Obamacare and you

[Admiral Yi]

Fair enough.

[11B4V]

Sorry didn't know GF was Canadian. But your statement on Vermont guy is what concerns me.

I don't understand how a Canadian is the same as a guy from Vermont.  B4tard math doesn't add up for me.

Are you senile?

  No, I was imitating a moronic post.  Seems to have hit a nerve.

I'm sorry that you are never wrong

or will ever admit your wrong

Isn't that right "Little Boat" man.

Meri has more character than you could ever hope to have. 

[Ideologue]

In the long term, removing employer contributions should cause other compensation to rise accordingly

Yeah.  Sure it will.

And I'm not even making a Money-esque CURSE YOU SHAREHOLDER VALUE point, though I share the sentiments.  Wage stickiness is an observable economic concept.

[grumbler]

I'm sorry that you are never wrong

or will ever admit your wrong

Isn't that right "Little Boat" man.

  Emo much?

Meri has more character than you could ever hope to have.   

And more brains or character than you can hope to have.

[11B4V]

I'm sorry that you are never wrong

or will ever admit your wrong

Isn't that right "Little Boat" man.

  Emo much?

Meri has more character than you could ever hope to have.   

And more brains or character than you can hope to have.

Awww. Isn't that special. 

[merithyn]

I'm touched, both of you. I think.

[Admiral Yi]

I'm touched, both of you. I think.

Collateral undamage.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

The employer contribution is coming out of their other compensation. Granted many will not see it this way.

In the long term, removing employer contributions should cause other compensation to rise accordingly, but insurance costs will rise immediately, which makes it hard to see the positive. The positive being what Meri outlined.

My cynical side sees moves like this as a backdoor pay cut, meaning employees affected by companies throwing them to the exchanges are not going to see other compensation rise accordingly.  I don't see that as CdM-level shareholder value cynicism, either.

[merithyn]

My cynical side sees moves like this as a backdoor pay cut, meaning employees affected by companies throwing them to the exchanges are not going to see other compensation rise accordingly.  I don't see that as CdM-level shareholder value cynicism, either.

That's a major concern, to be sure, and I think it's one that most people share.

[Admiral Yi]

Disagree Moldy.

"Do they have health insurance" is a fairly standard question for people job-seeking.  Tossing people on exchanges will, in my estimation, decrease their supply and drive up cash compensation.

[grumbler]

Disagree Moldy.

"Do they have health insurance" is a fairly standard question for people job-seeking.  Tossing people on exchanges will, in my estimation, decrease their supply and drive up cash compensation.

I agree.  Companies might get away with shortchanging employees on compensation by failing to balance lack of health care with increased pay to allow the employee to afford it in the current economic climate, but in the long run that will cost them their good people.

[merithyn]

Disagree Moldy.

"Do they have health insurance" is a fairly standard question for people job-seeking.  Tossing people on exchanges will, in my estimation, decrease their supply and drive up cash compensation.

I dunno. Maybe in the hard-to-fill positions, but not in your typical pay-by-the-hour jobs like I have. Plus, there's more to it than individual insurance. I expect companies to start pulling benefits from spouses and families, but not making adjustments for those.

[Admiral Yi]

I dunno. Maybe in the hard-to-fill positions, but not in your typical pay-by-the-hour jobs like I have. Plus, there's more to it than individual insurance. I expect companies to start pulling benefits from spouses and families, but not making adjustments for those.

Were you indifferent to the provision of employer-provided insurance when you applied for and accepted your job?

[DGuller]

Unless the wages are very sticky, and are currently stuck in "way too high" territory, I don't see how a company can get away with just taking away health insurance without any compensation.  There is a reason most employers pay more than bare minimum to their workers, even in the not-hard-to-fill positions, and it's not charity.

[merithyn]

I dunno. Maybe in the hard-to-fill positions, but not in your typical pay-by-the-hour jobs like I have. Plus, there's more to it than individual insurance. I expect companies to start pulling benefits from spouses and families, but not making adjustments for those.

Were you indifferent to the provision of employer-provided insurance when you applied for and accepted your job?

At the time that I got the job, it was more important that I have a paycheck than that I have insurance. It was a bonus, not the reason for taking it.