General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumsdemocrank
(11,094 posts)LOL Lib
(1,462 posts)Yeah kinda pisses me off.
dchill
(38,493 posts)CrispyQ
(36,464 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)LoisB
(7,206 posts)Equinox Moon
(6,344 posts)Health Care for ALL would take care of this problem.
QED
(2,747 posts)It's obscene.
http://www.aflcio.org/Corporate-Watch/Paywatch-2016
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)people, whatever "serve" means.
That works out to 22 cents per person annually toward the CEO's pay.
If you added up the CEO pay for all the major plans, it wouldn't even cover the annual premium for 30,000 people.
I'm a lot more concerned about how good their company is in running a decent health care company since it appears single payer or a public option will be a long time coming whether or not we have a Democrat for Prez. We are going to be living with these companies, whether we like it or not.
erronis
(15,257 posts)It's not just the CEO pay - it's the pay of every underling. It also involves the dividends/etc. of stakeholders.
This type of rolling up of numbers does not explain the problem at all.
Let's take this at a slow pace -
- A parent that has 5 children should get 5 times the benefits than a parent with 1. How about a parent with none?
- A teacher that has 30 children should be paid 3 times what a teacher with 10 should be? Are there any other factors?
- A supervisor or team lead in industry/military should be paid proportionate to the number of reports? Indirect or Direct? (Is the supervisor actually responsible for the performance and is credited for such?)
- A General is compensated by the number of reports only? Some would get 30% of the standard rank salary, some might get 300%.
You are skipping the important fact that each of these high-paid CEOs aren't directly causing the ups and downs of their service or their stock price. Many of them are really just Bain-Capital types - in for a few rounds of cleansing and personal aggrandizement and then on to another opportunity.
You are also skipping the fact that many top-echelon executives are rewarded not based on performance, but because they are "in the loop" with the movers and shakers. They would NEVER tie their total compensation to a long-term (5-10 year) performance.
So - how do we address the desire to tie compensation at all levels within an organization to performance? This needs to be transparent to all parties that are involved. If funded in part by the US taxpayers - to all of them.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)lot and wouldn't even pay for a few weeks' premium for young folks, much less us older folks.
Until we decide to do something about the whole wretched healthcare system, that has profits at every level, these CEO's are about all that stands between us and a health care system that will eat us alive (at least faster than it does now). Heck, these CEO's health plans actually negotiate drug prices, the government won't. Go to an emergency room and tell them you have no insurance, you will get billed $5 to $10K for a relatively simple episode. Have insurance, and you'll get out paying $50 to $200 with decent insurance.
I would love to think we'd get single payer, or at least a public option, but that is not likely in the next decade or two. And even if we did, it's not going to be much cheaper than private insurance. We'd spend more than that 6% just setting up system to handle providers claims. Even Medicare and Medicaid use private insurers to handle that now.
I just think those CEO's pay is irritating as hell, but not a big driver of health care costs.
As to tying compensation to performance, you gotta first identify what the performance indicators are. As it stands now, doctors and hospitals usually get paid for providing more services whether it contributes to quality of care or not. Insurance employees get graded on how many claims they can adjudicate, questions they can field from insured, how many policies they sell, etc. That's a waste of time.
I wouldn't have a beer with the silk-stocking types, but they are an important part of our health care system as it is, not as it should be. Stockholders -- that include plenty of low paid workers with pension or other retirement plans from their employers -- think they are worth it.
I hear what you are saying, and basically agree, I just think we are grousing about the wrong thing and cutting their pay to zero won't change a thing.
mrmpa
(4,033 posts)the newspaper would list the compensation of all the CEO's in the Pittsburgh region. Very seldom did you see compensation above $100,000 a year. My Dad would look these over and I remember he commented that most of these salaries were 8-10 times the average salary of the workers. That seemed reasonable to my Dad a proud Union member.
If Dad were alive he would be sickened by the 2017 CEO salaries. If the 10 times the average salary was used these CEO's would be earning $420,000 that's more reasonable.
Moostache
(9,895 posts)The for-profit healthcare industry offends me because no one can answer a very simple question for me..."How, exactly, is 'value-added' to the health outcomes of a doctor-patient relationship by inserting grifters into the equation to skim off their living by taking dollars from the transaction and generating 'profits' in the end?"
The answer is simple. They never did and never will...the very concept of profiting from healthcare "insurance" is a hideous abomination. The people who cheerlead it the loudest are also the largest hypocrites in society too. Bible-thumping born agains who just love them some Jeebus as a cudgel...just no actual teachings of the Christ please.
I have given up on our current society. It is terminal. I hope there is a second chance for humanity, but as we inch closer to nuclear exchanges in Korea, I doubt it very much. We are doomed.
shadowmayor
(1,325 posts)The actual median income in our country is less than $27K. Household income is about twice that. Large incomes skew data and zero incomes are often not counted. The true median is about $13/hour. Look around your town, at the gas stations, shops and big box stores. Unless you're in a large city, these folks are not making $13 per hour and would be glad for the raise.
The polls on income and even worse, the skewed reporting on this subject, tends to inflate worker incomes by quite a large amount. I live in a border town and recent studies have shown that we have 25% of our adults working for minimum wage or less. And no, this isn't because the Mexicans are staffing our banks, dealerships, and box stores.
ON the other hand, I think these assholes should be rounded up, dragged to Yuma screaming and kicking, and be forced to pick lettuce for the next ten years - without their precious cash. Give us single payer and creeps like these guys won't exist any more, at least not off the public insurance fund. May their toes find sharp corners in the dark for the rest of their fat lives.
erronis
(15,257 posts)It's easy to get lost in the shoulda-woulda conversations. The actual pay for real workers in small demographic areas is the most important. This is how people live.
Perhaps we get every congress-critter to spend 4 weeks at a random real-world job, every year, to get in touch with the constituents. No pulling strings. No exceptions because they're "critical for national security" or "too old" (WTF are you doing representing us?)
How can we get the lobbyists to actually feel the pain of the people they are harming? That is a good question.
world wide wally
(21,743 posts)Maru Kitteh
(28,340 posts)The poor darling.
Stonepounder
(4,033 posts)Gives out another $400 Million in tax breaks for for insurance company executives making MORE than $500K/yr. WTF!!
Fla Dem
(23,668 posts)mfcorey1
(11,001 posts)ProudLib72
(17,984 posts)HOLY FUCKING SHIT!