind of credible and unbiased source. Obamacare has been a job killer from its first unveiling and trying to put lipstick on this pig doesn't make it stink any less.

Now how about addressing the issues instead of just googling for something that supports your preconceived notion.
Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Guest
-1 #8 DonnaLGuest 2014-02-10 19:58:21
Apparently you don't know the difference between the OpEd part of a newspaper and the News part of a newspaper. Your bias against Obamacare colors what you are saying. Feel free to say the same of me. However, I do have about six large binders of research on ACA since the beginning. You're "lipstick on a pig" reference is as outdated and irrelevant and the person who first used it - Sara Palin.
Quote | Report to administrator