The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

[MinnFan]

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

Good read on a doctor's perspective of Obamacare

Insurance doesn't equal care

 

[FreshFish]

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

Good read on a doctor's perspective of Obamacare

Insurance doesn't equal care

Thanks for posting that. Very interesting read. and some real solutions too, not just kvetching!

There wouldn’t even be a case before the Supreme Court if Congress and the president had stayed within their roles and expanded the National Health Services Corp and federal clinics expressly designed to care for the underserved. If there is a public health care need then let's get our government to provide for it directly.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

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

Good read on a doctor's perspective of Obamacare

Insurance doesn't equal care

Oh, but that's Fox Snooze! It can't be credible!

That link has made the most sense of just about everything in here.

 

[MinnFan]

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

Much like tax cuts for the rich, your scenario only makes sense if there's two choices. 1) Pay employees more, or 2) keep the cash and pay higher taxes on earnings as there's less expense.

What it completely ignores is that there's other thing to do with those proceeds. Namely increasing shareholder value (you know, the people who actually own the company). They tend to like higher returns, and will want either a share buyback or higher dividends. Might I suggest they'll demand it. While this isn't a bad thing, and it benefits the shareholders tremendously, the avg worker ain't seeing a big raise. I'm not sure what about that you and Lynah are having trouble comprehending. Company management exists to benefit ownership first and foremosts, not employees.

Next to Lynah's assertion, you don't need collusion amongst 99% of companies to hold down wages. All you need is to be dictated by the same forces you always are when deciding what to pay the staff, which is availability of workers. Apple right now is sitting on $1Bn in cash reserves. Did they decide to A) kick that to the employees in the form of higher salaries, or B) pay a dividend? (I'll save you a search, the answer is B). So, while I tend to disagree with many of your postings, I never considered you to be an idiot. That's why I'm confused about your stance here. Companies will act in the interests of ownership instead of employees if they receive a windfall from not having to pay health insurance. For that reason, little of these profits will funnel back to their workers.

Then why don't they just cut everyones' salary in half right now?

The money where the wage increase would come from is already there. It just goes to two different places right now. Salary and Benefits. I'm not saying that it all absolutely will go to the employee. I'm sure there would be companies who spend it on something else. My bigger point is that the system needs to change and this is best way I can see going forward. Perfect is the enemy of good.

I'm open to any suggestions you may have.

 

[FreshFish]

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

And in today's workforce, (by and large) Supply >>>>> Demand.

Sorry, the work force is far more fragmented than that. There are a substantial number of good-paying jobs that are going unfilled because they require specialized skill sets (I've seen these stories so many times in so many places that I'm not going to post a link; there are plenty of them around).

Also, you write as if the only employers out there are large, publicly-traded companies. Many of us work for smaller, closely-held businesses in which the owners and the employees work together all day every day. We have a formula-based bonus pool that aligns employee incentives with corporate profitability: if our company makes more money, all of us participate too.

You seem to think too much in abstractions sometimes, it appears. The economy is more diverse and more fragmented than there appears to be room for in your black-white good-evil world view (at least as you present it here).

 

[Rover]

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

Sorry, the work force is far more fragmented than that. There are a substantial number of good-paying jobs that are going unfilled because they require specialized skill sets (I've seen these stories so many times in so many places that I'm not going to post a link; there are plenty of them around).

Also, you write as if the only employers out there are large, publicly-traded companies. Many of us work for smaller, closely-held businesses in which the owners and the employees work together all day every day. We have a formula-based bonus pool that aligns employee incentives with corporate profitability: if our company makes more money, all of us participate too.

You seem to think too much in abstractions sometimes, it appears. The economy is more diverse and more fragmented than there appears to be room for in your black-white good-evil world view (at least as you present it here).

Your first point is an irrelavent tangent. Try to stay on topic please if that's within your abilities.

Your next point is very simplistic. Publicly held or privately held, company management operates for the benefit of ownership. That's fundamental capitalism. If you want all benefits to flow to the workers, that's communism. Whether your small, private company is run by the owners or they hired someone to run it, bottom line is the majority of proceeds in most companies are either 1) going to the owners, or 2) invested in the business. Profit sharing is real, but ask yourself how much of the profit does your share come out to be? Probably not alot. The people who own the company expect the biggest benefits from its success.

Minn, don't you think a lot of companies have already figured out what the going wage is for the line of work they do, and are paying workers accordingly? So, they can't cut wages in half because that's lower than "market value". What you're suggesting is companies with money will willingly pay way more than market value if they make more money. Suggest that as a manager to the board of directors and you will be fired. Apple could start paying its people that extra billion they have in reserve. Instead its being distributed via dividends? Why? Management doesn't work for the employees. It works for the owners.

PS - What I'm addressing here is the fantasy that all, most, or even half of these savings will go to employees. I'll be happy to discuss the broader health care market with you, but my comments thus far are strictly to debunk the notion of a huge worker payday.

 

[FreshFish]

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

Your first point is an irrelavent tangent. Try to stay on topic please if that's within your abilities.

gratuitious insults are not conducive to constructive dialog. also, who made you arbiter of what topics we "must" remain limited to?

I'd like to close by saying "typical progressive" but that would lower me to your level of pettiness....

 

[FlagDUDE08]

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

Your first point is an irrelavent tangent. Try to stay on topic please if that's within your abilities.

First off, I hate people that preach about their education and type with spelling and grammatical errors. Granted, I've been known to use British spelling on here, but it's still acceptable in Scrabble.

You don't want to acknowledge that as a point because it doesn't fit your argument. What's wrong with someone going through appropriate college or vocational training to earn the necessary requirements to fill a job in demand?

Also, you seem to have an issue with the stock market. Why can't you invest? It's a lot easier with the advent of technology. There are plenty of discount brokers out there, some willing to allow you a trade at as low as a $3 commission!

 

[LynahFan]

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

Minn, don't you think a lot of companies have already figured out what the going wage is for the line of work they do, and are paying workers accordingly? So, they can't cut wages in half because that's lower than "market value". What you're suggesting is companies with money will willingly pay way more than market value if they make more money. Suggest that as a manager to the board of directors and you will be fired. Apple could start paying its people that extra billion they have in reserve. Instead its being distributed via dividends? Why? Management doesn't work for the employees. It works for the owners.

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.

 

[FreshFish]

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

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 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.

 

[LynahFan]

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

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.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

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

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.

 

[Rover]

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

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.

 

[LynahFan]

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.

 

[Rover]

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.

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.

 

[Plante26]

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.

 

[LynahFan]

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

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.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

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

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.

 

[LynahFan]

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

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?

 

[FreshFish]

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

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."