Health Care Should Be De-coupled From Employment (wages, drug, health care system)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Every single person who lives long enough will have a pre-existing condition. Every person will either get sick, has been sick, or is currently sick, there is no way to escape this. So using the line that some how a person with a pre-existing condition is abnormal, is a ridiculous idea.
Y'know, I rarely agree with you, but I agree with this! Some people get their pre-existing conditions early in life, some later on, too.
The current system of coupling health care benefits to employment, IMHO, is stupid. Few if any developed countries do this. In most other countries where you work has nothing to do with what health care coverage you have available to you. But here in the U.S., it has almost everything to do with your health care coverage you can get and plays a huge part in what jobs you will take (or which jobs you can afford to quit due to loss of health coverage). That is just absurd!
There should be either a single-payer, Medicare for all type system. And/or there should be a private-provider based system but in which the entire U.S. population is treated as one big gigantic health insurance pool and market.
Anyway, the point is that where you work should have nothing to do with what health coverage you can get.
Imagine, say, if where you worked limited your options in terms of where you could shop for groceries or clothes or where your children could go to school, etc etc. For instance, if you worked at XYZ company, you could shop at certain stores at reasonable prices but would have to pay exhorbitant prices if you shopped elsewhere. And if you were fired or quit, you'd have to pay exhorbitant prices to shop anywhere. Well you would say that that is absurd. But is it not really any less absurd than saying that where you work determines what insurance you can get for reasonable coverage at a reasonable price.
Here are some articles that talk about this among many others:
healthcare should be decoupled from the government
and BTW...your could afford a singlepayer system as a taxpayer
single payer (meaning paid for by the WORKING taxpayer) will kill most americans
look at medicaid...(our CURRENT singlepayer system).....it covers about 32 million people (its currently up to 40 million people during this recession)...the ANNUAL cost....over 340 billion in 2008..projected to be 400 billion for this year alone....that's just to cover 30-40 million people.........what would it cost to cover our full population of 310 million..........somewhere in the range of 2.5-5 TRILLION....now divide that by the 120 million WORKERS (1040 filers) and you get 25k to 50k PER WORKING HOUSEHOLD PER YEAR.......single payer is unsustainable.,..........our government spends over 750 billion a year just on medicare/medicaid, and medicare is not 100% coverage (it has a co-pay) and requiring you to BUY a supplemental insurance
Can YOU afford a 25,000 to 50,000 dollar EXTRA TAX BILL EVERY YEAR on top of the ALREADY high taxes we pay?????????????????????????
single payer will never work,,,even france's single payer system is going broke
The point is not that you are mandated to take it. The point is that your health care options available to you are (for the vast majority of people) tied to where you or your spouse work. And very few people are going to be able to get health coverage on their own better than the one that they get through work.
If you work for a company with great benefits, then that is great. But what if you don't? Or what if you did but got laid off? Or what if you want to move jobs but can't because if you did you'd lose good health coverage because your potential newer job doesn't have as good coverage?
Where you work and what kind of health coverage options you have available to you should be de-coupled.
Most companies have "flex dollars" that they give you to PURCHASE their health plan. If you decline, you get the money in your check or you can apply it to other programs like increased life or disability insurance.
Flex spending and health insurance provided by your employer are separate topics.
The current system of coupling health care benefits to employment, IMHO, is stupid. Few if any developed countries do this. In most other countries where you work has nothing to do with what health care coverage you have available to you. But here in the U.S., it has almost everything to do with your health care coverage you can get and plays a huge part in what jobs you will take (or which jobs you can afford to quit due to loss of health coverage). That is just absurd!
There should be either a single-payer, Medicare for all type system. And/or there should be a private-provider based system but in which the entire U.S. population is treated as one big gigantic health insurance pool and market.
Anyway, the point is that where you work should have nothing to do with what health coverage you can get.
Imagine, say, if where you worked limited your options in terms of where you could shop for groceries or clothes or where your children could go to school, etc etc. For instance, if you worked at XYZ company, you could shop at certain stores at reasonable prices but would have to pay exhorbitant prices if you shopped elsewhere. And if you were fired or quit, you'd have to pay exhorbitant prices to shop anywhere. Well you would say that that is absurd. But is it not really any less absurd than saying that where you work determines what insurance you can get for reasonable coverage at a reasonable price.
Here are some articles that talk about this among many others:
You can buy your own health insurance if you want. Why do you begrudge an employer sweetening the compensation deal for its employees by paying for part of their health care?
You can buy your own health insurance if you want.
Okay, and will the employer provide the employee with cash or an alternative benefit?
That was always my problem. I get health care through the VA, so if I reject the health plan the employer offers, then what do I get?
If they employer is kicking in $235/month for health insurance benefits, then shouldn't the employer give me an extra $235 a month in cash, or an alternative, like tuition reimbursement or extra days off?
It would seem that some people are discriminated against in pay and compensation.
If the employer is going to pay $235/month in health care benefits, then why not just give the employee the $235 and let them choose their carrier. That would eliminate the majority of problems that arise from "pre-existing conditions" because if the employee changed jobs, they could retain the same health plan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist
Why do you begrudge an employer sweetening the compensation deal for its employees by paying for part of their health care?
If it's such a sweet deal, then why don't employers offer group auto or home owner's insurance?
Now. Now anyone can. We denied people left and right. When I worked in insurance we denied a person because of tennis elbow. The premiums are high if you want an individual plan. High deductible and high premiums.
Here is Korea, it's socialized. My employer pays 50% I pay the other 50% of the national health care. So it comes out to a little less than $90 a month. It's really cheap here for great service.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.