Flashback: Whatever happened to those 400,000 jobs Pelosi promised 'almost immediately' after ObamaCare passed?

ObamaCare was signed into law March 23, 2010. It is now the end of July 2011. Nancy Pelosi promised that 400,000 jobs would be created "almost immediately" once ObamaCare was signed into law:

Where are those 400,000 jobs? Or the millions that Pelosi said will be coming down the pike? They don't exist. Nor will they. From Mike Brownfield over at The Michigan View: This is gonna hurt

When Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) made her pitch for Obamacare, she claimed that the bill isn't just about health care, but that it's also about creating new jobs - 400,000 to be exact.

Unfortunately for Pelosi - and for America - it turns out that her claims are flat out wrong, and that Obamacare could kill between 120,000 and 700,000 jobs by 2019.

To get it straight from the horse's mouth, Pelosi said of Obamacare, "In its life it will create 4 million jobs, 400,000 jobs almost immediately. Jobs, again, in the health care industry but in the entrepreneurial world as well."

Pelosi's claims were based on a report by the Center for American Progress (CAP), a liberal Washington, D.C., think tank. It turns out, however, that the numbers CAP relied on to make its prediction are incorrect. A new analysis by the Beacon Hill Institute (BHI) paints quite a different picture.

According to BHI, the CAP study based its claims on the assumption that Obamacare would save $683 billion over ten years, which would create incentives for companies to create new jobs. CAP's assumptions, though, were wrong.

You can find the entire report at this link. Since Obama is running a jobs deficit of 6 million (he promised 3.5 million new jobs with the stimulus package by 2010 but has instead lost almost 3 million), can we call this Pelosi's jobs deficit? She promised 4 million jobs with ObamaCare, 400,000 which we were supposed to see by now that did not materialize at all, and 4 million in the future while this report says 700,000 will be killed. That's almost a  5 million jobs deficit. That is like in Obama league. She must be so proud.

Meanwhile. we're seeing the results of ObamaCare: WE'RE BEING LIED TO! First Quarter GDP revised down to 0.4% from 1.9% And more specific with respect to ObamaCare (Report: Private sector job creation ground to a halt almost instantly after Obamacare passed), from The Heritage Foundation:

As the Heritage report explains, Obamacare discourages hiring in three important ways:

• Businesses with fewer than 50 workers have a strong incentive to maintain this size, which allows them to avoid the mandate to provide government-approved health coverage or face a penalty;
• Businesses with more than 50 workers will see their costs for health coverage rise—they must purchase more expensive government-approved insurance or pay a penalty; and
• Employers face considerable uncertainty about what constitutes qualifying health coverage and what it will cost. They also do not know what the health care market or their health care costs will look like in four years. This makes planning for the future difficult.

Democrats once touted that Obamacare would create jobs, but the data underscore the reality that that’s not true for the private sector. The only jobs Obamacare created were within the new agencies and layers of bureaucracy the law added to the federal government.

Who could have seen this coming? I'll tell you who - me. From a prior post of mine from October 2010: Anyone notice that the economy flatlined the minute after ObamaCare was signed into law? My graphic from back then:

I opined:

I claim, based on the US Department of Labor data that ObamaCare is likely the causal factor for causing the stagnation that we have now. And just wait until the inflation kicks in from the overspending, borrowing and printing of money by this regime. It'll make the stagflation of the Carter era seem like Utopia. Obama is focused only on his liberal agenda, not on jobs

Joy Behar: Obamacare Like Fire Engines, They Used To Cost Money But Now They're FREE

Police and fire protection is not free. Taxes pay for it. Neither is ObamaCare, and the taxes it will take to pay for it in addition to the massive bureaucracy makes unsustainable an understatement. But to liberals like Behar, using other people's money makes it free:

Want to see where ObamaCare will take this country? Across the pond, they already installed it years ago, with predictable results: Cataracts, hips, knees and tonsils: NHS begins rationing operations

Hip replacements, cataract surgery and tonsil removal are among operations now being rationed in a bid to save the NHS money.

Two-thirds of health trusts in England are rationing treatments for "non-urgent" conditions as part of the drive to reduce costs in the NHS by £20bn over the next four years. One in three primary-care trusts (PCTs) has expanded the list of procedures it will restrict funding to in the past 12 months.

Examples of the rationing now being used include:

* Hip and knee replacements only being allowed where patients are in severe pain. Overweight patients will be made to lose weight before being considered for an operation.

* Cataract operations being withheld from patients until their sight problems "substantially" affect their ability to work.

* Patients with varicose veins only being operated on if they are suffering "chronic continuous pain", ulceration or bleeding.

* Tonsillectomy (removing tonsils) only to be carried out in children if they have had seven bouts of tonsillitis in the previous year.

* Grommets to improve hearing in children only being inserted in "exceptional circumstances" and after monitoring for six months.

Etc, etc. But no worries, old chap - IT'S FREE! HT: memeorandum. More from Maggie's Notebook, Betsy's Page and Power Line

Home Depot Co-Founder: Obama Is Choking Recovery, "I'm not sure Obama would understand anything that I'd say"

And it's not just the founder. From a post of mine back in October 2010: Home Depot CEO: I never could have started The Home Depot with these guys in power (videos of that at the end of this post)From Investors Business Daily via memeorandum: Home Depot Co-Founder: Obama Is Choking Recovery

IBD: What's the single biggest impediment to job growth today?

Marcus: The U.S. government. Having built a small business into a big one, I can tell you that today the impediments that the government imposes are impossible to deal with. Home Depot would never have succeeded if we'd tried to start it today. Every day you see rules and regulations from a group of Washington bureaucrats who know nothing about running a business. And I mean every day. It's become stifling.

If you're a small businessman, the only way to deal with it is to work harder, put in more hours, and let people go. When you consider that something like 70% of the American people work for small businesses, you are talking about a big economic impact.

IBD: President Obama has promised to streamline and eliminate regulations. What's your take?

Marcus: His speeches are wonderful. His output is absolutely, incredibly bad. As he speaks about cutting out regulations, they are now producing thousands of pages of new ones. With just ObamaCare by itself, you have a 2,000 page bill that's probably going end up being 150,000 pages of regulations.

IBD: Washington has been consumed with debt talks. Is this the right focus now?

Marcus: They are all tied together. If we don't lower spending and if we don't deal with paying down the debt, we are going to have to raise taxes. Even brain-dead economists understand that when you raise taxes, you cost jobs.

IBD: If you could sit down with Obama and talk to him about job creation, what would you say?

Marcus: I'm not sure Obama would understand anything that I'd say, because he's never really worked a day outside the political or legal area. He doesn't know how to make a payroll, he doesn't understand the problems businesses face. I would try to explain that the plight of the busi nessman is very reactive to Washington. As Washington piles on regulations and mandates, the impact is tremendous. I don't think he's a bad guy. I just think he has no knowledge of this.

Did he just very politely call Obama an idiot? The videos of the Home Depot CEO from my prior post:  Here is one clip where he says that Obama portrays businesses as "Monsters & Villains:"

Here's another where he says that the out of touch Obama administration are all tenured w/lifelong insurance:

Probably my second favorite of the 4-segment series is this one where he says that Larry Summers needs to step aside and let him teach "Courage 101" at Harvard: 

And my favorite of the bunch, where he pitches a reality TV show: "Timothy Geithner Does Small Business:" 

Heh. Just an afterthought here, but is Langone aware of this?: "One nation under God" button gets man fired from Home Depot. More from JammieWearingFool, Pajamas Media, Wake up America, Wizbang, The Daily Caller and Cold Fury

Shocker: ObamaCare to leave families with HIGHER insurance costs

On the heals of this prior post: ObamaCare: Healthcare costs still skyrocketing despite Obama's empty promises. Which was a follow-up to a post from March: Predictable: Democrat Evan Bayh that voted for ObamaCare admits it doesn't reduce health costs. Well... DUH! Of course it doesn't! Was never intended to. It was an unconstitutional power grab and nothing more. You cannot add some 30 million to the pool and claim to reduce cost. You cannot define children as being up to 26 years old, keep them on mom and dads insurance policy, and reduce cost. You cannot force insurance companies to cover people with preexisting conditions and reduce cost. And the list goes on and on. Obama, Pelosi, Reid and the minions told us it would indeed save cost. It was a fantasy at the outset at best. A bald-faced lie at worst. A video report:

Current news from Healthwatch via memeorandum: Healthcare law could leave families with high insurance costs

A major provision of the healthcare reform law designed to prevent businesses from dropping coverage for their workers could inadvertently leave families without access to subsidized health insurance.

The problem is a huge headache for the Obama administration and congressional Democrats, because it could leave families unable to buy affordable health insurance when the healthcare law requires that everyone be insured starting in 2014.

Some of the administration’s closest allies on healthcare reform warn this situation could dramatically undercut support for the law, which already is unpopular with many voters and contributed to Democrats losing the House in the 2010 midterm elections.

...At issue is a so-called “firewall” in the law that denies subsidies to workers whose employers offer quality, affordable coverage.

The firewall applies to plans with premiums that cost less than 9.5 percent of a worker’s income. If a worker has to dole out more than that amount to buy coverage, the employer coverage is considered unaffordable and the worker is eligible for subsidies to buy coverage on the new exchanges.

Initially, advocates thought the threshold also applied to family coverage. If premium costs paid to cover a worker’s family cost 20 percent of a worker’s income, for example, the worker and his or her family should be eligible for subsidies.

But in calculating the bill’s cost last year, Congress’s Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) took the law to mean that employers and their families aren’t eligible for subsidies as long as the individual plan is affordable — regardless of the price of the family plan.

This means the costs to an employee for covering his or her family could be too high to afford for many working families.

Setting aside the fact that the SCOTUS must find this unconstitutional because if it does not we no longer have a Republic, the GOP shouldn't touch this thing at all. When the walls come falling down in 2014, they would be wise to point out that Democrats by themselves voted this absurdity in. More from  Michelle Malkin and The Powers That Be

I should also point this out once again: Medicare Official: Yeah - those claims that ObamaCare will save money are pure fantasy. The fact that Democrats gamed the CBO to get a score on ObamaCare that they wanted via gimmick - double counting of savings, 6 years of bennies for 10 years of taxes, the 'doctor fix,' etc - has been well known. After ObamaCare was shoved down our throats, the Medicare actuary testified that the law will increase healthcare costs even faster than if nothing at all had been done. Last year I had this: Government Admits Medical Costs Will Rise Under ObamaCare, Sebelius Threatens Insurers Who Criticize It, And Not Even Jon Stewart Is Buying The BS. The relevant quote:

The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday that insurance companies have proposed rate increases ranging from 1% to 9% nationwide that they attribute specifically to new health-law coverage mandates.

The relevant graphic:

Report: Private sector job creation ground to a halt almost instantly after Obamacare passed

From The Heritage Foundation via Tina Korbe:

As the Heritage report explains, Obamacare discourages hiring in three important ways:

• Businesses with fewer than 50 workers have a strong incentive to maintain this size, which allows them to avoid the mandate to provide government-approved health coverage or face a penalty;
• Businesses with more than 50 workers will see their costs for health coverage rise—they must purchase more expensive government-approved insurance or pay a penalty; and
• Employers face considerable uncertainty about what constitutes qualifying health coverage and what it will cost. They also do not know what the health care market or their health care costs will look like in four years. This makes planning for the future difficult.

Democrats once touted that Obamacare would create jobs, but the data underscore the reality that that’s not true for the private sector. The only jobs Obamacare created were within the new agencies and layers of bureaucracy the law added to the federal government.

Who could have seen this coming? I'll tell you who - me. From a prior post of mine from October 2010: Anyone notice that the economy flatlined the minute after ObamaCare was signed into law? My graphic from back then:

I opined:

I claim, based on the US Department of Labor data that ObamaCare is likely the causal factor for causing the stagnation that we have now. And just wait until the inflation kicks in from the overspending, borrowing and printing of money by this regime. It'll make the stagflation of the Carter era seem like Utopia. Obama is focused only on his liberal agenda, not on jobs

The Obamacare Fables: "Obama used a series of anecdotes about insurance companies ruthlessly dropping coverage for customers because of pre-existing conditions. He even said his own mother had to fight her health insurance company on her death bed. It turns out most of these stories were false, including the one about his own mother"

Well doesn't this just figure:

 The man has no shame, and simply makes 'facts' up on the fly tryustiong that the sycophants in the establishment media will cover for him. Which they do. Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann would never get away with anything close to this.

From  Byron York: Fresh doubt cast on Obama's health care story

During the 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama often discussed his mother's struggle with cancer. Ann Dunham spent the months before her death in 1995, Obama said, fighting with insurance companies that sought to deny her the coverage she needed to pay for treatment.

"I remember in the last month of her life, she wasn't thinking about how to get well, she wasn't thinking about coming to terms with her own mortality, she was thinking about whether or not insurance was going to cover the medical bills and whether our family would be bankrupt as a consequence," Obama said in September 2007.

"She was in her hospital room looking at insurance forms because the insurance company said that maybe she had a pre-existing condition and maybe they wouldn't have to reimburse her for her medical bills," Obama added in January 2008.

"The insurance companies were saying, 'Maybe there's a pre-existing condition and we don't have to pay your medical bills,' " Obama said in a debate with Republican opponent Sen. John McCain in October 2008.

It was a simple and powerful story, one Obama would tell many more times as president during the national health care debate. But now we're learning the real story of Ann Dunham's health coverage is not quite what her son made it out to be.

...A dozen years later, her son turned her ordeal into a campaign pitch for national health care. But the story Obama told, Scott writes, was "abbreviated" -- the abbreviation was to leave out the fact that Ann Dunham had health insurance that paid for her treatment. "Though he often suggested that she was denied health coverage because of a pre-existing condition," Scott writes, "it appears from her correspondence that she was only denied disability coverage."

That's a different story altogether. One the president never told.

Read the whole thing. More from Weasel Zippers, iOwnTheWorld, Hot Air, Betsy's Page, Say Anything, The Lonely Conservative and JammieWearingFool

UPDATE: Matt Welch Discusses the Healthcare Mandate Burden on States and Tim Giethner with Judge Napolitano 

Video: Obama’s Budget Director Leaves Seniors Dangling

Via BreitbartTV:

"I think that once someone gets into the business of trying to ask about setting priorities it misses the question. Which is that it's unacceptable for the United States to be in a place whether it's Social Security recipients, or a soldier or somebody who is just owed money by the government can't be paid because we have not done our job."

Debt limit or not, the fate of many a senior is already decided with the passage of ObamaCare. Via Instapundit:

JENNIFER RUBIN: David Brooks’ “Scary And Sloppy” Case For Health-Care Rationing. “Perhaps the point is to rationalize reductions in health-care dollars spent on the elderly, which by gosh is precisely what the Obama administration is trying to pull off with its Independent Advisory Patient Board. Limiting care, conscience free! After all, do all these old people really enjoy living to 90?” The “Death Panels” used to be a dishonest Republican talking point. Now they’re for your own good!

...Reader Mike Ramberg writes: “The best argument that I can think of Against Don Clendinen’s essay and David Brooks support of same is Dr. Steven Hawking. He can’t do any of those things, yet he seems to be a rather productive member of society!”

...“Condescending and unrealistic” — that could be Brooks’ epitaph, once he’s too far gone to enjoy life. I should note, though, that although hospice care gets good press, when my father-in-law was dying, the folks from the hospice were pretty awful. The funeral home people were much better, once he died. I was appalled.

UPDATE: From Rochelle Riley at The Detroit Free Press: It's time for tougher penalties for crimes against elderly people. Ironically, Riley was a huge ObamaCare supporter.

Video: HHS Sec Kathleen Sebelius Defends Death Panel, Gets Blasted By Paul Ryan

Death panels are real. They are boards with unelected bureaucrats that will decide what people get and what they won't. They will consider 2 factors that constitute what is known as 'comparative effectiveness': 1) cost, 2) age. It's something to do with liberal compassion or something. You know - the kind afforded an unborn baby in a Planned Parenthood butcher shop. The stimulus bill funded a 15-member rationing board called the "Independent Payment Advisory Board" (the 'Independent' part means unelected and unaccountable just so you know). Already the Obama regime via the FDA is deep-sixing miracle cancer drugs that extend life because they cost too much (ObamaCare begins early: FDA may pull Avastin approval OVER COST CONCERNS). Seniors and those needing care will be hardest hit.

To the liberal though, comparative effectiveness is not the same as rationing because words are abstract constructs that can mean whatever they want them to mean. Kind of like redefining homelessness to solve the homeless problem. Sebelius defends the death panels:

Rep. Paul Ryan questioned Sebelius on the IPAB during a Budget Committee hearing Tuesday, July 12, 2011, and this was probably the best question that lead to her very weak response:

But then there was Medicare's Chief Actuary On The Pain of Price Controls

Congressman Tom Price of Georgia asked Medicare's chief actuary Richard Foster about the practical impact of the President's health care law -- in which savings are sought by paying providers less for the same amount of care. Under the President's health care law, according to Medicare's Chief Actuary, providers of Medicare services will see cuts to their Medicare reimbursements past the point at which they can reasonably provide care to seniors. Providers would be reimbursed for their services at under 50 cents on the dollar by 2030, and down to 33 cents on the dollar in the years beyond.

When asked about the impact of these price controls on seniors' access to quality care, Medicare's chief actuary replied: "We'd like not to find out..."

The video:

Price controls never work because they do nothing about the true cost.

All government run plans have one end result - rationing. And what is rationed is that which is most expensive. And those that bear the brunt of the rationing are those that need those expensive procedures but who aren't expected to be paying much in the way of taxes - the elderly. From the bureaucrat's point of view, why care for the elderly that 1) don't pay taxes and 2) aren't going to live much longer anyway? That's liberal compassion, the same that a fetus gets at Planned Parenthood. This is the essence of comparative effectiveness that is at the heart of ObamaCare. Comparative effectiveness, as per Obama's rationing czar 'Dr.' Ezekiel Emanuel, takes only 2 things into consideration when denying or approving treatment: 1) age, 2) cost. Simple as that. It yields this ghoulish chart:This chart would be page 1 of the "how to" guide of any death panel. Old people are too expensive to be worth keeping alive because they've already paid their taxes and are thus essentially useless to a totalitarian state. The very young too are of little value since they won't be paying taxes for a while yet. The people that should be treated are healthy people that pay taxes, but don't really need it because, well - they're mostly healthy. Welcome to ObamaCare, where people that don't need treatment get it, and those that need it don't. Step 1? Healthcare plans dropping seniors via the 'doctor fix'.

This is of course by design: Video: Doctors Face 23% Cut in Medicare Payments due to ObamaCare. Alzheimers patients are at risk. Just recently, the NYT's Paul Krugman said that death panels were needed to balance the budget (ie - kill seniors because they are too expensive). A couple of years ago, Obama adviser Robert Reich said this: Video: Obama Advisor Robert Reich To Elderly "We're Going To Let You Die!" Liberals want you to die if some bureaucrat determines that you are too expensive to treat. By definition a death panel. Democrat Gary McDowell, who lost to Dan Benishek (R) for the seat of disgraced Judas turncoat Bart Stupak in Michigan's 1st Congressional district, admitted to a crowd of supporters that people near the end of their will get kicked down the stairs to save on cost. Even the White House now admits that seniors will see higher costs and less benefits, something they wouldn't do in the runup to the unconstitutional boondoggle. Same with Doctors: Yeah - ObamaCare really screwed seniors.

Related from Legal Insurrection: When Will AARP, Consumers Union and AMA Be Held To Account for Obamacare?

More from an Insty thread:

Related: Imagine a Military Board With the Power of the Very Real ObamaCare Medicare Board.

Can The Gov Mandate Obese People Go To Weight Watchers? ABC Panel Says "It's Open"

Good grief:

Related via Doug Ross: On the Road to Totalitarianism With the Sixth Circuit

Consider:

All citizens will need shelter and many regulations already dictate the nature and construction of housing. Can the central government compel individuals to purchase certain minimum levels of housing and builders to offer certain services under a regime of price controls? Apparently so.

All citizens will need food and a battery of regulations at every level of government already dictate every aspect of food manufacture and distribution. Can the central government require individuals to buy certain foods -- perhaps under the aegis of healthy eating -- and businesses to offer a menu dictated by a central authority? Apparently so.

All citizens will require transportation and a host of regulations govern every modality of travel -- by air, bus, automobile, and even bicycle. Can the central govenrment require all individuals to buy, say, bicycles under the banner of healthy living, clean energy and personal transportation? Apparently so.

Under this decision, with this Court, the destruction of our country -- through its transformation into a totalitarian regime -- comes one step closer to reality.

2012 may be our last chance to save this Republic, if indeed any time remains at all.

Can the government thus compel every American to buy a Chevy Volt at $41,000 a piece? If not, why not (I'm asking this of ObamaCare supporters)?

Video of Rep Jane Harman (D-CA): Obamacare distracted from the jobs crisis

Exactly as we have been saying all along. Obama is so far in over his head having zero substantive experience outside of reading from a teleprompter that all he could do is focus on his ideological ends, with the unconstitutional government takeover of the entire healthcare system front and center. As a result, the unemployment rate is still above 9% 2 1/2 years after Obama promised it would never hit 8. Instead of the 3.5 million NEW jobs that he promised some 3 million have been lost. They were going after ideological ends rather than doing their jobs. And now, some Democrats are actually admitting as much, including liberal Rep Jane Harman of California. That would be FORMER Rep Jane Harman:

Great news: Obama to indimidate doctors with fake patients, or "secret shoppers," calling on 4,185 doctor offices in nine states and then providing Obama with info

Remember how liberals were up in arms when undercover video of ACORN workers wanting to help with child sex slavery? Or the outrage over undercover videos of Planned Parenthood workers breaking the law over and over and over again? All the outrage because those undercover stings were made under false pretenses. I'd like to see the same liberal outrage over this one by Obama: Obama Admin Wants "Secret Shoppers" to Check In on Doctors