Organization: Penn State University
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 09:07:41 EDT
From: <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: The debates about health care
 <CHRISF.92Sep11211202@thor.albany.edu>
 <1992Sep12.014253.17144@midway.uchicago.edu>

In article <1992Sep12.014253.17144@midway.uchicago.edu>,
sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent) says:
>
>In article <CHRISF.92Sep11211202@thor.albany.edu> chrisf@csc.albany.edu
>(Slasher) writes:
>>       2) Wouldn't we STILL have the same argument from the Republicans
>>          that we're forcing this plan on businesses and are going to really
>>          hurt them?
>
>  Actually, I have a few problems with forcing health care costs on
>Businesses.  I'll briefly outline them and maybe spark some debate:

I agree that forcing health care costs onto business may be especially
difficult for small businesses.  For those who want a cogent anaysis of how
health care costs have affected U.S. jobs in the 1980s, you might want
to call University of North Carolina's News Services, and get a copy of
a recent paper released by Ken Thorpe, a noted health policy expert.  You
can get it by calling (919) 962-2091.  It makes very interesting reading.


>1)  It is just another attempt to hide the cost of a government action
>by forcing its cost on "businesses".  Of course, businesses are really
>people, not faceless taxpayers.  The costs comes out of our pockets one
>way or another. (In the form of reduced wages or lost jobs if nothing
>else.)

>2)  It increases the cost of labor for businesses, quite probably
>resulting in lost jobs.  This is especially true for small businesses
>who just can't afford the sort of health care costs that would likely
>be dumped on them over the long run.  Small businesses have been
>the main area of this country's job growth for quite some time.

I agree, but what's important is to compare how many jobs are lost
under alternative plans.  I think Thorpe estimates that several
million were lost in the 1980s because of our current system.


>  In fact, an economist I read has speculated that the slow growth
>of hiring is in part related to the fear that Clinton might win
>and force higher health care costs.  (He surveyed some small
>businesses to draw this conclusion.)  In truth, Clinton hasn't specified

I think the estimate was 700,000 jobs.  The Thorpe paper estimates job
loss from Bush's plan at 2.2 million.


>his plan and really hasn't specified how it would be paid for,
>but this was the economist's opinion from his survey. (So, flame me for not
>having the exact quote on hand.)
>
>
>3)  It tends to tie people to their job.  Rich Williamson points out
>that 85% of our "uninsured" Americans are "uninsured" for about 3-6 months
>while they are temporarily unemployed.  I think that having health
>insurance tied to your job is a bad.  It encourages job stagnation
>and leaves people in the cold when they are out of work.  Just because
>businesses are the major supplier of health care insurance under our current
>system, is no reason to perpetuate the problem.

I think we have to weigh the advantage of working with our current system
(job lock would become less of a problem if insurance was universal).
I think the German system and the several other countries have insurance
pools organized around the workplace.  There are several advantages to this,
including little adverse selection and easy premium collection.

>  In fact, for these reasons I think we should try to get health care
>Costs _out_ of being the responsibility of businesses.  It may make the
>costs more visible to Americans to do so, but that in itself may be good.
>>
>>Understand that I'm not tearing this plan apart; I think it would be a huge
>>step in the right direction, and could even be used to phase in Clinton's
>>proposal... have you written Clinton HQ's and suggested it?
>
>  Understand that I am not commenting on Judy's plan specifically, just
>some problems I see with tying health care to Jobs.
>


Dennis G. Shea, Penn State
<<DISCLAIMER>>
Ain't nobody's bizness but my own. I'll be happy to accept all
the credit for anything I've written.  It's funny, however, how
employers only acknowledge the profitable ideas.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton