PDA

View Full Version : A New Reason Not To Work




jbauer
07-16-2013, 09:27 AM
Front page of Yahoo Finance. Comments are interesting

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/reason-not-130747610.html

Pop quiz: Why do Americans have jobs?

If your answer is, to earn money, you’re only partially right. There’s one other important reason: To get health insurance. And as President Obama’s health-reform law starts to go into effect, it could give millions of workers a reason to quit.

Related: Why College Grads Get Stuck With Lousy Jobs

A new study distributed by the National Bureau of Economic Research finds that 4.2 million Americans might quit their jobs after January 1, 2014, as they’re able to get affordable health insurance through one of the public exchanges to be set up under Obamacare. That could provide ammunition for both critics and supporters of the politically explosive law. Critics might see it as evidence that Obama’s reforms encourage idleness while contributing to a growing welfare state. But it might also be a sign that workers have more freedom to pursue meaningful work or other interests instead of sticking to one job just because of the benefits, a phenomenon economists have dubbed “employment lock.”

Related: Citizens United Considering Suing the Government Over Obamacare

Study authors Craig Garthwaite, Tal Gross and Matthew J. Notowidigdo arrived at their estimate by studying changes in Tennessee’s Medicaid program, which expanded in 1994 to include more people, in ways similar to the way Obamacare will be structured. Costs became unaffordable, however, and a decade later the state forced about 170,000 childless adults—roughly 4 percent of the state’s working-age population—out of the program.

Related: Just Explain It: Five Things You Might Not Know About the Affordable Care Act

The researchers focused on what those people did for insurance once they could no longer get it through the state. For starters, there was a sudden surge in Google searches emanating from Tennessee and including phrases such as “job openings,” while there was no such surge in neighboring states. In the two years following the change, employment levels among childless adults in Tennessee—the same group knocked out of Medicaid—rose by 5.7 percent, a far bigger jump than elsewhere. And sure enough, by 2006 there was a sharp increase in the percentage of Tennessee adults with private insurance. Losing subsidized public insurance, in other words, forced more people to get jobs.

The opposite may happen with Obamacare, since under the program, anybody under 65 should be able to get insurance at a public exchange, with no income requirement except that those who earn more will pay a bit more for coverage. (Those 65 and over will already be covered through Medicare.) There are about 8.9 million Americans who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid and who also get health insurance through an employer. The study estimates that, based on what happened in Tennessee, 4.2 million of those people will quit their jobs (since they work primarily for the insurance coverage) and enroll in Obamacare instead. That’s far higher than other estimates.

On the surface, that suggests Obamacare will create an incentive not to work while shrinking the size of the labor force. But that‘s not the same thing as killing jobs, one of the charges frequently levied against Obamacare by Republican critics of the law. The study authors point out that people entering or leaving the work force by choice, because of the need for insurance, is different from employers reducing payrolls because of insurance or labor costs. Some of the people who leave jobs and opt for Obamacare could be workers close to retirement age who aren’t yet eligible for Medicare, or spouses who took a job with benefits simply to obtain insurance coverage their working spouse can't get. Besides, with unemployment high, there’s an oversupply of workers in many industries, so for every person who leaves the labor force, that might mean somebody else gets a job.

If Obamacare were to end up improving workers’ ability to move among jobs, it could even be good news for the economy. “Now you can pick the employer that’s best for you, without having to consider the benefits they offer,” says Craig Garthwaite of Northwestern University Kellogg School of Management, one of the study’s authors. “That will certainly be a benefit to that individual person.” The U.S. economy is unique in that it’s the only big market in which healthcare coverage is linked directly to employment. Some analysts think that prevents workers from taking entrepreneurial risks, moving to a better economic climate or trying new things that could make them better off.

The real issue, says Garthwaite, is whether the benefits some people receive from Obamacare will be worth the costs imposed on others, such as new taxes that will help subsidize expanded coverage and penalties imposed on individuals and employers who don’t comply with the law. It will take years to gather data on that, and even then, interpretations will vary based on political ideology, just as they do now.

Rick Newman’s latest book is Rebounders: How Winners Pivot From Setback To Success. Follow him on Twitter: @rickjnewman.

VBRonPaulFan
07-16-2013, 10:28 AM
lmao, my buddy who has always been against obamacare was actually saying how this was an opportunity for him a couple of weeks ago.

he said once the law kicked in, he could basically afford to quit the job he has now (which pays him def over 65-70k/year) and try to start up his own business. he said it was only feasible because he'd keep medical coverage during the entire process.

jbauer
07-16-2013, 10:40 AM
lmao, my buddy who has always been against obamacare was actually saying how this was an opportunity for him a couple of weeks ago.

he said once the law kicked in, he could basically afford to quit the job he has now (which pays him def over 65-70k/year) and try to start up his own business. he said it was only feasible because he'd keep medical coverage during the entire process.

Right now it'd be better for my family to have me quit, soak up the benefits and take care of my kids.

torchbearer
07-16-2013, 10:47 AM
Been considered putting down my tools too. I shrugged.

CaptUSA
07-16-2013, 10:51 AM
Well, since you're supposed to be looking for work to be included in the unemployment numbers, this should dramatically improve the unemployment numbers.

See? We told you Obamacare would help the economy! :rolleyes:

Acala
07-16-2013, 10:55 AM
Think how much easier this makes working in the underground economy. The only problem is that the program is going to be so catastrophically expensive that it will not last ten years. Probably half that.

libertarianMoney
07-16-2013, 11:28 AM
I think all Libertarians considering quitting their job for the benefits should do it. It's self ownership and activism at the same time.
You benefit if the system lasts (I wouldn't be putting any money on that one.)
The extra burden on the system makes it one person more likely to collapse.
It's a way to vote that can actually benefit you.

The only real problem is if you have real potential medical concerns. Then you're probably going to die waiting for an appointment :/

DamianTV
07-16-2013, 12:04 PM
Socialism is the Great Lie where everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else.

And the incentives for those that do not try are becoming greater and greater, while those that do contribute by producing things of value or providing services have more and more incentive to stop contributing altogether.

I'd call that a damn real problem too.

heavenlyboy34
07-16-2013, 12:21 PM
Socialism is the Great Lie where everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else.

And the incentives for those that do not try are becoming greater and greater, while those that do contribute by producing things of value or providing services have more and more incentive to stop contributing altogether.

I'd call that a damn real problem too.
Indeed. We should not be surprised that so many Americans embrace socialism. They have done so, in one form or another, for a few centuries now. :(

amy31416
07-16-2013, 12:28 PM
Socialism is the Great Lie where everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else.

And the incentives for those that do not try are becoming greater and greater, while those that do contribute by producing things of value or providing services have more and more incentive to stop contributing altogether.

I'd call that a damn real problem too.

I'll just add one thing: the massive barriers put in place by the state to prevent entrepreneurship. Whether it's a lemonade stand or a communications start-up, it's becoming more difficult by the day.

amy31416
07-16-2013, 12:29 PM
Socialism is the Great Lie where everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else.

And the incentives for those that do not try are becoming greater and greater, while those that do contribute by producing things of value or providing services have more and more incentive to stop contributing altogether.

I'd call that a damn real problem too.

I'll just add one thing: the massive barriers put in place by the state to prevent entrepreneurship. Whether it's a lemonade stand or a communications start-up, it's becoming more difficult by the day.

Acala
07-16-2013, 12:32 PM
I'll just add one thing: the massive barriers put in place by the state to prevent entrepreneurship. Whether it's a lemonade stand or a communications start-up, it's becoming more difficult by the day.

Yes, it is moving rapidly towards impossible.

JoshLowry
07-16-2013, 12:34 PM
" ‘Should I call a general strike?’ I don’t know whether you should do that or something else. Your general strike is a bad means, because with it you expose yourself to the justified reproach that you let your own women and children starve. In striking, you do not prove your great responsibility for the weal and woe of your society. When you strike you do not work. But one day you will WORK for your life, not strike. Call it a work wish to stick to the word ‘strike’. But strike by working, for yourself, your children, your wife or your girl, your society, your product or your farm. Tell them that you have no time for their war that you have more important things to do. Put a fence around a large plot outside each city of the earth, and there let the diplomats and marshals kill one another personally."

tod evans
07-16-2013, 12:40 PM
" ‘Should I call a general strike?’ I don’t know whether you should do that or something else. Your general strike is a bad means, because with it you expose yourself to the justified reproach that you let your own women and children starve. In striking, you do not prove your great responsibility for the weal and woe of your society. When you strike you do not work. But one day you will WORK for your life, not strike. Call it a work wish to stick to the word ‘strike’. But strike by working, for yourself, your children, your wife or your girl, your society, your product or your farm. Tell them that you have no time for their war that you have more important things to do. Put a fence around a large plot outside each city of the earth, and there let the diplomats and marshals kill one another personally."

+rep!

DamianTV
07-16-2013, 02:13 PM
I'll just add one thing: the massive barriers put in place by the state to prevent entrepreneurship. Whether it's a lemonade stand or a communications start-up, it's becoming more difficult by the day.

Being able to provide for ones self by doing honest work is becoming impossible. All we do is support those that do not work. Either the poor who are denied the ability, or the very very rich that obviously do not work and only benefit from denying the poor the ability to work to begin with.

The middle class did not Die, it was Murdered.