So how many people lost their jobs because of the health care law?

Murky

Deity
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
7,216
Location
The Milky Way Galaxy
You frequently hear the conservatives in congress and republican candidates saying how they are going to do everything they can to repeal the "job killing" Obama care law.

So what are the numbers? How many have actually lost their jobs because of this law?

for reference
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA),[1] informally referred to as Obamacare,[2] is a United States federal statute signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010 after nearly a year of overall consideration by both chambers of Congress. The law (along with the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act) is the principal health care reform legislation of the 111th United States Congress.
 
Care to explain how healthcare and job loss would even start being related ? This is by no means obvious. :eek:

If you're going to quote Wikipedia, consider quoting the relevant part. It does, after all, answer your question (my italics - I know people read fast):
Job consequences of repeal

A spokesman for Eric Cantor stated, "This is a job-killing law, period. Anyone who argues otherwise is ignoring the construct of the health care law and the widely accepted facts."[264] The House Republican leadership justified its use of the term "job killing" by contending that the PPACA would lead to a loss of 650,000 jobs, and attributing that figure to a report by the Congressional Budget Office.[264]

However, the CBO report specifically stated that the negative effect on jobs was because people would voluntarily choose to work less once they have health insurance outside of their jobs.[265] FactCheck noted that the 650,000 figure was not in the CBO report, and said that the Republican statement "badly misrepresents what the Congressional Budget Office has said about the law. In fact, CBO is among those saying the effect 'will probably be small.'"[264]

The Republicans also cited a study by the National Federation of Independent Business, but PolitiFact.com said that the 2009 NFIB study had concerned an earlier version of the bill that differed significantly from what was enacted.[266] PolitiFact rated the Republican statement as False.[266]


264: ^ a b c Jackson, Brooks; Lori Robertson (January 7, 2011). "A 'Job-Killing' Law?". FactCheck. Retrieved 2011-01-23.
265: ^ "The health care law a "job killer"? The evidence falls short". PolitiFact.com. Retrieved April 1, 2012.
266: ^ a b Farley, Robert; Angie Drobnic Holan (January 20, 2011). "The health care law a 'job killer'? The evidence falls short". PolitiFact.com. Retrieved 2011-01-23.

Wiki says: mayonnaise!


Edit:
The FactCheck article seems reasonable.

Edit2: Sorry for my abrupt tone. I really don't think spreading these kinds of strictly partisan discourses helps. That is all. Then again, I'm no US citizen. Maybe you hear what seems to me like a shot in the dark on a daily basis.
 
I think it would be reasonable to think that the regulatory uncertainty over the last few months (and really, even now, since there are lots of unanswered regulatory and implementation questions) could potentially be a drag on hiring.
 
Most of the bill hasn't been enacted anywayz..
 
I think it would be reasonable to think that the regulatory uncertainty over the last few months (and really, even now, since there are lots of unanswered regulatory and implementation questions) could potentially be a drag on hiring.

Indeed. That is, however, a very different line than that which says people would lose their jobs. As in... they'd get fired from jobs they already have.
An employer can rightfully expect to know how much it will cost him to hire someone, at least short and mid term.
 
The demand for health care workers certainly isn't going away. The law doesn't nationalize health care so the insurance companies are going stay in business. Provisions in the bill should make it easier on small businesses to afford health care for their staff. So how does it kill jobs?
 
I'm pretty sure there wasn't a lot of argument that this would cause people to lose their job for the most part. It would just prevent companies in the 45-49 employee range from expanding. Take a look at France they have a bunch of companies in the 45-49 range and much fewer in the 50-55 range. This is because a bunch of regulations kick in at 50 employees.
 
I'm pretty sure there wasn't a lot of argument that this would cause people to lose their job for the most part. It would just prevent companies in the 45-49 employee range from expanding. Take a look at France they have a bunch of companies in the 45-49 range and much fewer in the 50-55 range. This is because a bunch of regulations kick in at 50 employees.

I think you missed the part where the entire House Republican leadership claimed that 650,000 jobs would be lost. There were a LOT of claims that people would lose their jobs.
 
I'm pretty sure there wasn't a lot of argument that this would cause people to lose their job for the most part. It would just prevent companies in the 45-49 employee range from expanding. Take a look at France they have a bunch of companies in the 45-49 range and much fewer in the 50-55 range. This is because a bunch of regulations kick in at 50 employees.
There are already a bunch like that in the USA. If you are in that range, you are likely using the regulations as a guideline so that you can keep up with the competition in attracting and keeping quality employees.
 
There is no way to know how the new insurance rules will effect employer hiring. Republicans could be right and a lot of people could not get hired or they could be wrong, there is really no way to predict how employers will react.
 
It's be a lot easier to get rid of insurance company red tape if they just nationalized healthcare. When you go to a hospital the U.K. there's no billing from the hospital to the patient. Just the billing costs(including collection agency fees) of health care (in the USA) are big enough that, if you could eliminate them, it would mean billions in savings for the total costs of health care. Health care bills are the main reason why Americans go bankrupt. So it would be easy to make an argument for a stronger economy and less debt if we nationalized healthcare.
 
Here's an interesting article from FactCheck.org about this subject.

GOP’s ‘Job-Killing’ Whopper, Again

Summary

The exaggerated Republican claim that the new health care law “kills jobs” was high on our list of the “Whoppers of 2011.” But the facts haven’t stopped Republicans and their allies from making the “job-killing” claim a major theme of their campaign 2012 TV ads:

Five ads by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce attack Democrats by repeating the “Obamacare will kill jobs” refrain.
Seven other Chamber spots praise Republicans, using the same theme.
An ad from the group Freedom Path, supporting Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch, says the law is “devastating to small business.”
Republican Rep. Jo Bonner of Alabama features a large stack of papers he claims are “job-killing regulations and taxes” in one of his spots.

All of this is health-care hooey, aimed at exploiting public concern over continuing high unemployment, with little basis in fact.

As we’ve said before (a few times), experts project that the law will cause a small loss of low-wage jobs — and also some gains in better-paid jobs in the health care and insurance industries.

It’s also expected that more workers will decide to retire earlier, or work fewer hours, when they no longer need employer-sponsored insurance and can obtain it on their own with help from federal subsidies. But that just means fewer people willing to work — and it will free up jobs for those who want them. If anything, that could reduce the jobless rate.
 
Are conservatives actually suggesting this, or is this merely a flourish?


Honestly, I've heard nothing in the news. But it would shock me if there weren't a few conservatives muttering it under their breaths.

OK, Google has a few hits. It's Tea Party and rightwing blogosphere, by the looks of it. Doesn't appear to have any mainstream support.

 
Top Bottom