free trade deal between the EU and Japan

[JoeKitchen]

Your scenario 'might' work at a small business but it's doubtful that it would work at any large employer with a centralized HR department.  I my daughter's school district that is run by the county offers only one health insurance plan and the HR department is difficult to deal with on some issues.

As a former teacher, I can tell you it is not uncommon for teachers to change districts over benefits, especially before tenure is awarded.  More difficult to change countries. 

[Alan Klein]

Thinking about this more, I am fairly certain that if someone was truly good at what they do, maybe even just good, during an employment negotiation they could ask not to be covered and have the amount the company would have paid given back to him/her so he/she can get his/her own coverage. 

From a business perspective, you would of course have to weigh all of the possibilities first, such as knowing bulk buys (like group policies) are often cheaper then individual polices, but one could make this happen. 

Insofar as the employer's point of view, I doubt any smart business person would blink at this request. 

+1.  You could waive health coverage offered by the employer and negotiate higher salary. 

[Guillermo Luijk]

Would that choice include giving those who don't want government health coverage a voucher for the full amount of what they paid in taxes for the coverage back to be used in getting private coverage?  And, if they find cheaper coverage, then that they were taxed for to cover the government's, they get to keep the difference?

No way, it is not the way things work here. Firstly because most people having a private health insurance also use public coverage at choice and convenience (this is my case for instance). Secondly because the system works thanks to the interrelation between public and private services; they are no competition but work together. Without private insurance the public healthcare system would be crowded or much more expensive to maintain. Without a strong public service taking care of non profitable diseases, private insurances would never cost less than $100/month (which is what they cost here). If I need a blood test I just call my preferred doctor from my private insurance and get it in a week. If I get leukemia I would probably choose a long term treatment from the public services because they have better infrastructure for serious diseases.

Regards

[Alan Klein]

Your scenario 'might' work at a small business but it's doubtful that it would work at any large employer with a centralized HR department.  I my daughter's school district that is run by the county offers only one health insurance plan and the HR department is difficult to deal with on some issues.

In the old days when most companies included health care as part of the pay package, you couldn;t waive it.  The insurance companies required it.  Today though, health care is hugely in flux.  So most places and insurance companies have a lot of leeway to structure it efficiently for both employer and employee.  Counties and other government entities can be more limited than private.  So you daughter's options were limited. But that goes with the turf. 

However, when I worked for NYC government, I had a huge choice of health insurance companies to pick from with high and low coverages and costs that was deducted from my pay.  I was also able to waive Social Security deductions, which I did.  I took the 6.2% money and put in a 457K (similar to 401k) retirement account.

[Alan Klein]

No way, it is not the way things work here. Firstly because most people having a private health insurance also use public coverage at choice and convenience (this is my case for instance). Secondly because the system works thanks to the interrelation between public and private services; they are no competition but work together. Without private insurance the public healthcare system would be crowded or much more expensive to maintain. Without a strong public service taking care of non profitable diseases, private insurances would never cost less than $100/month (which is what they cost here). If I need a blood test I just call my preferred doctor from my private insurance and get it in a week. If I get leukemia I would probably choose a long term treatment from the public services because they have better infrastructure for serious diseases.

Regards

I'm not sure how Obamacare works since I'm retired.  I'm am on Medicare which is national government insurance for people over 65 years old.  The problem right now is the better doctors are starting to not accept Medicare. They want to be paid higher fees and Medicare pays much lower fees only.   If I decide to use these doctors, I would have to pay their very expensive fees directly out of pocket.    If I decide to get my own private insurance, it would cost many times more than $100 a month. 

[BernardLanguillier]

This is backwards logic.

I have been paying attention to this for a while now, and although I am against these tariffs, the EU in almost every situation has higher tariffs then we, at least prior to this recent unpleasantness.  So in effect, it is you that are closing yourself off from the world and engaging in a stronger practice of nationalism.

So I have to ask, what kind of world do you want your kids to live in?

Joe,

With all due respect, do you know this topic well?

http://www.international-economy.com/TIE_Su07_Dullien.pdf

Cheers,
Bernard

[JoeKitchen]

Joe,

With all due respect, do you know this topic well?

http://www.international-economy.com/TIE_Su07_Dullien.pdf

Cheers,
Bernard

I don't have time to read the whole thing but just skimmed it, and it seems to be about base economic & policy differences, not specifics on tariffs? 

If you have a problem with tariffs, lets talk tariffs, lets talk specifics.

From a German Think Tank, Trump may have a point about EU tariffs, ifo says

“The EU is by no means the paradise for free traders that it likes to think,” said Gabriel Felbermayr, director of the ifo Center for International Economics, a division of the Munich-based ifo Institute. The European Union actually comes off as the bigger offender when compared to the US, he added. The unweighted average EU customs duty is 5.2 percent, versus the US rate of 3.5 percent, according to ifo’s database.

(Side note, I would prefer to see the weighted average.)

[BernardLanguillier]

I am not interested in just tariffs, my question was clearly much broader and so was the question you threw back at me.

The reality today is that Europe is currently finding ways to be at the same time more free market driven and social than the US.

This should be an interesting input in a debate where the focus is Trump’s alignment with traditional Republican values while throwing populist lies towards the less favored part of the population.

This may hopefully help unconver the real meaning of “America first”.

Cheers,
Bernard

[JoeKitchen]

Well, sorry I assumed you well talking about tariffs in a thread that was started about tariffs, especially since you did not clarify your response dealt with a broader subject. 

We can all throw around talking points about who is more free market, but where does the analysis actually lie?  Show me real numbers and proof that Europe is being more free market please.  Show me numbers, show me data. 

[JoeKitchen]

Joe,

With all due respect, do you know this topic well?

http://www.international-economy.com/TIE_Su07_Dullien.pdf

Cheers,
Bernard

FYI, this paper was written in the Summer of 2007, over ten years ago.  It's a little outdated don't you think? 

[BernardLanguillier]

FYI, this paper was written in the Summer of 2007, over ten years ago.  It's a little outdated don't you think?

Hi Joe,

No, I don’t think it is outdated.

The trends described have further progressed.

Cheers,
Bernard

[JoeKitchen]

Hi Joe,

No, I don’t think it is outdated.

The trends described have further progressed.

Cheers,
Bernard

Unfortunately, this is primarily dependent on who is in office at the time.  True, the Republicans, much to my dismay, were not deficit hawks with Bush, and they are not with Trump.  More likely due to them not being able to get something passed at the moment, and riding high on the economy during Bush.  But with Obama they were more on the hawkish side.  However, this has absolutely nothing to do with free markets, which you brought up. 

Your claim about Europe being more free market then the USA is just a claim without evidence.  Show me numbers, show me real data.  You have not produced any, however I have shown a non-biased source that in fact Europe is more protectionist then the USA with tariffs and duties. 

[Alan Klein]

Unfortunately, this is primarily dependent on who is in office at the time.  True, the Republicans, much to my dismay, were not deficit hawks with Bush, and they are not with Trump.  More likely due to them not being able to get something passed at the moment, and riding high on the economy during Bush.  But with Obama they were more on the hawkish side.  However, this has absolutely nothing to do with free markets, which you brought up. 

Your claim about Europe being more free market then the USA is just a claim without evidence.  Show me numbers, show me real data.  You have not produced any, however I have shown a non-biased source that in fact Europe is more protectionist then the USA with tariffs and duties. 

Of course Europeans, Chinese and American Trump haters say Trump started the tariff war.  That's nonsense.  As you posted, tariffs in all these countries have always been higher there than in America.  We're just starting to fight back.  I can understand China and Europe blaming Trump.  They have a lot to lose if tariff are equalized or removed.  But it's disgusting to listen to Americans who put others nations before their own country. 

[EricV]

Unfortunately, this is primarily dependent on who is in office at the time.  True, the Republicans, much to my dismay, were not deficit hawks with Bush, and they are not with Trump.  More likely due to them not being able to get something passed at the moment, and riding high on the economy during Bush.  But with Obama they were more on the hawkish side.   

 
Slightly off topic, but if we are talking about budget deficits, the general rule is not that Republicans are against deficits, but rather that whatever party is currently out of power is against deficits. 

[JoeKitchen]

 
Slightly off topic, but if we are talking about budget deficits, the general rule is not that Republicans are against deficits, but rather that whatever party is currently out of power is against deficits.

Exactly, and its quite disgusting. 

[Alan Klein]

 
Slightly off topic, but if we are talking about budget deficits, the general rule is not that Republicans are against deficits, but rather that whatever party is currently out of power is against deficits. 

I think that's true.  There is a slight difference though.  Republicans know deficits are bad but do them anyway.  Democrats do them with delight. 

[Alan Goldhammer]

Republicans know deficits are bad but do them anyway.  Democrats do them with delight.

By the end of his two terms Clinton was generating budget surpluses which was worrisome to then Fed Chair Alan Greenspan (a Republican appointee).

[Alan Klein]

By the end of his two terms Clinton was generating budget surpluses which was worrisome to then Fed Chair Alan Greenspan (a Republican appointee).

Wizard Greenspan practically caused the 2008 crisis single-handedly. Instead of allowing the 2001 recession  caused by the collapse of the dot com stocks  under Clinton to play out and correct the economy naturally, he overstimulated the economy by printing and lowering interest rates.  That created the housing debt  bubble that blew up, causing a world-wide recession and getting Obama elected.  He still denies he did anything wrong.

[JoeKitchen]

Wizard Greenspan practically caused the 2008 crisis single-handedly. Instead of allowing the 2001 recession  caused by the collapse of the dot com stocks  under Clinton to play out and correct the economy naturally, he overstimulated the economy by printing and lowering interest rates.  That created the housing debt  bubble that blew up, causing a world-wide recession and getting Obama elected.  He still denies he did anything wrong.

There's a great Milton Freedman clip where he talks about the Fed and how the Fed just never does anything wrong.  It is always outside forces that cause any problems and the Fed hold no blame, and should actually be congratulated for keeping the ship from sinking further. 

Of course, this is all according to the Fed, which everyone naturally believes. 

[Alan Klein]

There's a great Milton Freedman clip where he talks about the Fed and how the Fed just never does anything wrong.  It is always outside forces that cause any problems and the Fed hold no blame, and should actually be congratulated for keeping the ship from sinking further. 

Of course, this is all according to the Fed, which everyone naturally believes. 

When the US economy was humming right before the 2008 recession, people couldn't compliment Milton Greenspan quick enough.  You'd think he was Joseph, Vizier of Egypt.  Once the economy collapsed, everyone was asking, "Milton?  Milton who?"