The brouhaha over the CBO report – I don’t want to call it a debate, because that would suggest that people on both sides are making sense, or even listening – continues. But there is a massive lack of clarity. This is, no doubt, in large part because incoherence serves the interests of some parties. But I think there’s also some genuine intellectual confusion that might, for a few players at least, actually be reduced by careful analysis.

So let me try this, by asking: why should anyone be upset if some workers take advantage of Obamacare to reduce their working hours, or even drop out of the labor force? That’s a real question, by the way, not a rhetorical one. There are, it turns out, some reasons to be concerned, although they’re much weaker than the rhetoric would lead you to believe.

It helps, I’d argue, if you think of the American population as comprising two groups: those who receive subsidies toward their health insurance and those who don’t – the subsidized and the subsidizers. In reality these categories are arguably a bit more complex than a mere matter of monetary transfers, since Obamacare also in effect subsidizes those in poor health by charging them the same premiums as the healthy. But I don’t think this changes the point.

So, we know that Obamacare has costs to the subsidizers, in the form of the subsidies that must be paid – about 0.9 percent of GDP — and that eventually must be reflected in higher taxes or lower spending than would otherwise take place. These subsidies correspondingly represent benefits to the subsidized; yes, Virginia, it’s redistribution, although many people who end up subsidizing rather than subsidized were at risk of being on the other side, and will therefore gain from the insurance aspect.

The question, however, is how those costs and benefits are affected if a significant number of the subsidized take advantage of their new freedom from health insurance fear to reduce hours or leave the work force.

For those who choose to work less, this is a clear gain – otherwise they wouldn’t do it! It’s likely to be especially beneficial because our pre-Obamacare system created so much “job lock”, trapping people in full-time employment because health insurance was an all-or-nothing affair.

What about the subsidizers? Don’t say that it’s obvious that they are hurt – remember, we’re talking about additional costs over and above the cost of the subsidies.

You might say that by withdrawing their labor, subsidized workers reduce the overall size of the economic pie, which is true. However, they also take a smaller share of the economic pie, because they earn less in wages and salaries. And if you believe to a first approximation in the marginal productivity theory of income distribution (as free-market advocates should), this means that the reduction in GDP from reduced labor input should be approximately equal to the reduced wages of those working less. In other words, the amount left over for everyone else should be unchanged. Why do you care how much other people work?

OK, what’s wrong with this story? The answer is that it’s a story about pre-tax wages. When someone chooses to work less, he or she imposes a hidden cost on everyone else, because he or she ends up paying less in taxes – or in some cases gets to collect more in means-tested benefits.

How big is this effect? I argued in an earlier post that if we believe the CBO estimate, labor withdrawal should reduce GDP by slightly over 0.5 percent. If we assume a marginal tax rate of 40 percent for the relevant workers (which seems in the ballpark for ordinary workers in the 15 percent bracket, paying 15 percent payroll tax, and some state and local taxes on top), this is a bit over 0.2 percent of GDP.

So yes, reduced labor supply adds modestly to the true cost of health reform, although it also adds to the benefits. But the key word is “modestly”.

Why, then, are the usual suspects so incensed? Partly because they don’t understand any of this. Beyond that, there’s a moralistic streak: people should be forced to work, for their own good, you see (are there no poorhouses?). And of course, there’s the underlying rage that a disproportionate share of the beneficiaries (though by no means a preponderance) will be Those People.

But when you take paternalism and prejudice out of the picture, what you’re left with is some pretty prosaic economics. Should you care how much other people work? Yes, a little – but not so much that it should change anyone’s views about health reform.