Yodabunny wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
If your first go to argument for some new tax or regulation is that companies make too much profit,
And this is the problem with your way of thinking.
I don't care what the company made. I really don't. The government shouldn't either. It's completely irrelevant to the welfare of the people they serve.
And yet, your very first comment in this thread was about company profits:
you wrote:
Sooo, forcing health insurers to provide better health insurance cost the health insurers some of their profits? Say it ain't so!
Sure seemed like you were dismissing the costs of Obamcare because all it would do is cost health insurers "some of their profits". Suggestion being that they make enough to absorb the cost, so it's ok to stick it to them. I mean, that was what you were implying, right? That they're rich fat cat insurance companies, and thus deserve to have their big fat profits trimmed "for the good of the people". Cause that sure was how I interpreted your post. Now, if you really meant something else, then feel free to clarify yourself.
My point, which certainly seems to be backed up by your own statement, is that too many people justify increased regulation on the assumption that the companies they regulate can afford it, so it's not really a problem. No one's harmed, so why not? My response is that this increased cost *is* a problem, and that by ignoring it, you're making a bad decision. That's what I mean when I say you're only looking at one side of the ledger. You don't believe that extra costs causes any harm, so you ignore it and don't take it into account.
It is harmful though.
Quote:
All of those sick people, they're going to get treatment at some point. The question is when? Will it be early on when treatment may be much much cheaper? Will it be an emergency room visit when they pass out from the gangrene in their foot, stiffing the taxpayers for the now exorbitant bill?
All of those poor people, they're going to find something to eat at some point. Will it be from the grocery store with their decent pay cheque? Will it be via crime of some sort because they can't make enough to feed their kids, costing billions in prison infrastructure and creating an criminal element in society?
And? What is the cost of doing this? If it's a dollar either way, which method is "better"? I think you are failing to take into account the incentive effect ov work and wages. I also think you are creating a massive excluded middle . There's a whole range of economic condition between "impoverished" and "financially comfortable". You don't just bop from one to the other. You gradually move from one to the other, and as you do so, your condition improves. Anything which steepens the difficulty slope in that process can have a massive effect on the overall economic outcome for those involved.
Put another way, while you seem to think that the absence of those things will force people to fail to get treatment until their feet fall off, or chose a life of crime to put food on their table. You're basically taking extremes, but most people live in the middle. And what that middle does is provide an incentive for people to improve the value of their labor, and thus earn a higher wage, so they can reduce the difficulties in their lives. This doesn't happen magically all at once though. It takes time and effort. But most people manage to do this. And yes, things like "I need to go to night school and learn a trade so I can afford health care for my kids", is one of the things that pushes people. Take that way, and what happens?
Quote:
You see, your argument that companies should be able to pay as little as people will work for just doesn't work. We end up paying for it anyway at increased cost because we now have to pay for the consequences of a poor society. Companies should be forced to pay a reasonable minimum wage because otherwise the public has to make up the difference at an inflated cost. Government should provide health care because everyone is going to get it anyway in the end and it's cheaper and safer for society to pay for it up front than it is to deal with it after the fact.
I disagree. I believe that the cost in lost productivity alone would dwarf any extra costs involved via less efficient means of delivering health care, or food, or whatever. Most people will work a second job before they'll start robbing people, right? Most people will find their way into a health clinic or urgent care long before their foot falls off. While you have a minor point in terms of increased costs, fewer people will incur those costs in the first place.
In the "absorb the costs of uninsured people's emergency care" model, the number of people we're paying for is low, but the cost per person may be high. But in the "pay for all their health care costs ahead of time", the cost per person may be lower on average, but we're paying for a lot more people (everyone). Lots of people manage to stay out of emergency rooms every year using nothing but over the counter medicines that they can afford to pay for out of pocket. A very small number of people get sick anyway, some of whom may or may not have been able to avoid getting sick with preventative care. But the cost for that care for "everyone" includes everyone who wouldn't have gotten sick enough to go to the ER that year. That's a ton of people we're paying for.
I really don't buy the idea that total health care costs are lower when you pay for preventative care like that. IMO, it's far far more efficient to just pay for people who get sick, than to pay for everyone who might get sick. But that's just me.
Quote:
Companies aren't going to leave the country in droves, and those that do are currently a drain on your tax dollars so you should be happy they are leaving.
Huh? How are companies leaving the country a drain on my tax dollars? This explanation I'd love to hear!
And it's strange that you say this, but yet we still constantly hear about all those evil companies offshoring their businesses. Either it's a problem, or it isn't. Which one is it?
Edited, Dec 11th 2015 4:05pm by gbaji