Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Millennials' declining health could sicken U.S. economy (Gen-Y trends)

#21
Syne Offline
(Nov 14, 2019 03:31 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: I made several points. The first one was directed at Yazata.
  1. Don't do what you hate.
  2. Bottling up your emotions doesn’t make you stronger.
  3. The indirect cost of premature deaths outweighs the cost of healthcare.
  4. Boomers are still contributing.
I do have a few more questions, though.

"Employer-sponsored health insurance plans dramatically expanded as a direct result of wage controls imposed by the federal government during World War II."[1]

Lots of people stay with a company simply because they don’t want to lose their health insurance but many do not realize that the benefit comes at the cost of lower wages, albeit tax exempt, but nevertheless, employers are shifting more and more of the costs of premiums to employees. Does job-lock contribute to wage stagnation?

Employer-Sponsored-Insurance (ESI) was thought to be the glue that grouped together risk pools making health insurance more affordable but wouldn’t more people be diving into the risk pool with individual plans?

Employees in higher tax brackets benefit far more from the tax exemption and their coverage is typically more generous. Do generous plans drive up the cost of health care?

Yes, if the government meddles in the free market, especially with wage controls, employers must find other means to compete for skilled workers.
Job-lock is a function of not having sufficient marketable skills. Yes, insufficient marketable skills does lead to personal wage stagnation.
Individuals plans are more expensive because the risk pool is necessarily more diverse, with more people forced to pay for the high risk of a relative few.
No, better plans do not drive up the cost of healthcare, as their benefits are paid for at higher rates, whether by employer and/or employee.
Reply
#22
Secular Sanity Offline
(Nov 16, 2019 04:35 AM)Syne Wrote: Yes, if the government meddles in the free market, especially with wage controls, employers must find other means to compete for skilled workers.
Job-lock is a function of not having sufficient marketable skills. Yes, insufficient marketable skills does lead to personal wage stagnation.

Do you know what I think? I think that your tendency to disagree with someone that you dislike clouds your judgement.

"Because the greatest source of insurance for most Americans is Employer Provided Health Insurance (EPHI) and an employee cannot take their EPHI with them when they leave their job, benefits-related job lock is a concern in the United States."

Syne Wrote:Individuals plans are more expensive because the risk pool is necessarily more diverse, with more people forced to pay for the high risk of a relative few. No, better plans do not drive up the cost of healthcare, as their benefits are paid for at higher rates, whether by employer and/or employee.

That was one of the reasons given for the Cadillac Tax. They said the ESI drove up the cost of health care because companies were spending more money on generous insurance plans and less on cash wages. They said that luxury plans increased health spending and contributed to the rise of healthcare cost.

N. Gregory Manwik said that if people have insurance that pays for too much, they don't have enough skin in the game. They may be too quick to seek professional medical care. They may too easily accede when physicians recommend superfluous tests and treatments. Lawrence Summers said basically the same thing. "Such behavior can drive national health spending beyond what is necessary and desirable."
Reply
#23
Syne Offline
(Nov 16, 2019 04:53 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote:
(Nov 16, 2019 04:35 AM)Syne Wrote: Yes, if the government meddles in the free market, especially with wage controls, employers must find other means to compete for skilled workers.
Job-lock is a function of not having sufficient marketable skills. Yes, insufficient marketable skills does lead to personal wage stagnation.

Do you know what I think? I think that your tendency to disagree with someone that you dislike clouds your judgement.
We can always tell when you don't have much of an argument when you feel the need to preface it with some ad hominem presumption to poison the well.
This seems to nothing but an argument from incredulity, that anyone could reasonably disagree with you.

Quote:"Because the greatest source of insurance for most Americans is Employer Provided Health Insurance (EPHI) and an employee cannot take their EPHI with them when they leave their job, benefits-related job lock is a concern in the United States."
Apparently you missed an earlier bit in your own citation. Job lock is when "an employee is being paid higher than scale or has accumulated significant benefits", that will not likely be matched elsewhere. In general, that means that they have better than average pay/benefits. In the case of health insurance, that means that they are either in a high-risk pool or just have better than average coverage. Having better pay/benefits is not a bad thing. It's how employers encourage longevity. And the only other solution for the high-risk is to force others to pay for them, whether through universal healthcare or mandating that new employers accept preexisting conditions, and thus spoiling their existing employee's risk pool and insurance costs.

Quote:
Syne Wrote:Individuals plans are more expensive because the risk pool is necessarily more diverse, with more people forced to pay for the high risk of a relative few. No, better plans do not drive up the cost of healthcare, as their benefits are paid for at higher rates, whether by employer and/or employee.

That was one of the reasons given for the Cadillac Tax. They said the ESI drove up the cost of health care because companies were spending more money on generous insurance plans and less on cash wages. They said that luxury plans increased health spending and contributed to the rise of healthcare cost.
That Cadillac tax was a feature of Obamacare, which has already proven it couldn't reduce the cost of healthcare, because it greatly increased the demand for healthcare by dumping an additional 20 million patients (many of which had to be forced with the individual mandate) on the system. And I've yet to see an employer that had "luxury" health insurance benefits without comparably better wages too. So you'd need some real world data for that argument to fly.

Quote:N. Gregory Manwik said that if people have insurance that pays for too much, they don't have enough skin in the game. They may be too quick to seek professional medical care. They may too easily accede when physicians recommend superfluous tests and treatments. Lawrence Summers said basically the same thing. "Such behavior can drive national health spending beyond what is necessary and desirable."

So you think the poor, insured by Obamacare, had any "skin in the game". If so, you're deluded.

Like college tuition, the biggest increase in healthcare costs is competition being skewed by government involvement. Government-back student loans means colleges can raise their tuition, because student loans will pay it, even if individuals can't afford it. Government-sponsored healthcare similarly raises demand and ensures payment where real free market competition would necessarily lower costs.





Notice how you're doing absolutely nothing to bolster your "The indirect cost of premature deaths outweighs the cost of healthcare" argument. So this is all a red herring from the actual topic of this thread., Rolleyes
Reply
#24
confused2 Offline
Hm. Boomer suicide. May (or may not) be what you think. At best any medical intervention will give us an extension to an already fairly short life expectancy. and at the very least it will lead to a life dependent on drugs and doctors and hospital appointments and all that sort of shit. There is also (morally) the cost - for the same money it would cost to treat me you could give a snowflake a better life for the next half-century or so. In a public health system (like the UK) this counts and even in an insurance based sytem this counts for something. If Mrs C2 died I'd probably go soon after. No problem there - if the joy goes out of my life then just let me go - without moral judgement (or burden) - I'm old enough to work that kind of thing out for myself.
Reply
#25
Secular Sanity Offline
(Nov 16, 2019 07:33 PM)Syne Wrote: Having better pay/benefits is not a bad thing. It's how employers encourage longevity.

Well, one downfall to nonwage compensation is that they’re easier for employers to cut. You’ll have to do some reading on job-lock, wage stagnation and employer sponsored health insurance. It's obvious that you haven’t given it much thought.

(Nov 17, 2019 02:37 AM)confused2 Wrote: Hm. Boomer suicide. May (or may not) be what you think. At best any medical intervention will give us an extension to an already fairly short life expectancy. and at the very least it will lead to a life dependent on drugs and doctors and hospital appointments and all that sort of shit. There is also (morally) the cost - for the same money it would cost to treat me you could give a snowflake a better life for the next half-century or so. In a public health system (like the UK) this counts and even in an insurance based sytem this counts for something. If Mrs C2 died I'd probably go soon after. No problem there - if the joy goes out of my life then just let me go - without moral judgement (or burden) - I'm old enough to work that kind of thing out for myself.

Aww, don’t worry, C2, human capital is based on what you’ve contributed to society over your lifetime and I think that you’d pass the cost/benefit test.

Syne is just focusing on the takers.
Reply
#26
Syne Offline
(Nov 17, 2019 03:57 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote:
(Nov 16, 2019 07:33 PM)Syne Wrote: Having better pay/benefits is not a bad thing. It's how employers encourage longevity.

Well, one downfall to nonwage compensation is that they’re easier for employers to cut. You’ll have to do some reading on job-lock, wage stagnation and employer sponsored health insurance. It's obvious that you haven’t given it much thought.
IOW, you obviously don't have the wherewithal to support your own claims...as usual. Rolleyes

You can't even manage to figure out for yourself that if an employer cuts benefits, that necessarily makes them closer to the benefits offered elsewhere, alleviating the factor of job lock that you're arguing. Granted, at the expense of the business no longer being competitive enough to get and retain skilled employees. So that only happens when unemployment is high and there's stronger competition for the available jobs than there is to retain skilled employees who have many options.

So it's obvious that you're just projecting your own lack of thought on the matter. You always project when you've got no argument at all. It's sad and predictable.

Quote:
(Nov 17, 2019 02:37 AM)confused2 Wrote: Hm. Boomer suicide. May (or may not) be what you think. At best any medical intervention will give us an extension to an already fairly short life expectancy. and at the very least it will lead to a life dependent on drugs and doctors and hospital appointments and all that sort of shit. There is also (morally) the cost - for the same money it would cost to treat me you could give a snowflake a better life for the next half-century or so. In a public health system (like the UK) this counts and even in an insurance based sytem this counts for something. If Mrs C2 died I'd probably go soon after. No problem there - if the joy goes out of my life then just let me go - without moral judgement (or burden) - I'm old enough to work that kind of thing out for myself.

Aww, don’t worry, C2, human capital is based on what you’ve contributed to society over your lifetime and I think that you’d pass the cost/benefit test.

Syne is just focusing on the takers.

Again:
(Nov 13, 2019 12:05 AM)Syne Wrote: Private businesses invest, because they have a profit motive, which the public sector does not. So your analogy is flawed. Don't like it. Quit voting for people who work to destroy family values in favor of simply stealing from others.
Stealing from others is not investing in "human capital", it's enabling a lack of development.
Reply
#27
Secular Sanity Offline
(Nov 17, 2019 07:23 PM)Syne Wrote:
(Nov 17, 2019 03:57 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote:
(Nov 16, 2019 07:33 PM)Syne Wrote: Having better pay/benefits is not a bad thing. It's how employers encourage longevity.

Well, one downfall to nonwage compensation is that they’re easier for employers to cut. You’ll have to do some reading on job-lock, wage stagnation and employer sponsored health insurance. It's obvious that you haven’t given it much thought.
IOW, you obviously don't have the wherewithal to support your own claims...as usual.  Rolleyes

You can't even manage to figure out for yourself that if an employer cuts benefits, that necessarily makes them closer to the benefits offered elsewhere, alleviating the factor of job lock that you're arguing. Granted, at the expense of the business no longer being competitive enough to get and retain skilled employees. So that only happens when unemployment is high and there's stronger competition for the available jobs than there is to retain skilled employees who have many options.

So it's obvious that you're just projecting your own lack of thought on the matter. You always project when you've got no argument at all. It's sad and predictable.

Quote:
(Nov 17, 2019 02:37 AM)confused2 Wrote: Hm. Boomer suicide. May (or may not) be what you think. At best any medical intervention will give us an extension to an already fairly short life expectancy. and at the very least it will lead to a life dependent on drugs and doctors and hospital appointments and all that sort of shit. There is also (morally) the cost - for the same money it would cost to treat me you could give a snowflake a better life for the next half-century or so. In a public health system (like the UK) this counts and even in an insurance based sytem this counts for something. If Mrs C2 died I'd probably go soon after. No problem there - if the joy goes out of my life then just let me go - without moral judgement (or burden) - I'm old enough to work that kind of thing out for myself.

Aww, don’t worry, C2, human capital is based on what you’ve contributed to society over your lifetime and I think that you’d pass the cost/benefit test.

Syne is just focusing on the takers.

Again:
(Nov 13, 2019 12:05 AM)Syne Wrote: Private businesses invest, because they have a profit motive, which the public sector does not. So your analogy is flawed. Don't like it. Quit voting for people who work to destroy family values in favor of simply stealing from others.
Stealing from others is not investing in "human capital", it's enabling a lack of development.

It has been a major concern in economics for sometime now. I didn’t expect you know anything about it but you can do your own research and correct your erroneous assumptions for a change.
Reply
#28
Syne Offline
(Nov 18, 2019 02:34 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote:
(Nov 17, 2019 07:23 PM)Syne Wrote:
(Nov 17, 2019 03:57 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote:
(Nov 16, 2019 07:33 PM)Syne Wrote: Having better pay/benefits is not a bad thing. It's how employers encourage longevity.

Well, one downfall to nonwage compensation is that they’re easier for employers to cut. You’ll have to do some reading on job-lock, wage stagnation and employer sponsored health insurance. It's obvious that you haven’t given it much thought.
IOW, you obviously don't have the wherewithal to support your own claims...as usual.  Rolleyes

You can't even manage to figure out for yourself that if an employer cuts benefits, that necessarily makes them closer to the benefits offered elsewhere, alleviating the factor of job lock that you're arguing. Granted, at the expense of the business no longer being competitive enough to get and retain skilled employees. So that only happens when unemployment is high and there's stronger competition for the available jobs than there is to retain skilled employees who have many options.

So it's obvious that you're just projecting your own lack of thought on the matter. You always project when you've got no argument at all. It's sad and predictable.

It has been a major concern in economics for sometime now. I didn’t expect you know anything about it but you can do your own research and correct your erroneous assumptions for a change.

Sure, a major concern to economically ignorant leftists...of whom you can't manage to even make a single salient defense. Rolleyes
You might want to take a refresher on those leftist talking points, deary.
Reply
#29
Secular Sanity Offline
(Nov 18, 2019 03:59 AM)Syne Wrote: Sure, a major concern to economically ignorant leftists...of whom you can't manage to even make a single salient defense.  Rolleyes
You might want to take a refresher on those leftist talking points, deary.

I’m not advocating a free for all.

I believe in competition and transparency, do you?

Snowflake is a stereotype, a political slur. As Yazata pointed out, people from all age groups suffer from mental illness. The term may not be directed at those who do suffer but the implication is still there. Preventive care reduces healthcare costs and there is indirect costs associated with premature suicides.

Capisce?
Reply
#30
Syne Offline
(Nov 18, 2019 04:24 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote:
(Nov 18, 2019 03:59 AM)Syne Wrote: Sure, a major concern to economically ignorant leftists...of whom you can't manage to even make a single salient defense.  Rolleyes
You might want to take a refresher on those leftist talking points, deary.

I’m not advocating a free for all.

I believe in competition and transparency, do you?

Snowflake is a stereotype, a political slur. As Yazata pointed out, people from all age groups suffer from mental illness. The term may not be directed at those who do suffer but the implication is still there. Preventive care reduces healthcare costs and there is indirect costs associated with premature suicides.

Capisce?

Is that scattershot non sequitur supposed to be making some point? Sure doesn't look like it. At best, you're just repeating the same claim you've still yet to support. Rolleyes
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  NHS England "stops" puberty blockers + UK economy returns to growth (news style) C C 3 62 Mar 14, 2024 02:37 AM
Last Post: Syne
  Americans misusing cleaners & disinfectants (stupid health trends & lifestyles) C C 0 149 Jun 9, 2020 12:49 AM
Last Post: C C
  video - A new socialism: Where will millennials take Marxism? (ideology trends) C C 1 245 Jul 4, 2019 04:55 AM
Last Post: Syne



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)