"Our healthcare system is set up to make doctors and pharmaceuticals rich"

Really? How bout some pointers? The Ins. companies are the ones making the money. In our office our reimbursement went down 3% from last year, while our ins. premiums went up 12% for the office. Just fyi.

I have one insurance I get paid 25 bucks for an exam. People pay more to get thier haircut. Shoot me an IM, id like to discuss some healthcare issues with you, but this is hardly the right thread.

2/12/2007 10:12:48 PM

well the point is.

Since healthcare costs are shifted from teh individual to the insurance policies.... people seek a lot more treatments than they otherwise would.

If an operation costs $5,000 instead of $100,000 people are way more likely to get it done.

It's remarkably inefficient. We'd be better off taking home the extra 15% of our wages and decide what kind of insurance we want on our own.

Its going to be ridiculously hard to change our system because the lobbyists go all out to protect their healthcare interests.


There's a good article on this very topic into today's WS journal actually

[Edited on February 13, 2007 at 12:31 AM. Reason : a]

2/13/2007 12:28:59 AM

Poor, old and sick people get screwed in that system.

The poor, old and sick will inevitably get taken care of by healthy wage-earners. It's how society works. Also, nobody saves 50k just in case they get really sick. Just like how they don't save 35k just in case they crash into a nice car.

Insurance is a scam, but it allows people to have a safety net without actually saving anything.

[Edited on February 13, 2007 at 12:33 AM. Reason : 2]

2/13/2007 12:33:25 AM

not exactly.

There are plenty of more efficient alternatives that dont "screw" anyone.

higher deductibles is a big key.


This isnt meant to be a way around open heart surgery or things of that nature....

its more about elective surgeries, the irresponsibility of diabetics, the ridiculous amounts of x-rays and tests we do to "rule out" everything in the book.

If we didnt subsidize all of a diabetics cost, he would change his diet, drink alcohol less frequently, exercise more, etc. These are just facts.

2/13/2007 12:43:09 AM

Its just not that easy.

People want the option of elective surgery without having to fork up thousands up front. As long as there is a demand for full-coverage insurance like that, there will be plenty of insurance companies willing ot provide it at a high premium.

2/13/2007 12:59:12 AM

Quote :

"exorbitant CEO pay is bad for society. It increases the divide between rich and poor, which no one will argue is a good thing."

Sure, no one will argue it is a good thing, but that is a far cry from saying everyone will argue it is a bad thing. I argue it is a neutral thing: Me getting rich does not make you poor anymore than you getting poor makes me rich.

2/13/2007 1:30:27 AM

I'm reaching back to P1 but:

Quote :

"Are you suggesting jobs existed that paid $7 an hour but the workers did not take them because $5.15 was plenty?"

Yes. Economics assumes that everyone will act in their rational best interest and that said best interest is to maximize their material posessions. This is not always the case. I myself am actively seeking a ~$17,000 / year pay cut in order to do something I've wanted to do my entire life. While this is completely irrational economically, it makes sense to me in the larger scheme of things.

I'm not saying this disproves current economic models completely, and the "rational self interest" solution is the best we've got to go on right now; but as J.K. Galbraith pointed out in The Affluent Society, "wants are only created at the margins so far as they are synthesized." In an "affluet society" the economic rules that goverened people when needs were scarce don't always hold. If one can meet their needs at a lower wage in a job that provides more personal satsifaction, they may be well inclined to do it. I'm not sure how statistically significant this number is, but its not something that can be completely discounted.

Quote :

"Me getting rich does not make you poor anymore than you getting poor makes me rich."

This depends on how wages effect inflation. Also, part of the big stink about CEO pay rising is that they, and those posessing capital or the means to invest in it, have reaped a large portion of the benefits from globalization while middle class wages have remained stagnant. In this case, Joe White Collar (not to mention a laid off factory worker) doesn't feel like a rising tide lifts all boats.

[Edited on February 13, 2007 at 7:51 AM. Reason : .]

2/13/2007 7:43:06 AM

If workers got more satisfaction from the $5.15 jobs then they are, again, being made worse off by the minimum wage. If they do find $7 an hour jobs which would otherwise go unfilled, we have forced them at threat of imprisonment to trade job satisfaction for a slightly higher salary.

And what Joe Whitecollar "feels" is irrelevant, we just need to explain it to him better. Or, more accurately, it is not that big a deal to the average Joe except that he is being misled into believing that by politicians eager to garner additional resources for their Government projects.

2/13/2007 9:21:03 AM

Quote :

"while middle class wages have remained stagnant"

1. Then they should be more productive


2. We should tackle healthcare. If workers saw more of their wages in real money instead of just overpriced 'benefits' they wouldnt complain so much.

2/13/2007 9:28:40 AM

Oh well so what if high school students don't work as many hours? most of them just blow there money on food and clothes.

2/13/2007 9:33:04 AM

^and clearly not education.


And I'd say that has a direct effect on the small business owner who owns the convenience store or restaurant that the teen frequents, not to mention the clothing companies.

[Edited on February 13, 2007 at 9:47 AM. Reason : .]

2/13/2007 9:47:08 AM

Quote :

"And what Joe Whitecollar "feels" is irrelevant, we just need to explain it to him better."

Not totally sure I follow what you're trying to say here, but politically what he feels is not irrelevant.

Quote :

"1. Then they should be more productive"

Productivity has risen, hence the rising overall GDP, the problem is the inequality of income distribution, and the perception (right or wrong) that his pay is not consumate with his increased productivity.

2/13/2007 9:50:56 AM

"Income distribution" is a phrase I hate to hear. I believe that you are paid what you are worth. If you are not worth the salary you receive, you are fired or laid off. If you are worth more than what you are getting paid, you will seek a job which pays what you think you are worth and what your employer thinks you are worth (equilibrium). To distribute income means to unfairly benefit those who do not deserve the increase and to unfairly hurt those that do not deserve to have their income reduced.

This plays into the min. wage debate. If an employer feels that their employee is not worth the $7.25 or whatever it is, then the employer will not hire them and go with someone who is worth at least $7.25. Lets face it, some high school kids and other adults simply aren't worth $7.25... and those are the people that need to work the most... and they'll be the first ones to be laid off.

[Edited on February 13, 2007 at 10:05 AM. Reason : .]

2/13/2007 10:04:49 AM

i agree with you abonorio. Idealy we should do away with min. wage. Let the market run it. The increase in min wage, increases inflation. McDs and others will simply raise thier prices to match. If you dont think they will, you are naive.

2/13/2007 10:22:45 AM

Quote :

""Income distribution" is a phrase I hate to hear."

I agree, actually. It smacks of whiney little hippies and other assorted collective leftists, but realistically you have to look at it from the political standpoint as well as the theoretical economic standpoint.

Golbalization will shift the "worth" of individual domestic employees because of the ability of workers in less developed nations to do the same job at a lower rate. Market wise, this is ideal and will lead - in the long run - to higher efficency. Understanding how markets work and the theoretical reasons behind while middle class wages have not gone up while both profits and senior compensation has, does nothing to provide for the wants and needs of the average worker. For that reason, the impact on domstic workers with wage stagnation and the potential for political instability and a reversion to hard core protectionism has to be taken into account.

* as a caveat, raising minimum wage will do nothing to fix this situation.

[Edited on February 13, 2007 at 11:04 AM. Reason : *]

2/13/2007 11:01:43 AM

^ correct. The key is to compensate the losers.

The people who lose their jobs need to know there is a safety net. Job training programs, unemployment benefits, etc are a win-win for everyone involved.

You cant just say "screw the losers" because that leads to upheaval.

2/13/2007 11:34:16 AM

Quote :

"McDs and others will simply raise thier prices to match. If you dont think they will, you are naive."

Price increase is the easiest way to account for an increase in the price of your inputs. But businesses are bound by the rules of competition. Higher product prices gives a greater chance to the competition to gain market share. Corporations do everything they an to sell their product at the lowest possible price. Quality of the product may go down to compensate for the increase in the price of inputs.

However, when the input is universal among all companies in a certain market, then higher prices will be the best way to offset those costs... because the competition will likely do the same thing.


Simply put... inflation ftw

2/13/2007 11:35:05 AM

Quote :

"You cant just say "screw the losers" because that leads to upheaval."

I agree there should be a safety net with educational benefits paid for by society. We have to make our workers worth more than foreign workers and worth more than the minimum wage anyway. But I do not, and never will, be in favor of paying a person a wage that he or she does not deserve or warrant.

2/13/2007 11:36:15 AM

^ Agreed, that kind of money could be better spent on making workers worth more both to their employeers and themselves.

2/13/2007 11:44:20 AM

Quote :

"Simply put... inflation ftw"

As I've said, customers have a tendency to shift their consumption patterns to escape price hikes. And since the minimum wage only affects a small number of industries customers will have no trouble avoiding inflated prices. Ultimately, consumers will be harmed much more by the loss of income among low wage earners (layoffs, cutbacks) than they will by higher prices.

2/13/2007 2:43:46 PM

^ wrong.

Where do most of the low wage earners work?

The service industry (which comprises companies that we need EVERYDAY. Grocery stores, gas stations, restaurants, etc...)

If it was a wage increase for Porsche dealers, then you would be correct.

[Edited on February 13, 2007 at 2:51 PM. Reason : .]

2/13/2007 2:51:22 PM

"NEED" is such a strong word. Read what I wrote on page 1 about pizza joints. As they raise their prices consumption plummets as people purchase store-bought frozen pizza instead. Sure, Food-Lion may be immune from wage increases (automated checkout anyone?) but the vast majority of the low wage workforce works in non-grocery store related businesses.

Statistically speaking, non-franchise restaurants are more labor intensive than their franchise brethren which more readily use of pre-cut fries, pre-shredded lettuce, pre-sliced tomatoes, etc. As studies have shown, as the minimum wage increases franchise food chains are able to undercut their relatively labor intensive brethren.

Now, I personally have nothing against franchise restaurants. I love their efficiency. However, the local labor market does care: supplanting the labor intensive restaurants with labor-saving restaurants reduces employment, leaving the worst-off without jobs at all. Everyone loses: customers lose out on fresh-cut vegetables and some workers starve to death.

2/13/2007 5:24:16 PM

How are grocery stores immune? I completely don't buy that. Not only the baggers/cashiers in the store, but think about the products and their inputs. Low skilled laborers work in these factories. The price of their labor will rise with the rise of the minimum wage forcing the products in these "immune" grocery stores to also rise.

Which means that Minimum Wage Joe has to pay more for his groceries along with everyone else.

2/13/2007 6:55:27 PM

I'm sorry, factory workers do NOT earn minimum wage. Factories tend to have harsh working conditions which would drive workers away if not for the higher pay.

A notable exception, of course, would be illegal factories employing Illegal Immigrants which have not managed to get fake SS Numbers yet. But these factories ignore the minimum wage anyway, since it would be the least criminal conviction thrown at them.

[Edited on February 13, 2007 at 10:48 PM. Reason : .,.]

2/13/2007 10:42:40 PM