The Great ObamaCare Debate, Part 237: Back to Court - Page 27 - Politics and Economics

Of course high paid employees aren't going to be put on da welfare

What about a $20 framer in Wichita who used to have health insurance and his wife could stay at home? This law provides a disincentive for the majority of employers to provide insurance, unless you could prove me wrong with the numbers.

Not a case study in a state which isn't analogous to the majority of the US

FFS, why exactly aren't those employers dropping coverage today when the fine is....wait for it....zero? This argument makes absolutely zero sense.

Last edited by Double Eagle; 03-10-2012 at 12:26 AM. Reason: And IT'S STILL THE SAME ARGUMENT THAT GOT USED IN MASS

03-10-2012 , 12:15 AM

#652

Double Eagle

Health Care Thread Czar

Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 8,323

And btw, there is consensus amongst labor economics that health care expenses come directly out of employee wages, so even in your doomsday scenario, if the employer pays the $2k fine most of the difference will make it back to the employee in the form of wages and he will at least be no worse (and potentially better) off in the exchange.

03-10-2012 , 12:26 AM

#653

DodgerIrish

Fraudulent Zodiac

Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 28,191

Quote:

Originally Posted by Double Eagle

FFS, why exactly aren't those employers dropping coverage today when the fine is....wait for it....zero? This argument makes absolutely zero sense.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/famee.nr0.htm

Quote:

Both the husband and wife were employed in 47.8 percent of married-couple families
in 2010, compared with 48.5 percent in 2009. The husband was the only worker in
19.7 percent of married-couple families in 2010, and the wife was the only worker
in 8.6 percent.

Because it will only affect a % of their employees, which either will force the wife into the workforce or in the unlikely event causes them to quit, will be easily replaced. They can explain it away as the gov't forcing their hand. Then when the outcry occurs -

03-10-2012 , 12:28 AM

#654

DodgerIrish

Fraudulent Zodiac

Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 28,191

I don't even know if I'm against single payer. The rich can still pay for private top of the line care. Just seems to be where this bill heads us

03-10-2012 , 12:34 AM

#655

Double Eagle

Health Care Thread Czar

Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 8,323

Quote:

Originally Posted by DodgerIrish

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/famee.nr0.htm

Because it will only affect a % of their employees, which either will force the wife into the workforce or in the unlikely event causes them to quit, will be easily replaced. They can explain it away as the gov't forcing their hand. Then when the outcry occurs -

Please make a coherent argument. Are you saying that employers will drop coverage on some employees but not others? Because that's not legal even today.

03-10-2012 , 12:38 AM

#656

DodgerIrish

Fraudulent Zodiac

Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 28,191

No I'm saying that a % of their employees will qualify for the subsidy. For the rest, thems the breaks - put your woman to work.

Gotta problem with it? Do you see this stack of applicants?

03-10-2012 , 12:43 AM

#657

Double Eagle

Health Care Thread Czar

Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 8,323

Quote:

Originally Posted by DodgerIrish

No I'm saying that a % of their employees will qualify for the subsidy. For the rest, thems the breaks - put your woman to work.

Gotta problem with it? Do you see this stack of applicants?

And they aren't going to take that compensation expense and put it right back into the employee's paycheck?

Again, there is no reason for any employer to maintain coverage if in your scenario you expect them to pocket the difference.

03-10-2012 , 12:46 AM

#658

DodgerIrish

Fraudulent Zodiac

Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 28,191

Quote:

Originally Posted by Double Eagle

And they aren't going to take that compensation expense and put it right back into the employee's paycheck?

They may, does this not still hurt the lower middle class (who, even with the bump doesn't come close to the 64k threshold) while his co-worker attains middle class and the subsidy just b/c his wife likes to get out of the house?

Do you really think the bump would be sizable enough to compensate for the loss of insurance? If so, that's bad business on the owner's part b/c the co-worker with the working wife just got a sizable raise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Double Eagle

Again, there is no reason for any employer to maintain coverage if in your scenario you expect them to pocket the difference.

That's my point, they won't maintain coverage so they can pocket the difference. Shocking, an employer looking to help his own bottom line

03-10-2012 , 12:56 AM

#659

Double Eagle

Health Care Thread Czar

Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 8,323

Quote:

Originally Posted by DodgerIrish

They may, does this not still hut the lower middle class (who, even with the bump doesn't come close to the 64k threshold) while his co-worker attains middle class and the subsidy just b/c his wife likes to get out of the house?

Do you really think the bump would be sizable enough to compensate for the loss of insurance? If so, that's bad business on the owner's part b/c the co-worker with the wife just got a sizable raise.

That's my point, they won't maintain coverage so they can pocket the difference. Shocking, an employer looking to help his own bottom line

I still don't get it. Health care expenses are part of wage expense, the sum of which is required to reach the clearing price for labor. If it were so easy to drop the 15k of coverage for that 40k employee while retaining him (or replacing him with a 40k total comp equivalent), why isn't that employer doing it today and keeping the whole 15k? You really aren't thinking this through, especially when there is real world evidence that says this won't happen.

03-10-2012 , 01:05 AM

#660

DodgerIrish

Fraudulent Zodiac

Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 28,191

No you aren't thinking this through.

The outside factor is the new subsidy. Plz compare apples to apples if you're going to reply. Today is not the same as tomorrow, think it through and don't be so partisan.

I've already explained that Massachusetts is not the same as the Bible Belt or the unwashed masses ldo

03-10-2012 , 01:10 AM

#661

Double Eagle

Health Care Thread Czar

Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 8,323

So are you arguing that health care expense is not part of the clearing price of labor in the bible belt? Because that's a requirement for the rest of your argument.

Last edited by Double Eagle; 03-10-2012 at 01:12 AM. Reason: Which is curious considering that health care expense is greater percentage of overall compensation for lower wage workers.

03-10-2012 , 01:12 AM

#662

DodgerIrish

Fraudulent Zodiac

Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 28,191

Lol no

When the govt says for some ppl they'll chip in 10k but not for others it changes the dynamic. Employers can say screw it, let's see if we can just hire/employ those who get 10k from the gov't, or at least those who don't care enough to say no, and then go from there.

Where does that leave the framer? Put his wife to work or face paying for insurance (w/ no subsidy) or go without, no?

03-10-2012 , 01:15 AM

#663

Double Eagle

Health Care Thread Czar

Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 8,323

Quote:

Originally Posted by DodgerIrish

Lol no

When the govt says for some ppl they'll chip in 10k but not for others it changes the dynamic. Employers can say screw it, let's see if we can just hire/emply those who get 10k from the gov't, or those who don't care enough to say no, and then go from there

Actually that's exactly what you are saying. You don't get to the second sentence without ignoring some basic economics.

03-10-2012 , 01:17 AM

#664

DodgerIrish

Fraudulent Zodiac

Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 28,191

No I'm saying that the jobs for the rest of the US are not analogous to the NE

The jobs are much easier to replace, hence the low income.

Ur ignoring basic economics pretending a white collar job in the NE is the same as construction elsewhere

03-10-2012 , 01:27 AM

#665

DodgerIrish

Fraudulent Zodiac

Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 28,191

And you're asking why do employers not drop coverage now when their employees would have nothing and that shop across the street would give it to them. As opposed to;

Half their employees would qualify for the subsidy, another 1/4 won't quit over it and the rest can be replaced. How is that complicated? The shop across the street has the same idea too so there goes that option

03-10-2012 , 01:28 AM

#666

Double Eagle

Health Care Thread Czar

Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 8,323

Quote:

Originally Posted by DodgerIrish

No I'm saying that the jobs for the rest of the US are not analogous to the NE

The jobs are much easier to replace, hence the low income.

Ur ignoring economics pretending a white collar job in the NE is the same as construction elsewhere

No the absolute level of compensation makes no difference. Except at the minimum wage, the clearing price for labor is the clearing price for labor, period, end of story. Subsidy or no, those businesses whose total compensation remains lower than the local clearing price will either have unfilled positions or less qualified workers than their competitors. That's the only incentive that matters.

Last edited by Double Eagle; 03-10-2012 at 01:32 AM. Reason: And that's exactly why even employers with primarily low wage workers didnt drop coverage in MASS

03-10-2012 , 01:37 AM

#667

DodgerIrish

Fraudulent Zodiac

Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 28,191

Quote:

Originally Posted by Double Eagle

I had no idea that insurance and wages were such a zero sum game. How do profits get funneled up to those evil CEO's then?

O well, you haven't really refuted any of my points but I'm sold. Thx efficient gov't for making sure there's no unintended consequences

03-10-2012 , 01:40 AM

#668

Double Eagle

Health Care Thread Czar

Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 8,323

Quote:

Originally Posted by DodgerIrish

So then everyone that has coverage now will definitely either stay the same or improve their situation, right?

No one is gonna get the short end of this stick? Sounds awesome, who knew gov't was this efficient?

No, some subset of employers who would have dropped coverage anyway will do so, some who would have will now be incentivized to keep (or add coverage) and perhaps some who wouldn't have dropped coverage will. But look at Mass, the share of workers covered gained (were all of these high income workers who somehow weren't covered before?) while the rate for the rest of the country was falling like a rock - this is at least partly due to the incentives for small businesses to join the small business pools that were a part of MassCare and are also part of ACA.

03-10-2012 , 01:41 AM

#669

DodgerIrish

Fraudulent Zodiac

Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 28,191

Again, I'm glad Massachusetts is such a microcosm for the rest of the USA

11-09-2012 , 10:25 PM

#670

TeflonDawg

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 5,930

Quote:

u could not be more wrong about Obama care it will **** people like my father who own small practices with 30 to 50 employees....so before u post anymore political bull **** sit down and talk with my father this post pisses me off beyond belief it will not create jobs it will decrease them and healthcare costs so much because of what people like my father have to pay in malpractice insurance because of jerk offs who sue over bull**** to get money in there pocket stop posting political **** it is obnoxious

now 1) i didn't say it would create jobs. i said it would force USA to produce more doctors because there is already a massive shortage and obviously one way or another that needs to be shored up and 2) is his rant valid? i was under the impression that ObamaCare was going to help the businesses with 30-50 employees...he's acting like it will destroy them? so what's the truth?

11-09-2012 , 10:30 PM

#671

Ineedaride2

Politics Court Jester

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 25,080

Quote:

I think it's safe to say that your friend is not going to follow in his father's footsteps.

Edit: And your friend's father's situation is different than most people's. The business he's discussing is in the medical field, so they catch it twice during the transition. I have no idea how they will actually be affected, but that business will not be representative of most small businesses. Just most small medical businesses.

11-09-2012 , 10:50 PM

#672

TeflonDawg

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 5,930

catch it twice? can someone elaborate on that?

11-09-2012 , 10:54 PM

#673

MrWookie

Don't Call Me Meredith

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 94,159

Quote:

Originally Posted by TeflonDawg

bump

so i made a comment highlighting various points of ObamaCare on my FB wall and how i like it even though i am disgusted by the ever expanding welfare and warfare state. anyways, one of my friends got pissed off and had this to say:

now 1) i didn't say it would create jobs. i said it would force USA to produce more doctors because there is already a massive shortage and obviously one way or another that needs to be shored up and 2) is his rant valid? i was under the impression that ObamaCare was going to help the businesses with 30-50 employees...he's acting like it will destroy them? so what's the truth?

The mandate doesn't apply to companies with 49 or fewer employees.

11-09-2012 , 10:56 PM

#674

Ineedaride2

Politics Court Jester

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 25,080

Quote:

Originally Posted by TeflonDawg

catch it twice? can someone elaborate on that?

It appears his father is a doctor? If so, that means not only will his company's health care costs possibly change (we'll see), but he's probably also going to be affected by the bill on the practitioner side. The people that I've heard do the absolute most screaming about this bill are doctors because they believe (right or wrong) that this bill is going to put a massive dent in their take home pay.

Most businesses are only affected on one side. Their health care premiums.

Last edited by Ineedaride2; 11-09-2012 at 10:58 PM. Reason: Strikethrough is wookie's fault