<p>
</p>
<p>No, he is not cheap. My cousin is skilled in a area of health care and has been working in the field for 30+ years. He will have to find someone who is qualified. If there are tons of those workers out there looking for work, then great. If not, then he has a problem. That is the issue.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Good God, no! :eek:</p>
<p>This link?</p>
<p>[Affordable</a> Care Act Could Cause People to Leave Their Jobs | News | Mailman School of Public Health](<a href=“http://www.mailman.columbia.edu/news/affordable-care-act-could-cause-people-leave-their-jobs]Affordable”>http://www.mailman.columbia.edu/news/affordable-care-act-could-cause-people-leave-their-jobs)</p>
<p>Bay, why do you try to look for a poor outcome? </p>
<p>You are an employee right? </p>
<p>Aca is going to give individuals who do not have employee healthcare similar healthcare products and pricing as employees receive.</p>
<p>Individuals dont have to be wage slaves.
I dont want my daughter to have to work because healthcare is not affordable otherwise.</p>
<p>“No, he is not cheap. My cousin is skilled in a area of health care and has been working in the field for 30+ years. He will have to find someone who is qualified. If there are tons of those workers out there looking for work, then great. If not, then he has a problem. That is the issue.”</p>
<p>Did he think she was going to work forever for him?</p>
<p>dstark,</p>
<p>I don’t <em>try</em> to look for a poor outcome. I just read articles that come across my news feed. Granted, I admit I am skeptical about government’s ability to fix problems efficiently, so I do tend to note articles that point out this prospect. Why do you not want to hear about the possible consequences of the ACA? It is funny to me to read so much defensiveness about it, especially when it <em>is</em> the law.</p>
<p>Most people are wage slaves, and are not independently wealthy. They don’t have many other options, until they are old enough to have saved enough to do otherwise. I wish I’d had the forethought to ensure I wasn’t still a wage slave, paying about 47% of the highest part of my income to the government and union, lucky to keep some of it.</p>
<p>Dstark, yes. I’m reading the actual working paper, which is linked in the Columbia article.</p>
<p>Bay, I am generally not automatically trustful of these guys who work for the common media, who earn their keep by drawing attention- with no mandate to ensure they are accurate enough. I like to get a feel for their purpose and any slant, what they are “selling.” I’m slogging through the working paper, waiting to get to the very caveats the authors themselves warn us of.</p>
<p>Oh emilybee, of course not. But he is older than she is, so it might have crossed his mind that he might retire before she quit her job. </p>
<p>If there are employers of lots of people in that specific cohort (the ones who will quit after the ACA goes into effect), then there could be a worker shortage that has a negative effect on some businesses. I know you don’t care about this, you already told us, so honestly I don’t see the point in discussing it with you at all.</p>
<p>Bay, if the government can’t fix this problem efficiently, it’s still better than the system we’ve always had, which wasn’t fixing it at all.</p>
<p>If there is a worker shortage- doesn’t that open opportunities? </p>
<p>But, note the NU study’s focus : “Those who lost coverage were disproportionately single, childless adults with incomes slightly higher than the federal poverty line.” What it toys with is: if a substantial number who lost Tenncare went looking for jobs with employer coverage, won’t ACA mean they have coverage and can drop back? I do think some of this is theoretical. We’ll see.</p>
<p>“But he is older than she is, so it might have crossed his mind that he might retire before she quit her job.”</p>
<p>Any good business person should be aware that their employees might leave a job at any time and for various reasons. If she is so indispensable, he should have hired someone to be her assistant and learn the job.</p>
<p>Lookingforward, that is 67 pages. I love your style.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Better yet, he should have hired 10 people to be her assistants, in case 9 of them quit!</p>
<p>Haha, the references and charts start on something like 34. If it bores me to tears, I’ll punt. [It really seems to be more of a “here’s a lot to chew on, see what you want to make of it” sort of paper.]</p>
<p>“Better yet, he should have hired 10 people to be her assistants, in case 9 of them quit!”</p>
<p>That is a bit of overkill but faulting ACA because people might not have to be chained to a job is ridiculous.</p>
<p>
I wish! I have Tricare. My son is 22 and no longer a full-time student, so he has to pay $152 a month for Tricare Young Adult.</p>
<p>I’ve known many people who hated their jobs but felt trapped because they needed the health insurance, usually because of a medical condition they or a family member had that either priced them out of the individual market or excluded them from that market entirely. It’s not a pretty situation. Some of those people would quit their present jobs and go to other jobs that didn’t offer health insurance, or strike out on their own by starting small businesses, if affordable health insurance options were available (which now should be the case if the exchanges work as expected). Others feel well enough situated financially to take early retirement, but they’re not yet of an age to be Medicare-eligible and they need to keep working for the health benefits until Medicare kicks in. These people will be liberated by the ACA.</p>
<p>Will some of their employers be inconvenienced? Sure, they’ll need to hire and train someone else, or promote an underling and hire and train a replacement at the underling position. Is there a cost to that for the employer? Of course. But there’s also a huge cost to the distortions and rigidities in the labor market that come from “job lock.” Mid-level workers don’t get promoted to jobs they are capable of doing, younger workers don’t get hired at all, and a lot of senior employees are stuck and unhappy in jobs they no longer want but feel trapped in–and as a consequence are not only less fulfilled as human beings, but they are likely less productive than their potential replacements who would love to have those jobs, and the “locked” employees might also be less productive than they would be in some other job that they would prefer. That’s supposed to be the genius of capitalism, right? We all make choices that maximize our own utility, and the net effect is to maximize social utility. “Job lock” defeats that.</p>
<p>I also suspect this is a contributing factor in the high cost of health insurance for small businesses. My employer is a large state university system with more than 19,000 employees, making it the 9th largest employer in the state. With that many employees, it has a lot of bargaining leverage with health insurers. Perhaps more importantly, the insurers just don’t care if one of my colleagues has diabetes or a serious heart condition or a potentially life-threatening cancer that is presently in remission; the risk pool that they’re insuring is big enough that they can make quite predictable actuarial assumptions that tell them what their costs are going to be. Not so with a small business employing 8 or 10 people. In that small a risk pool, just a few employees or their insured family members with costly medical conditions could make all the difference between the policy being profitable or generating a loss. And the insurers need to be concerned about adverse selection; some small businesses might decide to add health insurance precisely because the boss, or a member of the boss’s family, or a valued employee has a serious and costly medical condition. That drives up the price insurers need to charge to protect themselves against loss. And when “job lock” keeps large numbers of employees on the payroll just to cover costly medical conditions, that’s got to drive up small business premiums as well. No doubt some of that occurs with my giant employer as well, but with 19,000+ employees my employer has got to be offering a risk pool that closely resembles the overall averages for my state. I should think small businesses that offer health insurance might find it economically advantageous not to be locking in the employees who generate the highest health care costs. And some might well decide that both they and their employees would be better off eliminating costly employer-sponsored coverage and going to lower-cost policies available on the exchanges, based on statewide risk pools (though of course the employees would be better off only if the employer raised wages enough to allow the employee to purchase comparable coverage on the exchange).</p>
<p>I guess that’s how it’s supposed to work. We’ll see what actually transpires.</p>
<p>The study did not conclude that job-locked employees will leave their jobs for jobs they like better, it concluded that they will stop working altogether.</p>
<p>No, it did not. The media article implied that. Not the working paper.
In fact, there is very little, actually, about the ACA prediction. It is mostly a wide digest of the Tenncare situation, with regard to those employees.</p>
<p>“It is important to recognize that this paper studies a large contraction in eligibility for public health insurance, but that the ACA is an expansion of eligibility. We cannot be certain that the effects of expansions are simply symmetric to the effects of contractions.”</p>
<p>It’s very much a working paper- a set of ideas worked down to all sorts of detail, for the conversation that will ensue. Not definitive.</p>
<p>Bay, So what? </p>
<p>It is a miniscule problem when hundreds of thousands cant buy insurance because of preconditions, but is a major problem when hundreds of thousands are going to quit their jobs when ACA gets going.</p>
<p>Ok… :)</p>