US Politics - The Conceit of Not Conceding

[Centrist Simon Steele]

1 hour ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

Standard economic theory says that any difference would be made up for in take home pay, because employees aren't idiots and will understand their employer was willing and able to effectively pay them more in the very recent past. Unions are capable of negotiating this on behalf of their members as well.

We would, on top of that, all be better off if the system we went to was single payer, as the experience of the rest of the civilized world tells us is it would dramatically lower our per capita health care costs over time, making everyone not involved in the health insurance racket richer. 

Finally, the moral imperative is that we find some way to transition away from our barbaric current system, even if that does in fact meant that some people take a short term hit. 

Yeah, it's a bad argument that I've heard about "what about all the hard work unions do" or "what about my healthcare, it's good!" Most people's isn't. I would say that the healthcare money going back into our pockets is mandatory, but even if it didn't, I would have 600 dollars more a month (for that which my employer doesn't pay) plus no copays--and I have plenty of those adding up.

[Fez]

13 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

In my view, only obstacle to axing employer sponsored healthcare is political,  not some technocratic reason, like how to finance it. I'm not sure why you assume why employers have to pay for it. When your employer compensates you, I'm pretty sure they are taking healthcare  cost into account, which they are deducting from your base pay. They are not giving you those benefits out of the bottom of their good old hearts.

The technocratic reasons for obliterating employer sponsored health care are strong. It's the politics that get messy. Its generally why I prefer a public option and killing it slowly over time, as in feed it a little bit of arsenic here and little more arsenic there, until it keels over.

The concern, and I think it's an accurate one, is that most employers simply would not raise wages to account for the change in benefits package. And since taxes would almost certainly go up to pay for this new public coverage, it means that many people might be net losers from this change.

Even if that's not what happens, I think enough people think it will happen that it makes the politics here almost impossible. That's on top of the people who are happy with their current coverage, whether rightly or no, and think that their coverage will get worse by switching to a new system.

It's why I think a public option is possible (though not right now, even if Democrats win both GA run-offs its not getting through a 50-50 senate), but not a complete transformation of the system.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

42 minutes ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

And this does not stand out to you as a glaring reason why it's important to have health insurance detached from employment? 

It’s a good idea in theory, but you have to be realistic. A big benefit for a lot of jobs is the insurance. I remain unconvinced that they’ll make up the difference if they’re no longer on the hook for it.

42 minutes ago, Hereward said:

In the UK, everyone pays 12% of salary after £10k up to £50k, then 2% after that. The employer pays circa 13%. But that’s for cost free healthcare (no copayment) and state pension.

Okay, and? I don’t think anyone is arguing you can’t make it work. It’s just not politically realistic and it will favor businesses rather than the workers.

16 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

In my view, only obstacle to axing employer sponsored healthcare is political,  not some technocratic reason, like how to finance it. I'm not sure why you assume why employers have to pay for it. When your employer compensates you, I'm pretty sure they are taking healthcare  cost into account, which they are deducting from your base pay. They are not giving you those benefits out of the bottom of their good old hearts.

The technocratic reasons for obliterating employer sponsored health care are strong. It's the politics that get messy. Its generally why I prefer a public option and killing it slowly over time, as in feed it a little bit of arsenic here and little more arsenic there, until it keels over.

I agree it’s largely political, but you cannot ignore that it would be a nightmare to do even if the political will to do it was overwhelming. I also agree that employers shouldn’t be on the hook for it, but my point is if you flip the system there’s no reason to assume companies will just return that compensation in the form of increasing your base pay. Many people’s salaries would remain the same while businesses pocket the savings.

[SFDanny]

After reading a 25th District report that they are expecting a release of updated count of LA county votes today, I'm hoping for enough votes in them for Smith to take over the lead in a very, very close race over her republican opponent Garcia. If the report is right, I'll post something as soon as I see it.

There are almost 100,000 LA votes still unreported, and Smith is down by just over 100 votes. Unfortunately, I don't know how many of those 100,000 outstanding votes are within district. Still this pot of votes is Smith's best chance to win this race.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Fez said:

The concern, and I think it's an accurate one, is that most employers simply would not raise wages to account for the change in benefits package. And since taxes would almost certainly go up to pay for this new public coverage, it means that many people might be net losers from this change.

I don't think that is remotely accurate. Employers do count how much they have to pay before they hire someone. That includes both wages and benefits. They are not just pulling the money they use to pay for healthcare out of thin air. They way to make sure that the money that used to be paid for healthcare benefits, show up in people's paychecks is by maintaining tight labor markets.

 

3 minutes ago, Fez said:

And since taxes would almost certainly go up to pay for this new public coverage, it means that many people might be net losers from this change.

Some people might be losers, like those people that have high incomes and get a great benefit package. But, most people will benefit, particularly if we get our cost of healthcare under control.

[OldGimletEye]

9 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

.I agree it’s largely political, but you cannot ignore that it would be a nightmare to do even if the political will to do it was overwhelming. I also agree that employers shouldn’t be on the hook for it, but my point is if you flip the system there’s no reason to assume companies will just return that compensation in the form of increasing your base pay. Many people’s salaries would remain the same while businesses pocket the savings.

Then why don't businesses just not offer healthcare benefits and then pocket the savings now. You seemingly suggest that businesses just randomly find money to pay for healthcare benefits for no reason. They offer those benefits to attract employees and because tax law subsidizes them to do so.

[Fez]

4 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I don't think that is remotely accurate. Employers do count how much they have to pay before they hire someone. That includes both wages and benefits. They are not just pulling the money they use to pay for healthcare out of thin air. They way to make sure that the money that used to be paid for healthcare benefits, show up in people's paychecks is by maintaining tight labor markets.

Of course employers are calculating that. But, after seeing the way US corporations have treated their employees for the past 200 or so years (and especially the last 40-ish years), what on earth makes you think they'd increase wages just because benefits changed? Employers have been slashing benefits for decades, especially retirement benefits, with no increase in other compensation. 

We don't have a tight labor market and almost never have. Macro-economic policy in the US for decades, outside of a handful of short-term crisis, has always focused on keeping inflation rates down at the expense of all else.

[OldGimletEye]

4 minutes ago, Fez said:

Of course employers are calculating that. But, after seeing the way US corporations have treated their employees for the past 200 or so years (and especially the last 40-ish years), what on earth makes you think they'd increase wages just because benefits changed? Employers have been slashing benefits for decades, especially retirement benefits, with no increase in other compensation. 

We don't have a tight labor market and almost never have. Macro-economic policy in the US for decades, outside of a handful of short-term crisis, has always focused on keeping inflation rates down at the expense of all else.

And what on earth makes you think they offer healthcare benefits if they don't have to? You seem to suggest they just randomly create money to pay healthcare benefits, but then somehow that money just goes down into a blackhole, if employer sponsored healthcare was eliminated.

[Ran]

Did not realize the divisive role "Black bloc" anarchists have played in the Portland protests. The LA Times has a good piece on how they're continuing their opposition to any form of government, and now more than ever are being rejected by other groups.

 

[Darzin]

6 hours ago, Fury Resurrected said:

I mean, he supports healthcare for all as in a healthcare mandate. Biden has said numerous times he doesn’t support Medicare for all or UHC or uncoupling healthcare from employment. That’s not really what the left mean when they say healthcare for all, and I’m sure you know that. 
 

Universal Healthcare =/ = for all. Biden supports universal coverage through a public option that while not ideal would ensure all are able to afford coverage. I agree Biden's is not the best plan but I think it's better then Bernie's which bans private plans. I support and want goverment healthcare (and had it when I lived in the US) but I also don't want someone like Donald Trump having a monopoly over my healthcare.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 minutes ago, Ran said:

Did not realize the divisive role "Black bloc" anarchists have played in the Portland protests. The LA Times has a good piece on how they're continuing their opposition to any form of government, and now more than ever are being rejected by other groups.

 

Anarchists should get their very own special island where they can beat the shit out of each other to their hearts content.

[Fez]

4 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

And what on earth makes you think they offer healthcare benefits if they don't have to? You seem to suggest they just randomly create money to pay healthcare benefits, but then somehow that money just goes down into a blackhole, if employer sponsored healthcare was eliminated.

Expectations, basically. Employers know that employees expect health care coverage because that's way its been done since the 1930s, so they ensure that it is offered (though for decades they have been undercutting it by putting more and more of the costs on employees). It's the cost of doing business basically.

But if employees can get coverage elsewhere and that expectation is gone, then that creates a windfall for employers. Very few employees know the true cost of employment on a business, and they won't demand that cost remain constant. It's a whole new paradigm and employers will be the ones to benefit from the change; they always are in capitalism.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Why are employers not clamoring for single payer so they don’t have the hassle of renegotiating their Health insurance every year?

[OldGimletEye]

16 minutes ago, Fez said:

Expectations, basically. Employers know that employees expect health care coverage because that's way its been done since the 1930s, so they ensure that it is offered (though for decades they have been undercutting it by putting more and more of the costs on employees). It's the cost of doing business basically.

But if employees can get coverage elsewhere and that expectation is gone, then that creates a windfall for employers. Very few employees know the true cost of employment on a business, and they won't demand that cost remain constant. It's a whole new paradigm and employers will be the ones to benefit from the change; they always are in capitalism.

You act if employees are completely stupid. They do accept jobs in part because of healthcare benefits. Once those benefits are gone any given job is less attractive. For many, self employment might seem more attractive, since healthcare isn't an issue. And employers do have incentives to raise wages if the given wage is below the value of what the employee would produce. And that's true even if we assume some monopsony power on part of the employer.

[Fury Resurrected]

16 minutes ago, Darzin said:

Universal Healthcare =/ = for all. Biden supports universal coverage through a public option that while not ideal would ensure all are able to afford coverage. I agree Biden's is not the best plan but I think it's better then Bernie's which bans private plans. I support and want goverment healthcare (and had it when I lived in the US) but I also don't want someone like Donald Trump having a monopoly over my healthcare.

A public buy in option absolutely does not ensure coverage for all. It doesn’t help in any fashion if you are unemployed, which again, is the crisis we are now in and we have no reason to believe could not happen again.

As to people’s questions about employers raising wages and unions- unions are absolutely positioned to negotiate that pay raise, and would, that’s exactly what they do. As for the businesses themselves with nonunion employees, some would, some wouldn’t. Countries with UHC pay a lot less in taxes (that often include healthcare AND some college) than we are currently paying for taxes and health insurance combined, so it would be a net gain even with no raise in pay. People are always clamoring on about helping businesses, and taking this expense from them would definitely help, especially self employed people who get royally screwed at tax time and have to buy individual plans. The way our system is structured creates tons of extra costs other countries are not experiencing. The pitfall most people experience is that they assume that healthcare actually costs this much- it does not anywhere else in the world. We are paying to prop up an entire industry of middlemen.

[Martell Spy]

Many work-class people would barely notice if their employee healthcare plans vanished because they are so stingy.

Also, Medicaid works really well if you are unemployed. Problem there is the crazy states that didn't expand it.

[Fez]

6 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

You act if employees are completely stupid. They do accept jobs in part because of healthcare benefits. Once those benefits are gone any given job is less attractive. For many, self employment might seem more attractive, since healthcare isn't an issue. And employers do have incentives to raise wages if the given wage is below the value of what the employee would produce. And that's true even if we assume some monopsony power on part of the employer.

Because most of them are. See how:

• regularly unionization drives fail,
• poorly most union contract negotiations go these days (albeit still better than nothing),
• low the rate of unionization has fallen nationwide,
• rare strikes are,
• many employees support "right to work" laws,
• little push-back there was to shift from defined benefit to defined contribution retirement packages,
• little push-back there was to the rise of co-insurance,
• regularly wages stagnate even in times of job growth,
• and common terrible work conditions are.

Employees lack the knowledge, resources, and willpower to bargain fairly with employers. That's why unions are so important, and why destroying their power has been the main priority of big business.

There are still a handful of industries with decently strong unions, and they'd clawback at least some of that compensation from employers. But most employees will be shit out of luck. And good luck trying to find a different employer that is acting fairly, or trying to start your own business. That'll only be an escape valve for a few.

[Toth]

20 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Why are employers not clamoring for single payer so they don’t have the hassle of renegotiating their Health insurance every year?

I was always thinking a lot of them like the idea of having this much leverage over their employees by having them dependent on their insurance. Isn't that it?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

50 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Then why don't businesses just not offer healthcare benefits and then pocket the savings now. You seemingly suggest that businesses just randomly find money to pay for healthcare benefits for no reason. They offer those benefits to attract employees and because tax law subsidizes them to do so.

Fez has raised a lot of points I would have already, but the biggest one I want to emphasis is norms. It’s what people expect. If you take it away and provide a public option, you create a new norm and people won’t really understand how they’re getting less overall. Some companies will compensate their employees, but I don’t think most would. We’re going to have a scarcity of jobs as automation rolls in and a lot of people will just have to accept less. The divide between the haves and the have nots is only going to get worse without serious reforms.

[OldGimletEye]

6 minutes ago, Fez said:

snip

I'm not in denial that we should increase worker bargaining power through unions and by appropriate monetary and fiscal policy.

But, given, the low state worker bargaining power, you still fail to explain why employers give healthcare benefits at all, when those benefits do incur costs to the employer.