PDA

View Full Version : General Politics Study: Healthcare reform is unlikely to cost jobs.


Direckshun
06-10-2012, 12:37 PM
http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/231525-study-romneys-health-law-shows-that-obamas-wont-cost-jobs

Study: Romney’s health law shows that Obama’s won’t cost jobs
By Sam Baker
06/07/12 01:53 PM ET

President Obama’s healthcare law probably won’t lead to big job losses and slow economic growth, as Republicans have predicted, a new study says.

Congressional Republicans argue almost constantly that the Affordable Care Act will be a disaster for small businesses — they even titled the first bill of the 112th Congress the “Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act.” And GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney charged Wednesday that Obama and his administration “knowingly” slowed the economic recovery by pursuing healthcare reform.

But Romney’s own experience as Massachusetts governor casts doubt on those claims, according to a study by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) and the Urban Institute.

The research found that employment remained stable in Massachusetts after the state enacted healthcare legislation under Romney's watch, which became the model for Obama’s reforms. Although there are some differences between the two laws, “the evidence from Massachusetts would suggest that national health reform does not imply job loss and stymied economic growth,” the study says.

Massachusetts did see job losses in the years after its healthcare overhaul, which Romney signed in 2006. But the RWJF study says the declines were in line with nationwide trends, making them hard to attribute to the healthcare law.

Both the federal law and the Massachusetts version are built around the same core policies: a new, organized marketplace to buy insurance; subsidies to help low-income families pay for their plans; and a mandate requiring individuals to buy coverage.

Notably, however, the federal law’s employer mandate goes further than Massachusetts’s.

The Affordable Care Act requires businesses with more than 50 employees to offer coverage or pay a $2,000 fine for each uninsured full-time worker. In Massachusetts, the penalty applies to businesses as small as 10 employees, but they only have to pay $295 per employee per year.

Direckshun
06-10-2012, 12:38 PM
The study cited is here (http://www.rwjf.org/coverage/product.jsp?id=74464).

Will Health Reform Lead to Job Loss? Evidence from Massachusetts Says No
By: Dubay L, Long SK and Lawton E
Published: June 2012

In April 2006, Massachusetts enacted an ambitious health care reform bill that resulted in significant gains in insurance coverage, access to and use of care, and the affordability of care for the Massachusetts population as a whole and, especially, for lower-income adults. Given the success of health reform in Massachusetts along these dimensions, many of the key features of the Bay State’s initiative were incorporated in national health reform under the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), including an expansion of public coverage, subsidies for private coverage, a health insurance exchange, insurance market reforms, requirements for employers, and an individual mandate.

There are those who feel that when employers are required to offer health insurance coverage or make payments related to a worker, employers will reduce wages and/or other worker compensation over time to cover those new costs.

This brief, prepared by the Urban Institute on behalf of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, examines employment trends in Massachusetts as the state implemented health reform. Researchers found that between 2006 and 2010:

Declines in private-sector employment were consistent across the states—falling 4.4 percentage points in Massachusetts, compared to 4.8 percentage points, on average, in the rest of the nation. The employment ratio in medium-sized firms with 50-499 employees fell by 1.9 percentage points, compared to 2.2 percentage points in the rest of the nation. Even when accounting for firm size, industry, and job and worker characteristics, the trends in Massachusetts are similar to those in the nation as a whole. The authors acknowledge that the recent recession, and the financial crisis that followed, have taken a toll on Massachusetts, as with the rest of the nation. They conclude, however, that there is no indication of negative economic and job consequences relative to other states as a result of health reform.

Direckshun
06-10-2012, 12:41 PM
The full study (PDF): here (http://www.rwjf.org/files/research/74464.5930.qs.mass.employment.final.pdf).

Brainiac
06-10-2012, 12:42 PM
This would be relevant if Obamacare and Romneycare were even remotely the same thing.

They're not, unless you think a 2,070 page plan that raises taxes by $500 billion and cuts $500 billion from Medicaid is the same as a 70 page plan that neither raised taxes nor took a dollar away from Medicaid.

Adults understand the difference between the plans. Simpletons don't. Partisan hacks know the plans are different, but they don't care. They just keep repeating the lie.

Otter
06-10-2012, 12:45 PM
Get off the internet and talk to someone who actually hires people and then make a post.

Direckshun
06-10-2012, 12:51 PM
This would be relevant if Obamacare and Romneycare were even remotely the same thing.

They're not, unless you think a 2,070 page plan that raises taxes by $500 billion and cuts $500 billion from Medicaid is the same as a 70 page plan that neither raised taxes nor took a dollar away from Medicaid.

It's not real clear how either of the things you mentioned have to do with job losses in the wake of healthcare reform. Can you enlighten me?

Brainiac
06-10-2012, 12:55 PM
It's not real clear how either of the things you mentioned have to do with job losses in the wake of healthcare reform. Can you enlighten me?
The $500 billion tax increase and the $500 taken from Medicare are the source of the funding for Obamacare. They were not a part of Romneycare, which means that you can't look at what happened in Massachusetts and extrapolate that to the nation as a whole under Obamacare, because Obamacare and Romneycare are very different things.

If you don't understand how a $500 billion tax increase will cause job losses, then I'm afraid there's too much ground to cover here.

Direckshun
06-10-2012, 12:55 PM
If you don't understand how a $500 billion tax increase will cause job losses, then I'm afraid that's too much ground to cover here.

Summarize it for me.

Brainiac
06-10-2012, 12:58 PM
Summarize it for me.
No. This has been discussed ad nauseum in this forum and practically everywhere else. If you don't understand it by now, you never will.

Go enroll in Economics 101.

Direckshun
06-10-2012, 01:01 PM
No. This has been discussed ad nauseum in this forum and practically everywhere else. If you don't understand it by now, you never will.

Go enroll in Economics 101.

Why do you think Romneycare didn't have the big job-loss impact that some economic theorists suggested might happen?

FD
06-10-2012, 01:30 PM
This would be relevant if Obamacare and Romneycare were even remotely the same thing.

They're not, unless you think a 2,070 page plan that raises taxes by $500 billion and cuts $500 billion from Medicaid is the same as a 70 page plan that neither raised taxes nor took a dollar away from Medicaid.

Adults understand the difference between the plans. Simpletons don't. Partisan hacks know the plans are different, but they don't care. They just keep repeating the lie.

????

Taxes have been raised in order to pay for Romneycare, and it is mainly funded out of hundreds of millions of dollars in special Medicaid money. You might read up on Romneycare before proclaiming yourself the expert on it.

Brainiac
06-10-2012, 01:57 PM
????

Taxes have been raised in order to pay for Romneycare, and it is mainly funded out of hundreds of millions of dollars in special Medicaid money. You might read up on Romneycare before proclaiming yourself the expert on it.
No, Massachusetts did not raise taxes to pay for Romneycare. Massachusetts used tax dollars that had already been collected and redirected those tax dollars into Romneycare. If Obama had been able to do that with Obamacare instead of raising taxes by $500 billion, we'd be having a different discussion.

You do have a point regarding the Medicaid comment: my bad. I meant to say Medicare, not Medicaid. However, Massachusetts did partially fund Romneycare with Medicaid dollars. I'm not going to try to hide behind the distinction between Medicare and Medicaid. Instead, I will admit that the argument that no Medicare/Medicaid dollars were used for Romneycare is factually incorrect, and I will stop using that argument.

Chocolate Hog
06-10-2012, 02:02 PM
This would be relevant if Obamacare and Romneycare were even remotely the same thing.

They're not, unless you think a 2,070 page plan that raises taxes by $500 billion and cuts $500 billion from Medicaid is the same as a 70 page plan that neither raised taxes nor took a dollar away from Medicaid.

Adults understand the difference between the plans. Simpletons don't. Partisan hacks know the plans are different, but they don't care. They just keep repeating the lie.

They are the same thing just because you continue to repeat a lie doesn't make your incorrect statement true.

Sent from my Nexus S 4G using Tapatalk 2

JohnnyV13
06-10-2012, 02:48 PM
Ummm...complete and utter BS.

If obamacare is to be remotely financially viable, it will require massive job loss in health care administration.

First of all, this is my business. I work for a Health Care IT technology startup. Now, we view the market differently than the vast majority of our competitors, and certainly the federal government does not model the market like we do (because our business model is basically a tiny fraction of the current market).

Now, there is considerable efficiency gains that could be realized from reforming the health care business model. Our internal estimates are that we could realize upward of 300billion in annual savings from admin efficiency gains alone (even without going to a one party payer system) from the entire industry adopting the right business model.

These savings dwarf other proposed reforms. For example tort reform savings are a pindrop compared to this, at most we're looking at 20-30 bn, maybe 60 if you make some very generous assumptions about defensive medicine.

Of course, these savings would be realized by cutting approximately 60% of the current admin personnel.

Otherwise, we don't think Obamacare is financially viable. Obamacare uses some rather fictional numbers, and exploits quite a few analytical loopholes get an OMB projection of "revenue nuetral". For one thing, for nearly 10 years congress has been determined to cut medicare reimbursement and has passed legislation to do this. Every year, they delay implementation for another year. They call this the "doc fix". For one, Obamacare presumes they will actually carry through with cutting Medicare reimbursements without any analysis of how they are going to actually realize the political will to accomplish a cut they haven't been able to manage for about a decade.

Another financial "whopper" in the Obamacare projection is in the amout of savings they will gain from health care fraud and abuse recaptures. In 2008, federal prosecutors returned approximately 1 billion to CMS (centers for medicare/medicaid services) from prosecution health care fraud and abuse cases. Recently, there's been a massive increase in this enforcement area (one of the few things both repubs and dems can agree upon in health care), and in 2011 I believe that the number had increased to around 4 billion. Obamacare presumes something like 60bn annual savings from health care fraud and abuse enforcement.

Of course, the fundamental fictional accounting involved with the Obamacare projection involved the 10 years of tax collection with only 5 years of benefit disbursement (OMB only makes 10 year financial projections, consequently this structure clearly exploits the analysis window utilized by the OMB).

WilliamTheIrish
06-10-2012, 02:58 PM
Johnny, if you don't mind me asking, what exactly do you do in Health Care IT start up? If you don't feel comfortable stating it publicly, would you name one or two of your competitors? Are you discussing RIS systems? Or enterprise wide HIS systems?

And when you say this:

Of course, these savings would be realized by cutting approximately 60% of the current admin personnel.

60% of what administrative personnel?

mlyonsd
06-10-2012, 04:51 PM
With more of us old farts heading towards the edge everyday I can't imagine the healthcare world shrinking.

Otter
06-10-2012, 08:22 PM
The study cited is here (http://www.rwjf.org/coverage/product.jsp?id=74464).

Will Health Reform Lead to Job Loss? Evidence from Massachusetts Says No
By: Dubay L, Long SK and Lawton E
Published: June 2012

In April 2006, Massachusetts enacted an ambitious health care reform bill that resulted in significant gains in insurance coverage, access to and use of care, and the affordability of care for the Massachusetts population as a whole and, especially, for lower-income adults. Given the success of health reform in Massachusetts along these dimensions, many of the key features of the Bay State’s initiative were incorporated in national health reform under the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), including an expansion of public coverage, subsidies for private coverage, a health insurance exchange, insurance market reforms, requirements for employers, and an individual mandate.

There are those who feel that when employers are required to offer health insurance coverage or make payments related to a worker, employers will reduce wages and/or other worker compensation over time to cover those new costs.

This brief, prepared by the Urban Institute on behalf of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, examines employment trends in Massachusetts as the state implemented health reform. Researchers found that between 2006 and 2010:

Declines in private-sector employment were consistent across the states—falling 4.4 percentage points in Massachusetts, compared to 4.8 percentage points, on average, in the rest of the nation. The employment ratio in medium-sized firms with 50-499 employees fell by 1.9 percentage points, compared to 2.2 percentage points in the rest of the nation. Even when accounting for firm size, industry, and job and worker characteristics, the trends in Massachusetts are similar to those in the nation as a whole. The authors acknowledge that the recent recession, and the financial crisis that followed, have taken a toll on Massachusetts, as with the rest of the nation. They conclude, however, that there is no indication of negative economic and job consequences relative to other states as a result of health reform.

Your ass is showing. Ass mentioned, send out an email, call or try the old fashioned way of walking up to someone who hires people and ask.

The ship was sinking and Bum **** Barry (actually the people that control that puppet more than him) decided it was more important that the brass be polished than keep the ship from going down. Reap the whirlwind. But if it makes you feel better we're all gonna hurt from that move, not just your or people that love or hate the dummy, all of us.

Otter
06-10-2012, 08:32 PM
Proof Aliens Exist (http://www.google.com/#hl=en&gs_nf=1&cp=9&gs_id=14&xhr=t&q=proof+aliens+exist&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&oq=proof+ali&aq=0&aqi=g4&aql=&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=3fbf9333af451b8d&biw=1920&bih=1075)

King_Chief_Fan
06-11-2012, 07:43 AM
let's take a look at what it does cost:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=study%20to%20show%20that%20obama's%20health%20plan%20will%20cost%20jobs&source=web&cd=8&ved=0CG4QFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffinance.fortune.cnn.com%2F2012%2F05%2F22%2Fhealth-care-reform-hurdles%2F&ei=8fPVT-PZGqS22gWlxJ2OCw&usg=AFQjCNFNvBDaa2m4ctvUQ6A4D6ne3djLWQ

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=study%20to%20show%20that%20obama's%20health%20plan%20will%20cost%20jobs&source=web&cd=9&ved=0CG8QFjAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.forbes.com%2Fsites%2Faroy%2F2012%2F03%2F22%2Fhow-obamacare-dramatically-increases-the-cost-of-insurance-for-young-workers%2F&ei=8fPVT-PZGqS22gWlxJ2OCw&usg=AFQjCNFCPMU-AxQJqH671ZTkOYeaGsK-1w

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=study%20to%20show%20that%20obama's%20health%20plan%20will%20cost%20jobs&source=web&cd=10&ved=0CHAQFjAJ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2F2012%2F03%2F15%2Fhealth-care-reform_n_1347327.html&ei=8fPVT-PZGqS22gWlxJ2OCw&usg=AFQjCNEy5FChUZEJMI7H9_2GQCqioswbYg

vailpass
06-11-2012, 10:55 AM
Get off the internet and talk to someone who actually hires people and then make a post.

That right there.

FishingRod
06-11-2012, 12:43 PM
How would you fix health care?

Health care is an issue where my political beliefs and the reality of things just don’t occupy the same planet. I lean very libertarian on how things “should” be but, in reality we already have socialized health care for the poor and we as a society have decided that if someone needs help, we won’t just let them die. If their lack of coverage is from an inability to pay or because they spent the money on Cable TV and booze instead of health insurance they will still be treated. I work for a living and cover myself and two children on my health insurance. The out of pocket expense for this coverage continues to increase at an alarming rate. The very poor are covered and the very rich can afford excellent coverage but, to the regular people in the middle it is very expensive and one could easily find oneself bankrupt if a serious illness were to occur. If we, as we appear to be, are headed to a socialized health care system the vast majority of us will end up paying more for less service. The Obama care bill had so many differ things in it that it is difficult to try and figure the balance between some good things and a lot of bad Most people like the changes in pre existing condition rules and, many college students benefited from the extended time they could be covered under their parents plans. The insurance companies love the idea of people being required to be their customer but, from what I can tell it did nothing to get a handle on the skyrocketing costs or streamlining waste from the industry. So I guess the question is how can we best fix the situation? Is it a nationalized system paid for out of corporate profits, individual income taxes or perhaps a national consumption tax? Will government need to put price controls on what Dr.s and Nurses can earn and bring their compensation more in line with that of a Teacher? We seem to have two incompatible systems( capitalism and socialism) arm-wrestling for control leading to an inefficient bastard of a system that poorly serves the average Joe. So what is the best we can do? I honestly don’t know the answer.

Garcia Bronco
06-11-2012, 01:35 PM
Just remember people...a study is an educated guess. Meaning it's still a guess that has a probability of being completely wrong. So be careful when you read these kind of things.

patteeu
06-11-2012, 01:56 PM
How would you fix health care?

Health care is an issue where my political beliefs and the reality of things just don’t occupy the same planet. I lean very libertarian on how things “should” be but, in reality we already have socialized health care for the poor and we as a society have decided that if someone needs help, we won’t just let them die. If their lack of coverage is from an inability to pay or because they spent the money on Cable TV and booze instead of health insurance they will still be treated. I work for a living and cover myself and two children on my health insurance. The out of pocket expense for this coverage continues to increase at an alarming rate. The very poor are covered and the very rich can afford excellent coverage but, to the regular people in the middle it is very expensive and one could easily find oneself bankrupt if a serious illness were to occur. If we, as we appear to be, are headed to a socialized health care system the vast majority of us will end up paying more for less service. The Obama care bill had so many differ things in it that it is difficult to try and figure the balance between some good things and a lot of bad Most people like the changes in pre existing condition rules and, many college students benefited from the extended time they could be covered under their parents plans. The insurance companies love the idea of people being required to be their customer but, from what I can tell it did nothing to get a handle on the skyrocketing costs or streamlining waste from the industry. So I guess the question is how can we best fix the situation? Is it a nationalized system paid for out of corporate profits, individual income taxes or perhaps a national consumption tax? Will government need to put price controls on what Dr.s and Nurses can earn and bring their compensation more in line with that of a Teacher? We seem to have two incompatible systems( capitalism and socialism) arm-wrestling for control leading to an inefficient bastard of a system that poorly serves the average Joe. So what is the best we can do? I honestly don’t know the answer.

I'm in the same boat as you in the sense that my politics are libertarian, but I recognize that our society has already decided to have socialized medicine of one type or another.

I think there are a lot of things to like about Obamacare, including the mandate which I think is necessary to bring everyone out of the underground socialized system and into a more explicit and coherent system.

The biggest problem I have with Obamacare and the biggest fear I have with any similar system is the degree to which we are trying to universalize access to gold-plated healthcare coverage. I think we need to focus primarily on relatively inexpensive catastrophic coverage and very limited wellness coverage. Furthermore, wrt government guaranteed catastrophic coverage, I don't think we should be promising cutting edge technology and unlimited end-of-life care. It's got to be limited to prevent costs from continuing to explode. Individuals who want better coverage/care should be allowed to buy it themselves if they can afford it even if it results in a health care system where rich people get better care than poor people (boo hoo). Unfortunately, I don't see how we stop limited coverage from being expanded by future politicians into the gold-plated coverage that Obamacare aspires to provide.

La literatura
06-11-2012, 10:23 PM
I'm in the same boat as you in the sense that my politics are libertarian, but I recognize that our society has already decided to have socialized medicine of one type or another.

I think there are a lot of things to like about Obamacare, including the mandate which I think is necessary to bring everyone out of the underground socialized system and into a more explicit and coherent system.

The biggest problem I have with Obamacare and the biggest fear I have with any similar system is the degree to which we are trying to universalize access to gold-plated healthcare coverage. I think we need to focus primarily on relatively inexpensive catastrophic coverage and very limited wellness coverage. Furthermore, wrt government guaranteed catastrophic coverage, I don't think we should be promising cutting edge technology and unlimited end-of-life care. It's got to be limited to prevent costs from continuing to explode. Individuals who want better coverage/care should be allowed to buy it themselves if they can afford it even if it results in a health care system where rich people get better care than poor people (boo hoo). Unfortunately, I don't see how we stop limited coverage from being expanded by future politicians into the gold-plated coverage that Obamacare aspires to provide.

So you want the individual mandate . . . and death panels.

patteeu
06-11-2012, 10:35 PM
So you want the individual mandate . . . and death panels.

Yes. But not Obamacare's version.

I think the individual mandate is necessary if we're going to have an orderly, universal insurance scheme instead of the haphazard, defacto universal coverage we have today.

I approve of death panels for cost containment, but I want the portion of healthcare covered by government mandated (and death-paneled) policies to be a small subset of the overall healthcare system. The majority of healthcare coverage should remain outside of the government-imposed universal system, but even there there is a need for cost-driven rationing.

FishingRod
06-12-2012, 10:54 AM
I think the Feds being able to force a citizen to buy health insurance is constitutionally iffy at best. The fed does have the power to tax the public and use those monies to provide national health care. A sales tax would be the most fair way to do this.
The death panels thing is kind of a tough one. I like most people don’t care for Uncle Sam making those decisions for me but, I think we need more of an attitude change so that the quality of a person’s life is at least as important as its length. I for one find extending the suffering of a terminally ill person to be repugnant. I certainly wouldn’t do it to my dog so why would I insist on doing it to a loved one? I don’t think this question pigeonholes into a Liberal conservative thing but many people are unwilling to let go of unrealistic hope. If one removed the emotion from this obviously emotional situation, it is pretty plain that the amount of money wasted on people the last few days or hours of their lives is not well spent.