Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (58672)	4/11/2008 4:09:58 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 542904

transferring their health care costs to general tax revenues is obviously a cost saving exercise Sure, but their cost wouldn't be the only cost that was transfered. Costs paid by other companies would also get transfered, as would costs currently paid for by individuals. The companies with disproportionately high health care costs would seem to benefit, but the companies with disproportionately low costs might take a hit. Some of them have low costs because they don't offer insurance. These one's in particularly would be likely to have increased costs. Other that do offer insurance, but still have below average costs, might save the money they spend on insurance payments, but might have to increase other forms of compensation to attract workers, esp. if the workers have to pay the a greater portion of the cost of the health care. Or perhaps the companies have to directly pay the tax. The only way its a clear and wide spread benefit, even for companies, is if it lowers health care costs. You keep wishing to make this about the system wide merits of such. No, I'm not doing that. I'm focusing on the cost to companies, but with the realization that costs to their customers, workers, and suppliers, can easily become costs to the companies, and the fact that the insurance payments are part of compensation, and if you remove them (even if the employee didn't face higher costs) you might have to provide more compensation in some other form. Also some of the ideas for single payer would more directly tax the companies, so you don't even have to consider the indirect costs.

To: JohnM who wrote (58672)	4/11/2008 4:27:49 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 542904

transferring their health care costs to general tax revenues is obviously a cost saving exercise. Depends. If you look at the proposals on the table, you have those that would tax the companies to cover the cost. That may or may not save the company money depending how how much that company is paying now. If you make the employee pay the cost after a tax break and a pay raise and get the employer out of the operational loop, the company could come out ahead, or not. I doubt there would be a system passed in this country where the employers got to walk away scott free. I don't see where you get "obvious" out of all that.