The Democrat Thread

[StrangeSox]

All of these studies are BS, and none of them know for sure one way or the other, regardless of their "methodology".

 

Yes, yes, I know, you reject all data and empiricism out of hand. But no one is claiming that those projections are absolute. Mistaking maps for the territory and all that. Just pointing out how ridiculous that "ZOMG! 30%!!!" crap is.

 

[southsider2k5]

So wait, there are 2 possible options for a decision? And it's a decision people/companies might have to make in the future?

 

You know what would be really cool? If there was a way of evaluating what decision those companies might make. That would be a really useful guide. We could do things like look at past cases, or figure out intelligent ways to evaluate decision making, or even look at the bill and do the math ourselves.

 

We could even call it a study.

 

Like pension plans for example...

[Balta1701]

Like pension plans for example...

Are you kidding me?

 

In both the pension plan case and the McKinsey case, we took issue with the actual results/conclusions/data in the study. This is an entirely reasonable thing to do.

 

The post I'm going after there does none of those things and pretty much pretends that we have no ability to evaluate anything.

[Y2HH]

So wait, there are 2 possible options for a decision? And it's a decision people/companies might have to make in the future?

 

You know what would be really cool? If there was a way of evaluating what decision those companies might make. That would be a really useful guide. We could do things like look at past cases, or figure out intelligent ways to evaluate decision making, or even look at the bill and do the math ourselves.

 

We could even call it a study.

 

Actually no, theres one option for a decision, as both are reflected on the same option...MONEY.

 

To think otherwise is foolish.

[Balta1701]

Actually no, theres one option for a decision, as both are reflected on the same option...MONEY.

 

To think otherwise is foolish.

Thankfully, money cannot be counted or added or subtracted. Because otherwise, people would do those types of calculations and produce estimates about future behavior.

[Y2HH]

Yes, yes, I know, you reject all data and empiricism out of hand. But no one is claiming that those projections are absolute. Mistaking maps for the territory and all that. Just pointing out how ridiculous that "ZOMG! 30%!!!" crap is.

 

No, I reject lack of common sense with this study and all studies.

 

We agree, 30% IS crap. It's a number made up and pulled out of no where.

 

As I said, and I repeat, it will come down to money.

 

If 90% of companies find they can save tons of money by killing off their health benefits, the number will be closer to 90% over time, maybe not instantly (again, as the "study" implies), but over time it would move close and closer to the number in question.

 

The opposite also holds true.

 

What planet are you guys on, anyway? Well, whatever it is, on Earth, companies, especially American companies go for profits...profits, and more profits...and if you honestly believe a company would forfeit massive savings (profits) for the good of their employees, you may be right in 1% of ALL cases...but in the majority, you're delusional at best.

[Y2HH]

Thankfully, money cannot be counted or added or subtracted. Because otherwise, people would do those types of calculations and produce estimates about future behavior.

 

This was just stupid.

 

Move along now.

Edited June 24, 2011 by Y2HH

[Balta1701]

This was just stupid.

 

Move along now.

As are your statements about how it's impossible to figure out in advance whether this program will save people money or not.

[Y2HH]

As are your statements about how it's impossible to figure out in advance whether this program will save people money or not.

 

I never made such a statement.

 

Hence why what you said is completely stupid.

[Balta1701]

I never made such a statement.

 

Hence why what you said is completely stupid.

All of these studies are BS, and none of them know for sure one way or the other, regardless of their "methodology".

You don't care what methodology anyone uses, it's impossible to know one way or the other.

 

Your words.

[StrangeSox]

No, I reject lack of common sense with this study and all studies.

 

We agree, 30% IS crap. It's a number made up and pulled out of no where.

 

As I said, and I repeat, it will come down to money.

 

If 90% of companies find they can save tons of money by killing off their health benefits, the number will be closer to 90% over time, maybe not instantly (again, as the "study" implies), but over time it would move close and closer to the number in question.

 

The opposite also holds true.

 

What planet are you guys on, anyway? Well, whatever it is, on Earth, companies, especially American companies go for profits...profits, and more profits...and if you honestly believe a company would forfeit massive savings (profits) for the good of their employees, you may be right in 1% of ALL cases...but in the majority, you're delusional at best.

 

Yeah but health benefits are part of the overall compensation package and employers get tax credits for them. It's not nearly as simple as Republicans are trying to paint it and abusing the McKinsey study to do so. It's cheaper for companies to simply cut insurance right now since there's no penalty. But they don't, because employees would leave and they'd have a hard time recruiting new ones.

 

I dunno, on one hand I hope they're right and that these new exchanges really will result in affordable individual coverage such that employers can drop insurance and bump pay a little. Having health insurance tied to employment is a terrible system anyway.

 

eta who's said companies will insure employees for any reason other than the owners/shareholders' long-term profits?

Edited June 24, 2011 by StrangeSox

[Y2HH]

You don't care what methodology anyone uses, it's impossible to know one way or the other.

 

Your words.

 

Taken out of context, you have an argument.

 

Left in context, you do not.

 

It's IMPOSSIBLE for you or anyone else to take a single study and apply it across multiple privately or publicly held companies, as you are not their CFO, and have no regard for what they are willing to spend money on, or lose money on (ie, benefits), so applying such a study is flawed from the beginning.

 

You could do this, if you had inside information on what the company was planning to do, on a case by case basis...and only if you fully understood 100% of the health law as accepted by courts, how the tax write-offs would work, what penalties would be incurred, etc.

 

Trying to blanket what a company would save/not save without knowing their finances to begin with, or what their plans are/are not is just completely dumb. Hence why I dismiss the 30% figure just as easily as I dismiss any others.

 

Every company will go over this law, in detail, and make the decision based on their specific finances, abilities, and choices.

[StrangeSox]

Y2HH apparently rejects the entire field of macroeconomics.

[Balta1701]

It's IMPOSSIBLE for you or anyone else to take a single study and apply it across multiple privately or publicly held companies, as you are not their CFO, and have no regard for what they are willing to spend money on, or lose money on (ie, benefits), so applying such a study is flawed from the beginning.

 

You could do this, if you had inside information on what the company was planning to do, on a case by case basis...and only if you fully understood 100% of the health law as accepted by courts, how the tax write-offs would work, what penalties would be incurred, etc.

And these are things that are entirely tractable and have been done repeatedly. It's not something I'm going to do...because I'm not paid to do it. If you put me on a team of 20 people and asked me to get it done in 2 weeks, I could probably get it done.

 

This is not an impossible problem. The law isn't that complex.

[Y2HH]

Yeah but health benefits are part of the overall compensation package and employers get tax credits for them. It's not nearly as simple as Republicans are trying to paint it and abusing the McKinsey study to do so. It's cheaper for companies to simply cut insurance right now since there's no penalty. But they don't, because employees would leave and they'd have a hard time recruiting new ones.

 

I dunno, on one hand I hope they're right and that these new exchanges really will result in affordable individual coverage such that employers can drop insurance and bump pay a little. Having health insurance tied to employment is a terrible system anyway.

 

eta who's said companies will insure employees for any reason other than the owners/shareholders' long-term profits?

 

This is a short term outlook.

 

If companies, over time, begin giving much bigger salaries to employees and tell them they have to get their own insurance benefits, people may not care about this being part of their overall compensation package.

 

This doesn't consider that if they cut insurance, that they'd increase benefits elsewhere (they would). They wouldn't have a hard time recruiting new employees or keeping old ones with such a deal.

[StrangeSox]

The idea that you have to study every individual company in the country in order to determine net economic impacts is....bizarre, to say the least.

[Y2HH]

And these are things that are entirely tractable and have been done repeatedly. It's not something I'm going to do...because I'm not paid to do it. If you put me on a team of 20 people and asked me to get it done in 2 weeks, I could probably get it done.

 

This is not an impossible problem. The law isn't that complex.

 

Yes, you could apply a blanket study to multiple companies, but it would have no actual baring on what they actually end up doing.

[Y2HH]

The idea that you have to study every individual company in the country in order to determine net economic impacts is....bizarre, to say the least.

 

It's not. But whatever.

[Balta1701]

If companies, over time, begin giving much bigger salaries to employees and tell them they have to get their own insurance benefits, people may not care about this being part of their overall compensation package.

They will if they lose the employer health care tax deduction.

[Y2HH]

Y2HH apparently rejects the entire field of macroeconomics.

 

More backhanded stupidity and outright ignorance.

[Y2HH]

They will if they lose the employer health care tax deduction.

 

That's a pretty big if.

 

You also don't know half the games they can play to simply equal that tax deduction in other (multiple/various) ways.

[Balta1701]

Yes, you could apply a blanket study to multiple companies, but it would have no actual baring on what they actually end up doing.

Of course, they could wind up making mistakes and doing things that lose money. Of course, you could even factor that in based on previous precedents.

[Y2HH]

Of course, they could wind up making mistakes and doing things that lose money. Of course, you could even factor that in based on previous precedents.

 

Or, in opposite to what you said, they could wind up not making mistakes and doing things that make them money.

[StrangeSox]

This is a short term outlook.

 

If companies, over time, begin giving much bigger salaries to employees and tell them they have to get their own insurance benefits, people may not care about this being part of their overall compensation package.

 

This doesn't consider that if they cut insurance, that they'd increase benefits elsewhere (they would). They wouldn't have a hard time recruiting new employees or keeping old ones with such a deal.

 

I'm pretty sure we're both saying the same thing: Republican scare-mongering claims here are bulls*** and it'd be good to shift from our current employer-provided health insurance model anyway.

 

If employers drop insurance but raise compensation to the point that I get the same thing in some manner that's economically beneficial to them, awesome. But that relies on the exchanges working extremely well to keep insurance costs down. Either way, the scenario of 30% of companies dropping insurance and not making up for it to employees in any way is pretty much fantasy for a variety of reasons, most of which fit right into Republican orthodoxy.

[Balta1701]

Or, in opposite to what you said, they could wind up not making mistakes and doing things that make them money.

Which is exactly what you'd predict they did if you did a large scale study, as has been done repeatedly but which you've told me can't be done.