Did Reagan kill small business?

[One Brow]

Which countries are you talking about? Mexico? China? Jamaica? Vietnam?

Which of those countries are you saying has a better social safety net than the US? All of them?

 

[♪alt13]

As long as this working it out means the union is allowed to take steps to prevent non-union workers from replacing them, it benefits the worker. There was a lot of violence back in the day when unions and companies worked things out fro themselves.

Nope

Like I said a unions power should be determined by the worth of it's workforce. If an employer can easily replace them then the union needs to raise the standard of it's members.

Violent tactics will always be illegal.

 

[♪alt13]

Which of those countries are you saying has a better social safety net than the US? All of them?

I was asking which countries you thought had a better social safety net.

Perhaps it's that the safety net is partial? In countries where it's fuller, you low-wage workers don't suffer like they do here.

 

[One Brow]

The 2.5% tax is NOT for only businesses with over 50 employees.

Yes, the lab can pass the cost onto me. But this is where I get screwed. My prices are set for me by the insurance companies. I CAN'T just pass the price along. So, I take a 5% hit on my bottom line, and my profits are 20%, so I lose 25% of my income because of this. If I "pass" the costs along to my customer, then that is insurance fraud and I end up in jail. Besides, wasn't the whole point of Obamacare to DECREASE costs, not INCREASE them?

You're taking a 2.5% hit on the incoming cost, if you are buying the product first and then selling it to the patient (aren't many of the more expensive devices sold directly to the patient?). However, once you pay the extra tax to the company, why is the patient paying it to you? In Illinois you can only be taxed once on item in the distribution chain. I'm confused. Could you talk about something specific, with actual numbers (assuming that doesn't violate proprietary information)?

 

[One Brow]

I was asking which countries you thought had a better social safety net.

Many of the countries in Western Europe, Scandinavia, probably Canada.

 

[One Brow]

Like I said a unions power should be determined by the worth of it's workforce. If an employer can easily replace them then the union needs to raise the standard of it's members.

Then, in most industrial settings, employers will have an advantage of unions.

 

[green]

If Obamacare is making healthcare costs rise, then it failed, correct? Or is it designed to fail so we switch to a one party system? Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

Here is one bad thing about a one party system: The Dr's get paid on a capitation system. Most of America is currently based on a fee for service system. This means that if you go see the Dr, and he does an exam, a throat swab, and a culture, he gets paid for an exam, throat swab and culture. There is incentive for the Dr to see as many patients as he can during the day, because he will get paid more if he does 10 exams vs 3 exams.

In a capitation system, the Dr's don't get paid by procedure. They get paid by patient. This means that Select Health agrees to pay me $10 per patient per month. So, if I sign up for 5,000 patients, I get a check for $50,000 a month for EVERYTHING I do. Now, where is the incentive for me to see more patients? Also, that $50,000 doesn't go into my pocket. I have to pay taxes, my employees, debt, rent, supplies, etc. So, where does a Dr make his money in a capitation system? By limiting employees and patients. Whether I see 100 patients or 1,000, I get paid $50,000. So, wouldn't it be smarter for me to see less patients (this means less expenses, because every patient I have sterilize a room, use cotton swabs, tongue dispensers, the meat paper to sit on, etc) and have less employees?

That is why in other countries there are such long waiting periods to see specialists and Dr's. Because there is NO incentive to become more efficient. If you were told, no matter how hard you work, you will make $5,000 a month, would you bust your rear off, or do the least amount possible? Especially if there isn't any room to advance (promotions/raises/etc)? Then toss in the fact that you are run by insurance companies, and they like to do things like raise subscriber fees (what the patient pays to the insurance company) and decrease what they pay the Dr's (which means they have more money coming in and less going out, profits baby). Why would you work hard, knowing that you playing a game you can't win?

 

[franklin]

I don't understand. Could you elaborate?

Trade is mutual. For every dollar that leaves the US one dollar must come back in. It's an accounting definition that must be satisfied.

Start shutting our borders to trade and countries will reciprocate. Taking away $400,000,000,000 in imports from them and all you're doing is shrinking the total economy as they take imports away as well. It's a self feeding cycle that always results in demand plummeting, which is a nice way to bankrupt businesses at home.

The solution is to let the ebb and flow of markets return things to balance. China won't run a trade surplus forever. They know doing so will set them up for disaster just as major export dependent nations of the past (USA in 1929, Japan 1985). That's why they're taking large steps to become internally sufficient by empowering their consumers.

 

[green]

You're taking a 2.5% hit on the incoming cost, if you are buying the product first and then selling it to the patient (aren't many of the more expensive devices sold directly to the patient?). However, once you pay the extra tax to the company, why is the patient paying it to you? In Illinois you can only be taxed once on item in the distribution chain. I'm confused. Could you talk about something specific, with actual numbers (assuming that doesn't violate proprietary information)?

Sure. A dental crown. Let's say you own a dental lab. It costs you $100 to make the crown (supplies, employees, rent, etc). You sell that crown to the dentist for $105. You put $5 into your pocket. Now, the 2.5% medical tax is on REVENUE, not PROFIT. So, you sold the crown for $105, and you now have a 2.5% tax on that. That is a $2.63 tax on that $105 crown. Now, where does that $2.63 come from? The owner's pocket. Where he pocketed $5 before, now he only pockets $2.37 ($5-$2.63). It looks like a small 2.5% tax, but to that small business owner, it was a 53% tax. So, let's say the owner decides to raise his prices to $110 for the crown. Now, his costs are $100 + the tax ($2.75). But, the owner actually makes a little more money now ($7.25), but costs have increased. So, in this case, the small business owner is ok.

BUT, he passed the cost onto the Dr. Now, the way insurance works is that the insurance companies tell the Dr what they can charge the patient. The Dr can't just raise his prices like the lab owner can. If the Dr does, it is insurance fraud and a felony. So, let's say the Dr gets $500 from the insurance company for a crown before Obamacare. Since Obamacare has been passed, Delta Dental has lowered their payouts by 15%. So, since Obamacare has been passed, the payout on a crown goes from $500 to $425. Now, let's say that it costs a Dr $300 to operate (pay for the drill, impression materials, a cute girl to suck spit, rent, debt, etc) and another $105 for the crown from the lab. That comes out to $405 in overhead. The Dr. puts $95 in his pocket for a 2 hour procedure ($45/hr).

BUT, since Obamacare has passed, payouts have decreased from the insurance company from $500 to $425. AND the lab owner has raised his prices from $105 to $110. So, my costs have gone up to $410 for that crown. BUT, I only received $425 in payment for the crown. So that means I worked for two hours for...$15.

How can I stay in business for $15, when I need $80,000 a year just to pay taxes and student loans? And no, my student loan debt isn't that high compared to a lot Dr's. I am on the LOW end of debt.

That is what I am talking about when I say that these taxes are a lot bigger than they seem. 2.5% seems like a small number. Who can't afford 2.5%? BUT, the way it is taxed makes a HUGE difference.

That is just what is happening to me currently.

So, what happens? I go out of business. Aspen Dental, who has contracted with Select Health for higher reimbursements, puts out ads for free exams and xrays, knowing that I can't afford to offer that, and knowing that Select Health pays me $425 for a crown, but pays them $700 for a crown. The ironic thing is, you see the ad for free exam and xrays, go to Aspen Dental instead of me, and you end up paying more for you crown than you do with me (you pay 50% of the fee, so $213 vs $350), but because insurance companies are exempt from anti-trust laws, they can do things like this and you are no one the wiser.

Anyways, hope some of this makes sense.

 

[LogGrad98]

It's what I call the teeter-totter to hell. We think things are swinging back and fourth but it's all part of the same ride.

What about back and fifth?

 

[[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]]

Trade is mutual. For every dollar that leaves the US one dollar must come back in. It's an accounting definition that must be satisfied.

Start shutting our borders to trade and countries will reciprocate. Taking away $400,000,000,000 in imports from them and all you're doing is shrinking the total economy as they take imports away as well. It's a self feeding cycle that always results in demand plummeting, which is a nice way to bankrupt businesses at home.

The solution is to let the ebb and flow of markets return things to balance. China won't run a trade surplus forever. They know doing so will set them up for disaster just as major export dependent nations of the past (USA in 1929, Japan 1985). That's why they're taking large steps to become internally sufficient by empowering their consumers.

There's a huge concept missing from this tidy tale. Debt. You paper over a lot when you claim that trade is mutual. The ledger isnt simply balanced, nuff said. Who are the winners and losers? What role does debt play?

I think we need to have discussions about market protections which dont devolve into relying on natural or quasi-natural functions of "the market" to regulate itself. This + debt forgiveness = awesome.

 

[♪alt13]

Many of the countries in Western Europe, Scandinavia, probably Canada.

I thought you were comparing our safety net to the safety nets that are in the countries that we import from.

Thanks for clarifying.