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.
Regardless of how this situation arose, there is no good reason to continue employer healthcare in today's world of people changing jobs more frequently. Times have changed. We are burdening our businesses with this expense when other countries do not. That makes off shore production relocation look pretty good. Our domestic companies have to compete and that is an added burden. A national health care system that ends employer healthcare is badly needed. We can debate what form it takes but we need to get on with it.
Is this true though? - don't you have public healthcare for some? And do you really have a choice between insurance and public healthcare, in that way that I do where I live?
We do have public healthcare if you are talking medicare, but that is an insurance plan we paid into, each of us for many years. AS for a choice, not really as we still have to pay something regardless of whether you are talking Obama care or something else. It is not free when you have deductibles many can't begin to meet. Either you are confused or I am.
Regardless of how this situation arose, there is no good reason to continue employer healthcare in today's world of people changing jobs more frequently. Times have changed. We are burdening our businesses with this expense when other countries do not. That makes off shore production relocation look pretty good. Our domestic companies have to compete and that is an added burden. A national health care system that ends employer healthcare is badly needed. We can debate what form it takes but we need to get on with it.
A national healthcare system just shifts the burden from employers health care costs to employer tax increases (because you know they won't whack it on the voting public). If an employer pays $50k in healthcare costs a month, or, $50k more in taxes does it not equally burden business?
We do have public healthcare if you are talking medicare, but that is an insurance plan we paid into, each of us for many years. AS for a choice, not really as we still have to pay something regardless of whether you are talking Obama care or something else. It is not free when you have deductibles many can't begin to meet. Either you are confused or I am.
What about people that have no money at all, and need immediate and costly care? - isn't that paid for by taxpayers?
Isn't per capita taxpayer funded healthcare in the US, close to the OECD average? -if it is, wouldn't that imply you have less choice than most comparable countries?
For those who brought up the point that Trump is outflanking establishment Dems to the left during this crisis, other people have noticed this as well.
The last few weeks should have taught you that we don't have capitalism anymore. Trump has turned out to be as much of a big government socialist as the Democrats and I don't expect him to change on health care. The Republicans and conservative media have cheered everything the man does even when it goes against everything they supposedly "believe" in. Principles? Nah.
well..... a pure adherence to capitalism would be "let 'er rip" which not MANY have been proposing under such pure capitalist reasons.
To the capitalist system, everybody that is retired has nearly $0 value. A little consumption of retail goods, but otherwise their savings would actually be redeployed into businesses by a % of them being invested into the market. Yes, there's some heirs that would spend their inheritance on boats and cars and caviar. But think of the large chunk of $30Trillion (by one estimate) invested as capital into the system.
I mean, imagine how good SS and Medicare would look for the next 20 years if we actively infected everyone over 65 and told them to ride it out at home (I don't think the few "let her rip" folks are proposing this). We could probably "get rid of" 25% of them. And think of not only the COVID savings, but all that pesky Medicare spending on quasi-necessary surgery.
If one was to only look at it as only an economic exercise.
Folks in this subforum have a bad habit of spreading misleading informatiom.
To add, FDR's plan was to push for Medicare-For-All (see the 2nd Bill of Rights) in his 4th term before he died.
FDR knew damn well that Executive order 9250 would lead to an influx of companies offering health insurance through employment because of him barring wage increases.
His National War Labor Board was offered the choice to put health insurance in the cap but chose exemption.
Then his IRS decided employer contributions to health insurance premiums were tax free, which meant workers paid less out of their pocket.
He knew exactly what he was doing. He wanted to tie employment to health care to appease big business, which he desperately needed, at the height of WWII.
A war he single-handily got the U.S. involved in for no reason whatsoever.
“We’re going to have insurance for everybody. There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can’t pay for it, you don’t get it. That’s not going to happen with us. The government's going to pay for it."
--Donald J. Trump
I'm really interested to see what Trump does with healthcare in his second term. Whatever his choice may be, the Republican Party and conservative media will blindly follow him.
If he can not get the ACA repealed then we will not be seeing what President Trump does. But I'm sure you are very happy with the ACA.
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.