How will Obamacare kill jobs?

[leftysergeant]

There is no free lunch, folks. Everything comes with a pricetag. You may decide that the price is right, but you cannot wish it away. Obamacare (among many other things) requires that companies providing coverage insure adult children till 25. That is a cost, and unless you believe that somehow those companies are going to ignore costs, you have to accept that they will be marginally less likely to hire new employees.

This is why the individual mandate was neccessary.

So much for the paper-shufflers being out of work. They are selling more product.

 

[Matt the Poet]

So why not just have a Public Option?

Because STALINHITLER, of course.

 

[RandFan]

The magical "something for nothing" thinking going on here is truly amazing. Why, Obamacare will reduce the deficit, not cost any jobs, and provide insurance coverage for millions of Americans. It will probably clean your windows as well.

There is no free lunch, folks. Everything comes with a pricetag. You may decide that the price is right, but you cannot wish it away. Obamacare (among many other things) requires that companies providing coverage insure adult children till 25. That is a cost, and unless you believe that somehow those companies are going to ignore costs, you have to accept that they will be marginally less likely to hire new employees.

The point you fail to understand is that we already spend the money.

U.S. scores dead last again in healthcare study

In 2007, health spending was $7,290 per person in the United States, more than double that of any other country in the survey.

Australians spent $3,357, Canadians $3,895, Germans $3,588, the Netherlands $3,837 and Britons spent $2,992 per capita on health in 2007. New Zealand spent the least at $2,454.

There is no magical thinking here. There is no reason for the price tag to be twice as much as every other nation yet dead last in quality, efficacy and equality. The money is already being spent, we just need to spend it right and we can probably cut the bill in half.

 

[Francesca R]

If Obamacare actually succeeds in reducing the net cost of US health care provision, which is an admirable aim, then it almost certainly will "kill jobs". But those jobs are likely wasteful from the perspective of providing health care, and may be more about serving the hopelessly competing interests that riddle the existing system without improving the health outcome society obtains.

It would be weird to want to preserve wasteful employment. Note that the private/public resources freed up, that would be the corrollary of this, could then apply to something more economically/socially productive.

 

[Bri]

PolitiFact gave Eric Cantor a "False" for sponsoring a repeal measure that Republicans formally titled the "Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act":

Poll after poll shows Americans' top concerns are the economy and jobs, which explains why Republicans have labeled the health care law as "job-killing." On Wednesday, the U.S. House of Representatives approved a repeal measure that Republicans formally titled the "Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act." It is sponsored by House Republican leader Eric Cantor.

We've read a number of critiques that say the law isn't quite the "job killer" that Republicans claim it is, so we wanted to investigate for ourselves and evaluate the evidence. The Republican leadership recently published a document titled, "Obamacare: A budget-busting, job-killing health care law," which cites several pieces of evidence for its job-killing claim:

"Independent analyses have determined that the health care law will cause significant job losses for the U.S. economy: the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has determined that the law will reduce the 'amount of labor used in the economy by … roughly half a percent...,' an estimate that adds up to roughly 650,000 jobs lost. A study by the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB), the nation's largest small business association, found that an employer mandate alone could lead to the elimination of 1.6 million jobs, with 66 percent of those coming from small businesses."

...

Republicans have used the "job-killing" claim hundreds of times -- so often that they used the phrase in the name of the bill. It implies that job losses will be one of the most significant effects of the law. But they have flimsy evidence to back it up.

The phrase suggests a massive decline in employment, but the data doesn't support that. The Republican evidence is extrapolated from a report that was talking about a reduction in the labor supply rather than the loss of jobs, or based on measures that weren't included in the final health care law. We rate the statement False.​

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...lth-care-law-job-killer-evidence-falls-short/

FactCheck.org agrees:

When it comes to truth in labeling, House Republicans are getting off to a poor start with their constantly repeated references to the new health care law as "job-killing."

We find:

• Independent, nonpartisan experts project only a "small" or "minimal" impact on jobs, even before taking likely job gains in the health care and insurance industries into account.
• The House Republican leadership, in a report issued Jan. 6, badly misrepresents what the Congressional Budget Office has said about the law. In fact, CBO is among those saying the effect "will probably be small."
• The GOP also cites a study projecting a 1.6 million job loss — but fails to mention that the study refers to a hypothetical employer mandate that is not part of the new law.
• The same study cited by the GOP also predicts an offsetting gain of 890,000 jobs in hospitals, doctors’ offices and insurance companies — a factor not mentioned by the House leadership.

There’s little doubt that the new law will likely lead to somewhat fewer low-wage jobs. That’s mainly because of the law’s requirement that, generally, firms with more than 50 workers pay a penalty if they fail to provide health coverage for their workers. One leading health care expert, John Sheils of The Lewin Group, puts the loss at between 150,000 and 300,000 jobs, at or near the minimum wage. And Sheils says that relatively small loss would be partly offset by gains in the health care industry.​

http://factcheck.org/2011/01/a-job-killing-law/

-Bri

 

[angrysoba]

I'm seeing TV adverts saying Obamacare will kill jobs.

It doesn't say how though. Does anyone know?[/URL]

Because Obamacare has death panels which sentence jobs to death.

Remember Obamacare is "Socialized Medicine" and who else were Socialists but Stalin and Pol Pot who sent people off to gulags and collective farms. Well, Obamacare will do the same for jobs. Obviously. And where did the Socialists get their ideas? From the French Revolution. And what did they have? The Terror! The guillotine! The September Massacres!

All this will happen to jobs. Especially in September!

Get a clue! Wake up America!

 

[Tricky]

If Obamacare actually succeeds in reducing the net cost of US health care provision, which is an admirable aim, then it almost certainly will "kill jobs". But those jobs are likely wasteful from the perspective of providing health care, and may be more about serving the hopelessly competing interests that riddle the existing system without improving the health outcome society obtains.

It would be weird to want to preserve wasteful employment. Note that the private/public resources freed up, that would be the corrollary of this, could then apply to something more economically/socially productive.

You're right there. Hell, ATM machines and Robophone answering machines kill(ed) jobs, but you don't hear people screaming that they should be eliminated. Greater efficiency means fewer people are necessary to do the same job. Hopefully new jobs will emerge, (like industry replaced farming) but there will probably be some discomfort. That's no reason not to do the right thing though.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'm seeing TV adverts saying Obamacare will kill jobs.

I keep seeing that unsubstantiated claim in ads by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Of course those same ads refer to Obamacare as "government run healthcare".

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

If Obamacare actually succeeds in reducing the net cost of US health care provision, which is an admirable aim, then it almost certainly will "kill jobs".

I don't think its goal was to reduce the net cost of U.S. healthcare or that that goal is even very reasonable. One of its primary aims was to extend access to a minimum standard of healthcare to as many people as possible. This will result in a bit of a redistribution of healthcare costs (including getting anyone who can afford to to pay in at least something), while having a negligible (or negative) impact on federal deficits over a 10 year period.

But your point is well taken. Just looking at the impact of the law on jobs doesn't answer the question of whether or not it's a good law (or one that should be repealed).

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It doesn't say how though. Does anyone know?

I think they're focusing on the employer mandate. It will "kill jobs" they say pretty much the same way they claim every increase in the federal minimum wage will kill jobs.

I think this is pretty much the same logic as saying that doing away with the $40 billion or so in tax credits and subsidies for the oil and natural gas industry will result in higher prices of gasoline at the pump in the U.S. It's pretty much a "just so" story.

 

[Bri]

I keep seeing that unsubstantiated claim in ads by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Of course those same ads refer to Obamacare as "government run healthcare".

It's fairly clear that the "job-killing" claim is just because Republicans really want to talk about Obamacare, but know that voters want to hear about jobs. So they figure if they put "job-killing" in front of everything, it will automatically be about jobs.

I'm surprised we haven't heard about those job-killing same-sex marriages yet.

It's only a matter of time before "baby-killing" is replaced with "job-killing" in reference to abortion too.

-Bri

 

[Francesca R]

I don't think its goal was to reduce the net cost of U.S. healthcare or that that goal is even very reasonable.

I remember some soundbite about "bending the cost curve down" in the early days of Obamacare, plus a great deal of sound and fury the other way. I don't know if reducing the US spend on health care is a credible part of the program now. I think it should be but I agree that is a separate objective from making cover universal (and funding mandatory).

Contrary to what I said, the price of health care could be lowered without shrinking employment if the supply of it was increased, but there is little in the act that does that IIRC. This would reduce the compensation of some people in the sector but not shrink their numbers.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It's fairly clear that the "job-killing" claim is just because Republicans really want to talk about Obamacare, but know that voters want to hear about jobs. So they figure if they put "job-killing" in front of everything, it will automatically be about jobs.

And also there aren't too many aspects of Obamacare that they can talk about in ways that will appeal to voters.

I haven't heard any slogans, for example, about doing away with the requirement that insurers cover people with pre-existing conditions (doing away with rescission and post claim underwriting).

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I remember some soundbite about "bending the cost curve down" in the early days of Obamacare, plus a great deal of sound and fury the other way. I don't know if reducing the US spend on health care is a credible part of the program now. I think it should be but I agree that is a separate objective from making cover universal (and funding mandatory).

I think there has been a lot of confusion about what "affordabe" meant in the law's title (Patient Affordable Care Act). I don't think it was ever about reducing net costs (private and public). (To broach that problem, we'd need to shift to some sort of single-payer system, something that sadly was never even on the table after Obama was elected.)

I think, however, the measure in the law that restricts the amount of premium money that insurance companies can spend on things other than healthcare is a modest step in that direction. (Another bit of Obamacare we'll unlikely hear mentioned in cries for its repeal.)

 

[ponderingturtle]

It is impending our transition to a healthcare based economy.

 

[Francesca R]

I think there has been a lot of confusion about what "affordabe" meant in the law's title (Patient Affordable Care Act). I don't think it was ever about reducing net costs (private and public).

I assume "affordable" meant affordable to households.

(To broach that problem, we'd need to shift to some sort of single-payer system, something that sadly was never even on the table after Obama was elected.)

This has been gone over in several universal health system threads--"single payer" (the state as the only buyer) is not the model in a lot of UHS countries--and it is more common to find some compulsory-insurance model which is closer to the Obama "individual mandate", although not the same in several respects.

The comment about total system costs is due to the frequently trotted out observation that US health spending is both of (i) the highest in the world and (ii) the fastest growing in the world (chart source)

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I assume "affordable" meant affordable to households.

Indeed. I think it meant to households and individuals for whom it wasn't yet affordable.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The comment about total system costs is due to the frequently trotted out observation that US health spending is both of (i) the highest in the world and (ii) the fastest growing in the world

Yep. And that great expenditure buys us healthcare ranked down near that of Cuba.

But I think the strongest claim Obama and proponents of the law made was that it might slow that cost increase a little. I don't think anyone realistically predicted it would decrease the net cost.

My take was that the primary thrust of the law was to expand accessibility and do away with the worst of the abusive practices of the insurance industry (practices that left even the insured out in the cold very often). The primary fiscal concern was that it not adversely affect federal debt over a 10 year period.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Insurance company fat cats may have to go out and get a real job instead of living off the sad misfortunes of others?

Actually the insurance industry got their demands for individual and employee mandates incorporated into the law.

 

[leftysergeant]

Most of the job losses will be in the financial sector. That is already too big a part of our ecconomy to begin with. The growth of the financial sector does not increase the distribution of wealth domesticly. More often, it re-distributes wealth out of the country, never to return.

At the insurance companies, executives will just have to take a pay cut or lay of marketing people. Laying off marketing people will, of course, make it harder to sell policies, which means less revenue for the executives to gobble up. The GOP is upset mostly because their people will have to do with less. Nobody else should care. The super-rich do not do all that much to keep small businesses going.

The people on the corporate death panels are screwed, and this is a good thing.

Most importantly, they are upset that the over-all ecconomic effect is that it redistributes wealth where it will do society more over-all good, to the care-givers, rather than to the bean counters.