Health Care Reform Could Boost Employment by 250,000 to 400,000 a Year this Decade

Health Care Reform Could Boost Employment by 250,000 to 400,000 a Year this Decade (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Brain -> Health Care Reform Could Boost Employment by 250,000 to 400,000 a Year this Decade (2/23/2010 5:32:09 PM)
It’s time to do the right thing and pass a health care reform bill. It's the right thing for the ill and it's the right thing for the economy. 4 million jobs is a lot of badly needed jobs. Health Care Reform Could Boost Employment by 250,000 to 400,000 a Year this Decade New Jobs Through Better Health Care Health Care Reform Could Boost Employment by 250,000 to 400,000 a Year this Decade David Cutler Center for American Progress Neeraj Sood Leonard D. Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics January 2010 Leonard D. Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics 1 Center for American Progress • T he Schaeffer Center \| New Jobs Through Better Health Care Introduction and summary One in ten Americans remains out of work today as the two-year-long Great Recession gives way at last to a slow economic recovery. Dealing with persistent unemployment is one of the top priorities of President Barack Obama and the leaders of Congress. One important way to create jobs is to slow the growth of medical spending. If health care cost increases slow down, then businesses will find it more profitable to expand employment, and workers will more readily move into those new jobs. This paper will demonstrate the potential impact of health care reform on employment growth in the new decade, examining two recent studies and then combing their estimates of potential employment growth. The first study, by health economists Neeraj Sood at the Leonard D. Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics and School of Pharmacy at the University of Southern California, and Arkadipta Ghosh and José Escarce at Mathematica and University of California Los Angeles, shows the significant negative impact of rising health care costs on employment as firms struggle with health costs that they cannot pass along fully to workers or consumers.1 The second study, by health economists David Cutler of Harvard University and Karen Davis and Kristof Stremikis of the Commonwealth Fund, estimates that health care reform will slow the growth of health care costs and health insurance premiums.2 In the analysis that follows, we combine these two studies to show that health care reform could increase the number of jobs in the United States by about 250,000 to 400,000 per year over the coming decade. http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/01/pdf/health_care_jobs.pdf

Real0ne -> RE: Health Care Reform Could Boost Employment by 250,000 to 400,000 a Year this Decade (2/23/2010 5:38:49 PM)
we will send you the bill!

Thadius -> RE: Health Care Reform Could Boost Employment by 250,000 to 400,000 a Year this Decade (2/23/2010 5:43:55 PM)
Just one flaw with his argument, and it hinges on the part you bolded. The proposed MANDATORY costs to employers is at best going to offset the savings that they would realize if the current bills go through. Therefore, there will be no realized cost savings for employers, and it can be argued that it will cost even more to hire new people. I would also point out that the way the current proposals are structured, it encourages businesses not to have more than 49 employees on the payroll, so there goes the idea of small business growth providing those extra jobs.

DomImus -> RE: Health Care Reform Could Boost Employment by 250,000 to 400,000 a Year this Decade (2/23/2010 5:44:19 PM)
A.) Is this 250K to 400K news jobs per year or saved jobs per year to replace the doctors who take up a different line of work after the government nationalizes health care? B.) You forgot your obligatory reconciliation comment.

Brain -> RE: Health Care Reform Could Boost Employment by 250,000 to 400,000 a Year this Decade (2/23/2010 5:47:37 PM)
Do I have to post the link which says passing healthcare with the public option will reduce the budget deficit??? quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne we will send you the bill!

Brain -> RE: Health Care Reform Could Boost Employment by 250,000 to 400,000 a Year this Decade (2/23/2010 5:51:44 PM)
I don't see mandatory in bold anywhere so I don't know what you're talking about. And like doing nothing is not going to cost anything? quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius Just one flaw with his argument, and it hinges on the part you bolded. The proposed MANDATORY costs to employers is at best going to offset the savings that they would realize if the current bills go through. Therefore, there will be no realized cost savings for employers, and it can be argued that it will cost even more to hire new people. I would also point out that the way the current proposals are structured, it encourages businesses not to have more than 49 employees on the payroll, so there goes the idea of small business growth providing those extra jobs.

Brain -> RE: Health Care Reform Could Boost Employment by 250,000 to 400,000 a Year this Decade (2/23/2010 5:53:31 PM)
Those are new jobs and Republicans have used reconciliation much more than the Democrats in particular the Bush tax cuts come to mind quote: ORIGINAL: DomImus A.) Is this 250K to 400K news jobs per year or saved jobs per year to replace the doctors who take up a different line of work after the government nationalizes health care? B.) You forgot your obligatory reconciliation comment.

Thadius -> RE: Health Care Reform Could Boost Employment by 250,000 to 400,000 a Year this Decade (2/23/2010 6:01:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Brain I don't see mandatory in bold anywhere so I don't know what you're talking about. And like doing nothing is not going to cost anything? quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius Just one flaw with his argument, and it hinges on the part you bolded. The proposed MANDATORY costs to employers is at best going to offset the savings that they would realize if the current bills go through. Therefore, there will be no realized cost savings for employers, and it can be argued that it will cost even more to hire new people. I would also point out that the way the current proposals are structured, it encourages businesses not to have more than 49 employees on the payroll, so there goes the idea of small business growth providing those extra jobs. I capped mandatory to put emphasis on the fact that the health care proposals in congress and at the white house include mandatory costs to employers. Even under your ideal situation (medical costs come down or are frozen because of the legislation), the mandates to pay for that coverage by an employer will create the exact same thing that is suggested is preventing them from hiring now (additional costs for health care). Now remember this is going to be on average an additional (according to the proposal put out yesterday) $2000 per employee per year, then add in the new taxes required to pay for this and the other spending bills, and tell me how this inspires an employer to expand?

DarkSteven -> RE: Health Care Reform Could Boost Employment by 250,000 to 400,000 a Year this Decade (2/23/2010 6:04:38 PM)
I don't get it. The idea is that if businesses pay less for health care, they will have more money and will spend it hiring. 1. What if they spend it on something else? Big bonuses to top execs, for example? 2. What was the money going to that is now spent on health care? Presumably to employ people at the HMOs...

Real0ne -> RE: Health Care Reform Could Boost Employment by 250,000 to 400,000 a Year this Decade (2/23/2010 6:16:09 PM)
Do I need ot remind anyone that private deduction would do the same thing and at least offer a teenee bit more control over your care et al? quote: ORIGINAL: Brain Do I have to post the link which says passing healthcare with the public option will reduce the budget deficit??? quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne we will send you the bill!

Thadius -> RE: Health Care Reform Could Boost Employment by 250,000 to 400,000 a Year this Decade (2/23/2010 6:16:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven I don't get it. The idea is that if businesses pay less for health care, they will have more money and will spend it hiring. 1. What if they spend it on something else? Big bonuses to top execs, for example? 2. What was the money going to that is now spent on health care? Presumably to employ people at the HMOs... Steven, First, it is only an assumption that the current proposals would bring down the cost of health care, I would argue that the document put out yesterday admits that it won't (hence the phased out exemptions to help defray the expected increase in costs). Second, none of the benefits seem to be scheduled to kick in for at least 3 years and most are outward from there. Meaning, that even if we assume that those benefits will bring down the cost of health care, it won't be for at least 3 or more years. Finally, many of the tax hikes and other fees kick in immediately. Therefore, the cost of doing business is going to go up, the cost of hiring people is going to go up, and at best some relief may or may not come in years down the road. I could be wrong and they could be counting the number of new jobs that govt is going to create with these new agencies, but that is far from private employers being encouraged to go on a hiring spree. Know what I mean?

Real0ne -> RE: Health Care Reform Could Boost Employment by 250,000 to 400,000 a Year this Decade (2/23/2010 6:17:28 PM)
Besides brain, how in your own words will it bring down the deficit?

Brain -> RE: Health Care Reform Could Boost Employment by 250,000 to 400,000 a Year this Decade (2/23/2010 6:54:11 PM)
I don't agree that it's going to cost the exact same amount or more. I don't agree because I will give you this example in the auto industry. Ford Motor Company manufactures cars in Canada and so does General Motors by the way, but they do it because they have cheaper health care costs in Canada. And Canada is using a progressive health care system which costs less and covers everyone. I would call the Canadian system single-payer because the government pays and uses its negotiating power to bring down costs. Ford Motor Company has a lot more than 49 employees working at that plant where they make F150s in Oakville. All I know is if they do it right it's going to cost less. George Bush and Republicans complain about how government doesn't work and then they got elected for eight years and proved it, thank God those days are over. I'm confident if Democrats do this right it will employ a lot of people that need jobs and save a lot of money just like it does everywhere else in the world, Germany, Japan, Canada, Britain and I could go on and on and on. I'm just not buying it that it won't work. quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius quote: ORIGINAL: Brain I don't see mandatory in bold anywhere so I don't know what you're talking about. And like doing nothing is not going to cost anything? quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius Just one flaw with his argument, and it hinges on the part you bolded. The proposed MANDATORY costs to employers is at best going to offset the savings that they would realize if the current bills go through. Therefore, there will be no realized cost savings for employers, and it can be argued that it will cost even more to hire new people. I would also point out that the way the current proposals are structured, it encourages businesses not to have more than 49 employees on the payroll, so there goes the idea of small business growth providing those extra jobs. I capped mandatory to put emphasis on the fact that the health care proposals in congress and at the white house include mandatory costs to employers. Even under your ideal situation (medical costs come down or are frozen because of the legislation), the mandates to pay for that coverage by an employer will create the exact same thing that is suggested is preventing them from hiring now (additional costs for health care). Now remember this is going to be on average an additional (according to the proposal put out yesterday) $2000 per employee per year, then add in the new taxes required to pay for this and the other spending bills, and tell me how this inspires an employer to expand?

Brain -> RE: Health Care Reform Could Boost Employment by 250,000 to 400,000 a Year this Decade (2/23/2010 6:59:09 PM)
It works in other countries so it does work. I don't know why they would give a big bonuses to top execs because they don't do it in Canada or anywhere else. At some point people have to take responsibility. If executives are acting like assholes shareholders need to take responsibility if they are stuffing their wallets with money with ridiculous bonuses. quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven I don't get it. The idea is that if businesses pay less for health care, they will have more money and will spend it hiring. 1. What if they spend it on something else? Big bonuses to top execs, for example? 2. What was the money going to that is now spent on health care? Presumably to employ people at the HMOs...

Thadius -> RE: Health Care Reform Could Boost Employment by 250,000 to 400,000 a Year this Decade (2/23/2010 7:00:04 PM)
Hi Brain, It's kind of funny that the example you use is the auto industry. If the proposed bills were going to be good for their employees why would there have been any need for the backroom deal on the "cadilac tax" exemptions? You don't think our current tax structures, regulations, and demands for wages (including benefits) have anything to do with these big companies exporting jobs to other countries? quote: ORIGINAL: Brain I don't agree that it's going to cost the exact same amount or more. I don't agree because I will give you this example in the auto industry. Ford Motor Company manufactures cars in Canada and so does General Motors by the way, but they do it because they have cheaper health care costs in Canada. And Canada is using a progressive health care system which costs less and covers everyone. I would call the Canadian system single-payer because the government pays and uses its negotiating power to bring down costs. Ford Motor Company has a lot more than 49 employees working at that plant where they make F150s in Oakville. All I know is if they do it right it's going to cost less. George Bush and Republicans complain about how government doesn't work and then they got elected for eight years and proved it, thank God those days are over. I'm confident if Democrats do this right it will employ a lot of people that need jobs and save a lot of money just like it does everywhere else in the world, Germany, Japan, Canada, Britain and I could go on and on and on. I'm just not buying it that it won't work. quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius quote: ORIGINAL: Brain I don't see mandatory in bold anywhere so I don't know what you're talking about. And like doing nothing is not going to cost anything? quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius Just one flaw with his argument, and it hinges on the part you bolded. The proposed MANDATORY costs to employers is at best going to offset the savings that they would realize if the current bills go through. Therefore, there will be no realized cost savings for employers, and it can be argued that it will cost even more to hire new people. I would also point out that the way the current proposals are structured, it encourages businesses not to have more than 49 employees on the payroll, so there goes the idea of small business growth providing those extra jobs. I capped mandatory to put emphasis on the fact that the health care proposals in congress and at the white house include mandatory costs to employers. Even under your ideal situation (medical costs come down or are frozen because of the legislation), the mandates to pay for that coverage by an employer will create the exact same thing that is suggested is preventing them from hiring now (additional costs for health care). Now remember this is going to be on average an additional (according to the proposal put out yesterday) $2000 per employee per year, then add in the new taxes required to pay for this and the other spending bills, and tell me how this inspires an employer to expand?

Brain -> RE: Health Care Reform Could Boost Employment by 250,000 to 400,000 a Year this Decade (2/23/2010 7:14:45 PM)
I don't know why you guys are fighting this, except to say you are brainwashed by ideology just as I was 10 years ago. I have become pragmatic and I go with what works. Other countries have proven this works because it covers everyone and it costs less. You can think up all the silly reasons you want to say how it won't work. But the evidence is all over the world with other industrialized countries that cover all their citizens with decent health care and it doesn't matter if you're rich or poor, everyone is treated the same. What a lot of people are forgetting is that they are one layoff away and one serious illness away from going bankrupt with health care costs. Take Dick Cheney for example, that bastard has had five heart attacks as well as 5 deferments. The son of a bitch had another heart attack recently and of course he is a 'socialist' because he is using government health care, the same healthcare Republicans like him don't want you to have. I would love to see that slimeball for ideological reasons say that he's not a socialist and he doesn't want 'government health care' and pay for his bloody care himself. Unfortunately, Dick Cheney can afford to pay for his own health care but just remember that the average middle-class person who loses their job can't. quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne Do I need ot remind anyone that private deduction would do the same thing and at least offer a teenee bit more control over your care et al? quote: ORIGINAL: Brain Do I have to post the link which says passing healthcare with the public option will reduce the budget deficit??? quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne we will send you the bill!

Brain -> RE: Health Care Reform Could Boost Employment by 250,000 to 400,000 a Year this Decade (2/23/2010 7:17:41 PM)
Why don't you open your eyes to the fact that it works in 100% of the other countries all around the world and stop wasting time coming up with stupid reasons that it won't work? Not just you but all you people. quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven I don't get it. The idea is that if businesses pay less for health care, they will have more money and will spend it hiring. 1. What if they spend it on something else? Big bonuses to top execs, for example? 2. What was the money going to that is now spent on health care? Presumably to employ people at the HMOs... Steven, First, it is only an assumption that the current proposals would bring down the cost of health care, I would argue that the document put out yesterday admits that it won't (hence the phased out exemptions to help defray the expected increase in costs). Second, none of the benefits seem to be scheduled to kick in for at least 3 years and most are outward from there. Meaning, that even if we assume that those benefits will bring down the cost of health care, it won't be for at least 3 or more years. Finally, many of the tax hikes and other fees kick in immediately. Therefore, the cost of doing business is going to go up, the cost of hiring people is going to go up, and at best some relief may or may not come in years down the road. I could be wrong and they could be counting the number of new jobs that govt is going to create with these new agencies, but that is far from private employers being encouraged to go on a hiring spree. Know what I mean?

Brain -> RE: Health Care Reform Could Boost Employment by 250,000 to 400,000 a Year this Decade (2/23/2010 7:40:21 PM)
Because it will cost less. Because insurance companies will not be making ridiculous profits and paying executives 10 to $40 million a year in salaries and bonuses. Do you remember what happened when there was a serious possibility months ago that public option will pass. Do you remember what happened to those insurance company stocks? Those stocks plummeted in value. That's because they knew they would not be making those excessive profits. Right now a lot of money is going to administration. They are spending a lot of money paying employees to find reasons to cancel policies. And I'm talking about policies of very sick people who need to go see doctors and who needs expensive drugs. Insurance companies don't mind having customers that are not sick. But if you get too sick and you cost them too much money they will try to find a reason to get rid of you as a customer. What they do is they raise your rates and then they offer you policies that are cheaper but don't cover a lot of illnesses so they are pretty much useless and you're in trouble. So getting back to bring down the deficit, it happens in different ways. The government uses its negotiating power to demand better prices from insurance companies. The government can demand better prices from drug companies as well. It's because under single-payer the government has more leverage to say that's too expensive we want a better deal. What's happening now is almost people I talked about before that insurance companies don't want and get rid of they end up in the emergency room costing 10 times more money and the government pays for them anyway. So it's better for those people to get ongoing healthcare and not end up in the emergency room and it will save the government money. I am putting this in my own words but I have to say there are plenty of studies and lots of information showing how the deficit is reduced with progressive healthcare reform. You're a smart guy I just don't understand how you don't already know this. Another thing is why would I lie? I just want to improve the system so it works better for everyone. I'll try and elaborate more on this if I have to but I hope this amount of information I provided is sufficient. quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne Besides brain, how in your own words will it bring down the deficit?

Real0ne -> RE: Health Care Reform Could Boost Employment by 250,000 to 400,000 a Year this Decade (2/23/2010 7:43:48 PM)
yeh right and they are all operating in bankruptcy under the european banking system running on broke. I agree that if you hit a square peg hard enough the corners will slice off and it will go into a round hole therefore it will work. There was nothing wrong with our healthcare what so ever before big pharma got in and insurance and government. What wrong with the realization of the roots of the problem and NOT turn your care over to the option of the government and go back to freedom of choice at a reasonable price? why jump from the fire into the coals (which are hotter btw) just because you can make the claim that is can work when we had a working system that we broke? and you did not tell me how it lowers the deficit which point I agree with you bit I just want to see how you came to that conclusion. quote: ORIGINAL: Brain I don't know why you guys are fighting this, except to say you are brainwashed by ideology just as I was 10 years ago. I have become pragmatic and I go with what works. Other countries have proven this works because it covers everyone and it costs less. You can think up all the silly reasons you want to say how it won't work. But the evidence is all over the world with other industrialized countries that cover all their citizens with decent health care and it doesn't matter if you're rich or poor, everyone is treated the same. What a lot of people are forgetting is that they are one layoff away and one serious illness away from going bankrupt with health care costs. Take Dick Cheney for example, that bastard has had five heart attacks as well as 5 deferments. The son of a bitch had another heart attack recently and of course he is a 'socialist' because he is using government health care, the same healthcare Republicans like him don't want you to have. I would love to see that slimeball for ideological reasons say that he's not a socialist and he doesn't want 'government health care' and pay for his bloody care himself. Unfortunately, Dick Cheney can afford to pay for his own health care but just remember that the average middle-class person who loses their job can't. quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne Do I need ot remind anyone that private deduction would do the same thing and at least offer a teenee bit more control over your care et al? quote: ORIGINAL: Brain Do I have to post the link which says passing healthcare with the public option will reduce the budget deficit??? quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne we will send you the bill!

Thadius -> RE: Health Care Reform Could Boost Employment by 250,000 to 400,000 a Year this Decade (2/23/2010 7:53:59 PM)
It does what 100% in other countries? Controls costs? Have you ever looked at a graph of those costs in even one of those countries you listed? It looks like the Mann hockeystick in the UK. So you are suggesting that we just shut up and drink the Kool-aid? Not to offend anybody living in those other countries, but we have a much different way of doing things here in the US, which means that many of these so called one size fits all solutions, simply won't work here. We have a smaller program that is very much like what you are suggesting and it ain't doing all that hot financially, even with the price fixing and controls in place. Suggesting that in this one program that the Federal Govt will finally become efficient and be able to save money, goes against everything I have ever seen them do. Oh and to the point that you keep trumpeting, if the Dems were going to use reconciliation to get this thing passed, why haven't they done it yet? They have had the bodies to try it. I suggest they are just looking for a scapegoat or an accomplice to lay the blame on. Also, they know that it can't be done via reconciliation, at least not the policy parts of the bills. quote: ORIGINAL: Brain Why don't you open your eyes to the fact that it works in 100% of the other countries all around the world and stop wasting time coming up with stupid reasons that it won't work? Not just you but all you people. quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven I don't get it. The idea is that if businesses pay less for health care, they will have more money and will spend it hiring. 1. What if they spend it on something else? Big bonuses to top execs, for example? 2. What was the money going to that is now spent on health care? Presumably to employ people at the HMOs... Steven, First, it is only an assumption that the current proposals would bring down the cost of health care, I would argue that the document put out yesterday admits that it won't (hence the phased out exemptions to help defray the expected increase in costs). Second, none of the benefits seem to be scheduled to kick in for at least 3 years and most are outward from there. Meaning, that even if we assume that those benefits will bring down the cost of health care, it won't be for at least 3 or more years. Finally, many of the tax hikes and other fees kick in immediately. Therefore, the cost of doing business is going to go up, the cost of hiring people is going to go up, and at best some relief may or may not come in years down the road. I could be wrong and they could be counting the number of new jobs that govt is going to create with these new agencies, but that is far from private employers being encouraged to go on a hiring spree. Know what I mean?

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625