Obamacare...(new title): GOP DEATH PLAN: Don-Ryan's Express

[twa]

Are there also other costs from ACA?

 

http://freebeacon.com/new-report-finds-western-michigan-has-1000-fewer-jobs-due-to-obamacare/

 

 New Report Finds Western Michigan Has At Least 1,000 Fewer Jobs Due To Obamacare

[chipwhich]

Are there also other costs from ACA?

 

http://freebeacon.com/new-report-finds-western-michigan-has-1000-fewer-jobs-due-to-obamacare/

 

 New Report Finds Western Michigan Has At Least 1,000 Fewer Jobs Due To Obamacare

 

I tried to explain this to Larry the other day.

[Larry]

Are there also other costs from ACA?

http://freebeacon.com/new-report-finds-western-michigan-has-1000-fewer-jobs-due-to-obamacare/

New Report Finds Western Michigan Has At Least 1,000 Fewer Jobs Due To Obamacare

Is there a point in this post that you're willing to actually state?

I mean, other than "right wing blog claims that a study, which they haven't linked to or even identified the source of, says something"?

I've just checked the BLS statistics, for national employment. And they're showing the same steady growth that's been going on, pretty much since the recession ended. Although, the numbers for November and December are still projections. The actual numbers aren't known yet.

[twa]

As far as I'm aware a news station is not a right wing blog....and the video gives you the study access and academic source

 

my point is simply there are far reaching consequences of the ACA....I thought a actual study might be educational rather than objectionable  

 

I would also link the studies mentioned here but I'm too lazy to find it

 

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/08/health-reform-and-employment

 

Last month Mr Obama delayed the employer mandate by a year, to give firms time to comply. For the moment, large firms that already cover workers are unlikely to stop doing so, predicts Mercer. But coverage is changing nonetheless. Many firms are making workers pay more of their health bills. Obamacare includes a tax on generous health plans, starting in 2018, which is making some employers reconsider lush benefits. Unions, which fought for them, are livid. At the other extreme, some low-paid workers may want their employers to drop insurance, so they can receive subsidies on the exchanges.

More worrying, though, is the possibility that Obamacare may kill jobs. In 2010 the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected that it would shrink employment by 0.5%. The law’s many provisions would pull in opposite directions. Some would raise employment, the CBO predicted. For example, by expanding Medicaid (health care for the poor) to those with higher incomes, Obamacare would remove a disincentive to work. People who might have turned down extra work for fear of losing their Medicaid would now take it, ran the argument.

Other provisions would reduce employment. Partly, this would be because employers like Mr Clark will cut jobs and hours to avoid being subject to the law. (Unions publicly fret about the threat to the 40-hour week.) But mostly, the CBO thinks it would be because people will choose to work less. Obamacare’s subsidies will boost the finances of poor workers; they may therefore work fewer hours. After examining patterns of employment and subsidised insurance in Tennessee, Craig Garthwaite of Northwestern University and his colleagues estimate that Obamacare’s subsidies will prompt up to 940,000 workers to leave the labour force. Many will be older people, keen to retire early.

Another concern is that Obamacare will lower wages. For example, if firms that do not now offer insurance comply with the mandate, their costs will jump. Nearly 60% of such firms say they will offer coverage, according to Mercer. As health costs rise, they may pay their staff less. A study in Massachusetts found that, roughly speaking, every extra dollar spent on insurance comes out of wages.

 

 

add

 

while you are checking the BLS you should check the plunging participation rate.....numbers are only as good as the metrics used

Edited January 20, 2014 by twa

[Larry]

Agreed, raising the costs of labor is pretty much guaranteed to have have some effect on employment.

How much of one is no doubt hard to say. But 0.5% is certainly a really small number. I certainly have neither the credibility nor the desire to claim it's too BIG. (My gut says it may be too small).

I do see. Your link is to the Washington Free Beacon, an Internet "newspaper" which says it was founded in '12, for the purpose of providing news which the Liberal Media isn't covering. But it contains a video from a TV news station. (I didn't watch the video. I read the article.).

Edited January 20, 2014 by Larry

[twa]

Agreed, raising the costs of labor is pretty much guaranteed to have have some effect on employment.

How much of one is no doubt hard to say. But 0.5% is certainly a really small number. I certainly have neither the credibility nor the desire to claim it's too BIG. (My gut says it may be too small).

 

 

 

That is why I found a study looking at results instead of projections interesting.....of course it will vary across different areas

 

of course it might encourage more early retirement,which could help ...or hurt (it certainly is tempting me)

[Larry]

That is why I found a study looking at results instead of projections interesting.....of course it will vary across different areas

I'd be willing to bet you, right now, that your study doesn't look at results, it looks at projections.

That he's not saying "there are 1,000 fewer jobs, right now, than there were, a month ago, and all of them were caused by Obamacare, and nothing else". He's saying "I have this theory that says that my imaginary, Obamacare-free world, has 1,000 more jobs than the real world has".

Granted, often, when dealing with real-world phenomena, projections and theories are the best we can come up with. But, it also makes them very easy to manipulate and fudge to produce a desired result.

[twa]

I haven't read the report but the way she talked it was from talking directly to the employers in that area about what they have already done and decided to do.

 I'll try to look at it later

[Larry]

I haven't read the report but the way she talked it was from talking directly to the employers in that area about what they have already done and decided to do.

I'll try to look at it later

Oh, well, then.

If we talk to people who are using Obamacare as an excuse to do something they want to do, anyway, assume that the claim they're making is true, and then extrapolate that to assume that everybody else is actually doing what those selected people claim to be doing, . . .

Then that's looking at actual results, isn't it?

[HeyHeyHey]

Freebeacon is right wing propaganda. Commonly linked to by Drudge.

[twa]

Larry ...Why do you hate the educated elite and their studies? 

 

perhaps you could at least listen to what she said or read the report before calling her a dumb hack.

Freebeacon is right wing propaganda. Commonly linked to by Drudge.

 

Is the local TV station and college professor also right wing propaganda?

 

Just want to know ya'lls criteria for the next thing ya put up.

[Larry]

Larry ...Why do you hate the educated elite and their studies? 

 

perhaps you could at least listen to what she said or read the report before calling her a dumb hack.

 

Perhaps you could

 

1)  Provide a link to this study.

2)  Quote me calling her a dumb hack.  (Or even referencing a "her".) 

[Wrong Direction]

From a conservative think tank. I'm posting this because of some of the specifics he mentions. 

 

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/obamacare-significant-risk-death-spiral-economist-warns

 

Obamacare At ‘Significant’ Risk of ‘Death Spiral,’ Economist Warns 

...

 

“That’s what we’re seeing so far,” Goodman told CNSNews.com. “Over half of all the people who enrolled are above the age of 45, and older people are more expensive [to insure]. We’re also seeing 20 percent of the people who are enrolling are going for the gold or platinum plans. Those people tend to be sick. They’re buying the more comprehensive plans because they plan to use a lot of health care.”

According to figures released this week by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, only 24 percent of the 2.2 million people who have already signed up for Obamacare are between the ages of 18 and 34, just a little more than half of the 40 percent  the administration admitted it needed to keep premiums affordable.

...

 

CNSNews.com asked Goodman whether he agreed with Washington  Post columnist Ezra Klein, who argues that “the risk of a ‘death spiral’ is over.” He replied:

“Well, no, and it turns out that 80 percent of all the people who signed up so far are getting subsidies. Well, they need lots of people who have higher incomes and who aren’t going to get subsidies. And if those people are unwilling to pay the high premiums that are being charged, then they’re in trouble. …Everybody is worried, and no one’s keeping the fact that they’re worried a secret,” Goodman added.

...

“Over the next three months, the federal government will end its risk pool and all the state governments will end theirs, and then all those people who are high-cost enrollees, they will go into the exchanges. And then there are cities and towns like Detroit, that have made promises of post-retirement care and they’re not funded, and so Detroit’s planning on sending all of its retirees to the exchange, and lots of other cities will do the same thing….”

“And then the Obama administration’s apparently going to allow hospitals and AIDS clinics to enroll people on the spot,” Goodman told CNSNews.com. “So if a hospital had a patient who’s having heart surgery, for example, that hospital is going to be able to get him enrolled in a private plan in the exchange to shift the cost over to that insurer. Apparently the hospital can actually pay the premium for the individual.

 

[twa]

Perhaps you could

 

1)  Provide a link to this study.

2)  Quote me calling her a dumb hack.  (Or even referencing a "her".) 

 

(1)The link was given on the tv station video....and hosted by the TV site (I can;t do video right now)

 

(2) I paraphrased  .... 

[Larry]

Re: WD's article pointing out that over half of enrolees are over age 45.

I just went to the us census web site. Called up their data on population by age. I then threw out the population under age 18 and over 65, because those people aren't part of obamacare's demographic. And I think it says that the median age of what's left is a bit over 40.

But I'm on my iPhone, in my car, doing math in my head. Might be wrong.

I would also assert that the article's blissful way of asserting that anybody who signs up for the so-called Gold Plan is sick is a real hoot.

Granted, just personal anecdote, but my current plan is considerably better than the exchange's so-called Platinum level. And my total health care consumption, in the 10 years I've been insured, is like four doctor check ups.

[chipwhich]

Granted, just personal anecdote, but my current plan is considerably better than the exchange's so-called Platinum level. And my total health care consumption, in the 10 years I've been insured, is like four doctor check ups.

 

How would you know if your current plan is "considerably better" than Platinum plans and what defines better?

[Larry]

How would you know if your current plan is "considerably better" than Platinum plans and what defines better?

My plan has a $1,000 deductible, and pays 90% of everything after that.

[twa]

Larry

http://www.gvsu.edu/cms3/assets/BC9DC8F6-CA01-42F0-CDF485219B879BDD/gvsuhealthtrendsallweb_508.pdf

 

http://mibiz.com/item/21231-business-owners-already-reacting-to-aca-gvsu-survey-shows

 

Other results from the GVSU survey about the ACA included:

• 40 percent of respondents said they were considering passing along to employees the costs of adhering to mandates in the law and 48 percent said they already had.

• 41 percent were considering transitioning to a high-deductible health plan and 36 percent had previously made the change.

• About 81 percent of the employers in the four-county region that answered the survey offered employee health coverage for 2014. Just 60 percent said they intend to continue offering coverage in 2015, when a $2,000 per-employee penalty takes effect for employers with 50 or more full-time employees that do not offer coverage.

“The Affordable Care Act has created uncertainty for firms going forward — making it hard to understand implications at the firm level,” states the Health Check report. “Interestingly, firms with (between) 50 and 250 employees are more likely to be undecided about their future insurance coverage. This is probably because the decision is relatively easy for small firms, and large firms are better able to research the best possible outcomes. This uncertainty for the firms and their workers may make them more cautious in hiring and investment.”

• 22 percent of respondents reduced hiring plans for the next 12 months and 21 percent were considering it.
“That’s showing it’s even slowing down our economy right now as firms are trying to adjust and move away from exposure to the cost of the ACA,” Isely said. “It’s very clear.”

• 29 percent of respondents reduced or limited the hours of part-time employees to avoid the ACA’s mandate for employers with 50 or more full-time employees to offer health coverage to those who work an average of 30 hours or more per week. Twenty-two percent were considering it.

“As firms limit hiring and expansion plans, the growth of the region will be slowed,” the Health Check report states. “This is compounded by the fact that firms seem to be spending considerable time and resources to adjust to the changes in the law that might have been spent on other productive outcomes.”

- See more at: http://mibiz.com/item/21231-business-owners-already-reacting-to-aca-gvsu-survey-shows#sthash.jHEFRmWW.dpuf

 

red is done ,blue is considering if that helps

[Larry]

Larry

http://www.gvsu.edu/cms3/assets/BC9DC8F6-CA01-42F0-CDF485219B879BDD/gvsuhealthtrendsallweb_508.pdf

 

http://mibiz.com/item/21231-business-owners-already-reacting-to-aca-gvsu-survey-shows

Thank you. And I will freely admit that it certainly looks much more like a real study than what I expected.

Pointing out that "22 percent of respondents reduced hiring plans for the next 12 months and 21 percent were considering it." doesn't indicate fewer jobs, it indicates (possibly) fewer new hires.

But that's far from the only point they made, and it's certainly not sufficient to dismiss the study.

I have to at least assume that this is a valid estimate. I'm certainly not qualified to dispute it.

[twa]

Target announces it will drop part-time employees from its healthcare plan

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/196042-target-to-drop-part-time-employees-from#ixzz2r6OZRBtg 
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

 

In a blog post on the company’s website, Jodee Kozlak, the executive vice president of human resources, framed it as a positive development for part-time employees of the company.

“The Health Insurance Marketplaces provides new options for healthcare coverage that we believe our part-time members may prefer,” she wrote. “In fact, by offering them insurance, we could actually disqualify many of them from being eligible for newly available subsidies that could reduce their overall health insurance expense.”

Kozlak added that at present, fewer than 10 percent of part-time employees that are eligible have actually enrolled in the company’s healthcare plan.

“Our decision to discontinue this benefit comes after careful consideration of the impact to our stores’ part-time team members and to Target, the new options available for our part-time team, and the historically low number of team members who elected to enroll in the part-time plan,” Kozlak continued.

The company’s new policy goes into effect on April 1, 2014. Consumers have until mid-March to sign up for ObamaCare to be eligible for coverage this year.

Target said it has a transition program in place to “minimize any disruption and reduce confusion” for those who will no longer be eligible for the company’s healthcare plan. 

The company will provide a $500 cash payment to employees losing coverage, as well as access to a benefits consultant.

Target stressed the company would not be reducing hours for any employees. 

 

[Larry]

Don't know why, maybe it's just that I have a generally good opinion of Target, but this sounds like it may actually be a positive move for said employees.

I'm ASSUMING that what they were offering wasn't very good. (Based on the low numbers participating). And the cash payout doesn't make it look like they're just doing it to take money away from their employees.

[twa]

it certainly can be a positive, not sure about for the taxpayers that will subsidize them.

 

it will be interesting to see if Target pays the fine(delayed mandate)...or adjusts

[Larry]

it certainly can be a positive, not sure about for the taxpayers that will subsidize them.

it will be interesting to see if Target pays the fine(delayed mandate)...or adjusts

What fine? They aren't required to offer anything at all, o part time employees.

[twa]

What fine? They aren't required to offer anything at all, o part time employees.

30+ hours are covered under the last IRS ruling I have seen...under 40 is part time in normal terms

[twa]

my ACA experience so far....skipping the website problems

 

stlll have not received a copy of the policy

 

still have not received ID cards

 

I have received two months bills though 

 

Wife goes to the Dr,and after they spend 3 hrs on the phone it is determined she must first go to another Dr to be allowed to go to her Dr (her Dr is in their network) 

 

I eagerly await her pharmacy experience and her choosing a new Dr so she can see her other Dr (the network provider finder online is actually working)

 

the hours spent trying to get anything done on the phone on our own are just gravy.

 

She did convince her Dr to renew her prescriptions w/o the normal yearly tests and exam.....so maybe she will live

 

Thankfully I went with the ins company she chose ......she can't blame me at least