I am a small businessman...

[bigboab]

Maybe you need to eat more.

You should take up mind reading.

It was pointless posting this.

[j2k4]

...and as such employ a number of people; this circumstance gives rise to my question:

By what historical reason, rationale or imperative am I charged with the responsibility to not only pay my employees what is somewhat amorphously referred to as a "living wage", I am expected to provide health insurance coverage, and assume financial responsibility for this provision.

Where/how did this custom begin?

Your question has been answered by Clocker. If you want the right staff you have to pay them what the other chappie pays or lose them. Anyway you don't pay for it. Your customers pay for it, unless you are the first capitalist in the world to absorb all the costs and not pass them on to the customers, plus a wee bit extra for yourself and investors.

And at the point my customers decide the cost of my services has surpassed their value and terminates the contract, putting us all on the breadline...what, then, Robert?

[clocker]

And at the point my customers decide the cost of my services has surpassed their value and terminates the contract, putting us all on the breadline...what, then, Robert?

And at the point when a meteorite hits your car...what then, Kev?

Have you reached this hypothetical worst-case scenario yet?
Do your customers actually have a competitor to lever against you?

At what point do customer demands overwhelm your willingness to do business with them?
Is it acceptable for your customer to demand sacrifices from you that they are unwilling to make themselves?

[bigboab]

Your question has been answered by Clocker. If you want the right staff you have to pay them what the other chappie pays or lose them. Anyway you don't pay for it. Your customers pay for it, unless you are the first capitalist in the world to absorb all the costs and not pass them on to the customers, plus a wee bit extra for yourself and investors.

And at the point my customers decide the cost of my services has surpassed their value and terminates the contract, putting us all on the breadline...what, then, Robert?

They will only terminate the contract if they have somewhere else they can get the service cheaper or your rise in prices forces them out of business. If they can get it cheaper somewhere else then the fault lies with you. I understand where you are coming from. The only thing that stops socialism and capitalism working hand in hand is greed on one side and laziness on the other. To pretend that their is no fault on either side is delusional.

[clocker]

If they can get it cheaper somewhere else then the fault lies with you.

Why would anyone be "at fault" here?
What if the low-bid competitor is able to work more cheaply because he's importing slave labor...would Kev be "at fault" for not following suit?
Is the entire point of being a businessman simply being in business?

[bigboab]

If they can get it cheaper somewhere else then the fault lies with you.

Why would anyone be "at fault" here?
What if the low-bid competitor is able to work more cheaply because he's importing slave labor...would Kev be "at fault" for not following suit?
Is the entire point of being a businessman simply being in business?

Sorry I was of the assumption that all business men paid their staff a fair wage as per Governent guidelines( thinking of the UK).

[devilsadvocate]

They will only terminate the contract if they have somewhere else they can get the service cheaper or your rise in prices forces them out of business. If they can get it cheaper somewhere else then the fault lies with you.

Assuming all companies concerned are playing by the rules the latter part of this is only valid to a limited point in other cost areas, but the subject at hand is the cost of providing healthcare benefits.
To an unconcerned onlooker one might assume that competitors would have the same costs. As it stands right now that's not always the case. Two competing firms with the same amount of staff can have very different premiums. There is a case that has been highlighted (I will try to confirm it) where one company with 30(ish) employees had the company health insurance premium increased by 170% because they had one sick employee.

We shall see if this new bill rids us of this kind of thing.

[bigboab]

They will only terminate the contract if they have somewhere else they can get the service cheaper or your rise in prices forces them out of business. If they can get it cheaper somewhere else then the fault lies with you.

Assuming all companies concerned are playing by the rules the latter part of this is only valid to a limited point in other cost areas, but the subject at hand is the cost of providing healthcare benefits.
To an unconcerned onlooker one might assume that competitors would have the same costs. As it stands right now that's not always the case. Two competing firms with the same amount of staff can have very different premiums. There is a case that has been highlighted (I will try to confirm it) where one company with 30(ish) employees had the company health insurance premium increased by 170% because they had one sick employee.

We shall see if this new bill rids us of this kind of thing.

I wonder why this was not pointed out when people were comparing the two health systems(UK and USA). That is a massive burden on the business section.

[j2k4]

And at the point my customers decide the cost of my services has surpassed their value and terminates the contract, putting us all on the breadline...what, then, Robert?

They will only terminate the contract if they have somewhere else they can get the service cheaper or your rise in prices forces them out of business. If they can get it cheaper somewhere else then the fault lies with you. I understand where you are coming from. The only thing that stops socialism and capitalism working hand in hand is greed on one side and laziness on the other. To pretend that their is no fault on either side is delusional.

Assuming all companies concerned are playing by the rules the latter part of this is only valid to a limited point in other cost areas, but the subject at hand is the cost of providing healthcare benefits.
To an unconcerned onlooker one might assume that competitors would have the same costs. As it stands right now that's not always the case. Two competing firms with the same amount of staff can have very different premiums. There is a case that has been highlighted (I will try to confirm it) where one company with 30(ish) employees had the company health insurance premium increased by 170% because they had one sick employee.

We shall see if this new bill rids us of this kind of thing.

I wonder why this was not pointed out when people were comparing the two health systems(UK and USA). That is a massive burden on the business section.

Allow me to clarify-

My work is not production-critical, it is elective; if the corporate entity decides my services are too expensive, the tasks I perform (let's call me a peripheral-process engineer - I lube all the gears that are not made of metal) either do not get done, or they fall to salaried staff who would be less-than-happy at the prospect, and less effective at their assigned tasks.

Nonetheless, if corporate decides I am too expensive, the likelihood of my being replaced is nil, because my "in" is already the economy I bring.

The net may very well be a dozen people out-of-work and on the dole.

I described all this to a liberal politician of some recent note (he figured substantially in the health-care fiasco - in fact, you might call him the linch-pin) back in the early winter; he suggested to me that I was "under-capitalized".

The pol's name is Bart Stupak.

[devilsadvocate]

It sounds that the most likely danger to your contract associated with healthcare costs would be due to the company you contract to making savings to cover its own rising healthcare cost.