Heritage criticizes Obama health care plan: It’s already costing jobs
In one of its blogposts of today, the conservative Heritage think tank criticizes Obama’s health care plan because it’s already costing jobs – well the health care provisions in his ’stimulus plan’ are, that is.
Think it’s a bit early for Heritage to claim this? Think again, the New York Times – of all places – agrees:
Thus, this becomes another cost of doing business that smart owners attempt to control. How do you control it? By making as few hires as possible, by making sure that those hires you do make are as strong as possible, and by combining documented rules with good management.
And now, thanks to the stimulus package, unemployment insurance has been extended as much as an additional 20 weeks. If you’ve had to lay off 10 people, this could easily result in additional taxes of $10,000, $50,000, or even $100,000. It’s a time bomb that won’t go off until after employers get their contribution-rate increase in November, but it will go off.
And therein lies the final irony: Even after the economy improves, I’m going to think long and hard before I hire anyone. Thanks to the stimulus package — the stimulus package — the costs, paperwork, and legal exposure associated with hiring employees is on the rise.
Imagine what will happen at the moment Obama’s real, full, health care plan is passed by Congress. Small business owners especially will simply stop hiring new people. You can’t hire anyone when it causes you to lose money.
As usual, far left policies prove to be a drain on the economy. Yet, Obama and his political friends pursue their plans nonetheless. Why is that? If they would truly care about effective policies that solve America’s problems they would revise their plans. As a result, I cannot help but conclude that they care only about implementing their ideological plan – and that against all costs.
Conclusion: Obama will happily ‘reform’ and ’stimulate’ you to death.
“Heritage think tank”
Up next: Democratic Underground objectively reviews the Bush presidency.
On a serious note, I think the problem is that the idea of the businesses providing HC for employees is a relic from the time when there were wage controls – the employers had to attract prospective workers somehow and HC providing was the avenue of choice. After the wage controls went away the HC system was let, vestigial and sluggish. Revamping the system like Obama wants to might unsaddle employers of a lot of financial difficulties.
There must be a balanced imposed between employers and employees in the case of lay-offs. In the UK young people who worked hard in schools to move up the economical ladder are kept out of the job market by the nepotism and power advantage of the employers, resulting in businesses without meritocracy and lower social mobility. In Sweden, OTOH, young people have very high unemployment numbers due to the “first in, first out” rule that discourages many employers. In the same sense that not all people in the US will be laid off fairly, not all will really deserve unemployment benefits that saddle their ex-employers with extra costs either. This balance is an economic and not an ideological concern. There will be accumulated problems if one defaults to a position.
“Conclusion: Obama will happily ‘reform’ and ’stimulate’ you to death.”
That… That sounds a bit erotic, somehow.
The Canadian system isn’t costing them jobs as far as the automotive industry. Most cars built in North America come from Ontario Canada, not Ohio or Michigan. One reason is the cost to build there is less because of single payer or socialized medicine. Japan and the EU also have this advantage. Guess who supported the Cliton plan in 1994, the Big Three auto execs.
Struggling to find some kind of meaningful message from this Rudi.
And also while you’re at it, show some documentation that would prove health care costs will lower if it’s a nationalized system.
Oh – and show too how it won’t hurt the lower income or middle income individuals.
And you may also want to look at why Canadians are opting for additional private insurance.
And also while you’re at it, show some documentation that would prove health care costs will lower if it’s a nationalized system.
Not health care costs, but cost to produce autos are cheaper in Canada.
So you think that a nationalized health care will make the cost of producing automobiles in the US cheaper.
The Heritage piece and the NYT piece refer to the healthcare provisions in the stimulus package, which really has little to nothing to do with the Obama healthcare proposal that’s currently being put on the table.
The most you can conclude from this is that it’s an example of liberal policy which fails to anticipate unintended consequences of government mandates on the business sector. Quite often liberals appear to have little or no knowledge of running a business (I love the George McGovern reference in the NYT link) and this becomes evident in policies which assume a zero sum game. In the current example of extension of COBRA rules, the assumption is that this benefits employees who get laid off but it fails to anticipate that employers will probably MAKE hiring and firing decisions based on the cost of the new policy- and in the end that’s going to make it harder for laid off employees to find new jobs.
I suppose its possible that a general unease about what is coming down the pike with healthcare reform might have a similar chilling effect on employment, but Heritage really didn’t make that case effectively. In terms of anticipated direct costs to employers, I would think that the general outlook for businesses is mostly positive. The downside of that of course is that many employers will stop offering private insurance coverage and the number of people who will ‘choose’ the public plan will be much higher than the WH predicts- making single payer, nationalized healthcare a reality before long. I think that’s a negative, but I don’t see where it would be viewed as a negative for the bottom line of businesses if they’re able to get healthcare costs off their books altogether.
liberal policy which fails to anticipate unintended consequences of government mandates on the business sector.
The democrats have one plan. Get something on the books no matter how good or bad. Rush it thru before the 2010 elections where its possible that they would no longer have the votes to get a bill thru congress. Consequences be damned.
Nothing is free but they are going to do everything they can to make you think that it is free. That it will pay for itself or that by taxing the rich we can pay for it.
You know we prolly can tax the rich and pay for it…
One question though…what about the other 1.7 trillion dollars in deficits they are going to run next year? Who do we tax to pay for that??
Obama’s health care plan has advantages and disadvantages as well. He says the new system is for people, so let’s ask them what they prefer – http://www.votetheday.com/healthcare/obamas-health-care-plan-415/