Table 2 - uploaded by Len Nichols
Content may be subject to copyright.
Citations
... 1 Indeed, nearly all large US firms (with over 200 employees) offer health care fringe benefits, as do roughly 60% of small firms. In total, 177 million Americans are covered by employer sponsored health care today (Nichols and Axeen, 2008). Yet by outsourcing health care, the US government ties the welfare of working age individuals to the welfare of companies. ...
... However, there are three clear reasons why this argument breaks down in practice. First, in the short term this cost shifting may not possible due to sticky wages and, in particular, union contracts (Nichols and Axeen, 2008). Second, much of the burden from health care 5 Source: Authors' calculations from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/2004-age-tables.pdf 6 In this discussion we focus on US employers and ignore the large role played by the US government in the provision of its social health insurance programs Medicare (for the elderly) and Medicaid (for the poor). ...
Health care has become a core competitive issue in North America. On the one hand, Americans are worried about the impact of their privately financed system on business interests. On the other hand, Canadians are capitalizing on US problems in an attempt to attract investment away from the United States through their public health insurance system. This paper seeks to evaluate whether these views and actions are justified. This is done by examining, through close dialogue and case study, how the two systems interact with firms' ability to compete. While the findings in this paper do not give empirical backing to those calling for a nationalization of US health care on the basis of competitiveness, our research does suggest that health care reform will be necessary to preserve individual and corporate welfare in the global economy.
... While U.S. employers' costs for health care often go up more than 10 percent annually, much of their foreign competition does not bear anywhere close to the same level of health care-related costs as U.S. employers bear. 6 In addition, U.S. employees who are lucky enough to have coverage usually have no bargaining power to get the best deal on health care and generally have access to a single plan offered by their employer. 7 Worse, when employees want to change jobs, their health coverage isn't portable. ...
Is now the time to fix the U.S. health care system? Those who remember the failed attempts of the past would say no. We see it differently. Our optimism is rooted in new developments that didn't exist the last time Congress addressed health care. These include bipartisan support for our Healthy Americans Act; an ideological truce over the role of government in health care; common ground between business and labor; the realization that states can't go it alone on health care; the plight of employers in a global marketplace; and the need for coverage that is affordable, accessible, and portable.
The following work examines the different aspects of opening an exercise-based business and identifies factors of the competitive environment that are conducive to opening a recreational and athletic strength training facility. Questions were answered regarding what type of exercise-based business could feasibly compete against the other exercise-based businesses and related non-profit organizations and what the existing exercise-based businesses and related non-profit organizations located within a 30-mile radius of southwest Dearborn, Michigan, were doing to survive in the current competitive economy. Information was gathered from100 fitness facility websites and 30 survey interviews from the managers and owners of the exercise-based businesses within a 30-mile radius of southwest Dearborn, Michigan. The results demonstrated a need for a fitness center focused on sports training. Also, the current U.S. recession may be reason to start a business in the near future; however, future research is needed.
Several myths about health insurance interfere with the diagnosis of problems in the current system and impede the development of productive reforms. Although many are built on a kernel of truth, complicated issues are often simplified to the point of being false or misleading. Several stem from the conflation of health, health care, and health insurance, while others attempt to use economic arguments to justify normative preferences. We apply a combination of economic principles and lessons from empirical research to examine the policy problems that underlie the myths and focus attention on addressing these fundamental challenges.
