Romney: Pioneer in Outsourcing

[spartan]

" Universal healthcare in general would not have an adverse affect on outsourcing. Typically, it's a good thing for business if the state provides healthcare for citizens because the burden is then taken off of the employer to do it. India and China are the top destinations for US jobs, and both have universal health care systems in place."

Not biting on the India/China red herring. The only question relevant directly to this issue is "will it cost more to employ an American workforce after socialized medicine than it did before socialized medicine"? And that answer is "yes, it will." Which equals higher potential gains from outsourcing.

Do we really want the equilivant of the Chinese or India HC system here?

As long as it sucks for everybody, it's totally fair!

[Chief Joseph]

It's going to suck for India and China too. The high prices Americans pay for name-brand prescriptions fund the research that discovered them. Without these funds research will plummet and then all these countries that the libs love to champion won't be able to steal that research and sell it at generic prices.

[Durango 95]

"The high prices Americans pay for name-brand prescriptions fund the research that discovered them."

[Chief Joseph]

I got nothin'.

Understood.

[CBWx2]

" Universal healthcare in general would not have an adverse affect on outsourcing. Typically, it's a good thing for business if the state provides healthcare for citizens because the burden is then taken off of the employer to do it. India and China are the top destinations for US jobs, and both have universal health care systems in place."

Not biting on the India/China red herring. The only question relevant directly to this issue is "will it cost more to employ an American workforce after socialized medicine than it did before socialized medicine"? And that answer is "yes, it will." Which equals higher potential gains from outsourcing.

The India/China remark wasn't a red herring. It was to the point that these places have universal care and it hasn't deterred businesses from moving jobs there. China has had a universal system in place since the 1950's, long before outsourcing began. The healthcare in these countries are funded by general taxation. There is no extra burden placed on businesses to fund the programs. As I stated before, your question needed to be better framed. If you are referring to socialised medicine in general, you are wrong. If you are referring to the PPACA, then you are right in some cases, wrong in others.

But lets say that it the PPACA does increase the cost of hiring American workers, as I am aware that in certain cases it might. So what? I don't think anyone could successfully argue against the notion that if Americans were only willing to work for $4 an hour, work 60 hour work weeks, and forgo all benefits that the desire to outsource would vanish. However, I personally find the whole argument that America needs to become more like a 3rd world country in order to keep businesses from shipping jobs to other 3rd world countries to be asinine. Stop foolish, one-sided trade agreements, penalize companies that outsource and reward companies that don't through tax reformation. Problem solved.

Do we really want the equilivant of the Chinese or India HC system here?

Who's suggesting we do?

As long as it sucks for everybody, it's totally fair!

So allow folks who are under-insured or uninsured to die from treatable ailments so that you can keep HC coverage more accessible for the more affluent. Gotcha. Didn't conservatives crucify Alan Grayson for suggesting that this was their plan?

[Freddy]

Who's suggesting we do?

Well, if you are not suggesting it, then your other comparison is also invalid. You cannot compare costs claiming how China and India have an advantage if you don't include the results of it too. Do you really think, if China and India raised their HC standards to that of the US, the quality I mean, that business would still enjoy the exact same benefits as they do now? The costs for the vastly more expensive HC will have to come from someplace. Or hey, maybe we should just limit all families here to only one child and force abort any others.

[VinBucFan]

Any tax increase to businesses to fund a public option would be a shared burden that would be spread among the entire tax base, as opposed to the current system where HC costs are absorbed solely by a singular company and their employees. Which one do you think is cheaper, Vince?

w-t-f? 

[CBWx2]

Who's suggesting we do?

Well, if you are not suggesting it, then your other comparison is also invalid. You cannot compare costs claiming how China and India have an advantage if you don't include the results of it too. Do you really think, if China and India raised their HC standards to that of the US, the quality I mean, that business would still enjoy the exact same benefits as they do now? The costs for the vastly more expensive HC will have to come from someplace. Or hey, maybe we should just limit all families here to only one child and force abort any others.

I was referencing their healthcare in an effort to show that universal healthcare plans generally do not increase labor costs, not to say that we should model our healthcare policies after China or India. The main reason China and India's healthcare quality suffer, ironically, is due to the same thing that drives our companies to move jobs there; the cheap labor. The cost of healthcare is growing faster than median wages are in these countries, so there isn't a sufficient amount of taxable income to use to raise quality. Conversely, the countries that have universal healthcare AND a high quality of care are countries that have "expensive" labor. The more an individual makes, the more contributions he can make to fund quality care.

[spartan]

As long as it sucks for everybody, it's totally fair!

So allow folks who are under-insured or uninsured to die from treatable ailments so that you can keep HC coverage more accessible for the more affluent. Gotcha. Didn't conservatives crucify Alan Grayson for suggesting that this was their plan?

Would you care to show where I have ever said anything remotely similar to the conclusion you just arrived at?

[Chief Joseph]

" universal healthcare plans generally do not increase labor costs,"

Link please.

[Freddy]

Who's suggesting we do?

Well, if you are not suggesting it, then your other comparison is also invalid. You cannot compare costs claiming how China and India have an advantage if you don't include the results of it too. Do you really think, if China and India raised their HC standards to that of the US, the quality I mean, that business would still enjoy the exact same benefits as they do now? The costs for the vastly more expensive HC will have to come from someplace. Or hey, maybe we should just limit all families here to only one child and force abort any others.

I was referencing their healthcare in an effort to show that universal healthcare plans generally do not increase labor costs, not to say that we should model our healthcare policies after China or India. The main reason China and India's healthcare quality suffer, ironically, is due to the same thing that drives our companies to move jobs there; the cheap labor. The cost of healthcare is growing faster than median wages are in these countries, so there isn't a sufficient amount of taxable income to use to raise quality. Conversely, the countries that have universal healthcare AND a high quality of care are countries that have "expensive" labor. The more an individual makes, the more contributions he can make to fund quality care.

Then heck, why not also compare wages to housing. Because housing is so much cheaper in India and China, the workers demand less compensation. The fact that the vast majority of the workers live in shanty towns is irrelevant.

If US workers accepted HC the quality of India's HC system, then the costs for HC would be darn near the same. So it's because India has a lousy HC system that make them more affordable.

[spartan]

" universal healthcare plans generally do not increase labor costs,"

Link please.

Universal healthcare is paid by taxes. When you have a demographic that use Universal Healthcare but do not pay taxes, other peoples taxes have to go up to pay for it. Either that, or business taxes have to go up to pay for it. Either way it increases labor costs because people demand raises to "cover for their loss" or the cost of business goes up. To do otherwise would lead to only one solution and that is to reduce the quantity and quality of the care provided.