Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-13-2011, 12:59 PM
 
24,832 posts, read 37,337,915 times
Reputation: 11538

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
one word........UNIONS
Yes...but, that was not a bad thing...back a few years.

Unions taught in collective barging if you can not get money, try benefits.

And that worked because health care was not so expensive.

People did not live as long.

Things have changed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-13-2011, 01:06 PM
 
Location: Rural Central Texas
3,674 posts, read 10,603,652 times
Reputation: 5582
I see a lot of different origins for health insurance proffered in this thread. Unfortunately, I have seen no documentation for any of them and they do not coincide with my own "edumacation" on such topics ( which of course is also without documentation or proof).

I was informed in my early years that Health Insurance was available to individuals at a very high cost through private insurance companies. It was so expensive most people chose to do without.

Along come some large employers and community cooperatives that used their large buying power to purchase these policies and pass the savings along to their employees and members. These group policies were much more affordable and more people could be persuaded to take advantage of them.

At some point, these group insurance programs became a tool for attracting employees and association membership. The rates of the policies were subsidized and sometimes even fully funded on the person's behalf. The competitive forces caused the scope of the policies to increase and the cost to the employee or member to decrease until such time as the business economy could no longer afford the costs they were assuming and policy costs to the individual started to rise and the coverage started to recede.

To answer the Original question; Why is health insurance in this country provided mostly through employers? Because employers could provide this at an affordable level through group purchasing power and it was an excellent tool for human resources.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2011, 01:08 PM
 
6,484 posts, read 6,615,778 times
Reputation: 1275
Quote:
Originally Posted by gsm113 View Post
Fewer employed people leads to high uninsured rates. - Sep. 13, 2011

According to this article, the number of people getting their health insurance from their employers has dropped to 56%. At unemployment rates anywhere between 9% and 20% depending on who you ask and who is counted, there is still a large number of people working who don't have health insurance.

That begs the question, why is our health insurance system in any way tied to employers? These are two seemingly unrelated aspects of peoples' lives.

I realize that employers that offer health plans (not all do) contribute 50% and it's pre-tax. But this is not an answer for the above question because this can be done regardless of with whom the group is associated.
Because it's a benefit...just like a company car or a retirement account. The libs want to change that because instead of being dependent on your employer, they'd prefer you be dependent on the government.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2011, 01:09 PM
 
915 posts, read 1,190,410 times
Reputation: 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnrex62 View Post

To answer the Original question; Why is health insurance in this country provided mostly through employers? Because employers could provide this at an affordable level through group purchasing power and it was an excellent tool for human resources.

You bring up a good point about purchasing power in large numbers. But why must these large groups be employers? Why can't they simply be a large group of people forming an association for the sole purpose of obtaining group health coverage?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2011, 01:10 PM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,813,019 times
Reputation: 12341
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnrex62 View Post
I see a lot of different origins for health insurance proffered in this thread. Unfortunately, I have seen no documentation for any of them and they do not coincide with my own "edumacation" on such topics ( which of course is also without documentation or proof).

I was informed in my early years that Health Insurance was available to individuals at a very high cost through private insurance companies. It was so expensive most people chose to do without.

Along come some large employers and community cooperatives that used their large buying power to purchase these policies and pass the savings along to their employees and members. These group policies were much more affordable and more people could be persuaded to take advantage of them.

At some point, these group insurance programs became a tool for attracting employees and association membership. The rates of the policies were subsidized and sometimes even fully funded on the person's behalf. The competitive forces caused the scope of the policies to increase and the cost to the employee or member to decrease until such time as the business economy could no longer afford the costs they were assuming and policy costs to the individual started to rise and the coverage started to recede.

To answer the Original question; Why is health insurance in this country provided mostly through employers? Because employers could provide this at an affordable level through group purchasing power and it was an excellent tool for human resources.
I think I made the same points, except that I couldn't go back farther than the mid-90s on grounds of personal experience. But you said it better and additionally the message within the line (highlighted above).

Even if a small business could offer similar pay, they struggled to match the big guns on benefits and weren't as attractive an option for talent to go to. It really was a big gun tool to skim talent in a relatively competitive market.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2011, 01:12 PM
 
83 posts, read 93,526 times
Reputation: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
one word........UNIONS
darn unions giving people living wages and benefits, healthy work conditions etc.......we really should look to places like china and our immigrant farm workers for better examples
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2011, 01:12 PM
 
24,832 posts, read 37,337,915 times
Reputation: 11538
Quote:
Originally Posted by gsm113 View Post
You bring up a good point about purchasing power in large numbers. But why must these large groups be employers? Why can't they simply be a large group of people forming an association for the sole purpose of obtaining group health coverage?
YES!!!!

That is one law the needs to change.

It also would be great to buy across state lines.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2011, 01:14 PM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,813,019 times
Reputation: 12341
Quote:
Originally Posted by gsm113 View Post
You bring up a good point about purchasing power in large numbers. But why must these large groups be employers? Why can't they simply be a large group of people forming an association for the sole purpose of obtaining group health coverage?
Because corporations can be people (for political purposes) but people can't be corporations (for political purposes). And corporations drive the rules.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2011, 01:21 PM
 
Location: Long Island
32,816 posts, read 19,478,139 times
Reputation: 9618
Quote:
Originally Posted by searchingforhome22 View Post
not all companies contribute anywhere near 50%.....its up to them...small businesses could never afford 50%
MOST companies pay near 75% of the premium...and under obamacare that is MANDATED
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2011, 01:24 PM
 
915 posts, read 1,190,410 times
Reputation: 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
Because corporations can be people (for political purposes) but people can't be corporations (for political purposes). And corporations drive the rules.

So what you're saying is basically there is no good reason why this is so.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:42 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top