I couldn't help but reprint the analysis here, with the details clearly laid out:
McClatchy News: House Republicans defend their job-killer claim in a 19-page Jan. 6 report, "ObamaCare: A Budget-Busting, Job-Killing Health Care Law." But some of its points are out of date or omit offsetting information that would weaken the argument.Here's a great quick look at the details, from Keith Olbermann and Ezra Klein:
The report says that a study by the National Federation of Independent Business, "the nation's largest small business association, found that an employer mandate alone could lead to the elimination of 1.6 million jobs between 2009 and 2014, with 66 percent of those coming from small businesses." But that study was released on Jan. 28, 2009, well before the law was written. It studied a model, not the law that was enacted eventually, and it was based on a different set of assumptions. "It's old. We don't use it anymore because it was based on a hypothetical mandate.”
The GOP report says: "Economic theory suggests the penalty should ultimately be passed through (as) lower wages (to an employee)," quoting a Congressional Research Service report. But Republicans chop that sentence short; the CRS version goes on to say that the penalty for not offering coverage "would not be a burden on small business owners."
The GOP report says: " 'If firms cannot pass on the cost in lower wages, the higher cost of workers may lead firms to reduce output and the number of workers.' CRS estimates that about one in five employees work for a business that could be negatively impacted by the new employer penalty." The CRS report does say that, but it also says this, which the GOP report omits: "(Individuals with lower incomes, however, should be able to receive subsidies in the community-rated pools, which will increase their welfare). For the firm, paying a penalty may be more feasible than providing insurance, especially if their employees are lower income and the wage cannot be lowered below the minimum wage or the burden is too great."
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the measure will reduce federal budget deficits by about $230 billion over 10 years. Boehner has disputed the estimate, saying "CBO is entitled to their opinion."
Augustine Faucher, the director of macroeconomics at Pennsylvania-based Moody's Analytics, said that the law's deficit savings should "bring down interest rates and free up more capital for private firm investment, and therefore could boost long-run growth" and create more jobs.