According to the Congressional Budget Office, as reported in Business Insider on Yahoo’s Finance page, “the ACA will reduce the total number of hours worked, on net, by about 1.5 percent to 2.0 percent during the period from 2017 to 2024.” (http://finance.yahoo.com/...). The prediction is for 2 million+ fewer people in the workforce in the 2020s, compared with the previous prediction of 800,000 fewer.
This is, of course, greeted as catastrophic by the right wing. John Boehner sees it as “[confirming] the ‘devastating impact of Obamacare on jobs.’” (http://finance.yahoo.com/...). Forbes magazine headlines it as “..a tax on workers” (http://www.forbes.com/...) and Washington Times as “Obamacare will push 2 million workers out of the labor market.” (http://www.washingtontimes.com/...). And on the Yahoo article’s site, public sentiment is “piling on” Obamacare.
I don’t pretend to be knowledgeable about the ins and outs of the CBO’s calculations, nor what fewer people in the labor market would mean projected against the total economy (versus the benefits of fewer medical bankruptcies, for example). What I do know is that not having to fear joining the ranks of the uninsurable should, in theory, free more people up to pursue their entrepreneurial dreams – and isn’t that what the right wing is presumably all about?
Over the years I have known many people who have clung to unwanted jobs because of the insurance benefits. The example that has made the strongest impression on me is that of a coworker whose baby was born with severe medical problems. My colleague lamented that now he would be a “slave to the company,” as above all he greatly feared the loss of insurance - the baby would need ongoing medical attention, and he was well aware that no private company would ever insure him. I do not see why the elimination of this problem of being “trapped” is met with such horror by the right wing as a blow to the economy.