Why do businesspeople oppose some form of national healthcare system?

[Khayembii Communique]

Seriously, I'm in PE and a couple of our companies have been going through absolutely atrocious health insurance issues. Luckily they get resolved but the amount of time and money spent on this non-core business crap is insane. It's pretty ridiculous to tie healthcare to employers anyways, but I don't get why so many would be opposed to some other form of health insurance system. Honestly it'd be worth it to just raise taxes to pay for it, the incremental tax burden will probably be cheaper than the money/time we spend on insurance crap nowadays and we won't have to bother with it anymore. Also, my P&L would no longer reflect the health insurance expense which would make my pre-tax income look much better. Also, taxes are avoidable haha.

 

[imagep]

Stupidity? Fear of change? The "slippery slope"?

Or maybe it's the loss of control. Some employers may desire to have as much control over their employees as possible. Being the provider of their insurance gives them a measure of control.

I own a small business, and I certainly don't oppose it. I would love to see socialized insurance (not so much socialized medical care, although that may be preferable to what we have now).

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Seriously, I'm in PE and a couple of our companies have been going through absolutely atrocious health insurance issues. Luckily they get resolved but the amount of time and money spent on this non-core business crap is insane. It's pretty ridiculous to tie healthcare to employers anyways, but I don't get why so many would be opposed to some other form of health insurance system. Honestly it'd be worth it to just raise taxes to pay for it, the incremental tax burden will probably be cheaper than the money/time we spend on insurance crap nowadays and we won't have to bother with it anymore. Also, my P&L would no longer reflect the health insurance expense which would make my pre-tax income look much better. Also, taxes are avoidable haha.

Almost by definition, businesspeople—at least those who are successful at it—have to have a pretty good working understanding of how business and economics work. They have to understand, above else, that nothing is “free”, that everything has a cost, and they have to have a solid understanding of those principles involved in managing the cost of whatever it is that they think they need or want. Someone who is sufficiently ignorant of such things as it would take to think that any form of “national health care” is a good idea, would not be likely to succeed as a businessperson; and would quickly be weeded out of this group, leaving behind those who are much more likely to know better.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

Almost by definition, businesspeople—at least those who are successful at it—have to have a pretty good working understanding of how business and economics work. They have to understand, above else, that nothing is “free”, that everything has a cost, and they have to have a solid understanding of those principles involved in managing the cost of whatever it is that they think they need or want. Someone who is sufficiently ignorant of such things as it would take to think that any form of “national health care” is a good idea, would not be likely to succeed as a businessperson; and would quickly be weeded out of this group, leaving behind those who are much more likely to know better.

Very good job at ignoring everything I said and merely responding based on reading the thread title. Maybe you can come back with some substance after you've read my post.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Very good job at ignoring everything I said and merely responding based on reading the thread title. Maybe you can come back with some substance after you've read my post.

In this case, the thread title is really the whole of the question. “Why do businesspeople oppose some form of national healthcare system?”. In your OP, you expressed some thoughts building on why you find it puzzling that businesspeople, in general are opposed to “national health care”; but ultimately, isn't the point of this thread to answer the question in the title? That's what I did.

 

[Helix]

Seriously, I'm in PE and a couple of our companies have been going through absolutely atrocious health insurance issues. Luckily they get resolved but the amount of time and money spent on this non-core business crap is insane. It's pretty ridiculous to tie healthcare to employers anyways, but I don't get why so many would be opposed to some other form of health insurance system. Honestly it'd be worth it to just raise taxes to pay for it, the incremental tax burden will probably be cheaper than the money/time we spend on insurance crap nowadays and we won't have to bother with it anymore. Also, my P&L would no longer reflect the health insurance expense which would make my pre-tax income look much better. Also, taxes are avoidable haha.

we should have done this under the Truman administration, IMO.

 

[a351]

Maybe you can come back with some substance after you've read my post.

 

[imagep]

Almost by definition, businesspeople—at least those who are successful at it—have to have a pretty good working understanding of how business and economics work. They have to understand, above else, that nothing is “free”, that everything has a cost, and they have to have a solid understanding of those principles involved in managing the cost of whatever it is that they think they need or want. Someone who is sufficiently ignorant of such things as it would take to think that any form of “national health care” is a good idea, would not be likely to succeed as a businessperson; and would quickly be weeded out of this group, leaving behind those who are much more likely to know better.

Unfortunately, what they don't realize is that all levels of government combined, already spend enough to provide a high deductible major medical policy (basically "bronze level") to every single American. Our government spends a little more than half of every penny spent on healthcare and health insurance in this country. when I was researching this back in 2009, the figure was $1.2 trillion dollars of tax money, I'm sure it's quite a bit more than that now, with expanded medicade, growing VA costs, and the Obamacare subsidies.

Also those business owners rarely seem to understand that what keeps the prices of almost every other industry is price competition. Low deductible insurance policies with low copays eliminate price competition, and are the number one cause of higher medical care prices.

 

[JumpinJack]

Seriously, I'm in PE and a couple of our companies have been going through absolutely atrocious health insurance issues. Luckily they get resolved but the amount of time and money spent on this non-core business crap is insane. It's pretty ridiculous to tie healthcare to employers anyways, but I don't get why so many would be opposed to some other form of health insurance system. Honestly it'd be worth it to just raise taxes to pay for it, the incremental tax burden will probably be cheaper than the money/time we spend on insurance crap nowadays and we won't have to bother with it anymore. Also, my P&L would no longer reflect the health insurance expense which would make my pre-tax income look much better. Also, taxes are avoidable haha.

Good question. I suppose it comes partly down to the fact that insurance companies would fight it with strong lobbies (can you say "NRA" as an example). Also, Republicans philosophically oppose paying for others' health insurance. So that's about money.

Then there's also all the people that would become unemployed if insurance companies cease to exist or their business significantly decreases because of a govt paid health care system. That would affect the economy.

The U.S. has one of the most expensive health care systems in the world, I believe. And it's not that great, if you go by access to care by people, mortality rates, citizens' contentedness with it, etc.

One of the biggest problems is the huge profit in the system that goes to insurance companies. The ins. cos. are huge contributors to politicians. So there won't be a system that cuts out ins. cos. and their huge profits. They put people in power to do their bidding. The politicians' interests lie there, not with us.

I agree with you, though. I'm not sure how ins. got tied to employment in the first place. I guess as a way to keep wages down originally, when ins. was cheap.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Unfortunately, what they don't realize is that all levels of government combined, already spend enough to provide a high deductible major medical policy (basically "bronze level") to every single American. Our government spends a little more than half of every penny spent on healthcare and health insurance in this country. when I was researching this back in 2009, the figure was $1.2 trillion dollars of tax money, I'm sure it's quite a bit more than that now, with expanded medicade, growing VA costs, and the Obamacare subsidies.

Also those business owners rarely seem to understand that what keeps the prices of almost every other industry is price competition. Low deductible insurance policies with low copays eliminate price competition, and are the number one cause of higher medical care prices.

You see what you're doing? You're projecting your own economic ignorance on businesspeople. You think you know better than they do, and you think they are mistaken because they understand things about business and economics, which you, very obviously, do not.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

You see what you're doing? You're projecting your own economic ignorance on businesspeople. You think you know better than they do, and you think they are mistaken because they understand things about business and economics, which you, very obviously, do not.

If we were able to move our health insurance costs down to the corporate income tax line item, our operating performance would look better and EBITDA would improve. Our time spent on healthcare crap would also be better spent running the business, further improving performance. All good things IMO.

 

[imagep]

Good question. I suppose it comes partly down to the fact that insurance companies would fight it with strong lobbies (can you say "NRA" as an example). Also, Republicans philosophically oppose paying for others' health insurance. So that's about money.

Which I have always found to be really weird, because health insurance in itself is socialistic in nature. We send our money in, the insurance company aggregates it, and then doles it back out on an as needed bases. Conservatives will argue that it "doesn't work like that", but that's exactly how it works. A sytem doesn't have to be government mandated to be socialistic.

Then there's also all the people that would become unemployed if insurance companies cease to exist or their business significantly decreases because of a govt paid health care system. That would affect the economy.

Again, I can't see why conservatives would support NOT doing that. What we are talking about is having a more efficient system. And those workers would, at least according to conservative economic theory, find jobs doing something else.

The U.S. has one of the most expensive health care systems in the world, I believe. And it's not that great, if you go by access to care by people, mortality rates, citizens' contentedness with it, etc.

One of the biggest problems is the huge profit in the system that goes to insurance companies. The ins. cos. are huge contributors to politicians. So there won't be a system that cuts out ins. cos. and their huge profits. They put people in power to do their bidding. The politicians' interests lie there, not with us.

Absolutely. And it's not only insurance company profits that drive up the cost, it's the fact that they spend a fortune in marketing costs (which would be eliminated if we had socialized insurance or socialized health care). And it's the fact that employers compete for employees based upon offering "better" insurance, which essentially means lower deductibles and lower copays, which is one of the factors that keeps demand for healthcare high (particularly unneeded care), and one of the reasons why healthcare providers don't have to price compete for customers.

I agree with you, though. I'm not sure how ins. got tied to employment in the first place. I guess as a way to keep wages down originally, when ins. was cheap.

Yup. It seems to me that in the absence of universal healthcare or insurance, most people would desire to simply be paid more, and then make their own decisions about what insurance they purchase and what care they receive. It's absolute insanity that we have burdened our employers with having to purchase their workers goods and services for them.

I really don't want my employer to chose my insurance company, or my insurance company to chose which doctors I go to or what treatments I receive. No more than my employer controlling what type of car I should drive, or what neighborhood I should live in, or what food I should eat. Yet most people seem to have no issue with their employer telling controlling their insurance provider and medical care.

 

[WallStreetVixen]

Employers aren't obligated to offer insurance at all. They do so because it keeps firms more competitive, and health insurance federal exempt from taxes, which originally helps companies' bottom line. At no additional cost to their bottom line, Employers have more leverage over employees because employees fear they will lose their insurance if they voluntarily leave their jobs. So turnover is dramatically reduced as a result.

This is not to say that a national health care system would be a better alternative. A better alternative would be to simply eliminate the federal tax loophole.

 

[imagep]

You see what you're doing? You're projecting your own economic ignorance on businesspeople. You think you know better than they do, and you think they are mistaken because they understand things about business and economics, which you, very obviously, do not.

OK, I think I understand your confusion. It's my avatar. I'm not really a clown running for office.

I am "business people", and have been for decades, and most of my customers are business people, so I think that I understand business people pretty darned well.

I also have a BS in Business Administration with a concentration in economics, so I have probably read at least as many economic textbooks as the next yahoo on the internet.

 

[imagep]

Employers aren't obligated to offer insurance at all.

That was true...until 22 days ago. Have you never heard of "Obamascare"?

They do so because it keeps firms more competitive, and health insurance federal exempt from taxes, which originally helps companies' bottom line. At no additional cost to their bottom line, Employers have more leverage over employees because employees fear they will lose their insurance if they voluntarily leave their jobs. So turnover is dramatically reduced as a result.

This is not to say that a national health care system would be a better alternative. A better alternative would be to simply eliminate the federal tax loophole.

Absolutely.

 

[WallStreetVixen]

That was true...until 22 days ago. Have you never heard of "Obamascare"?

Absolutely.

What I mean is 'in absence of force' employers aren't obligated to provide their employees insurance. Majority of people who have insurance are insured by their employers. The purpose of the employer mandate was mostly to regulate the insurance employers provide the type of insurance the Government likes. Employers have been providing health insurance since the late 40s/ early 50s because its in their best interest to do so.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Seriously, I'm in PE and a couple of our companies have been going through absolutely atrocious health insurance issues. Luckily they get resolved but the amount of time and money spent on this non-core business crap is insane. It's pretty ridiculous to tie healthcare to employers anyways, but I don't get why so many would be opposed to some other form of health insurance system. Honestly it'd be worth it to just raise taxes to pay for it, the incremental tax burden will probably be cheaper than the money/time we spend on insurance crap nowadays and we won't have to bother with it anymore. Also, my P&L would no longer reflect the health insurance expense which would make my pre-tax income look much better. Also, taxes are avoidable haha.

Tying health care to employers is at the heart of our current national health care law - the PPACA. Plenty of employers oppose PPACA now. What are you on about?

 

[Khayembii Communique]

Tying health care to employers is at the heart of our current national health care law - the PPACA. Plenty of employers oppose PPACA now. What are you on about?

I understand that of course, but I'm also talking about how businesspeople in general oppose some kind of healthcare system that moves insurance out of the hands of employers.

 

[imagep]

...Employers have been providing health insurance since the late 40s/ early 50s because its in their best interest to do so.

And it's in their best interest to do so due to a special tax provision. Without that special deal, then there would be no employer preference to purchase their workers healthcare, no more than the employer purchasing their workers food or televisions.

I don't think we are disagreeing about this.

 

[LagerHead]

My guess is that business people oppose nationalization of health care because they realize that the government is the cause of the problem, not the solution. There are many alternatives that have been offered that would actually lead to a decrease in the cost of health care, but those that look to the government as the solution for every problem, real or perceived, summarily ignore them.

 

[imagep]

My guess is that business people oppose nationalization of health care because they realize that the government is the cause of the problem, not the solution. There are many alternatives that have been offered that would actually lead to a decrease in the cost of health care, but those that look to the government as the solution for every problem, real or perceived, summarily ignore them.

The only healthcare crises is the high cost.

The low deductible/low copay insurance plan is the root of our healthcare issue, as it significantly reduces the incentive for health care providers to price compete. And yes, Obamacare worsened the situation by the employer mandate.