Posted on 11/15/2017 3:43:51 PM PST by artichokegrower
Stagnant wage growth is one of the most pressing problems facing American workers. Rising health care costs is one of the biggest reasons, and undoubtedly one of the most overlooked.
How do rising health costs reduce wages? Most full-time workers are paid a combination of wages and benefits. If the cost of benefits goes up, employers have less to pay wages – and the cost of health benefits to employers has been increasing rapidly for many years.
That is exactly what has been happening to California workers, and it will only get worse – much worse and very soon.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
Glad to see the Leftist Sacramento Bee is right on top of this, after backing Obamacare for what, seven years.
Might I suggest one of the health sharing ministries?
More obtuseness and hypocrisy from the left
Obamacare is great.
Health care costs is causing your minimal wage increases to be stolen faster than ever.
The only thing Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell care about is their damned pensions and their g** damned Wall Street portfolios.
Not sure who I loathe more, them or Goldman Sachs.
understood
i loathe the congresscritters more than Goldman Sacks
GS is supposed to be in the business of making money.
the congresscritters are supposed to be representing us, performing a ‘public service’
the fact that both GS and the Congresscritters are slaves to $$$$$$ only says that GS is honest and congress is not
“California legislators need to move quickly to restore the competitive balance in our health care system. Here is what they can do:”
Get rid of California state required mandates for health insurance which includes gender reassignment surgery
Socialism. Paradise on earth.
I didn't read the entire article. I won't click on that "newspaper".
But the excerpt is exactly correct. My pay increases for the last 8 years - and these are "merit" increases - were never above 2.5%. Before, these could have been 5%.
Yes, we had the "Summer of Recovery" in 2010, but we also had Obamacare imposed at the same time.
Since then, my employer had to pay more for my Heath insurance (or thought they did) and reduced annual increases to compensate.
It's true, Obamacare has caused me to get smaller raises.
Where this article swerves after that, I don't care.
Speaking of socialism, the IT company I work for is now going to base the rate we pay for coverage on what we earn. So if you make more than me, your loaf of bread, identical to my loaf of bread, will cost you more.
GS calls the shots.
There’s revolving door between GS and key Fed positions.
GS is keystone to the WIC. They make hundreds of millions of dollars from the WIC.
All wars are banker’s wars.
I get my coverage through my employer. My costs next year goes up $4 per paycheck. That’s why when people talk about removing insurance coverage from your employer I ask why I would want to do that? My employer, like all large employers, self-insures and contracts with a company to manage the plan. Their costs can be controlled and that’s why my rates are pretty stable.
It prompted me to look for and take another job. After ten years with the same employer, the insurance costs were giving me a take home pay, $200 a month less than my starting pay, the first year I worked there. So I made a change.
Business use a myriad of excuses to do things like this.
While they are irritating, sometimes they are somewhat logical.
I can remember back to the early 90s when they were limiting wages at some place, perhaps even back into the 80s.
I didn’t care where the article swerved either.
KKKalifornia will go to death panels.
yes and no.
first, i dont believe all wars are bankers wars.
but since wars are so expensive, governments often have to borrow money to wage wars. that’s where banks can come in.
saying all wars are bankers wars is bad, imho, because you could just as well say that all wars are munitions-manufacturers’ wars. or, politicians’ wars. INDEED, and this is just my opinion, we need to hold our politicians a whole lot more accountable...to wage war when good, to not wage war when bad, and to stop lying to us all the time and stealing our $. Saying that all wars are bankers wars (which IS partially correct, to be sure!) seems to let the political hacks off the hook. and in the final analysis, it is the politicians that take the decision to make wars (good and bad), not bankers. bankers may well influence the politicians, but the final decisions remain in Congress (or more recently, the White House, another discussion)...so that even if a bank wanted a war and lobbied for a war, IF WE start holding the politicians more responsible, there still wouldn’t be that war. imho.
ps: over history, governments have borrowed to finance wars and then....failed to repay if they lost....and either failed to repay/renounced their debts... or repaid in highly-depreciated fiat funds if they won, frequently anyway. And sometimes the politicians have executed the bankers, too.
SO, it is not an automatic thing that “all wars are bankers wars”, nor is that a complete statement of the problem, imho
You know what, the government we have out here could easily go that route. They may have already for all we know.
This article is just the preliminary artillery to soften up the ground prior to the push for single payer.
Could be. If it’s “crazy time”, California is into it.
All that needs to be done is ENFORCE EXISTING ANTI-TRUST LAWS for which Insurance companies and the entire Medical profession have NO EXEMPTION, It has been decided bt the supreme Court numerous times.
THEY ARE CRIMINALS!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.