Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Saturday, February 08, 2020

Will Medicare for all cause wages to rise if employers have to spend less on benefits? Research suggests the answer is "yes," with the caveat that it may not be matched dollar for dollar for everyone.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

So will Medicare for all cause wages to rise if employers have to spend less on benefits?

I know the $200 per week I spend on insurance and the $155 I put into an HSA would go away with M4A, but will my employer increase my wages?

I am not sold that if employees were just getting all the health insurance through the employer the company would pass along their savings to the employees. My thinking they would go the route some of the companies did with the tax scam cut...give a few thousand as a one time bonus and pass along 90% of the benefits to the shareholders.

#1 | Posted by Nixon at 2020-02-03 03:24 PM | Reply

"many health economists believe that your employer's contribution toward health insurance comes out of your wages."

Conservatives are so afraid of taxes, they'll pay double in fees and think "Whew, at least I didn't have to pay any taxes!"

#2 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-02-03 03:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"I am not sold that if employees were just getting all the health insurance through the employer the company would pass along their savings to the employees. My thinking they would go the route some of the companies did with the tax scam cut...give a few thousand as a one time bonus and pass along 90% of the benefits to the shareholders."

They would use it in the manner best befitting the firm. Cutting labor costs could translate into lower consumer prices, if the goal was to be more competitive. It would almost certainly result in higher wages for some, as employers could funnel money to those employees who stood out as exceptional.

What I don't get is that the cost of employer contributions is always included in any government-provided plan, which would suggest that employers would still be on the hook in some way...most likely in increased taxes.

#3 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-02-04 04:37 AM | Reply

"We're going to save you money through the efficiency of US government."

That's harder to sell than a Trump presidency.

#4 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2020-02-04 07:48 AM | Reply

Cutting labor costs could translate into lower consumer prices,

HAHAHA...well that would be the first time ever.

#5 | Posted by Nixon at 2020-02-04 11:55 AM | Reply

No it won't ...

Costs will rise .... or healthcare will be cut.

The idea that being the equivalent of a car insurance company is going to drive down the costs of new cars & repairs is hilarious.

Ever wonder why cars goto salvage so quickly and for such little damage?

If you want to lower the costs of healthcare, you need to either get the government out of it or take over (nationalize) the healthcare system.

This middle of the road approach makes the provider (healthcare, universities) RICH, and it costs the taxpayer.

#6 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2020-02-04 12:05 PM | Reply

""We're going to save you money through the efficiency of US government."
That's harder to sell than a Trump presidency."

Medicare has been proving it for nearly 70 years.

#7 | Posted by danni at 2020-02-04 12:12 PM | Reply

"HAHAHA...well that would be the first time ever."

Uhhh...no Scott. It wouldn't.

The reason you can buy consumer goods for a fraction of what they would have cost you 60 years ago is wholly the result of increased competition.

#8 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-02-04 03:02 PM | Reply

Medicare has been proving it for nearly 70 years.

#7 | POSTED BY DANNI AT 2020-02-04 12:12 PM | FLAG:

In the next 8 years it hits a double digit funding deficit. Number of doctor's refusing new Medicare patients is up to 35% and continuing to decline. The rate of decline slowed, increased, slowed, and is increasing again it seems.

#9 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2020-02-05 07:43 AM | Reply

"In the next 8 years it hits a double digit funding deficit."

Since we know that, why not fix the problem while we have time, and can gently alter the course instead of waiting for the day only a radical change will save it?

#10 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-02-05 04:14 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

"The reason you can buy consumer goods for a fraction of what they would have cost you 60 years ago is wholly the result of increased competition."

Microchips and flash drives on line #1 for you. Gordon Moore on line #2.

#11 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-02-05 04:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Unless you can show me how M4A increases the demand for labor, then it's not going to increase wages.

Businesses cutting costs doesn't increase wages. demand for labor does increase wages.

"Cutting labor costs could translate into lower consumer prices,
HAHAHA...well that would be the first time ever."

manufacturing has been cutting labor costs by moving plants overseas and then selling them for less at Wal-mart for at least 3 decades.

#12 | Posted by eberly at 2020-02-05 04:20 PM | Reply

From the item below:

Medicare Has Lower Administrative Costs Than Private Plans.

* According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, administrative costs in Medicare are only about 2 percent
of operating expenditures. Defenders of the insurance industry estimate administrative
costs as 17 percent of revenue.
* Insurance industry-funded studies exclude private plans' marketing costs and profits from their calculation
of administrative costs. Even so, Medicare's overhead is dramatically lower.
* Medicare administrative cost figures include the collection of Medicare taxes, fraud and abuse controls,
and building costs.


www.healthaffairs.org

OCU

#13 | Posted by OCUser at 2020-02-08 10:51 PM | Reply

M4A will eliminate wages for some, those savings will be passed to insurance payers. Those that pay for health insurance will save about $600 Billion per year.

www.businessinsider.com

#14 | Posted by bored at 2020-02-09 02:28 AM | Reply

Many workers will benefit from no longer being coverage hostages. Many will also get coverage they could not afford before. The first world countries can do it, why not the US?

#15 | Posted by bored at 2020-02-09 02:31 AM | Reply

The Masters of the universe say NO to Medicare for all. There's too much money in private insurance. The little people will just have to suck it up. Maybe it's time to revolute.

#16 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2020-02-09 02:43 AM | Reply

If you want to lower the costs of healthcare, you need to either get the government out of it or take over (nationalize) the healthcare system.
This middle of the road approach makes the provider (healthcare, universities) RICH, and it costs the taxpayer.

#6 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS AT 2020-02-04 12:05 PM | FLAG: PPPPFFFFTTTTTTTT

Open your eyes dumb@$$... keeping government out of healthcare doesn't work because pig brains want to live in the past where people used to become rich employing others. Now people become rich by job elimination so the rules no longer apply to who is providing the services. Out laisses faire medical system has created a caste culture.

What really needs to be done is the middle-class obsession with instant gratification and being lulled into believing that there is something wrong with waiting a few days more for a test. Losing the deluded belief that they somehow have eternal control over who their "provider" is also something they have to get over because that $#!t went away with house calls. Besides, antibiotics changed that as a necessity. Adopting the concept that it isn't "their" provider but "a provider" would go a long way also.

It is fascinating that statistically speaking countries with similar lifestyles to ours also have longer life expectancies, lower infant mortality rates, and lower medical costs often have to wait for tests and somehow manage to live longer and it relates to their access to medical. Frankly, I think because they are realistic about it... and it only took several wars for them to get around to acting on it. in the US voters are bought by being told there won't be an MRI lab on every street corner. It's like living around a bunch of toddlers who think they are special "just because".

#17 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2020-02-09 06:37 AM | Reply

All "expected" raises will go for the tax increase to pay for this debacle.

#18 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2020-02-09 08:20 AM | Reply

#17 | Posted by RightisTrite, We can do better with public health. Some of us think that creating a huge, new, expensive bureaucracy might not be the best solution.

#19 | Posted by docnjo at 2020-02-09 08:22 AM | Reply

no wage increase just a big TAX increase

BTW, the more a Government provides you the more they will take away

#20 | Posted by Maverick at 2020-02-09 09:04 AM | Reply

#20 | Posted by Maverick, A simple rule in government,"The more they promise, the more they take".

#21 | Posted by docnjo at 2020-02-09 09:23 AM | Reply

Most anti-M4A arguments fail to acknowledge the basic fact that Americans already spend far more out of pocket for their healthcare than nations with single-payer systems.

So yeah, taxes go up. But the overall amount you pay, net of increased taxes, stays the same or maybe even goes down, depending which study you look at.

No argument that ignores this fact deserves any attention other than ridicule.

#22 | Posted by JOE at 2020-02-09 10:21 AM | Reply

If i'm paying $10,000/year out of pocket for my healthcare.

And M4A comes along and taxes me $8,000/year, and that's the only thing i have to pay for related to healthcare.

Then yeah, my taxes went up $8,000. But it is beyond idiotic to suggest that i am "out" any money. I saved $2,000.

#23 | Posted by JOE at 2020-02-09 10:23 AM | Reply

"In the next 8 years it hits a double digit funding deficit."

So we raise taxes on the 1% and corporations and raise the cap on income subject to SS and Medicare taxes.....like we did in 1983. It isn't rocket science.

#24 | Posted by danni at 2020-02-09 11:29 AM | Reply

"If you want to lower the costs of healthcare, you need to either get the government out of it or take over (nationalize) the healthcare system.
This middle of the road approach makes the provider (healthcare, universities) RICH, and it costs the taxpayer."

We could read Andrea's post several ways but I take it to mean that the only smart way to handle healthcare is M4All though shy might have another way (more acceptable to Republicans) of saying basically the same thing.

#25 | Posted by danni at 2020-02-09 11:32 AM | Reply

"So yeah, taxes go up. But the overall amount you pay, net of increased taxes, stays the same or maybe even goes down, depending which study you look at."

From your lips to the campaigns of any of the Democrats.

#26 | Posted by danni at 2020-02-09 11:34 AM | Reply

#26 It has been infuriating to see the Sanders campaign fail to explain this in a short, effective manner.

#27 | Posted by JOE at 2020-02-09 11:50 AM | Reply

" It has been infuriating to see the Sanders campaign fail to explain this in a short, effective manner."

Exactly, it needs to be repeated over and over and over in every commercial, every poster, every conversation with anyone doubting MforAll.

#28 | Posted by danni at 2020-02-09 11:55 AM | Reply

So we raise taxes on the 1% and corporations and raise the cap on income subject to SS and Medicare taxes...

#24 | Posted by danni

The cap on income subject to Medicare taxes was removed years ago.

OCU

#29 | Posted by OCUser at 2020-02-09 11:59 AM | Reply

"The first world countries can do it, why not the US?"

We can. The first step being a first-world Value Added Tax. The best way to understand it is as 19%-25% sales tax on everything you buy.

#30 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-02-10 06:31 AM | Reply

"Maybe it's time to revolute."

Is that where the less rich people kick the richer people to the curb and start paying their fair share of the federal income tax?

#31 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-02-10 06:32 AM | Reply

"What really needs to be done is the middle-class obsession with instant gratification and being lulled into believing that there is something wrong with waiting a few days more for a test."

Why?

Is there some inherent value in waiting?

If I have the money for a procedure, and there is a doctor willing to do the procedure, why should I have to wait?

#32 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-02-10 06:34 AM | Reply

"Most anti-M4A arguments fail to acknowledge the basic fact that Americans already spend far more out of pocket for their healthcare than nations with single-payer systems."

Which Nations might those be?

And are you aware of any Nation that has banned private healthcare in the fashion proposed by Bernie?

#33 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-02-10 06:36 AM | Reply

"Then yeah, my taxes went up $8,000. But it is beyond idiotic to suggest that i am "out" any money. I saved $2,000."

That would be a good deal for you.

What about the guy paying $10k who now owes $20k?

He just lost $10k.

#34 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-02-10 06:37 AM | Reply

"So we raise taxes on the 1% and corporations and raise the cap on income subject to SS and Medicare taxes.....like we did in 1983. It isn't rocket science."

You can raise taxes on whomever you want...but unless they're willing to pay them, there's not much you can do. And if the country did decide to make that move, you can bet that there would be a countermove by those being taxes.

#35 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-02-10 06:39 AM | Reply

Most anti-M4A arguments fail to acknowledge the basic fact that Americans already spend far more out of pocket for their healthcare than nations with single-payer systems.

#22 | POSTED BY JOE AT 2020-02-09 10:21 AM | REPLY

The pro-M4A arguments fail to acknowledge the basic fact we subsidize those countries through R&D and eat their difference on their price controls.

#36 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2020-02-10 08:03 AM | Reply

M4A is close to what Canada has. The Canadian system is much cheaper and very few opt for private care options, except for non covered care like dental and their patchwork drug plans.

M4A seems to big a change for the US. A public option first like Medicare or the VA might be less disruptive.

#37 | Posted by bored at 2020-02-10 08:44 AM | Reply

My thinking they would go the route some of the companies did with the tax scam cut...give a few thousand as a one time bonus and pass along 90% of the benefits to the shareholders.

#1 | POSTED BY NIXON

Of course.

Anybody stating otherwise is an idiot.

#38 | Posted by jpw at 2020-02-10 09:43 AM | Reply

"You can raise taxes on whomever you want...but unless they're willing to pay them, there's not much you can do."

Well then, explain why they paid them in the past? Income taxes are not voluntary and there are enforcement agencies set up to enforce them and under a different President than the "Scum Bag in Chief" who is there now, they would enforce the law.

#39 | Posted by danni at 2020-02-10 10:01 AM | Reply

"My thinking they would go the route some of the companies did with the tax scam cut...give a few thousand as a one time bonus and pass along 90% of the benefits to the shareholders.

#1 | POSTED BY NIXON
Of course.
Anybody stating otherwise is an idiot."

I agree with that. It's because companies won't pass on a savings to the employees just because they get a savings. they aren't going to pay more for labor than they have to.

Same goes with the theory suggested in this thread...that a savings on medical care or insurance will increase wages. They won't.

Anybody stating otherwise is an idiot, right?

#40 | Posted by eberly at 2020-02-10 10:13 AM | Reply

Which Nations might those be?

Literally all of them. And if you're too stupid to know that Americans spend more per capita than any other nation on their healthcare then you don't even belong in this conversation.

#41 | Posted by JOE at 2020-02-10 10:22 AM | Reply

"Same goes with the theory suggested in this thread...that a savings on medical care or insurance will increase wages. They won't."

Without an employee depending on his job for his healthcare they are much more free to shop for better employment opportunities. You might not see wages rise immediately but over time they would rise as companies discover that their best, most trusted employees will happily move on for a raise in pay.

#42 | Posted by danni at 2020-02-10 10:24 AM | Reply

A public option first like Medicare or the VA might be less disruptive.

Agreed, but i think that would be a strategic mistake. It would likely skew the block of people signing up for Medicare toward people with low-paying jobs that do not offer quality health insurance, making it more expensive because there are less healthy people in the pool to absorb some of the costs. This would open the program up to bad faith attacks by people who want to see the system fail. Additionally, Medicare will have the most power to drive down costs when everyone is a customer.

#43 | Posted by JOE at 2020-02-10 10:28 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

A fact i meant to reference in my #43 is that there is a statistical link between income and health. The lower someone's income the more likely they are to be afflicted by a wide variety of disease. So if people with bad health plans are the only ones signing up for a Medicare public option, it skews the customer base toward high cost, high claim individuals.

#44 | Posted by JOE at 2020-02-10 10:30 AM | Reply

42

silly argument. BTW, you made that exact argument for Obamacare. Folks wouldn't be shackled to a job anymore because of the health insurance.

You were wrong then and you're wrong now...and for the same reason. You have a complete mis-understanding of wages and labor and how they work.

#45 | Posted by eberly at 2020-02-10 10:52 AM | Reply

Anybody stating otherwise is an idiot, right?

#40 | Posted by eberly

You said so yourself.

#46 | Posted by jpw at 2020-02-10 10:55 AM | Reply

"silly argument. BTW, you made that exact argument for Obamacare. Folks wouldn't be shackled to a job anymore because of the health insurance."

I honestly can't say if I ever did make that argument for Obamacare but I have learned on thing unexpected about Obamacare. Often, for dependent care, it is better coverage for less money than the insurance offered by employers which is generally too expensive for lower paid workers to afford. M4All would eliminate that problem for both the employee and his/her dependents.

"You have a complete mis-understanding of wages and labor and how they work."

No response needed.

#47 | Posted by danni at 2020-02-10 11:50 AM | Reply

Since arund the 1950's employers have offered healthcare benefits in order to help them retain employees. Now Bernie and others are proposing M4All and we have "experts" here who tell us that will not create upward pressure on wages. Those "experts" think American workers are just plain stupid. I'm betting most aren't nearly as stupid as these "experts" think they are.

#48 | Posted by danni at 2020-02-10 11:56 AM | Reply

This fantasy world Liberals live in is definitely a very nice place. I just wish they would stop governing like their fantasy world is the real world. I mean, Libs can't even see the hypocrisy that they themselves are a victim of (instead of being a cause of).

The best way I can put is by sarcasm...Because sure, every time you save rich people money they are just beating down doors to give it to others.

I mean, this is so outside the bounds of reality that it's impossible to understand. You would think Libs would eventually get the clue that legislating for change to our current system is MUCH MORE IMPORTANT than legislating as if we lived in their fantasy world. Make that fantasy world the end goal and legislate on getting us there. But legislating as if we were already in that fantasy world does absolutely no good. It actually harms everything and gets people like Trump elected. People have to choose between either a corrupt person who has real world experience in our economic system or a person from a group of people who live in a fantasy world. Corruption sucks but at least it's more relevant in the real world and people can get behind movements. Getting behind movements that start off from a concept of fantasy is a good movie, not a good President.

#49 | Posted by humtake at 2020-02-10 12:13 PM | Reply

"we have "experts" here who tell us that will not create upward pressure on wages."

you're welcome. no charge.

"Those "experts" think American workers are just plain stupid. I'm betting most aren't nearly as stupid as these "experts" think they are."

I don't their intelligence is relevant here and I don't mean to trash workers....but they aren't all that smart.

How many American workers paid less than $75K a year vote republican most of the time? answer....a lot. So what do you think, Danni? How smart do you think they are?

IOW, you agree with me. Stop acting like you don't.

#50 | Posted by eberly at 2020-02-10 12:23 PM | Reply

"How many American workers paid less than $75K a year vote republican most of the time? answer....a lot. So what do you think, Danni? How smart do you think they are?"

But not all workers are fans of Fox News, and didn't vote for Trump. Millions of them, are they all stupid? I'm sure you can find some dumb ass Trump supporters but that isn't, by any means, a fair representation of all workers. And get a clue, even the dumb ones will want more money when they figure out that the company they work for is pocketing what was previously payments to insurance companies. However, the employees I'm talking about aren't the dumbest, no, I'm talking about the smart ones, the ones and employer needs to retain. And yes, they will be looking to see who will pay them the most.

#51 | Posted by danni at 2020-02-10 12:28 PM | Reply

nice backtrack. you brought up the workers and how smart they are. not me.

and you can't accept this but many many "smart workers" that employers value......they vote republican all the time.

but none of that matters......the point is that if the company saves money on health care....they are not passing it onto the workers. anymore than they would pass on a tax savings, or cheaper paperclips, or cheaper raw materials, etc.....only an increase in the demand for labor will push wages up.

#52 | Posted by eberly at 2020-02-10 12:34 PM | Reply

I'm betting most aren't nearly as stupid as these "experts" think they are.

#48 | Posted by danni

Exhibit A:

www.google.com

#53 | Posted by jpw at 2020-02-10 12:53 PM | Reply

#49 | Posted by humtake

Trumpers accusing others of living a fantasy.

There's do bottom to your lack of awareness, is there?

#54 | Posted by jpw at 2020-02-10 12:55 PM | Reply

"and you can't accept this but many many "smart workers" that employers value......they vote republican all the time."

And many don't vote for Trump. I would have a hard time believing a "smart worker" would ever vote for Trump. Thing is though, even the Trump voters will want their raise too when they realize others are getting theirs. Companies will try their best to hold the line but workers free of the constraints of worrying about health insurance are a whole new ball game. I know from my work experience, even if you found a better job, you'd still have to wait at least 90 days before your new insurance kicked in. Healthy single people could risk it but once you have kids you are just risking too much by doing that. MforAll will disrupt the entire work/compensation equation for workers who have felt trapped for decades.

#55 | Posted by danni at 2020-02-10 01:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Well then, explain why they paid them in the past?"

There's a few reasons. First, the higher tax rates were accompanied by very liberal deduction policies. I was too young at the time, but I've read that Reagan's introduction of the TRA in 1986 was protested heavily by high income earners. Because they understood that, while their rates were going down, what they could deduct was going down even more.

The other reason is that during the cold war, the money was going to the military. Self-preservation in the form of National Defense might be a reasonable expense. Paying high taxes so someone else can get more free ----...probably no so much.

#56 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-02-10 02:01 PM | Reply

"Income taxes are not voluntary and there are enforcement agencies set up to enforce them and under a different President than the "Scum Bag in Chief" who is there now, they would enforce the law."

Sort of.

Most tax in the US is income tax. And you have to use the labor to earn income before it can be taxed. If I'm keeping ten cents out of every dollar I make, at some point I'm going to stop working and using my time doing something more beneficial.

That's why a Value Added Tax makes more sense...because it treats everyone equally and is largely unavoidable to anyone wanting to live on the grid. A rich person and a poor person buying a new TV are going to pay the same VAT.

#57 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-02-10 02:04 PM | Reply

"Additionally, Medicare will have the most power to drive down costs when everyone is a customer."

Can you really say they're customers if they are legally obligated to fund the service and any additional healthcare possibilities are banned?

This is why Bernie will lose.

#58 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-02-10 02:05 PM | Reply

"But not all workers are fans of Fox News, and didn't vote for Trump. Millions of them, are they all stupid."

Didn't vote for Trump. Don't watch Fox News.

What I did do was go to college and take a bunch of economics courses, which is why I'm in a pretty stellar position to inform you that you're full of ----.

It's not my opinion...it's fact.

#59 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-02-10 02:08 PM | Reply

"What I did do was go to college and take a bunch of economics courses, which is why I'm in a pretty stellar position to inform you that you're full of ----."

Too bad you didn't learn anything.

#60 | Posted by danni at 2020-02-10 02:14 PM | Reply

"Can you really say they're customers if they are legally obligated to fund the service and any additional healthcare possibilities are banned?"

Does it matter what we call them? Fact is Medicare already is a powerful agency cutting medical costs for seniors, now we want to bring that power to everyone. Meanwhile, you contemplate whether we should call them customers or whatever. Seriously, are you on drugs? You posts seem quite disconnected.

#61 | Posted by danni at 2020-02-10 02:16 PM | Reply

"Too bad you didn't learn anything."

I learned economics...you should give it a shot.

#62 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-02-10 02:23 PM | Reply

Unless you can show me how M4A increases the demand for labor, then it's not going to increase wages.
Businesses cutting costs doesn't increase wages. demand for labor does increase wages.

#12 | POSTED BY EBERLY

True... you are claim that you understand economics, but then you seem to be stopping short for some reason. Wages (or at least, ones above the minimum wage) are at an equilibrium. The relationship between supply, demand, and price (wage). That is a basic tenant of economics. And you can't understand intrinsically that if you adjust one of those variables, then the others will also change???

"Research suggests the answer is "yes," with the caveat that it may not be matched dollar for dollar for everyone." That doesn't just scream "price elasticity of demand" to you???

Let me spell it out so you can follow (simplistically). Employers suddenly no longer have to pay healthcare costs. Essentially, their employees are now "cheaper". Now, in economics, you have what is called a "demand curve", which shows that for normal goods, when the cost goes down, DEMAND for those goods goes up. So, when the cost of employees goes down, the DEMAND for the number of those employees goes up (the labor market behaves as a normal good). The utility (cost / output) of an individual worker is not greater, so it makes sense that companies would want more of them. But, the SUPPLY of workers is staying the same, so this will push wages up. You can't push wages all the way up, because then you would be back to the same demand for workers. Instead, the worker wage increase will split the difference.

#63 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2020-02-10 02:23 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Does it matter what we call them? Fact is Medicare already is a powerful agency cutting medical costs for seniors, now we want to bring that power to everyone."

No thanks. I don't want it.

I understand if you do...that's fine. But so long as you make it mandatory, as Bernie is, it's going to face steep resistance.

A lot of people don't want their healthcare system resembling the DMV.

#64 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-02-10 02:25 PM | Reply

But, since we're here. Maybe you can show of some of your economics larnin and educate me on the correlation between state funded healthcare and increased wages.

#65 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-02-10 02:27 PM | Reply

I learned economics...you should give it a shot.
#62 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

Lol... I concede that, in my experience, Danni is not overly adept at economic principles. Though, to be fair, I don't believe she CLAIMS to be particularly adept at them either.

But, I have seen nothing insightful from YOU on that subject either. So, "Mr. Pot", you might want to leave Mrs. Kettle alone before you make a further fool of yourself.

#66 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2020-02-10 02:35 PM | Reply

"But, I have seen nothing insightful from YOU on that subject either. So, "Mr. Pot", you might want to leave Mrs. Kettle alone before you make a further fool of yourself."

Fair enough...I'll try and do better at being insightful.

I'm as much in agreement with the article as I can be under the vague definition of Medicare for All. An MFA program would likely look like what we see in Western Europe...unless Bernie gets elected and bans private healthcare as he's stated he would do. If the US adopted a western-European style system, I think employers would likely offer supplemental insurance as a benefit for selected workers, if for no other reason than it is common for firms overseas to offer US workers those benefits in order to bring them up to a US standard. Under a Bernie plan private healthcare would not be legal...so I'd be guessing as to what it would do to the benefits package. But it would absolutely increase the amount of money these firms had available, which would translate into greater flexibility with regard to salaries and income, as well as allow them to become more competitive in the market place. The one thing not mentioned is the possibility of these firms using the additional funds to acquire new technology, which would very likely reduce the number of workers required.

So yeah, like the article says, wages would likely increase for some...particularly those in labor markets that were more competitive. For others, probably not so much.

#67 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-02-10 02:49 PM | Reply

- Bernie gets elected and bans private healthcare

Not something he could do alone as President. It would require much legislation, so not to worry, even with MforA, private health care isn't going anywhere soon, however unfortunate or not that might be.

Bernie is a bombastic policy proponent and he's setting up the negotiation asking for blue skys fully prepared to accept grey ones. Like Dak ax'ing for 40 mil a year and willing to settle for 37.5.

Which has always been my worry about Bernie's style; when his Bro purists see him compromise, they'll be stabbing him in the back with their left-over Obama shivs. And I wouldn't want to see that.

#68 | Posted by Corky at 2020-02-10 03:06 PM | Reply

Can you really say they're customers if they are legally obligated to fund the service and any additional healthcare possibilities are banned?

I knew some idiot would take umbrage at that word choice. I just didn't think it'd be the guy who didn't know Americans pay more for their healthcare than any other country; i'd be too embarrassed to come back to a thread where i revealed such idiocy.

#69 | Posted by JOE at 2020-02-10 03:16 PM | Reply

"Not something he could do alone as President."

I don't know.

I see Bernie as the left-wing version of Trump, and Trump has shown he has no interest in collaborating with the other members of government...even those in his own party. Hell, even those in his own cabinet. I think Bernie would try and use executive orders as much as possible in order to circumvent any opposition. I do agree that it would very difficult for him to ban private healthcare without the consent of the congress, as an executive order would likely be seen as a violation of the constitution.

"Bernie is a bombastic policy proponent and he's setting up the negotiation asking for blue skys fully prepared to accept grey ones."

I disagree. Bernie has always been an uncompromising purist...which is why he has an abysmal legislative record. He expects and demands blue skies. And when he doesn't get it, he berates his fellow congress members and rants about rich people and corporations. And I don't think he's changes that much.

#70 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-02-10 03:21 PM | Reply

"I just didn't think it'd be the guy who didn't know Americans pay more for their healthcare than any other country; i'd be too embarrassed to come back to a thread where i revealed such idiocy."

Yeah...it's almost like I'd be willing to give up being able to access healthcare to save a few bucks. I mean, assuming I was a able to save a few bucks. I think the more likely outcome is that I would pay more for less access to healthcare.

#71 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-02-10 03:24 PM | Reply

-I would have a hard time believing a "smart worker" would ever vote for Trump.

That just tells me you've either....

A. never been a valued employee
B. never known a valued employee

here's a hint....it has nothing to do with politics.

But everything is about politics, to you.

#72 | Posted by eberly at 2020-02-10 03:27 PM | Reply

-Employers suddenly no longer have to pay healthcare costs

how is that going to happen?

#73 | Posted by eberly at 2020-02-10 03:28 PM | Reply

- the left-wing version of Trump

Not even close; Bernie has a conscience... and more than half a brain.

And he has a practical, pragmatic political side; in NH he acquiesced to political forces he abhorred in order to stay in power to accomplish policy legislation he admired. I'm thinking of his going after and getting war machine building contracts from the MIC to provide jobs *votes in his state. And likewise voting in ways to please his gun-toting supporters.

#74 | Posted by Corky at 2020-02-10 03:30 PM | Reply

-Now, in economics, you have what is called a "demand curve", which shows that for normal goods, when the cost goes down, DEMAND for those goods goes up. So, when the cost of employees goes down, the DEMAND for the number of those employees goes up (the labor market behaves as a normal good)

I appreciate the fact you either took or are currently taking economics in college (took quite a bit of it myself)...but where do you imagine the "cost of employees" is going down?

M4A is still going to cost and employers, one way or another, will bear the cost.

Will it be better? more efficient? I'm fine with that argument...but it's not going to increase wages. If it's better for an employer, then the employer will reap the benefit.

#75 | Posted by eberly at 2020-02-10 03:32 PM | Reply

#71 That'a not a defense of your moronic question indicating that you had no idea Americans pay more for their healthcare than anyone else.

But even if you're going to pivot and argue that the American healthcare system is worth all that extra money, i'd challenge you to find any reasonable set of data to back up that claim.

#76 | Posted by JOE at 2020-02-10 03:35 PM | Reply

#74 Corky thinks NH is Vermont. Sad.

#77 | Posted by JOE at 2020-02-10 03:35 PM | Reply

-MforAll will disrupt the entire work/compensation equation for workers who have felt trapped for decades.

Again, Obamacare was supposed to solve that problem. Read that thousands of times here.

#78 | Posted by eberly at 2020-02-10 03:36 PM | Reply

Obviously I meant Vermont... just as obviously that is a distinction with no difference to what I said.

#79 | Posted by Corky at 2020-02-10 03:54 PM | Reply

Biden plummets in new national poll, ceding top spot to Bernie - www.politico.com

Corky would rather burn down America and have Trump as president than allow Bernie to run without DNC shackles and handcuffs.

#80 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2020-02-10 04:43 PM | Reply

"Corky would rather burn down America and have Trump as president"

^
Weird way for a Trumper to describe the Trump Presidency!

#81 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-02-10 04:45 PM | Reply

how is that going to happen?
#73 | POSTED BY EBERLY

My understanding is M4A will be funded by increased taxes, so it will no longer be a direct cost by the employer. The only way I have heard proposed in which it would be a direct cost by the employer would be a payroll tax, but that would be basically a wash. All other taxes (corporate, income, or ... this is for you Bomber ... VAT) would not be a cost tied to their employees so would not directly affect the economics of employment decisions.

#82 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2020-02-10 04:47 PM | Reply

#80

Sheeple has been so confused ever since Bernie supported and voted for Hillary.

Now he 'thinks' that Bernie isn't allowed to run as an Independent... the mean ol' DNC is forcing him to run as a Dem!

www.youtube.com

#83 | Posted by Corky at 2020-02-10 05:06 PM | Reply

M4A will save billions in admin costs, which also means will cost many jobs. Those people will have to find work and that will reduce wages. The health insurance savings that may get passed to workers will come at the cost of worker income and profits.

The things we know for sure are:
1. Health insurance industry will lose profits.
2. Health insurance workers will lose jobs.
3. Those with the best insurance may see care rationing.
4. The poor will get better access to care.
5. Hospitals will get paid for ER services to the poor, which will benefit rural and inner city hospitals
6. Most workers will have more mobility and some sectors may see increased wages.
7. Almost everyone will stop worrying about medical bills.

I think 4-7 are worth 1-3, but not everyone will agree.

#84 | Posted by bored at 2020-02-10 07:58 PM | Reply

People should really look at how Tarrant County (Fort Worth) does its government health care. Something like 48 clinics spread throughout the county in addition to the public hospital. Total health care. Oncology to ob/gyn to dermatology, pulmonology, dental, emergent, urgent and several pharmacies plus patients get their own individual doctor. Full hospital plus other outpatient surgical centers.

For people within twice the poverty rate for income, doctor visits are $5. Prescriptions are $5 to $10 depending on 30 or 90 day supply. A double hernia surgery cost $100 out of pocket. If you are homeless everything is free. And most visits patients will be seen even if they don't have the $5.

This is very different than most counties that merely have just a hospital. This is total health care with county-wide clinics under LOCAL control. Local property taxes, corporate (!) donations, and patients with insurance have supported the system for the last several decades.

Government health care that works. Under LOCAL control.

Take a look at this partial list of clinics:

www.jpshealthnet.org

#85 | Posted by Idependant97 at 2020-02-10 10:11 PM | Reply

#85 |

Good to hear my former hometown has such services.

But the fact that it can be done on a local scale only supports the idea that it can be done on a larger scale... possibly even more affordably.

#86 | Posted by Corky at 2020-02-11 05:27 PM | Reply

"M4A will save billions in admin costs, which also means will cost many jobs. Those people will have to find work and that will reduce wages."

I'm not convinced there isn't productive work to be found in some other part of the economy; something that actually creates wealth instead of redistributing it, which is what insurance companies do.

#87 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-02-11 05:38 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2020 World Readable

Drudge Retort