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 agree completely, health insurance should be separated from employment. Were that to happen, people who found themselves having to purchase their own insurance for the first time (without subsidies) would be stunned at the true cost--something you and I and everyone else who is self-employed have known forever. All the people who whine that people who get subsidies are leeches would realize that they've been leeches themselves all along.
Or salaries would increase enough to cover premiums to attract the talented.
It's part of compensation.
It's also for people in their 30s and 40s. Not just 20s.
That has not been mine, or many other's situation, certainly not in the 40s, or for those in states without protections for those who happen to develop any health issues. We all age, and anyone can get sick, no matter how well they take care of themselves.
Wow. No. MAJOR price increases on those of any age who are healthy and only need catastrophic insurance. SO many people were screwed by the ACA that it has ALWAYS remained unpopular.
Once again, the responsible (those who've deliberately acted to remain healthy and fit) are punished to pay for those who have zero to no self-discipline.
Many people dislike it because it did not go far enough, and disliking doesn't necessarily mean a person wishes to go back to the old situation. Many people who take excellent care of themselves get illnesses, or injuries, the human body is fallible.
It's called a benefit. Why punish people who earned something because you don't like it?
The issue is not about punishing people who receive health insurance as a benefit. The problem is that employer based insurance keeps the true cost of the plans hidden to most people. Most give little thought to health care costs because their employer paid for plan covers the cost of whatever treatment they need. If people were to realize the high cost of health insurance, there would be a lot more shopping around, and questions about insurance, the ever rising costs of health care services, and the market could come into play in reducing costs because people would have reason to demand it.
We thus ended up with a healthcare system in which the vast majority of bills are covered by a third party. With someone else picking up the tab, Americans got used to consuming medical care without regard to price or value. After all, if it was covered by insurance, why not go to the emergency room for a simple sore throat? Why not get the name-brand drug instead of a generic?
Unconstrained by consumer cost-consciousness, healthcare spending has soared, even as overall inflation has remained fairly low. Nevertheless, Americans know almost nothing about the costs of their medical care. (Quick quiz: What does your local hospital charge for an MRI scan? To deliver a baby? To set a broken arm?) When patients think someone else is paying most of their healthcare costs, they feel little pressure to learn what those costs actually are - and providers feel little pressure to compete on price. So prices keep rising, which makes insurance more expensive, which makes Americans ever-more worried about losing their insurance - and ever-more dependent on the benefits provided by their employer.
De-linking medical insurance from employment is the key to reforming healthcare in the United States. McCain proposes to accomplish that by taking the tax deduction away from employers and giving it to employees. With a $5,000 refundable healthcare tax credit, Americans would have a strong inducement to buy their own, more affordable, insurance, rather than relying on their employer's plan. As millions of empowered consumers began focusing on price, price competition would flourish. And as employers' healthcare costs declined, most of the savings would return to employees as higher wages.
For 60-plus years, a misguided tax preference for employer-sponsored health insurance has distorted America's healthcare market. The price of that distortion has been paid in higher costs, fewer choices, and mounting anxiety. The solution is to restore market forces by fixing the tax code, and liberating Americans from an employer-based system that has made everything worse.
The issue is not about punishing people who receive health insurance as a benefit. The problem is that employer based insurance keeps the true cost of the plans hidden to most people. Most give little thought to health care costs because their employer paid for plan covers the cost of whatever treatment they need. If people were to realize the high cost of health insurance, there would be a lot more shopping around, and questions about insurance, the ever rising costs of health care services, and the market could come into play in reducing costs because people would have reason to demand it.
We thus ended up with a healthcare system in which the vast majority of bills are covered by a third party. With someone else picking up the tab, Americans got used to consuming medical care without regard to price or value. After all, if it was covered by insurance, why not go to the emergency room for a simple sore throat? Why not get the name-brand drug instead of a generic?
Unconstrained by consumer cost-consciousness, healthcare spending has soared, even as overall inflation has remained fairly low. Nevertheless, Americans know almost nothing about the costs of their medical care. (Quick quiz: What does your local hospital charge for an MRI scan? To deliver a baby? To set a broken arm?) When patients think someone else is paying most of their healthcare costs, they feel little pressure to learn what those costs actually are - and providers feel little pressure to compete on price. So prices keep rising, which makes insurance more expensive, which makes Americans ever-more worried about losing their insurance - and ever-more dependent on the benefits provided by their employer.
De-linking medical insurance from employment is the key to reforming healthcare in the United States. McCain proposes to accomplish that by taking the tax deduction away from employers and giving it to employees. With a $5,000 refundable healthcare tax credit, Americans would have a strong inducement to buy their own, more affordable, insurance, rather than relying on their employer's plan. As millions of empowered consumers began focusing on price, price competition would flourish. And as employers' healthcare costs declined, most of the savings would return to employees as higher wages.
For 60-plus years, a misguided tax preference for employer-sponsored health insurance has distorted America's healthcare market. The price of that distortion has been paid in higher costs, fewer choices, and mounting anxiety. The solution is to restore market forces by fixing the tax code, and liberating Americans from an employer-based system that has made everything worse.
You do realize what I highlighted is what's exactly wrong with the ACA subsidies as well. As long as people know they are getting subsidized up to the "silver" portion of the ACA exchange plans, they aren't going to shop around it.
If someone knows their "fix" premium cost is say $150/month with even deductible help (for those making 250% or less of poverty). Those same people couldn't give a rat thought that people paying full price at paying $700-800 a month along with a $9000-12000 max out of pocket expense.
There is no incentive for people who get subsidies to shop around for cheaper plans. Absolutely zero incentive. They will mostly chose the silver plans.
So a family of 4 making around $45K (around 200% of poverty) knows their premiums and out of pocket expenses are capped around 5% of their AGI. They couldn't get a crap what the true cost of the health plans are. Yet someone paying full price without subsidy will care. They will care a lot.
So tell me how you think people will try to save money on the exchanges again if 6 out of 7 signing up for the plans are getting subsidies? Government has no cost control measure when they decided to cap certain people's max expenses. Insurers don't care since they will get 100% of the premiums regardless of who's paying it.
How so, if I paid for all my own medical bills for those 10 years myself? How is that being a leech?
I was lucky, I never had any emergencies or accidents or hospitalizations that incurred expenses that I couldn't pay out of pocket during that time, but that doesn't mean it will always be like that. Which is why the idea of being left without insurance again is so distressing.
I do support myself. I am simply in an industry where the work is done by subcontractors, meaning I have no access to employer based health insurance. A second part-time job isn't going to supply that.
I mentioned in a previous post that by 2020, 40% of American workers will be subcontractors, meaning they will be in the same situation I'm in with no employer to provide insurance. What do you propose for those 60+ million people with no access to employer-based healthcare?
Amazingly, you still don't get it. If a service isn't available to you where you work, either you find an employer that offers it or you pay for it yourself.
If health insurance was available from an employer, it would come out of your pay. You would pay for it one way or another.
Do you understand the concept of responsibility for ones self?
The issue is not about punishing people who receive health insurance as a benefit. The problem is that employer based insurance keeps the true cost of the plans hidden to most people. Most give little thought to health care costs because their employer paid for plan covers the cost of whatever treatment they need. If people were to realize the high cost of health insurance, there would be a lot more shopping around, and questions about insurance, the ever rising costs of health care services, and the market could come into play in reducing costs because people would have reason to demand it.
We thus ended up with a healthcare system in which the vast majority of bills are covered by a third party. With someone else picking up the tab, Americans got used to consuming medical care without regard to price or value. After all, if it was covered by insurance, why not go to the emergency room for a simple sore throat? Why not get the name-brand drug instead of a generic?
Unconstrained by consumer cost-consciousness, healthcare spending has soared, even as overall inflation has remained fairly low. Nevertheless, Americans know almost nothing about the costs of their medical care. (Quick quiz: What does your local hospital charge for an MRI scan? To deliver a baby? To set a broken arm?) When patients think someone else is paying most of their healthcare costs, they feel little pressure to learn what those costs actually are - and providers feel little pressure to compete on price. So prices keep rising, which makes insurance more expensive, which makes Americans ever-more worried about losing their insurance - and ever-more dependent on the benefits provided by their employer.
De-linking medical insurance from employment is the key to reforming healthcare in the United States. McCain proposes to accomplish that by taking the tax deduction away from employers and giving it to employees. With a $5,000 refundable healthcare tax credit, Americans would have a strong inducement to buy their own, more affordable, insurance, rather than relying on their employer's plan. As millions of empowered consumers began focusing on price, price competition would flourish. And as employers' healthcare costs declined, most of the savings would return to employees as higher wages.
For 60-plus years, a misguided tax preference for employer-sponsored health insurance has distorted America's healthcare market. The price of that distortion has been paid in higher costs, fewer choices, and mounting anxiety. The solution is to restore market forces by fixing the tax code, and liberating Americans from an employer-based system that has made everything worse.
All that may be true who know for sure. But you ignoring that it is punishing employee who have earned that benefit. If they didn't have to provide healthcare I can assure you that they wouldn't give me the roughly 7,000 dollar raise.
All that may be true who know for sure. But you ignoring that it is punishing employee who have earned that benefit. If they didn't have to provide healthcare I can assure you that they wouldn't give me the roughly 7,000 dollar raise.
It would be your responsibility to demand that they pay you that amount, or find a new employer who will.
You do realize what I highlighted is what's exactly wrong with the ACA subsidies as well. As long as people know they are getting subsidized up to the "silver" portion of the ACA exchange plans, they aren't going to shop around it.
If someone knows their "fix" premium cost is say $150/month with even deductible help (for those making 250% or less of poverty). Those same people couldn't give a rat thought that people paying full price at paying $700-800 a month along with a $9000-12000 max out of pocket expense.
There is no incentive for people who get subsidies to shop around for cheaper plans. Absolutely zero incentive. They will mostly chose the silver plans.
So a family of 4 making around $45K (around 200% of poverty) knows their premiums and out of pocket expenses are capped around 5% of their AGI. They couldn't get a crap what the true cost of the health plans are. Yet someone paying full price without subsidy will care. They will care a lot.
So tell me how you think people will try to save money on the exchanges again if 6 out of 7 signing up for the plans are getting subsidies? Government has no cost control measure when they decided to cap certain people's max expenses. Insurers don't care since they will get 100% of the premiums regardless of who's paying it.
I have posted numerous times that I don't feel the ACA was the answer to this countries health insurance mess. It helped with some access issues that are important, but I am well aware that there are numerous problems with it. Very low income people have no choice, but the silver to qualify for those additional subsidies, but most people who get subsidies receive a dollar amount, and do shop around, but the individual market is too small to have any impact on health insurance, and health care costs.
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.
