Report Finds AHCA Could Cost 2.7 Million Jobs By 2025

[panamaican]

It's kind of hard to predict the long-term effects of a bill that isn't even finished yet. It sounds like there is some stuff they need to fix, but if the initial stimulus of the plan would lead to 800,000 new jobs by 2020, then losing 700,000 jobs in the healthcare field, isn't that still a gain of 100,000?

I don't know why they don't just offer catastrophic insurance to everyone, then people can just pay out of pocket for routine stuff so prices drop.

No, it's going to be a net -700,000. So +800 then a 1.5 drop off after that.

 

[ReAnimator Reagan]

That was an interesting read. A healthcare plan that insures fewer people but reduces jobs to do it.

So not only do we have more uninsured people but we'll also get more unemployed people!!

Communism at work!!!! Lets be losers instead of the best country ever!

 

[panamaican]

Communism at work!!!! Lets be losers instead of the best country ever!

I don't understand what you're saying. Are you saying that killing an industry while also uninsuring your population makes us the best country ever or was that sarcasm that I didn't get?

 

[DannyNL]

I tend to think losing millions of jobs is a bad thing, but I like your optimism!

Some of those who lose their jobs may be into child pornography trafficing, and will no longer have the required funds to fund their child pornography.

CHILD PORNOGRAPHY DECREASES UNDER AHCA, print in MSNBC!

 

[chardog]

The loss of jobs in the health insurance field is less concerning if it comes with more people covered. But a bill that hurts the health insurance industry without actually providing coverage for people is inadequate all the way around.

it's really mutually exclusive. It's unfortunate that we couldnt have both, but downsizing the insurance industry will be a positive, they've bled us to death enough already. Less people insured doesnt technically mean that there is less access to care. Access to care can take less of a hit if out of pocket visits are more affordable, like dental, a field where insurance doesnt have a stronghold on the system.

 

[hillelslovak87]

Funny how liberals only care about transparency NOW, but when the ACA was rolled out, transparency didn't matter.

Right? No transparency. Just an entire year of hearings and hundreds of Republican amendments..............

 

[Falsedawn]

it's really mutually exclusive. It's unfortunate that we couldnt have both, but downsizing the insurance industry will be a positive, they've bled us to death enough already. Less people insured doesnt technically mean that there is less access to care. Access to care can take less of a hit if out of pocket visits are more affordable, like dental, a field where insurance doesnt have a stronghold on the system.

You really think the AHCA is gonna do that?

Boy, i'm gonna hate to see your reaction when the CBO eviscerates this turd.

 

[Diamond Jim]

Right? No transparency. Just an entire year of hearings and hundreds of Republican amendments..............

But Hannity didn't say that.

 

[nostradumbass]

No, it's going to be a net -700,000. So +800 then a 1.5 drop off after that.

Are you sure? It's hard to tell, but it sounded like a net loss of 700 just for the healthcare sector, then mentioned the +800 separately in other fields. Looks like the graph does show that they meant overall job loss, and I guess just worded it strangely in the summary. Job loss in almost a decade seems like it would be a little tough to predict with much accuracy.

In 2018, the number of jobs would rise by
864,000 and state economies would grow. Health sector
employment begins to fall immediately in 2018, with a loss
of 24,000 jobs, and continues dropping to 725,000 health
jobs lost by 2026

 

[panamaican]

Are you sure? It's hard to tell, but it sounded like a net loss of 700 just for the healthcare sector, then mentioned the +800 separately in other fields. Looks like the graph does show that they meant overall job loss, and I guess just worded it strangely in the summary. Job loss in almost a decade seems like it would be a little tough to predict with much accuracy.

Yes, I'm sure.

I had the same question originally so I went and read all the reports. One of them even breaks it down by state pre- and post 2018. A front end job bump followed by a much larger back end job decrease wiping out the pre-2018 gains. With net negative jobs in 2026 relative to 2017.

 

[Jack V Savage]

The analysis looks solid and very damning, but I have a problem with the way this kind of thing is reported. The reported impacts are gross, not net, but the way the info is written up implies net to most readers, I think. It's not that there would be 2.7 million fewer people employed; it's that 2.7 million specific jobs would be gone.

 

[panamaican]

it's really mutually exclusive. It's unfortunate that we couldnt have both, but downsizing the insurance industry will be a positive, they've bled us to death enough already. Less people insured doesnt technically mean that there is less access to care. Access to care can take less of a hit if out of pocket visits are more affordable, like dental, a field where insurance doesnt have a stronghold on the system.

Downsizing the insurance industry is not a positive unless there's an alternative method for handling the healthcare needs of the population.

Theoretically, fewer insured doesn't mean less access to care. In reality, given the nature of our system, it means less affordable care. There are no constraints in place to reduce the cost of care so less insurance mostly means less access. Nothing in the reports indicated that the cost of care would be positively affected by this legislation.

 

[Teppodama]

Downsizing the insurance industry is not a positive unless there's an alternative method for handling the healthcare needs of the population.

Theoretically, fewer insured doesn't mean less access to care. In reality, given the nature of our system, it means less affordable care. There are no constraints in place to reduce the cost of care so less insurance mostly means less access. Nothing in the reports indicated that the cost of care would be positively affected by this legislation.

That care requires caregivers in the health industry. It also requires support positions to allow clinical staff to conduct that care. Right now, there is a nearly nationwide shortage of nursing professionals and physicians are having to spend less and less time per patient simply to meet the demand not only of the amount of patients but also to cover increasing costs as practicing physicians. In many places, the number of patients per nurse for in hospital stays is and has been at what was not too long ago considered dangerous for proper quality care and oversight. Burnout, stress, lack of raises, etc. are common complaints for many clinical and non-clinical staff these days.

RN degrees used to be a 4yr program. This allowed for quality nurses to not only acquire proper medical knowledge, but also hands on experience mentoring with established nurses to season themselves before taking on patients on their own.

That was slashed to two yrs to meet the demand and even though they still mentor for a time the difference is noticable for anyone with any experience in healthcare, especially of the old 4yr RN's.

 

[panamaican]

That care requires caregivers in the health industry. It also requires support positions to allow clinical staff to conduct that care. Right now, there is a nearly nationwide shortage of nursing professionals and physicians are having to spend less and less time per patient simply to meet the demand not only of the amount of patients but also to cover increasing costs as practicing physicians. In many places, the number of patients per nurse for in hospital stays is and has been at what was not too long ago considered dangerous for proper quality care and oversight. Burnout, stress, lack of raises, etc. are common complaints for many clinical and non-clinical staff these days.

RN degrees used to be a 4yr program. This allowed for quality nurses to not only acquire proper medical knowledge, but also hands on experience mentoring with established nurses to season themselves before taking on patients on their own.

That was slashed to two yrs to meet the demand and even though they still mentor for a time the difference is noticable for anyone with any experience in healthcare, especially of the old 4yr RN's.

Sounds like a solution should be found for increasing the number of caregivers, not reducing the number of patients.

 

[Teppodama]

Sounds like a solution should be found for increasing the number of caregivers, not reducing the number of patients.

Agreed. It's a two fold problem. Not only staff but also one of the cost of providing healthcare balanced against the earnings for providing the service.

 

[panamaican]

Agreed. It's a two fold problem. Not only staff but also one of the cost of providing healthcare balanced against the earnings for providing the service.

In this case, the problem is actually easily solved, although the will to do so doesn't exist.

First, there's no reason medical school should require a separate undergraduate degree. It short, it drives up the cost of the degree and reduces the earning years of doctors. Thus placing an economic pressure on MD's to charge higher rates.

Second, there's no reason that certain baseline services should require an MD's oversight. This bottlenecks basic services and puts a price premium on them. It's like requiring an automotive engineer every time you get your oil changed. It's unnecessary and expensive.

The reason neither issue is actually addressed is because both solutions would undermine the career earnings and professional exclusivity of doctors. And the AMA lobbies very hard to prevent that from happening.

 

[Teppodama]

In this case, the problem is actually easily solved, although the will to do so doesn't exist.

First, there's no reason medical school should require a separate undergraduate degree. It short, it drives up the cost of the degree and reduces the earning years of doctors. Thus placing an economic pressure on MD's to charge higher rates.

Second, there's no reason that certain baseline services should require an MD's oversight. This bottlenecks basic services and puts a price premium on them. It's like requiring an automotive engineer every time you get your oil changed. It's unnecessary and expensive.

The reason neither issue is actually addressed is because both solutions would undermine the career earnings and professional exclusivity of doctors. And the AMA lobbies very hard to prevent that from happening.

Agreed. One thing that's increasing to off set the need for more physicians is the rise of the nurse practitioner to bridge the gap between RN and Physician. They still require the oversight of a licensed Physician, but one Physician can potentially oversee a whole office of Nurse Practitioners with the NP's doing the bulk of the average care at less cost and the Physicians concentrating on the specialist roles. Nurse Anesthetists are also on the rise in place of Anesthetist Physicians. It's a way for Hospitals to also cut costs by fielding Nurse Practitioners that round only within the hospital environment rather than also maintaining a private practice. The hospital hires them on as staff. Also, Physicians have by an large formed physician groups that then contract out their services to specific hospitals rather than maintaining individual practices as a way of offsetting costs for running a practice. Now, some physicians are trying to move away from that trend and retain their individual practices but they are in the main being priced right out of healthcare.

 

[panamaican]

Agreed. One thing that's increasing to off set the need for more physicians is the rise of the nurse practitioner to bridge the gap between RN and Physician. They still require the oversight of a licensed Physician, but one Physician can potentially oversee a whole office of Nurse Practitioners with the NP's doing the bulk of the average care at less cost and the Physicians concentrating on the specialist roles. Nurse Anesthetists are also on the rise in place of Anesthetist Physicians. It's a way for Hospitals to also cut costs by fielding Nurse Practitioners that round only within the hospital environment rather than also maintaining a private practice. The hospital hires them on as staff. Also, Physicians have by an large formed physician groups that then contract out their services to specific hospitals rather than maintaining individual practices as a way of offsetting costs for running a practice. Now, some physicians are trying to move away from that trend and retain their individual practices but they are in the main being priced right out of healthcare.

I'm well aware. My dad was in private practice for years before he retired to run a portion of a VA hospital, I've been watching the evolution of the industry for quite a while.

 

[Teppodama]

I'm well aware. My dad was in private practice for years before he retired to run a portion of a VA hospital, I've been watching the evolution of the industry for quite a while.

Yeah, rather interesting how things are evolving. After 25yrs in healthcare, I think the pessimist in me see things getting worse regarding manpower and wages. Hope I'm wrong though.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

You really think the AHCA is gonna do that?

Boy, i'm gonna hate to see your reaction when the CBO eviscerates this turd.

Fake news brah





Deep state brah