Health Care - Really ????

HOW’S THAT HOPEY-CHANGEY STUFF WORKIN’ OUT FOR YA? (CONT’D): Health Care to 

Suppress Wages Even More.

Forget the raise: health care will cut even more into the paychecks of many American workers next year. . . .

When Sen. Chuck Schumer sought to distance himself from the ACA he said that the timing for the law was wrong because “and if health care costs were going up, it really did not affect them.” That continues to be untrue. Even if you get insurance from your employer, the lost wages are significant. Anyone who tries to downplay the seriousness of the health care problem is missing the reality of costs that eat more and more into American incomes. In 2009, for example, David Goldhill calculated that even on conservative estimates, a company would put a little under $2 million towards an employee’s health care plan over the course of an employee’s career. If you are concerned about wage stagnation, you have to be concerned about health care.

Bankrupt Healthcare

Health Care to Suppress Wages Even More

Forget the raise: health care will cut even more into the paychecks of many American workers next year. The WSJ reports on a new report from Bank of America Merrill Lynch:

The bank surveyed 602 CFOs and other finance executives at companies with annual revenues between $25 million and $2 billion. Of those, 69% said they expected their labor costs to rise to cover the costs of the ACA. The CFOs expected an average increase of 7.1%.
More than three-quarters of the CFOs said they would pass those costs along to their employees, and almost two-thirds said they would cut spending in other parts of the business to compensate. Half said they would raise prices to pay for the healthcare.

When Sen. Chuck Schumer sought to distance himself from the ACA he said that the timing for the law was wrong because “and if health care costs were going up, it really did not affect them.” That continues to be untrue. Even if you get insurance from your employer, the lost wages are significant.

Anyone who tries to downplay the seriousness of the health care problem is missing the reality of costs that eat more and more into American incomes. In 2009, for example, David Goldhill calculated that even on conservative estimates, a company would put a little under $2 million towards an employee’s health care plan over the course of an employee’s career. If you are concerned about wage stagnation, you have to be concerned about health care.

Posted: Dec 10, 2014 - 11:01 am

Related: Gruber Took The Measure Of The ACA:

Gruber’s attempt to downplay his role in the ACA is unconvincing, for reasons we suggested here. But the most damning comments by Gruber were not his “glib” words about the American public but his accurate analysis of the Affordable Care Act. For instance, in one of the videos that became controversial, Gruber is taped saying “What the American public cares about is costs. And that’s why even though the bill that they made is 90% health insurance coverage and 10% about cost control, all you ever hear people talk about is cost control.” That is not glib; regardless of whether you think the law was sold deceptively in the way Gruber suggests, his understanding of the law’s focus on coverage over cost is correct. Whether or not Gruber was “the architect” of the law, whether or not his more noxious comment can fairly be associated with the law, he understands the law—and that is damning enough.

It’s damning stuff all the way down.

ACA Revisionism

Gruber Took the Measure of the ACA

This week MIT economist and health care advisor Jonathan Gruber appeared before the House

Oversight and Government Reform Committee to apologize for his controversial comments on the

Affordable Care Act and the “stupidity” of the American public. WaPo:

“In some cases I made uninformed and glib comments about the political process behind health care reform. I am not an expert on politics and my tone implied that I was, which is wrong,” Gruber told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. “It is never appropriate to try to make oneself seem more important or smarter by demeaning others. I know better. I knew better. I am embarrassed and I am sorry.” […]
“I’m a professor of economics at MIT. I’m not a politician nor a political advisor,” Gruber said, stressing that his role with the administration was purely technical. “I did not draft Governor Romney’s health care plan, and I was not the ‘architect’ of President Obama’s health care plan.”

Gruber’s attempt to downplay his role in the ACA is unconvincing, for reasons we suggested here.

But the most damming comments by Gruber were not his “glib” words about the American public but his accurate analysis of the Affordable Care Act. For instance, in one of the videos that became controversial, Gruber is taped saying “What the American public cares about is costs. And that’s why even though the bill that they made is 90% health insurance coverage and 10% about cost control, all you ever hear people talk about is cost control.” That is not glib; regardless of whether you think the law was sold deceptively in the way Gruber suggests, his understanding of the law’s focus on coverage over cost is correct. Whether or not Gruber was “the architect” of the law, whether or not his more noxious comment can fairly be associated with the law, he understands the law—and that is damming enough.

Posted: Dec 10, 2014 - 3:00 pm