Obamacare causes people to "abandon jobs"?

[Mrs Mungo]

Employers have to scale back on hiring employees b/c of the cost of healthcare.

The state of Hawaii has had employer mandated insurance since 1974. It applies to everyone who works more than 19 hours per week. It can't cost more than 1.5 percent of the worker's income. It hasn't limited employment or small businesses here. There are loads and loads of thriving local businesses. Hawaii has the lowest rate of uninsured people and consistently ranks among the healthiest states.

[LucyStoner]

Why? Economists go to school and study this sort of thing. While things can and do change, it still should give us a good idea what is going on as things stand now.

Well the saying goes, "100 economists equals roughly 1,000 predictions".

Why? Economists go to school and study this sort of thing. While things can and do change, it still should give us a good idea what is going on as things stand now.

 

And they continually get the long term picture completely wrong, because the global economy is incredibly complex, and there are always unforeseen new developments and problems.  Remember in the 1970s when we were going to run out of oil in a few years?  And in the 80s?  And in the 90s?  Or the last time the federal government ran a budget surplus for a few years straight, and predicted that surpluses would continue for the foreseeable future, and the federal debt would be completely paid off by 2010?  Or the prediction that the Iraq war would "pay for itself", because it would only last a few months? Currently, the US is almost producing more oil than it consumes, because of the boom in fracing and shale oil.  No economist saw that coming 10 years ago.  We all know how quickly Chinese consumer goods export has grown -- who could have foreseen that coming when we still called them "Red China"?

[mom2samlibby]

Ok, I'm not a big Fox News fan, although I check over there once in awhile to try to see another side.  In a huge story about Obamacare and the economy, this statement was made:

 

As a result, budget experts say President Obama’s healthcare overhaul will lead to a reduction of 2.3 million jobs that people will abandon because they can get insurance outside of the workplace.

 

????  I could see that happening in some isolated incidents, but 2.3 million?  That sounds totally crazy to me.  Does anybody have more info on this, or a possible explanation?  

 

Please keep discussion related to this issue and not party politics.  I really would like to understand this statement though.

 

I read in a different article that they will abandon their job because if they were working fewer hours they will receive a higher subsidy for their insurance.   Obamacare discourages those from having a higher paying job.  

[LucyStoner]

And they continually get the long term picture completely wrong, because the global economy is incredibly complex, and there are always unforeseen new developments and problems. Remember in the 1970s when we were going to run out of oil in a few years? And in the 80s? And in the 90s? Or the last time the federal government ran a budget surplus for a few years straight, and predicted that surpluses would continue for the foreseeable future, and the federal debt would be completely paid off by 2010? Or the prediction that the Iraq war would "pay for itself", because it would only last a few months? Currently, the US is almost producing more oil than it consumes, because of the boom in fracing and shale oil. No economist saw that coming 10 years ago. We all know how quickly Chinese consumer goods export has grown -- who could have foreseen that coming when we still called them "Red China"?

Ok, a lot of what you are putting on economists here is actually on political shenanigans and hijinks.

 

The CBO report is, like all other CBO reports NOT a crystal ball...no actual economist claims to have a crystal ball. It's the politicians that are spinning this stuff into dubiously true soundbytes. Economists are pretty bad with generating catchy soundbytes, which is why so few of them become elected officials or talking heads on news shows.

[SKL]

If people are paying 100% of the cost of insuring them after leaving their jobs, then fine and dandy.  If they are planning on quitting because they won't have to earn the compensation that translates into health insurance - which is a cost of taking care of oneself and one's family, just like procuring food and shelter - then that's a problem in general.

 

There will be exceptions where it's actually a better net outcome for someone to leave his job, but that's not generally the case.  And no, I don't think it's sad that artists whose art can't produce much income have to take a paying job.  Earning an income to cover the costs of being alive is part of being an adult.

 

Personally my talent is sleeping.  I do it better than anyone I know.  Too bad I can't quit my job and live out my rightful destiny (at least not yet).  Another "dream" unfulfilled.  ;)

[goldberry]

I read in a different article that they will abandon their job because if they were working fewer hours they will receive a higher subsidy for their insurance.   Obamacare discourages those from having a higher paying job.  

 

The same could be said about any low-no income assistance - and is said.  There will always be people who work the system.  There will also always be people who are there through no fault of their own and do everything they can to get out of that situation. 

 

It seems clear to me it is more about the person and their integrity than about the assistance itself.  There will always be both classes of people.

 

I do like that the ACA subsidies are staggered.

[goldberry]

I just saw my first post was edited to remove a link.....I've never had a post edited by a moderator before!  Kind of exciting!  B)

[Trish]

It's not that the jobs will disappear, it's that people will be able to leave jobs they don't actually want.

 

I think it's great that people who have only been sticking with job for years only to keep their family's insurance can now leave, find a new job, or retire when they want to.  It never made any sense at all to tie health insurance to particular employers.  Plus, it creates 2 million jobs for unemployed people/young people entering the workforce!

 

If this were true, wouldn't that be the headline? 2.3 million people to "leave jobs they don't want," thus opening up 2.3 million positions for the unemployed?

 

I imagine more than 2.3 million people will change or leave their jobs in this time period, anyway. The question is whether those jobs will still exist, the CBO seems to be indicating the jobs will be "lost," not changing who is doing them.

 

[Amy in NH]

Employers have to scale back on hiring employees b/c of the cost of healthcare.

 

 

)

 

Interesting.  On January 16th DH's employer sent home a letter that they will stop carrying health insurance as of March 1st.  They had been paying over $1000 for DH & me to have truly crappy insurance; we can get better coverage on the HIE for about a quarter of that.  Even if the boss pays extra into DH wages to cover our HIE cost, he will have a substantial savings he can use to invest in capital or hire new workers.

 

(PS - I suggested to the boss that this would make sense, so I'm glad he decided to go for it!)

 

 

 

I will admit that I haven't read the CBO report, but NPR's Marketplace yesterday reported: "The CBO says its predictions are subject to 'substantial uncertainty.'" 

[LucyStoner]

If this were true, wouldn't that be the headline? 2.3 million people to "leave jobs they don't want," thus opening up 2.3 million positions for the unemployed?

 

I imagine more than 2.3 million people will change or leave their jobs in this time period, anyway. The question is whether those jobs will still exist, the CBO seems to be indicating the jobs will be "lost," not changing who is doing them.

 

1. Headlines are often quite misleading, 1000x more so when the headline comes from politicians.

 

2. The report specifically says that this is a projected decrease in the amount of labor supplied, not an employer driven reduction in hours of work available.

[Slartibartfast]

If this were true, wouldn't that be the headline? 2.3 million people to "leave jobs they don't want," thus opening up 2.3 million positions for the unemployed?

 

I imagine more than 2.3 million people will change or leave their jobs in this time period, anyway. The question is whether those jobs will still exist, the CBO seems to be indicating the jobs will be "lost," not changing who is doing them.

That isn't what the report said.

 

There’s a lot more fine print about what those numbers really mean, and whether the jobs were “lost.†In fact, CBO said it’s in large part about the number of hours people choose to work, not actual job losses.

 

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/obamacare-first-year-enrollment-numbers-103098.html#ixzz2sUioZZZ3

This is what this report is saying to me.

 

Bob and Susan are a married couple raising their children. Susan had to go back to work because they could not afford health care costs. With the new health care options Susan can now quit her job, stay at home, and homeschool her kids.

 

Hooray for Susan!

 

Now there's Frank. Frank needs a job. He is qualified for Susan's job! Hooray for Frank!

[Word Nerd]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2014/02/04/the-medias-massive-revisions-on-cbo-obamacare-story/?hpid=z5

 

[goldberry]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2014/02/04/the-medias-massive-revisions-on-cbo-obamacare-story/?hpid=z5

 

 

Yep, it's much more correctly worded "workers" than "jobs".  There are undoubtedly various reasons for the fewer workers, and therefore various potential outcomes.

[goldberry]

If this were true, wouldn't that be the headline? 2.3 million people to "leave jobs they don't want," thus opening up 2.3 million positions for the unemployed?

 

 

 

I'm sorry, but this made me laugh.  I am much more cynical in my "old age" I guess.  I don't believe anything from a headline anymore.  The idea that the media can be trusted to even *try* to represent the facts truthfully has gone the way of rotary dial phones... 

 

If something is important enough for me to know the truth, I check 3-4 sources from various points of view, and try to find primary documents if I can.

[Mrs Mungo]

That isn't what the report said.

 

 

This is what this report is saying to me.

 

Bob and Susan are a married couple raising their children. Susan had to go back to work because they could not afford health care costs. With the new health care options Susan can now quit her job, stay at home, and homeschool her kids.

 

Hooray for Susan!

 

Now there's Frank. Frank needs a job. He is qualified for Susan's job! Hooray for Frank!

 

Politifact agrees with your summation:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/feb/05/john-boehner/john-boehner-says-obamacare-expected-destroy-23-mi/

 

I don't see why the work force would decline as we have a lot of people who want to be employed but are unemployed or under-employed.

[FO4UR]

The state of Hawaii has had employer mandated insurance since 1974. It applies to everyone who works more than 19 hours per week. It can't cost more than 1.5 percent of the worker's income. It hasn't limited employment or small businesses here. There are loads and loads of thriving local businesses. Hawaii has the lowest rate of uninsured people and consistently ranks among the healthiest states.

 

Hawaii also has one of the most extreme disparities between rich and poor...perhaps THE biggest disparity in the entire USA.  I know b/c I have family that still lives there.  It's wonderful if you have money.  It's h@ll on earth if you don't.  There is not much in between.  

 

 

Interesting.  On January 16th DH's employer sent home a letter that they will stop carrying health insurance as of March 1st.  They had been paying over $1000 for DH & me to have truly crappy insurance; we can get better coverage on the HIE for about a quarter of that.  Even if the boss pays extra into DH wages to cover our HIE cost, he will have a substantial savings he can use to invest in capital or hire new workers.

 

(PS - I suggested to the boss that this would make sense, so I'm glad he decided to go for it!)

 

 

 

I will admit that I haven't read the CBO report, but NPR's Marketplace yesterday reported: "The CBO says its predictions are subject to 'substantial uncertainty.'"

 

 

I'm glad that it's going to work out well for you family!

 

 

I have to notice though, that the insurance is moving away from being paid for by the employer.  If it's subsidized on the exchange, then taxpayers are picking up the bill that the employer is not.

 

Whether we agree or disagree that this is good/bad or right/wrong...we must acknowledge that this is happening.

[Mrs Mungo]

Hawaii also has one of the most extreme disparities between rich and poor...perhaps THE biggest disparity in the entire USA.  I know b/c I have family that still lives there.  It's wonderful if you have money.  It's h@ll on earth if you don't.  There is not much in between.  

 

 

I think I will have to disagree. I think it's just such a small geographical area that the disparity is more obvious. Hawaii is number 8 by state (and tied with two other states for that), according the the Gini coefficient. But, I don't think that employer mandated health care contributes to that, quite the opposite. 

[Amy in NH]

I'm glad that it's going to work out well for you family!

 

 

I have to notice though, that the insurance is moving away from being paid for by the employer.  If it's subsidized on the exchange, then taxpayers are picking up the bill that the employer is not.

 

Whether we agree or disagree that this is good/bad or right/wrong...we must acknowledge that this is happening.

 

Or it could be that a large statewide exchange can just negotiate for a better price than a small company with 20 employees.

[Mrs Mungo]

Or it could be that a large statewide exchange can just negotiate for a better price than a small company with 20 employees.

 

I know this has been posted before, but here it goes again. :)

 

[butterflymommy]

 

 

I also know some who have had their benefits cut drastically in the last month.  They are considering leaving their job b/c they are hoping to qualify for better insurance if they make less money.  They would pay so much more for insurance now, that it would eat away at any $ they made.  This was NOT the intention of most Americans who wanted Obamacare, but it is the result regardless.  This scenario plays out over and over and over again, especially in dual-income/2-4kids/government job families.

 

For some years now NYS had an "obamacare" type model where low and middle income families could buy into state plans on a sliding scale. One year when my husband received a pay increase, we priced out of the low cost options and were charged full rate. The net result was a loss of income-- which is to say we would have had more money had he not taken the pay raise. So this is exactly what many people are going to be faced with in having to choose between higher income or subsidies. I actually told DH not to take the pay raise, but his line of thinking is that income tends to increase exponentially (or at least, that's what used to happen, as someone progressed in their career) and to consciously avoid higher income to garner benefits would be counterproductive in the long run. But very few people think like him, is my impression.

 

The ACA will also disincentivize marriage because of the way household income is calculated to determine premiums and subsidies. It will "pay" if people live together instead of being married. This may not seem like a big deal, but marriage has long been a hallmark of upward mobility and is one of the greatest dividers between rich and poor. And it would be ironic if those who've fought for marriage equality find themselves priced out of marriage and opt just to live together.

 

Not to sound pessimistic, but looking long term, we may be approaching a scenario where it will cost money to have a job. This is already happening in HCOL areas where the only young people who can afford to live there are supported by wealthy parents. If you look at many of the young writers for publications like the NYtimes or Vanity Fair, most come from wealthy families and can "afford" to take a job that only pays 40k a year while their lifestyle in an expensive city is subsidized otherwise.

[Lady Florida.]

 

I have to notice though, that the insurance is moving away from being paid for by the employer.  If it's subsidized on the exchange, then taxpayers are picking up the bill that the employer is not.

 

 

 

I'll address the last part of that first. Taxpayers have been picking up a huge part of the bill for health care for years, yet most of us don't qualify for getting anything back for our tax dollars. Also, if employers weren't expected to pick up such a huge portion of the bill for health insurance, that could free up money to be used for so many other things. Better benefits outside of insurance, better wages, the ability to create more jobs, even more money for shareholders in the case of publicly traded companies.

 

Health insurance in general, and employer provided health insurance are both relatively new, coming to be in the latter part of the 20th century. Health insurance wasn't really necessary before there were advances in medical technology. Tests, surgeries, and other medical advances, for better or worse, have made health care more expensive. Most early health insurance covered nothing more than hospitalization, and that's really all that was needed. Employer provided health insurance came about around the time of World War II, as a result of wage freezes. Health benefits were exempt from government mandated freezes, so employers offered it as an incentive to get qualified people to come and work for them. 

 

While my family has relatively good (though not "cadillac") insurance from dh's job, I'm not sure I think employer provided health insurance is worth saving. I'd rather see us go to a universal single payer system that is not in any way connected with one's place of employment.

[goldberry]

I know this has been posted before, but here it goes again. :)

 

 

Thanks for sharing that, I missed it before.  Good to share with DD to give a pretty concise overview of the high points.

[mommymilkies]

For us, it's allowing us to finally move somewhere we might enjoy living. We have this job because we can get Medicaid here. Dh's work insurance would be 60% of our income. Now that there are income scales, we can probably afford a new job somewhere else.