http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6138573Oh my.
The skidmarked underwear primitive, the older middle-aged farmwife in eastern Iowa who thinks physical thuggery in campaigns is fine and dandy, and wishes she'd see more of it.
Skidmore (1000+ posts) Fri Jul-24-09 10:32 AM
Original message
Would eliminating healtch care benefits as part of employment lead to American employers being willing to provide a living wage to people? Or, because employers no longer have to account for that dollar amount on their ledgers, will people be forced to live on less to afford whatever health care plan they select? I'm worried about this aspect of reform. What do you think?
The defrocked warped primitive:
Warpy (1000+ posts) Fri Jul-24-09 10:50 AM
Response to Original message
1. Employers wouldn't raise wages unless they were forced to
Employees would get what they're getting now and the corporation would simply pocket the difference and we all know it.
While it would be a great advantage to disconnect health care from employment, there would have to be some mechanism to force employers to cough up the difference in wages so that employees could afford either the increased taxes for a public option or premiums for a private option.
No employer ever did anything just because it was the right thing to do, you know.
denem (1000+ posts) Fri Jul-24-09 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. And thats the problem. 'Single Payer will take away your health benefits', and every employee would know they won't get a dime more from the boss.
nightrain (556 posts) Fri Jul-24-09 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. that comment doesn't even make sense--"single payer will take away your health benefits"
Single payer IS the benefit.
unpossibles (1000+ posts) Fri Jul-24-09 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. Exactly.
It's like the people yelling how expensive it will be without seeming to notice that EVERY single nation does it more cheaply than we do.
Yeah, right.
Warpy (1000+ posts) Fri Jul-24-09 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #2
9. RUBBISH
Single payer just means that instead of having an insurance giant refuse to cut a check for your care, the government insurance plan will cut a check for your care. They'll do that because they don't have to make a profit by keeping sick people sick.
As for paying for it, the employer contribution will be kept by most reputable companies. Changing jobs doesn't mean you lose coverage with one insurance company and have to wait for coverage with another. It's all the same government run insurance and you keep it all the way through.
If employers renege on covering their employees under single payer, then the government will have to step in and order them to cough up what they used to pay out for insurance benefits so that the employees can pay for their own single payer insurance.
What you don't know about single payer would fill an encyclopedia. I suggest you read about it before you try to comment on it again.
kentuck (1000+ posts) Fri Jul-24-09 11:14 AM
Response to Original message
4. I thought employers wrote most of the costs of healthcare off as a tax write-off?
In the end, I don't think they pay that much to begin with??
The silly primitive:
SoCalDem (1000+ posts) Fri Jul-24-09 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. Yes they can. and they get a double-dip
"John, you're getting a $50 a week raise, BUT your share of the health-care went up $55.00"..
then the employer writes HIS share of health care off his taxes.. Instant NO-raise... and the increased employee participation often comes with higher copays too..
Year after year of "raises" being devoured by insurance bump-ups, mans lowered wages, since everything else is going up, and the employee is falling further behind.
In a perfect world, every employer should have to ADD the amount they "say" their share for insurance is, to the gross pay, but we know they will try to hang onto it..
lumberjack_jeff (1000+ posts) Fri Jul-24-09 12:31 PM
Response to Original message
7. Health care costs $5800 per person in this country.
Unplugging it from employment, upside:
* businesses could expand
* businesses could pay more
* people will be free to change jobs or go into self employment without affecting health care
downside;
* healthcare is currently paid for by individuals, businesses and government. Remove businesses and that transfers costs to the other two. It is a lot of money.
nightrain (556 posts) Fri Jul-24-09 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. yes, taking care of people is expensive. And worth it.
We're already paying for it though. Take the ~30% overhead of private insurance. Reduce it to even 5% (which is generous, as Medicare's overhead is about 3%) and we have 25% extra remaining for SERVICES and equipment, and home visits, and psychotherapy, and oxygen, and preventive care, and medicines, and hospice care, and well baby visits, and prenatal care, and .....
Not a bad deal.
cbdo2007 (201 posts) Fri Jul-24-09 02:58 PM
Response to Original message
10. Wages are determined by supply and demand.
If their employees started complaing because they couldn't afford to pay for health care on their own and were going to quit, the employer would have to make the decision on whether that person is worth more or if they already think the pay is fair and if they can find someone else qualified to do it.
Even now, if your employer considers you a good employee they will pay you more salary for specific health care requests if you need them. My wife just had this happen when she took a new job where the health insurance wasn't covering a specific issue she was dealing with that we were going to have to pay about $5,000+ for. She told them she would need more money to pay for stuff that wasn't covered, they liked her cause she was previously employed there, so they ponied up more cash.
Well, franksolich has bad news for the primitives; 0bamacare ain't going to happen.
franksolich is not God, and so therefore cannot predict the future, but franksolich has this intuitive feeling, this gut feeling, that either something underneath the surface of the water has already happened, dooming the grandoise notion, or something's about to happen, to send it to the trash-bin.
