One Study on the Impacts of Health Care Reform...

I read an interesting article recently for my Research Methods class that I wanted to comment on. The title of the article was "Projecting the Impact of the Affordable Care Act on California," by Peter Long and Jonathan Gruber. It was published in Health Affairs in January 2011. I am assuming that everyone is familiar with this mandate. If not, the mandate requires all U.S. citizens and legal residents to have federal approved health insurance beginning in 2014 or face a tax penalty of $695 per year or 2.5% of their annual income, which ever is higher. The authors used a micro simulation model to collect and present their data. Their study was broken down in five models: overall distribution of coverage, effects on uninsured, effects on employer-sponsored coverage, effects on health insurance spending and effects on household budgets.

The first model the projected impact of the Affordable Care Act on insurance coverage in California in 2016. It basically shows that the number of uninsured people would fall 52 percent, from 6.5 million to 3.1 million. The second model projects that about 3.8 million formerly uninsured people in California would gain coverage as a result of the law. The third model then projects insurance status changes due to employers’ dropping insurance coverage or requiring higher employee contributions. This model projects that of the 3.1 million people without insurance in 2016, 332,000 (11 percent) would have been insured previously. The fourth model assumes that reduced employer spending on insurance would lead to higher employee wages, but those wages would be taxed. The results project that the typical household in California would gain $280 in 2016 as a result of the Affordable Care Act. The fifth model shows the projected distribution of health reform’s impacts on households in California based on peoples income in accordance to the federal poverty level. 

Just thought this article was interesting because if it is found to be constitutional the mandate will effect everyone under the age of 65 in some way. 


I found this article on ProQuest if you are interested in reading more about this study. Not sure the link below will direct you to the article or not.

http://search.proquest.com.proxy.kennesaw.edu/docview/847269449/131E9BBB0901067622A/11?accountid=11824 

New Job Bill??? Thoughts?

About a week ago Obama first announced his new job bill.  He also proposed one last year around this exact same time. Look how well that one worked out :/ His new $447 billion jobs bill is funded mainly by increasing taxes on wealthier families. According to Obama the package is asking more from those who can afford it (individuals earning more that $200,000 a year and families earning more than $250,000) in exchange for getting the unemployed back to work. He said his proposal would put construction workers, teachers and veterans back to work while providing tax relief for small business.

Does infrastructure and unemployment need to be address? YES!!! But will this plan pass in its entirety?? NO!!! I do not see Republicans approving of the infrastructure spending. They might go for the tax break for small business and advancing free-trade with South Korea, Columbia and Panama. I have to agree with Obama on this point we he says he wants to see Fords in these countries. Why not?! We see foreign cars everywhere we turn in America. I do not see his tax break of I think $1500 helping to improve the economy much. I know he feels that people will spend the money and boost the economy, but I really don't think they will use it for what he is hoping. They will probably pay bills or put it in saving.

Basically job creation needs to happen but I do not see Congress passing this bill as the single complex plan Obama is hoping for.

New Health Care Mandate: Constitutional or Unconstitutional?

Healthcare is always a hot topic among Americans. The Patient Protection & Affordability Care Act has been the center of a lot of news hype since it was enacted in April 2010. Amidst the debate, is the question of whether the “individual mandate” under the Affordable Care Act is constitutional or not. The mandate requires uninsured Americans to purchase health insurance if they do not fall within one of the individual mandate’s exceptions. The mandate requires U.S. citizens and legal residents to have federal government-approved “qualifying” health insurance coverage beginning in 2014. Those who refuse to purchase insurance will have to pay a tax penalty of $695 per year or 2.5% of their annual income, whichever is higher.

In analyzing the constitutionality of the Act, we must look at the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution. According to the Congressional Budget Office, a “mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be unprecedented form of federal action; the government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.”

Some people believe that this mandate would exceed the Legislature’s power under the U.S. Constitution. How can congress punish you for not buying something? Can Congress really make you buy insurance or slap you with a fine? These are the questions many states are now asking. This question can be answered under the commerce clause of the Constitution, which grants Congress the power “to regulate commerce…among the several states.”

Republicans are hoping the reform law will be struck down while Democrats are in hopes it will prevail. For now the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has decided the mandate is unconstitutional. I am sure the decision will be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court for a final decision.

Could Kaizen economics raise again?

I was talking to my grandfather recently about America's current economic situation and he brought up an economic philosophy/theory that was used by Roosevelt in the 1930s that might work today. Its referred to as the Kaizen economic philosophy. I am sure many of you have heard of it before. It is a pretty straight forward idea. Basically under the Kaizen philosophy of economics people believe it is the governments responsibility to get economy back making jobs, even is that means taking out loans to do so. Once the people are back to work they are then spending money and boosting the economy. The government needs to create jobs in order to boost the economy. Pretty easy concept right? One I am sure many have thought of on there own.

Obama is set to address the nation this week regarding a new job plan. According to ABC News, Obama will focus on 3 areas in hopes of bring down the current unemployment rate of 14 million Americans. 

1. Tax Relief: President Obama will propose tax relief incentives for companies that create jobs and hire new workers.
2. Infrastructure Investment: The president wants the government to invest in clean energy and new construction projects to build schools and transportation.
3. Assistance for Long Term Unemployed: Obama wants to help those who have been out of work for six months or more, which adds up to about 6 million Americans. Specifically the president is looking at a program such as Georgia Works – which gives unemployed Americans eight weeks of training at a local company while allowing them to still collect their unemployment benefits. And it’s no cost to the participating company.

This plan seems to be of a Kaizen philosophy. Obama seems to realize that the current economy is the number one problem that needs to be address. New jobs need to be created. Guess we will have to wait and see how this plan takes form since he did have a job plan in September of 2010 as well that does not seem to have done much :/ 

Related links:

http://www.france24.com/en/20100906-obama-50-billion-dollar-plan-revamp-transport-infrastructure-job-growth-usa

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/08/president-obamas-job-plan-new-details-unveiled/

http://articles.boston.com/2011-08-31/business/29949980_1_tax-credit-jobs-plan-major-jobs-package