tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post7568790982366743447..comments2024-03-06T06:34:42.881-05:00Comments on EconoSpeak: Health Care Costs for Employers: Amity Shlaes v. Greg MankiwUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-42710819771011518922009-03-14T16:14:00.000-04:002009-03-14T16:14:00.000-04:00Is not most of labor economics micro?Employers "pr...Is not most of labor economics micro?<BR/><BR/>Employers "provide" medical insurance in response to the supply and demand characteristics for the market/kind of workers they need in the business they do. If I need an employee to do a certain job and the job is done elsewhere, then I will provide the insurance, and determine the compensation scheme as a recruiting and retention tool.<BR/><BR/>I am a retired federal civil servant when I double dipped (revolving door) with a private firm doing business with the US G I declined health insurance, I had it from the annuity. In the instance where the contract allowed my employer to charge the same against benefits/overhead for paying me his share of the premium I was so compensated. I moved around and another contractor did not have that overhead scheme and I was given a pat on the back for them not adding me to their policy.<BR/><BR/>It is all how the employe views the need for health insurance.<BR/><BR/>An employee who has no assets does not need to bet any one that he will get sick and win if the insurance protects the assests.<BR/><BR/>It is all about whose assets get covered!!<BR/><BR/>However, medicare, terminal medical costs are the hugest asset dillution risk, is a wonderful thing for the kids' inheritance.<BR/><BR/>Small wonder "they" want to imply SS is bankrupt so that it keeps medicare solvent.<BR/><BR/>ilsmAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-35262026227817420182009-03-14T12:26:00.000-04:002009-03-14T12:26:00.000-04:00"....we understood that employers need incentives ..."....we understood that employers need incentives to create new jobs to replace ones that are disappearing." <BR/><BR/>First thought. As Tonto said to the Lone Ranger when sorrounded by angry native Americans, "What you mean "we" paleface?"<BR/><BR/>Otherwise, as a card carrying free market capitalist, why would I be expecting incentives beyond the likelihood of plrofits inn order to build a business and hire employees? I get nervous when so-called conservative, media stars begin to use the word incentive to business. That usually ends up meaning some form of government intervention, like cutting my fair share of the tax burden. Or getting some kind of government guaranteed cost control, etc. That's not free market capitalism.<BR/>As it should be. Amity, please keep the government out of the calculation. We genuine conservatives know that we can do business and make a profit without government incentives.Jackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12971442888151627894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-39903746634308590452009-03-12T13:37:00.000-04:002009-03-12T13:37:00.000-04:00Trucker:Not sure this is true. Some companies wil...Trucker:<BR/>Not sure this is true. Some companies will give employees a bonus not to take the health insurance offered. Why would they do that if they believed providing the health insurance made them money?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-89964053382231751622009-03-12T13:21:00.000-04:002009-03-12T13:21:00.000-04:00What makes health care more affordable is the econ...What makes health care more affordable is the economies that can be had from large scale integration of those parts that do not demand "the personal touch". This is true for <B>ALL</B> record keeping and accounting. But it is also true of risk management in that the larger the pool the lower the individual risk.<BR/><BR/>Many will take the position that systemic risk is magnified in large economies of scale. That is a fact, yet the trade off when systems are managed by a true representative government seem to result in a very large net gain.<BR/><BR/>American firms will actually lose profitability if health insurance is taken from their greedy grimy clutches. At present people are working 45-60 (or even 70) hour weeks for the base pay that is supposed to be compensation for a 40 hour week. They do these extra hours for the same pay because they fear losing health care coverage as they lose their jobs. <BR/><BR/>Seems to me that the base solutions to maintaining American life quality are alternative energy and import tariffs. (freedom from trade). And the only way to then <I>improve</I> quality of life in the USA is to take the health insurance hammer out of the clutches of the firms and the unions and manage the system with a representative government. I realize that this is like saying that if we had some ham, we could have some ham and eggs,,,, if we had some eggs. Nonetheless.....TheTruckerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10346127768102862741noreply@blogger.com