adplus-dvertising
Connect with us

Economy

Analysis: Bidencare or Trumpcare? Health plans will affect the U.S. economy differently – TheChronicleHerald.ca

Published

 on


By Ann Saphir

(Reuters) – Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden wants to expand the Affordable Care Act, President Barack Obama’s signature healthcare legislation, and then name it after himself.

Republican President Donald Trump wants to end it altogether, and replace it with something that has yet to be defined.

An ongoing debate over which approach is better for the economy is partly about price tags. Bidencare is forecast to increase federal healthcare spending by $2 trillion or more over 10 years. Trump’s approach is to hold federal spending stable or reduce it.

Bidencare supporters emphasize the stimulative effects of government spending, especially in a period of economic distress, and the benefits of insuring more people in the middle of a pandemic. Those who prefer Trump’s approach say it would avoid debt or tax increases they say would drag on future economic growth.

The United States has about 30 million people without health insurance https://tmsnrt.rs/3mzqQxC now, down from about 46.5 million in 2010, when the ACA was passed.

Graphic – Under ACA, a drop in the number of uninsured: https://graphics.reuters.com/USA-ELECTION/ECONOMY-HEALTHCARE/rlgpdxbompo/chart.png

Bidencare would cut that figure by a further 15 million to 20 million, an analysis by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates. Trump isn’t expected to try to reduce that.

Healthcare spending is equal to 17% of the U.S. economy, far more than any other industrialized country, so the Trumpcare vs. Bidencare debate is no small economic matter. It’s further complicated by the fact that extra spending doesn’t translate to a healthier populace than other counties.

“Improving healthcare performance is a critical part of strengthening America’s health, economy and fiscal future, and should be top a priority for the next president and Congress,” says Peterson Foundation CEO Michael Peterson.

BIDENCARE FOCUSES ON LOWER-INCOME AMERICANS

Bidencare would cover more Americans by increasing subsidized health insurance purchases through tax credits.

It would also offer a “public option,” allowing anyone who wants it to buy in, even if their job offers private insurance. Lower-income families shut out of ACA’s expanded Medicaid eligibility because of where they live could get it premium-free.

Any boost to health and financial stability is likely to be biggest for millions of low-income households, particularly Latino and Black families who have been particularly hard-hit during the pandemic.

For these groups especially, says the University of Michigan School of Public Health’s Helen Levy, being able to accumulate assets “is really important if you think about supporting economic mobility.”

Minorities get and die from COVID-19 at higher rates than whites, data shows. Some of that is probably because Blacks and Latinos are more likely to work in jobs that put them at higher risk of transmission.

But even without COVID-19, minorities face higher rates of chronic disease and earlier death than whites. They also have lower rates of health insurance despite substantial gains since the advent of the ACA, a study by Kaiser Family Foundation shows.

Biden said he would pay for his plan through higher taxes on the wealthy, and use the clout of expanded public insurance to keep down medical costs.

Increasing the number of insured Americans could have positive economic consequences.

There’s evidence that the uninsured who do get sick get care in expensive settings like the emergency room, says UCLA public health policy professor Gerald Kominski. That takes a toll on their financial health and, when they can’t pay, strains the finances of hospitals that provide their care, with taxpayers footing part of that bill as well.

People in states where uninsured rates fell under Obamacare had fewer past-due debts, were less likely to use payday loans or file for bankruptcy, had better credit and were less likely to be evicted than those in states that did not expand Medicaid eligibility under the ACA.

“The whole reason people should get insurance, from an economist’s perspective, is to protect them against catastrophic losses,” says University of Minnesota professor Sayeh Nikpay.

TRUMPCARE LESS CLEAR, BUT CHEAPER

Trump tried and failed to get Congress to repeal the ACA in his first four-year term, and is likely to continue to it in some form during a second term.

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear a challenge to the law a week after Tuesday’s presidential election. A ruling to dismantle the ACA would put coverage of 21 million Americans in jeopardy, according to the Urban Institute, though most legal scholars don’t expect the court to do so.

If it does, Trump hasn’t specified a plan to replace it. One blueprint may be the Health Care Choices Proposal, put together by conservative health policy experts at the Galen Institute and the Heritage Foundation.

The plan would turn money now used for the ACA over to states to help people buy private health insurance and to provide coverage for low-income households.

An analysis by the right-leaning nonprofit think tank American Action Forum found the proposal would lower premiums by 18% to 24%. The number of uninsured would remain steady.

“The macroeconomic effects would be better than either current law or proposals to devote more public resources to the ACA,” says author Doug Badger. Reducing premiums, he said, would be the “best form of economic stimulus” because it would put money in the pockets of regular Americans.

That analysis is disputed.

Bidencare’s high price tag does worry Bipartisan Policy Center Senior Vice President William Hoagland, a former staffer to Republican lawmakers. But, he said, it’s worth paying for broader health insurance access, which he said would lead to a stronger economy.

“I’m going to come down on the side that a healthy country, and a reduction in chronic conditions, improves productivity, and improving productivity increases economic growth,” he said.

(Reporting by Ann Saphir; Editing by Heather Timmons and Jonathan Oatis)

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Economy

B.C.’s debt and deficit forecast to rise as the provincial election nears

Published

 on

 

VICTORIA – British Columbia is forecasting a record budget deficit and a rising debt of almost $129 billion less than two weeks before the start of a provincial election campaign where economic stability and future progress are expected to be major issues.

Finance Minister Katrine Conroy, who has announced her retirement and will not seek re-election in the Oct. 19 vote, said Tuesday her final budget update as minister predicts a deficit of $8.9 billion, up $1.1 billion from a forecast she made earlier this year.

Conroy said she acknowledges “challenges” facing B.C., including three consecutive deficit budgets, but expected improved economic growth where the province will start to “turn a corner.”

The $8.9 billion deficit forecast for 2024-2025 is followed by annual deficit projections of $6.7 billion and $6.1 billion in 2026-2027, Conroy said at a news conference outlining the government’s first quarterly financial update.

Conroy said lower corporate income tax and natural resource revenues and the increased cost of fighting wildfires have had some of the largest impacts on the budget.

“I want to acknowledge the economic uncertainties,” she said. “While global inflation is showing signs of easing and we’ve seen cuts to the Bank of Canada interest rates, we know that the challenges are not over.”

Conroy said wildfire response costs are expected to total $886 million this year, more than $650 million higher than originally forecast.

Corporate income tax revenue is forecast to be $638 million lower as a result of federal government updates and natural resource revenues are down $299 million due to lower prices for natural gas, lumber and electricity, she said.

Debt-servicing costs are also forecast to be $344 million higher due to the larger debt balance, the current interest rate and accelerated borrowing to ensure services and capital projects are maintained through the province’s election period, said Conroy.

B.C.’s economic growth is expected to strengthen over the next three years, but the timing of a return to a balanced budget will fall to another minister, said Conroy, who was addressing what likely would be her last news conference as Minister of Finance.

The election is expected to be called on Sept. 21, with the vote set for Oct. 19.

“While we are a strong province, people are facing challenges,” she said. “We have never shied away from taking those challenges head on, because we want to keep British Columbians secure and help them build good lives now and for the long term. With the investments we’re making and the actions we’re taking to support people and build a stronger economy, we’ve started to turn a corner.”

Premier David Eby said before the fiscal forecast was released Tuesday that the New Democrat government remains committed to providing services and supports for people in British Columbia and cuts are not on his agenda.

Eby said people have been hurt by high interest costs and the province is facing budget pressures connected to low resource prices, high wildfire costs and struggling global economies.

The premier said that now is not the time to reduce supports and services for people.

Last month’s year-end report for the 2023-2024 budget saw the province post a budget deficit of $5.035 billion, down from the previous forecast of $5.9 billion.

Eby said he expects government financial priorities to become a major issue during the upcoming election, with the NDP pledging to continue to fund services and the B.C. Conservatives looking to make cuts.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 10, 2024.

Note to readers: This is a corrected story. A previous version said the debt would be going up to more than $129 billion. In fact, it will be almost $129 billion.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

Source link

Continue Reading

Economy

Mark Carney mum on carbon-tax advice, future in politics at Liberal retreat

Published

 on

 

NANAIMO, B.C. – Former Bank of Canada governor Mark Carney says he’ll be advising the Liberal party to flip some the challenges posed by an increasingly divided and dangerous world into an economic opportunity for Canada.

But he won’t say what his specific advice will be on economic issues that are politically divisive in Canada, like the carbon tax.

He presented his vision for the Liberals’ economic policy at the party’s caucus retreat in Nanaimo, B.C. today, after he agreed to help the party prepare for the next election as chair of a Liberal task force on economic growth.

Carney has been touted as a possible leadership contender to replace Justin Trudeau, who has said he has tried to coax Carney into politics for years.

Carney says if the prime minister asks him to do something he will do it to the best of his ability, but won’t elaborate on whether the new adviser role could lead to him adding his name to a ballot in the next election.

Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland says she has been taking advice from Carney for years, and that his new position won’t infringe on her role.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 10, 2024.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

Source link

Continue Reading

Economy

Nova Scotia bill would kick-start offshore wind industry without approval from Ottawa

Published

 on

 

HALIFAX – The Nova Scotia government has introduced a bill that would kick-start the province’s offshore wind industry without federal approval.

Natural Resources Minister Tory Rushton says amendments within a new omnibus bill introduced today will help ensure Nova Scotia meets its goal of launching a first call for offshore wind bids next year.

The province wants to offer project licences by 2030 to develop a total of five gigawatts of power from offshore wind.

Rushton says normally the province would wait for the federal government to adopt legislation establishing a wind industry off Canada’s East Coast, but that process has been “progressing slowly.”

Federal legislation that would enable the development of offshore wind farms in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador has passed through the first and second reading in the Senate, and is currently under consideration in committee.

Rushton says the Nova Scotia bill mirrors the federal legislation and would prevent the province’s offshore wind industry from being held up in Ottawa.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 10, 2024.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending