Tag Archives: Job loss

Job Churn Benefit of Medicare for All

For those who believe that MFA would be a job killer, here is an article from the Economic Policy Institute that dispeals that belief.

Economic Policy Institute

March 5, 2020

Fundamental health reform like ‘Medicare for All’ would help the labor market

Job loss claims are misleading, and substantial boosts to job quality are often overlooked

By Josh Bivens

Fundamental health reform like “Medicare for All” would be a hugely ambitious policy undertaking with profound effects on the economy and the economic security of households in America. But despite oft-repeated claims of large-scale job losses, a national program that would guarantee health insurance for every American would not profoundly affect the total number of jobs in the U.S. economy. In fact, such reform could boost wages and jobs and lead to more efficient labor markets that better match jobs and workers. Specifically, it could:

*  Boost wages and salaries by allowing employers to redirect money they are spending on health care costs to their workers’ wages.

*  Increase job quality by ensuring that every job now comes bundled with a guarantee of health care—with the boost to job quality even greater among women workers, who are less likely to have employer-sponsored health care.

*  Lessen the stress and economic shock of losing a job or moving between jobs by eliminating the loss of health care that now accompanies job losses and transitions.

*  Support self-employment and small business development—which is currently super low in the U.S. relative to other rich countries—by eliminating the daunting loss of/cost of health care from startup costs.

*  Inject new dynamism and adaptability into the overall economy by reducing “job lock”—with workers going where their skills and preferences best fit the job, not just to workplaces (usually large ones) that have affordable health plans.

*  Produce a net increase in jobs as public spending boosts aggregate demand, with job losses in health insurance and billing administration being outweighed by job gains in provision of health care, including the expansion of long-term care.

The upshot: M4A creates a small amount of manageable churn but increases the overall demand for labor and boosts job quality

The job challenge relating to a fundamental health reform is managing a relatively small increase in job churn during an initial phase-in period. Most Medicare for All plans explicitly recognize and account for the costs of providing these workers the elements of a just transition. This sort of just transition is far easier when health care is universally provided.

Besides this challenge, the effect of fundamental reform like M4A on the labor market would be nearly uniformly positive. The effect of a fundamental reform like M4A on aggregate demand is almost certainly positive and will therefore boost the demand for labor. The number of jobs spurred by increased demand for new health care spending (including long-term care) will certainly be larger than the number displaced by realizing efficiencies in the health insurance and billing administration sectors.

Finally, the introduction of fundamental health reform like M4A—particularly reform that substantially delinks health care provision from specific jobs—would greatly aid how the labor market functions for typical working Americans. Take-home cash pay would increase, job quality would improve, labor market transitions could be eased for employers and made less damaging to workers, and a greater range of job opportunities could be considered by workers. The increased flexibility to leave jobs should lead to more productive “matches” between workers and employers, and small businesses and self-employment could increase.

Fundamental health reform would benefit typical American families in all sorts of ways. Importantly, contrary to claims that such reform might be bad for jobs, this reform could substantially improve how labor markets function for these families.

https://www.epi.org/publication/medicare-for-all-would-help-the-labor-market/

Full report (13 page PDF):

https://www.epi.org/files/pdf/186856.pdf

Say Goodbye to Comp

Fellow blogger, Joe Paduda, today wrote a very prescient article about the impact the jobless economy will have on workers’ comp in the coming decades.

While the idea of driverless trucks may be something in the works, there are many factors working against it from becoming reality in the near term, and perhaps for many years to come. Laws and insurance requirements and what to do if the truck breaks down on a stretch of highway not easily accessible by repair trucks or miles from the nearest truck stop, will have to considered before driverless trucks put drivers out of work.

Yet, as Joe points out, manufacturing is already seeing a loss of jobs due to automation and higher productivity, which will lead to lower consumer costs, but will exact an even higher cost on the nation’s stability and will force politicians to come to grips with what to do with a permanently unemployed population, especially those in the service sector, who are being replaced, and will be replaced by automated cashiers, as well as those occupations tied to the workers’ comp industry.

If, as I reported yesterday, that 50% of all jobs will be gone by 2025, what do you do with those individuals who lose their jobs to machines and software?

It is a question that few have asked, and one that fewer have provided answers for. Also, what happens, as I also asked yesterday, if the 50% goes to 75% or higher?

The UBI is one idea floating around, but short of that, what else can we do to put permanently unemployed back into the workforce once technology makes them, in the words of that “Twilight Zone” episode, “Obsolete!”

It makes no sense, Joe states, to reform a system that won’t be around much longer. So, say goodbye to workers’ comp, say goodbye to claims adjusters, occupational therapists and physicians and nurses in same, pharmacy benefit managers, rehabilitation personnel, return to work specialists, case managers, utilization reviewers and bill reviewers, as well as underwriters and lawyers.

The Technological Revolution and Health Care: On the Same Track?

Yesterday, I ran across an interview on Truthout.com by Mark Karlin. Mr. Karlin was interviewing the two authors of a new book, People Get Ready, by Robert W. Mc Chesney and John Nichols.

Mr. Karlin’s first question, answered by Mr. Mc Chesney, intrigued me and got me thinking of what is happening in workers’ comp, as well as what is happening in health care.

As I mentioned briefly in my last post, automation and artificial intelligence will have a significant impact on the future of workers’ comp, and this is emphasized in Mc Chesney and Nichols’ book. There have been other books and articles recently on the subject, so this is nothing new.

But what got me thinking is that Mr. Karlin addressed the main question the book raises — namely that the conventional wisdom has always been that the more advanced technology becomes, the more beneficial it will be for humans.

Mr. Mc Chesney responded that convention wisdom said that new technologies will disrupt and eliminate many jobs and industries, and that they would be replaced by newer industries and better jobs.

Mc Chesney also said that they argue the idea that technology will create a new job to replace an old one is no longer operative; nor that the new job will be better than the old one.

According to Mr. Mc Chesney:

Capitalism is in a period of prolonged and arguably indefinite stagnation. There is immense unemployment and underemployment of workers, which we document in the book, taken from entirely uncontroversial data sources. There is downward pressure on wages and working conditions, which results is growing and grotesque inequality. Workers have less security and are far more precarious today than they were a generation ago; for workers under the age of 30, it is a nightmare compared to what I experienced in the 1970s.”

Likewise, Mr. Mc Chesney, continued:

there is an immense amount of “unemployed” capital; i.e. wealthy individuals and US corporations are holding around $2 trillion in cash for which they cannot find attractive investments. There is simply insufficient consumer demand for firms to risk additional capital investment. The only place that demand can come from is by shifting money from the rich to the poor and/or by aggressively increasing government spending, and those options are politically off-limits, except to jack up military spending, which is already absurdly and obscenely high.

Contemporary capitalism is increasingly seeing profits generated, he adds, not by its fairy tales of entrepreneurs creating new jobs satisfying consumer needs, (remember Mitt Romney’s ‘job creator’ line of bs?) — but by monopolies, corruption and by privatizing public services.

Finally, Mr. Mc Chesney states that:

Capitalism as we know it is a very bad fit for the technological revolution we are beginning to experience. We desperately need a new economy, one that is not capitalistic — based on the mindless and endless pursuit of maximum profit — or one where capitalism has been radically reformed, more than ever before in its history. It is the central political challenge of our times.

They are not the only ones arguing for such reform or revolution, Senator Sanders notwithstanding. In previous posts, I have mentioned the biopsychosocial theory, Spiral Dynamics, and the book by Said W. Dawlabani, MEMEnomics The Next-Generation Economic System.

Other authors such as Richard Wolff, and Robert Reich have written books about this subject, and like Mc Chesney and Nichols have reached similar conclusions. Yet, Dawlabani, accessing the Spiral Dynamics model, goes much deeper into why we got here and what we need to do to get out of it.

Such a future version of capitalism has been called by many different names that I have come across in the past decade or so. Natural Capitalism, conscious capitalism, and so on, to name a few. But the main point is as Mc Chesney and Nichols points out in their book, the technological revolution, rather than liberating humans and making our lives better, as Mc Chesney says in the interview, may have the perverse effect of reinforcing its stagnating tendency.

An issue related to automation and artificial intelligence and its impact on the future of work, is if we are all replaced by machines and software, how will people be able to live? How will the goods and services produced by automation be sold, and to whom? Only those who are fortunate to have employment in jobs that machines cannot do? Or will we have to go back to a time when money was only the purview of those who had it?

The answer to these questions have also been raised by those in the tech world, and one suggestion they have come up with is a national basic income (NBI), and naturally has already been shot down as a bad idea by those on the Right. I guess they really want people to be poor.

But this idea should be kept on the back burner for now, as given the political climate in this country, that idea will be dead on arrival. Yet, while many have acknowledged what Mc Chesney, Nichols and others have said is happening, the other side — namely the current Speaker of the House and others in his party, have doubled down on their stubborn adherence to the rantings of a two-bit novelist, Ayn Rand and Ayn Randism.

Which brings me to the other point I wish to discuss, and that bears on what happens in the overall economy at large.

If automation and artificial intelligence will lead to elimination of many, if not all jobs, and if that will require a new economy as Mc Chesney and Nichols, and others have argued, what does that mean for the health care industry that seems to be going in the opposite direction?

Even before the enactment of the ACA, health care has become more centralized, bureaucratic, consolidated and more profit-driven than ever. The ACA in many ways has accelerated this process, and the direction it is headed is towards a more consumer-driven form of health care, and one where large hospital systems have integrated physicians and insurance services into their business plan.

The move among some physicians and physician practices towards concierge medicine, also is a sign that health care is moving towards a more capitalistic health care, in that it creates two classes — those who can afford concierge medicine, and those who cannot.

The transition to a new economy will not happen overnight, and may not happen for some time, especially if the forces aligned against it remain strongly opposed to reform. But if the health care system collapses, as I mentioned previously in articles last week, then along with the stagnation of capitalism generally, there will be an opportunity to move in that direction in health care as well.

Calling for ‘Medicare for All’ now with firm opposition to anything that spends government money or has a social benefit other than producing profit for a few, is only a waste of time and a con job.

There are only two ways an economic system and its attendant political system changes; by revolution or evolution. One is violent and bloody, the other happens because the old is replaced by the new so seamlessly that no one gets too emotional when it happens. An election does not do that, especially when the opposition is headed toward fascism.

That issue is for another time and place, and the rest of Mc Chesney and Nichols’ book discusses the current presidential campaign. I wanted to discuss the dichotomy between where capitalism is headed and where health care is headed, and at some point, health care will have to fall in line with the new capitalism.


I am willing to work with any broker, carrier, or employer interested in saving money on expensive surgeries, and to provide the best care for their injured workers or their client’s employees.

Ask me any questions you may have on how to save money on expensive surgeries under workers’ comp.

I am also looking for a partner who shares my vision of global health care for injured workers.

I am also willing to work with any health care provider, medical tourism facilitator or facility to help you take advantage of a market segment treating workers injured on the job. Workers’ compensation is going through dramatic changes, and may one day be folded into general health care. Injured workers needing surgery for compensable injuries will need to seek alternatives that provide quality medical care at lower cost to their employers. Caribbean and Latin America region preferred.

Call me for more information, next steps, or connection strategies at (561) 738-0458 or (561) 603-1685, cell. Email me at: richard_krasner@hotmail.com.

Will accept invitations to speak or attend conferences.

Connect with me on LinkedIn, check out my website, FutureComp Consulting, and follow my blog at: richardkrasner.wordpress.com.

Transforming Workers’ Blog is now viewed all over the world in 250 countries and political entities. I have published nearly 300 articles, many of them re-published in newsletters and other blogs.

Share this article, or leave a comment below.

Tuesday Evening Catch-up (Not ‘Ketchup’)

Now that my company has left from the weekend, and my recent job interview came and went (did not get the job), I want to catch up on two items from yesterday that caught my attention, and will impact the future of workers’ comp.

The first item comes from Joe Paduda.

Joe’s article, “What Job?” asks the question, “what job will injured workers return to?”, and states that many of the high-injury rate jobs that drive a lot of work comp premiums and services won’t exist in ten years, and a lot of low-injury rate jobs will disappear as well.

One industry that Joe sees as suffering jobs disappearing is the trucking industry, where the replacement of long-haul drivers with autonomous driving will leave many without employment. The trucking industry employs 3.5 million drivers and pays $40,000 a year.

Along with the loss of trucking jobs, are those jobs that depend on, and support the truckers and the trucking industry such as people who work at truck stops, wait staff, hotel staff, and mechanics.

To further the discussion, Tom Lynch, in Workers’ Comp Insider.com writes that artificial intelligence is going to bring change on a monumental scale.

According to Tom, “I suggest it is not hyperbole to predict that we are on the verge of an epochal change, something like a kind of mass extinction, and what’s going extinct is an enormous number of jobs. This change might be even more significant than humanity’s evolution from an agrarian to an industrial economy.

Tom mentions a report that Joe cites that suggests up to 47% of jobs run the risk of going the way of the Woolly Mammoth by 2025.

It is highly controversial and its conclusions have been hotly debated.

Even so, Tom says that the most conservative naysayers agree that the figure is at least 16% (but that figure doesn’t take into account the jobs that the AI revolution will create, estimated at about 9%, for a net job loss of 7%).

Regardless, he says, millions of jobs will be lost.

The next item is from Stephanie Goldberg of Business Insurance.

Stephanie reported that the Oklahoma Workers’ Compensation Commission unanimously ruled that the state’s opt-out law is unconstitutional.

The commission ruled that provisions of the Oklahoma Employee lnjury Benefit Act are “inoperable,” unconstitutionally depriving injured workers of equal protection and access to the court, according to Ms. Goldberg.

The ruling is immediately appealable to the state’s Supreme Court, so if they uphold the ruling, it would leave Texas as the one and only state with an opt-out option. Tennessee has not voted on the law this year.