Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

    Originally posted by FreshFish View Post
    I think I agree with you, if you meant to say that "while the 'market value' of an employee would not change, the way that companies express that market value would change: less of that unchanged market value would be paid in the form of fringe benefits and more of that unchanged market value would be paid in cash compensation."
    Yes - more precisely stated.

    edit: What Rover is suggesting is that the companies would be able to pay BELOW market value for the employees - if today's compensation (pay + benefits) represents the market value and the companies are no longer have paying the benefits side, then the companies would be paying less than market value, so that is an unstable situation, which would correct itself by increases in pay.
    Last edited by LynahFan; 03-30-2012, 01:23 PM.
    If you don't change the world today, how can it be any better tomorrow?

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

      Originally posted by FreshFish View Post
      I think I agree with you, if you meant to say that "while the 'market value' of an employee would not change, the way that companies express that market value would change: less of that unchanged market value would be paid in the form of fringe benefits and more of that unchanged market value would be paid in cash compensation."

      Which is the exact same process in reverse that got us into this whole mess to begin with!!

      During WWII, there were wage - price controls, while fringe benefits were not subject to the wage cap. and so employers used increased fringe benefits as a way to offer higher 'market value' when the federal government made it illegal to offer that market value in wages.
      I forgot about the wage/price controls. I assume those were rescinded after the war? Perhaps this is another one of those "we're used to it" points that Scalia is trying to get us away from.

      Comment


      • #93
        Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

        Originally posted by LynahFan View Post
        The part you're ignoring is that under the proposed scenario, the "market value" of an employee would drastically change. Nobody is suggesting that companies would willingly pay more than market value. We're suggesting that the market value of employees (measured in dollars) would increase.

        Believe me - I absolutely know first hand that companies will only pay as much as they have to in order to keep their turnover rate to an acceptable level. But if every company were suddenly handed 20% of their payroll in extra cash, it's pretty naive to think that no company would increase wages. As soon as the first company does it, then their competitors will find their tunover rate to be unacceptable and have to respond accordingly. No, they wont "want" to do it (as your example of Apple shows), but they would be forced to do it due to the changing market. Your Apple example is non-informative, because you're comparing Apple's actions to the current market, not what Apple would do in the revised market.
        I don't think they'd increase wages all that much, for a simple reason. Most people have no idea how much the company is paying for their healthcare. Unlike how much you contribute, which is on your paycheck, this part is a mystery. So its tough to miss something a lot of workers don't know even exists.

        So, if the contention is "workers will get a small raise above and beyond their normal raise in the year this change occurs" - sure, I can see that. But the contention that all, most, or even a majority of these savings will go to employees is where I step off. Perhaps I'm discounting the awareness of the average worker on this issue, but I liken it to if employers got to stop paying their social security contribution for example. Unless told to by law, I don't think they' be funnelling that money back to their workers. Maybe a smaller portion of it, but most of it they'd keep IMHO. Why - because most people either aren't aware or can't quantify how much money is being contributed on their behalf.

        So the difference in "market value" is at the end of the day you the employee are seeing the same money you've been expecting but the cost of employing you went down. Think of it like efficiency. If a company can get by with less workers, they don't take what they would have paid the extra workers and give it to the remaining ones. They take the savings.
        Last edited by Rover; 03-30-2012, 01:34 PM.
        Legally drunk???? If its "legal", what's the ------- problem?!? - George Carlin

        Ever notice how everybody who drives slower than you is an idiot, and everybody who drives faster is a maniac? - George Carlin

        "I've never seen so much reason and bullsh*t contained in ONE MAN."

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

          Nonsense. Bill the welder doesn't need to be able to derive what his true market value is in order to get paid that amount. All he has to know is that Jimbo's Welding Shop is offering $0.50 more per hour than Timmy's Welding shop. Timmy's needs to hire someone to fill that vacancy, so they have to raise THEIR wages, etc. There doesn't have to be a top-level actor directing everything to "enforce" market value. Market value is simply the result of millions (actually billions) of individual economic transactions being carried out every day.

          Not to mention the fact that if the employers stopped paying for health care, people would find out in a darn hurry just how much it costs.
          If you don't change the world today, how can it be any better tomorrow?

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

            Originally posted by LynahFan View Post
            Nonsense. Bill the welder doesn't need to be able to derive what his true market value is in order to get paid that amount. All he has to know is that Jimbo's Welding Shop is offering $0.50 more per hour than Timmy's Welding shop. Timmy's needs to hire someone to fill that vacancy, so they have to raise THEIR wages, etc. There doesn't have to be a top-level actor directing everything to "enforce" market value. Market value is simply the result of millions (actually billions) of individual economic transactions being carried out every day.

            Not to mention the fact that if the employers stopped paying for health care, people would find out in a darn hurry just how much it costs.
            Exactly and you're making the case for me. If we're talking 50 cents, sure I can see raises like that. The problem is the market is so complex that how are you the employee going to know how much you should have gotten to make the cost of employing you = your wages? Taken at face value, an employee making 75K a year with another 25K being contributed by the company to his health insurance will now be paid $100K by the same employer when they drop health coverage. I say no way. Maybe they give you 80K. Not bad, a 7% raise, over twice the inflation rate. Problem is the company is keeping the other 20K, or 80% of the savings. Frankly, that sounds about right.

            Look, if the govt (as a single payer) can finance your health insurance cheaper than your employer can, maybe it works out. However, unless you legislate that a certain % of savings goes back to the workers, thus raising revenue via the Medicare/Medicaid tax so that it all evens out, its the employees that will end up taking it in the shorts.
            Legally drunk???? If its "legal", what's the ------- problem?!? - George Carlin

            Ever notice how everybody who drives slower than you is an idiot, and everybody who drives faster is a maniac? - George Carlin

            "I've never seen so much reason and bullsh*t contained in ONE MAN."

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

              Employer-paid insurance or single payer, the fact remains that the cost and availability of health care isn't being addressed. Until that happens, Scooby is correct. We continue to hurtle towards bankruptcy.
              Bruce Ciskie > PA

              Everyone should believe in something. I believe I'll have another beer.

              Blizzard Drinking: Duluth's Answer to Gulf Coast Hurricane Parties

              Comment


              • #97
                Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

                Originally posted by Rover View Post
                Exactly and you're making the case for me. If we're talking 50 cents, sure I can see raises like that. The problem is the market is so complex that how are you the employee going to know how much you should have gotten to make the cost of employing you = your wages? Taken at face value, an employee making 75K a year with another 25K being contributed by the company to his health insurance will now be paid $100K by the same employer when they drop health coverage. I say no way. Maybe they give you 80K. Not bad, a 7% raise, over twice the inflation rate. Problem is the company is keeping the other 20K, or 80% of the savings. Frankly, that sounds about right.
                You are completely missing the point. The employee DOESN'T NEED TO KNOW how much he "should" be getting - companies will end up having to pay it regardless. Jimbo's raises it $0.50, so Timmy's has to raise it $1.00, so Jimbo's has to raise it $1.50 and so on until supply=demand again.

                If the company stops paying for health care, then they employee will have to pay for it himself - either buying it on the market or paying additional taxes into a single-payer system. If his salary doesn't go up by the same amount to cover that extra expense, he will sure as heck know that. This will not be a mystery to the employees for long at all.
                If you don't change the world today, how can it be any better tomorrow?

                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

                  Originally posted by LynahFan View Post
                  You are completely missing the point. The employee DOESN'T NEED TO KNOW how much he "should" be getting - companies will end up having to pay it regardless. Jimbo's raises it $0.50, so Timmy's has to raise it $1.00, so Jimbo's has to raise it $1.50 and so on until supply=demand again.

                  If the company stops paying for health care, then they employee will have to pay for it himself - either buying it on the market or paying additional taxes into a single-payer system. If his salary doesn't go up by the same amount to cover that extra expense, he will sure as heck know that. This will not be a mystery to the employees for long at all.
                  Still won't happen. The last major tax cut we had did nothing to boost the economy or wages.
                  **NOTE: The misleading post above was brought to you by Reynold's Wrap and American Steeples, makers of Crosses.

                  Originally Posted by dropthatpuck-Scooby's a lost cause.
                  Originally Posted by First Time, Long Time-Always knew you were nothing but a troll.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

                    Originally posted by ScoobyDoo View Post
                    Still won't happen. The last major tax cut we had did nothing to boost the economy or wages.
                    Why would you expect a cut of personal income taxes to increase wages?
                    If you don't change the world today, how can it be any better tomorrow?

                    Comment


                    • Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

                      Originally posted by Rover View Post
                      Most people have no idea how much the company is paying for their healthcare. Unlike how much you contribute, which is on your paycheck, this part is a mystery.
                      Every place I've ever worked, the company told us what % of the healthcare premium they were paying for us and what % we were paying. Rarely would Scooby Doo and I agree, but here, "do the math."
                      "Hope is a good thing; maybe the best of things."

                      "Beer is a sign that God loves us and wants us to be happy." -- Benjamin Franklin

                      "Being Irish, he had an abiding sense of tragedy, which sustained him through temporary periods of joy." -- W. B. Yeats

                      "People generally are most impatient with those flaws in others about which they are most ashamed of in themselves." - folk wisdom

                      Comment


                      • Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

                        Originally posted by FreshFish View Post
                        Every place I've ever worked, the company told us what % of the healthcare premium they were paying for us and what % we were paying. Rarely would Scooby Doo and I agree, but here, "do the math."
                        Not to mention, you should have an idea as to how many people are at your workplace. Assume probably about 75% of the workers will take the package. Work it out from there.

                        Comment


                        • Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

                          Originally posted by LynahFan View Post
                          Why would you expect a cut of personal income taxes to increase wages?
                          It was a major tax cut for small businesses. The engine of the economy. I expect when the economy goes up wages to go up. Neither happened. You give more money back to companies and two things will happen.

                          1. Profits will go up.l
                          2. CEO bonuses will go up.

                          Middle Income wages won't budge an inch.
                          **NOTE: The misleading post above was brought to you by Reynold's Wrap and American Steeples, makers of Crosses.

                          Originally Posted by dropthatpuck-Scooby's a lost cause.
                          Originally Posted by First Time, Long Time-Always knew you were nothing but a troll.

                          Comment


                          • Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

                            Originally posted by ScoobyDoo View Post
                            It was a major tax cut for small businesses. The engine of the economy.
                            Right, and it was passed in 2003. Do you recall what happened 2003 - 2008?

                            There has not been any tax cut since 2003. Now, those cuts were set to expire in 2011, and were extended for two more years, by a Congress in which Democrats held the majority in both houses of Congress and signed by a Democratic president.

                            Not letting existing tax rates go up is now a tax "cut"?
                            "Hope is a good thing; maybe the best of things."

                            "Beer is a sign that God loves us and wants us to be happy." -- Benjamin Franklin

                            "Being Irish, he had an abiding sense of tragedy, which sustained him through temporary periods of joy." -- W. B. Yeats

                            "People generally are most impatient with those flaws in others about which they are most ashamed of in themselves." - folk wisdom

                            Comment


                            • Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

                              Originally posted by FreshFish View Post
                              Right, and it was passed in 2003. Do you recall what happened 2003 - 2008?

                              There has not been any tax cut since 2003. Now, those cuts were set to expire in 2011, and were extended for two more years, by a Congress in which Democrats held the majority in both houses of Congress and signed by a Democratic president.

                              Not letting existing tax rates go up is now a tax "cut"?
                              Thank you for making my point for me.

                              And in 2003-08 the government in collusion with the private sector on Wall Street stole trillions of dollars from the American People.
                              **NOTE: The misleading post above was brought to you by Reynold's Wrap and American Steeples, makers of Crosses.

                              Originally Posted by dropthatpuck-Scooby's a lost cause.
                              Originally Posted by First Time, Long Time-Always knew you were nothing but a troll.

                              Comment


                              • Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

                                Originally posted by ScoobyDoo View Post
                                Thank you for making my point for me.

                                And in 2003-08 the government in collusion with the private sector on Wall Street stole trillions of dollars from the American People.
                                And that's why we were on track to balance the budget.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X