MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE by Michael Wolraich Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop |
@ New York Times Business Day, May 6
From Akron to Youngstown and Canton to Cleveland, as in cities and towns across the country, workers who once walked out of factories at the end of each shift now stream out of hospitals.
While manufacturing employment has fallen nearly 40 percent in northeastern Ohio since 2000, the number of health care jobs in the region has jumped more than 30 percent over the same period. In Akron, the onetime rubber capital of the world, only one of the city’s 10 largest employers still makes tires. Three are hospitals
“People who used to make deliveries to factories are now making them to hospitals,” said Samuel D. DeShazior, Akron’s deputy mayor for economic development.
Akron’s transformation is echoed in places as varied as Los Angeles, Birmingham, Ala., and Pittsburgh, along with rural areas like Iron County, Mo., where health care accounts for one-fifth of all employment [.....]
Comments
I should add: dreamers about single payer need to worry about the loss of jobs in a transition, too.
These jobs (except from an Oct. 14 Forbes piece "Why Health Insurance is Doomed"),
as little as most of us care about these people, a lot of them, now being paid by all of us one way or another, would end up unemployed with single payer:
It is not true that many of them could get government jobs with single payer. Or at least, hopefully not! Another huge bureaucracy should not be the result, not much of a future goes that way! Perhaps they could be transitioned to jobs more related to caregiving at the same time the huge boomer generation needs more of it.
by artappraiser on Sat, 05/06/2017 - 5:22pm
The administrative costs of Medicare are estimated to be about 1.4%. There's some argument about that estimate but even the highest estimate of 6% is substantially lower than the 20% limit mandated by the ACA.
by ocean-kat on Sat, 05/06/2017 - 6:48pm
There's an argument against this point, which, unfortunately, I can't lay out. The opposing side calls the comparison misleading. Maybe you know what I'm talking about.
by Peter Schwartz on Sat, 05/06/2017 - 10:18pm
I'm not sure what point you're referring to as the link has several points. While there are competing claims all that I've seen claim the administrative costs are in the single digits. I'm not enough of a policy wonk to decide between the competing claims. I just happen to have a job that gives me lots of free time to read several hours a day. Actually one of the few choices I have while at work is to read and I happen to like reading the news so a chunk of my reading time is spent on the news sites.
by ocean-kat on Sun, 05/07/2017 - 2:49am
It's this kind of argument.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2011/06/30/the-myth-of-medicares-low-administrative-costs/#4a4fe2a9140d
by Obey on Sun, 05/07/2017 - 6:06am
A slower transition is probably the best - eg. in the first instance, allowing a Medicare buy-in for those over 55 to solve the problem of the young having to subsidize the older, and expanding Medicaid to 150% of the poverty rate. And then expanding either or both programs later. Or open up the market with a Medicare buy-in in states with concentrated markets (like less than three competing insurers)
I don't see single-payer passing as a stand-alone one-shot bill. The transition is just too radical. Here in Switzerland which has a decently functional version of Obamacare, doctors and patient organizations keep setting up referenda for a single-payer system - for the same reasons that AA cites of reducing overhead costs - and it keeps getting shot down, because people are worried about the transition and because they don't like the unknown world without a private option. Unlike the US, there isn't a huge public program that can just be gradually expanded in accordance with popular demand.
Sanders would have a lot more success with his Single-payer crusade if he did some more modest and limited version of it that could get 150 instead of 100 democratic votes, and it might even put some heat on GOP reps.
by Obey on Sat, 05/06/2017 - 7:14pm
Obey:question. When you write
is this a generic observation or are you referring to a specific occasion when Sanders when proposed that ?
by Flavius on Sun, 05/07/2017 - 7:18am
Generic observation. But I was spitballing based on the now 108 co-sponsors behind the single-payer bill
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/676/cosponsors?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22676%22%5D%7D&r=2
I also remember that back in '09, Medicare buy-in for over 55's had broad support and almost made it into the final ACA bill until Lieberman killed it.
But obviously a lot of movement since, and a lot can change in support for the current single-payer bill - both in the positive or negative direction.
by Obey on Sun, 05/07/2017 - 8:26am
Cross-link to related: Aetna CEO Says America Should Have a ‘Debate’ About Single Payer
by artappraiser on Fri, 05/12/2017 - 2:53pm