Harvard Economist Estimates Health Repeal Would Destroy Up To 400,000 Jobs Per Year Over Decade

[ProSense]

Harvard Economist Estimates Health Repeal Would Destroy Up To 400,000 Jobs Per Year Over Decade

Just as House Republicans gear up to repeal the “job killing” Affordable Care Act, the Department of Labor is reporting that the U.S. economy added 103,000 jobs last month, pushing the jobless rate down to a 19-month low of 9.4 percent.

In fact, since President Obama signed health reform into law on March 23, 2010, the economy has created approximately a total of 1.1 million new jobs in the private sector. One-fifth of the new jobs — over 200,000 — have been in the health care industry. Nevertheless, Republicans have spent the week decrying health reform as “job killing” legislation. Watch a compilation:

<...>

Aside from the fact that increasing access to health services will create thousands of jobs in the health care sector, Harvard economist David Cutler argues in new paper released this morning that repealing the health law would reverse these gains and could destroy 250,000 to 400,000 jobs annually over the next decade. Eliminating the law would increase health care costs and cause employers to reduce wages and cut jobs for those employees who already receive minimum wage or are in fixed contracts. From the report:

<...>

Employers may be anxious about some of the new requirements, but many are already benefiting from the law. A growing number of employers are taking advantage of the tax credit that allows businesses with fewer than 25 workers and average wages under $50,000 to deduct up to 35% of the cost of the premiums they provide for their employees and many are receiving money from the law’s reinsurance program, which assists employers with retiree health costs. In 2014, small businesses will be able to use the new health insurance exchanges to pool resources and lower costs by covering their workers through a larger risk pool. All this would free up dollars that could then be used for job creation.

As Steve Pearlstein points out, “what’s particularly noteworthy about this fixation with ‘job killing’ is that it stands in such contrast to the complete lack of concern about policies that kill people rather than jobs.” “Repealing health-care reform, for instance, would inevitably lead to thousands of unnecessary deaths each year because of an inability to get medical care,” he says. “There is an unmistakable redbaiting quality to the “job-killing” rhetoric, a throwback to the McCarthy era.”

Republicans are on record: They voted to repeal the health care law and in favor of killing jobs and people.

[ladjf]

1. Yet, the Republicans simply lie and say that repealing the Health-care bill

would save money. nt

[bluestateguy]

2. As much as I hate to say this

The insurance cos are getting 32 million new customers which will require them to hire more people. That's just one example.

[ProSense]

3. It's a fact, and

with less profits under the new MLR rule.

[jeanpalmer]

19. Many of the new customers

will have to pay $3,000+ in health insurance premiums that they don't pay now? Seems like the jobs that currently depend on that $3,000 -- food stores, restaurants, hospitality industry, etc. -- will be lost.

[flpoljunkie]

4. My rec brought the total to 0. Why unrecommend this? We need the truth out now.

I was just reading this on Think Progress and would have posted it, if you had not. Thank you for posting this, ProSense.

[ProSense]

5. It's just a piece exposing

the callousness of the Republicans' actions, which is not as outrageous as choosing Daley. Maybe you should repost it. ;)

[flpoljunkie]

9. I posted this important fact yesterday. It bears repeating.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x585707

[ProSense]

16. Thanks. n/t

[texshelters]

14. You're comparing two different actions that while both agregious,

are completely different.

While I dislike the choice of Daley, Daley doesn't vote on laws and he didn't have millions of Americans voting for him despite his hatred of the people (Republicans that is).

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[ProSense]

15. It was sarcasm. Still,

"While I dislike the choice of Daley, Daley doesn't vote on laws and he didn't have millions of Americans voting for him despite his hatred of the people (Republicans that is)."

...in the context of the sarcasm, no one here is voting for Republicans. So on that, the score is even.

[texshelters]

17. Well disguised sarcasm, that, since there have been

several posts already deriding Delay.

The reason I say I won't vote Republican is that I am highly critical of Democrats and that confuses people who then react and call me a freeper.

I didn't know this was a competition. I thought is was a discussion. I forfeit, you win oh mighty one.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[ProSense]

18. What on earth

"The reason I say I won't vote Republican is that I am highly critical of Democrats and that confuses people who then react and call me a freeper."

...does this have to do with my point?

[karynnj]

7. Mine did the same - and I agree with thanking Prosense

This is really disgusting - this is important landmark legislation - under attack from the Republicans and rather than accumulating the support for the legislation, some too cool or too left to be believed are instead having a temper tantrum.

[karynnj]

6. I looked at the roll call - and it is pretty clear that they badly overstated

their possible total - this is nowhere near veto proof. I see that the 2 misbehaving Republicans voted "present" because they I guess their votes otherwise would taint this.

There is going to be a huge war of spinning on whether this saves jobs - and the fact that they are ignoring the CBO is likely going to be par for the course - they really do have no shame saying things they know are not true.

Here is a Politico article on the vote. The Democrats who voted with the Republicans are Boren and Ross of Arkansas and Kissell and McCintyre of NC.

Here is Ed Markey (D, MA)'s comment

Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) called the debate, “Health care versus ‘don’t care.’”

“The Republicans don’t care about grandma,” he said on the House floor.

“They want to take back the drug benefits in the new law,” he said, listing other popular provisions such as closing the Medicare “donut” hole and a ban on insurers denying customers because of pre-existing medical problems.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47212.html#ixzz1ANZO6KNQ

[flpoljunkie]

10. Or, 'health care vs. health insurance industry profits.' R's are looking out for the latter.

[killbotfactory]

8. Well, as we all know, HCR was just a big handout to big corporate interests

And, naturally, republicans would be opposed to that.

And it's not single-payer, so it doesn't matter how much it improves an average persons ability to get medical care.

And jobs? Everyone knows the economy is never going to recover so it doesn't matter.

We should let HCR die and then force the congress to pass medicare for all somehow. But we all know Obama is a traitor to all things progressive so he would probably just veto it.

And... oh my it's exhausting being an unreasonable cynic.

[The Backlash Cometh]

11. Old people are going to be dropping like flies.

[texshelters]

12. The article lays out why Republicans are against the law, it...

...creates jobs and gives people health care. That will make people less dependent on the health care insurance and it will lead to more desperation and unemployment and eventually less money in the SS system, thus giving the Republicans a reason to go after the SS trust.

These assholes only care about billionaires and corporations and the anybody who votes for one of the far right or tea party backed Republicans is a traitor. And they are ignorant and paying for their own executioner.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[Joanne98]

13. The heathcare repeal bill is a JOB KILLER!