Health insurance crisis

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

przero

Platinum Member
Dec 30, 2000
2,060
0
0
Bleep - Your friend should be covered by "Workmen's Compensation Insurance".

Just curious. how many of you bashing this poor guy are in school with government support?
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
2 companies bid on a construction project, the material costs are relatively the same. One company pays their employees $10 an hour, the other one has employees it must pay the union wage, upwards of $25 per person. Labor cost, being the highest cost generally, is going to dictate who gets awarded the contract. So how did that Union make that company more competitive in that situation? Or did they make them less competitive?

Who do you think will get the contract?
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Originally posted by: Alistar7
2 companies bid on a construction project, the material costs are relatively the same. One company pays their employees $10 an hour, the other one has employees it must pay the union wage, upwards of $25 per person. Labor cost, being the highest cost generally, is going to dictate who gets awarded the contract. So how did that Union make that company more competitive in that situation? Or did they make them less competitive?

Who do you think will get the contract?
Q. Who agreed to the collective bargaining agreement?

A. Both the company and the union. The union did not make the company less competitive. The collective bargaining agreement did.
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
and what created the collective bargaining process? While the Unions do produce a great wage and benefits for their members, they consequently drive up the overall price. Anyone who can beat your labor cost, and without a union it can be a substantial difference, will beat you in a fair market.
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
and what created the collective bargaining process?
The fact that the employees didn't feel they were getting their fair shake? When was the last time a union was formed where the employees thought they were being treated well?

Anyone who can beat your labor cost, and without a union it can be a substantial difference, will beat you in a fair market.
I disagree. Many times union labor, especially where there are certified skill levels (journeyman carpenters, etc.) involved, will get a job over a non-union shop. The new colisiem (sp) here in Memphis is a perfect example.
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
City contracts generaly are handled by unionized "professional" labor. If there is no restriction being placed they cannot compete.

If you had all the materials to build your house on site and asked for quotes from two builders, one union, one not, who do you think would be lower?

The union company pays out $25 per hour on average, the nonunion $10 an hour.
Both companies agree it will take exactly 1,000 man hours.

I can give you 15,000 reason the union company will not get that job. I would suggest the fact that the high compensation demanded by the union workers put their company at a definite disadvantage to compete, considering they are not even in the ballpark....;)



 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
I will say that if you have $35K "nest-egg" you should use it for health care needs first.
I know it's nice to have a cushion, but if you need to spend money to stay alive, and have money, that's the way to go.
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
City contracts generaly are handled by unionized "professional" labor. If there is no restriction being placed they cannot compete.
Both are present in the project I referenced. The only restrictions placed were on minority owned contractors.

If you had all the materials to build your house on site and asked for quotes from two builders, one union, one not, who do you think would be lower?
Probably the non-union but we don't know for sure.

The union company pays out $25 per hour on average, the nonunion $10 an hour.
Both companies agree it will take exactly 1,000 man hours.
I disagree. I'd bet money the union company comes in at a lot less man hours than the non-union.

I can give you 15,000 reason the union company will not get that job. I would suggest the fact that the high compensation demanded by the union workers put their company at a definite disadvantage to compete, considering they are not even in the ballpark....
If what you say is true then how do union contractors survive?

I also disagree with your last statement. Again. If there is a disadvantage driven by labor costs then it is caused by the collective bargaining agreement both parties signed. Not by the demands of one side or another.
 

przero

Platinum Member
Dec 30, 2000
2,060
0
0
Alistar7 - you are not even close about union/non-union costs. I'm in the construction business. Non-union tradesman make just as much as union, especially in the skilled trades. We (non-union) have to pay top dollar to keep good quality employees. The only basic difference is in the retirement plans.

You are under the assumption for $10.00/hr. labor I will get the job. But if all I have is $10/hr labor I won't be able to do the job. Unions help raise the pay scale for all workers. Trust me, I have to make a payroll every Friday and I have to competitively bid jobs against all comers. Your theory sounds good, but in the real world you're not even close.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
For the uninitiated . . . our system of healthcare is an absolute mess. Health insurance companies provide no more benefit to the provision of care in America than trial lawyers. But they are certainly a more profound drain on the systems resources. HMOs held great promise for advancing preventive medicine and improving overall quality of care . . . Kaiser is probably the best of them but embraces the same MO as its more nefarious counterparts:
1) actively pursuing young healthy people while denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions
2) cost shifting by imposing restrictive fee schedules on providers . . . the providers then charge MORE to people who don't have insurance
3) increasing the net cost of care by introducing administrative layers within provider organizations and the HMO itself


As for someone's unrealistic idea of out-of-pocket expenses:
Office visit: $75/0.5hr
Plain film X-ray two views: $60
Plaster cast: $200
5-day Prescription for Vioxx: $25
Lost income from missing work: ?

I imagine many of the people posting can afford it . . . but many Americans cannot.
 

zephyrprime

Diamond Member
Feb 18, 2001
7,510
2
81
I'd love to see a return to a direct pay system, at least for the standard items, retaining insurance for the transplants and such.
There are people that already essentially have this. Get a policy with a $1000 deductable like I used to have and you're essentially paying for all your medical cost out-of-pocket. Policies like this are very uncommon among those that get their health insurance from employers but not among those that buy thier own insurance. It saves money, but not a lot. The thing is, "standard items" just don't add up to a big portion of health care costs so cutting them out of the pie helps only a little.

It blows me away that people think that everyone going back to a out-of-pocket system would solve everything and they don't realize there are already people with such plans and they still pay a lot.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY