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.
You really believe that line ?
Government is going to force companies to pay more ?
That will be a good one to watch go through Congress.
Obama used that one already. Did your paycheck increase 3000% because your premiums went down ?
Go see how it's done in Europe. It's via high payroll and additional consumer taxes.
And even with universal/single payer those people also have a second private insurance plan.
You cannot have a government run program while you think your paycheck is going up with the money that needs to be sent to the government.
Doesn't work that way.
Government isn't going to force companies to pay more...because companies aren't paying more. If a company pays 10k for your healthcare plan and pays you 40k in wages, and then pays you 50k in wages after a single payer healthcare plan is instituted the company isn't paying more. They are still paying 50k. The difference is tax advantage status or not.
What you're suggesting is that all companies would institute mass pay cuts simply because the location of the money is in a different area.
Government isn't going to force companies to pay more...because companies aren't paying more. If a company pays 10k for your healthcare plan and pays you 40k in wages, and then pays you 50k in wages after a single payer healthcare plan is instituted the company isn't paying more. They are still paying 50k. The difference is tax advantage status or not.
What you're suggesting is that all companies would institute mass pay cuts simply because the location of the money is in a different area.
Pensions disappeared and your salary didn't go up..did it ?
Fully paid for health insurance disappeared and your salary didn't go up..did it ?
401K employer match disappeared and your salary didn't go up..did it ?
Yet you seem to think your salary will go up this time round.
There won't be any "mass pay cuts" because you never saw that money to begin with.
It was a benefit that a company gave you and could take away overnight.
That was never "your" money to begin with.
Ahh, it's agreed upon by healthcare analysts. Ok...
...You might want to talk to some employers to find out if employers would do what you expect. I understand that employers and healthcare analysts are like, practically the same thing and all, but...
Do they have any good "E" ticket rides in that land of fantasy which you occupy?
You've not refuted the point. You've cited conjecture and emoticons. I'm citing a libertarian/right-wing think tank and their research. I'd wager you probably support Cato in times that it meshes with the points you want to make.
Pensions disappeared and your salary didn't go up ?
Fully paid for health insurance disappeared and your salary didn't go up ?
Yet you seem to think your salary will go up this time round.
I'm citing a right wing think tank. The same theory is cited by Paul Ryan's healthcare plan in 2009. It's also cited by health economists and public poilcy analysts across the political divide. The increase may not be dollar for dollar but it's agreed upon by people paid to study this that salaries would increase.
I'm basing my opinion on studies cited by multiple groups from mulitiple ideologies...you're basing your opinion from random conjecture only.
It may end the discussion for you but the rest of us know your post is complete BS. I can't for the life of me figure out why you people keep trying to claim single payer is "unconstitutional". Medicare is single payer and it's been constitutional for quite some time. Where in the constitution does it say that people below the age of 65 can't have access to a single payer healthcare system?
Pensions disappeared and your salary didn't go up..did it ?
Fully paid for health insurance disappeared and your salary didn't go up..did it ?
401K employer match disappeared and your salary didn't go up..did it ?
Yet you seem to think your salary will go up this time round.
There won't be any "mass pay cuts" because you never saw that money to begin with.
It was a benefit that a company gave you and could take away overnight.
That was never "your" money to begin with.
But you did have to earn it.
Employees must earn ALL the benefits and wages they take home, plus enough to cover costs, investments, amortization of debt, etc.
There's actually a fairly substantive argument that exists suggesting our taxes wouldn't need to be increased. The additional revenue would come from removing the tax advantage status of employer provided healthcare. The existence of a Medicare for all option would render worthless employer provided coverage therefore they wouldn't have the need to offer it. So, if my salary is 50k and my healthcare is 13k my effective salary is 63k. Employers would just shift the money spent on healthcare to higher wages...it doesn't make a difference to them on where the money is paid if they've already agreed on a certain dollar amount. Now my salary at 63k is taxed as regular income which increases my tax liability my 13k. Given around 80% of insured Americans get their coverage from their employer this would increase tax revenues substantially. Health economists have unanimously agreed that removing the arcane tax structure would increase salaries, which would in turn increase revenues.
This is "sort of" true, but it's also false.
Your earnings are a number. They are quantifiable and measurable. The dollars you earn working for Walmart or for the county or for a hospital spend precisely the same.
But benefits are not quantifiable. While the company may be able to quantify precisely their COST, the perceived benefit to the employee is highly subjective. Some may value a generous medical benefit, others find it of little attraction. Some want time off and vacation, rather than more money.
Thus, benefits are quantifiable in cost, but not in value to the employee. It is true that some employers pay lots of money for things that have little perceived value to the employee, while others spend little, but the employee perceives great value, even though the cost is small.
Thus, "compensation" as a concept, which includes both quantifiable pay and non-quantifiable benefits is not a constant and perfectly linear mathematical formula. Thus, to keep people happy, many employers may not have pay much more to satisfy the employee if benefits are lost. Others may have to pay MORE, because publicly administered programs have terrible satisfaction rates. Especially among higher paid people, the "average" or "mundane" is rarely "good enough".
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.
