Affordable Health Care Act a jobs killer? Hollow rhetoric - USA Today

[JohnWxy]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2011-01-17-editorial17_ST_N.htm">Our view on health law: Calling it a 'job killer' doesn't make it so


Republicans have opted for hollow rhetoric. They simply insert the words "job killing" before any mention of the health care law. It's in the title of the repeal bill, expected to be voted on Wednesday. And House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, used the term seven times in a 14-minute news conference on the first day of the new Congress.

Simplistic labels, such as the effort to rebrand the estate tax as the "death tax," can be smart politics if they subtly alter people's perceptions. But a heavy-handed approach like this, which tells people what to think without any explanation for why, is unlikely to be effective. Not only that, it flies in the face of reality.

The evidence that the medical care reform law will be a job-killer is slim to none. While there is no shortage of rosy or pessimistic assessments produced by groups on either side of this debate, the few independent studies of the law's impact on jobs have offered up resounding shrugs. In 2009, researchers at the http://factcheck.org/2011/01/a-job-killing-law/">RAND Corp. and the Lewin Group said its overall job impact would be minimal.
(more)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This is a very good review (linked to in USA Today editorial above) of the research on the subject and how the GOP either ignores studies it doesn't like and misrepresents others.

http://factcheck.org/2011/01/a-job-killing-law/">FactCheck.org

A ‘Job-Killing’ Law?
House Republicans misrepresent the facts. Experts predict the health care law will have little effect on employment.
January 7, 2011
Summary

When it comes to truth in labeling, House Republicans are getting off to a poor start with their constantly repeated references to the new health care law as "job-killing."

We find:

■Independent, nonpartisan experts project only a "small" or "minimal" impact on jobs, even before taking likely job gains in the health care and insurance industries into account.
■The House Republican leadership, in a report issued Jan. 6, badly misrepresents what the Congressional Budget Office has said about the law. In fact, CBO is among those saying the effect "will probably be small."
■The GOP also cites a study projecting a 1.6 million job loss — but fails to mention that the study refers to a hypothetical employer mandate that is not part of the new law.
■The same study cited by the GOP also predicts an offsetting gain of 890,000 jobs in hospitals, doctors’ offices and insurance companies — a factor not mentioned by the House leadership.
There’s little doubt that the new law will likely lead to somewhat fewer low-wage jobs. That’s mainly because of the law’s requirement that, generally, firms with more than 50 workers pay a penalty if they fail to provide health coverage for their workers. One leading health care expert, John Sheils of The Lewin Group, puts the loss at between 150,000 and 300,000 jobs, at or near the minimum wage. And Sheils says that relatively small loss would be partly offset by gains in the health care industry.
(more)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

one of the biggest 'hits' to productivity for businesses is lost work days for illness. With health insurance and better medical care, workers will lose less days because of illness. This will add to productivity. Added productivity will put employers in a better position to hire more workers. This was not considered in any of the studies referred to above.

Also, with workers losing fewer work-days to illness they will have more take home pay (many people do not get paid days off for sick leave). With greater take home pay that will mean greater incomes for workers which will increase consumer spending and demand for products. This leads to greater job creation. While the studies considered whether people would opt to retire early because of increased costs for insurance coverage (as oppposed to no insurance at all) they did not consider that those with coverage and getting better medical care would not lose as many work days and thus gain in take home pay (this would balance out to some degreee the increased costs to workers of health insurance).


$63 Billion lost annually to illness and injury

[rocktivity]

1. Hollow Rhetoric? How about "Partisan-Inspired Flat-Out Lie"? n/t

:headbang:
rocktivity