How will Obamacare kill jobs?

[Minoosh]

I don't think the "job-killing" line is going to work very well for the Republicans. Too many people will question the claim, which might lead to them becoming better informed, which is probably bad for the GOP right now.

Part of the terror of losing your job is losing your health-care coverage. It's a good thing for people to think about why this is so and whether it has to be this way.

 

[joolz]

The "fat cats" most likely have enough dough so they don't have to ever work again.

Most of their clerical, office support, IT, sales force, etc, will need to look for work.

Why do hate the little people?

Fat cats never have 'enough' money, that's why they are fat cats. They are greedy.

So you feeel that ordinary people should die or live their lives in pain so a few people don't need to switch jobs?

Why do you hate the little people?

 

[Tricky]

I don't think the "job-killing" line is going to work very well for the Republicans.

It sure as hell ain't working in Michigan, where Mitt "Let 'em go bankrupt" Romney is getting his ass handed to him in the polls.

 

[joolz]

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.

They are shocking statistics for the USA. I guess a lot of the extra costs you pay just end up in the pockets of the insurance companies. From posts on another Travis thread it sounds like your costs are highly inflated at the point of sale. Just imagine how wonderful it would be if you could spend all the extra $$$ on doctors, nurses and hospitals.

I don't understand why you need insurance companies involved, that is always going to take some of the money out of health care resources. Better to all put money into a central fund and spend 100% of it on making people healthy. Like the NHS here.

The Scottish and English National Health Systems are run on different principles as we voted in different political parties. If you have a government administering a health care system then you can kick out politicians if you don't like it. You don't have that control over your insurance companies.

 

[Bri]

Another article from PolitiFact, this one about a claim from the Chamber of Commerce that Obamacare will kill jobs across America:

The ad said that "Obamacare … will kill jobs across America." The chamber of Commerce has failed to prove that it will, and the best projections we’ve seen, based on how the law is actually written, do not suggest that the law will "kill" jobs. A close look at the studies cited by the Chamber of Commerce in support of the ad -- as well as other independent analyses of the health care law -- provide little, if any, evidence that the health care law will result in a significant net number of job losses. We rate the statement False.​

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...mber-commerce-ad-attacking-tim-kaine-says-he/

-Bri

 

[madfoot]

So why not just have a Public Option?

Why have a Public Option?

 

[leftysergeant]

Why have a Public Option?

To remove the profit motive from the system so that it actually provides care for children with owies, instead of yachts for vulture capitalists.

 

[Travis]

Why have a Public Option?

So that people, such as myself, that currently can't get private health insurance will have the opportunity to get some. And with a large risk pool the cost to do so would actually be low.

 

[Peephole]

There is no free lunch, folks. Everything comes with a pricetag.

You're right, the more government involvement the lower the pricetag.

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).

Bending the cost curve always referred to reducing Medicare costs, which it does.

 

[Bikewer]

Locally, we're also getting the "Missouri doesn't need government-controlled health care" ads.
Just more big lie tactics, along with the "clean coal" ads.

 

[joolz]

Why have a Public Option?

Yeah, why be like other countries who care for their citizens' health and wellbeing. Why give a toss for others just because you can currently afford health care and want to line the pockets of some insurance company, depriving medical services the use of those profits.

Why worry about tomorrow, you may never lose your job or your money and you can remain in your ivory tower forever and watch other people die.

Why care that preventative medicine can stop the spread of disease which might even lower health costs and stop you catching something nasty from a 'poor' person. Why screen women for breast cancer regularly (as in the UK) when you can just wait until it's beyond treatment, saves long term care right? Why screen over 50's for bowel cancer regularly (as in the UK) when you can wait until it is terminal and put them in a charity ward to be a drain on resources rather than a tax paying worker. The US can do without their tax contribution right?

Why give people appointments with doctors for basic health checks that can flag up potential heart disease, a major killer in the USA. What a waste of time getting people healthy enough to work for a living. Better that they stay at home on welfare rather than getting the health care they need, saves you having to look at them.....

..... <carries on for several more pages>......

I just don't get the mentality of people who are so 'me me me' and don't look at the world around them.

 

[joolz]

Locally, we're also getting the "Missouri doesn't need government-controlled health care" ads.
Just more big lie tactics, along with the "clean coal" ads.

I presume you can find out who is funding those? I'd be 99% sure that medical insurance companies are giving some of their vast profits to the cause when the money could be used to treat people instead

 

[RandFan]

I just don't get the mentality of people who are so 'me me me' and don't look at the world around them.

It's a degree of solipsism. I think we all suffer it. Our ability to feel empathy or indignation at the idea that someone, somewhere, is getting something for nothing waxes and wanes. Then there is the religious like belief in social Darwinism. Never mind that we evolved to be a social species. Though I will admit that there is value in personal responsibility and incentive to be industrious and careful with one's resources. It's just that there is no reason to think the options are binary.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Locally, we're also getting the "Missouri doesn't need government-controlled health care" ads.
Just more big lie tactics, along with the "clean coal" ads.

I presume you can find out who is funding those? I'd be 99% sure that medical insurance companies are giving some of their vast profits to the cause when the money could be used to treat people instead

I'm also in St. Louis, and I've seen a U.S. Chamber of Commerce ad against Claire McCaskill making the claims that have long been debunked (see also Bri's post with the PolitiFact debunking above): "Obamacare will kill jobs" and "government-run healthcare".

I've seen it very often already.

I've seen the "clean coal" propaganda before too, and it's usually paid for by Peabody or the utility companies--but I haven't seen it recently, and it's not the topic of this thread. (They really took control of a symposium at Wash U a year or so ago that was ostensibly on energy alternatives but was almost entirely a paid advertisement for "clean coal".)

 

[joolz]

It's a degree of solipsism. I think we all suffer it. Our ability to feel empathy or indignation at the idea that someone, somewhere, is getting something for nothing waxes and wanes. Then there is the religious like belief in social Darwinism. Never mind that we evolved to be a social species. Though I will admit that there is value in personal responsibility and incentive to be industrious and careful with one's resources. It's just that there is no reason to think the options are binary.

Yes, I see your point. I usually consider our Health Service from a social care perspective. I have, however, looked at it again and I can still see that, in the case of health, helping others is also a way to help yourself (a) more people healthy = more people working = more paying taxes = less burden on you and (b) getting together to have a non-profitmaking health system = more money on healthcare = more resources for you. So even selfish people should be able to see the advantages, shouldn't they? Or do you think there is something fundamentally more selfish about USA-ers than people in other countries? I don't think that's the case myself, but I may be wrong. Personally, from the outside, it looks like many of them have been indoctrinated to believe that working together for the good of the country = socialism = automatically bad - so they don't even look at the basic facts, as evidenced by several posts here.

You could say that for me, agreeing to pay into the NHS is even a bit 'me me me'. When I get elderly I know it will be there for me, even though I won't have kids paying into it. I don't think of it that way myself, I believe it's for the common good. Not just for health either, but for unemployment (to get back to the OP ). More healthcare = more hospitals = more nurses = more porters = more builders = more maintenance people = more medication production = stimulation of the economy etc etc.

So, whatever your politics, I think proper health care makes sense.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Or do you think there is something fundamentally more selfish about USA-ers than people in other countries?

Well, there is definitely a history of the idea of rugged individualism and pulling oneself up by one's bootstraps here.

But it's certainly not an inherent part of our system of government. The very purpose of our federal government (expressed in the Preamble to the Constitution) includes the idea of collective goals. (Common defense, general welfare, secure the blessings of liberty, etc.)

 

[RandFan]

Yes, I see your point. I usually consider our Health Service from a social care perspective. I have, however, looked at it again and I can still see that, in the case of health, helping others is also a way to help yourself (a) more people healthy = more people working = more paying taxes = less burden on you and (b) getting together to have a non-profitmaking health system = more money on healthcare = more resources for you. So even selfish people should be able to see the advantages, shouldn't they? Or do you think there is something fundamentally more selfish about USA-ers than people in other countries? I don't think that's the case myself, but I may be wrong. Personally, from the outside, it looks like many of them have been indoctrinated to believe that working together for the good of the country = socialism = automatically bad - so they don't even look at the basic facts, as evidenced by several posts here.

You could say that for me, agreeing to pay into the NHS is even a bit 'me me me'. When I get elderly I know it will be there for me, even though I won't have kids paying into it. I don't think of it that way myself, I believe it's for the common good. Not just for health either, but for unemployment (to get back to the OP ). More healthcare = more hospitals = more nurses = more porters = more builders = more maintenance people = more medication production = stimulation of the economy etc etc.

So, whatever your politics, I think proper health care makes sense.

Oh, there's no question. Hey, I was a long time conservative. I couldn't see that forest for the trees. I had to have the data hit me over the head. We are a social species. There is a synergistic effect to cooperation and lots of people don't want to settle for the minimum safety net. There will always be incentive to have more.

I say go for it.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

They are shocking statistics for the USA. I guess a lot of the extra costs you pay just end up in the pockets of the insurance companies. From posts on another Travis thread it sounds like your costs are highly inflated at the point of sale. Just imagine how wonderful it would be if you could spend all the extra $$$ on doctors, nurses and hospitals.

I don't understand why you need insurance companies involved, that is always going to take some of the money out of health care resources. Better to all put money into a central fund and spend 100% of it on making people healthy. Like the NHS here.

The US system has excessive overhead. Most health insurance in the US (other than for those covered by the govt. programs Medicare and Medicaid) is purchased by companies for their employees. Health insurance companies in the US don't have a fixed set of plans that they market. Instead, each employer individually negotiates for coverage with 1 or more insurance companies, since all but very small companies provide several choices of coverage at various prices. This means that it takes employees from the company buying the insurance and employees from the insurance company to negotiate the plan. These employees do not work for free.

Because every employer's plan is different, even for employers that purchase insurance from the same insurance company, medical providers have to employ people to sort out what every individual patient's health insurance covers, what every individual patient's health insurance plan requires in terms of advanced approval before certain procedures are performed, how much of each of a set of treatment options will be covered by a particular insurance plan, etc. And the insurance companies have to employ people to determine whether a claim is covered, what percentage of the cost is covered, and whether there is a co-pay or deductible by the specific policy that the individual is covered under, since the insurance company has literally thousands of different coverage plans. So there is still more money spent on administering the plan.

 

[joolz]

Well, there is definitely a history of the idea of rugged individualism and pulling oneself up by one's bootstraps here.

But it's certainly not an inherent part of our system of government. The very purpose of our federal government (expressed in the Preamble to the Constitution) includes the idea of collective goals. (Common defense, general welfare, secure the blessings of liberty, etc.)

Yes, you have the pioneering spirit and you certainly had a tough time getting out from under the UK. Scotland is about to try and follow your lead on the latter

I've never read your constitution right through, I probably should. I would have thought that 'general welfare' would include health but that could be a whole new thread.

I suppose federalism does make it harder to agree something. I can empathise with that as the Health Services in the UK are split by country and Scotland has a better service than England as our government believes in the NHS, whereas the UK government want to farm more of the English National Health Service out to private firms. I won't go into our politics on that, but you could possibly have a national health service in the USA with some federal variations.

Quite a few English people have expressed jealousy at the Scots system, so maybe you need a few states to start it up and then others would maybe follow when they see the benefits?

 

[joolz]

Oh, there's no question. Hey, I was a long time conservative. I couldn't see that forest for the trees. I had to have the data hit me over the head. We are a social species. There is a synergistic effect to cooperation and lots of people don't want to settle for the minimum safety net. There will always be incentive to have more.

I say go for it.

So there is hope for people to figure it all out, you've made my day RandFan!