Why hasn't America acknowledged that ObamaCare will help the unemployment rate?

1. 58

   harmony155posted 12 years ago

   Why hasn't America acknowledged that ObamaCare will help the unemployment rate?
   
   With a significant increase in insured individuals entering the health care market, there should be a corresponding increase in jobs available in the medical field. Do you agree?

   replyreport
2. 56

   EmgeeOnlineposted 12 years ago

   I keep hearing the opposite argument from opponents of the law saying that with Dr's getting "less" money,many of them will be getting out of the field.  I don't agree with that.  I do agree with your statement how it will help unemployment as well as the healthcare industry.  It is simple capitalism of supply and demand.  With more people insured, we will need more Dr's, medical supplies, customer service within the private sector, etc.  With more demand for Dr's, schools will have to expand the programs and the list goes on and on.  So, yes, with more individuals entering the health care market, more jobs will be made available.  Good question.

   replyreport
   1. 56

      EmgeeOnlineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Check out Trumans speech from 1945 to congress regarding healthcare and how the lack of it is destroying American families.  That speech could have been said word for word up until recently. I will post an small part in the next posting...

      replyreport
3. 71

   Marisaupaposted 12 years ago

   The reason why such a postulation has not been acknowledged likely resides with the fact that it is just the complete opposite.
   
   When one takes into account key components of the law, such as the free-rider provisions and other penalties for failure to insure, it is clear that it is a disincentive to hiring.
   
   A small business would think twice before going over the 50 employee threshold.  Likewise, a business would be less inclined to hire part-timers or seasonal employees when an aggregate of 30 hours of part time amongst several employees counts as a full employee for terms of the law and its punitive statutes.
   
   Not to mention that those in the work pool coming from low income households, those that are most likely to have subsidized insurance, will not be as attractive a new hire when the company would then have to pay the mandated penalty for having an employee with subsidized insurance.
   
   As superficial or as profound as the analysis is conducted, it would seem that the Affordable Care Act is definitely a net job killer in the short and long term.

   replyreport
   1. 56

      EmgeeOnlineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I have to respectfully disagree. First of all,with the law as it is now,allowing people to get treated in the ER whether they can afford it or not puts the burden on everyone. That btw was signed by R. Reagan. Imagine if Obama would suggested that?

      replyreport
   2. 71

      Marisaupaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I was referring to the free-rider provision in the law which requires employers to pay a penalty if one of their employees has subsidized insurance.  Not free-rider, as in a person who seeks services and then does not pay. Sorry for the confusion.

      replyreport
   3. 56

      EmgeeOnlineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      No prob. I re-edited my comment to reflect the change.Understand, I don't think it is the best law, but without a doubt a step in the right directn.  Keep in mind admin's have been trying to fix the HC indtry for 65+ years, no success. We needed this

      replyreport
   4. 58

      harmony155posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      It is true that a small business will think twice before going over the 50 employee threshold. However, at the present time, businesses are not hiring at all due to the state of the economy (regardless of this future bill or not).

      replyreport
4. 78

   Ms Deeposted 12 years ago

   Rather than increasing the number of employed, I would not be surprised if overall it basically just causes a shift in what industry they employed in. Yes, more will need to be hired by huge employers in health care and pharmaceuticals, but as another has already pointed out here, there will be a reduction in hires by small business employers. All in all, it seems to play to the big monied areas of the health care industries, and a punch in the stomach to the middle class, small businesses.

   replyreport
5. 73

   pagesvoiceposted 12 years ago

   Personally, I wish you had asked the question using the proper name of the program you are addressing...it is the Affordable Health Care Act. I pay over $7,000.00 per year for health insurance and I am 100% in favor of President Obama following Mitt Romney's Massachusetts plan for universal health care. With a 20% co pay, a recent hospital stay with MRI and CAT Scans sent me whirling when I received the hospital bill. So, what does having equal health care mean? Well, in my area, every single hospital was on the news saying they needed nurses, nursing assistants, physician assistants, etc.. So, in answer to your question...most definitely, in spite of fear and scare from FOX news, the Affordable Health Care Act will increase jobs. Okay...here come the down votes.

   replyreport
   1. 58

      harmony155posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Thank you for the clarification; I should have addressed it as the Affordable Health Care Act! Thanks for your input

      replyreport
   2. 80

      Attikosposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      The official title is "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act," or PPACA. The acronym doesn't work well as a propaganda tool, so the more benign-sounding "Affordable Care Act," or ACA, has been adopted by friendly campaigners and media.

      replyreport
   3. 73

      pagesvoiceposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      To Attikos...Would you prefer we call this bill Romneycare? Everyone knows this as the Affordable Health Care Act...it is the right who have called it something else.

      replyreport
   4. 80

      Attikosposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I'd prefer people stop pushing campaign talking points here, but I'm a dreamer. If you must, and especially if you want to correct others' terms, you might want to use the correct ones yourself instead of the propaganda substitutes, but it's yours.

      replyreport
   5. 73

      pagesvoiceposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Ted Kennedy would have been proud of the current Affordable Health Care Act because at least it was passed with compromise and can be adjusted upward in the future. The campaign talking point on this bill is simple...John Roberts upheld its validity.

      replyreport
   6. 80

      Attikosposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Partisan fanatics are incorrigible.

      replyreport
   7. 73

      pagesvoiceposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      It appears that incorrigible partisan fanatics are only on one side of the aisle if you don't agree with someone else and their skewed views of things. Too bad people can't accept compromise anymore.

      replyreport
   8. 80

      Attikosposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Well, this is a writers' group. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect writers to write, not just to regurgitate the focus group tested talking points of their favorite campaign, including marketing terms calculated for propaganda value.

      replyreport
   9. 56

      EmgeeOnlineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Very well said.

      replyreport