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: Lane3 who wrote (58682)	4/11/2008 7:47:16 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542829

I don't see where you get "obvious" out of all that. I'm sorely tempted to say it's "obvious." But . . . . . The comparison I put on the table was healthcare insurance based on the workplace with healthcare insurance derived from general tax revenues. From a company's point of view, it's absolutely a no-brainer. I fail to see why or how either you or Tim can get so worked up about it. It's not about whether universal single payer systems are good things. I happen to think so. Rather fervently. But that's not the topic. There are a host of larger and smaller issues to discuss. But they are not this issue.

To: Lane3 who wrote (58682)	4/12/2008 9:08:51 AM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542829

<<<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.>>> It is obvious if you are not a dogmatic believer in market fundamentalism. If costs are reduced by X amount you have to be to be able to say where X amount is being added, otherwise you are saving money. Of course in creative accounting you could always add or subtract from some ethereal line item like "good will" to prove your point that subtracting cost could cost you.