PDA

View Full Version : 'Romneycare' is a jobs killer.



Daquan13
September 15th, 2011, 11:02 AM
Report: ‘Romneycare’ a jobs killer.

Study finds Bay State lost thousands of jobs
By Frank Quaratiello | Thursday, September 15, 2011 | http://www.bostonherald.com (http://wirednewyork.com/) | Local Coverage (http://wirednewyork.com/news/regional/)
http://multimedia.heraldinteractive.com/images/20110914/9db246_mitt_09152011.jpg
Photo by Herald file


The Bay State’s controversial 2006 universal health-care plan — also known as “Romneycare” — has cost Massachusetts more than 18,000 jobs, according to an exclusive blockbuster study that could provide ammo to GOP rivals of former Gov. Mitt Romney (http://wirednewyork.com/search/?topic=Mitt+Romney) as he touts his job-creating chops on the campaign trail.

“Mandating health insurance coverage and expanding the demand for health services without increasing supply drove up costs. Economics 101 tells us that,” said Paul Bachman, research director at Suffolk University’s Beacon Hill Institute, the conservative think tank that conducted the study. The Herald obtained an exclusive copy (http://bit.ly/olyUhS) of the findings.

“The ‘shared sacrifice’ needed to provide universal health care includes a net loss of jobs, which is attributable to the higher costs that the measure imposed,” said David Tuerck, the institute’s executive director.
“The United States is looking down the barrel of this with national health-care reform,” Bachman told the Herald, noting that Massachusetts’ first-in-the-nation heath-care overhaul — a hallmark of the Romney administration — was a template for President Obama’s national health-care law.

Romneycare has come under fire from conservative Republicans, even as its author has sought to brandish his job creation credentials in the race for the GOP presidential nomination. His opponents are certain to seize on these findings to undercut that image.
Bachman projected that so-called Obamacare would drive up health-care costs $77.5 billion nationwide and cost the nation 950,000 jobs.
Despite Romney’s vaunted business acumen as a successful venture capitalist, Bachman said the former governor “was a little naive about what would become of the law.”

The Beacon Hill Institute study found that, on average, Romneycare:
•    cost the Bay State 18,313 jobs;
•    drove up total health insurance costs in Massachusetts by $4.311 billion;
•    slowed the growth of disposable income per person by $376; and
•    reduced investment in Massachusetts by $25.06 million.

“We think it’s very pertinent and very similar to the health-care law that was passed nationally — it’s a case study,” Bachman said. “This is what happened in Massachusetts, and this is what can be expected from the national health-care act.”
The institute analyzed trends in health-care costs before and after the state law was passed. Researchers compared the Bay State’s numbers to national health-care cost trends. They found that instead of reducing health-care expenses as advocates had promised, Romneycare actually increased costs by $4.3 billion. Using computer modeling to determine the effect of those increased costs on businesses and Bay State residents, the institute concluded that the law has cost Massachusetts an average of 18,313 jobs.

“We found once we took the increase in health-care costs and health insurance costs and ran it through our computer model, there were fewer jobs than there otherwise would have been,” Bachman said.

He also noted the state’s health-care costs have been heavily subsidized by billions of dollars in federal aid through a Medicaid waiver program.
“While the federal government has helped Massachusetts pay for its health-care law, there is no higher entity for the federal government to go to except the taxpayers,” he said. “They can’t go to the United Nations.”

Article URL: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1365968 (http://wirednewyork.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1365968)

Ninjahedge
September 15th, 2011, 12:53 PM
How are they directly equating the cost to job loss?

They are doing free association again. "Well higher cost means less jobs"

By that same token, the tax "break" for the top % also cost jobs... $700B over 10 years would be 950K jobs by this stunted reasoning.

eddhead
September 15th, 2011, 01:06 PM
How are they directly equating the cost to job loss?

They are doing free association again. "Well higher cost means less jobs"

By that same token, the tax "break" for the top % also cost jobs... $700B over 10 years would be 950K jobs by this stunted reasoning.

It is a diversion; an attempt from a conservative think tank and likely Perry support group to tie Romney to 'Romneycare".

Romney's spiel is that the healthcare package he enacted in Ma was good for the state but not one he would advocate for the country. He is trying to put some distance between himself and Obamacare. Teaparty advocates do not want to let him off the hook. So now, he has to defend the MA legislation at a time when he is trying to distance himself from Healthcare Reform.

It's so mke and mirrors, but smoke and mirrors plays with this bunch.

Daquan13
September 15th, 2011, 02:19 PM
Sort of reminiscent of the 8 years when President Ronald Reagan was in office.

He named the economy "Reaganomics". Remember that one?

eddhead
September 15th, 2011, 03:04 PM
^ also known as Voodoo economics (coined by George H. Bush)

Daquan13
September 15th, 2011, 04:26 PM
Yup.

I don't want Romney for president. I didn't like him when he was Governor of Massachusetts!