* Obamacare Could Push 1 Million Americans From 'Work to Welfare'

[Doubletap]

By Paul Scicchitano Reason.com
Researchers have concluded that Obamacare may drive nearly one million Americans out of the workforce to take advantage of government-provided health benefits.

The findings, which were released this month, are higher than previous estimates by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which projected that as many as 800,000 people may leave their jobs once Obamacare takes effect.

“The CBO may be potentially underestimating the employment loss and it should think more carefully about that,” said Craig Garthwaite, an assistant professor of management and strategy at Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management, in an exclusive interview with Newsmax on Thursday.

House Speaker John Boehner, who has been a vociferous critic of the president’s signature healthcare law touted the study findings in a tweet this week: “Study: #ObamaCare could push nearly 1 million Americans from work to welfare.”

The study, which was published as a working paper by the National Bureau of Economic Research, examined the disenrollment of 170,000 Tennessee residents from the state’s TennCare program in 2005 and then applied the findings to U.S. data.

“What we see is that about half of those people end up with private health insurance within a period of a few months. And it’s primarily accomplished by moving into the labor force,” said Garthwaite, who also said that researchers noted a surge in Google searches related to the term “job openings” coinciding with the Tennessee disenrollment.

“In many ways you can think of this as like the Affordable Care Act in reverse,” according to Garthwaite, who authored the study along with Matthew J. Notowidigdo of the Book School of Business at the University of Chicago, and Tal Gross, of the School of Public Health at Columbia University.

“Instead of giving a bunch of people health insurance, they were taking it away,” he said of the Tennessee program.

“But the minute that was gone they moved into the labor force and they primarily moved into jobs that were working more than 20 or more than 35 hours a week — very common jobs in which we tend to think that you’re at least more likely to be able to get employer-provided health insurance,” he explained, pointing to people aged 40 to 64 in particular.

He said researchers then applied the findings to the population of working adults who make less than 200 percent of the poverty line and currently receive employer-provided health insurance in the United States.

“These are the individuals we think are most similar to our TennCare population,” he said. “When we look and we apply our estimates to that we see anywhere from 500,000 to 940,000 people might end up choosing to leave the labor force once they have access to a non-employer health insurance option.”

 

[Doubletap]

By Paul Scicchitano Reason.com
Researchers have concluded that Obamacare may drive nearly one million Americans out of the workforce to take advantage of government-provided health benefits.

The findings, which were released this month, are higher than previous estimates by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which projected that as many as 800,000 people may leave their jobs once Obamacare takes effect.

“The CBO may be potentially underestimating the employment loss and it should think more carefully about that,” said Craig Garthwaite, an assistant professor of management and strategy at Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management, in an exclusive interview with Newsmax on Thursday.

House Speaker John Boehner, who has been a vociferous critic of the president’s signature healthcare law touted the study findings in a tweet this week: “Study: #ObamaCare could push nearly 1 million Americans from work to welfare.”

The study, which was published as a working paper by the National Bureau of Economic Research, examined the disenrollment of 170,000 Tennessee residents from the state’s TennCare program in 2005 and then applied the findings to U.S. data.

“What we see is that about half of those people end up with private health insurance within a period of a few months. And it’s primarily accomplished by moving into the labor force,” said Garthwaite, who also said that researchers noted a surge in Google searches related to the term “job openings” coinciding with the Tennessee disenrollment.

“In many ways you can think of this as like the Affordable Care Act in reverse,” according to Garthwaite, who authored the study along with Matthew J. Notowidigdo of the Book School of Business at the University of Chicago, and Tal Gross, of the School of Public Health at Columbia University.

“Instead of giving a bunch of people health insurance, they were taking it away,” he said of the Tennessee program.

“But the minute that was gone they moved into the labor force and they primarily moved into jobs that were working more than 20 or more than 35 hours a week — very common jobs in which we tend to think that you’re at least more likely to be able to get employer-provided health insurance,” he explained, pointing to people aged 40 to 64 in particular.

He said researchers then applied the findings to the population of working adults who make less than 200 percent of the poverty line and currently receive employer-provided health insurance in the United States.

“These are the individuals we think are most similar to our TennCare population,” he said. “When we look and we apply our estimates to that we see anywhere from 500,000 to 940,000 people might end up choosing to leave the labor force once they have access to a non-employer health insurance option.”
Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message

 

[Cookie]

It has occurred to me that the push toward 30-hr work weeks, unemployment, welfare and disability serves a purpose.

#1 - People who are financially stressed are often loathe to bite the hand that feeds them. Of course, if you allow people to get too destitute, they are more than willing to rise up in revolt. Keep in mind, it take an enlightened middle and upper middle class to organize the revolution, though.

#2 - This fits the Progressive goal of lowering the standard of living in the developed western nations in order to allow developing countries to rise in power and make everyone "more equal".

#3 - The reduced standard of living not only qualifies a huge percentage of the population for givernment benefits, it motivates them to apply for them. A givernment that provides your housing, medical care, food, utilities (including a cell phone), general spending money and transportation has a great deal of influence.

#4 - The less work paradigm fits the Progressive vision of a future will people will have more time for leisure activities such as discussing philosophy (apparently on the internet), enjoy the theater, get some exercise, protest evil corporations, etc.

 

[Dragonlady]

It has occurred to me that the push toward 30-hr work weeks, unemployment, welfare and disability serves a purpose.

#1 - People who are financially stressed are often loathe to bite the hand that feeds them. Of course, if you allow people to get too destitute, they are more than willing to rise up in revolt. Keep in mind, it take an enlightened middle and upper middle class to organize the revolution, though.

#2 - This fits the Progressive goal of lowering the standard of living in the developed western nations in order to allow developing countries to rise in power and make everyone "more equal".

#3 - The reduced standard of living not only qualifies a huge percentage of the population for givernment benefits, it motivates them to apply for them. A givernment that provides your housing, medical care, food, utilities (including a cell phone), general spending money and transportation has a great deal of influence.

#4 - The less work paradigm fits the Progressive vision of a future will people will have more time for leisure activities such as discussing philosophy (apparently on the internet), enjoy the theater, get some exercise, protest evil corporations, etc.

You have it backwards. Lower wages and higher profits are the goals of conservatives. Liberals want to see workers getting higher wages, not lower.

But all of this is moot. The website quoted is a conservative blog. Of course they're promoting the idea that the ACA will cost jobs. They've been saying that since the beginnining, even as premiums are half what these website have claimed, and the role out of the ACA has been nothing but good news to this point.

 

[healthmyths]

By Paul Scicchitano Reason.com
Researchers have concluded that Obamacare may drive nearly one million Americans out of the workforce to take advantage of government-provided health benefits.

The findings, which were released this month, are higher than previous estimates by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which projected that as many as 800,000 people may leave their jobs once Obamacare takes effect.

“The CBO may be potentially underestimating the employment loss and it should think more carefully about that,” said Craig Garthwaite, an assistant professor of management and strategy at Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management, in an exclusive interview with Newsmax on Thursday.

House Speaker John Boehner, who has been a vociferous critic of the president’s signature healthcare law touted the study findings in a tweet this week: “Study: #ObamaCare could push nearly 1 million Americans from work to welfare.”

The study, which was published as a working paper by the National Bureau of Economic Research, examined the disenrollment of 170,000 Tennessee residents from the state’s TennCare program in 2005 and then applied the findings to U.S. data.

“What we see is that about half of those people end up with private health insurance within a period of a few months. And it’s primarily accomplished by moving into the labor force,” said Garthwaite, who also said that researchers noted a surge in Google searches related to the term “job openings” coinciding with the Tennessee disenrollment.

“In many ways you can think of this as like the Affordable Care Act in reverse,” according to Garthwaite, who authored the study along with Matthew J. Notowidigdo of the Book School of Business at the University of Chicago, and Tal Gross, of the School of Public Health at Columbia University.

“Instead of giving a bunch of people health insurance, they were taking it away,” he said of the Tennessee program.

“But the minute that was gone they moved into the labor force and they primarily moved into jobs that were working more than 20 or more than 35 hours a week — very common jobs in which we tend to think that you’re at least more likely to be able to get employer-provided health insurance,” he explained, pointing to people aged 40 to 64 in particular.

He said researchers then applied the findings to the population of working adults who make less than 200 percent of the poverty line and currently receive employer-provided health insurance in the United States.

“These are the individuals we think are most similar to our TennCare population,” he said. “When we look and we apply our estimates to that we see anywhere from 500,000 to 940,000 people might end up choosing to leave the labor force once they have access to a non-employer health insurance option.”

And Obamacare was such a totally UNNEEDED program as to really insured the people that needed insurance i.e. 4 million could be covered under A $20 billion a year tax on lawyers!
Then watch the $850 billion a year in defensive medicine decline as physicians stop sending duplicate tests,etc. causing $850 billion a year!
Then watch hospitals STOP Padding and passing sometimes 6,000% overcharges to Medicare because they need to recoup but with
the $20 billion going to pay the uninsured premium!

False premise there were 46 million uninsured and ONLY reason dumb f...k wanted Obamacare was to destroy America!

 

[Defiant1]

It has occurred to me that the push toward 30-hr work weeks, unemployment, welfare and disability serves a purpose.

#1 - People who are financially stressed are often loathe to bite the hand that feeds them. Of course, if you allow people to get too destitute, they are more than willing to rise up in revolt. Keep in mind, it take an enlightened middle and upper middle class to organize the revolution, though.

#2 - This fits the Progressive goal of lowering the standard of living in the developed western nations in order to allow developing countries to rise in power and make everyone "more equal".

#3 - The reduced standard of living not only qualifies a huge percentage of the population for givernment benefits, it motivates them to apply for them. A givernment that provides your housing, medical care, food, utilities (including a cell phone), general spending money and transportation has a great deal of influence.

#4 - The less work paradigm fits the Progressive vision of a future will people will have more time for leisure activities such as discussing philosophy (apparently on the internet), enjoy the theater, get some exercise, protest evil corporations, etc.

You have it backwards. Lower wages and higher profits are the goals of conservatives. Liberals want to see workers getting higher wages, not lower.

But all of this is moot. The website quoted is a conservative blog. Of course they're promoting the idea that the ACA will cost jobs. They've been saying that since the beginnining, even as premiums are half what these website have claimed, and the role out of the ACA has been nothing but good news to this point.

Sorry you have it wrong. Conservatives want higher profits and higher wages for those that deserve higher wages by driving profits higher.

We like to reward those that do a good job.

 

[RoadVirus]

Obama's "Life of Julia" put into practice.

 

[Cookie]

Right ... Progressives believe that there is one pie and everyone should get a teeny-tiny piece.

Conservatives say, "Let's all make really big pies! I'll sell some of my pie to you and you sell some of my pie to me and everyone is happy. Unless you make really crappy pie, then you need to improve your product or leave the kitchen."

 

[Moonglow]

Choke much?

 

[Doubletap]

Progressive/liberals are all about looting the productive for the unearned benefit of the unproductive.

 

[Doubletap]

On what moral grounds can one argue that some must pay for the health care of others?

 

[francoHFW]

BS- So how many will get off Welfare they'ye been forced onto to get Medicaid?

I can't wait to see how Red staters react when they find they don't get 100% federally funded Medicaid simply because of mindless Pub obstruction...

 

[francoHFW]

On what moral grounds can one argue that some must pay for the health care of others?

You already do, just in the stupidest, cruelest, most ineffective, and most ridiculously expensive way possible- ER care, with all the bankruptcies and deaths that incurs...having a doctor, checkups, low cost clinics, and preventive medicine will save tons of money.

Pub dupes are functional morons on Obama Care. See BS OP. Anything to protect this obscene Pub scam of a system...

 

[Dragonlady]

On what moral grounds can one argue that some must pay for the health care of others?

When the cost of health care takes 1/3 of every dollar earned in the US, I would say that you are already paying for the healthcare of others. Those with insurance, finance the uninsured through higher fees charged insured patients, which are reflected in the higher premiums paid to your insurer.

You also paid for Medicare in your tax dollars, and in emergency room visits. It is far more expensive to have 15% of your population with no insurance than it would be to provide insurance for everyone.

US health care costs are the highest in the world and yet your quality of care is not much better than in other countries with single payer systems who pay substantially less per capita than the US currently does.

The question you should be asking is why should you pay twice as much for YOUR health care than any other nation in the world?

 

[francoHFW]

#11- Anything beside Pub BS and stupid Sean Rushbeck talking points?

 

[Vox]

It has occurred to me that the push toward 30-hr work weeks, unemployment, welfare and disability serves a purpose.

#1 - People who are financially stressed are often loathe to bite the hand that feeds them. Of course, if you allow people to get too destitute, they are more than willing to rise up in revolt. Keep in mind, it take an enlightened middle and upper middle class to organize the revolution, though.

#2 - This fits the Progressive goal of lowering the standard of living in the developed western nations in order to allow developing countries to rise in power and make everyone "more equal".

#3 - The reduced standard of living not only qualifies a huge percentage of the population for givernment benefits, it motivates them to apply for them. A givernment that provides your housing, medical care, food, utilities (including a cell phone), general spending money and transportation has a great deal of influence.

#4 - The less work paradigm fits the Progressive vision of a future will people will have more time for leisure activities such as discussing philosophy (apparently on the internet), enjoy the theater, get some exercise, protest evil corporations, etc.

You have it backwards. Lower wages and higher profits are the goals of conservatives. Liberals want to see workers getting higher wages, not lower.

But all of this is moot. The website quoted is a conservative blog. Of course they're promoting the idea that the ACA will cost jobs. They've been saying that since the beginnining, even as premiums are half what these website have claimed, and the role out of the ACA has been nothing but good news to this point.

what a bunch of BS.
Coockie had it right.