You mean minimum wage hikes come out of *our* pockets?
 

[url=http://www.startribune.com/politics/statelocal/270235821.html]Stillwater cafe faces heat for adding 'minimum wage fee' to tab | Star Tribune[/url]

edit:forum doesn't like receipt picture :( it has a line item charge of .35 cents for the minimum wage hike. it's in the article.


People are mad on facebook and calling for boycotts.

Where do they think the money is going to come from? They really think raising the minimum wage means big corporate execs are just going to give up enough of their profit to cover the cost and everything stays the same for the rest of us?

The world just doesn't work that way... shit rolls down hill and labor costs get passed onto the consumer.

Re: You mean minimum wage hikes come out of *our* pockets?
 

[url]https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/fast-food-workers-becoming-obsolete-182914617.html[/url]

[B]fast-food-workers-becoming-obsolete[/B]

While the choice will be up to the franchisees, many will likely embrace the option as a way to save on labor costs. Wendy's President and CFO, Todd Penegor, acknowledged [B]recent pressure on the labor market in a recent earnings call[/B].

"We've been able to create some efficiencies on labor across the restaurant ... like customer self-order kiosks, mobile order, and mobile pay," Penegor said. Kiosks could possibly "mitigate any of the inflation" seen on the wage front for Wendy's, and could for other chains as well.

As the fight for a higher minimum wage continues, some argue that higher labor costs will force fast-food companies to cut staff.

Andy Puzder, the CEO of Carl's Jr. and Hardee's, is convinced. "[B]If you're making labor more expensive[/B], and automation less expensive — [B]this is not rocket science[/B]," Puzder told Business Insider's Kate Taylor.


raise the minimum wage to unreasonable amount, then you get less jobs, less people work. don't complain

You mean minimum wage hikes come out of *our* pockets?
 

I'm calling bullshit to above

[url]http://prospect.org/article/confronting-parasite-economy[/url]

Re: You mean minimum wage hikes come out of *our* pockets?
 

[quote=Chico23231;1143777][url]https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/fast-food-workers-becoming-obsolete-182914617.html[/url]

[B]fast-food-workers-becoming-obsolete[/B]

While the choice will be up to the franchisees, many will likely embrace the option as a way to save on labor costs. Wendy's President and CFO, Todd Penegor, acknowledged [B]recent pressure on the labor market in a recent earnings call[/B].

"We've been able to create some efficiencies on labor across the restaurant ... like customer self-order kiosks, mobile order, and mobile pay," Penegor said. Kiosks could possibly "mitigate any of the inflation" seen on the wage front for Wendy's, and could for other chains as well.

As the fight for a higher minimum wage continues, some argue that higher labor costs will force fast-food companies to cut staff.

Andy Puzder, the CEO of Carl's Jr. and Hardee's, is convinced. "[B]If you're making labor more expensive[/B], and automation less expensive — [B]this is not rocket science[/B]," Puzder told Business Insider's Kate Taylor.


raise the minimum wage to unreasonable amount, then you get less jobs, less people work. don't complain[/quote]
Wawa and Sheets have had ordering "Kiosks" for a while and McDonald's has been doing it since they started in the business(cutting cost and short cuts).Many people feel that if they are going to do the work of an actual employee then there should be some sort of discount.Will price's go down if they wipe out employees all together?

Re: You mean minimum wage hikes come out of *our* pockets?
 

[quote=Giantone;1143792]Wawa and Sheets have had ordering "Kiosks" for a while and McDonald's has been doing it since they started in the business(cutting cost and short cuts).Many people feel that if they are going to do the work of an actual employee then there should be some sort of discount.Will price's go down if they wipe out employees all together?[/quote]

market/competition sets the price. Certainly a drop in price is possible with reduced labor cost on the table. Giantone, hopefully that happy meal will come down for you.

When you have government that forces higher employers health insurance cost and also sets unreasonable higher wages, this is the result.

Re: You mean minimum wage hikes come out of *our* pockets?
 

Unreasonable wages? They're not even at a reasonable level yet.

Re: You mean minimum wage hikes come out of *our* pockets?
 

The lowest end of the wage scale never would be"reasonable" as they rise all the other wages rise and therefore prices rise. Or jobs leave, and unemployment grows. Making minimum wage a livable wage is a false dream sold by liberal econics.

Sent from my S6 Edge

Re: You mean minimum wage hikes come out of *our* pockets?
 

im with matty here? any of you guys try to live on 10.00 an hour?

Re: You mean minimum wage hikes come out of *our* pockets?
 

and CRedskinsRule, if its not made to be a livable wage, why hasnt congress passed ANY jobs bills?

Re: You mean minimum wage hikes come out of *our* pockets?
 

[quote=MTK;1143799]Unreasonable wages? They're not even at a reasonable level yet.[/quote]

I think a hike is def needed but when I hear the numbers I laugh. Id give the federal minimum a small hike and if cities or states want to do more, go for it...[B]its on you.[/B] [B]BUT[/B] the caveat is don't ask the federal government for dollars when private business decisions are made. Meaning: My federal tax dollars should not make up for other cities and states legislation mistakes which forces private industry to pay more. Likewise entitlement spending should be cut in cites/states that make those decisions.

Minimum wage hikes...its a dumb conversation about a very small issue and doesn't address much bigger issues within economy, poverty, and role of government.

don't get me wrong, minimum wage hike is needed, but you think this the way to give it to the big, evil corporations? folks, they will ALWAYS find a way to not affect the bottomline by innovation or simply passing the cost to the consumer, as my article clearly is an example of. We need to be smarter people....tax reform, education, income inequality...its all connected folks.

Re: You mean minimum wage hikes come out of *our* pockets?
 

[quote=dmek25;1143805]im with matty here? any of you guys try to live on 10.00 an hour?[/quote]

I have a friend who does, he refuses to better himself with an education, smokes pot and is a Bernie supporter. no lie. He's passed up multiple opportunities with decent jobs. A couple years ago he got a job which put him in a position of authority and autonomy running store. I told him don't fuck this up...he had the ability to learn about how to run a small business, sales, manage books, etc. I told him to be a sponge, soak up the opportunity...he was lazy and screwed it up. naturally it wasn't his fault, the man keeping him down....right? it always is. He got Obama care and then complained that it wasn't completely free. typical

Re: You mean minimum wage hikes come out of *our* pockets?
 

[quote=dmek25;1143806]and CRedskinsRule, if its not made to be a livable wage, why hasnt congress passed ANY jobs bills?[/quote]

Simple, Government isn't the answer to economic questions. It amazes me at the stupidity of the US electorate. Government's job ISN'T to provide a lifetime of work for people (unless we were living in a worker's paradise") it is to provide a stable ecosystem that allows businesses to compete and thrive. It's job is to create a nation that is safe from external threats, and create physical safety for the population.

Nobody is arguing that 7.25-9.50 is livable, BUT for a HS student living with their parent(s), it's a starting point to understand what work ethic is and how earnings correspond to work. Minimum wage is just that a minimum, living wage is not the same, and people who have to live off their income need to work harder than doing just a minimum. That goes for every single person in this country. IF you make the minimum wage equal to the current living wage, a very likely outcome would be rapid inflation and unemployment, not really a good economic outcome.

Re: You mean minimum wage hikes come out of *our* pockets?
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1143816]Simple, Government isn't the answer to economic questions. It amazes me at the stupidity of the US electorate. Government's job ISN'T to provide a lifetime of work for people (unless we were living in a worker's paradise") it is to provide a stable ecosystem that allows businesses to compete and thrive. It's job is to create a nation that is safe from external threats, and create physical safety for the population.

Nobody is arguing that 7.25-9.50 is livable, BUT for a HS student living with their parent(s), it's a starting point to understand what work ethic is and how earnings correspond to work. Minimum wage is just that a minimum, living wage is not the same, and people who have to live off their income need to work harder than doing just a minimum. That goes for every single person in this country. IF you make the minimum wage equal to the current living wage, a very likely outcome would be rapid inflation and unemployment, not really a good economic outcome.[/quote]

Yeah, the minimum wage type jobs should not be primary income jobs. They aren't meant to be. These jobs are mainly for the youth who don't have the debt burdens, elderly who want to supplement retirement income, or part timer who want supplement bread winners household income. If primary household income is minimum wage job, then I have to ask the individual(s) whats going on?

You cant solve poverty with minimum wage jobs...it wont happen and never has.

Re: You mean minimum wage hikes come out of *our* pockets?
 

[quote=MTK;1143785]I'm calling bullshit to above

[url]http://prospect.org/article/confronting-parasite-economy[/url][/quote]

Again the problem with the foundation of this is to say that all who are working at minimum wage are using it as a sole support of a living wage, and the only way to make a minimum wage person have a living wage is to have government step in. That's wrong. After the military, I went back to college, while in college I worked a 12 hour 3-4 day a week job, and also a part-time fast food job. The fast food job wasn't meant to be my living wage job, instead it and the 2nd job were the living wage while I worked to get a college degree in Comp Sci.

I know some people fall through the cracks and we need a safety net, but we have to be careful about trying to make the safety net larger than can be carried by those supporting it.

Re: You mean minimum wage hikes come out of *our* pockets?
 

I apologize for the use of the word stupidity. There are tons of highly intelligent people who choose to see a world based on their thoughts and feelings rather than economic reality. It's similar to a Neville Chamberlin or Woodrow Wilson who lived in the idealized world where even bad people just want peace, or Boxer in Animal farm who is shocked that the pigs would betray the cause.

Wanting everyone to have a living wage is an awesome ideal, but putting it as a generalized law is a bad practice.

Re: You mean minimum wage hikes come out of *our* pockets?
 

I wouldn't exactly say this thread is full of economic scholars, but I'll throw my two cents in.

First some facts. When the federal minimum wage was instituted in 1938, it was set at 25 cents per hour, which if adjusted to inflation would be worth $4.19 today. It was adjusted many times since, in 1968 it was $1.60, which would be worth $10.86 today. In 1981 it was set at $3.35, which would be worth $8.71 today.

So it is not at all unreasonable to say that minimum wage should be set at $10. Now, $15? That's completely unreasonable and out of line with history, at no time has the inflation-adjusted minimum wage been worth more than it was in 1968 when it was worth $10.86 in today's dollars.

Now, those saying corporations will innovate to find labor savings, that's absolutely true. And it's only natural that as labor costs increase, the incentive to find those savings increases. More people will definitely find themselves out of work, but to a large extent that will happen anyway. The ROI on a capital investment like kiosk order entry may be outstanding when labor is $10 per hour, but it's still good when it's $7 per hour. So innovation and automation will continue, regardless.

Philosophically, I agree with CRedskins in his assertion that the minimum wage should not be a wage anyone aspires to. Everyone should aspire to much more than that. But the problem is the skills of our workforce are not to the level where many can reasonably aspire to more than the minimum wage. Right now there are 5.4 million job openings in the United States. Why don't they get filled? Because most require significant skill, particularly STEM skills. Unfortunately, too many of our workers are minimally productive, with minimal skills.

So what's the logical solution there? Every lefty in the US will say oh we must invest in STEM curriculum for our schools! Problem is no school programs will take if the parents and students in the most challenging communities don't give a shit. And far too many do not give even one shit about improving their skills. Harsh? Yes, but reality.

So you come back to what you do about minimum wage. It's not going to help people aspire to more. It's not going to fix their shortage in skill and work ethic. It's simply a matter of asking corporations to pay them enough to cover the most basic living expenses. If people can work 40 hours a week and still qualify for food stamps, like is the case all over the US currently, then the minimum wage is too low.

Bring it to $10 and index it to inflation. Minimum skill people will continue to lose jobs no matter what as the world continues to automate.

Re: You mean minimum wage hikes come out of *our* pockets?
 

Schneed, but labor cost is not just the minimum wage. With new healthcare and family leave initiatives, labor cost is going up far more than the 1960s or at any other time in the nation's history. 3 years ago, the owner of the company I work at had several positions in the general warehouse section that if their pay hit $10, they were capped there and most often chose to leave. Now the lowest paid employee starts at $9.50, even with min wage at 7.50, or whatever it is. And the company has raised several standing prices twice in the past 3 years, when it hadn't raised them in the first 7 years I worked here, and longer than that actually. It's certainly only one company's story, but we pass our costs on to the hospitals we serve, so their facility costs have gone up and with more government regulation they are actually using our service more which increases their cost another step. Which brings us back to the OP of the thread - Regardless of whether there is a line on a receipt that says Min Wage Fee or not, raising the min wage will be paid for by the consumers in society.

Re: You mean minimum wage hikes come out of *our* pockets?
 

[quote=MTK;1143785]I'm calling bullshit to above

[url=http://prospect.org/article/confronting-parasite-economy]Confronting the Parasite Economy[/url][/quote]

The premise that small companies paying low wages are somehow hurtful to our economy is the biggest pile of shit I have ever read. I have a friend who owns a successful photo shop. By successful I mean he can stay in business where many in that market can't. He owned three locations but recently closed one because he simply could not afford to staff it even at the current minimum wage. The business, as many in the low wage area, has miniscule margins. Raising labor is simply not an option. What is it that so many people don't get about many of these jobs? They are low skilled and can be filled by virtually anyone willing to work. Why would any company, especially one that exists on a thin margin, pay more in labor costs?

Re: You mean minimum wage hikes come out of *our* pockets?
 

[QUOTE=FRPLG;1143842]The premise that small companies paying low wages are somehow hurtful to our economy is the biggest pile of shit I have ever read. I have a friend who owns a successful photo shop. By successful I mean he can stay in business where many in that market can't. He owned three locations but recently closed one because he simply could not afford to staff it even at the current minimum wage. The business, as many in the low wage area, has miniscule margins. Raising labor is simply not an option. What is it that so many people don't get about many of these jobs? They are low skilled and can be filled by virtually anyone willing to work. Why would any company, especially one that exists on a thin margin, pay more in labor costs?[/QUOTE]


Small companies aren't the issue, large corporations are.

Re: You mean minimum wage hikes come out of *our* pockets?
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1143831]Schneed, but labor cost is not just the minimum wage. With new healthcare and family leave initiatives, labor cost is going up far more than the 1960s or at any other time in the nation's history. 3 years ago, the owner of the company I work at had several positions in the general warehouse section that if their pay hit $10, they were capped there and most often chose to leave. Now the lowest paid employee starts at $9.50, even with min wage at 7.50, or whatever it is. And the company has raised several standing prices twice in the past 3 years, when it hadn't raised them in the first 7 years I worked here, and longer than that actually. It's certainly only one company's story, but we pass our costs on to the hospitals we serve, so their facility costs have gone up and with more government regulation they are actually using our service more which increases their cost another step. Which brings us back to the OP of the thread - Regardless of whether there is a line on a receipt that says Min Wage Fee or not, raising the min wage will be paid for by the consumers in society.[/quote]

Absolutely. But when poorer or working class workers get a raise from $7 to $10, or from $9.50 to $12 as you're noting, there's a much higher velocity of money with working class folks than there is with higher income folks.

Meaning when a working class person gets a bump from $9.50 to $12, that money gets spent almost immediately, mostly in the communities in which they live. Which helps offset some of the concerns we're talking about here with unemployment and higher costs to consumers. When higher income folks get a raise, it tends to go to savings or get invested, which doesn't directly help the communities in which they live.

There are winners and losers, for sure. But overall minimum wage hikes are not damaging - you can go back and look at unemployment statistics and inflation rates shortly following each minimum wage hike in the past, no significant damage shows in the data. That really is the end all be all to this discussion - if you can't show that unemployment or inflation was impacted by minimum wage hikes, then you have no argument. It's all there on the Bureau of Labor and Statistics' website, have at it.

The bottom line is the minimum wage is there for a reason, to enable a person to get by with the most basic of necessities. The minimum wage has historically been worth anything between $6 and $11, in today's dollars. The current wage is on the low end. It needs to be brought up so that these folks don't have to be subsidized by the government in the form of food assistance.

Re: You mean minimum wage hikes come out of *our* pockets?
 

But $15 is absurd.

Re: You mean minimum wage hikes come out of *our* pockets?
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10;1143846]Absolutely. But when poorer or working class workers get a raise from $7 to $10, or from $9.50 to $12 as you're noting, there's a much higher velocity of money with working class folks than there is with higher income folks.

Meaning when a working class person gets a bump from $9.50 to $12, that money gets spent almost immediately, mostly in the communities in which they live. Which helps offset some of the concerns we're talking about here with unemployment and higher costs to consumers. When higher income folks get a raise, it tends to go to savings or get invested, which doesn't directly help the communities in which they live.

There are winners and losers, for sure. But overall minimum wage hikes are not damaging - you can go back and look at unemployment statistics and inflation rates shortly following each minimum wage hike in the past, no significant damage shows in the data. That really is the end all be all to this discussion - if you can't show that unemployment or inflation was impacted by minimum wage hikes, then you have no argument. It's all there on the Bureau of Labor and Statistics' website, have at it.

The bottom line is the minimum wage is there for a reason, to enable a person to get by with the most basic of necessities. The minimum wage has historically been worth anything between $6 and $11, in today's dollars. The current wage is on the low end. It needs to be brought up so that these folks don't have to be subsidized by the government in the form of food assistance.[/QUOTE]
Agreed. My discussion is more toward the $15-17 group. My company already basically has a 9.50 min wage even though its still legally in the 7s.

Sent from my S6 Edge

Re: You mean minimum wage hikes come out of *our* pockets?
 

[quote=Schneed10;1143846]Absolutely. But when poorer or working class workers get a raise from $7 to $10, or from $9.50 to $12 as you're noting, there's a much higher velocity of money with working class folks than there is with higher income folks.

[B]Meaning when a working class person gets a bump from $9.50 to $12, that money gets spent almost immediately, mostly in the communities in which they live. Which helps offset some of the concerns we're talking about here with unemployment and higher costs to consumers[/B]. When higher income folks get a raise, it tends to go to savings or get invested, which doesn't directly help the communities in which they live.

There are winners and losers, for sure. But overall minimum wage hikes are not damaging - you can go back and look at unemployment statistics and inflation rates shortly following each minimum wage hike in the past, no significant damage shows in the data. That really is the end all be all to this discussion - if you can't show that unemployment or inflation was impacted by minimum wage hikes, then you have no argument. It's all there on the Bureau of Labor and Statistics' website, have at it.

The bottom line is the minimum wage is there for a reason, to enable a person to get by with the most basic of necessities. The minimum wage has historically been worth anything between $6 and $11, in today's dollars. The current wage is on the low end. It needs to be brought up so that these folks don't have to be subsidized by the government in the form of food assistance.[/quote]

This imo is the strongest argument for the a bump in the minimum wage...I made a similar argument a couple years ago. It feeds the tax base and a lot of times big companies (McDonalds, Walmart, etc) get that money back in retail sales. Consumer economy folks

Re: You mean minimum wage hikes come out of *our* pockets?
 

well, even when i was in high school, McD's here was paying $9 when minimum was $6, cause that was just the going rate to get employees in fairfax/springfield.

ben and jerry's pays $20/hr to their employees (because the owner doesn't feel that the 383:1 ratio between the lowest/highest earners in some companies is morally right). of course, they have supermarket sales to subsidize their storefronts.

smaller companies would probably have a harder time just due to basing their businesses on current labor costs and generally being lower margin (since they don't get scale economies).

I don't know that i have a real point or opinion on it honestly. fast food is already at $8/meal around here, and that's a pretty bad value, so i avoid it. i think that's the only real place where it affects me personally. obviously a big wage bump would also cause inflation on some scale too, but that's harder to judge.

Re: You mean minimum wage hikes come out of *our* pockets?
 

Bottom line for me, it's pathetic that folks should have to work 40 hours + and still have to rely on food stamps and rent assistance. When you're a global corp paying shit wages, they should be forced to pay livable wages, and healthcare for all needs to be addressed too but I don't want to get things too far off track here.

Re: You mean minimum wage hikes come out of *our* pockets?
 

Uh oh, you brought up healthcare, I'm in healthcare. We're officially off track, your fault!

No seriously, not to derail, but just want to say something that everyone might find interesting from a moral dilemma standpoint. Where I work we have an amazing HIV clinic, we're in a very poor section of Philadelphia where you would naturally find more HIV patients. Our physician who runs it is outstanding.

We also are part owners in a Medical Assistance HMO in this same neck of the woods, and plenty of the patients see our HIV physician routinely. Well the members of our Medical Assistance HMO are racking up incredible costs on HIV medications, even people who are in the Medicare product are doing so. It's killing us financially, the drugs are so expensive.

So we asked the physician why are we doing so poorly on the Medicare patients. She said HIV treatments have advanced to the point where now these people are living. In the 80s they'd all be dead, but now they live into their 60s, 70s, 80s because of the advances in treatment.

So the treatment is working, causing them to live longer, and require more treatment for more years because they remain alive.

That is exactly what healthcare is supposed to accomplish. But it also illustrates why healthcare has gotten so expensive. We as an industry can do more to limit cost growth, but it's going to keep getting more expensive because of things like this.

Want to extend cancer survival rates from 3 year to 5 years? Those extra two years of life come with an awful lot of drug treatments.

All this is to say, we all need to understand that the cost is going up and up and up. It will affect all of us. To expect that we don't have to bear some of the cost burden as individuals is unrealistic.

Re: You mean minimum wage hikes come out of *our* pockets?
 

[quote=Chico23231;1143777][url]https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/fast-food-workers-becoming-obsolete-182914617.html[/url]

[B]fast-food-workers-becoming-obsolete[/B]

While the choice will be up to the franchisees, many will likely embrace the option as a way to save on labor costs. Wendy's President and CFO, Todd Penegor, acknowledged [B]recent pressure on the labor market in a recent earnings call[/B].

"We've been able to create some efficiencies on labor across the restaurant ... like customer self-order kiosks, mobile order, and mobile pay," Penegor said. Kiosks could possibly "mitigate any of the inflation" seen on the wage front for Wendy's, and could for other chains as well.

As the fight for a higher minimum wage continues, some argue that higher labor costs will force fast-food companies to cut staff.

Andy Puzder, the CEO of Carl's Jr. and Hardee's, is convinced. "[B]If you're making labor more expensive[/B], and automation less expensive — [B]this is not rocket science[/B]," Puzder told Business Insider's Kate Taylor.


raise the minimum wage to unreasonable amount, then you get less jobs, less people work. don't complain[/quote]



This is a bunch of bullshit spouted by corporate greedy assholes that want to enhance the stock of yet more rich people. They are sucking the tax payers dry by supplementing their salaries via the welfare program, all the while, they hoard off-shore cash stashes and line pockets of rich stock owners.


Automation is only used as an excuse for the demand for high wages. Here is the cold hard truth. Technology is eventually going to replace ANY and ALL positions that can be disposed of via a terminal/robot. We saw this in the auto industry, and many other manufacturing jobs where technology advanced production. Hell, you even see the food ordering terminals now in Wa-Wa or Sheetz stations. It's inevitable that McDonalds, BK, Wendy's, etc follow this trend and it has absolutely nothing to do whether that employee is asking for 15/hr or not. That job is going to be replaced sooner or later.



Let me show you something. If minimum wage had kept up with corporate profits, the minimum wage would probably be sitting at around $21/hr. Let that sink in.

[url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/13/minimum-wage-productivity_n_2680639.html]Minimum Wage Would Be $21.72 If It Kept Pace With Increases In Productivity: Study[/url]


Middle class and poor people are being straight fucked by corporate greed and the oligarchs that rule this country.


More information on corporate profits compared to employee compensation.

[url=http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/11/corporate-profit-margins-vs-wages-in-one-disturbing-chart.html]Corporate Profit Margins vs. Wages in One Disturbing Chart | naked capitalism[/url]

Re: You mean minimum wage hikes come out of *our* pockets?
 

[quote=Schneed10;1143864]That is exactly what healthcare is supposed to accomplish. But it also illustrates why healthcare has gotten so expensive. We as an industry can do more to limit cost growth, but it's going to keep getting more expensive because of things like this.

Want to extend cancer survival rates from 3 year to 5 years? Those extra two years of life come with an awful lot of drug treatments.[/quote]


We don't face any more different problems than those of Canada or any other socialized health care country. Guess what? They pay a mere fraction of what we do. We spend more than 2-1/2 times what the average is.

[url=http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/health-costs-how-the-us-compares-with-other-countries/]Health Costs: How the U.S. Compares With Other Countries | PBS NewsHour[/url]


However, when you rank the systems, we don't come out on top. IN fact, when compared to the other socialized healthcare countries, we ranked dead last.

[url=http://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/2014/06/16/u-s-healthcare-ranked-dead-last-compared-to-10-other-countries/#697904b31b96]Forbes Welcome[/url]

Re: You mean minimum wage hikes come out of *our* pockets?
 

[quote=NC_Skins;1143881]We don't face any more different problems than those of Canada or any other socialized health care country. Guess what? They pay a mere fraction of what we do. We spend more than 2-1/2 times what the average is.

[url=http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/health-costs-how-the-us-compares-with-other-countries/]Health Costs: How the U.S. Compares With Other Countries | PBS NewsHour[/url]


However, when you rank the systems, we don't come out on top. IN fact, when compared to the other socialized healthcare countries, we ranked dead last.

[url=http://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/2014/06/16/u-s-healthcare-ranked-dead-last-compared-to-10-other-countries/#697904b31b96]Forbes Welcome[/url][/quote]

All true. Many many reasons for our higher costs, the biggest being that we have higher salary structures here in the US than in most developed nations. Lots of others too, some of which stem from our goofy third party reimbursement system.

But... So what? Are you suggesting that if we went to a single payer system we would bring costs down to the same levels as Canada? Because if that's what you're saying then you're grossly oversimplifying. That could reduce the costs attributable to administrative roles in healthcare, that's about it.

We have higher rates of obesity here than in any other nation, so we end up with more heart problems and more diabetes than does Canada and Japan. That care will need to be provided, regardless of payer system. We're always going to be more expensive because of our diet and culture. As long as we remain a nation of fatties we will have higher healthcare costs.

Re: You mean minimum wage hikes come out of *our* pockets?
 

well for healthcare to go down, there need to be some changes that i don't see happening.

- price transparency, which is a big problem, but also doesn't save any money by itself unless we go from deductable plans to
- coinsurance, even if it's only 10%, means that people won't choose a $500,000 procedure when a $50,000 procedure will do.
- much more emphasis on preventative/proactive care. ie, get your yearly (or how ever often) cancer screening = you're covered for cancer related issues. at least in cases where being proactive is a big cost savings. giving away floss and toothpaste is much cheaper overall vs filling cavities and making crowns.
- independent medical cost boards like MD has that set reasonable rates and aren't influenced by lobbying (MD has some of the lowest medical costs in the US)
[url=http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/has-maryland-found-a-solution-to-the-u-s-healthcare-cost-crisis.html]Has Maryland found a solution to the U.S. healthcare cost crisis?[/url]

of course, the problems are that there are cross interests. the population wants to keep costs down, but hospitals make more money off surgeries than screenings, and drug companies MUCH rather get you on a product that requires long term daily use vs a one shot cure. changing things dramatically also involves a lot of effort.

still, bluecross is giving people $100/year (after costs) to get physicals done. it's not much, but it's something.

Re: You mean minimum wage hikes come out of *our* pockets?
 

Obama care has been one lie after another

Re: You mean minimum wage hikes come out of *our* pockets?
 

[quote=That Guy;1143901]well for healthcare to go down, there need to be some changes that i don't see happening.

- price transparency, which is a big problem, but also doesn't save any money by itself unless we go from deductable plans to
- coinsurance, even if it's only 10%, means that people won't choose a $500,000 procedure when a $50,000 procedure will do.
- much more emphasis on preventative/proactive care. ie, get your yearly (or how ever often) cancer screening = you're covered for cancer related issues. at least in cases where being proactive is a big cost savings. giving away floss and toothpaste is much cheaper overall vs filling cavities and making crowns.
- independent medical cost boards like MD has that set reasonable rates and aren't influenced by lobbying (MD has some of the lowest medical costs in the US)
[url=http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/has-maryland-found-a-solution-to-the-u-s-healthcare-cost-crisis.html]Has Maryland found a solution to the U.S. healthcare cost crisis?[/url]

of course, the problems are that there are cross interests. the population wants to keep costs down, but hospitals make more money off surgeries than screenings, and drug companies MUCH rather get you on a product that requires long term daily use vs a one shot cure. changing things dramatically also involves a lot of effort.

still, bluecross is giving people $100/year (after costs) to get physicals done. it's not much, but it's something.[/quote]

Some of this is on point, but a couple things I just can't let go.

Hospitals generally do make money on procedures/surgeries, but they don't have the ability to perform them when not medically necessary. Insurers, including Medicare and Medicaid, have medical review processes in place to determine medical necessity. If a procedure (or admission or test) is deemed not medically necessary then the insurer will deny payment. Believe me, they're on top of that. Hospitals don't try to get away with anything there, it doesn't pay.

But, your point dovetails into the need for more focus on prevention so that the procedure isn't needed in the first place. We still reimburse based on a fee-for-service basis, when ideally we'd find a way to reimburse healthcare providers for keeping people out of the hospital, out of the emergency room, out of the operating room, and healthier.

Medicare has pilot programs for bundled reimbursement in place. Meaning, let's say you fall and break your arm. Right now, you'd go to the ER and get casted - your insurance pays$700 for that. Then you need to see the orthopedic physician a few times, that's $200 per visit. Then you need another x-ray to check up on it, that's $150 to the hospital for the x-ray and $100 to the radiologist for interpreting the result. Then you need the cast off, that's $100. Then maybe you need a little physical therapy, and that's a pay-per-visit deal. It adds up. Obviously, the more little visits you have, the more revenue the hospital and physician generates, so their incentive is to see you frequently. What Medicare is working on is trying out episodic payment bundles. Meaning as soon as you come to the ER with a broken arm, they'll just pay $2500 for the entire episode of care, and that's it. It's then up to the hospital and doctors to get together and determine how often you need to be seen by the doctor, how often you need to be x-ray'd, how much therapy you'll need, etc. The lingering threat of malpractice ensures that they'll still get you healthy, but they will be more judicious in managing hospital utilization.

That can help keep costs where they are for a good while, slowing cost growth quite a bit. You don't need a single payer system to accomplish that. But it's still not quite the ideal model, which would reimburse for preventing you from breaking your arm in the first place. Bad example, people will break arms. But how do you reimburse providers for preventing heart attacks in the first place? That's the holy grail, but thus far nobody's been able to figure that out.

Re: You mean minimum wage hikes come out of *our* pockets?
 

PS we totally derailed this. This is supposed to be about min wage!

My fault.