Topic: Healthcare Content (Protest Instructions) >>>>>

[Hicks]

C'mon dude either you are playing dumb or really are naive.

My wife started as a temp and has been at her job for four years.  Same thing with tons of my friends.

If you do a good job it will lead to a permanent position the majority of the time.

[runawayjimbo]

That may be your experience. It depends on the industry. At my job, only 1 out of 10 contract workers is brought on as a full-time hire. I don't know the national stats, but I can't imagine more than 50% of all temporary workers are brought on full time (I'll do some digging).

If you do a good job it will lead to a permanent position the majority of the time.

I think we all know better of the American public than to expect them to do a good job. 

[runawayjimbo]

Here's the first thing I found when I Googled "temporary workers to full time positions":

http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2011/05/05/the-rise-of-the-permanently-temporary-worker/

The rise of the permanently temporary worker
Temp jobs are in and permanent ones are out, for now. And it doesn't look like there's a surefire route to go from one to the other, posing serious risks to worker morale and corporate growth.

FORTUNE -- It's a glass half full/half empty situation. Well, maybe American employers just stole half a glass from their workers. The rise in temporary worker hires may be a smart business move, insulating employers in a volatile economy, or it could be creating a permanent wedge of cheaper, benefit-less workers that eventually supplants a big chunk of the full-time workforce.

It all depends on how you interpret a sliver of data on temporary hiring from the U.S. Department of Labor, which tracks job placements by temp agencies but not temp hiring by individual companies. The department also doesn't keep tabs on how often companies downgrade positions from permanent to temporary status.

The latest federal data show that 2.3 million people held temporary jobs in March, up from a low in mid-2009 of 1.7 million, as companies seek to satisfy customer demand without making long-term commitments to worker salary and benefits.

"Employers know that the economy could change at any time," says Jon Osborne, vice president for research at Staffing Industry Analysts, which follows temporary staffing agencies, "so by hiring somebody temporarily, companies have staffing for their peak needs but can let them go when they are no longer needed."

Companies stand to benefit from this flexibility, with the economy seesawing in the midst of a recovery that may take as long as five years. But it underscores the uncertainty for employees, with a huge number of workers -- 8.4 million -- reporting that they are involuntarily employed part-time, according to the latest federal statistics. Some of the underemployed are likely working for temporary agencies, while others are in informal settings.

Labor experts warn that these hire-and-fire positions can undermine company morale and long-term prospects.

"Temporary workers don't want to devote their lives and loyalty to an employer," observes Lauren Appelbaum, research director for the UCLA Institute for Labor and Employment.

Temporary workers are often paid less than full-time workers, and are not likely to receive any benefits. Such workers, according to a recent U.S. General Accountability Office report, are less likely to have health insurance or retirement benefits, or be protected by labor laws. Not providing health insurance means that ailing workers often rely on emergency room treatment or Medicaid, treatment scenarios in which the costs are largely covered by the public, adding to the taxpayer burden -- a charge, for example, that has been made against giant retailer Wal-Mart (WMT).

The disappearance of benefits and job security are part of a larger trend in which work has become increasingly informal in recent years, says Nik Theodore, director of the Center for Urban Economic Development at the University of Illinois.

"Temporary jobs are the tip of the iceberg of ways that work has become casual-ized," he says.

...

For now, temporary hiring still has the leading edge when it comes to job growth. Osborne, of Staffing Industry Analysts, says that a recent survey of client companies suggested tepid workforce growth over the next two years and an increase in the overall share that temporary workers make up in the American labor pool.

Experts caution against expecting temporary or contingent jobs to turn into full-time positions. "Temporary help is really cyclical, governed by business cycles," says Heidi Shierholz, an economic at the Economic Policy Institute, a research group.

"When unemployment is still high and continuing, there is not a lot of pressure to create or convert those jobs to permanent status."

[slslbs]

do you think that rights come with responsibility
Is that from Spider Man?

the only way this can reasonably be paid for is that everyone pays their share. If some people "opted out", it would likely affect the rates of everyone. if insurance companies were allowed to cherry pick, people with chronic illness may lose coverage.
it has been argued that if one has a health savings account, they should be able to opt out of insurance - they better have a huge account if they plan on ever getting sick.

As I've said (and you've agreed), the issue is that costs have unreasonably increased and the current law does absolutely nothing to change that. The "bending the cost curve" line he was so fond of is a great idea; the problem is that this law will not do that.

imo the mandate for health insurance is analogous to statewide mandates on car insurance. yes, I realize we are comparing federal vs state, but I'm looking at this on "the right thing to do"

Can't afford/choose not to buy car insurance? Take the bus. Can't afford/choose not to buy health insurance? Pay a tax. That's doesn't sit well with me.

spiderman, hmm.
no - the point was that if you expect someone to take care of you in an emergency, you need to pay your share if you could afford it.
can't afford insurance? that's what medicaid is supposedly for.
don't want to buy insurance? what should we do with you when you get sick? Have a heart attack?- take some aspirin and call me in the morning. Get cancer? Go to Tahiti and enjoy your last days. Or, go to the hospital, sell your house and go bankrupt to pay the bills.

I think there are (at least) 2 parts to health care reform. One is making sure everyone is covered. I think this bill did a reasonable job with that. The problem is that if you started your own country, and wanted to provide health insurance, I doubt anyone would decide an employer based model. I also think that doing away with an employer based model would be politically would be very, very difficult.

The other part is, like you and I agree, is somehow reducing costs. Part of the problem with the high cost of medicine is that it is, well, expensive. Labor intensive with highly trained individuals who have spent a great deal of time and $ on this training. New drugs are expensive (costs about 800 mill to get something to market). New technology is expensive. Yes, we need to somehow reform the payment model, but imo the reason why single payer systems in Europe are having difficulty paying the bills isn't because they are government run, but because health care is expensive.
This bill takes a shot at it with ACOs and other things to make health care more efficient which should bring down costs. They need to reform the payment system and the torte system. Pay for performance is being phased in (independent of this law). Hospitals will get paid more for good outcomes, less for poor outcomes (for certain conditions). This will only get bigger in time.
Personally, I think that figuring out ways to reduce cost will take time, I don't see this bill (or any bill) as the final answer, just a starting point to figure out what works.

[Hicks]

That's just data from temp agencies which tend to be employee mills much more so than when companies hire contract workers on their own.

In any event, it's certainly not ideal but an increase of 600,000 temp workers is 600,000 more people working. 

[UncleEbinezer]

If a company declines to hire because of the cost of health insurance then they are stupid.

You can always hire on a contract basis if you don't want to provide benefits.

This is a REAL thing and it is not stupid.  The cost of healthcare is ridiculous.  I am involved to some degree on those financial numbers and they are staggering.  The rates certainly do make a company rethink their ability to increase staff.  Especially the smaller ones.  We have approximately 250 employees which is not really small, but these things do get discussed.  I just looked at my company's financials and during our Q1, our ratio of health insurance to salary is 8.58%.  So our compensation expense is not just $1, but now $1.0858.   Last year during the same period it was 7.04%.  Although it sounds like a small increase of 1%, that is actually a 17.9% increase in healthcare expenses. 

I know many of you are not privy to some of the realities that exist, but cost is astronomical.  I am not advocating that the system is right, but to state that companies are stupid in factoring this in is not being very open minded. 

These are only health care costs and do not include other insurances and benefits that also increase the level of expense.  Payroll taxes, etc. also increase and continue to increase your compensation expenses.  It is a very evil and twisted web of pick up sticks that are piled up when you dig into these issues. 

[runawayjimbo]

no - the point was that if you expect someone to take care of you in an emergency, you need to pay your share if you could afford it.

I absolutely agree with this. But what I disagree is that "your share" is in the form of a mandate to buy insurance. If you make the decision to forego health insurance (an extremely foolish decision, IMO), you should be free to do so and should accept the consequences of that decision. That doesn't mean hospitals should turn people away, but it does mean that you better be prepared to pay for whatever services you use.

The problem is that if you started your own country, and wanted to provide health insurance, I doubt anyone would decide an employer based model. I also think that doing away with an employer based model would be politically would be very, very difficult.

Absolutely. It was a gimmick to get around the gov't imposed wage freeze during WWII and it should never have gotten to where it is now. Unfortunately, you are correct that changing this will be difficult/impossible, but IMO it should absolutely be on the table.

Personally, I think that figuring out ways to reduce cost will take time, I don't see this bill (or any bill) as the final answer, just a starting point to figure out what works.

Behaviors also need to be changed. I saw a headline the other day that said something like 1 in 10 will have Type II diabetes by 2030. Our processed food, no exercising lifestyle is going to massively increase health spending unless we can reverse course. Clearly there is much work to be done. And I certainly respect your opinion, especially as someone on the front lines of these issues, but I am just afraid that a massive complex law like this will end up only further exasperating the health care inflation problem by creating perverse incentives much the way Medicare and HMO legislation did.

[Hicks]

If a company declines to hire because of the cost of health insurance then they are stupid.

You can always hire on a contract basis if you don't want to provide benefits.

This is a REAL thing and it is not stupid.  The cost of healthcare is ridiculous.  I am involved to some degree on those financial numbers and they are staggering.  The rates certainly do make a company rethink their ability to increase staff.  Especially the smaller ones.  We have approximately 250 employees which is not really small, but these things do get discussed.  I just looked at my company's financials and during our Q1, our ratio of health insurance to salary is 8.58%.  So our compensation expense is not just $1, but now $1.0858.   Last year during the same period it was 7.04%.  Although it sounds like a small increase of 1%, that is actually a 17.9% increase in healthcare expenses. 

I know many of you are not privy to some of the realities that exist, but cost is astronomical.  I am not advocating that the system is right, but to state that companies are stupid in factoring this in is not being very open minded. 

These are only health care costs and do not include other insurances and benefits that also increase the level of expense.  Payroll taxes, etc. also increase and continue to increase your compensation expenses.  It is a very evil and twisted web of pick up sticks that are piled up when you dig into these issues.

I would recommend reading my entire post and not just the first sentence.

[UncleEbinezer]

If a company declines to hire because of the cost of health insurance then they are stupid.

You can always hire on a contract basis if you don't want to provide benefits.

This is a REAL thing and it is not stupid.  The cost of healthcare is ridiculous.  I am involved to some degree on those financial numbers and they are staggering.  The rates certainly do make a company rethink their ability to increase staff.  Especially the smaller ones.  We have approximately 250 employees which is not really small, but these things do get discussed.  I just looked at my company's financials and during our Q1, our ratio of health insurance to salary is 8.58%.  So our compensation expense is not just $1, but now $1.0858.   Last year during the same period it was 7.04%.  Although it sounds like a small increase of 1%, that is actually a 17.9% increase in healthcare expenses. 

I know many of you are not privy to some of the realities that exist, but cost is astronomical.  I am not advocating that the system is right, but to state that companies are stupid in factoring this in is not being very open minded. 

These are only health care costs and do not include other insurances and benefits that also increase the level of expense.  Payroll taxes, etc. also increase and continue to increase your compensation expenses.  It is a very evil and twisted web of pick up sticks that are piled up when you dig into these issues.

I would recommend reading my entire post and not just the first sentence.

Yeah, I understand your second comment.  Hiring on a contract basis certainly is an option, but as an employer it is way more trouble than its worth for this situation.  Temp workers in many cases are utilized for short term projects, acute needs for demand or for commodity positions.  There are lots of upsides, however the downsides (in my opinion) outweigh the positives.  Although you do present an option which would work, I am not sure that is really a viable option.  Companies actually do want employees to be there long term because you gain knowledge and value that far surpasses monetary value.  Simply from a monetary standpoint, it makes sense, but I am not so sure that's the answer.  I certainly could not keep turning over my team.  I would lose so much knowledge. 

I hear what you are saying, I just think its a stretch to use contract hires as a means to fill jobs.  Its easier to endure further hardship and be less efficient.  It sounds crazy I know, but that's what how I see it.

[DoW]

is there a way to hide a topic permanently so I am not even tempted to post in it?

[slslbs]

Behaviors also need to be changed. I saw a headline the other day that said something like 1 in 10 will have Type II diabetes by 2030. Our processed food, no exercising lifestyle is going to massively increase health spending unless we can reverse course. Clearly there is much work to be done. And I certainly respect your opinion, especially as someone on the front lines of these issues, but I am just afraid that a massive complex law like this will end up only further exasperating the health care inflation problem by creating perverse incentives much the way Medicare and HMO legislation did.

-absolutely. as a nation we are eating ourselves to death. Much of this can be laid on the food industry and misguided regulation (written, of course, by and for the food industry). People making poor food choices aren't helping matters (familiar theme)

-yes, that is a potential problem. the free market has proven it can't solve this one. the problem somehow needs to be addressed. I think it will need to be done in multiple steps. it will take co-operation between all parties involved, and will be a combination of market and regulatory forces. anyone who thinks it can be done with one piece of legislation is kidding themselves. I certainly don't have the answer.

[runawayjimbo]

is there a way to hide a topic permanently so I am not even tempted to post in it?

C'mon, bvaz, get in the game! I'd love to hear the thoughts of a cranky old man like yourself.

I'll just keep bumping it until you can't resist the temptation. 

[antelope19]

You guys are funny. It's hard to be an insurance salesman when that's not what I do any more. But thanks for calling bullshit and making it personal.  I'm just reporting what I hear every day from the small business owner. Can you say the same? I sell administrative software, fwiw. I couldn't care less what products their using.

[UncleEbinezer]

You guys are funny. It's hard to be an insurance salesman when that's not what I do any more. But thanks for calling bullshit and making it personal.  I'm just reporting what I hear every day from the small business owner. Can you say the same? I sell administrative software, fwiw. I couldn't care less what products their using.

Oh its been personal since I met you!   


I am not sure who all of our SMB owners are out here but I know there are a few. 

[antelope19]

To be clear, it is my job to know what is going on with healthcare reform.  I sell adminstraive software to small businesses to help them stay ahead of the curve for the largest payroll provider in the country.  If you all want to disagree with me, I don't have a problem with that.   

But just because what I report isn't what you want to hear, it doesn't make it false.  I'm just saying that all of this seems to be having the opposite affect on what was intended.   

If you want to call me out, fine.  But at the same time, I'll be just as happy to talk circles around you.