5 ms·

Counting [public] healthcare as "income" from labor seems extremely... Republican. Should we also count caring for relatives as 'income' to the people being ca

Counting [public] healthcare as "income" from labor seems extremely... Republican. Should we also count caring for relatives as 'income' to the people being cared for? (We don't.)

cwhiz 6y ago
We don’t have free healthcare in the US. It’s disingenuous to not consider health care as a benefit with monetary value. These people would otherwise have to pay actual money for health care.
- xphos 6y ago
  I would agree with you but healthcare isn't a liquid/tangible asset like own stock or making cash is. I can't take out my healthcare the same way I can sell stock or collect a paycheck. Which in my opinion makes all the difference when calculating income. Its a much easy argument to make when healthcare's cost can be much greater than funds paid out. For instance if the equation for income was Income = Wages + Asset_growth (simplistic) but you could compare two people person A makes 10$ person B makes 100$. There is a lot of income inequality but if you add healthcare to that which is only "cashable when sick" of say 20$ both parties have a real delta of 100$ but there % difference lowered significantly in this case it went from 90% to 75% even though the actually income which people can choose how it is spent and use still has a 90% difference. Sounds like adding extraneous variables to mask more interesting differences
  - cwhiz 6y ago
    You’re making it way more complicated than it needs to be. Most everyone pays for healthcare with pre-tax dollars. Others get it for free outright from the government. The cash benefit of government paid insurance does not need to be more complicated than the median cost of healthcare for paying participants.
- Frost1x 6y ago
  While I do agree, it's also often incredibly difficult to compare monetarily. Plans vary in coverage and out of pocket expenses significantly combined with the fact you don't know what you will need to use the insurance for, if anything at all. When you're younger, it's less likely it's valuable, when you're older, it's more likely that it's valuable. If you have a preexisting condition (say someone needs dialysis), it's a little bit more straightforward because you already know what sort of services you need. Ultimately you don't know what you service provider will end up charging the insurance to cover costs, how little your insurance will try and provide, and what you'll have left to pickup on the tab. Furthermore, employers are known to shop the market for better deals, so the insurance you sign up for could shift in 6-12 months. I factor insurance into comp but I look at only the most general attributes and I don't weight these as directly as compensation because I (knock on wood) am fairly healthy and tend not to use my insurance.
- Ensorceled 6y ago
  It's also disingenuous to not factor in the massive wealth transfer in progress via the US health care system in an article on income inequality that counts healthcare as income. The US pays almost double per capita for health care compared to its northern neighbour Canada.
  - cwhiz 6y ago
    You can’t make this argument and also make the argument that free healthcare is not a financial benefit. If US citizens pay twice as much as Canadian citizens, why can’t I argue that Medicaid is twice as valuable?
refurb 6y ago
I mean, it’s a part of your compensation package and isn’t a requirement for small companies, so yeah, it should be counted. You are receiving a benefit the company pays for. Edit: maybe OP was referring to public healthcare? In that case it depends on the methodology. Seems like this methodology subtracts taxes then adds back in what you receive. This doesn’t seem unreasonable as someone who isn’t making enough to pay taxes may get Medicaid coverage. That’s a direct transfer payment to that person.
NoblePublius 6y ago
Each of my employees receive about $7800 less per year in their paychecks because a Democrat made me buy them health insurance instead of giving them the money to buy their own healthcare.
- dudul 6y ago
  And if they each had to buy their own health care they would pay much more than $7800/yr. Negotiating premiums with carriers is easier as part of a group of EEs than as an individual.
  - mustafa_pasi 6y ago
    Exactly, and they'd get shittier insurance.
  - NoblePublius 6y ago
    No, they wouldn’t, until they are about 50 years old .
- throwawayfire 6y ago
  Did you reduce your employee wages each by $7800, at that time, or have you declined to give pay increases of $7800?
  - NoblePublius 6y ago
    You obviously don’t employ anybody
  - NoblePublius 6y ago
    I reduced the wages of everyone I hired after that stupid law was passed.
- matwood 6y ago
  Which state are you in that forces employers to buy insurance? I'd like to know the details why you can't just give people the $7800. Also, this may be state specific, but another benefit for the employee of doing it this way, is their portion is from pre-tax money.
atlgator 6y ago
If I'm evaluating job offers that have identical salary/bonus and one company offers a copay plan and another has a high deductible plan of $2000, I'm absolutely treating the copay plan as $2000 more valuable. In fact, I'd probably gross it up given that's $2000 in after-tax dollars I would pay for healthcare each year. And that doesn't even count the 10%+ coinsurance on the backend once the deductible is met.
- throwawayfire 6y ago
  That's your choice, but it might be useful for you to know: I checked some private healthcare insurance where I live, and the difference in cost between these plans was in fact only $800.
  - atlgator 6y ago
    For you. Premiums and deductible options on the open market are different between individuals. A 20 year old is going to pay a good deal less than a 50 year old. And it's not "my choice." That's mathematically how you evaluate different alternatives. All other things being equal, would you not value a house with a pool higher than one that doesn't?
    - throwawayfire 6y ago
      As such, we should also admit that this benefit is potentially worth $0 to a healthy person. I didn't do that calculation on a "for me" basis: I looked at the generally advertised cost. Paying in advance is cheaper for anyone taking out a policy.
      - sokoloff 6y ago
        For a person covered on a spouse’s better insurance, it’s possibly worth $0. If you’re going to be covered for catastrophic incidents, that’s economically worth more than $0 no matter how healthy you are.
- kasey_junk 6y ago

Counting [public] healthcare as "income" from labor seems extremely... Republican. Should we also count caring for relatives as 'income' to the people being cared for? (We don't.)

cwhiz 6y ago

We don’t have free healthcare in the US. It’s disingenuous to not consider health care as a benefit with monetary value. These people would otherwise have to pay actual money for health care.

xphos 6y ago
I would agree with you but healthcare isn't a liquid/tangible asset like own stock or making cash is. I can't take out my healthcare the same way I can sell stock or collect a paycheck. Which in my opinion makes all the difference when calculating income. Its a much easy argument to make when healthcare's cost can be much greater than funds paid out. For instance if the equation for income was Income = Wages + Asset_growth (simplistic) but you could compare two people person A makes 10$ person B makes 100$. There is a lot of income inequality but if you add healthcare to that which is only "cashable when sick" of say 20$ both parties have a real delta of 100$ but there % difference lowered significantly in this case it went from 90% to 75% even though the actually income which people can choose how it is spent and use still has a 90% difference. Sounds like adding extraneous variables to mask more interesting differences
- cwhiz 6y ago
  You’re making it way more complicated than it needs to be. Most everyone pays for healthcare with pre-tax dollars. Others get it for free outright from the government. The cash benefit of government paid insurance does not need to be more complicated than the median cost of healthcare for paying participants.
Frost1x 6y ago
While I do agree, it's also often incredibly difficult to compare monetarily. Plans vary in coverage and out of pocket expenses significantly combined with the fact you don't know what you will need to use the insurance for, if anything at all. When you're younger, it's less likely it's valuable, when you're older, it's more likely that it's valuable. If you have a preexisting condition (say someone needs dialysis), it's a little bit more straightforward because you already know what sort of services you need. Ultimately you don't know what you service provider will end up charging the insurance to cover costs, how little your insurance will try and provide, and what you'll have left to pickup on the tab. Furthermore, employers are known to shop the market for better deals, so the insurance you sign up for could shift in 6-12 months. I factor insurance into comp but I look at only the most general attributes and I don't weight these as directly as compensation because I (knock on wood) am fairly healthy and tend not to use my insurance.
Ensorceled 6y ago
It's also disingenuous to not factor in the massive wealth transfer in progress via the US health care system in an article on income inequality that counts healthcare as income. The US pays almost double per capita for health care compared to its northern neighbour Canada.
- cwhiz 6y ago
  You can’t make this argument and also make the argument that free healthcare is not a financial benefit. If US citizens pay twice as much as Canadian citizens, why can’t I argue that Medicaid is twice as valuable?

refurb 6y ago

I mean, it’s a part of your compensation package and isn’t a requirement for small companies, so yeah, it should be counted. You are receiving a benefit the company pays for. Edit: maybe OP was referring to public healthcare? In that case it depends on the methodology. Seems like this methodology subtracts taxes then adds back in what you receive. This doesn’t seem unreasonable as someone who isn’t making enough to pay taxes may get Medicaid coverage. That’s a direct transfer payment to that person.

NoblePublius 6y ago

Each of my employees receive about $7800 less per year in their paychecks because a Democrat made me buy them health insurance instead of giving them the money to buy their own healthcare.

dudul 6y ago
And if they each had to buy their own health care they would pay much more than $7800/yr. Negotiating premiums with carriers is easier as part of a group of EEs than as an individual.
- mustafa_pasi 6y ago
  Exactly, and they'd get shittier insurance.
- NoblePublius 6y ago
  No, they wouldn’t, until they are about 50 years old .
throwawayfire 6y ago
Did you reduce your employee wages each by $7800, at that time, or have you declined to give pay increases of $7800?
- NoblePublius 6y ago
  You obviously don’t employ anybody
- NoblePublius 6y ago
  I reduced the wages of everyone I hired after that stupid law was passed.
matwood 6y ago
Which state are you in that forces employers to buy insurance? I'd like to know the details why you can't just give people the $7800. Also, this may be state specific, but another benefit for the employee of doing it this way, is their portion is from pre-tax money.

atlgator 6y ago

If I'm evaluating job offers that have identical salary/bonus and one company offers a copay plan and another has a high deductible plan of $2000, I'm absolutely treating the copay plan as $2000 more valuable. In fact, I'd probably gross it up given that's $2000 in after-tax dollars I would pay for healthcare each year. And that doesn't even count the 10%+ coinsurance on the backend once the deductible is met.

throwawayfire 6y ago
That's your choice, but it might be useful for you to know: I checked some private healthcare insurance where I live, and the difference in cost between these plans was in fact only $800.
- atlgator 6y ago
  For you. Premiums and deductible options on the open market are different between individuals. A 20 year old is going to pay a good deal less than a 50 year old. And it's not "my choice." That's mathematically how you evaluate different alternatives. All other things being equal, would you not value a house with a pool higher than one that doesn't?
  - throwawayfire 6y ago
    As such, we should also admit that this benefit is potentially worth $0 to a healthy person. I didn't do that calculation on a "for me" basis: I looked at the generally advertised cost. Paying in advance is cheaper for anyone taking out a policy.
    - sokoloff 6y ago
      For a person covered on a spouse’s better insurance, it’s possibly worth $0. If you’re going to be covered for catastrophic incidents, that’s economically worth more than $0 no matter how healthy you are.
kasey_junk 6y ago