Trying To Justify Obamacare Job Losses (Guest Post)

By 16 Comments 646 views

work

Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), in 2010, said of Obamacare: “It’s about jobs. In it’s life, it [the health bill] will create 4 million jobs — 400,000 jobs almost immediately.” She actually said that.

Then, Pelosi, in January 2013, while speaking to artists and musicians in her district shortly after the passage of Oamacare, said:

We see it as an entrepreneurial bill, a bill that says to someone, if you want to be creative and be a musician or whatever, you can leave your work, focus on your talent, your skill, your passion, your aspirations because you will have healthcare. You won’t have to be job locked.

So Nancy, which is it? Is Obamacare going to create jobs? Or is it going to be an “entrepreneurial bill?” It seems that an “inconvenient truth” has caused Pelosi to change her tactic!

The fact that Obamacare is a job killer is well documented. As an American Thinker article by Dr. Brian C Joondeph states: “The reality is that 2.5 million more Americans will be out of the labor force within the next ten years due to the effects of ObamaCare.” And a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report entitled “THE BUDGET AND ECONOMIC OUTLOOK: 2014 TO 2024,” acknowledges (on page 117) that ObamaCare will reduce full-time employment by 2.5 million over the next ten years. The same report doesn’t predict a bright economic future as well.

On February 4, 2014, the editorial board of (the always objective) The New York Times opined of Obamacare that, “That is mostly a good thing, a liberating result of the law.” The NYT continued:

The report estimated that – thanks to an increase in insurance coverage under the act and the availability of subsidies to help pay the premiums – many workers who felt obliged to stay in a job that provided health benefits would now be able to leave those jobs or choose to work fewer hours than they otherwise would have. In other words, the report is about the choices workers can make when they are no longer tethered to an employer because of health benefits. The cumulative effect on the labor supply is the equivalent of 2.5 million fewer full-time workers by 2024.

Jordan Weissmann, in a February 5, 2014, article in The Atlantic, said:

Yesterday, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, Capitol Hill’s official number-cruncher, reported that the health reform law would probably encourage more adults to cut back their work hours than it had previously predicted.   [emphasis mine of Weissmann’s words]

More adults will simply decide to take it easy.

And, not to be outdone, Paul Krugman wrote on February 5:

What we had here was, instead, a system [speaking of employer supplied health care insurance] in which subsidies were available only if you worked more than a certain amount, surely leading some people to work more than they would have wanted to otherwise.   [emphasis mine of Krugman’s words]

Read Krugman’s article and tortured “logic” if you want a good laugh.

Benjamin Kline Hunnicut, in a February 7, 2014, Politico article entitled “Why Do Republicans Want Us to Work All the Time?” has, IMHO, topped them all. Hunnicut, in an effort to support his position by rambling about hours worked and how reduction is good, writes:

The president’s critics, in high dudgeon, are fulminating about lay-abouts and scofflaws actually choosing to work less than what God intended, predicting a host of ills that will supposedly befall the nation, from moral turpitude to economic ruin.

The fuss will doubtless soon die down, but this bit of political theater has resurrected a very old debate about working hours, and could conceivably reawaken what I have called the forgotten American Dream. That dream has not always been just about striving to consume bigger houses, fancier clothes, faster cars. The idea that “full time” work is something foreordained and the bedrock of morality is new, mostly a product of the last century.

Hunnicut also tries to soften the CBO report findings by saying, “… it’s clear the CBO was talking about workers voluntarily reducing their hours in response to the law – not getting laid off or seeing their shifts scaled back.”   [emphasis Hunnicut’s]   “Voluntarily,” yeah, sure. Hunnicut, if you really believe that, I hold the deed to a NYC bridge in which you may be interested.

OK Mr. Hunnicut, if what you, in your article, say is true, will magic somehow occur? Will those who have had job hours voluntarily cut, come to the country’s rescue? Will, as Dr. Joondeph writes:

Goods will be produced and services provided all by themselves if workers stay home and take it easy. Tax revenues will magically appear in the Treasury if fewer Americans are working, earning an income, and paying income tax. And everyone will be paying his or her mortgage, student loans, and credit cards by taking it easy. Never mind that average household credit card debt is over $15 thousand.

The concept of freedom from “job lock,” of not being locked into a job because it offers health insurance, what Democrats say is wonderful, is the latest “catch phrase.” Kinda like “gravitas.” Yet the average worker stays in his or her job less than 4.5 years, and will have 15-20 jobs over their lifetime. But regardless of facts, the Democrats (and their lap-dogs, the MSM) will continue to spout their “wisdom.” What’s sad is that a majority of voters will buy this load of manure.

But that’s just my opinion.

Cross-posted at The Pot Stirrer, my personal, very conservative web site!

16 Responses to “Trying To Justify Obamacare Job Losses (Guest Post)”

  1. 1

    Nanny G

    If getting liberated from ”job lock” is so wonderful why is Obama trying to make it illegal for businesses to admit the truth; that they laid off some or cut some hours expressly because of ObamaCare???

  2. 2

    Petercat

    I understand that President Obama really doesn’t enjoy the job of being President. So, if freedom to enjoy leisure time is such a desirable thing, why the hell doesn’t he go ahead and set the example? He would then truly become what so many of the uninformed tell us that he already is, a real inspiration for us all!

  3. 3

    ilovebeeswarzone

    Petercat
    hi, at the start of the UNITED STATES, THE ONES CHOSEN TO BE IN GOVERNMENT,
    had all kind of position, be it DOCTOR , SHERIF, PLANTATION OWNERS,
    IT WAS EASY TO CHOOSE THEM FOR THEIR COMPETENCE AND KNOWLEDGE TO BE LEADER,
    THEY WHERE APPRECIATE BECAUSE THE PAYROLL WAS SMALL SO IT WAS NOT THE MONEY DRIVING THEM, BUT THE WISH TO SERVE, THEY DID THEIR FIRST JOB AS IF THEY COULD CONTINUE ON BOTH,
    WHAT WENT WRONG, THE GREED THE ENVY, THE WISH TO SHINE, AND TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THEIR POWER CORRUPT IT, YES?

  4. 4

    This one

    Nah, it can’t be a Congress who has a record number of filibusters denying jobs bills and infrastructure spending. Worst Congress in US history. Thanks GOP.

  5. 5

    Petercat

    @ilovebeeswarzone: Exactly right, Bees. Professional politicians are a major problem. I would like to return to the concept of the Citizen Statesmen, who would go to office to do what had to be done, then return home to their real jobs. It will never happen, though.
    Silver sends you a valentine, by the way.

  6. 6

    ilovebeeswarzone

    Petercat
    I just open my laptop to get that from SILVER,
    nice surprise,
    give him an apple extra for me, and a big kiss and a hug
    strange that yesterday I was thinking of SILVER,
    I receive a YOUTUBE, AND IN THERE WAS A SILVER BEING TRAINED BY A WOMAN
    TO DO ALL KIND OF TRICK, she had other beauty also who where doing anything she wanted,
    kneel down get up standing up, follow her ,
    and so much more, just with a move she was doing,
    they where free no leach, just free will, IT WAS ADVANCE TRAINING,
    best to you,
    very interesting,

  7. 7

    Petercat

    @ilovebeeswarzone: Silver won’t do tricks. He’s either too stubborn, too proud, or too smart.
    He only sticks around because he’s too lazy to find his own food, and he knows that I won’t have him gelded.
    But someday I’m going to teach that horse to sing. 😉

  8. 9

    Scott in Oklahoma

    Am I the only one who remembers when medical c are was paid for out of pocket, unless there was an unexpected “event”, which was covered by insurance, kinda like when you hit something with your car. Of course pregnancy was treated a little differently, but insurance, for the most part, didn’t cover maintenance. I also remember when medical insurance was treated by employers as a non-taxable hiring incentive, like “hey, not only do we pay well, we can pay for your Blue Cross/Blue Shield/Major Medical as an additional incentive” instead of something employers had to provide. The Progressives, from both sides of the aisle have sure done us well over the years…

  9. 12

    Scott in Oklahoma

    NannyG, I would much rather see the government get completely out of it, other than some limited rules on portability, purchases across state lines and TORT reform. Let the market take back control, let insurance be insurance. When my daughter was born (1979), I was paying for all of our medical insurance; it cost me about $1200/year and the birth of my daughter cost me about $100 for pre and post natal care in addition to her actual birth. There wasn’t much government involvement, and I seem to remember seeing commercials on TV for BC/BS…
    I don’t any legislation taking more than 100 pages to define should ever be proposed, written in plain English and posted for all to read for 30 days before a vote (like a public commentary thing). I have a lot of ideas about an overhaul of our government back to the Constitutional restrictions originally intended, but that’s for another day.

  10. 13

    Pete

    The idea that being “freed” from needing to earn a living is a good thing is as pernicious and reprehensible a lie from the left as every single lie Obama and the dems claimed on the alleged benefits of obamacare.

    Only a mentally ill leftist would fail to comprehend that if everyone stops working to produce things, that it won’t be too long before there are no products. The idea floating that only people who would have retired anyway are the ones “voluntarily” ceasing to work is more twisted leftwing falsity.

    What happens when the number of people actually working to produce necessities of life decide it is no longer worth the effort to keep working as they watch an increasing number of people do nothing, yet get the same “chocolate ration” as the people actually working? This lesson is well known throughout history, being reported with the first Christian communes (where the work ethic was reinstated after people saw how poorly collectivism functions) and again with one of the earliest colonial start ups in America, where the able-bodied stopped working at farming when they saw they got nothing for their efforts more than those who did little or no work – and said community almost starved to death. What saved this early colony was the initation of capitalism – compensation appropriate for the work performed. The soviet union collapsed. Hell, even the ChiComs recognized the need to attempt some form of capitalism – though their idea seems to have combined the worst of both collectivism and capitalism for the benefit of the political overlords. This scam never works, and collectivism is so against human nature that brute force has to be used to impose such nonsense onto the population.

    The question one should ask leftists is to explain why the businessman who makes a lot of money is somehow evil, greedy and selfish, but the union president, the professional athlete, and the TV/movie star are somehow sacrosanct from such negative aspersions even when they make more than the businessman.

    The essence of a leftist is envy, jealousy and blunt covetousness of those who have more than the leftist. Rather than go out to work for what is desired, the leftist prefers to seethe with rage that someone else has something the leftist does not. that is why all leftist scams involve taking from people who have earned, and (after taking their own cut) redistributing to others also filled with envy. Of course you know that the leaders of the left are entitled to a much greater share of the spoils than the peasants.

    You want another glaring example of the horrendous bias of the left? How many of you are old enough to remember the constant snide attacks against Nancy Reagan for how much she was spending on dresses, dishes or anything else in the White House? How many air trips did Nancy take – especially on her own – while First Lady? Now compare that to the complete blindness of the media now on the amount Michelle Obama spends on dresses, or the jewelry (for crying out loud) worn by the Obama family DOGS, or the number of trips Michelle has taken around the world without Obama.

    Leftists do not care about truth. They care only about gaining power for themselves by enslaving the rest of the population. Why else do these leftists want to deprive citizens of their right to bear arms?

  11. 16

    Nanny G

    74% of Republicans, 68% of Independents and 54% of Democrats saying Obama’s unpopular healthcare program would never have passed if Americans had known the truth in 2009.
    Gee.
    Ends justify the means for obama I guess.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *