This shouldn't be a real question. In fact, maybe it isn't a real question. In an ideal world - one in which facts and data ruled the day rather than punditry, misinformation, and outright lies - Obamacare would be given a chance to work. Data would be collected, and the program would be judged on whether or not it actually expanded coverage to uninsured Americans and held down costs. For quite some time I've been saying that the jury is still out on Obamacare while simultaneously deploring Republican attempts to derail the program before it ever had a chance to work based on nothing other than...well lies.
To date there hasn't been even a shred of evidence that anything Republicans have said about Obamacare is true, and even if there were, their lack of any other ideas for fixing our broken healthcare system is hard to hide. They've been able to shield themselves behind the wall of attacking Obamacare for years, but behind that facade is an absolute vacuum of proactive thinking.
From death panels to job killer, we've heard wave after wave of attacks from Republicans with no data or even reliable anecdotes to back them up. Until, perhaps, now.
Last week, the Congressional Budget Office reported that due to Obamacare, the size of the workforce could decrease by as many as two million full time positions. Obviously this is an alarming headline, but delving deeper into the report, we find that that projection is not based on the stunting of private sector hiring, but on the assumption that as more people gain insurance coverage from outside the workplace many of them will choose to work less. So while the end result is a net loss of jobs and hours, the reason isn't because employers are choosing not to grow companies because they can't afford it, but because people may choose not to work because they don't need insurance provided by their employer.
I see both pros and cons here. A net reduction in jobs - though as the report details, it isn't the jobs that will be lost so much as it is the hours totaling a net loss of two million jobs - could have an impact on growth. Whether we look at the loss as one of fewer hours or one of fewer jobs, we are still looking at fewer rather than more, and generally that means less productivity. So it is possible that by reducing the number of workers and/or the number of working hours, Obamacare could indeed have a negative effect on economic growth.
Of course having said that, we need to ask ourselves what the purpose of economic growth is. After all, the economy is not a living, breathing entity that needs to grow. The whole purpose of a steadily growing economy is to provide a higher quality of life for those lucky enough to participate in such an economy. In that case, this report might not be such a bad thing. If people choose to work less because they feel more secure then we've actually made progress. The conservative counter point to this would be that we don't want people becoming lazy and relying only on subsidies rather than on their own income to purchase insurance, and this is certainly something we should monitor and be mindful of moving forward, but that's not happening yet. And of course, libertarian Republicans should (but probably don't) love the idea of freeing up workers to make their own decisions about how often they need to work to support themselves. After all, isn't that the point of libertarianism; freeing up people to make decisions and take control of their own lives? Giving workers that freedoms seems like a good thing. That's what the American dream is, right? The ability to move from job to job and improve your quality of life? Finally, there is an argument to be made that by reducing the labor force, wages will actually go up as there will be fewer people competing for jobs. Given the unsustainable and growing income gap between the rich and poor in this country and our dwindling middle class, this can only be a good thing.
The question now becomes, which of these things will happen? Will a reduction in working hours totaling nearly 2 million jobs stunt economic growth enough to dampen the quality of life for all of us, or will workers now earn higher wages as a result of decreased competition and more flexibility and upward mobility. I don't know for sure, but I posit that no one else does either. All we have is projections, and even the most recent one is no death knell for Obamacare - though the Republican spin machine will no doubt spend millions trying to make it one.
For the time being, the best approach is to see what happens. When trends start to develop we'll have a more clear sense of whether this is ultimately good or bad, and until then we'll be subjected to the same talking points from both sides that we've been hearing for the last few years. What's next for Obamacare should ultimately be decided once we've seen if Obamacare will be a boon to the American people or a hindrance, but alas, it is very possible that it's fate will be determined well before then, in fact, it's possible that Obamacare's fate has already been decided because of all the negative attack, misconceptions, and lies spread about the program.
I'm curious to see moving forward if Obamacare becomes the job killer Republicans have long predicted - though without evidence - or if it will ultimately benefit the American people. Either way, the CBO report adds a new layer of complexity to the argument, and should elicit a serious and thoughtful conversation from people on both sides of the debate...like that will happen.
No comments:
Post a Comment