Union pulls support for Obamacare, a sign of things to come?

[David88vert]

This doesn't refute any of my points which to reiterate are:

(1) Total compensation would not significantly decrease if health care is not an offered benefit - you actually give evidence that bolsters my stance by saying that health benefits are worth more than the monetary face value to employers because they tie the employer more closely to the company.

(2) We should have a health care policy that removes barriers for the labor force to be more mobile/entrepreneurial

It's not forcing my will because it must be implemented through a democratic process. If we only had to follow the laws we agree with on an individual level, that would be rather chaotic.

As I stated above, there will always be people who wish a certain law did not apply to them. If we can carve out reasonable exceptions, then that makes sense to do but in the case of health insurance, you really need everyone in from the beginning. It is the only way to avoid people from jumping on the wagon only after they get sick. Having everyone in the pool is an unfortunate necessity.

I think that you think that I am trying to refute all of your argument - I am not. I am pointing out some realities that have to be addressed.

Total compensation would decrease, there is no question of that; however, if the employee is receiving health benefits from another source, they may or may not perceive these changes/decreases. The employers might find other benefits to attract employees to stay for long periods, that is certainly possible, and in some fields, I would say even likely. Regardless, the employee would see a decrease in compensation if the employer is no longer paying out part of the healthcare plan, and does not add in some other type of compensation.

I do not have a problem with the concept of healthcare being decoupled from employment - it is empowering to the employee. It's something to be very careful on though.

As to the democratic process, you can claim that if you want, but it is hardly bi-partisan when a particular party completely overrides the other. Obamacare was pure Democratic Party platform.

If Obamacare is so good, why was it only Democrats that voted for it, and now those same Democrats are talking about exempting THEMSELVES from the plan that they passed?
Lawmakers, aides may get Obamacare exemption - John Bresnahan and Jake Sherman - POLITICO.com

[bu villain]

I think that you think that I am trying to refute all of your argument - I am not. I am pointing out some realities that have to be addressed.

Total compensation would decrease, there is no question of that; however, if the employee is receiving health benefits from another source, they may or may not perceive these changes/decreases. The employers might find other benefits to attract employees to stay for long periods, that is certainly possible, and in some fields, I would say even likely. Regardless, the employee would see a decrease in compensation if the employer is no longer paying out part of the healthcare plan, and does not add in some other type of compensation.

We both agree that decoupling is a good idea. I understand we are on the same page there. You are refuting my other point though when you say "Total compensation would decrease, there is no question of that". I am questioning that. Generally speaking, I do not think the type of benefits provided change the overall total compensation companies offer. Of course we can argue about the subjective value of benefits (e.g., the value of a benefit that promotes company loyalty) but I don't think this distinction is important enough to warrant much discussion. Indeed we should be careful with major overhauls of such pervasive and important policies such as health care but you can't calculate every possible consequence so at some point you have to make your best estimates and move forward.

As to the democratic process, you can claim that if you want, but it is hardly bi-partisan when a particular party completely overrides the other. Obamacare was pure Democratic Party platform.

It doesn't have to be bi-partisan to be democratic. A majority of the bills passed for at least the last decade have been mostly along party lines. That doesn't make them undemocratic.

If Obamacare is so good, why was it only Democrats that voted for it, and now those same Democrats are talking about exempting THEMSELVES from the plan that they passed?
Lawmakers, aides may get Obamacare exemption - John Bresnahan and Jake Sherman - POLITICO.com

There are a lot of problems with Obamacare no doubt. I think you'll be hard pressed to find anyone who thinks its anywhere near perfect. When you have such a diversity of opinions from libertarian laissez-faire to single payer, any bill you draft is probably going to piss off a lot of people. When it comes to politicians exempting themselves, that's par for the course. Look at how they allow themselves to make tons of money in the stock market off insider information that would be totally illegal for a normal citizen. Only in the last couple years have they even been giving lip service to that but that doesn't mean we should have laws against insider trading.