4 ms·

200k jobs? What kind of jobs? If these are paper shufflers adding overhead to health care, then I'm all for it.

by gozur88 10y ago

viraptor 10y ago
The looked research explains: "The majority (135,000) of these lost jobs would be in the healthcare industry, including at hospitals, doctor offices, labs, outpatient and ambulatory care centers, nursing homes, dentist offices, other healthcare settings, and insurers. But jobs would also be lost in other industries. Suppliers of the healthcare industry, such as food service, janitorial, and accounting firms, would experience reduced demand, leading to job loss. The lost jobs also include those lost due to the “induced effect” of healthcare workers spending less at restaurants, retail stores, and other local businesses."
- gozur88 10y ago
  >The majority (135,000) of these lost jobs would be in the healthcare industry, including at hospitals, doctor offices, labs, outpatient and ambulatory care centers, nursing homes, dentist offices, other healthcare settings, and insurers. Yes, I see we know where they work but not what they do.
  - viraptor 10y ago
    Any reason not to understand this as "across the board"? High costs and few insured mean fewer people actually going to the doctor. Lower volume would affect everyone from receptionists to specialist doctors, any supporting staff, and management. Maybe apart from the ER staff. They'll get more people who didn't handle simple problems early. (Or couldn't afford to)
    - gozur88 10y ago
      >Any reason not to understand this as "across the board"? Is there any reason to assume it? It's not like people didn't get care before the ACA - they used Medicaid or went to the ER. We were told the ACA would make things more efficient as people would be able to use primary care instead of ERs for non-emergency problems. And yet somehow we have 200k extra jobs. That's not a sign of efficiency.

200k jobs? What kind of jobs? If these are paper shufflers adding overhead to health care, then I'm all for it.

by gozur88 10y ago

200k jobs? What kind of jobs? If these are paper shufflers adding overhead to health care, then I'm all for it.

The looked research explains: "The majority (135,000) of these lost jobs would be in the healthcare industry, including at hospitals, doctor offices, labs, outpatient and ambulatory care centers, nursing homes, dentist offices, other healthcare settings, and insurers. But jobs would also be lost in other industries. Suppliers of the healthcare industry, such as food service, janitorial, and accounting firms, would experience reduced demand, leading to job loss. The lost jobs also include those lost due to the “induced effect” of healthcare workers spending less at restaurants, retail stores, and other local businesses."

gozur88 10y ago
>The majority (135,000) of these lost jobs would be in the healthcare industry, including at hospitals, doctor offices, labs, outpatient and ambulatory care centers, nursing homes, dentist offices, other healthcare settings, and insurers. Yes, I see we know where they work but not what they do.
- viraptor 10y ago
  Any reason not to understand this as "across the board"? High costs and few insured mean fewer people actually going to the doctor. Lower volume would affect everyone from receptionists to specialist doctors, any supporting staff, and management. Maybe apart from the ER staff. They'll get more people who didn't handle simple problems early. (Or couldn't afford to)
  - gozur88 10y ago
    >Any reason not to understand this as "across the board"? Is there any reason to assume it? It's not like people didn't get care before the ACA - they used Medicaid or went to the ER. We were told the ACA would make things more efficient as people would be able to use primary care instead of ERs for non-emergency problems. And yet somehow we have 200k extra jobs. That's not a sign of efficiency.