Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Most countries provide health care through government because their health care systems grew out of the growth of Socialism as a governmental form following the end of Monarchy or facism. Those same countries freely acknowledge their systems don't work aqs well as privately funded employer based heath care delivery systems.

I think those countries would argue that their systems work better for the poor/unemployed/underemployed than ours does.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Not true. If we as a labor force are unwilling to work for employers who don't provide health care then we will actually all buy foreign cars if the American manufacturers can't make money selling cars if they have to pay for health insurance. Similarly, we will find our less durable goods being made overseas if the manufacturers cannot provide both goods and pay health care.

Won't this hurt the number of manufacturing jobs? Who will buy the foreign made stuff?

But of course, we know that isn't really the case, don't we Hank? The costs of labor and employee benefits in Germany, Italy, the UK, etc. are much higher than they are in the US. And BMWs, Ferraris, and Bentleys are still better made than Cavaliers and Jeeps.

The people who buy BMW's etc. have disposible income, or should. Those aren't price based decisions. When US consumers started buying cheaper Japanese cars, or electronics, etc. because they were cheaper (and better), the supremacy of the US worker goes out with the decision.

It isn't the health insurance. It's the multi-millioin dollar compensation packages for CEOs who lose money and the corporate managements who refuse to seriously bargain with the health care industry because it's sheaper and easier to lay off line workers or reincoporate in Bermuda.

I'm not going to run the numbers, but you may be getting a little off here. Even if true, there is still a 15K/year cost to having health care per employee (with family). Paying that for lots of employees cost the company. If that company sells consumer goods, those goods must cost more. Could cutting CEO salaries do a better job of holding down price? Maybe. But cutting health insurance definately cuts overhead. Again, it may be wrong, but when consumers buy crap based upon who sells it the cheapest, they are almost making the decision for the company.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

I was going to explain why the decision to graph rates of increase over time is misleading, but I thought, why bother? Happily, others (Yglesias and DeLong) have already done it for me.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Why should the availability of health insurance be determined by whether one is employed, or married to someone who is?

As for the market, employer-provided health care is, from what I understand, principally an historical accident resulting from certain tax advantages combined with low costs of providing such years ago. If it were inherently sensibile, why do most countries that provide health care provide it through the government rather than employers?

It's not inherently sensible from a public policy perspective. From an employer perspective, it was used as an incentive to employees and to keeping a fairly healthy workforce, though certainly not the norm at the beginning.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
which creates the improvement, the "privately funded" part or the "employer based" part?

It's ideally a combination of both. The employers both provide a less bureaucratic payment system and, ideally, are better at auditing and policing the health care industry to keep costs down. Unfortunately, corporate America has fallen down on the latter. It's the "insurance factor" popularized in the mid-70's by economists such as Milton Friedman and William Greider. Since nobody actually "pays" his own helath care, nobody has incentive to bargain for the best rates.

Its only in recent years, as health insurance costs and the costs of self-insuring for health care have skyrocketed, that employers have actually started paying attention. Unfortunately, instead of acting to get the insurance market back in line, they have taken to blaming the workers and the lawyers and government, instead of istting down with University General Massive Medical Center and saying: we ain't buying no more $7 apsirin.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Or it could be borne by the individual . . . you know, if you are of little means, you may actually have to choose between health insurance and cable tv.

• "At this festive season of the year, Mr Scrooge," said the gentleman, taking up a pen, "it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir."
  
  "Are there no prisons?" asked Scrooge.
  
  "Plenty of prisons," said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.
  
  "And the Union workhouses?" demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?"
  
  "They are. Still," returned the gentleman, "I wish I could say they were not."
  
  "The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?" said Scrooge.
  
  "Both very busy, sir."
  
  "Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course," said Scrooge. "I'm very glad to hear it."

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I think those countries would argue that their systems work better for the poor/unemployed/underemployed than ours does.

IN terms of general welfare, yes. Not in terms of providing the same degree of quality health care to all citizens.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I think those countries would argue that their systems work better for the poor/unemployed/underemployed than ours does.

Why wonder. Give me a minute. I'll go to the Dr's office down the street and ask some of the Canadians who crossed the border today to get get timely and competant health care what system works better.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
IF, however, each person were provided with a $300 stipend (tax free) with which to purchase health insurace as part of their employment package, how many would use the full $300 for health care?

And if there were no obligation/expectation to pay that $300 stipend, how many more people would the employer hire, either part time or full time?

$300 would work OK for the young and healthy with no kids, not so well for older people or people with families, particularly if anyone in their family were not healthy.

A lot of larger companies do structure things so that you have a choice between cash and benefits, though if you take cash it is taxed. However, most of these companies do not permit their employees to go coverage-free -- if they decline any health care, they are required to show they have other coverage. Perhaps such employers are overly paternalistic, perhaps they sense that their employee retention will be higher if people have health coverage.

Ask Wal-Mart re: that $300 thing. They have no doubt crunched the numbers.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Why wonder. Give me a minute. I'll go to the Dr's office down the street and ask some of the Canadians who crossed the border today to get get timely and competant health care what system works better.

That's beside my point. Ask the Canadians whether they would want to be poor and uninsured in this country.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
IF, however, each person were provided with a $300 stipend (tax free) with which to purchase health insurace as part of their employment package, how many would use the full $300 for health care?

And if there were no obligation/expectation to pay that $300 stipend, how many more people would the employer hire, either part time or full time?

I would guess that most would pay for health care. But people don't want the extra $300. They want heir employer to bargain for them collectively so they only have to pay $225.

And for your latter point, if your BIGLAW firm didn't have to pay some essentially worthless first-year $150,000 in salary, how many more lawyers could they hire? That's what the market demands. Don't enjoy its advantages if you can't live with its burdens.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
That's beside my point. Ask the Canadians whether they would want to be poor and uninsured in this country.

Can I ask where they'd rather be middle class? Can i ask whether they'd rather be in a Canadian doctor's office today, and ask why they aren't?

Should I ask the women if they'd like to have big breasts? Short guys- should I ask how tall they'd like to be?

We're a country based upon a big middle class. You fuck with the middle class when you try and "level the field" for the most needy. The rich will still have; shit Atticus has a half dozen doctors in his immediate family.

What's most fun, is that when you and wonk aren't arguing you sound almost exactly alike.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
From an employer perspective, it was used as an incentive to employees and to keeping a fairly healthy workforce, though certainly not the norm at the beginning.

There is some justification for employer-covered health care in industries where the work is likely to be the source of ailments. E.g., coal miners and lawyers. It forces the employer to internalize the costs of its workplace.

[greatwhitenorthchick]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Why wonder. Give me a minute. I'll go to the Dr's office down the street and ask some of the Canadians who crossed the border today to get get timely and competant health care what system works better.

You can't possibly be this stupid. Those Canadians crossing the border aren't the poor or unemployed ones.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Should I ask the women if they'd like to have big breasts? Short guys- should I ask how tall they'd like to be?

We're a country based upon a big middle class. You fuck with the middle class when you try and "level the field" for the most needy. The rich will still have; shit Atticus has a half dozen doctors in his immediate family.

What's most fun, is that when you and wonk aren't arguing you sound almost exactly alike.

Ironic, no? I think you want to fuck him almost as much as you want to fuck me. In a lusty, hate-fuck kind of way. Pity I'm not into the hate-fuck thing.