US Politics Mega-thread - Page 7946

On June 27 2017 06:44 Plansix wrote:
Wait, are 7 million people slated to lose healthcare next year if nothing is done to the ACA? Is that the argument?

On June 27 2017 06:41 Buckyman wrote:


15 million people = (2 years' projection under old rules) - (current value plus one year's projection under new rules)
8 million people = (1 years' projection under old rules) - (current value)
Therefore:
7 million people = (1 year's projection under old rules) - (one year's projection under new rules)

I'm doing a bit of apples-to-oranges in assuming the second year projection under the old rules will continue to be as optimistic as it was over the first year, but the new projection will be accurate.

Regardless, the way he put it presents the 15 million figure as though it were the 7 million figure. A majority of the people in that 15 million figure have already 'lost' their insurance.

On June 27 2017 06:46 NewSunshine wrote:

I think it's 8 million, but his argument that that number is only increased by 7 million somehow makes it an improvement, when the purpose of healthcare legislation should be to reduce the number, not increase it.

Congressional forecasters say a Senate bill that aims to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act would leave 22 million more people uninsured by 2026, with 15 million more uninsured by 2018 compared to the current health care law.

On June 27 2017 06:48 Velr wrote:
Is it just me or have xDaunt, Danglars and Introvert been staggeringly silent on the healthcare bill?

I mean.. At least 2 of them are often around and comment on most "important" stuff but...

On June 27 2017 06:48 Velr wrote:
Is it just me or have xDaunt, Danglars and Introvert been staggeringly silent on the healthcare bill?

I mean.. At least 2 of them are often around and comment on most "important" stuff but...

On June 27 2017 06:44 Plansix wrote:
Wait, are 7 million people slated to lose healthcare next year if nothing is done to the ACA? Is that the argument?

On June 27 2017 06:54 Buckyman wrote:


No.

The CBO has defined lost as "our 2016 projection says they'll have health insurance, but they won't under the new circumstances". Some of these people never actually had health insurance in the first place, but deterring them from obtaining it is deemed a loss.

The 2016 projection has diverged from actual insurance enrollment. About 8 million people don't have insurance, that should according to the projection. These 8 million 'losses' are being included in the apparent losses of the various affordable-health reforms.

But that's 2016-2017. Given that the projections have already proven optimistic, how many more people will 'lose' insurance in 2017-2018 if nothing is done? It seems more likely than not that the projections will continue to be optimistic about the "no changes" case, but I don't know by how much.

On June 27 2017 06:54 Buckyman wrote:


No.

The CBO has defined lost as "our 2016 projection says they'll have health insurance, but they won't under the new circumstances". Some of these people never actually had health insurance in the first place, but deterring them from obtaining it is deemed a loss.

The 2016 projection has diverged from actual insurance enrollment. About 8 million people don't have insurance, that should according to the projection. These 8 million 'losses' are being included in the apparent losses of the various affordable-health reforms.

But that's 2016-2017. Given that the projections have already proven optimistic, how many more people will 'lose' insurance in 2017-2018 if nothing is done? It seems more likely than not that the projections will continue to be optimistic about the "no changes" case, but I don't know by how much.

After Decline Of Steel And Coal, Ohio Fears Health Care Jobs Are Next

When people talk about jobs in Ohio, they often talk about the ones that got away.

"Ten years ago, we had steel. Ten years ago, we had coal. Ten years ago, we had plentiful jobs," says Mike McGlumphy, who runs the job center in Steubenville, Ohio, the Jefferson County seat.

Today, the city on the Ohio River is a shell of its former self. And health care has overtaken manufacturing as the county's main economic driver.

1 in 4 private sector jobs in the county are now in health care. The region's biggest employer by far is the local hospital. Trinity Health System provides about 1,500 full-time jobs and close to 500 part-time jobs, more than Jefferson County's top 10 manufacturing companies combined.

Still, unemployment in Jefferson County stands at 7 percent, 2 percent higher than the state overall. And health care leaders worry that the Republican proposals to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act could take many health care jobs away.

Specifically, they're concerned about the rollback of Medicaid that is central to both the House and Senate bills. Ohio was among the states that expanded Medicaid under the ACA, adding 700,000 additional low-income or disabled people to the rolls.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the Senate bill, the Better Care Reconciliation Act, would cut Medicaid spending by $772 billion over the next 10 years, whereas the House bill, the American Health Care Act, would cut the program by $880 million over the same period.

At Trinity Health, 1 in 5 patients are on Medicaid, slightly lower than the state average. Joe Tasse, the hospital's acting CEO, warns that cuts to Medicaid could imperil jobs as well as the hospital's bottom line.

"It would be pretty devastating," he says. "If Trinity Hospital were to fail, this region economically would fail."

Tasse says under the AHCA, Trinity could stand to lose $60 million over 10 years. He says that's the equivalent of a thousand or more hospital jobs.

His fears are backed up by the liberal-leaning Economic Policy Institute, which projects that more than 81,000 jobs in Ohio could be lost within five years under the AHCA, resulting in a 0.7 percent drop in the state's overall employment.

A big challenge, Tasse says, is that departments such as emergency care and obstetrics, which have high rates of Medicaid patients, are also among the most costly to operate. Given the 24/7 nature of the care they provide, they can't cut back on staffing on days when demand is slack.

"An OB department is really an emergency department for women and obstetrics," said Tasse, pointing out that most births are not scheduled. "If you want to have that service and provide it for your community, you have to incur that cost. There's really not a way around it. Unless you want to tell the women, 'Hey, we're closing our service,' which many hospitals have had to do. 'Here's your bus ticket or here's the car ride that you have to take to deliver.'"

Trinity's obstetrics and emergency care departments are now also dealing daily with the opioid crisis. At Trinity, 1 in 5 babies are born prenatally exposed to opioids, adding complications and cost. In the emergency room, nurses are seeing so many overdose cases that they are set up to meet patients in their cars at the entrance, armed with the antidote drug naloxone.

Under federal law, hospitals are required to treat anyone seeking emergency care. So if Medicaid were cut back, Tasse says they wouldn't turn patients away at the door. They would scale back in other ways.

"Where we've tried to move patients to preventive [care], identifying health problems earlier — that would all go away," he says. He'd expect more patients showing up in the emergency department, "sicker [and] more expensive."

On June 27 2017 06:36 Logo wrote:
Does the study even address if this was a rational outcome by businesses or not? How much does the companies' desire not to pay higher minimum wages factor into their decisions about how to staff? It is also looking at the short term it seems like?

Like no one expects raising the minimum wage to create new money out of thin air, the expectation is it's going to come from the top down..

So yeah for now wages are cut because hours were cut to keep the previous equilibrium, but what happens in a year (or better yet several) from now when companies have thought about their next year budget and have decided between giving raising and increasing hours for minimum wage workers?

That and it's not peer reviewed yet. Sloppy reporting.

I'm also curious if it's underselling the effect on people working multiple jobs. If you're working two jobs but now can get the same (or slightly less) money for significantly less hours that could be a big external benefit to you.

On June 27 2017 06:48 Velr wrote:
Is it just me or have xDaunt, Danglars and Introvert been staggeringly silent on the healthcare bill?

I mean.. At least 2 of them are often around and comment on most "important" stuff but...

On June 27 2017 06:51 NewSunshine wrote:

They've been at their usual, bring up stuff to distract from the actual disaster Trump is about to sign off on, simultaneously defending him but also somehow criticizing him, thing.

simultaneously defending him but also somehow criticizing him

On June 27 2017 06:48 Velr wrote:
Is it just me or have xDaunt, Danglars and Introvert been staggeringly silent on the healthcare bill?

I mean.. At least 2 of them are often around and comment on most "important" stuff but...

[B]On June 27 2017 07:05 Plansix wrote:[/B

source

1/6th of the economy.

On June 27 2017 06:48 Velr wrote:
Is it just me or have xDaunt, Danglars and Introvert been staggeringly silent on the healthcare bill?

I mean.. At least 2 of them are often around and comment on most "important" stuff but...

On June 27 2017 07:32 Introvert wrote:


I'm normally busy during peak posting hours, all I've seen so far are tweets. Rest assured that, as someone who wants full repeal, I don't like this bill, as it even seems like the Medicaid "cuts" (read: reduction in increase) are never going to happen.