An interesting article from the AP's Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar (h/t: C-J)-- with some bad and missing econ...
The bad: "Premiums averaged $15,745, with employees paying more than $4,300 of that..."
Bro, employees "pay for" all of it-- some directly and the rest indirectly (through lower compensation in other forms). It's not helpful to write such things in such ways.
The missing: "Employees at companies with many low-wage workers pay more money for skimpier insurance than what their counterparts at upscale firms get."
All things equal, low-wage workers will want to devote less money (although perhaps a higher percentage) to "health insurance"-- similar to their willingness to devote less money to many other things, compared to higher-wage workers.
And given the progressivity of the tax code, lower-wage workers do not have as strong of an incentive to hide their compensation from taxes (compared to higher-wage workers). The progressivity of the tax code means that a broad subsidy for health care will necessarily be regressive. This is what most people in the old political parties consider to be "good policy choices".
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete