Obamacare

[Kulaf]

The problem Dd was your use of the pronoun "them" in your initial statement. Allow me to eliminate it and rephrase:

"Isn't that just saying "we'd save money if we paid our employees less"?

Health care benefits are not paid to employees, it is paid to a health care provider, or an insurance company/broker. Since as your said you are examining the books of the company, there is no outlay to the employee, but a combined general outlay to said provider monthly/quarterly.

That is what you and Embar are quibbling about, the pronoun "them". Rather Clintonesque really.

[Jarochai Alabaster]

Again, do you people truly mean to suggest that benefits are not part of the total compensatory package for employees?

[Kulaf]

Again, do you people truly mean to suggest that benefits are not part of the total compensatory package for employees?

Of course they are. What is currently being debated is whether certain benefits (in this case health care costs) are paid directly to employees like wages/salary are. The problem is that Embar/Dd seemingly cannot see what position each other is coming from.

Embar is making the case that while an employee receives wages/salary directly from the employer in the form of check/direct deposit and that employers are required by law to pay said wage/salary that it is the only portion of a benefit package paid directly.

Dd is making the case that employee healthcare is an expense of the company and is indirectly paid to employees by said company as a benefit.

The rest is all word games tying to paint the other into a corner.

[Jarochai Alabaster]

Whether it's a "wage" or not is largely semantic and irrelevant to the purpose of the discussion. It is absolutely a portion of the compensation for employees, therefore to remove benefits is to effectively reduce the compensation to employees. This is functionally identical to "paying them less" if they intend to or are required to seek out those services the employer once provided.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Whether it's a "wage" or not is largely semantic and irrelevant to the purpose of the discussion. It is absolutely a portion of the compensation for employees, therefore to remove benefits is to effectively reduce the compensation to employees. This is functionally identical to "paying them less" if they intend to or are required to seek out those services the employer once provided.

What if their out of pocket expense for seeking a replacement of the former benefit costs them little or no money?

[Kulaf]

Whether it's a "wage" or not is largely semantic and irrelevant to the purpose of the discussion. It is absolutely a portion of the compensation for employees, therefore to remove benefits is to effectively reduce the compensation to employees. This is functionally identical to "paying them less" if they intend to or are required to seek out those services the employer once provided.

That is not correct as I pointed out. You are not in effect "paying them less"......you are in effect "increasing their expenses" because they would need to lay our their own money for a replacement.

[Harlowe]

Most companies I've been at call it a "compensation package" and it includes your healthcare benefits within that package.

[Jarochai Alabaster]

That is not correct as I pointed out. You are not in effect "paying them less"......you are in effect "increasing their expenses" because they would need to lay our their own money for a replacement.

Whether it's a "wage" or not is largely semantic and irrelevant to the purpose of the discussion. It is absolutely a portion of the compensation for employees, therefore to remove benefits is to effectively reduce the compensation to employees. This is functionally identical to "paying them less" if they intend to or are required to seek out those services the employer once provided.

[Kulaf]

Yes Jaro, I understand......this semantic argument is stupid......but it is, what it is. Taking away a benefit is still not paying someone less. For example:

The US decides to offer completely free health care. Therefore your employer no longer pays for your healthcare. Did your employer just pay you less?

The answer of course is no, because the expense of the healthcare is now being picked up by someone else. The same would apply if the employee pays. Yes it increases their expenses, no it does not decrease their pay.

[Arathena]

Yes Jaro, I understand......this semantic argument is stupid......but it is, what it is. Taking away a benefit is still not paying someone less. For example:

The US decides to offer completely free health care. Therefore your employer no longer pays for your healthcare. Did your employer just pay you less?

The answer of course is no, because the expense of the healthcare is now being picked up by someone else. The same would apply if the employee pays. Yes it increases their expenses, no it does not decrease their pay.

Your EMPLOYER pays you less. Your total economic position does not change, but this is irrelevant to the portion of it that any specific employer is providing to you.

[Kulaf]

My employer does not pay ME less, my employer pays less per employee......of which I am one.

I do not get paid for my healthcare benefits.

My employer pays for my total compensation package (which includes my pay, and other benefits).

A reduction in a non-monetary portion of my compensation package does not reduce what I am paid (wages/salary).

A reduction in my total compensation package reduces what my employer pays.

Are we all clear on the semantics now?

[Ddrak]

Kulaf's right. I'm engaging in a semantic argument and it's stupid.

My point was the company is paying less to retain their employees, so of course it's more attractive.

The employee is worse off because to maintain the equivalent state of insurance, they would have to pay money out of their own pocket.

Embar then goes on to complete my argument to say a government-funded health care system would eliminate the issue of an employee being worse off, while allowing the employer to pay less.

I'm glad we all agree.

Dd

[Embar Angylwrath]

http://news.investors.com/061913-660419 ... andate.htm

Government employers as well as private employers cutting hours of employees so they don't have to cover them.

/golfclap Obamacare

[Harlowe]

It's saving money...this isn't some magical instant fix.

http://news.consumerreports.org/health/ ... money.html

[Embar Angylwrath]

This is for California only, don't know about the rest of the states.

California came out and made some pretty bold statements about how insurance on the exchanges was going to be much more affordable that before, driving down the costs of healthcare in the state. Being a responsible employer, I went to a seminar that touched on the changes Obamacare and the exchanges were bringing to the state. All of the experts were unanimous in saying the state was disseminating misleading information about the healthcare cost reduction, as they were comparing apples to oranges.

The state was using a cost metric associated with the Silver plan in the exchanges, but the experts on the panel noted that over 99% of the health plans offered by businesses to their employees in California would be mapped to the gold and platinum plans. So California is trying to compare costs of the Silver plan to what would be the costs of Gold and Platinum plans. If the calculations were made with that adjustment in mind, the experts said costs will increase between 40% and 70% next year, if it were an apples to apples comparison.

[Ddrak]

Where's the money going?

Also, is that a general price rise or directly related to the shift in legislation?

Dd

[Embar Angylwrath]

The money is going to off-set rising costs in healthcare. In California (might be other places as well), health insurance companies can only take a small percentage of the premium for non-healthcare costs. All the rest has to be spent on healthcare. Any premiums that are over collected are rebated.

I don't think the rise in premiums arises from just one reason, the healthcare dynamics are complicated. I think some of the cost increase is due to new legislated requirements, (have to insure everyone and no lifetime caps anymore), but I think there are other reasons too.

Oh, you keep saying this should all be a single payer system. We already have one, it's called the VA. Ask any veteran what they think about that healthcare system. It's a nightmare. We don't do single payer very well here in this country.

[Partha]

You don't do single payer well when you refuse to pay for it, you mean.

[Ddrak]

I don't think any country does single payer well. It would be nice to see someone start with a simple model that stopped the "one hospital trip from bankruptcy" syndrome and then stopped there.

Over here they keep legislating what private insurers can and can't cover. I don't understand the point...

Dd

[Torakus]

The money is going to off-set rising costs in healthcare. In California (might be other places as well), health insurance companies can only take a small percentage of the premium for non-healthcare costs. All the rest has to be spent on healthcare. Any premiums that are over collected are rebated.

I don't think the rise in premiums arises from just one reason, the healthcare dynamics are complicated. I think some of the cost increase is due to new legislated requirements, (have to insure everyone and no lifetime caps anymore), but I think there are other reasons too.

Oh, you keep saying this should all be a single payer system. We already have one, it's called the VA. Ask any veteran what they think about that healthcare system. It's a nightmare. We don't do single payer very well here in this country.

I use VA. Never had a problem.