FED says Obamacare slowing hiring, sales.

[mastoidbone]

When critics of bill said this they were shot down----years later---seems they were correct. From FED Beige book.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100529511
The notion that Obamacare, as the law is popularly known, would be a jobs killer was widely denied by its supporters. A report from the Annenberg Public Policy Center accused Republican critics of misrepresenting facts when the bill would hurt employment. It citied "non-partisan experts" who said the law would have little or no effect on employment. When the Congressional Budget Office examined the law's impact on jobs, it saw only mildly negative employment effects arising from early retirement and allowing the poor to work fewer hours to meet their needs. The CBO didn't think that employers would slow down hiring because of the law.

But that's exactly what appears to be happening.

"Employers in several Districts cited the unknown effects of the Affordable Care Act as reasons for planned layoffs and reluctance to hire more staff," the report says.

The Richmond Fed reports that employers in its area continued to point to the Affordable Care Act as "reasons for planned layoffs and reluctance to hire more staff."
The Dallas Fed contacts "noted concern that client companies are hiring the absolute minimum to get by due to uncertainty about the Affordable Care Act."

It's not just hiring that is being hurt by Obamacare, according to the Beige Book. Sales are also. "Many District contacts commented on the expired payroll tax holiday and the Affordable Care Act as having restrained sales growth," the report says.

[gatorev12]

I wonder if the Obama Administration and its minions stick to their usual playbook and demonize the Fed for speaking the truth.

Its not like several businesses haven't publicly come out already and said the same thing. Only when it's Dennys and Papa John's, the Administration loudly bashes them and their friends in the media are only too happy to pick up the narrative.

[geauxgator1]

Everyone knew this law would throw a blanket on the economy, even the dems I think knew it. They will blame the fiasco on the republicans, of course, and the media will spin it for them.

[G8trGr8t]

no no no it is the sequestration...stick to the script, didn't you get the e-mail...no WH tour for you

[secgator]

"A report from the Annenberg Public Policy Center accused Republican critics of misrepresenting facts when the bill would hurt employment."

Interesting that a report accusing Republicans of misrepresentating the facts---is the same group which owns Factcheck.org....a left leaning political group whose site seems to be the absolute liberal gospel around here for so many lefties to quote and swear by, is now found to be incorrect as compared to the predictions made by Republicans and conservatives from day one.

Coincidence of course....or is that the case river?

[mastoidbone]

news york times----ACA to DECREASE employment---incentivize NOT working

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/20...etts/?src=recg

The United States labor market is in for a shock when health reform is fully carried out, regardless of what employers decide about health insurance or how smoothly reform might have unfolded in Massachusetts.

TODAY’S ECONOMIST
Perspectives from expert contributors.
Beginning next year, millions of Americans will be eligible for generous subsidies in the form of cash assistance to pay for their health insurance premiums and out-of-pocket health expenses pursuant to the Affordable Care Act. The subsidies will sharply reduce the financial reward to working because they will be phased out with household income.

As the Princeton economists Alan B. Krueger, who has held positions in the Obama administration, and Uwe E. Reinhardt, my Economix colleague, explain, health insurance premium assistance “would present millions of low-income American families with total marginal tax rates in excess of 75 percent.” They add, “Such high marginal tax rates may well make unemployment and welfare an attractive alternative to working.”

For all these reasons, economic reasoning points to a contraction of the United States labor market as the full Affordable Care Act is carried out, regardless of what may have happened in Massachusetts.

[gatordowneast]

The Economy has been amazingly resilient inspite of the Obama administration. If business had a more "business friendly" atmosphere, we would have been out of the recession 3 years ago and humming right now.

Unemployment will remain at Euro levels as long as the social safety net continues as a lifestyle for many who could work if it didn't exist and the regulatory environment remains so anti business. Employment in 2013 is starting off slower than 2012 as jobs added were down over 2012 #s in both January and February. At current rates we cannot absorb the annual job force growth much less put to work the long term chronic unemployed.

[Row6]

Gee, if this is true that's too bad, especially given how efficient and inexpensive US health care had been before the law, and how eager employers had been to cover everyone.

It's just an outrage that every single effect of a complex law which will impact tens of millions of Americans is not 100% positive. How could this be?

[CHFG8R]

Originally Posted by Row6

Gee, if this is true that's too bad, especially given how efficient and inexpensive US health care had been before the law, and how eager employers had been to cover everyone.

It's just an outrage that every single effect of a complex law which will impact tens of millions of Americans is not 100% positive. How could this be?

The law sucks because, when all was said and done, it was more important to make the (R)s eat s--t than pass good, effective legislation. Question, once the (D)s sold this out to the insurance companies, was it still worth passing? The (R)s eating of s--t notwithstanding.

I still maintain we'd have been better off scrapping Medicare & Medicade and just going with one blanket, single payer system. Everyone pays a flat rate in withholding (medicare and medcaid go away), employers no longer have to even deal with insurance unless they want to offer supplimental packages as incentives. Simple. Clean. Smart.

Which is the complete opposite of the cluster-"blank"-abortion that is Obamacare. Even a dope like me can see the holes in this plan and the fact that it is rife with potential for abuse. As if the beancounters at the insurance companies haven't already figured out how to game this system.

[gator421]

Originally Posted by CHFG8R

The law sucks because, when all was said and done, it was more important to make the (R)s eat s--t than pass good, effective legislation. Question, once the (D)s sold this out to the insurance companies, was it still worth passing? The (R)s eating of s--t notwithstanding.

I still maintain we'd have been better off scrapping Medicare & Medicade and just going with one blanket, single payer system. Everyone pays a flat rate in withholding (medicare and medcaid go away), employers no longer have to even deal with insurance unless they want to offer supplimental packages as incentives. Simple. Clean. Smart.

Which is the complete opposite of the cluster-"blank"-abortion that is Obamacare. Even a dope like me can see the holes in this plan and the fact that it is rife with potential for abuse. As if the beancounters at the insurance companies haven't already figured out how to game this system.

How in the world would something like that ever happen?

[CHFG8R]

Originally Posted by gator421

How in the world would something like that ever happen?

It would be the common sense approach, IMO. Either do it or don't, but don't waste everyone's time (and money) on colendar legislation like this. I mean, couldn't you just expand Medicare, in essense, to cover everyone? No more need for medicaid and insurance companies could sell supplimental packages.

I've even talked to employers and one of the major issues they (and many for that matter) have with ACA is the uncertaintly of exactly how it's going to affect cost. Nobody knows because it's such a complete cluster. . . .

With single payer, at least you know what your cost is going to be, what percentage of your revenue you will contribute and your costs are, more or less, fixed.

Again, I'm not saying I fully support single payer, but it makes exponentially more sense than this patchwork, nonsensical attempt to cover everyone while still throwing bones to the insurance companies.

This bill was passes because, well, they wanted to pass it (victory over the opposition). By they time they voted on it, it was a joke and everyone knew it.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by CHFG8R

The law sucks because, when all was said and done, it was more important to make the (R)s eat s--t than pass good, effective legislation. Question, once the (D)s sold this out to the insurance companies, was it still worth passing? The (R)s eating of s--t notwithstanding.

I still maintain we'd have been better off scrapping Medicare & Medicade and just going with one blanket, single payer system. Everyone pays a flat rate in withholding (medicare and medcaid go away), employers no longer have to even deal with insurance unless they want to offer supplimental packages as incentives. Simple. Clean. Smart.

Which is the complete opposite of the cluster-"blank"-abortion that is Obamacare. Even a dope like me can see the holes in this plan and the fact that it is rife with potential for abuse. As if the beancounters at the insurance companies haven't already figured out how to game this system.

We agree on single payer but not much else. You might notice from reading history that legislation requires compromise with varied elected officials and the interests they represent. Now that the law is passed - and it's not going to be repealed - perhaps we can hope cool heads from both sides can eventually agree to reform it in ways smart for all involved. Probably not with this Congress, but another.

[CHFG8R]

Originally Posted by Row6

We agree on single payer but not much else. You might notice from reading history that legislation requires compromise with varied elected officials and the interests they represent. Now that the law is passed - and it's not going to be repealed - perhaps we can hope cool heads from both sides can eventually agree to reform it in ways smart for all involved. Probably not with this Congress, but another.

Row, let's get down to brass tax, okay? You and I both know that the insurance companies are the problem here from the (D) point of view and that the goal is to essentially cut them (more important, their ability to make decisions that affect our health) out of the process. But your team feared the lobbying onslaught they would engage in if you did cut them out, so you threw them a bone (after consulting with them no less). Now, that said, still worth it? Did it still accomplish the goals?

You saying that you trust them now? Because I don't. My deductible went up $1000 this year and I had a $250 prescription deductable added all while taking more out of my check. Sorry, Dude, just not seeing any benefits at this point.

But, hey, your team did make the (R)s eat crap on this. So, I guess you have that.

[Gatorrick22]

Originally Posted by Row6

Gee, if this is true that's too bad, especially given how efficient and inexpensive US health care had been before the law, and how eager employers had been to cover everyone.

It's just an outrage that every single effect of a complex law which will impact tens of millions of Americans is not 100% positive. How could this be?

A great alternative to the ACA would have been lowering the cost of healthcare in the first place. The Pubs put several ideas that would have done just that, but BO poo-pooed that in favor of complete government control.

[G8trGr8t]

Originally Posted by Row6

Gee, if this is true that's too bad, especially given how efficient and inexpensive US health care had been before the law, and how eager employers had been to cover everyone.

It's just an outrage that every single effect of a complex law which will impact tens of millions of Americans is not 100% positive. How could this be?

Glug glug glug, fine koolaid it is..note to mods we need an ostrich modicon

[PSGator66]

This was stated by the non MSM every day for the past year but some people flat our refuse to listen to anything but the NBCs and MSNBs of the world.

[mastoidbone]

well---we were told it would have no effect or min effect----seems they were WRONG.....even NYT is finding this to be.

What else did it get wrong?

They said it was deficit neutral----is that wrong as well?

We were told medicare would cost 12 billion a year by 1990----they were wrong by 1500%.

How wrong will ACA be?

[108]

health care reform will never be worth it to conservatives unless their man in charge passes it, and therefore any potential consequences in implementing will not be worth it

[CHFG8R]

Originally Posted by 108

health care reform will never be worth it to conservatives unless their man in charge passes it, and therefore any potential consequences in implementing will not be worth it

Exactly. Same game plan that "your team" engaged in when they rammed ACA down the country's throat.

Political spoils once again trumping objective decisionmaking.

[mastoidbone]

while we needed reform----this bill was terrible legislation.
It WILL increase coverage which is good---but cost control measures are 100% unproven.
ACO models tried in past have FAILED.

So i think ANY cost estimate is a total guess--nothing else. Might be correct---or could be wrong by usual amount when it comes to govt cost forcasts on health spending---30-50%.

It is just like guns---the desire to be seen doing something---regardless of how it does or does not help the problem--means doing something....even if it is bad legislation.

And the ACA is bad legislation with VERY weak cost controls.