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.
I don't think anyone was suggesting that the ACA was the cause of people losing employer healthcare. The discussion was around how the ACA is moving this nation in the wrong direction in terms of employer health benefits.
Well people bitched, moaned and groaned about the original proposal to create a hybrid Single-Payer/Universal system, so the ACA was essentially the watered-down "compromise."
So for those seem to be dead set against the ACA, how do you propose to fix the healthcare problems in America? Please pick a struggle (I'll wait)...
Well people bitched, moaned and groaned about the original proposal to create a hybrid Single-Payer/Universal system, so the ACA was essentially the watered-down "compromise."
So for those seem to be dead set against the ACA, how do you propose to fix the healthcare problems in America? Please pick a struggle (I'll wait)...
You're in the wrong subforum. The politics subforum is a further up.
If Employee benefits continue to disappear before our very eyes, what is going to replace that system?
(I'll continue to wait...)
The private sector offers all these already. But your entire premise is false. Employer benefits, as a whole, will not disappear. Companies like Google, Honeywell, Johnson & Johnson, etc. will continue to use benefits to entice the best of the best to be employed with them.
The private sector offers all these already...Employer benefits, as a whole, will not disappear. Companies like Google, Honeywell, Johnson & Johnson, etc. will continue to use benefits to entice the best of the best to be employed with them.
If that's the case, then why do you have such a problem with...
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJBest
The ACA took us in the wrong direction. It strengthened the relationship between employer and health insurance. Employers are now required by law to provide health insurance benefits to employees. That's absurd.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,563 posts, read 81,131,933 times
Reputation: 57767
I have not seen any reduction in benefits for myself or family members except for health care, where the plans have required either a greater employee contribution or a change to a high deductible with HSA rather then a small co-pay (or both). Regardless of the ACA, the cost of providing healthcare has become unaffordable for employers. Even the high deductible I have costs my employer $1,900/month. The ACA just added more to the cost by requiring insurers to cover certain preventatives to be free. Other benefits such as vacation, holidays, transit pass,401K, and even pension contribution are far more affordable than healthcare.
Well people bitched, moaned and groaned about the original proposal to create a hybrid Single-Payer/Universal system, so the ACA was essentially the watered-down "compromise."
So for those seem to be dead set against the ACA, how do you propose to fix the healthcare problems in America? Please pick a struggle (I'll wait)...
The healthcare problems are what exactly?
Well the issue for most isn't so much access itself but rather costs. If one had the funds they could afford any healthcare they wanted.
So how exactly does doing more with less (Walmart plan/ACA) help in lowering costs? It doesn't. How can putting tens of millions of people on a system without hiring a single new doctor, nurse, nurse practitioner or opening a hospital solve the issue?
When demand is subsidized prices go UP. If Walmart gives out 30% off coupons the day before black friday you get mobbed as a result and products sell out.
When supply is subsidized prices go DOWN. School lunch program is an example. It is cheaper for a student to buy lunch then bring lunch from home. Alternative energy is another as the government provides loans for companies to actually produce solar technology and wind and watches as they compete with one another that drives costs down.
It's that simple.
So how about taking funds that pay for student loans for medical school and having the government open up more medical schools? How about grants to states to do so? How about mandating that states must allow for drug store clinics?
Health is largely dictated by diet, exercise and the environment. The UCLA study on devout LDS members that lasted 25 years pretty much dictated this conclusion. Yet how many communities have sidewalks and pubic transit? How many people still smoke and drink? Yeah they might say they have it under control but it comes with a cost to everyone. How many public schools cut gym classes just because it is not academic ? Even the NHS in the UK says they might not treat people that are excessively large! Why are there parks and playgrounds only for kids? Not everyone can afford a gym.
How about moving to a first to invent process rather then first to patent so new technologies are actually created rather than produce patent trolls that produce nothing but revenue for the lawyers!
We have to look at the whole picture here not just one top down process.
If that's the case, then why do you have such a problem with...
^^^this?
Because:
1. You have to keep switching health insurance providers as you move job to job. The insurance is dependent on you being employed. So if you lose your job, your coverage/cost changes. That's stupid.
2. It forces employers of at least 50 people to provide a benefit. That's absurd.
1. You have to keep switching health insurance providers as you move job to job. The insurance is dependent on you being employed. So if you lose your job, your coverage/cost changes. That's stupid.
Agreed. That's why I was a strong advocate in a single-payer government option for health insurance. But of course, so many people were against that for whatever reason and we ended up with the ACA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJBest
2. It forces employers of at least 50 people to provide a benefit. That's absurd.
But if they were providing this benefit already (as you stated), then what's the issue?
Agreed. That's why I was a strong advocate in a single-payer government option for health insurance. But of course, so many people were against that for whatever reason and we ended up with the ACA.
Nothing that made economic sense was proposed. MA has the best solution so far.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 313Weather
But if they were providing this benefit already (as you stated), then what's the issue?
Not all employers provide these benefits. They retained the freedom of choice and could choose not to take on such a burden if it didn't make sense for them. The federal government is overstepping their boundaries.
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.
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.
