CBO Confirms: ObamaCare Discourages Work

4 years before the total and utter takeover of our healthcare system by legislative fiat by a government that has bankrupted everything that it touches, the ill effects are already being felt. I keep harping on this, but remember when Nancy Pelosi - simultaneous holder of the dual titles of Speaker of the House as well as Dimmest Bulb of the House (we're in the best of hands folks!) - said that "we need to pass the bill so you can find out what's in it"?

From Investors Business Daily: CBO Confirms: ObamaCare Discourages Work

Congressional Budget Office director Doug Elmendorf said Friday that ObamaCare includes work disincentives likely to shrink the amount of labor used in the economy.

In a speech on ObamaCare's economic impact outside the health care sector, Elmendorf said that those effects will primarily be related to the labor market and "will probably be small."

Factoring in additional demand for workers in health care and insurance, CBO estimates that "the legislation, on net, will reduce the amount of labor used in the economy by roughly half a percent," he said.

The reason: The expansion of Medicaid and new health insurance subsidies will reduce "the amount of labor that workers choose to supply."

(For perspective, half a percent of current payrolls is 651,000 jobs, though the impact would show up in both fewer jobs and fewer hours worked.)

The conclusion isn't a surprising one; any extra support from the government takes some pressure off of workers to provide for themselves. However, ObamaCare's progressive subsidies, i.e. more generous for those who earn less, carry more of a disincentive than the flat, universal benefit favored by some Republicans.

As Capital Hill has noted previously, work disincentives will be particularly strong for older workers because both health care premiums and the law's subsidies grow much bigger with age.

Further, the new health law will give some older households without access to employer care a big incentive not to earn too much. That's because earning more than 400% of the poverty level would make them ineligible for subsidies that may be well in excess of $10,000 for couples.

....To learn more, please read about what I told President Obama's fiscal commission.

The faster this monstrosity is repealed, the better. It is a net negative. We continue to keep finding out about ObamaCare and it's all bad. Insurance premiums are increasing even faster than they would have if ObamaCare hadn't passed (Connecticut is seeing a 47% increase this year, Boeing is paring back healthcare benefits for its employees, while even the White House admits that seniors will see higher costs and less benefits. Also, there was this:CNN: Cost of your health plan to rise 14%, the opposite of what Obama promised in runup to ObamaCare), and Obama's minions are threatening insurance companies with bankruptcy for even hinting that ObamaCare is the cause (it is). That's in spite of the fact that Democrats have abandoned the claim that ObamaCare will reduce cost and deficit.  The Obama regime via the FDA is deep-sixing miracle cancer drugs that extend life because they cost too much (ObamaCare begins early: FDA may pull Avastin approval OVER COST CONCERNS). Insurance companies are being forced to cut coverage plans, and the law is creating a huge doctor shortage. Every time socialized medicine has been tried, it's been a proven failure. ObamaCare is no different except that it can still be repealed before it's too late.

http://theblogprof.blogspot.com/2010/10/cbo-confirms-obamacare-discourages-work.html

Sent with MobileRSS for iPhone

Sent from my iPhone