You will be given a definition of a task first, then some input of the task.
In this task, you are given a text of many news articles seperated by special token "|||||". Your task is to summarize them.

There are 7.8 million Americans working part-time who want full-time work, including a fry cook whose restaurant cut his hours to avoid Affordable Care Act mandates and confronted President Obama in an online Google Q&A last week: "We can't survive. It's not a living." Mr. Obama changed the subject to raising the minimum wage. But he can't dodge reality forever as the evidence piles up that ObamaCare is harming the labor market. 
  
 On Tuesday no less than the Congressional Budget Office reported that the health... ||||| The Congressional Budget Office estimated on Tuesday that the Affordable Care Act will reduce the number of full-time workers by 2.5 million over the next decade. That is mostly a good thing, a liberating result of the law. Of course, Republicans immediately tried to brand the findings as “devastating” and stark evidence of President Obama’s health care reform as a failure and a job killer. It is no such thing. 
  
 The report estimated that — thanks to an increase in insurance coverage under the act and the availability of subsidies to help pay the premiums — many workers who felt obliged to stay in a job that provided health benefits would now be able to leave those jobs or choose to work fewer hours than they otherwise would have. In other words, the report is about the choices workers can make when they are no longer tethered to an employer because of health benefits. The cumulative effect on the labor supply is the equivalent of 2.5 million fewer full-time workers by 2024. 
  
 Some workers may have had a pre-existing condition and will now be able to leave work because insurers must accept all applicants without regard to health status and charge premiums unrelated to health status. Some may have felt they needed to keep working to pay for health insurance, but now new government subsidies will help pay premiums, making it more possible for them to leave their jobs. 
  
 The report clearly stated that health reform would not produce an increase in unemployment (workers unable to find jobs) or underemployment (part-time workers who would prefer to work more hours per week). It also found “no compelling evidence” that, as of now, part-time employment has increased as a result of the reform law, a frequent claim of critics. Whether that will hold up after a mandate that requires employers to provide coverage, which was delayed until 2015, kicks in is uncertain. 
  
 In separate estimates, the budget office predicted that two million fewer people will get insurance coverage in 2014 than it had previously predicted, mostly because of technical problems with the rollout of new insurance exchanges and other implementation glitches. The shortfall includes one million fewer people enrolling in private insurance (the 2014 projection is reduced from seven million to six million) and one million fewer enrolling in Medicaid and a related children’s health insurance program (reduced from nine million to eight million). 
  
 Given the rocky start, 14 million additional Americans covered by insurance through the exchanges and Medicaid is sound progress; and the budget office projects a sharp increase in enrollment in 2015 and 2016 and a bigger net reduction in the number of uninsured. Its projections for subsequent years remain essentially unchanged. In 2017, it predicts 12 million more in Medicaid and 24 million more in private coverage through the exchanges. 
  
 Advertisement Continue reading the main story 
  
 The new law will free people, young and old, to pursue careers or retirement without having to worry about health coverage. Workers can seek positions they are most qualified for and will no longer need to feel locked into a job they don’t like because they need insurance for themselves or their families. It is hard to view this as any kind of disaster. ||||| The Congressional Budget Office is out with its latest report on the Affordable Care Act, and here are a few bottom lines: 
  
 — The ACA is cheaper than it expected. 
  
 — It will "markedly increase" the number of Americans with health insurance. 
  
 — The risk-adjustment provisions, which Congressional Republicans want to overturn as a "bailout" of the insurance industry, will actually turn a profit to the U.S. Treasury. 
  
 Given all this, why are the first news headlines on the CBO report depicting it as calling Obamacare a job killer? 
  
 You can chalk up some of that to the crudity of headline-writing, and some to basic innumeracy in the press. But it's important to examine what the CBO actually says about the ACA's impact on the labor market. (You can find it at pages 117-127, excerpted here.) 
  
 RELATED: Yes, men should pay for pregnancy coverage, and here's why 
  
 The CBO projects that the act will reduce the supply of labor, not the availability of jobs. There's a big difference. In fact, it suggests that aggregate demand for labor (that is, the number of jobs) will increase, not decrease; but that many workers or would-be workers will be prompted by the ACA to leave the labor force, many of them voluntarily. 
  
 As economist Dean Baker points out, this is, in fact, a beneficial effect of the law, and a sign that it will achieve an important goal. It helps "older workers with serious health conditions who are working now because this is the only way to get health insurance. And (one for the family-values crowd) many young mothers who return to work earlier than they would like because they need health insurance. This is a huge plus." 
  
 The ACA will reduce the total hours worked by about 1.5% to 2% in 2017 to 2024, the CBO forecasts, "almost entirely because workers will choose to supply less labor — given the new taxes and other incentives they will face and the financial benefits some will receive." That translates into about 2.5 million full-time equivalents by 2024 — not the number of workers, because some will reduce their number of hours worked rather than leaving the workforce entirely. 
  
 The overall impact on the community will be muted, moreover, because most of that effect will be seen at the lowest levels of the wage-earning scale. The effect will be "small or negligible for most categories of workers," the CBO says, because there will be almost no impact on workers who get their insurance from their employers or who earn more than 400% of the federal poverty line (for a family of three, that's $78,120), the point at which eligibility for federal premium disappears. 
  
 As for labor demand, the CBO estimates that on balance, the ACA will increase aggregate demand for goods and services, in part by relieving lower-income people of the burden of health insurance or healthcare expenses, so they can increase their spending on other things. In turn, that will "boost demand for labor," especially in the near term, while the economy remains slack. 
  
 The rest of the CBO's economic and budgetary analysis has only modest changes from previous projections. It reduced its estimate of the net costs of the ACA by a vanishingly small $9 billion over 10 years compared to its previous estimate, issued in May. In part this is because many states failed to expand Medicaid, which would be almost entirely paid for by the federal government, and also because premiums are lower than it previously projected. Also, the problems of the healthcare.gov website reduced enrollments, cutting the government's bill for premium subsidies. Overall, the CBO reaffirmed its conclusion that that "the total effect of the ACA would be to reduce federal deficits." 
  
 The CBO report cuts the legs out from the GOP's attack on "risk corridors," a provision of the ACA that balances costs and expenses for insurance companies participating in the act by paying insurers whose coverage expenses exceed expectations by a certain margin in the first few years of the act, and collecting excess revenues from those whose expenses come in unexpectedly lower. 
  
 We've previously identified this GOP position as the most cynical attack on the ACA of all — the Republicans choose to call it a "bailout" of insurers; actually, it's a way of keeping premiums for some plans from getting out of hand, until the industry has more experience dealing with its new clientele. Unsurprisingly, the GOP is doubling down on this dishonesty by talking about eliminating the risk corridors as a condition for raising the federal debt limit. 
  
 The CBO, in any case, says that in 2015-2024, the government will pay out $8 billion in risk subsidies to the insurers but collect $16 billion. Real-world math says this is a gain to the Treasury of $8 billion; GOP math says it's a "bailout." You be the judge. 
  
 Regarding its most important bottom-line finding, the CBO says enrollment in individual insurance exchanges may reach only 6 million this year, down from its previous estimate of 7 million, thanks to the problems with the federal enrollment website, healthcare.gov. But it says enrollment will likely surge as the April 1 deadline for signing up approaches, and the 7-million goal is still attainable. 
  
 The ACA will increase the number of Americans with health insurance by 13 million this year, 20 million next year, and 25 million each year from then through 2024. Some 80% of those enrollees will be receiving federal subsidies to keep their coverage affordable. 
  
 There will be fewer uninsured people living in the United States, and most of those with individual coverage will be getting help to pay for it. Is there another other conclusion to draw from those statistics than the Affordable Care Act is working? |||||
Output:
On the face of it, the Congressional Budget Office report saying ObamaCare could shrink the full-time workforce may sound bad—but some pundits weighing in suggest it could actually be beneficial. Here's a sampling of what they're saying: To the editors of the New York Times, it's "a good thing." The report says the Affordable Care Act won't "produce an increase in unemployment (workers unable to find jobs) or underemployment (part-time workers who would prefer to work more hours per week)," they write. Instead, "the report is about the choices workers can make when they are no longer tethered to an employer because of health benefits." Writing in the Los Angeles Times, Michael Hiltzik agrees: "The CBO projects that the act will reduce the supply of labor, not the availability of jobs." Indeed, "it suggests that aggregate demand for labor (that is, the number of jobs) will increase." Citing an economist, he adds that flexibility provided by ObamaCare will help "older workers with serious health conditions" who work for the purpose of benefits; it will also help young moms who might go back to work early for coverage. The Wall Street Journal's editors disagree. "For low-wage, lower-skilled or discouraged workers in particular, ObamaCare offers incentives that can force them to trade jobs for entitlement benefits," they write. The CBO's report points to "an implicit tax on additional earnings"—because under the law, health subsidies disappear as one's income increases. "These effective marginal tax rates reduce the rewards for work." In the Washington Post, Dana Milbank sees the report as a boost for Republicans. The White House has often trumpeted CBO findings on the health law; now, "ObamaCare has been undermined by the very entity (officials) had used to validate it." A shrinking workforce "will inevitably be a drag on economic growth, as more people decide government handouts are more attractive than working more and paying higher taxes."