I've seen these facts and figures before and they are really simple. There are a lot of workers who are holding on to jobs due to health insurance factors.... for themselves or for the family. With five million kids - KIDS mind you - with pre-existing conditions there are any number of parents who cannot afford to either stop working for whatever the reason. Think it through. If you have a child with a pre-existing condition, you cannot lapse the insurance or change insurance no matter what the cost.
Similarly, if you are in your early 60s and not eligible for medicare do you dare leave a job for whatever reason if insurance is part of your package? Does the WSJ know or care how much health insurance costs for someone in their 60s? Further, the chances of a pre-existing condition at age 60 is actually pretty good so the worker is trapped in a job and there because of the insurance factor.
Observations like the ones in the article are too often made by those who just react to and write about the soundbite. When Nancy Pelosi stated that money paid directly to the unemployed in extended benefits goes right into the economy without stopping at GO she was laughed at and derided. She was, incidentally, right. The poor spend it as fast as they get it - not because they are dumb or can't save - it is because they need things - consumer things. Ms. Pelosi's statement sounded wrong until you took a second to think about it and then it made perfect sense. The same with the 800,000 fewer workers.
I imagine that the number is probably far more.