Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If the US were to expand Medicare to all with private supplemental options would it stimulate wage growth? Currently healthcare costs and the uncertainty of how the Cadillac tax will impact many employers is causing many employers to put off hiring decisions. If a national Medicare plan was the basic plan for all then employees could purchase private supplemental plans to provide more extensive coverage. Employers could offer supplemental plans as an incentive, but it would not be a requirement. I believe that not only would this provide a more predictable cost structure for employers, but it would also free up employees to move to different jobs that may better suit their interests and skill set as well since the plan would be uniform. Those currently staying in jobs for insurance reasons would no longer need to stay there and more people would be able to pursue self employment as an option since the plan would be available to everyone as a Medicare tax on earnings. Once healthcare is removed from the equation many employers would lose the advantage of working existing workers more hours since the cost of healthcare would be a function of hourly earnings not a large fixed cost. Greater activity in the job market could have a positive effect on wage growth.
No. Wages are surprised because there is more money to be made in the stock market, and other investment vehicles, than following traditional economics. Companies lay off workers while announcing massive stock buyback programs. Could it be any more obvious?
If the US were to expand Medicare to all with private supplemental options would it stimulate wage growth? Currently healthcare costs and the uncertainty of how the Cadillac tax will impact many employers is causing many employers to put off hiring decisions. If a national Medicare plan was the basic plan for all then employees could purchase private supplemental plans to provide more extensive coverage. Employers could offer supplemental plans as an incentive, but it would not be a requirement. I believe that not only would this provide a more predictable cost structure for employers, but it would also free up employees to move to different jobs that may better suit their interests and skill set as well since the plan would be uniform. Those currently staying in jobs for insurance reasons would no longer need to stay there and more people would be able to pursue self employment as an option since the plan would be available to everyone as a Medicare tax on earnings. Once healthcare is removed from the equation many employers would lose the advantage of working existing workers more hours since the cost of healthcare would be a function of hourly earnings not a large fixed cost. Greater activity in the job market could have a positive effect on wage growth.
No. The problem is that we cannot keep running up huge deficits without consequence. How do you propose to fund expanded Medicare?
If the US were to expand Medicare to all ...would it stimulate wage growth?
Nope.
The only thing that will stimulate wage growth is to REDUCE the number of potential workers.
In principle.. increasing the number of jobs could as well but that's much harder to do.
However, expanding Medicare to cover everyone at the severe end of the Dx spectrum
would probably help stimulate the economy as a whole. It would have to in order to afford
the additional taxes that would require to cover the costs.
The only thing that will stimulate wage growth is to REDUCE the number of potential workers.
That isn't correct at all. Real aggregate wages cannot increase unless real production and productivity go up. Or, you increase the share going to labor vs capital.
You seem to be thinking that wages are set by the supply and demand for labor, but that only works in isolated cases, not in aggregate. One person's expense is another person's salary.
The supply of workers and wages can easily move in the same direction. For instance, since 2000 we've had a pretty dramatic reduction of both wages and workforce participation.
I believe that not only would this provide a more predictable cost structure for employers, but it would also free up employees to move to different jobs that may better suit their interests and skill set as well since the plan would be uniform.
All excellent points. This would have a minor effect on wages, but it would be positive. The increase in employee freedom is certainly a benefit. Most developed countries have this kind of system where health and retirement benefits are independent of employment.
If the US were to expand Medicare to all with private supplemental options would it stimulate wage growth? Currently healthcare costs and the uncertainty of how the Cadillac tax will impact many employers is causing many employers to put off hiring decisions. If a national Medicare plan was the basic plan for all then employees could purchase private supplemental plans to provide more extensive coverage. Employers could offer supplemental plans as an incentive, but it would not be a requirement. I believe that not only would this provide a more predictable cost structure for employers, but it would also free up employees to move to different jobs that may better suit their interests and skill set as well since the plan would be uniform. Those currently staying in jobs for insurance reasons would no longer need to stay there and more people would be able to pursue self employment as an option since the plan would be available to everyone as a Medicare tax on earnings. Once healthcare is removed from the equation many employers would lose the advantage of working existing workers more hours since the cost of healthcare would be a function of hourly earnings not a large fixed cost. Greater activity in the job market could have a positive effect on wage growth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ncole1
No. The problem is that we cannot keep running up huge deficits without consequence. How do you propose to fund expanded Medicare?
I'm confused by both of you guys..since I always thought Medicare was Elderly/retired folk ?? Are you speaking about Medicaid?? totally different entity as far as Government programs go???
Having said that..then why would any employer even affected by Medicare at all as those folks are ALL out of the Employment arena?? Sounds just like this is just further trolling for complaint against ACA?? SMH The misnomer was the dead giveaway!!
Expanded Medicare fundings by Feds> not being accepted by Red States is another story..and only then the only folk being hurt are those medicare people and the STATE by not allowing that funding..so States lack that income..Just because those states took a stand ( against Barrack Obama)..doesnt mean it was their right to disallow their retirement people adequate coverages?? I just SMH when only regular American folk who worked their whole life for this entitlement get shoved aside like "Expendable" as too costly to the STATE! Their was a 10 year window that States held no burden giving them a change to adjust..But Nope refused to work with it... I find that despicable
The short answer is yes, but with some caveats. If an employer is paying $15-$20K as a health insurance benefit and they suddenly don't need to pay that anymore that money will shift to the employee as taxable income. However, not all employees receive $15K in health benefits. Lower wage workers are lucky to to get any at all and if they do they may only get $100/mo in benefits, so for those workers, their income would decrease because of the higher FICA taxes that isn't offset by any increase in income.
Assuming the costs for healthcare are the same, there is no aggregate $ benefit. There can't be unless productivity rises, which may increase a little, but it would be a 2nd order effect. Taxes will need to pay for it instead of employers. The winners and losers will vary depending on how the taxes are extracted.
As the OP pointed out there are other benefits to employees (greater freedom).
Assuming the costs for healthcare are the same, there is no aggregate $ benefit. There can't be unless productivity rises, which may increase a little, but it would be a 2nd order effect. Taxes will need to pay for it instead of employers. The winners and losers will vary depending on how the taxes are extracted.
As the OP pointed out there are other benefits to employees (greater freedom).
OP asked if wages would rise. That is what I was responding to.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
