Hey, there! Log in / Register
Another corporate giveaway that backfired
By adamg on Thu, 03/17/2011 - 11:34am
First it was the tax breaks to the solar company that's moving to China. Now we learn Fidelity gets a $70-million or so break to encourage it to increase jobs. In Massachusetts, that is. The Outraged Liberal ponders.
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
The dirty secret here is that
The dirty secret here is that with or without tax breaks companies will do what they do. Tax breaks only serve to give companies more money for something they would have done without the tax breaks. The second a better opportunity comes up they will bolt.
Instead of tax breaks, how about we put all that money towards better education and better support for startups. Small business make for better employers and better education leads to more successful small businesses. Stop giving money to corporations.
Better yet
How many people would start companies if they weren't tied to their health insurance?
How many more people could they employ in small businesses if they weren't at the mercy of BC/BS and its triple digit yearly rate hikes for small businesses?
Put that money into health insurance for all.
SwirlyGrrl is quite correct.
SwirlyGrrl is quite correct. The best thing that could ever be done in the modern age to boost free enterprise in this country would be a single-payer national health plan. But our society can't see the herp for all the derp.
Agreed. As a small business
Agreed. As a small business owner without any health care...well...it sucks (yeah, I'm in that 1%). Any money I do make goes right back into the business. Haven't gone to the doctors in years, can't afford to and yet, can't afford not to too. Running this business has worn me down physically and mentally and at this point I'm sure there's negative health effects I could at least mitigate but alas my poured all my savings into this business and still work 60+ hours a week, never taken unemployment benefits, blood leaching lazy ass obviously doesn't deserve it because it would be un-American.
Someone's got to create an anti-herp-derp machine.
You can have single payer
Get all the people who want single payer and start your own system as long as you are willing to pay into that program. Then you can put BC/BS out of biz. Or is the issue really that you want me to pay for YOUR healthcare?
The issue is that we should
The issue is that we should all be covered. Period. Doing so would cause per person health costs to decrease, allow hospitals to stay ahead of infectious disease, and ensure that fringe cases get brought to the attention of the medical community.
If everyone is covered we can then help eliminate preventable diseases and have a much larger sample size for research. It's a win-win for everyone. The joke is you're already paying for other people's healthcare via medicare, medicaid and emergency visits. I can easily go to any hosptial, not pay, and nothing will happen to me. Guess who pays that bill?
That's right, you do.
I can easily go to any
Thank you for telling me. So now let's change that.
The Issue is Job Growth
Check the top of the page: the issue and topic are government money intended for preserving or creating jobs. The problem is that MA paid ENORMOUS amounts of our money to giant coroporations who lied about jobs and then grabbed it and ran.
Do you think that is effective? I don't. I DO think it would be FAR BETTER if MY tax dollars paid for health care since that health care would bring small business and start up businesses to the state. Think about it - it would be fiscally IRRESPONSIBLE for certain businesses to NOT be here.
I think it is far better that you and I pay for each other's health care (*NEWS FLASH* - WE ALREADY DO THAT - but because we are 'murkins!!! we make sure some corporation gets whatever profit on the top that they like). Yes, I think it is far better to go single payer so that businesses start in and move to MA and their workers pay for our health care while also paying for our roads and and and ...
Instead of paying big corporations to tell us lies and bail, while small businesses go without care or pay for BCBS executive jets.
I half agree
The tax breaks are a joke. I regularly appear at the EDIC hearings and testify against them - then the panel votes 9-0 to approve them (this is after they have been blessed by the mayor, anointed by the city council and wafted in incense by the governor).
But I think single payer would be a disaster. Say the privates make a 10% profit - government would lose that in a heartbeat through bureaucracy and inefficiency - at best it would be a wash - but you'd have a giant monopolistic bureaucracy running our healthcare system (see social security, medicare, medicaid, the post office etc. which are all effectively bankrupt for a vision of single payer - ever been to the Back Bay post office - I have multiple pictures of half a dozen people standing in line and nobody working the counter!).
My take on health insurance:
a) let the companies compete across state lines
b) people need to pay the first x% of their care 100% out of pocket. That would cut huge demand and expense out if people had to pay for the first say $5-$10k for their health care including meds - and my guess is we'd all be less medicated and just as healthy for the effort. The problem is that health insurance isn't insurance. It's a payment system. Insurance should be for the big stuff. (except for maybe the bottom 10% or so who would be on social care - I'm fine with that)
Medicare is single payer
Medicare is single payer health care. It's only for the most expensive-to-cover demographic: the elderly.
The private insurance companies are just middle-men. They are extracting profit without providing value.
Letting companies compete across state line sounds nice until you realize that it just means all the companies will move to one state: whichever state offers the most corrupted regulations. If regulation is done nationally, then that won't be an issue.
Paying x% out of pocket is nice for people who can afford it, but what about the rest? You are already paying thousands of dollars a year for health insurance, and then you also have to foot another ten thousand dollars on top of that? Doesn't sound right.
Exactly
Medicare is single payer and is stone broke - like everything the government gets their hands on which is why I don't want them providing my health coverage if I can help it.
Please - if it were that easy all the companies would move to one state for every other biz - and that doesn't happen. Plus you do have some national regulation if they can compete across state lines - comes under federal jurisdiction - what's the difference between this and life insurance, auto, homeowners etc. State regulators still have a voice - but you have national carriers.
You miss the point - if you have to pay the first x% (money you are already shelling out for your portion of the health care, copays etc. that you wouldn't pay anymore) and your employer then only pays the catastrophic (say coverage for the amount over x%) - you add price sensitivity for a lot of basic coverages - and that will save billions because if people had to pay for most of this stuff (as opposed to putting cash in their pockets) they'd shop around or pass on the little stuff (give up the chiropractor, pass on the prescription cold medicine for something that will get better anyway etc.).
Basically it's an HSA for all with catastrophic on top for the big stuff like surgeries, cancer etc. Not a cure all (end of life care is still the bulk of demand) - but definitely a cure a lot.
Correlation is not causation
I thought you were smarter than this canard, Stevil.
Medicare is a single payer system.
Medicare is broke.
BUT, single payer systems need not be broke for both of these statements to be true.
Medicare is run by the government.
Medicare is broken.
BUT, government-run systems need not be broken for both of these statements to be true.
Medicare's problem is not derived from its single payer nature. It's derived from the environment it finds itself forced to compete within. With private run insurance that allows (and in some ways encourages) healthcare providers to price gouge, Medicare is stuck having to keep pace with the hypermarket values. This then appears to be a giant sore thumb in the government's budget and becomes a great talking point for a politician uninterested in determining the truth of the matter and only in scoring political points for attacking the "waste" and "mismanagement" in the budget.
Finally, why do we let anyone make money off of whether we are healthy or not? Doesn't that seem a tad immoral? What if it's more efficient or cheaper for that company to let you die (the death panels were very real...but they were the insurance company screeners, not some government entity ever suggested by the reform bill)? Do you think some faceless company wouldn't deny you care in a heartbeat (literally)? Do you think they hadn't been doing so before the recent immediate-effect reform measures? Do you think they aren't looking for the next loophole already to stay ahead of the 2014 changes?
Your premise is flawed
It's not the hypermarket that causes medicare to be broke - it's the politicians who refuse to insist that it pay for itself (which could help rein in the costs - if people had to actually pay for what the system was paying out they'd rise up in revolt - similar to what's happening to state governments now).
I don't believe that a) these companies are evil or b) that it's some great conspiracy to raise healthcare costs. When these companies walk into an employers office they have 5 guys that walk in right after them offering what is in the end a fairly commoditized service. The guy with the sharpest pencil wins (what's the margin for the insurance biz - as middlemen probably fairly thin - 10% over cost maybe? take out their expenses and what's their profit - maybe 10% on that 10% markup or 1% of overall costs? That's a pretty efficient system if you ask me) You can't have a lot of fluff or you end up on your keester (didn't Charlie Baker turn around a company on its keester?).
Sure they are looking for loopholes - that's their job - and it's your elected officials job to close them (like pre-existing conditions was closed - that's a good thing accomplished by the health care reform).
And who are some of the worst offenders for driving up health care costs - those with the most generous benefits - and who is that - GOVERNMENT! What a surprise.
Medicare's problems are tied
Medicare's problems are tied to the over-priced and rising costs of medical care, and are not due to being single-payer. Medicare is actually a vehicle for forcing costs down, which is why some doctors won't accept it.
Heh. Wow. Check out the home location of your typical bank, credit card company or other such institution. Most of them are "from" the same few states. There's a reason why Delaware is one of the most popular states in the union for incorporation, and it's not just because of entrepreneurial spirit in the First State ;)
Market prices sound nice in principle. The trouble with the market for health care is that you do not have time or capability to research costs when you're lying on a gurney in the emergency room. You are at the mercy of that hospital, if you are lucky enough to get there in time. The whole notion of free market pricing depends upon (1) Being Informed, (2) Making Comparisons, and (3) Having Options. All of that pretty much falls down flat in the case of emergency medical care. People are not well informed about costs or needs. Time is short. And forgoing care is not an option.
In the case of non-emergency situations then there is more room for market pricing to work, as in the examples you give (chiropractor, cold medicine). However, there's another problem: people can simply pass on resolving non-emergency problems until they do become emergencies. And then the costs get much worse.
I don't want to completely dump on your parade here, as I think you could make a HSA-like system that you describe work. And we need to find ways to bring costs down. But these problems must be addressed.
Liberty Mutal
Didn't they recently negotiate (translation: blackmail) a similar deal with Mumbles et al:
http://www.universalhub.com/2010/liberty-mutual-ge...
What's the over/under on how long it takes them to relocate the work out of state and rent the office space out to another company?
Tax Expenditure
Let's start calling them what they really are. They're not Breaks, because they don't benefit everyone fairly, or promote growth and development. They're one off tax expenditures, or bribes.
Problem is, the state can do very little to take them back after these douche's cut and run with taxpayer money.
Very narrow tax laws and loopholes need to be fixed and closed.
Personally, I'd love to see a progressive corporate tax. Small businesses pay less, and large corp giants bear the brunt.
After all, markets work best with lots of small guys each fighting for market share from each other It creates innovation, it keeps wages high, and insulated the markets from collapse.
Instead of playing favorites
Instead of playing favorites the taxes on businesses across the board should be cut. A half percent cut for everyone, from the smallest mom and pop to the biggest corporation, would produce far more economic activity state wide than some targeted giveaway to one favored company.
No lobbying, no favoritism, everyone gets the same break.
I could get down with a half
I could get down with a half percent cut for all small business but corporations don't need anymore tax breaks. It doesn't create jobs, it simply pads their pockets. Small businesses would actually put that money towards hiring because they actually need more employees.
Are you suggesting that
Are you suggesting that Massachusetts politicians don't know how to pick winners?
JP Morgan
JP Morgan gets a huge tax break to stay in the city, and they are shipping their lower tier jobs off to India, entire departments at a time.
Yep
and I looked at their filing for how many jobs they "kept" in boston - and it looks like what they did was lay off hundreds of people at a location they had when they got the break, but then they bought another company after they got the tax break and added those people back in for jobs they "kept" - total shell game.
Would libertarians agree?
Would libertarians agree?
numbers 2 and 3 have nothing
numbers 2 and 3 have nothing to do with libertarian principles.