Sarah Palin: bat****, or howling-at-the-moon bat****?

[KrazyHorse]

But the point is, and I believe that KH agree's with this, is that if the government pays for the health care then business will hire more people.

NO.

If the government said: "we will pay for the health care of all people who have a full time job" then that WOULD be a subsidy to business in that sense. People would lower their reserve price for labour in order to receive the benefit of health care, and businesses would maintain the same demand curve, so more labour would be supplied. However, universal "free" coverage means that the government is saying "we will pay for health care of all people PERIOD". There is no first order change to the reserve price of labour. In fact, whatever 2nd order change showed up would be NEGATIVE both because of income effects AND because of budgetary constraints leading to increased taxes on income, labour etc.

You are a complete ****ing imbecile, kiddypie.

[KrazyHorse]

No, I think KH is correct.

To my understanding, the issue is that without government healthcare, if I apply for a job that pays $30 an hour and has health benefits, then I am thinking "Okay, I get $30 an hour, and I get healthcare." With government healthcare, if I apply for a job that pays $30 an hour, I'm thinking "Okay, I get a job that pays $30 an hour." The healthcare isn't considered, because even if I was unemployed, I'd still have healthcare. Therefore, the marginal wage where I would be willing to work is going to be higher (possibly quite a bit higher, as the income tax I am paying may be higher to pay for the government healthcare).

Now, OTOH, if this wasn't universal healthcare, but, say, a government sponsored healthcare plan that only applied to farm labourers that work on tomato farms, then it would be a subsidy.

VERY GOOD.



You are now in my good books. If you keep this up, you might earn my respect.

[KrazyHorse]

If a definition of a subsidy is simply that businesses will hire more employees, government healthcare may qualify

As you demonstrated with the post I quoted above, this is NOT, however a first order effect (as it would be if we were to postulate something like "we will pay for the health care of all full time employees"). There is no direct path between universal health care and higher employment. You have to postulate a couple of interacting mechanisms, unlike actual subsidies where the mechanism is straightforward and obvious.

[KrazyHorse]

I'm still not buying it.

That's good, because I ain't selling it.

What you would work for is irrelevant. As was observed by KH (that I agree with) businesses hire based on costs (cost of the employee, not just the wage). If you do not want the job because you do not appreciate the wage, someone else will most likely take it (assuming it is a reasonable rate).

Holy ****, dude. In order to determine quantity of labour supplied and the final price of labour you have to know BOTH the demand AND the supply curves!!!!!!!!

"Somebody else will probably take it (assuming it is a reasonable rate)" is ****ing ridiculous! If the business could offer less and still get somebody qualified for the job then why didn't they do so in the first place? Are they in the business of paying their employees more than they have to?

In an economy where everyone is employing and employed under the same conditions (public health) employees are not going to factor that healthcare into decisions at all, and employers are going to fill jobs with people who are willing to work at the wages they budget.

Errrrr.....yes, that's the whole point! In an environment where there ISN'T public health care then people DO take the health care their employer is offering them into account!!!! That means that they accept a lower money wage in order to get the employer sponsored health care! In the case that the cost of the health care to the employer is what the health care is worth to the employee (again, to a first approximation this is true) then the job is filled at a wage equal to the wage required WITHOUT the health care minus the cost of the health care.

[Dinner]

Who wants to bet that end of life counciling will still be offered and paid for by the government?

I do. The public option is dead.

What do you want to bet? They'll just break it up into parts and then slip it in during the reconciliation process. That way they avoid the whole filibuster issue which Republicans are using to block progress.

[notyoueither]

Errrrr.....yes, that's the whole point! In an environment where there ISN'T public health care then people DO take the health care their employer is offering them into account!!!! That means that they accept a lower money wage in order to get the employer sponsored health care! In the case that the cost of the health care to the employer is what the health care is worth to the employee (again, to a first approximation this is true) then the job is filled at a wage equal to the wage required WITHOUT the health care minus the cost of the health care.

This does not get you where you need to go.

You claimed that public health care would be bad for exports. A reasonable reading of that contention would lead to the conclusion that higher wages would be demanded and met under a public health system over something like what exists in the US ATM.

However, as you have also noted, businesses will set budgets for employment. <- Period. I agree with that. They will not throw extra cash at Bob the auto worker to make up any perceived gap that Bob may feel is created should the US government find a way to create the NHS US and the auto makers be relieved of much of the burden.

[Drake Tungsten]

That way they avoid the whole filibuster issue which Republicans are using to block progress.

I'm not going to engage in any bet until you realize that the Republicans don't have enough votes to mount a filibuster, you ****ing ****.

[Straybow]

With this continual stalking,

God, what a whiner.

The bill as written invokes taxation on companies that provide insurance through market sources to support the public option,

No, it doesn't. No bill "as written" taxes employer funded health insurance except for Wyden-Bennett, which is not on the table.

Wrong. From Dingell, et al. HR 3200 AAHCA, pp 149-150:

14 SEC. 313. EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTIONS IN LIEU OF COV-
15 ERAGE.
16 (a) IN GENERAL.—A contribution is made in accord-
17 ance with this section with respect to an employee if such
18 contribution is equal to an amount equal to 8 percent of
19 the average wages paid by the employer during the period
20 of enrollment (determined by taking into account all em-
21 ployees of the employer and in such manner as the Com-
22 missioner provides, including rules providing for the ap-
23 propriate aggregation of related employers). Any such con
24 tribution—
1 (1) shall be paid to the Health Choices Com-
2 missioner for deposit into the Health Insurance Ex-
3 change Trust Fund, and
4 (2) shall not be applied against the premium of
5 the employee under the Exchange-participating
6 health benefits plan in which the employee is en-
7 rolled.

Which means, any company not enrolling employees in the public "option" gets taxed 8% of payroll, which does not count towards the employees' present or future benefits, but into the "Trust Fund" (ie, into the general account that Congress can raid just like SS).

If you like, I'll respond to the rest when I have time.

[notyoueither]

... and in fact, many businesses would find a more reliable, healthy workforce which is not clinging to jobs out of fear of losing coverage to be more effecient, and in this case productivity and hense ability to compete in export markets would increase.

[Dinner]

That way they avoid the whole filibuster issue which Republicans are using to block progress.

I'm not going to engage in any bet until you realize that the Republicans don't have enough votes to mount a filibuster, you ****ing ****.

They do with the help of conservative dems. It only takes one. You ********.

[Drake Tungsten]

They do with the help of conservative dems.

Then Democrats are responsible for any filibuster, you ****. Jesus christ...

[Ramo]

God, what a whiner.

The bill as written invokes taxation on companies that provide insurance through market sources to support the public option,

No, it doesn't. No bill "as written" taxes employer funded health insurance except for Wyden-Bennett, which is not on the table.

Wrong. From Dingell, et al. HR 3200 AAHCA, pp 149-150:

14 SEC. 313. EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTIONS IN LIEU OF COV-
15 ERAGE.
16 (a) IN GENERAL.—A contribution is made in accord-
17 ance with this section with respect to an employee if such
18 contribution is equal to an amount equal to 8 percent of
19 the average wages paid by the employer during the period
20 of enrollment (determined by taking into account all em-
21 ployees of the employer and in such manner as the Com-
22 missioner provides, including rules providing for the ap-
23 propriate aggregation of related employers). Any such con
24 tribution—
1 (1) shall be paid to the Health Choices Com-
2 missioner for deposit into the Health Insurance Ex-
3 change Trust Fund, and
4 (2) shall not be applied against the premium of
5 the employee under the Exchange-participating
6 health benefits plan in which the employee is en-
7 rolled.

Which means, any company not enrolling employees in the public "option" gets taxed 8% of payroll, which does not count towards the employees' present or future benefits, but into the "Trust Fund" (ie, into the general account that Congress can raid just like SS).

If you like, I'll respond to the rest when I have time.

1. This is a tax on employers if they DON'T provide insurance to their employees, the "employer mandate." That's what "in lieu of coverage" means.
2. The health insurance exchange is not the public option. It is a market place in which there would be many private insurers and a public insurer (if it survives), and the individual would be free to pick their plan. As I already said.

If you like, I'll respond to the rest when I have time.

I'm kind of curious to see you try and dig yourself out of the hole you're in. Feel free.

[KrazyHorse]

This does not get you where you need to go.

You claimed that public health care would be bad for exports.

If you don't start paying attention to the flow of the conversation then I'm simply going to stop talking to you about this, NYE. The response I gave to you was under the assumption that you were responding to the correct branch of this discussion. The explanation of why public health provision might be reasonably construed to reduce exports (and in fact production in general) is more subtle than the explanation of why kiddy's characterization of public health care as a business subsidy is retarded. The latter is what you stumbled into. If you'd like to continue our discussion of the former, then I'm more than happy to. In the future please be more careful

A reasonable reading of that contention would lead to the conclusion that higher wages would be demanded and met under a public health system over something like what exists in the US ATM.

Yes, and the explanation of why that might reasonably be construed is pretty straightforward. However, it is not something I would consider a foregone conclusion, as the transmission mechanisms are not THAT strong, and you could probably posit some reasonable (though in my opinion lower probability) mechanisms working that way. In a nutshell:

a) A public health care system like Canada's is paid for out of some combination of general tax revenues and special payroll taxes (medicare tax). Ceteris parebus, creating a new universal grant program like this creates the need to raise additional taxes, and this is done by increasing (or creating from scratch) the aforementioned taxes. Higher tax burdens are a disincentive to work; I work for my after-tax salary, not my before-tax salary.

b) More subtly, even without the additional tax burden created by a public health care system, if we assume that the marginal utility of consumption decreases with higher consumption, any universal grant reduces the incentive to work.

However, as you have also noted, businesses will set budgets for employment. <- Period. I agree with that. They will not throw extra cash at Bob the auto worker to make up any perceived gap that Bob may feel is created should the US government find a way to create the NHS US and the auto makers be relieved of much of the burden.

Arg. NYE, once more you are completely ignoring one side of the price setting equation: LABOUR SUPPLY.

[KrazyHorse]

NYE, you really need to take the opportunity to think instead of regarding this as something like a debate (which it really is not; your position simply doesn't make much sense)

Employers have a certain demand curve for labour which is based on the total price they pay for that labour, whether it be in wages, health care benefits or taxes.

Potential employees have a certain supply curve for labour which is based on the total price they receive for that labour, whether it be in wages or health care benefits.

Let's take ShaneWalter's example and add something to it; in order to pay for medicare the government levies a special 2$ per hour surtax. Let's also say that for a full-time employee, in the absence of such universal medicare coverage the employer has to pay 2$ per hour to provide his employee with health care, while unemployed people have to either buy their own health care or do without.

Country A has medicare, country B does not. In all other respects they are the same. There is a company that wants to create the same job in the two countries; they decide to spend 30$ per hour (in bennies, taxes and wages) in each of the two countries and see if they can purchase labour at that price.

In country A, the company offers 30$ per hour. If I take the job I have 28$ per hour (because of the surtax) and health care. If I don't take the job I have health care and no money.

In country B, the company offers 28$ per hour and health care (worth 2$ per hour). If I take the job I have 28$ per hour and health care. If I don't take the job I have no health care and no money!

Now, in which country am I more likely to take the job? In which country does this mean that the total quantity of labour supplied is higher? In which country is the total cost of purchasing labour lower?

[MORON]

bah, all this crap.

I propose that government go and steal people's stuff and burn them, thus reducing their wealth and increasing the marginal value of additional income, thus increasing employment and production.

I also propose that we shoot old people and sick people which drastically reduces costs. Since the long term probability of death in all humans is 100%, this would have little effect in the long term on death statistics outside a sharp peak right after its implementation.