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

[notyoueither]

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

I did not stumble into anything. I pointed out that public healthcare is, indeed, paid for by people who are employed. It is not mana dropped from heaven.

You started off on a tangent when you mistook that reply I made late to kiddy as being to you. I'm not sure how.

It is not I who needs to be 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.

There is no special payroll tax in Canada, but whatever. Maybe there could be, so...

Additional taxes would have to be raised in the US, yes. However, a good chunk of the current healthcare deductions (in the US) would be eliminated.

I am doubting that if the US Congress passed a sensible universal reform, that total helathcare costs would go up, and hense that workers would be imposed upon. They may find out they take home more. That would be a pickle.

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.

Right. People would then be prepared to stop working and eat their health cards.

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

As are you. You are ignoring that a switch to public healthcare would impact all employees universally, at once.

Everyone's situation would be effected. Are people going to quit to go work for the company across the street where the same thing is happening?

Are businesses going to suddenly lose their grip on the bottom line?

[notyoueither]

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?

You're equally likely to take the job in either country as in both you will need to eat, wear clothes, and have shelter to live in.

The real difference is that country A that provides for the health of its entire population, and takes $3 per $30 to pay for it will be far more productive for employers than country B that does nothing and relies entirely on companies to pay $2 and $28, but only the employed get the care.

[Drake Tungsten]

Well, there goes the Dems ability to gain cloture, at least for a few months...

Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy dead at 77

[Darius871]

Anybody stupid enough to not put him in the pool?

[notyoueither]

You're equally likely to take the job in either country as in both you will need to eat, wear clothes, and have shelter to live in.

The real difference is that country A that provides for the health of its entire population, and takes $3 per $30 to pay for it will be far more productive for employers than country B that does nothing and relies entirely on companies to pay $2 and $28, but only the employed get the care.

And now the real examples,

Canada takes $3 per $30 in taxes to pay for universal care with flaws.

The US takes $5 per $30 (?) to pay for 'insurance' and another $3 in taxes to pay for those not employed.

Where do you want to work?

[KrazyHorse]

I did not stumble into anything. I pointed out that public healthcare is, indeed, paid for by people who are employed. It is not mana dropped from heaven.

You started off on a tangent when you mistook that reply I made late to kiddy as being to you. I'm not sure how.

You're not sure how? A response without quotation a number of minutes after my intervening post?

Go **** yourself, NYE.

There is a direct line of quotations (and when not, consecutive posts) tracing back the kiddy-me-shanewalter discussion

[KrazyHorse]

Once more you have proven yourself to be stubbornly obtuse AND ignorant on economics.



If you think I'm going to bother to respond to a bunch of posts which presume perfect inelasticity of labour supply in order to prove inelasticity of labour supply then you are sadly mistaken, son.

[KrazyHorse]

There is no special payroll tax in Canada, but whatever.

[notyoueither]

I did not stumble into anything. I pointed out that public healthcare is, indeed, paid for by people who are employed. It is not mana dropped from heaven.

You started off on a tangent when you mistook that reply I made late to kiddy as being to you. I'm not sure how.

You're not sure how? A response without quotation a number of minutes after my intervening post?

Go **** yourself, NYE.

There is a direct line of quotations (and when not, consecutive posts) tracing back the kiddy-me-shanewalter discussion

Oh, go **** yourself.

This is a forum, you dip****.

Learn how to handle cross-posts or go ****ing home.

My post made zero sense responding to you, unless you assume that everything is about you. Dumb ****.

[KrazyHorse]

Yeah, yeah. Tell us some more about how the marginal supplier of labour doesn't exist and therefore businesses can pay whatever they want.

[notyoueither]

Once more you have proven yourself to be stubbornly obtuse AND ignorant on economics.



If you think I'm going to bother to respond to a bunch of posts which presume perfect inelasticity of labour supply in order to prove inelasticity of labour supply then you are sadly mistaken, son.

I have a suggestion.

Master the subject before you begin to give lessons.

[notyoueither]

Yeah, yeah. Tell us some more about how the marginal supplier of labour doesn't exist and therefore businesses can pay whatever they want.

You, yourself said something similar, dip****.

[Drake Tungsten]

I have a suggestion.

Master the subject before you begin to give lessons.

KH is pretty much the econ master on Poly at this point. Not that he needs to be to educate you on the subject, however. You seem utterly incapable of grasping basic economic concepts.

[notyoueither]

[notyoueither]

Yeah, yeah. Tell us some more about how the marginal supplier of labour doesn't exist and therefore businesses can pay whatever they want.

Businesses make hiring decisions based on the total cost of hiring. With or without employer based coverage the business has the same demand curve for total hiring cost.

Now feel free to go **** yourself.