Rumraket wrote:In other words : more financial schemes, trying to make money multiply itself on nothing at all, by essentially gambling.

And here I thought you paid for your pension with your salary. Stupid me.

Employers make contributions and employees pay in as well, but to avoid 30-40 years of devaluation, rather than stuffing the money under a mattress pension funds tend to invest this money so that in 30-40 years time you have a valuable pension rather than a worthless one. In this way even the little man benefits (though perhaps not to the extent they should) from the economic prosperity of the nation and big business. Personally I think this is desirable - I'm glad ordinary people share at least some of the wealth.

I'm not quite sure why you're likening long term share investments (which includes taking the share of the company's post tax profits as dividends to a large degree) to gambling, or what you think should be done with the money if not invest it in portfolios which include a lot of shares. I'd be interested in your perspective on what should be done or why this is bad if you would like to explain!

chairman bill wrote:The answer to the problem is a simple one - UHC through general taxation. Introduce a National Insurance scheme where everyone pays in through tax.

I know, it's rampant communism and will be the end of the world as we know it and in a minute the Chinese and Cubans will have taken over the country along with the homosexuals and liberals and the powers of the anti-christ and ...

Well yeah, and that's what I want. But did anyone fight for that this time around? Nope. Did Obama? Nope. He made a compromise which sucks. Fucking politics, the art of getting by half assed.

willhud9 wrote:

chairman bill wrote:The answer to the problem is a simple one - UHC through general taxation. Introduce a National Insurance scheme where everyone pays in through tax.

Well yeah, and that's what I want. But did anyone fight for that this time around? Nope. Did Obama? Nope. He made a compromise which sucks. Fucking politics, the art of getting by half assed.

Since employers make NI contributions under such a scheme anyway the same consideration of extra costs for having employees would still be a factor.

The issue brought up in the article really relates to the relief that small businesses get via subsidies for their liability on healthcare contributions, meaning that laying off employees or reclassifying them as contractors to get back under the threshold becomes desirable. However this is not a particular feature of Obamacare, incentives and tax breaks for small businesses to promote entrepreneurship and growth of industry can and do feature in numerous different tax/healthcare systems.

One might speculate that the cut-off point for businesses to be liable for the full cost of employer's contributions for healthcare would be better if based on turnover and/or profit in addition to a strict employee headcount, though I personally did not see anything wrong with the scenario as portrayed in the article - the medium sized business owner whose point of view we were given was being squeezed for profits from the little guys who were her competitors, i.e. the government is already incentivising small business and giving them an edge to get a foot in the door.

One way to cover the costs associated with the new law would be to raise the price of each item sold about 4 percent and pass the costs along to buyers. “It’s ironic that our success meant we could grow,” Ms. Shein said, “and now we will be competing against smaller companies, with 50 employees or fewer, who will be able to charge less per item because they don’t have the financial burden of health insurance.” Prices are currently similar among local competitors, Ms. Shein said, and she says she believes the increase in her prices could affect her sales, possibly significantly.

Cool! There is an economics board now!

willhud9 wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/21/business/smallbusiness/a-bakery-with-95-employees-confronts-the-new-health-care-law.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

Essentially small businesses are required to give their employees healthcare under federal law come 2014. But what this essentially fails to take into consideration is the fact that in order for the business to save money, it can and most likely will, let people go off the job. This results in an a rise of unemployment and thus a negative to the overall improvement of the economy.

No problem. Just cut everyone back to part time, and you're not required to provide health care.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... Collection

willhud9 wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/21/business/smallbusiness/a-bakery-with-95-employees-confronts-the-new-health-care-law.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

Essentially small businesses are required to give their employees healthcare under federal law come 2014. But what this essentially fails to take into consideration is the fact that in order for the business to save money, it can and most likely will, let people go off the job. This results in an a rise of unemployment and thus a negative to the overall improvement of the economy. |

Even if small businesses did not let their employees go, there still remains the increase in cost of the company.

Or they could substitute those benefits for lower wages since the law applies not just to an individual company but its competitors as well the threat of losing candidates to competition doesn't exist. This is precisely what health care economists think should and in most instances will happen.

http://ldi.upenn.edu/incidentaleconomis ... -employers

This is one of the reasons why I found Obamacare to be incredibly lacking on the provision of healthcare. I would much rather see the state or states create a state sponsored system. But nope, people must settle for half-assed instead of perfection. It's why our country is suffering.

Vermont is working towards its single payer system. The problem with your logic is it seems to presume perfection is a political option. Yet 70 years of history on health care reform tells us that get anything accomplished is a long shot and perfection is out the window.

When judging policies I think the correct way of viewing it is not 'is X better than this hypothetical policy Y' but instead should be 'is X an improvement on the status quo'.

I think the answer here is an easy yes.