Family Leave

[Loren Pechtel]

Show the math or STFU.

UHC means higher taxes. Whether it comes off your gross or as taxes it still hits your take-home.

That is based on your unspecified assumptions. It is possible that UHC might increase take home pay.

All this higher/lower bullshit is bullshit. A for-profit healthcare system is MORE EXPENSIVE BY DEFINITION than a non-profit one.

No, because competition tends to make things more efficient. You don't know which will be better.

The argument that the increase in the number of users will make it a higher gross cost system, is only valid if one completely discounts the vast cost - financial and societal - that comes from dealing with the consequences of millions being uninsured. And it would be a BENEFIT to all, so some cost should be considered tolerable. As it is, I see no convincing argument that UHC is unattainable or unsustainable. Indeed:

View attachment 25266

Because it's very hard to dismantle a UHC system.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

All this higher/lower bullshit is bullshit. A for-profit healthcare system is MORE EXPENSIVE BY DEFINITION than a non-profit one.

No, because competition tends to make things more efficient. You don't know which will be better.

The argument that the increase in the number of users will make it a higher gross cost system, is only valid if one completely discounts the vast cost - financial and societal - that comes from dealing with the consequences of millions being uninsured. And it would be a BENEFIT to all, so some cost should be considered tolerable. As it is, I see no convincing argument that UHC is unattainable or unsustainable. Indeed:

View attachment 25266

Because it's very hard to dismantle a UHC system.

Social Security would be extremely easy to do away with, legislation wise.

 

[Jarhyn]

All this higher/lower bullshit is bullshit. A for-profit healthcare system is MORE EXPENSIVE BY DEFINITION than a non-profit one.

No, because competition tends to make things more efficient. You don't know which will be better.

The argument that the increase in the number of users will make it a higher gross cost system, is only valid if one completely discounts the vast cost - financial and societal - that comes from dealing with the consequences of millions being uninsured. And it would be a BENEFIT to all, so some cost should be considered tolerable. As it is, I see no convincing argument that UHC is unattainable or unsustainable. Indeed:

View attachment 25266

Because it's very hard to dismantle a UHC system.

Competition makes things better when a profit motive can be ethical, and a failure to acquire the good is both an acceptable end and socially non-destructive.

Profit motive on a basic human need, the most basic, is not ethical.

 

[bilby]

No, because competition tends to make things more efficient. You don't know which will be better.



Because it's very hard to dismantle a UHC system.

Competition makes things better when a profit motive can be ethical, and a failure to acquire the good is both an acceptable end and socially non-destructive.

Profit motive on a basic human need, the most basic, is not ethical.

And even a casual observation of the US healthcare system shows that it is far less efficient than UHC systems in the civilised world.

Observation always trumps theory.

 

[Toni]

It shouldn’t but I suppose that reducing the work week by 25% would translate to a 30% payout in the minds of some managers. Which is why we need workplace laws and protections and unions.

I'm not saying the managers are misbehaving. Your 30 hour workweek didn't cut what they pay for your benefits. Unless you have multiple shifts sharing tools/space it didn't cut that overhead, either. 30% is probably being optimistic.

I'm saying that often, managers do misbehave. Or are put in difficult positions about how to best and most fairly compensate and provide benefits for all employees while keeping an eye on the bottom line.

I don't think your math works. My proposal was assuming that there was excellent universal health coverage--I'm a little hesitant to say single payer simply because I see what asshats are in Congress and it makes me really nervous. I'd be willing to say single payer if the coverage was on par with what members of congress get--or better and if there were no such things as networks and out of network, etc. I'm fine with low co-pays that disappear for low income people, people with dependent children, elderly or disabled or chronically ill. A cap on any out of pocket costs. But this nonsense about anybody but the doctor and you making decisions about what is best, medically for you has got to stop.

I am unaware of very many workplaces where workers do not share space, work stations, equipment, etc. Generally people like plumbers, electricians, etc. have their own set of tools that they purchase themselves and own. Certainly all shift workers share space, equipment, etc. with other shifts and co-workers with the possible exception of a locker for personal belongings. Most of the jobs I've held--and I've held a lot of different kinds of jobs--I did not have workspace that was mine and mine alone. Even when I did, if I were out for more than a day, a co-worker was in that space as necessary to pick up any slack while I was out.

Suppose we are talking about a small business that is open 50 hrs a week plus another 30 hrs of pre and work hours. If health care costs were not a n issue for employer or employee, they should be a able to pay employees more and hire more employees. Employees would likely be less stressed, more productive and need fewer unscheduled sick and personal days—resulting in additional savings for the employer.

The costs won't just magically disappear. UHC means higher taxes. Whether it comes off your gross or as taxes it still hits your take-home.

Taxes come off my gross and hit my take home pay. Isn't that generally the case for anyone except independent contract workers? I pay my contractor, plumber, etc. and they take care of their own taxes. My employer always took care of any necessary withholdings for me. Also for my spouse.

Yes, UHC will mean an increase in taxes for some people--maybe most people. I'm likely one of those people who would pay more in taxes. So what? Also, it is unknown whether the increase in taxes would be offset by the share of my health care that I pay and the same for my employer. Even if it doesn't, I'm willing to pay for fairness and for health care because I know that overall, it reduces health care costs and also increases productivity but mostly, because I think it's the right thing to do. I hate the idea that anybody goes without care they need because they or their parents cannot afford it.

 

[Elixir]

All this higher/lower bullshit is bullshit. A for-profit healthcare system is MORE EXPENSIVE BY DEFINITION than a non-profit one.

No, because competition tends to make things more efficient. You don't know which will be better.

Which those entities DID. And guess what? Lower overall costs, better outcomes.
UHC skeptics sound like a physicist "proving" that bumblebees can't fly. The conclusion "flies" in the face of observations.

The argument that the increase in the number of users will make it a higher gross cost system, is only valid if one completely discounts the vast cost - financial and societal - that comes from dealing with the consequences of millions being uninsured. And it would be a BENEFIT to all, so some cost should be considered tolerable. As it is, I see no convincing argument that UHC is unattainable or unsustainable. Indeed:

View attachment 25266

Because it's very hard to dismantle a UHC system.

Oh, I see. It has nothing to do with the incontrovertible fact that those countries have lower per capita health care costs and better outcomes than the US... they don't really want lower costs and better outcomes, but they're just so damn hard to get rid of!

</tired republitard argument>

 

[laughing dog]

Try using a bit of common sense. Do you really think there isn't a substantial cost to a company to have an employee??

Instead of actually providing an example to support your claim when asked, you tacitly assert that your unspecified assumptions and unstated calculations are "common sense" with a stupid and irrelevant deflection. Whether or not an employee is a substantial cost to a company when going to a 30 or 32 hour mandatory work week depends on how the company responds and the expense of an employee.

She was figuring UHC would remove the cost of health insurance from the equation. Who pays it doesn't change the fact that it has to be paid for.

Totally non-responsive and evasive. First, please stop projecting your ignorance onto others: you have no clue what Toni may or may not have been figuring. Second, and more importantly, how UHC would affect net pay is an empirical question. It is possible to increase the takehome of many workers.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No, because competition tends to make things more efficient. You don't know which will be better.



Because it's very hard to dismantle a UHC system.

Social Security would be extremely easy to do away with, legislation wise.

Legislation-wise, of course it's easy. Popular opinion, not so much. Taking away benefits is very hard whether they are actually good or not.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No, because competition tends to make things more efficient. You don't know which will be better.



Because it's very hard to dismantle a UHC system.

Competition makes things better when a profit motive can be ethical, and a failure to acquire the good is both an acceptable end and socially non-destructive.

Profit motive on a basic human need, the most basic, is not ethical.

This is totally not a rebuttal.

In the real world competitive markets almost inevitably outperform government controlled markets.

 

[bilby]

No, because competition tends to make things more efficient. You don't know which will be better.



Because it's very hard to dismantle a UHC system.

Competition makes things better when a profit motive can be ethical, and a failure to acquire the good is both an acceptable end and socially non-destructive.

Profit motive on a basic human need, the most basic, is not ethical.

This is totally not a rebuttal.

In the real world competitive markets almost inevitably outperform government controlled markets.

Not in healthcare, we observe.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm saying that often, managers do misbehave. Or are put in difficult positions about how to best and most fairly compensate and provide benefits for all employees while keeping an eye on the bottom line.

I don't think your math works. My proposal was assuming that there was excellent universal health coverage--I'm a little hesitant to say single payer simply because I see what asshats are in Congress and it makes me really nervous. I'd be willing to say single payer if the coverage was on par with what members of congress get--or better and if there were no such things as networks and out of network, etc. I'm fine with low co-pays that disappear for low income people, people with dependent children, elderly or disabled or chronically ill. A cap on any out of pocket costs. But this nonsense about anybody but the doctor and you making decisions about what is best, medically for you has got to stop.

You can't use hypothetical UHC savings to offset the costs of a 30 hour week. In the simple issue of hours worked you have a 25% drop in productivity, of course the wages drop at least 25%. I'm only figuring 5% for increased overhead and I strongly suspect that's an underestimate. Note that it only requires overhead to be 20% of the cost of an employee to reach this point. The one actual data point I have on this was from manufacturing where there were a lot of tools involved--and the overhead was over 100% in that situation.

I am unaware of very many workplaces where workers do not share space, work stations, equipment, etc. Generally people like plumbers, electricians, etc. have their own set of tools that they purchase themselves and own. Certainly all shift workers share space, equipment, etc. with other shifts and co-workers with the possible exception of a locker for personal belongings. Most of the jobs I've held--and I've held a lot of different kinds of jobs--I did not have workspace that was mine and mine alone. Even when I did, if I were out for more than a day, a co-worker was in that space as necessary to pick up any slack while I was out.

I mean sharing with another shift--businesses that are open longer than a typical workday. Very common in retail, sometimes in manufacturing, rarely elsewhere.

Yes, UHC will mean an increase in taxes for some people--maybe most people. I'm likely one of those people who would pay more in taxes. So what? Also, it is unknown whether the increase in taxes would be offset by the share of my health care that I pay and the same for my employer. Even if it doesn't, I'm willing to pay for fairness and for health care because I know that overall, it reduces health care costs and also increases productivity but mostly, because I think it's the right thing to do. I hate the idea that anybody goes without care they need because they or their parents cannot afford it.

The point is the increase in taxes will be the same number of dollars whether the workweek is 30 hours or 40 hours. Thus 1/3 more percentagewise in the 30 hour scenario.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Which those entities DID. And guess what? Lower overall costs, better outcomes.
UHC skeptics sound like a physicist "proving" that bumblebees can't fly. The conclusion "flies" in the face of observations.

Lower cost, I agree. Better outcomes? The report that supposedly showed that was fudged. They wouldn't have fudged it if the data actually supported their desired result without fudging.

Because it's very hard to dismantle a UHC system.

Oh, I see. It has nothing to do with the incontrovertible fact that those countries have lower per capita health care costs and better outcomes than the US... they don't really want lower costs and better outcomes, but they're just so damn hard to get rid of!

</tired republitard argument>

The point is you're using something as an argument that doesn't really prove much at all.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Try using a bit of common sense. Do you really think there isn't a substantial cost to a company to have an employee??

Instead of actually providing an example to support your claim when asked, you tacitly assert that your unspecified assumptions and unstated calculations are "common sense" with a stupid and irrelevant deflection. Whether or not an employee is a substantial cost to a company when going to a 30 or 32 hour mandatory work week depends on how the company responds and the expense of an employee.

The company doesn't have a meaningful choice here.

She was figuring UHC would remove the cost of health insurance from the equation. Who pays it doesn't change the fact that it has to be paid for.

Totally non-responsive and evasive. First, please stop projecting your ignorance onto others: you have no clue what Toni may or may not have been figuring. Second, and more importantly, how UHC would affect net pay is an empirical question. It is possible to increase the takehome of many workers.

My point is that she's trying to handwave away costs that won't just disappear. Going to UHC means the employer doesn't have an insurance bill but it means that government has the cost instead--and has to fund it with taxes. The amount of healthcare needed doesn't go down 25% just because the hours worked went down 25%.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No, because competition tends to make things more efficient. You don't know which will be better.



Because it's very hard to dismantle a UHC system.

Social Security would be extremely easy to do away with, legislation wise.

Legislation-wise, of course it's easy. Popular opinion, not so much. Taking away benefits is very hard whether they are actually good or not.

So UHC has other reasons for sticking around then than just difficulty of dismantlement?

 

[Toni]

You can't use hypothetical UHC savings to offset the costs of a 30 hour week. In the simple issue of hours worked you have a 25% drop in productivity, of course the wages drop at least 25%. I'm only figuring 5% for increased overhead and I strongly suspect that's an underestimate. Note that it only requires overhead to be 20% of the cost of an employee to reach this point. The one actual data point I have on this was from manufacturing where there were a lot of tools involved--and the overhead was over 100% in that situation.



I mean sharing with another shift--businesses that are open longer than a typical workday. Very common in retail, sometimes in manufacturing, rarely elsewhere.

Yes, UHC will mean an increase in taxes for some people--maybe most people. I'm likely one of those people who would pay more in taxes. So what? Also, it is unknown whether the increase in taxes would be offset by the share of my health care that I pay and the same for my employer. Even if it doesn't, I'm willing to pay for fairness and for health care because I know that overall, it reduces health care costs and also increases productivity but mostly, because I think it's the right thing to do. I hate the idea that anybody goes without care they need because they or their parents cannot afford it.

The point is the increase in taxes will be the same number of dollars whether the workweek is 30 hours or 40 hours. Thus 1/3 more percentagewise in the 30 hour scenario.

Actually, there is probably NOT a 25% drop in productivity. There's probably not a drop at all. I'm not sure that wages should drop, if there is no drop in productivity. Why would there be any increased overhead? There is zero way that overhead was 'over 100%' in any situation. If you mean that equipment was more expensive than the wages of any one employee (or several employees), then I can believe that. I know what equipment cost at my job and what people got paid and how many of us there were, etc.

I'm really having a hard time following you because you don't show your math and your language is so imprecise that I have to make guesses and those tend to be unflattering to you so I won't.

But no, you don't know that the increase in taxes will the the same number of dollars whether the workweek is 30 or 40 hours. That's an assumption that you are making about how the costs of single payer health would be charged.

You are also equating UHC with single payer health care. I do not.

 

[Toni]

The company doesn't have a meaningful choice here.

She was figuring UHC would remove the cost of health insurance from the equation. Who pays it doesn't change the fact that it has to be paid for.

Totally non-responsive and evasive. First, please stop projecting your ignorance onto others: you have no clue what Toni may or may not have been figuring. Second, and more importantly, how UHC would affect net pay is an empirical question. It is possible to increase the takehome of many workers.

My point is that she's trying to handwave away costs that won't just disappear. Going to UHC means the employer doesn't have an insurance bill but it means that government has the cost instead--and has to fund it with taxes. The amount of healthcare needed doesn't go down 25% just because the hours worked went down 25%.

Instead of the employer spending money on what may be poor health care coverage at a large price (I know what this costs my employer and I know what my share is and I know what I get for that money--and it's good health insurance) the employer pays that in taxes to cover health care to the government. Single payer does eliminate a lot of cost to health care due to the savings in the number of people required to submit and reconcile all claims with all the various health insurance companies in addition to the individual health care providers. You basically eliminate a lot of non-medical cost to the system, simplify billing at a pretty substantial cost savings. Estimates at what part of health care costs is due to administrative overhead are between 25 and 30 percent for the US. That FAR exceeds the administrative costs of any nation on universal single payer health care.

 

[lpetrich]

Stephanie on Instagram: “Thank you @ocasio2018 for using inclusive pregnancy and postpartum language. Thank you for pointing out the dismal, abhorrent lack of…”

feministmidwife

Thank you @ocasio2018 for using inclusive pregnancy and postpartum language. Thank you for pointing out the dismal, abhorrent lack of social support for postpartum people. And thank you for your passion and clarity in doing so.
・・・
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez put the market-driven family leave in the U.S. into perspective this week. She explained that the free market’s average family leave of 6-8 weeks is less time than breeders recommend puppies stay with their mothers before rehoming. "And I think that that, at its core, has shown that the market has failed to treat people with dignity and with basic respect."

The video: a snippet from a hearing where AOC says that puppies get to be with their mother dogs longer than many human babies with their mothers.

 

[Jarhyn]

You can't use hypothetical UHC savings to offset the costs of a 30 hour week. In the simple issue of hours worked you have a 25% drop in productivity, of course the wages drop at least 25%. I'm only figuring 5% for increased overhead and I strongly suspect that's an underestimate. Note that it only requires overhead to be 20% of the cost of an employee to reach this point. The one actual data point I have on this was from manufacturing where there were a lot of tools involved--and the overhead was over 100% in that situation.



I mean sharing with another shift--businesses that are open longer than a typical workday. Very common in retail, sometimes in manufacturing, rarely elsewhere.

Yes, UHC will mean an increase in taxes for some people--maybe most people. I'm likely one of those people who would pay more in taxes. So what? Also, it is unknown whether the increase in taxes would be offset by the share of my health care that I pay and the same for my employer. Even if it doesn't, I'm willing to pay for fairness and for health care because I know that overall, it reduces health care costs and also increases productivity but mostly, because I think it's the right thing to do. I hate the idea that anybody goes without care they need because they or their parents cannot afford it.

The point is the increase in taxes will be the same number of dollars whether the workweek is 30 hours or 40 hours. Thus 1/3 more percentagewise in the 30 hour scenario.

Wrong.

The fact is, most people already work a 10-20 hour work week.

A 30 hour work week won't tank productivity; arguably it would increase productivity through worker morale, and better work/life balance.

There are some positions for which this is not true, for instance any job more suitable for a robot than a human being, or "close+on-hand on-call type jobs like short order cooks or janitorial work. Arguably these are already underpaid positions that should see a pay increase. But for the vast majority of other jobs, it's absolutely the case that a 30 hour work week will change very little.

I fact, there's even a great, and we'll researched Adam Ruins Everything episode all about it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Actually, there is probably NOT a 25% drop in productivity. There's probably not a drop at all. I'm not sure that wages should drop, if there is no drop in productivity. Why would there be any increased overhead? There is zero way that overhead was 'over 100%' in any situation. If you mean that equipment was more expensive than the wages of any one employee (or several employees), then I can believe that. I know what equipment cost at my job and what people got paid and how many of us there were, etc.

What reason do you have to think that productivity won't drop?? You're getting 25% less work hours, why shouldn't we expect 25% less output?

And you apparently don't have any understanding of manufacturing. I was thinking of my former employer--our cost of tools & facilities was approximately equal to our total payroll costs. 100% right there but then some of that payroll cost was things like insurance that doesn't show up in the paycheck.

I'm really having a hard time following you because you don't show your math and your language is so imprecise that I have to make guesses and those tend to be unflattering to you so I won't.

I haven't used any math that isn't obvious if you actually think about what I said.

But no, you don't know that the increase in taxes will the the same number of dollars whether the workweek is 30 or 40 hours. That's an assumption that you are making about how the costs of single payer health would be charged.

You are also equating UHC with single payer health care. I do not.

And why would a shorter workweek make any appreciable effect in healthcare spending??

And it makes no difference whether it's single payer or not, the money still has to be spent. Throwing confusion into the picture doesn't change this fundamental reality.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Instead of the employer spending money on what may be poor health care coverage at a large price (I know what this costs my employer and I know what my share is and I know what I get for that money--and it's good health insurance) the employer pays that in taxes to cover health care to the government. Single payer does eliminate a lot of cost to health care due to the savings in the number of people required to submit and reconcile all claims with all the various health insurance companies in addition to the individual health care providers. You basically eliminate a lot of non-medical cost to the system, simplify billing at a pretty substantial cost savings. Estimates at what part of health care costs is due to administrative overhead are between 25 and 30 percent for the US. That FAR exceeds the administrative costs of any nation on universal single payer health care.

I haven't seen any estimates of savings that high from UHC. It's irrelevant, though--you're trying to use hypothetical UHC savings to fund your shorter workweek but they're separate issues. You could get the UHC savings while still doing a 40 hour week.