The Affordable Care Act Negatively Impacts the Supply of Labor

Labor market distortions are common within the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA/Obamacare). Employers are faced with uncertainty at every turn. As observed from the recently released Federal Reserve beige book, this uncertainty restrains hiring.[1]

While substantial attention has been given to the employer side, the employee side also experiences many distortionary effects. Some of these distortions include incentives to reduce hours, not seek work, drop insurance coverage, drop dependent coverage, become divorced, or avoid marriage. It is apparent that Obamacare’s effects extend far past the number of employees a business will employ, or how many hours a week an employee will be allowed to work.

Obamacare Taxes and the Supply of Labor

Obamacare will negatively affect the reward to work for many workers, as noted by University of Chicago economist, Casey Mulligan. According to Mulligan, “The net result of all of this will be to reduce employment, especially among less skilled people.”[2]  Many individuals will be left facing tough decisions on whether or not to take a higher paying job or losing thousands of dollars in health care subsidies.[3]

When an individual faces higher tax rates, if they currently have a job, they may roll back on hours worked. Subsidies also have this sort of effect. According to Mulligan, “The [Affordable Care Act’s] subsidies will sharply reduce the financial reward to working because they will be phased out with household income.”

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) also agrees, stating, “The expansion of Medicaid and the availability of subsidies through the exchanges will effective increases beneficiaries’ financial resources. Those additional resources will encourage some people to work fewer hours or to withdraw from the labor market.” The CBO found that the legislation would reduce amount of labor by half a percent.[4]  

Under the Affordable Care Act’s system of subsidies, as an individual makes more money, they are rewarded by losing subsidies. This creates a calculation that each person must make—whether or not to strive to increase their personal household income through working more or getting a better job, or choosing to stay in a similar place in life in order to keep the benefits.

In November 2012, the CBO estimated the increase in marginal tax rates due to Obamacare, adding evidence to Mulligan’s claim. According to the CBO, the introduction of the Medicaid expansion and the exchange subsidies would increase marginal tax rates for more individuals. Populations that have Medicaid face marginal tax rates above 75 percent in many instances. In terms of exchange subsides, for income between 100 percent and 133 percent of the poverty level, tax rates increase by 2 percent. For income between 133 percent and 400 percent of the poverty level, increases vary between 9.5 percent and 18 percent.[5]

Compared to previous law, individuals now experience even higher marginal tax rates from the ability to garnish health care subsidies at lower income. Obamacare ultimately discourages low income individuals from trying to move into higher paying jobs on the margin.

Low-wage workers are especially affected, because they are most responsive to higher tax rates or lower subsidies. The CBO believes that low-income workers have higher labor elasticies.[6] Low income workers will respond to changes in tax rates more intensely on the margin than individuals with higher incomes. Not only are marginal rates higher, but lower income individuals are expected to respond more vigorously to the changes. This effect could be further exasperated through the incentives for employers to drop coverage to lowering income employees.[7]

Dependent Coverage and Obamacare’s Treatment of Marriage

Several analysts point out that Obamacare develops a marriage penalty.[8] Simply put, individuals lose subsidies if they choose to marry without any change to earnings. Representative Darrel Issa (R­–CA) points out a simple explanation and example: “The result of linking the tax credit to the federal poverty level is that two individuals who make between $61,600 and $91,200 in 2014 will not benefit from the tax credit if they decide to marry.”

While this example only shows one case, it is true that most individuals that previously obtained exchange subsidies would lose some subsidies when becoming married. For a couple that has two individual earners between 100 percent and 400 percent of the Federal Poverty Level, choosing to get married would experience further increases in effective marginal tax rates—between 10 percent and 24 percent.[9]

The extension of dependent coverage in Obamacare attacks the labor market from several angles. First, young adults are discouraged from entering the labor force due to the law’s implementation. Heritage analysis shows that individuals can be as much as 15 percent more unlikely to be part of the labor force after the dependent coverage provision went into effect.[10]

This behavior makes the most sense for low-income earners where the benefit will be relatively large compared to the wage earned. While it is not necessarily true that a young adult would lose their dependent coverage upon getting a job of their own, this consideration could be coming into play, as well as a general decision to utilize the benefit to stay in school, or pursue other activities.

A second effect, as outlined in a previous Heritage Issue Brief, outlines the incentive for individuals dropping their own name coverage for dependent coverage.[11] Ultimately, this leads to increased incentives for employers to drop coverage, either by pushing employees to the exchanges indirectly or paying the penalty and adjusting benefits accordingly.

Labor Market Distortions Still to Come

Obamacare distorts incentives for employees to make positive changes in the labor market. Employees are encouraged to keep lower paying jobs in order to preserve subsidies, while also being encouraged to remain single, leave the labor force, or even not participate in the labor force.

While many economists and officials suggest that the Affordable Care Act will not result in drastic labor market distortions when it is fully implemented, basic economic evaluation of the situation shows that these distortions will occur. If the most recent Federal Reserve beige book’s further revelations about slow labor market recovery is any foreshadowing to what is to come, the United States labor market is in for rude surprise in the coming years.[12]

—Drew Gonshorowski is Policy Analyst in the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation.

[10]Analysis Conducted by Author in Forthcoming Brief.

[12]Federal Reserve District, “Current Economic Conditions.”

View the original article here

The Affordable Care Act Negatively Impacts the Supply of Labor

Labor market distortions are common within the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA/Obamacare). Employers are faced with uncertainty at every turn. As observed from the recently released Federal Reserve beige book, this uncertainty restrains hiring.[1]

While substantial attention has been given to the employer side, the employee side also experiences many distortionary effects. Some of these distortions include incentives to reduce hours, not seek work, drop insurance coverage, drop dependent coverage, become divorced, or avoid marriage. It is apparent that Obamacare’s effects extend far past the number of employees a business will employ, or how many hours a week an employee will be allowed to work.

Obamacare Taxes and the Supply of Labor

Obamacare will negatively affect the reward to work for many workers, as noted by University of Chicago economist, Casey Mulligan. According to Mulligan, “The net result of all of this will be to reduce employment, especially among less skilled people.”[2]  Many individuals will be left facing tough decisions on whether or not to take a higher paying job or losing thousands of dollars in health care subsidies.[3]

When an individual faces higher tax rates, if they currently have a job, they may roll back on hours worked. Subsidies also have this sort of effect. According to Mulligan, “The [Affordable Care Act’s] subsidies will sharply reduce the financial reward to working because they will be phased out with household income.”

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) also agrees, stating, “The expansion of Medicaid and the availability of subsidies through the exchanges will effective increases beneficiaries’ financial resources. Those additional resources will encourage some people to work fewer hours or to withdraw from the labor market.” The CBO found that the legislation would reduce amount of labor by half a percent.[4]  

Under the Affordable Care Act’s system of subsidies, as an individual makes more money, they are rewarded by losing subsidies. This creates a calculation that each person must make—whether or not to strive to increase their personal household income through working more or getting a better job, or choosing to stay in a similar place in life in order to keep the benefits.

In November 2012, the CBO estimated the increase in marginal tax rates due to Obamacare, adding evidence to Mulligan’s claim. According to the CBO, the introduction of the Medicaid expansion and the exchange subsidies would increase marginal tax rates for more individuals. Populations that have Medicaid face marginal tax rates above 75 percent in many instances. In terms of exchange subsides, for income between 100 percent and 133 percent of the poverty level, tax rates increase by 2 percent. For income between 133 percent and 400 percent of the poverty level, increases vary between 9.5 percent and 18 percent.[5]

Compared to previous law, individuals now experience even higher marginal tax rates from the ability to garnish health care subsidies at lower income. Obamacare ultimately discourages low income individuals from trying to move into higher paying jobs on the margin.

Low-wage workers are especially affected, because they are most responsive to higher tax rates or lower subsidies. The CBO believes that low-income workers have higher labor elasticies.[6] Low income workers will respond to changes in tax rates more intensely on the margin than individuals with higher incomes. Not only are marginal rates higher, but lower income individuals are expected to respond more vigorously to the changes. This effect could be further exasperated through the incentives for employers to drop coverage to lowering income employees.[7]

Dependent Coverage and Obamacare’s Treatment of Marriage

Several analysts point out that Obamacare develops a marriage penalty.[8] Simply put, individuals lose subsidies if they choose to marry without any change to earnings. Representative Darrel Issa (R­–CA) points out a simple explanation and example: “The result of linking the tax credit to the federal poverty level is that two individuals who make between $61,600 and $91,200 in 2014 will not benefit from the tax credit if they decide to marry.”

While this example only shows one case, it is true that most individuals that previously obtained exchange subsidies would lose some subsidies when becoming married. For a couple that has two individual earners between 100 percent and 400 percent of the Federal Poverty Level, choosing to get married would experience further increases in effective marginal tax rates—between 10 percent and 24 percent.[9]

The extension of dependent coverage in Obamacare attacks the labor market from several angles. First, young adults are discouraged from entering the labor force due to the law’s implementation. Heritage analysis shows that individuals can be as much as 15 percent more unlikely to be part of the labor force after the dependent coverage provision went into effect.[10]

This behavior makes the most sense for low-income earners where the benefit will be relatively large compared to the wage earned. While it is not necessarily true that a young adult would lose their dependent coverage upon getting a job of their own, this consideration could be coming into play, as well as a general decision to utilize the benefit to stay in school, or pursue other activities.

A second effect, as outlined in a previous Heritage Issue Brief, outlines the incentive for individuals dropping their own name coverage for dependent coverage.[11] Ultimately, this leads to increased incentives for employers to drop coverage, either by pushing employees to the exchanges indirectly or paying the penalty and adjusting benefits accordingly.

Labor Market Distortions Still to Come

Obamacare distorts incentives for employees to make positive changes in the labor market. Employees are encouraged to keep lower paying jobs in order to preserve subsidies, while also being encouraged to remain single, leave the labor force, or even not participate in the labor force.

While many economists and officials suggest that the Affordable Care Act will not result in drastic labor market distortions when it is fully implemented, basic economic evaluation of the situation shows that these distortions will occur. If the most recent Federal Reserve beige book’s further revelations about slow labor market recovery is any foreshadowing to what is to come, the United States labor market is in for rude surprise in the coming years.[12]

—Drew Gonshorowski is Policy Analyst in the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation.

[10]Analysis Conducted by Author in Forthcoming Brief.

[12]Federal Reserve District, “Current Economic Conditions.”

View the original article here

The Affordable Care Act Negatively Impacts the Supply of Labor

Labor market distortions are common within the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA/Obamacare). Employers are faced with uncertainty at every turn. As observed from the recently released Federal Reserve beige book, this uncertainty restrains hiring.[1]

While substantial attention has been given to the employer side, the employee side also experiences many distortionary effects. Some of these distortions include incentives to reduce hours, not seek work, drop insurance coverage, drop dependent coverage, become divorced, or avoid marriage. It is apparent that Obamacare’s effects extend far past the number of employees a business will employ, or how many hours a week an employee will be allowed to work.

Obamacare Taxes and the Supply of Labor

Obamacare will negatively affect the reward to work for many workers, as noted by University of Chicago economist, Casey Mulligan. According to Mulligan, “The net result of all of this will be to reduce employment, especially among less skilled people.”[2]  Many individuals will be left facing tough decisions on whether or not to take a higher paying job or losing thousands of dollars in health care subsidies.[3]

When an individual faces higher tax rates, if they currently have a job, they may roll back on hours worked. Subsidies also have this sort of effect. According to Mulligan, “The [Affordable Care Act’s] subsidies will sharply reduce the financial reward to working because they will be phased out with household income.”

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) also agrees, stating, “The expansion of Medicaid and the availability of subsidies through the exchanges will effective increases beneficiaries’ financial resources. Those additional resources will encourage some people to work fewer hours or to withdraw from the labor market.” The CBO found that the legislation would reduce amount of labor by half a percent.[4]  

Under the Affordable Care Act’s system of subsidies, as an individual makes more money, they are rewarded by losing subsidies. This creates a calculation that each person must make—whether or not to strive to increase their personal household income through working more or getting a better job, or choosing to stay in a similar place in life in order to keep the benefits.

In November 2012, the CBO estimated the increase in marginal tax rates due to Obamacare, adding evidence to Mulligan’s claim. According to the CBO, the introduction of the Medicaid expansion and the exchange subsidies would increase marginal tax rates for more individuals. Populations that have Medicaid face marginal tax rates above 75 percent in many instances. In terms of exchange subsides, for income between 100 percent and 133 percent of the poverty level, tax rates increase by 2 percent. For income between 133 percent and 400 percent of the poverty level, increases vary between 9.5 percent and 18 percent.[5]

Compared to previous law, individuals now experience even higher marginal tax rates from the ability to garnish health care subsidies at lower income. Obamacare ultimately discourages low income individuals from trying to move into higher paying jobs on the margin.

Low-wage workers are especially affected, because they are most responsive to higher tax rates or lower subsidies. The CBO believes that low-income workers have higher labor elasticies.[6] Low income workers will respond to changes in tax rates more intensely on the margin than individuals with higher incomes. Not only are marginal rates higher, but lower income individuals are expected to respond more vigorously to the changes. This effect could be further exasperated through the incentives for employers to drop coverage to lowering income employees.[7]

Dependent Coverage and Obamacare’s Treatment of Marriage

Several analysts point out that Obamacare develops a marriage penalty.[8] Simply put, individuals lose subsidies if they choose to marry without any change to earnings. Representative Darrel Issa (R­–CA) points out a simple explanation and example: “The result of linking the tax credit to the federal poverty level is that two individuals who make between $61,600 and $91,200 in 2014 will not benefit from the tax credit if they decide to marry.”

While this example only shows one case, it is true that most individuals that previously obtained exchange subsidies would lose some subsidies when becoming married. For a couple that has two individual earners between 100 percent and 400 percent of the Federal Poverty Level, choosing to get married would experience further increases in effective marginal tax rates—between 10 percent and 24 percent.[9]

The extension of dependent coverage in Obamacare attacks the labor market from several angles. First, young adults are discouraged from entering the labor force due to the law’s implementation. Heritage analysis shows that individuals can be as much as 15 percent more unlikely to be part of the labor force after the dependent coverage provision went into effect.[10]

This behavior makes the most sense for low-income earners where the benefit will be relatively large compared to the wage earned. While it is not necessarily true that a young adult would lose their dependent coverage upon getting a job of their own, this consideration could be coming into play, as well as a general decision to utilize the benefit to stay in school, or pursue other activities.

A second effect, as outlined in a previous Heritage Issue Brief, outlines the incentive for individuals dropping their own name coverage for dependent coverage.[11] Ultimately, this leads to increased incentives for employers to drop coverage, either by pushing employees to the exchanges indirectly or paying the penalty and adjusting benefits accordingly.

Labor Market Distortions Still to Come

Obamacare distorts incentives for employees to make positive changes in the labor market. Employees are encouraged to keep lower paying jobs in order to preserve subsidies, while also being encouraged to remain single, leave the labor force, or even not participate in the labor force.

While many economists and officials suggest that the Affordable Care Act will not result in drastic labor market distortions when it is fully implemented, basic economic evaluation of the situation shows that these distortions will occur. If the most recent Federal Reserve beige book’s further revelations about slow labor market recovery is any foreshadowing to what is to come, the United States labor market is in for rude surprise in the coming years.[12]

—Drew Gonshorowski is Policy Analyst in the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation.

[10]Analysis Conducted by Author in Forthcoming Brief.

[12]Federal Reserve District, “Current Economic Conditions.”

View the original article here

Why Climate Scientists Have Consistently UNDERestimated Key Global Warming Impacts

Climate Scientists Erring on the Side of Least Drama

by Dana Nuccitelli, via Skeptical Science

A paper recently published in Global Environmental Change by Brysse et al. (2012) examined a number of past predictions made by climate scientists, and found that that they have tended to be too conservative in their projections of the impacts of climate change.  The authors thus suggest that climate scientists are biased toward overly cautious estimates, erring on the side of less rather than more alarming predictions, which they call “erring on the side of least drama” (ESLD).

In this paper, Brysse et al. examined research evaluating past climate projections, and considered the pressures which might cause climate scientists to ESLD.

While we have recently shown that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) temperature projections have been exceptionally accurate, several other projections in the IPCC reports have been far too conservative.

For example, Rahmstorf (2007) and more recently Rahmstorf et al. (2012) showed that sea level is rising at a rate inconsistent with all but the highest IPCC scenarios (Figure 1).  Rahmstorf et al. (2012) concluded,

“The satellite-based linear trend 1993–2011 is 3.2 ± 0.5 mm yr-1, which is 60% faster than the best IPCC estimate of 2.0 mm yr-1 for the same interval.”

Figure 1: Sea level measured by satellite altimeter (red with linear trend line; AVISO datafrom (Centre National d’Etudes Spatiales) and reconstructed from tide gauges (orange, monthly data from Church and White (2011)). Tide gauge data were aligned to give the same mean during 1993–2010 as the altimeter data. The scenarios of the IPCC are again shown in blue (third assessment) and green (fourth assessment); the former have been published starting in the year 1990 and the latter from 2000.

The main reason these sea level rise projections have been too low and that the IPCC almost certainly underestimates future sea level rise is that their models do not include the effects of dynamic ice processes from chunks of ice breaking off into the ocean (“calving”), then melting.  The IPCC approach in attempting to account for these processes considers recent contributions to sea level rise from ice sheet melt, then “assume that this contribution will persist unchanged.”  This is certainly a conservative approach, and the primary reason their sea level projections have been low.

Three years after the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report was drafted, the 2009 Copenhagen Diagnosis examined the latest climate research to effectively update the IPCC report.  In addition to confirming the Rahmstorf finding that the IPCC has underestimated sea level rise, the Copenhagen Diagnosis also found that the IPCC has dramatically understimated the decline in Arctic sea ice extent (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Observed vs. IPCC modeled annual minimum Arctic sea ice extent

In 2012, Arctic sea ice melt shattered the previous record low, to levels unseen in millennia, increasing the margin by which IPCC projections have been too conservative.

A 2009 report by the US National Research Council (NRC), Committee on Strategic Advice on the U.S. Climate Change Science Program found that the IPCC had also underestimated recent CO2 emissions from developing countries.

“The IPCC projections are based on estimates that CO2 emissions in China increased at an annual rate of about 3 to 4 percent during the past 10 years (IPCC, 2007a; IEA, 2007), but a subsequent province-based inventory concluded that emissions actually increased at a higher rate of about 10 to 11 percent (Auffhammer and Carson, 2008)….Emissions from a number of other developed countries were also higher than agreed-to targets.”

The Copenhagen Diagnosis similarly found that in addition to underestimating sea level rise, human CO2 emissions have tracked towards the highest IPCC scenarios.

Figure 3: IEA fossil fuel CO2 emissions estimates vs. IPCC SRES emissions scenarios.

The Copenhagen Diagnosis notes that the global warming amplification (feedback) from carbon released as a result of permafrost melting has not been accounted for in any of the IPCC projections.  A recent UN Environment Programme report warned that failing to account for this feedback will result in an underestimate of future warming.

The NRC report notes that according to Déry and Brown (2007), northern hemisphere snow cover may also be declining at a faster-than-expected rate, and the Copenhagen Diagnosis states that rainfall has become more intense in already rainy areas, and “recent changes have occurred faster than predicted“.

So while the IPCC and the climate science community in general has under-predicted quite a few climate impacts, there are very few examples where they have over-predicted these changes.

The IPCC and climate scientists are often accused of “alarmism”, but clearly Brysse et al. demonstrates that these accusations are wholly unfounded and misplaced.

“Our analysis of the available studies suggests that if a bias is operative in the work of climate scientists, it is in the direction of under-predicting, rather than over-predicting, the rate and extent of anthropogenic climate change.”

In fact, Brysse et al. suggest that these frequent accusations of “alarmism” and other climate contrarian attacks on climate scientists may be one reason why climate scientists have under-predicted climate change, or erred on the side of least drama.

“The frequent attacks on Stephen Schneider—as well as attacks on other climate scientists such as Benjamin Santer and Michael Mann—suggests that one possible reason why scientists may have underestimated the threat of anthropogenic warming is the fear that if they don’t, they will be accused by contrarians (as was Schneider) of being alarmist fear-mongers. That is to say, pressure from skeptics and contrarians and the risk of being accused of alarmism may have caused scientists to understate their results.”

However, Brysse et al. note that from a scientific and statistical standpoint, under-predicting an effect by 10% is no less wrong than over-predicting an effect by 10%.  Therefore, ESLD can introduce a systematic bias that leads to a reduction in the accuracy of climate projections.

Between 2008 and 2011, Brysse et al. conducted a series of interviews with numerous scientists studying and assessing ozone depletion.  In February of 1992, NASA scientists studying the Arctic atmosphere issued a press release warning that a major Arctic ozone hole, like the one over Antarctica, could develop that spring.  While the science behind the prediction was correct, unexpected factors intervened, and Arctic ozone depletion in 1992 was not as severe as the scientists anticipated.

“In the aftermath of the unrealized 1992 Arctic ozone hole prediction, NASA scientists were severely criticized in the conservative press for crying wolf, causing unnecessary panic, and acting according to emotional imperatives or an environmental agenda instead of according to the dictates of scientific objectivity.”

Subsequent to the barrage of criticism over this event, NASA has become more cautious in issuing press releases.  Many scientists who researched ozone depletion have now become involved in the IPCC reports.  In an interview in 2009, ozone researcher Jonathan Shanklin suggested that scientific assessments operate according to the “crying wolf principle: if you cry wolf too often, then nobody believes you anymore, and the sky does fall in“, and also suggested that in the case of recent IPCC predictions of future climate change, scientists’ “best guess for many of these [scenarios] were actually worse than those in the report.”

In other words, Shanklin suggests that the IPCC under-predicts climate impacts in order to avoid losing credibility due to …accusations of “alarmism”.  Other scientists interviewed by Brysse who were involved in ozone research and the IPCC reports shared similar opinions.

In addition to fear of being labeled as “alarmist” Brysse et al. discusses other possible causes of ESLD.  For example, scientists tend to invoke the “principle of least astonishment”, whereby they typically choose the simplest of two possible hypotheses.  However, the rate that climate impacts like Arctic sea loss and sea level rise are occurring and will occur is rather astonishing.  Similarly, scientific conservatism introduces “an inherent bias in favor of existing knowledge and presumptions, and the avoidance of conclusions that seem excessively dramatic.”

Brysse et al. also believe “that the basic, core values of scientific rationality contribute to an unintended bias against dramatic outcomes…scientists are skeptical of all new claims, and ceteris paribus, the more dramatic the claim, the more skeptical they are likely to be.“  Dramatic claims open scientists to criticisms not just from climate contrarians, but to their own peers as well.

To sum up, climate scientists have tended to systematically under-predict many impacts resulting from climate change.  Brysse et al. suggest they do so in “erring on the side of least drama” (ESLD)

in order to avoid accusations of “alarmism” from climate contrarians;because scientists are skeptical by nature whereas climate impacts are dramatic;and because dramatic claims open scientists to criticism from their peers.

However, the conservative bias imposed by ESLD produces a dangerous result.

“If climate scientists and assessors are erring on the side of least drama in their predictions, then they are not preparing policymakers and the public for the worst, because they are underpredicting what the worst outcomes might be.”

We will give the final word to Brysse et al.

“Our hypothesis of ESLD is not meant as a criticism of scientists. The culture of science has in most respects served humanity very well. Rather, ESLD provides a context for interpreting scientists’ assessments of risk-laden situations, a challenge faced by the public and policy-makers. In attempting to avoid drama, the scientific community may be biasing its own work—a bias that needs to be appreciated because it could prevent the full recognition, articulation, and acknowledgment of dramatic natural phenomena that may, in fact, be occurring. After all, some phenomena in nature are dramatic. If the drama arises primarily from social, political, or economic impacts, then it is crucial that the associated risk be understood fully, and not discounted.”

– This piece was originally published at Skeptical Science and was re-printed with permission.

Related Post:

jQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery('#comment_submit').click(function(){if(jQuery('#comment_check:checked').length

View the original article here

How 'Cliff' Deal Impacts Health Care Stocks

 Highlight transcript below to create clipTranscript:  Print  |  Email Go  Click text to jump within videoWed 02 Jan 13 | 10:03 AM ET CNBC's Jackie DeAngelis explains how the "fiscal cliff" deal will impact the health care sector in the long-term. And, Jonathan Bush, Athenahealth chairman, CEO & president, provides perspective on health care reform and the 'cliff' deal.

View the original article here