Obamacare and Employment

[william the wie]

I am reasonably certain that most people have read either the bill or an analysis of it that points out 30 hours a week is the healthcare coverage definition of full time employee and that the bill is more expensive for businesses with more than 50 FTEs. That will affect employment but I was wondering about the unemployment it is designed to create:

Medical records are being computerized in order to create unemployment in the following areas:

By reducing clerical employment relative to the number of caregivers.

By analysis of outcomes to eliminate useless/harmful procedures, medications and perhaps caregivers.

By reducing the amount of time spent on clerical work by caregivers so they can treat more patients.

Since medical care is about 1/6th of the economy a 50-60% reduction in costs (medical employment ) should be possible through rationalization. If the cost containment advisory board gets a budget that permits it to become the medical equivalent of DARPA at DOD efficacy and efficiency could go off the charts.

So, I was wondering what percentage of medical unemployment you expect to be created by Obamacare.

 

[waltky]

Anger that illegal 'Dreamers' left out of Obamacare...

Young immigrants shut out of health reform
Tuesday, February 19, 2013 - California's young immigrants who have been granted reprieves to stay in the country stand to gain little from the federal health reform law that the state Legislature is working to implement.

The Affordable Care Act excludes illegal immigrants from accessing the law's benefits, but some immigrant and health advocates are angry that the young people known as Dreamers have been left out, saying the policy contradicts the law's intent of expanding coverage to more people. "It really defeats what the goals of the ACA were to begin with," said Sonal Ambegaokar, health policy attorney at the National Immigration Law Center. The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which was announced in June, allows people who were brought into the United States when they were young to stay for two years if they pursue education or military service. The young people eligible for the program are known as Dreamers, in reference to the proposed Dream Act - legislation that would give them a path to citizenship.

More than a quarter of the 1.76 million people who are or will be eligible to apply for DACA - about 460,000 immigrants - live in California, according to an August 2012 Migration Policy Institute report. After the DACA program was announced, the Obama administration clarified the policy, specifying that people to whom DACA applies will not qualify for Medicaid now or as the health law is implemented. And while many Americans will receive subsidies to buy insurance through their state's exchanges - the insurance marketplaces established by the Affordable Care Act - people granted DACA approval will not be able to purchase coverage through those exchanges even with their own money.

Jirayut "New" Latthivongskorn (center) is joined by Nalleli Sandoval (left) and Angel Ku at a forum at UC Berkeley's Multicultural Community Center. Latthivongskorn is a Dreamer who is blocked from participating in the Affordable Care Act.

Rule questioned

Critics say the rule does not make sense. They argue that people approved for the program are lawfully present in the country, but when it comes to health care, they are treated as undocumented immigrants and will face a harder time finding coverage. "It's really unfortunate," said Ronald Coleman, the California Immigrant Policy Center's government affairs manager. "These are individuals that are going to be paying taxes; they are getting work permits." Providing DACA grantees with Medicaid coverage - known as Medi-Cal in California - or giving them subsidies to buy insurance would increase costs for the state and federal governments, especially as the state expands Medi-Cal coverage. Some conservatives also attack attempts to offer immigrants access to the benefits of health reform - a law they disdain in the first place.

People approved for DACA can still buy private insurance and can acquire health coverage through their employers. And while federal law requires that emergency services be offered to all, states and counties can provide additional benefits for people with different immigration statuses. California, for example, covers limited breast and cervical cancer treatments and prenatal care for undocumented immigrants, according to the state Department of Health Care Services. And San Francisco provides Healthy San Francisco benefits regardless of immigration status.

Dreamer wonders why

 

[waltky]

Granny says, "Dat's right - mum's the word...

Boehner Won't Say if GOP Has Any Plans to Curtail Any Part of Obamacare in Must-Pass Legislation
March 7, 2013 – House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) would not say on Wednesday whether the Republican House leadership has any plans to curtail or de-fund any aspect of Obamacare in any must-pass legislation in this Congress.

This is despite the fact that Boehner himself declared a year ago that an Obamacare regulation requiring health-care plans to provide cost-free coverage for sterilizations, contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs was an unconstitutional violation of the free exercise of religion and that Congress would not let it stand. At his Capitol Hill press conference on Thursday, CNSNews.com asked Speaker Boehner, “Are there any provisions that will curtail any aspects of Obamacare that you intend to attach to any must-pass legislation in this Congress? If so, what are they?"

Boehner responded: “The House believes that Obamacare will drive up the costs of health insurance in America, make it more difficult for employers to provide it. We have voted several times to defund Obamacare. I am sure we will again this year.” However, under Boehner's leadership, the House or Representatives has never attached a provision to a must-pass federal funding bill that actually defunded Obamacare. All the must-pass funding bills approved by the House during Boehner's speakership have permitted funding for the implementation of Obamacare.

“There are other provisions in Obamacare that are having an effect on employers today," Boehner continued. "You know, the employer mandate starts January. But there are look-back procedures in the law that are effecting the way that employers hire their staff today. And so there are a lot of effects of Obamacare that we’re already starting to see. The House, I suspect, will have extensive oversight hearings on the devastating impact of this law on the American people.”

CNSNews.com asked again, “Will those efforts, to defund it again, go into must-pass bills?” Boehner said, “We’ll take a look at each of these opportunities when we get there.” Another reporter then asked, “Will it go into the budget?” Boehner, frowning and opening his hands, said, “Ask Paul Ryan. I don’t know.” Ryan (R-Wisc.) is the chairman of the House Budget Committee.

MORE

 

[editec]

I am reasonably certain that most people have read either the bill or an analysis of it that points out 30 hours a week is the healthcare coverage definition of full time employee and that the bill is more expensive for businesses with more than 50 FTEs. That will affect employment but I was wondering about the unemployment it is designed to create:

Medical records are being computerized in order to create unemployment in the following areas:

By reducing clerical employment relative to the number of caregivers.

By analysis of outcomes to eliminate useless/harmful procedures, medications and perhaps caregivers.

By reducing the amount of time spent on clerical work by caregivers so they can treat more patients.

Since medical care is about 1/6th of the economy a 50-60% reduction in costs (medical employment ) should be possible through rationalization. If the cost containment advisory board gets a budget that permits it to become the medical equivalent of DARPA at DOD efficacy and efficiency could go off the charts.

So, I was wondering what percentage of medical unemployment you expect to be created by Obamacare.

I think your basic premise is wrong.

Had we gone with Single Payer Universal Health care, there'd have been massive layoffs of HC insurance companies.

Instead we got the ACA "solution".

I think if anything this will increase the number of people HC insurance companies need to have.

AFter all, million of people who formerly has no insurance (the young mostly) will now HAVE be buy insurance from private HC companies.

How is that going to cause unemployment?

Maybe I am missing something obvious.

If so explain it to me.

Thanks in advance for helping me understand this complex law.

 

[william the wie]

I am reasonably certain that most people have read either the bill or an analysis of it that points out 30 hours a week is the healthcare coverage definition of full time employee and that the bill is more expensive for businesses with more than 50 FTEs. That will affect employment but I was wondering about the unemployment it is designed to create:

Medical records are being computerized in order to create unemployment in the following areas:

By reducing clerical employment relative to the number of caregivers.

By analysis of outcomes to eliminate useless/harmful procedures, medications and perhaps caregivers.

By reducing the amount of time spent on clerical work by caregivers so they can treat more patients.

Since medical care is about 1/6th of the economy a 50-60% reduction in costs (medical employment ) should be possible through rationalization. If the cost containment advisory board gets a budget that permits it to become the medical equivalent of DARPA at DOD efficacy and efficiency could go off the charts.

So, I was wondering what percentage of medical unemployment you expect to be created by Obamacare.

I think your basic premise is wrong.

Had we gone with Single Payer Universal Health care, there'd have been massive layoffs of HC insurance companies.

Instead we got the ACA "solution".

I think if anything this will increase the number of people HC insurance companies need to have.

AFter all, million of people who formerly has no insurance (the young mostly) will now HAVE be buy insurance from private HC companies.

How is that going to cause unemployment?

Maybe I am missing something obvious.

If so explain it to me.

Thanks in advance for helping me understand this complex law.

First demand:

The 29.5 hour rule, anyone working 30 or more hours per week must be covered. because of the method of computation of 30 hours accountants call it the 29.5 hour rule.

The 50 employee rule, at over 50 employees paperwork and penalties increase.

The spousal rule. Children upto I believe age 23 are required to be covered, spouses are not.

Medicare reimbursement has been cut so fewer doctors and hospitals are accepting medicare patients.

The fines associated with non-coverage are substantial and state fines/criminal penalties are likely, to cover the uninsured that use state/local medical care.

The number of uninsured are likely to go up under Obamacare and preventative care is likely to be skipped causing increased costs. (All illegals are not covered. Coverage for spouses, temp workers, contract workers and parttime workers through insurance pools and exchanges are not affordable in most states at actual income.)

Then there is supply.

The affordable in Affordable Healthcare Act refers mostly to reducing headcount in health care.

Reduction in non-efficacious procedures while a positive in the longrun will cause 2-3 years of lower medical revenues.

Switching to computerized medical records is supposed to increase throughput in addition to reducing clerical employment.

I would recommend a check of the CNBC and Bloomberg websites to keep track of the headcount and hours reductions as they happen. I have yet to see a summary of cumulative changes.

 

[waltky]

Most of new hiring was by the government...

Government Employed 92,000 Additional People in May
June 7, 2013 – The unemployment rate for government workers rose for the first time since January, standing at 3.8 percent in May, up from 3.3 percent in April. But at the same time, the total number of government workers in the United States increased by 92,000.

There were 20,361,000 total government workers in May, up from 20,269,000 in April. The increase in government workers happened at the state and local level, not the federal level. Federal government payrolls actually declined by 14,000 in May. “Over the past 3 months, federal government employment has decreased by 45,000,” BLS said. In July 2012, the unemployment rate for government workers was as high as 5.7 percent, according to the BLS. The rate has generally declined since then.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics counts someone as a government worker if they are not in the military and they are currently employed by any level of government—local, state or federal—or they are unemployed, they are looking for work, and their last job was for any level of government. The overall national unemployment rate increased 0.1 percent in May to 7.6 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The number of Americans “not in the labor force” declined for the second month in a row in May, however, the 89,705,000 who were not in the labor force in May was still enough to fill every Major League Baseball stadium simultaneously, 69 times. The 30 MLB stadiums have a total capacity of 1,299,271. In other words, the 89,705,000 Americans not in the labor force would fill the stadiums 69 times over, with each venue experiencing a sellout crowd at the same time. After hitting a record high of 89,967,000 in March, the number of Americans not in the labor force declined in April to 89,936,000. April’s decline was the first time since December.

Since February 2009, the first full month of Obama’s presidency, 9,318,000 people have left the labor force. There were 80,387,000 Americans not working that month, compared with 89,705,000 not working or looking today, according to the latest economic release from BLS. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) labels people who are not employed and have not actually sought a job in the past four weeks as “not in the labor force." That includes both people who have retired and those who have simply given up looking for work.

Black Unemployment Rises

 

[Rshermr]

I am reasonably certain that most people have read either the bill or an analysis of it that points out 30 hours a week is the healthcare coverage definition of full time employee and that the bill is more expensive for businesses with more than 50 FTEs. That will affect employment but I was wondering about the unemployment it is designed to create:

Medical records are being computerized in order to create unemployment in the following areas:

By reducing clerical employment relative to the number of caregivers.

By analysis of outcomes to eliminate useless/harmful procedures, medications and perhaps caregivers.

By reducing the amount of time spent on clerical work by caregivers so they can treat more patients.

Since medical care is about 1/6th of the economy a 50-60% reduction in costs (medical employment ) should be possible through rationalization. If the cost containment advisory board gets a budget that permits it to become the medical equivalent of DARPA at DOD efficacy and efficiency could go off the charts.

So, I was wondering what percentage of medical unemployment you expect to be created by Obamacare.

I think your basic premise is wrong.

Had we gone with Single Payer Universal Health care, there'd have been massive layoffs of HC insurance companies.

Instead we got the ACA "solution".

I think if anything this will increase the number of people HC insurance companies need to have.

AFter all, million of people who formerly has no insurance (the young mostly) will now HAVE be buy insurance from private HC companies.

How is that going to cause unemployment?

Maybe I am missing something obvious.

If so explain it to me.

Thanks in advance for helping me understand this complex law.

First demand:

The 29.5 hour rule, anyone working 30 or more hours per week must be covered. because of the method of computation of 30 hours accountants call it the 29.5 hour rule.

The 50 employee rule, at over 50 employees paperwork and penalties increase.

The spousal rule. Children upto I believe age 23 are required to be covered, spouses are not.

Medicare reimbursement has been cut so fewer doctors and hospitals are accepting medicare patients.

The fines associated with non-coverage are substantial and state fines/criminal penalties are likely, to cover the uninsured that use state/local medical care.

The number of uninsured are likely to go up under Obamacare and preventative care is likely to be skipped causing increased costs. (All illegals are not covered. Coverage for spouses, temp workers, contract workers and parttime workers through insurance pools and exchanges are not affordable in most states at actual income.)

Then there is supply.

The affordable in Affordable Healthcare Act refers mostly to reducing headcount in health care.

Reduction in non-efficacious procedures while a positive in the longrun will cause 2-3 years of lower medical revenues.

Switching to computerized medical records is supposed to increase throughput in addition to reducing clerical employment.

I would recommend a check of the CNBC and Bloomberg websites to keep track of the headcount and hours reductions as they happen. I have yet to see a summary of cumulative changes.

So, as I understand it, you have no proof of anything that you are saying.
That would be because your premise is spacious.
There are no indications that the ACA will affect the ue rate in any real way.
Stupid idea.

 

[itfitzme]

about the unemployment it is designed to create:

Medical records are being computerized in order to create unemployment in the following areas:

Really, that was the plan all along, to create unemployment?

It's just like the auto-industry with their damned robotic assembly lines, Caterpillar with it's huge backhoes, and Microsoft's PC that created huge efficiency leaps and eliminated hundreds of thouands of jobs.

Will they stop at nothing!?

What we need are more VA style programs that ensure jobs for thousands of people, digging through piles of paper records.

Damn those "efficiency experts."

Well, at least we will have healthy unemployeed people.

 

[itfitzme]

Maybe these will help.

TITLE V--HEALTH CARE WORKFORCE
Subtitle B--Innovations in the Health Care Workforce
Sec. 5102. State health care workforce development grants.
Subtitle C--Increasing the Supply of the Health Care Workforce
Sec. 5201. Federally supported student loan funds.
Sec. 5202. Nursing student loan program.
Sec. 5203. Health care workforce loan repayment programs.
Sec. 5204. Public health workforce recruitment and retention programs.
Sec. 5205. Allied health workforce recruitment and retention programs.
Sec. 5206. Grants for State and local programs.
Sec. 5207. Funding for National Health Service Corps.
Sec. 5208. Nurse-managed health clinics.
Sec. 5209. Elimination of cap on commissioned corps.
Sec. 5210. Establishing a Ready Reserve Corps.
Subtitle D--Enhancing Health Care Workforce Education and Training
Sec. 5301. Training in family medicine, general internal medicine, general pediatrics, and physician assistantship.
Sec. 5302. Training opportunities for direct care workers.
Sec. 5303. Training in general, pediatric, and public health dentistry.
Sec. 5304. Alternative dental health care providers demonstration project.
Sec. 5305. Geriatric education and training; career awards; comprehensive geriatric education.
Sec. 5306. Mental and behavioral health education and training grants.
Sec. 5307. Cultural competency, prevention, and public health and individuals with disabilities training.
Sec. 5308. Advanced nursing education grants.
Sec. 5309. Nurse education, practice, and retention grants.
Sec. 5310. Loan repayment and scholarship program.
Sec. 5311. Nurse faculty loan program.
Sec. 5313. Grants to promote the community health workforce.
Sec. 5314. Fellowship training in public health.
Sec. 5315. United States Public Health Sciences Track.

So, perhaps the idea is to shift the labor from pushing pieces of paper around to providing patient service.

In theory, it makes sense.

 

[KissMy]

2 of our doctors were only charging $40 a visit until they converted to computerized records. Then the price went up to $125 per visit.

Dr. Russell Dohner in Rushville, IL the town's doctor since 1955, charges his patients just $5, not for a co-pay but for the entire cost of a physician's visit. His office has no computer & only uses paper.

 

[itfitzme]

2 of our doctors were only charging $40 a visit until they converted to computerized records. Then the price went up to $125 per visit.

Dr. Russell Dohner in Rushville, IL the town's doctor since 1955, charges his patients just $5, not for a co-pay but for the entire cost of a physician's visit. His office has no computer & only uses paper.

Which makes no sense what so ever unless the story is missing a lot of other details.

 

[william the wie]

about the unemployment it is designed to create:

Medical records are being computerized in order to create unemployment in the following areas:

Really, that was the plan all along, to create unemployment?

It's just like the auto-industry with their damned robotic assembly lines, Caterpillar with it's huge backhoes, and Microsoft's PC that created huge efficiency leaps and eliminated hundreds of thouands of jobs.

Will they stop at nothing!?

What we need are more VA style programs that ensure jobs for thousands of people, digging through piles of paper records.

Damn those "efficiency experts."

Well, at least we will have healthy unemployeed people.

Exactly, the bill was designed to profit big Democratic party contributers such as big Pharma, IT and insurance companies

 

[Rshermr]

2 of our doctors were only charging $40 a visit until they converted to computerized records. Then the price went up to $125 per visit.

Dr. Russell Dohner in Rushville, IL the town's doctor since 1955, charges his patients just $5, not for a co-pay but for the entire cost of a physician's visit. His office has no computer & only uses paper.

Good. That proves why health care in the rest of the industrialized world costs half of what it does here, on average?? Must be it. No computers.
Except, of course, THEY DO HAVE COMPUTERS. And they are more automated than we are, on average.

 

[itfitzme]

about the unemployment it is designed to create:

Medical records are being computerized in order to create unemployment in the following areas:

Really, that was the plan all along, to create unemployment?

It's just like the auto-industry with their damned robotic assembly lines, Caterpillar with it's huge backhoes, and Microsoft's PC that created huge efficiency leaps and eliminated hundreds of thouands of jobs.

Will they stop at nothing!?

What we need are more VA style programs that ensure jobs for thousands of people, digging through piles of paper records.

Damn those "efficiency experts."

Well, at least we will have healthy unemployeed people.

Exactly, the bill was designed to profit big Democratic party contributers such as big Pharma, IT and insurance companies

Like the Adelson Drug Clinic, at $42,040,600? Or Blue Cross/Blue Shield, at $3,605,782? Or Mutual Pharmaceutical at $2,332,500 ?

 

[itfitzme]

Really, that was the plan all along, to create unemployment?

It's just like the auto-industry with their damned robotic assembly lines, Caterpillar with it's huge backhoes, and Microsoft's PC that created huge efficiency leaps and eliminated hundreds of thouands of jobs.

Will they stop at nothing!?

What we need are more VA style programs that ensure jobs for thousands of people, digging through piles of paper records.

Damn those "efficiency experts."

Well, at least we will have healthy unemployeed people.

Exactly, the bill was designed to profit big Democratic party contributers such as big Pharma, IT and insurance companies

Like the Adelson Drug Clinic, at $42,040,600? Or Blue Cross/Blue Shield, at $3,605,782? Or Mutual Pharmaceutical at $2,332,500 ?

Oops, sorry, those were major contributors to the Republican Party. Which contributors did you mean?

 

[william the wie]

Bill Gates in IT and Warren Buffet in insurance.

 

[itfitzme]

Oh, I see... You just made the premise up.

 

[william the wie]

Oh, I see... You just made the premise up.

No, I used to live in the DC suburbs. Every bill and regulation is bought and paid for on both sides of the aisle. And while some members of congress restrict their pay offs to constituents and employers of constituents, which is what they are supposed to do, and those types of payoffs are freely admitted major bills are not passed without someone taking a pay-off against the interests of their constituents. As the 2010 and to a lesser extent the 2012 election demonstrated this bill involved massive political incompetence and corruption on the Democratic side. If this bill does not walk on water starting 1/1/14 the 2014 election will be a massacre for the Ds for that very reason. But my source is a lawyer/writer who is thinking about putting together a team of 30 law students to set up a business selling law books and expertise on the bill. This week he admitted that this bill is going to be gutted from the political fallout and will be a dead letter in 2016.

A) the number of GPs required by the bill do not exist in most D states and many R states.
B) the number of LLC filings to bypass bill requirements are going way up.
C) the medicare refused percentage of physicians and hospitals are climbing rapidly.
D) you may have noticed that messageboard lawyers are saying very little if anything.

That adds up to political disaster.