Posted on 10/17/2007 10:34:27 PM PDT by Lorianne
Either capitalism works or it doesn't. In your scenario, no wage increases would ever occur. Why would any wage increase ever occur if money only goes to "capital projects, top-tier bonuses, or to pay off debt" ?
There would be some raises, but for the most part they would stay on schedule like they already do.
And remember all those cost savings for outsourcing are usually not spread to those who stay behind.
So, if costs are brought back in control, does this problem go away?
Seems to me that we should be focusing on controlling the costs. What's driving up the costs?
-PJ
Trade you my retirement benefits, sight unseen.
I should have said, the plan, I will trade my plan for yours, sight unseen.
Who knows, I might even want to trade the benfits too!
I can see your reasoning, but actually risky behavior and sports, pregnancy and female problems, gall bladder, etc, cause a fairly high use of health care dollars in young people.
I’m not coming to any conclusions here, just wondering if you have a source for that. Sure, no heart attacks, diabetes, etc, but work injuries, auto accidents, recreational injuries, etc. are high for young men. Whether or not they cause hospitalization, they cost a fair amount in broken bones, etc.
So, maybe there’s a breakdown somewhere. Older people are spending very short times in the hospital today, my husband died of cancer, and was only in the hospital 3 days...
Maybe end of life dollars tend to be costly, but less so in the past few years, I am sure.
The real costs are for chronic stuff, like diabetes.
One of my employees has a fairly serious case of diabetes. Over the years, it’s caused him acute conditions (like a stroke) that have landed him in the hospital for quite a while, running up lots of short-term costs, and then there’s the on-going care, which, although doesn’t run up costs as dramatically in the short-term, is a continuous, on-going cost.
My father has Parkinson’s and heart disease. He sees doctors several times per month, takes all sorts of medications, receives expensive diagnostic tests several times per year. He’s been doing this for about 15 years.
Conversely, when my mother died, she had a brief illness for about a month, went to the hospital, and died after six days of hospitalization. The hospital bill was $114,000. A lot of money, but a fraction of what my father's health care has cost over the last 15 years or so.
It’s this chronic stuff that used to kill folks off pretty quickly, but now can be treated for years, even decades, that causes old age to be expensive.
Younger folks can get chronic illnesses, but that’s less common.
sitetest
>> This is exactly why “big business” is in favor of a government-run health care system.
And don’t forget that the tax payer picks up the health care costs of “big business” and its employees. Investors foreign and domestic reap the windfall on the back of the tax payer.
It’s a nasty thing on so many levels.
BTW, “It’s for the children” is a red herring. The children of today will suffer tomorrow en masse if the gov’t takes over the America’s health care. The iron fist is good for beating an enemy, and moving envelopes; but, for precision neurological surgery, mammograms, and handling beakers, it’s incapable, too clumsy, and inevitably indifferent.
I know that at my place of work, the major outlays for insurance is for those over 40. True, you don’t see as many major accidents, but you see a lot more medications, doctors visits, and treatment costs. Enough that our HR manager was talking about offering early retirement for a few guys to offset the expected health costs (they already have quite a few problems, and the healthcare for the retirees isn’t the same).
Well people MUST buy insurance and insurance companies MUST accept everyone through a quasi-government middleman. They won't get any money from people that don't work such as children, students, backache suffers, Oprah watchers, so a huge percentage will get a free ride. It's Hillarycare just without the money passing through Hillary's hands. This scheme is certain to increase health care costs rather than reduce them.
Because employers pay the insurance premiums behind the scenes people have lost sight of what insurance is: a cost smoother. Over time the total costs of health care for a sample of 100 people will be about the same whether they have insurance or not. Insurance does not make something free or cheaper and no one must have insurance to get health care.
Actually, stripping away the employer provided plans WILL increase compensation. Why would you think otherwise? We take jobs based on the total compensation given, which includes the cost of health care. If the employers could get away with paying us the sme price and not giving health care, they would.
Some employers even pay employees money if they opt out of the insurance (not as much as the insurance though).
If they remove insurance, they will increase pay accordingly. It should be enough to cover the cost of individual health care, assuming as you said that they all go into the same pool.
The problem will be that many employers pool the employee base”, but on an individual basis you won’t get a common cost across age limits.
On the other hand, the “competition” for health care plans now is not normal competition, so it is unlikely it is giving us the cheapest, most cost-efficient coverage. It’s possible that the increased competition of individuals will lower the cost of insurance. It’s also likely that the types of insurance will include incentives to shop wisely for health care itself, which means we’ll have real competition for the health CARE, which will lower that cost.
More employers are even going to health plans that reward using the plans wisely, and reward finding cheaper treatments by charging a percentage of cost rather than fixed prices.
Thank you both for your knowledgeable and interesting replies.
I found this information on costs in England. No mention of the types of issues, but the cost by age group grows every year
http://www.ohe.org/page/knowledge/schools/appendix/nhs_cost.cfm
I think you've hit the nail here. Look, I can't tell you for sure what will take place. I can only predict how corporations will act. IMO, they're not going to concede much. They will walk away from this glad to be out from under it. They may compensate in some way, but I do not believe they will compensate anything near the cost of the package they were paying for. And when you get two to five years out, the costs of insurance will have risen to the pint that this will be a severe hardship on employees, and businesses will have moved on with no responsibility whatsoever. We will see in time. I appreciate the comments.
I still think its silly that employers ever had any responsibility for health care. They are separate things. An employer wants to get work done on whatever their business is about. He wants to hire people to do that. Why should the employer be in the health insurance business?
A lot of employers do self-insurance, but that really means that they are all operating as insurance companies, when they have no particular skill in that area. Business has become more efficient as each has focused on their core competency. Providing my health insurance isn’t my company’s skill.
Instead, each year I get a more limited choice. I like that my compensation include affordable health care, but they tell me exactly how much it’s costing them each year. I don’t know if every employer does that, but my employer gives me details on every last penny they spend on my behalf, to show what my “total compensation” is.
If they removed the thousands of dollars they spend on my health care, I’d notice it, because that amount would be dropped from my total compensation.
As I get older, I appreciate what they do more, because I’m getting benefits on the backs of young singles and young married couples. But that’s not necessarily fair, and certainly not something I have a right to expect from my employer.
On the other hand, I guess the same argument could be made for retirement. It’s just another form of compensation. IN some ways it’s an investment with a guaranteed payout (if you have such a plan), or an investment you have to manage. In other ways, it’s like an investment in the company, as you depend on the company’s future earnings to keep them viable to pay retirees.
But all those things could be done without the employer being involved. The money could be paid to employees. The feds could, if they wanted to meddle, require investments in retirement plans. Those plans could require a portion to be a guaranteed annuity purchase, while other parts could be investments in the stocks of companies you think will be around long enough to pay dividends to support your retirement, and fixed income investments.
But I’m not screaming for companies to drop their retirement plans. And frankly, while I think a real fix to health care might require getting companies out of the business, I’m NOT pushing the proposal, or asking my representatives to vote for it.
Why would I? At the moment, I’m happy with my health care (although next year I think we are all being forced into a single plan — I’m in an HMO right now).
That employer supplement came about because employees were hard to come by. It was a compensation enhancement. Nobody forced the business community to do this. They did it willingly. The also provided vacation days, personal days, holiday pay and some other perks.
Now the business community considers employees to be a dime a dozen. At least that’s the way corporations view them. So now it’s on the table that these perks be scaled back.
Okay folks, if that’s what you want, go for it. Talk up the medical insurance provision being removed. Watch it come to pass. Just don’t come back to me in a couple of years telling me how that move has hurt you financially. In the offside chance it does work out for you, I’ll be happy to see it. That generally isn’t the way it works folks.
As for young marrieds having to pay for the older folks, that one really cracks me up. We’re talking about people who have just entered the workforce after being given a free ride for the first two decades of their lives.
They’ve gotten at least 12 years of eduction for free. They’ve been housed, fed, clothed, their medical needs and more taken care of for free. Now they are being asked to contribute to the care of others. Waaaaaaaaaaaa... cry me a fricken river.
Age 65+ utilize healthcare at a far greater rate than 18-44.
Per 1,000 people, ages 18-44 have only 91 hospital disharges. 65+ have 363 hospital discharges. (yr 2004)
Per 1,000 people, 18-44 have only 335 days of hospital care. 65+ have 2049 days of care (yr 2004)
Thanks, may I have the link to that?
My spouse died of cancer and spent only 3 nights total in the hospital. The last time I was in the hospital, I was age 40, for two nights, for surgery, 20 years ago. Prior to that I spent a night in the hospital for a tonsillectomy. Prior to that, I had two children, in the hospital for 7 days total. I just find it hard to believe, but I appreciate your response.
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.