June 14, 2017 SHARE Email Facebook Twitter Governor Wolf Alarmed by Report on Job Losses from Federal Health Care Changes Economy, Healthcare, Medicaid Expansion, National Issues, Press Release, Public Health Harrisburg, PA – Governor Tom Wolf today voiced serious concerns about a new report saying federal health care changes could mean the loss of the 85,000 jobs in Pennsylvania, the second most of any state in the country, and billions lost in both Pennsylvania’s gross state product and business output. According to the study’s profile of Pennsylvania, by 2026, the commonwealth will lose 84,900 total jobs, including 52,500 in the health sector, $8,900,000,000 in gross state product and $14,200,000,000 in business output.Governor Wolf said today’s report from George Washington University and the Commonwealth Fund highlights the misguided path that Republican majorities in Washington are pursuing for Pennsylvanians and our economy.“This report is just another example of the alarming approach Washington is pursuing on health care and our economy in the long term,” Governor Wolf. “The Republican proposal will raise costs for older Pennsylvanians, put coverage at risk for nearly a million Pennsylvanians, and strip important consumer protections away from nearly every health care consumer. But this report raises even more concerns about the long-term damage these health care cuts will have on Pennsylvania and the country.“Unfortunately, every indication is that these impacts will only be delayed in the Senate Republican repeal of the Affordable Care Act. This report shows clearly that Medicaid is not just a lifeline for seniors, the disabled and those seeking substance use treatment, but our economy.”From the report’s authors:On May 4, 2017, the House of Representatives passed the American Health Care Act (AHCA, H.R. 1628) to partially repeal and replace the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA, also known as Obamacare).Key parts of the bill include:Reducing federal funding for Medicaid, encouraging states to scale back expansions.Restructuring Medicaid funding using per capita caps and block grants.Eliminating individual tax penalties for not having health insurance and penalties for employers not offering coverage for employees.Replacing income-related premium tax credits with age-based tax credits.Repealing ACA taxes, predominantly benefiting people with high incomes and certain businesses.This nonpartisan study by researchers at the George Washington University examines the potential economic and employment effects of AHCA for every state in the nation. Most tax cuts will occur immediately, increasing the federal deficit, while coverage-related federal spending cuts will phase in more slowly over time.As a result, the net effect is additional job growth in 2018 and 2019 and growth in state economies and business output. However, health sector employment would fall immediately by 24,000 jobs in 2018. By 2021, the magnitude of coverage reductions become much larger than the initial tax cuts, causing state economies to shrink.By 2026, 924,000 fewer people would have jobs and gross state products would shrink by $93 billion. Most of the jobs lost would be in health care, reaching 725,000 jobs lost by 2026.AHCA would dramatically increase the number of uninsured and reduce access to health care, particularly for low and moderate income Americans. This analysis demonstrates that the consequences of this new bill would be much broader and extend well beyond the health care system. Despite initial gains in employment and economic growth, the ultimate decreases in federal spending would cause major reductions in employment and state economic activity.
Taha Lokhandwala considers how the new rules around DC decumulation might pan out in futureIn the midst of a quiet bank holiday in the UK, the defined contribution (DC) pensions market awoke on Monday to see itself in a new light. Last year, chancellor George Osborne famously bellowed from the House of Commons dispatch box that no one would have to buy an annuity and in one fell swoop changed the way the British looked at DC pensions decumulation, and pensions in general.As the clocks turned 0900 this morning, DC pension providers could have been inundated, as they recently predicted, with calls from those over 55 wanting to access their pension savings and run riot over the notion that pensions savings should eventually become retirement income. We shall learn down the line whether they were inundated or not. But it leads to an interesting discussion. Whether you agree with the reforms or not, they are here. What happens henceforth is what is important – whether you believe in ‘paternalism’ or liberalism, market forces or intervention. The gates of pensions freedoms have been opened, and it is likely savers will come flooding through.So, what next? No one really knows. No one has been able to predict how savers will react. The pensions minister Steve Webb spent his Easter weekend entreating savers not to wake up today and splurge their savings before even considering retirement. Webb, true to his Liberal Democrat colours, stands by the view that savers should have the right to do so – and this, really, is the core matter. Liberalism always comes at a cost, and that cost is bad decisions – sometimes bad decisions created by coercion. The policy of forcing people to buy an annuity is based on the notion that they cannot be trusted to make the ‘right’ decisions. This government argues that only the people themselves know what is right.The abandonment of the so-called nanny state in pensions, however, exposes savers to a new and potentially bigger predator – the pensions and insurance industry. With freedom and choice to select retirement solutions comes just that – choice. The UK industry is already complex enough to the general public, with splits among defined benefit and DC, trust-based options and insurance contract-based arrangements. It’s complex enough to see pensions saving continuously fall until state intervention in the form of auto-enrolment. Adding choices, while giving people freedom, merely increases complexity, not to mention opportunistic sales tactics from shareholder-bound, return-driven firms.To its credit, the government has provided free guidance, but the question of whether enough resource and emphasis on this guidance has been provided is debatable, as the entire policy hinges on the ability of a saver to select the right product, at the right time and at the right price.The policy is difficult to argue against and, more important, difficult to redact. Freedoms are popular. Webb himself, in a debate with his opposite number in the Labour Party, said the polls spoke for themselves. However, there is the bigger concern. Liberalism, even with its costs, can be welcomed, but one should always look at the motives. The freedom to spend one’s DC savings is one of the biggest, and certainly most popular, policies of this government – and it comes into force weeks before a general election. Short-term electioneering over long-term concerns for the electorate? Perhaps.The next government, whatever its form, has much to contemplate. More intervention to fix its freedoms? Rules around targeting customers? Cost caps for new products? Extending the freedoms to those already with annuities? All of these have been discussed. Momentum behind the notion of having a default decumulation option is building. The idea is to help those who just do not know what to do while still providing freedoms to those who want to exercise them. MPs scrutinising pensions policy, the National Association of Pension Funds (NAPF), the National Employment Savings Trust (NEST) and a think tank all support this idea. However, the current pensions minister is strongly against it.After much talk over the last 13 months, the day has arrived. Pension providers opened themselves up to a raft of enquiries this morning. The reforms can help create a more active, fluid and beneficial pensions industry where people get out of it what they desire. But only time will tell if freedom and choice was truly the right way, or whether the UK government merely replaced a nanny with a shark.
Better Collective Spotlight: How Betarades.gr is driving engagement through YouTube July 30, 2020 Better Collective cautious on quick recovery as COVID drags growth momentum August 25, 2020 StumbleUpon Stockholm-listed industry affiliate Better Collective AB has moved to expand its corporate financing capacity, after securing access to a further DKK 300 million (€40 million) credit facility backed by Danish bank Nordea AS.Updating the market, Better Collective expands its existing Nordea credit facilities to DKK 600 million, with the affiliate publisher detailing that the capital will be used to support its ongoing M&A opportunities.Since executing its Stockholm IPO last year, Better Collective has invested over €100 million in M&A directives, which have been financed by a combination of proceeds from its IPO, combined with cash flow from operations and arranged bank credit lines with Nordea.Closing Q1 2019 trading, Better Collective confirmed its biggest M&A transaction to date acquiring US sports digital publisher The RotoGrinders Network for $21 million, significantly accelerating the firm’s US market options.Flemming Pedersen, Chief Financial Officer of Better Collective, said: “Since the IPO, we have executed on the M&A-strategy which was the essential part of the intended use of the IPO-proceeds.“The acquisitions and the organic growth combined have increased the operational earnings to a whole new level, that allows for further debt leverage.“We continue to see many interesting acquisition opportunities, and we consider bank financing to be the most attractive way of funding these activities.“We want to continue the growth of Better Collective, and the strong support from our main bank, Nordea, is an important factor in this journey.” Related Articles Share Share Altenar: Supporting expansion plans in Denmark and Portugal August 20, 2020 Submit