Wednesday, February 05, 2014

CBO Deals Death-Blow to ACA

According to John Podhoretz, the Congressional Budget Office has issued a scathing report on the implications of the Affordable Care Act.
The one-two punch: Virtually as many Americans will lack health coverage in 10 years as before the law was passed — but 2 million fewer will be working than if the law hadn’t passed.
One killer detail comes on Page 111, where the report projects: “As a result of the ACA, between 6 million and 7 million fewer people will have employment-based insurance coverage each year from 2016 through 2024 than would be the case in the absence of the ACA.”
So, the ACA causes less people to have paid insurance and less people to be employed full-time.  I'd say that's a problem for a law that was supposed to ensure universal coverage and get Americans back to work.  Of course, the White House is spinning it as an option.
 The law’s not destroying 2.5 million jobs, says Glenn Kessler, it’s merely inviting 2.5 million employees to quit. How much does it matter to growth, though, if the labor force shrinks on the demand side versus the supply side? 
The argument is that if 2.5 million people decide to quit because health insurance is costing them money, and it's better for them to not work and take advantage of the Medicade expansion, that's a positive?  Really?  How about the rest of us who have to pay for their essentially free health insurance in the form of higher taxes and insurance premiums?

This argument is essentially that it's entirely possible to pick up a turd on the clean end.  The White House has lost me entirely, and I suspect that as the implications of this Act become clearer, the Democrats are going to lose a lot of people.  Of course, Nancy Pelosi has her own take on the matter, totally divorced from reality and divorced from the implications of the report.
Pelosi said she hadn’t “fully” seen the report, but, “this was one of the goals. To give people life, a healthy life, liberty to pursue their happiness. And that liberty is to not be job-locked, but to follow their passion.”
So, Nancy, it was a goal of the ACA to reduce the number of people in the labor participation pool?  I guess we should have read it before we passed it, huh?

1 comment:

Old NFO said...

Ye Gods... she STILL doesn't get it...