Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics and News' started by FelixDeCat, Nov 19, 2012.
yes, change and no hope; tools of the slum lords...time to drop workers value!
Is he still here?
I don't have much by I will help to contribute to a flight to a country more suited for him to work in.
I don't think it is denying reality by suggesting that employers aren't going to eat the added cost of providing health coverage to their employees. They will either cut hours, cut wages or push it to their customers. Somebody is going to pay.
I haven't been arguing for any particular end game. All I have been doing is trying to get someone to support the idea that employers are the ones that are ultimately responsible for providing health care coverage to their employees and not the employees themselves.
Eskimo Pie talks about personal responsibility on the employer side but doesn't make a peep about it on the employee side.
It was you who started complaining that business owners are "freeloading" and not showing personal "responsibility" by not providing health care coverage to their workers. I then ask you why employers are responsible in the first place but you can't fucking support this simple assertion. You've been shoveling more bullshit on top of your original bullshit for so long that you've started to believe it.
So to summarize...
Employers aren't showing personal responsibility by not providing health care coverage but they aren't responsible in the first place and yet they are freeloading by not providing it.
That's your argument and it is fucking stupid.
The Republicans lost. Just deal with it.
While I think Obamacare is one of the biggest problems facing America right now, I am pretty sure the employer was just using it as an excuse.
Every time government comes up with a big plan it turns into the scapegoat for every thing people dont wanna fess up to.
About half the nonsense at the airport is because of the airlines, but they blame the TSA for all the problems regardless.
Anyone that doesn't consider the costs of hiring a new employee before hiring that new employee deserves what they get.
I am talking about right now in todays world since I responded to a post that implied the companies are currently freeloading. It is not mere speculation that the companies would not be able to stay even remotely competitive if they paid for all of their employees healthcare even if there is some slight bump in productivity (which is mere speculation).
We can not afford to cover every ailment that every citizen in the country has from cradle to grave. Period, full stop, end of story.
So who gets it and who doesn't? Do we pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to extend grandpas life for another 6 months or so or do we let grandpa die?
P.S. Using your logic, every single citizen and entity in this country (as well as others) rely on indirect subsidies to exist so why bother pointing one or another out?
Dont get married get a handout.
Who are these people competing against?
If it's against companies that already provide healthcare for their employees, then clearly they can remain viable (as their competitors are currently proving).
If it's against companies that do not provide healthcare for their employees, then they will be seeing a similar rise in costs as their competitors are. This doesn't affect their ability to be competitive.
"Freeload, "subsidy", and "responsibility" for starters.
Of course they are going to push it to their customers. What's the problem with this?
Health care is a cost of having employees, one way or another, regardless of who writes the cheque. Currently it is a cost which is excluded from the balance sheets of many businesses, because Uncle Sam is picking up the tab. Given that Health Care is currently structured as private, with public care only for the uninsured, and low-wage employees are almost universally uninsured, part of the 'wage' of low-wage employees is being paid by the government. That is a subsidy.
I'm not sure if you understand what a 'freeload' is, in an economic sense. It isn't a morality thing. But this is a freeloader situation, and the beneficiaries are the employers who get to hire them at a wage that is insufficient to feed/clothe/house and provide them Health Care. The employees would get exactly the same Health Care if they didn't work at all; their Health Care situation is not related to their employment.
I actually have no problem with that setup (or rather full publicly funded health care), but it requires deciding that Health Care is a public responsibility. America has decided, fairly unanimously that this is not the case. So there is a problem.
Employers, or rather business people, are responsible for running a business that factors all the costs of doing business, or else being out of business. In a purely unemotional sense, there's no difference in clarifying whether Health costs should be public or private, and creating environmental regulations that require companies to mitigate or pay for their impact.
It is simply taking steps to include previously ignored costs of doing business. As long as the requirements are consistent, and the playing field level, there's no reason for a quantum shift in the success/failure of businesses.
A much, much better (as in less open to manipulation, and fairer) solution for Health Care would be a public option partially funded by a payroll tax, and partially by income tax.
Public goods and subsidies are related concepts.
When you bitch and moan about wanting a 'free market' and 'less regulation' and your business model relies on subsidy, you're doing it wrong.
I've pointed that out several times, only to be greeted with the usual raving denial.
Following Buckshot's reasoning, there shouldn't be UI, workmen's comp, SS, or any of that stuff. You're on your own! You're Free!
Free to starve, anyway, when things go wrong. Which is the way it was 120 years ago, the Gilded Age that Righties get all wistful for...
OK if you say so.
This will effect poor people more than rich people.
Repeating it over and over doesn't make it true.
Look I know what you're saying. But the assertion that it is somehow the responsibility, obligation, or whatever word you want to use of the employer is what I'm objecting to. It has been asserted over and over and over without anybody establishing that employers should responsible for their workers health care. (Obamacare says they are but that is besides the point. Why should they?)
Should the 40 year old hamburger cook at McDonalds expect enough money to feed/clothe/house and provide health care?
I'd prefer more market forces in health care. Too much spending of other people's money inflates prices for everything. A doctor should never ask if you have insurance when writing a script.
I'd also prefer if health insurance was what we typically call insurance. Not something that you use on a regular basis but only when you get extremely ill or get in an accident. It shouldn't cover regular doctor visits and check ups. If people spend their own money for regular visits more often then prices will go down.
Can you imagine if we ran car insurance like we do health insurance? Regular maintenance would need to be covered such as oil changes, tire replacement, tuneups, etc etc.
Market forces are pretty good at reducing prices on everything else why wouldn't it be for health care services?
If the goal is to raise prices on just about everything then mandating health coverage be provided by employers will be a smashing success. The poor will get squeezed even tighter than they are now. If employers don't raise prices they'll have to try and cut labor costs which will only make it that much harder for the poor to find work all while having to pay more for food and clothing.
I think what you're missing is this: no one is campaigning for a free lunch here. I fully recognize that if labour cost goes up, prices do too. That's not necessarily a bad thing.
I'm not making a moral argument. I'm making a practical argument. If you run a business that requires employees, you need those employees to show up. If they die, they don't show up. If they live only because the Government paid to treat them, you are a freeloader. I mean this very much in the economic sense of the term, as I have the entire way through this discussion.
Since McDOnald's expects them to show up for work every day, then yes. Otherwise McDonald's is free to open at 3PM when High School lets out. This would be a perfectly reasonable choice, but avoiding 'all or nothing' points (like the FT/PT divide) is one of the reasons that Obamacare is a poor model.
There are multiple possible payment models for doctor's visits other than 'fee per visit'. Changing the model does not necessarily mean raising or deceasing doctor pay; it could be designed simply to change the incentives to doctor and patient WRT appointment frequency.
Health care is somewhat like trying to have a market allocate drinking water, or Oxygen. The market is almost certain to be filled with 'power' and therefore to be broken.
I think poor people paying higher prices for food and clothes is a bad thing.
People die everyday with or without health insurance coverage. Coverage they may or may not take advantage of.
One can make the same argument about employees who take public transit.
Since employees are getting to work (a benefit to the employer) via government subsidies they are "freeloading" in the exact same way they are by not providing health insurance by not providing rides to and from work or better yet, a car.
So McDonalds should simply not hire anybody who isn't a student. Don't you think this would make poor people worse off?
Markets work just fine with food distribution.
Ok, serious question. Is the provision of Obamacare, since it will be part of your employment compensation, a taxable benefit? In some places, having a company vehicle is taxed as part of your income. So, if the Health insurance is a forced part of your employer/employee agreement, can't the employer just take the cost out of the employee's pay? If I pay one of my workers $25 per hour, is it legal to deduct the cost of the insurance (let's say $1.00 per hour) and pay him $24 per hour with health insurance? His total pay is still $25.00 per hour. I'm asking because if this is the case then any job (baring minimum wage) can just adjust where the employees pay is going to, and all this cry-babying can be ignored.
Transit is financed by fares & taxes. The employer pays taxes that support transit, so he gets nothing for free, gains no competitive advantage, either.
Your silly false equivalency applies to roads & sidewalks, too.
Yeh, that's why we have agricultural subsidies, govt built irrigation & flood control, FDA inspectors & food stamps, because the sacred Free Market takes care of everything.
I suspect you are massively overestimating the change in prices. But I could be wrong, and you may only be substantially overestimating them.
This isn't even an argument.
This is the closest thing you have to an argument so far, but let's understand the difference:
Transit is a relatively stable uncontroversial public good. Transit has a relatively broad funding model, and a lot of uses besides 'commuting'. The price of transit (to the user) does not change depending on income.
No, McDonald's should decide for McDonald's how best to operate. 'We the people' get to define the 'state of the world' in which all businesses (including our own) must operate.
I almost spit out my coffee reading that gem. I'm not sure you want to look down that rabbit-hole.
No. They have built a business model that relies on others' charity to function correctly. They are therefore freeloading. We should end their freeloading and make their business model account for its actual costs. This is not complicated.
Now please continue flailing and making up new definitions for words. At least you appear to have read my post more carefully the second time though, so we are making progress.
You didn't address anything in my post, so I'm not sure why you quoted it.
How does government subsidies for individual health care get funding? Taxes. Do employers pay taxes? Yes.
Keep pulling that string.