How about combining the $15 minimum wage with universal health care so that employers

[LaMouffette]

would no longer be required to provide health insurance to their employees? Freed from that expense, employers would absolutely be able to afford the $15 minimum wage.

I know, getting the $15 minimum wage passed is an enormous task in and of itself and combining it with the (perceived) horror of universal health care would really send the Republicans into a "But that's socialism!" hysteria. But just thought I'd throw the idea out there for discussion.

From a COTO Insurance website article:

There’s a growing number of businesses that have kept quiet when it comes to the health care debate. While they may be all about the free market, the reality is that the exponentially rising costs of providing health care to their employees is increasing overhead, reducing profits and making them less competitive with foreign markets.

Many believe a universal health care plan — a government-sponsored program in which medical care is provided to everyone regardless of their ability to pay — could help solve these problems. In short, companies could stop paying for health insurance. Presumably, that means they could pay their employees more, although much of the increase may be absorbed by higher taxes to fund the program. However, the competitive benefit for employers — both large and small — would remain.

[link:https://www.cotoinsurance.com/the-upside-to-universal-health-care-benefits-nobody-talks-about/|

The article describes many benefits to businesses of releasing them from the obligation of providing health insurance.

Small businesses would no longer lose out to larger companies when it comes to hiring talent, as health care would no longer be a competitive benefit. Employees who would rather work at a smaller company would now have that option without losing out on a robust health insurance plan.

Employees would also be released from the phenomenon known as “job lock,” when many people stay at their jobs solely for health insurance benefits. This has a lot of downsides, from poor morale and lower productivity to curbing labor mobility and entrepreneurship. In terms of economic growth, small businesses account for two-thirds of net new jobs and represent close to half (44 percent) of U.S. economic activity. If workers aren’t saddled by the need for employer-sponsored health insurance, they would have the option to quit and start their own businesses.

This issue was recently spotlighted by a report that over the past 10 years, the employee share of health insurance premiums has increased 71 percent, while average earnings increased only 26 percent. Even workers with robust employer-sponsored insurance are increasingly paying more out of pocket. On average, employees pay $1,242 (singles) or $6,015 (families) a year for insurance premiums, and deductibles have doubled from $826 to $1,655 on average.

There are many other potentially significant advantages to broad-scale universal health care. First, it could reduce the overall cost of health care because the government would be able to leverage volume to negotiate better pricing structures for medical services and prescription drugs. Administrative costs — particularly for hospitals and doctor’s offices — would decrease because they could file claims with a single entity instead of multiple insurance companies. That would reduce provider overhead expenses, allowing these entities to invest in more medical personnel.

People who get health insurance from their work would be sure to object. But if a well-planned and well-executed universal health insurance program were in place, that would help overcome their objections. And if they still object, they should be educated about the fact that empoyer-provided health insurance is the third-biggest government-subsidized health care expense, after Medicare and Medicaid, costing five times as much as the subsidies provided by the Affordable Care Act.

From a 2017 New York Times article:

As Republican senators work to fix their troubled health care bill, there is one giant health insurance subsidy no one is talking about.

It is bigger than any offered under the Affordable Care Act — subsidies some Republicans loathe as handouts — and costs the federal government $250 billion in lost tax revenue every year.

The beneficiaries: everyone who gets health insurance through a job, including members of Congress.

Much of the bitter debate over how to repeal and replace the law known as Obamacare has focused on cutting Medicaid and subsidies that help low-income people buy insurance.

But economists on the left and the right argue that to really rein in health costs, Congress should scale back or eliminate the tax exclusion on what employers pay toward employees’ health insurance premiums. Under current law, those premiums are not subject to the payroll or income taxes that are taken out of employees’ wages, an arrangement that vastly benefits middle- and upper-income people.

That one policy tweak could reduce health care spending, stabilize the health insurance market and, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, shrink the federal budget deficit by between $174 billion and $429 billion over a six-year period.

[link:https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/07/health/health-insurance-tax-deduction.html|

[Frerotte]

1. Excellent Suggestion

Another benefit from this would be that some older individuals can retire a bit early knowing that they have healthcare and don't have to wait until 65 for Medicare eligibility. That would open up a lot of jobs.

[Freddie]

3. My 62 yo husband

Would retire tomorrow but for the health insurance.

[LaMouffette]

9. It would encourage entrepreneurship, too.

There are probably hundreds of thousands if not a million Americans who would like to start their own businesses, but they are terrified of losing their employer-provided benefits.

I used to work a full-time job with benefits. Now I'm self-employed. The way I see it, I'm a job creator, too: I created one job for myself and another job with the vacancy I left behind for another worker to fill. Imagine if one million people could start their own business. They would create two million jobs this way, and that's before hiring a single employee of their own!

For me, for the first ten years or so of being self-employed, buying private health insurance was expensive, but doable. Now, the premiums have gone up so much that I couldn't afford health insurance without the Affordable Care Act (thank you, President Obama, then Vice President Biden, Speaker Pelosi, and other Dems!). Without the ACA, I would have to give up my business and go back to a job with benefits.

[Frerotte]

10. Absolutely

You are absolutely correct.

So many positives and so much improvement in individual's lives and the community.

It makes me sad/angry/frustrated.

[50 Shades Of Blue]

2. Absolutely!!!👍

[JT45242]

4. There are fallacy in the logic -- minimum wage jobs aren't getting employer based health care -

"would no longer be required to provide health insurance to their employees? Freed from that expense, employers would absolutely be able to afford the $15 minimum wage."

The vast majority of minimum wage jobs are service industry jobs usually in hospitality like restaurants, hotels, etc. (https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimum-wage/2019/home.htm)

The folks getting paid minimum wage, or slightly above minimum wage, are not getting paid benefits from their employers. I spent a long time in those types of jobs to pay for college (and even after graduation as a side gig because I made so little money as a school teacher). Salaried store managers were eligible for health care but not the regular employees. So, think about a typical fast food restaurant. One general manager, 3 salaried managers, and a couple of hourly managers who might get health care. With 6 employees getting health care at one franchise location the savings would likely be between $50,000 and $100,000 in insurance premiums.

Raising the minimum wage from the current $7.25 to $15.00 would be an increase in pay of approximately $16,000 per full time equivalent employee. The savings allow the restaurant to increase pay for about 6 FTE. That restaurant needs a lot more than 6 FTE, so the offset would not work.

The reality is that too few people in the places that typically pay minimum wage or near minimum wage get benefits for this to be a wash. You would need to have almost a 1:1 ratio of benefit earners to FTE for this to work.

That doesn't mean that raising the minimum wage and going to universal health care aren't good ideas. They are both GREAT ideas. However, the idea that eliminating one will allow employers to afford the increase in minimum wage just doesn't work because of the types of jobs that we are talking about.

HOWEVER, if you use the Eisenhauer era idea that you tax corporations at a high rate to force them to pay their workers more, that could work. But only if you put in place substantial penalties for companies that outsource jobs which some would do to skirt this.

[frazzled]

5. There is no such thing as employer-based health *care*

It’s employer- based health insurance. And it is also universal health insurance. Unless the OP is proposing that all doctors and hospitals and other health providers will suddenly become employees of the federal government.

The reason that it is probably not in this bill is that it does not involve a simple allocation of funds: it’s a complex program that involves deep planning and execution and requires its own consideration. You can’t just snap your fingers to rejigger an entire system.

It’s also not President Biden’s plan, which rather involves a more transitional approach with a single-payer government option added to Obamacare, the so-called public option.

[TwilightZone]

6. That's not universally true.

Many companies self-insure, particularly those who own health care facilities.

Aetna, for example, is owned by CVS Corp. CVS is, therefore, self-insured, as is Aetna. The health care in that case could clearly be described as employer-based.

[frazzled]

7. But CVS can't give you triple bypass surgery

They’re self-insured, but they do not provide health care to the employees they insure (except vaccines, etc.).

You do see the difference between insurance and actual health care services, don’t you?

[LaMouffette]

11. Thanks! That's what I meant: employer-based health insurance, not health care.

Universal health insurance, too.

I agree with a more transitional approach, and I'm all for President Biden's plan, too. I was just thinking about ways to overcome employers' objections to raising the minimum wage to $15/hour, while providing health insurance to all Americans.

[LaMouffette]

8. Thanks for pointing that out about the current lack of insurance for minimum wage jobs!

You're right that those employers who already do not provide health insurance would not see what was in it for them. They would just experience the downside of having to pay a higher minimum wage.

I'm sure there are a lot of other details and loopholes that I'm not taking into consideration, too. It's so wonderful, though, to have Democrats in control of the White House, House, and Senate so that we can start thinking of solutions and knowing they have a chance of being enacted. It is a new day!