Skip to main content

View Diary: The future of healthcare reform came to Sacramento yesterday (284 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  More jobs in health care, fewer jobs in (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Shockwave, LynneK, bthespoon, Pris from LA

    keeping people from getting the health care they need.

    It has been "gamed".

    The 2006 Lewin Group cost report on SB840, the predecessor of Leno's bill SB 810, estimated the labor market effects and retraining costs. The report was written before UnitedHealth Care bought the company and destroyed LG's reputation for independence. I haven't read the current bill, so I don't know if retraining's included or not.

    League of Women Voters FAQ touched on the issues.

    Also the California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee estimated the new jobs for Conyer's national single payer health care bill, HR 676 2.6 million.

    •  moral (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pris from LA

      I understand the moral case for it, regarding

      More jobs in health care, fewer jobs in keeping people from getting the health care they need.

      But, I'm also one to believe that the vast majority of the people in those jobs aren't in those jobs because they have a belief in keeping people from getting the health care they need.  Many of us have the ability to choose against certain job opportunities - many others do not have that luxury.  I do not want to indulge in a slippery slope argument defining where the line is, my point is only that the people that would be transitioned out of those jobs need to be accounted for and helped.  I'm not opposed to doing it, I'm just curious what plans are in place to make it a gentle transition.

      The league of women voters FAQ doesn't mention anything regarding job loss that I can find - can you point me in the right direction?

      The Nurses study estimates a job creation of 2.6 million but doesn't mention the numbers of jobs lost.  That 2.6 million appears to not be a "net" figure.

      •  you could be right about both... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LynneK, Pris from LA

        i'll do more looking later...

        the CA single payer bill definitely provided for retraining.

        I'll look harder...

        I'm sure the people took the jobs because they were there. Similarly, they would take others jobs that were there... if there were jobs.

        but I will look and reply to your post tomorrow.

        •  I found (0+ / 0-)

          one real back-of-the-envelope calculation that said there might be around 150k - 400k people working in the relevant industries, which is of course far less than 2.6 million.  Well, I guess my real point is that I hope the folks planning for single payer are accounting for it.

          I know it's not a good reason to oppose it.  I also don't agree with keeping up military bases and defense contracts just to protect jobs, or continuing the war on drugs just to employ prison guards.  The bias towards private industry is just so strong though, it needs to be taken apart carefully.

          •  Single Payer folks learned from experience... (0+ / 0-)

            During the first initiative campaign, they didn't take notice of the people who'd lose their jobs and lost votes because of it.

            They didn't make the same mistake twice.

            Next time they included liberal provisions for retraining and help with job finding in the language of the law up front.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site