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.
The problem with employer based health insurance provision is that it is expensive for businesses many of whom are having to compete with foreign companies which do not have to bear those costs directly and it only covers those people who are employed. This leaves the taxpayer covering the poor and old, leaves the self-employed paying a small fortune for decent coverage and many people without coverage.
Please clarify what is meant by the bolded statement. The employers of America are not in the insurance business. They buy group policies from insurance companies then offer coverage at reduced costs to their employees. They are not "in" the insurance business. They are clients of insurance companies.
This is called a benefit. And when you work hard, receive an education and obtain a job that offers health benefits you are aptly rewarded.
Many employers are in the insurance business....they merely hire an insurance company to manage the claims and paperwork. I'm not sure if the newest version of the Senate bill exempts these self-funded plans from the reform measures but the house bill did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by domergurl
yep! our health benefits via hubby's employer are getting more and more expensive with higher deductibles. next year, they are moving toward those health savings accounts where I have to carry around some kind of debit card when we go to the doctor ... it's all so confusing. I remember when I entered the workforce in the 1990's, it was easy peasy ... $10 co-pay, $5 drugs, boom, done ... I miss those days. With our family of 5 (3 kids under 10) ... this is going to stink.
It may have been easy peasy but it was also more expensive....you never knew what the costs really were, only what you were paying.
Companies, like Whole Foods, that have gone to an HSA type program see an overall decrease in health care costs because their employees actually start to pay attention to what the actual costs are. Instead of going to the doctor and paying $10 co-pay on an office visit that costs $200 they are finding that folks will call around to find the doctor who will only charge $160 and pay with the HSA debit card. Instead of paying the $10 for a $135 dental cleaning they are finding the dentist who only charges $100.
There is a huge advantage to people being MORE involved in what their health care is actually costing.
Why not just have a single-payer system? It's a lot cheaper.
The majority of health care spending is for the sickest 10% or so of our population. These people don't have the time or health to go around shopping for "the best prices."
Even under a single-payer system employers can offer health insurance. It will just be supplemental.
That is the British system. Everyone gets the same basic health care and, if you want more than the basic, you can pay top-up insurance.
That is the British system. Everyone gets the same basic health care and, if you want more than the basic, you can pay top-up insurance.
I believe it's like that with Canada and Germany as well. In Germany companies can offer private health insurance where their employees go to private hospitals, get treated faster (I think) and things of that nature.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaggy001
The problem with employer based health insurance provision is that it is expensive for businesses many of whom are having to compete with foreign companies which do not have to bear those costs directly and it only covers those people who are employed. This leaves the taxpayer covering the poor and old, leaves the self-employed paying a small fortune for decent coverage and many people without coverage.
Yep yep yep.
Plus the number of people being covered by employer-based health insurance has been steadily going down for a few years.
This is talked about in this book I read called The Tyranny of Dead Ideas. People don't want the government providing health care but employers can't afford health care. Individuals can't afford so who is left...the government. It makes sense.
Plus in a single-payer system the government is not providing the health care, they just provide the funding. The doctors, nurses, etc. are not government employees. I don't have a problem with socialized health care but I think most Americans would be okay with a single-payer system if they didn't believe all the scare tactics coming from the right wing.
I find it extremely suspect that this issues is surfacing... now.
There has obviously been a major push for a government operated insurance option for some time now. This was put forward to address all of those people who don't have insurance through their employer. Many conservatives screamed that a single payer option is not viable and that they are happy with their own insurance. Most liberals, in order to salvage some sort of legislation, removed the single payer from the equation and pushed for legislation which offered an alternative government run insurance.
Seems to me, some people havn't given up on the single payer system initially introduced. So here we are, with people criticizing the insurance provided by employers which have been argued in favor of by many for a very long time.
I see Forbes and this post as just another attack on the insurance plan I am a part of. Since the begining, I stated that I was happy with my employer provided health insurance and don't want to change. People insured me that there was no attempt to remove me from the private system that I like and want to keep.
Seems to me, there is. In my opinion, this entire healthcare reform is getting way off base. It used to be a method for uninsured and under insured to obtain health insurance. It is starting to look like nothing more than a trojan horse for power grabbing and more government control over everybodies lives. I just can't understand why liberals, especially those that support this legislation, can't just leave me alone. Why can't you just leave me and the millions of Americans not interested in this program alone? I am tired of the left constantly telling me that they know whats better for me than I do. If that were the case, I would be one of the millions who don't have insurance... but I do.
I think you are forgetting about Medicare. We who work now have Medicare taxes taken out of our pay that helps support the Medicare pool - even if you have a job that does not pay any health benefits. Does anyone under the age of 50 think it will be there for us? With the huge influx of baby boomers getting Medicare come 2011 and
beyond - there is no way Medicare will be able to cover the costs of all these people. IT WILL GO BROKE. Besides Medicare, you have Medicaid, the VA system and TriCare which has already tripled in medical costs ( a direct cost of our wars) - all of these will contribute. Should the country have a single payer universal health care plan in the future? It would save the country from medical bankruptcy - which is inevitable - if nothing is done.
I think you are forgetting about Medicare. We who work now have Medicare taxes taken out of our pay that helps support the Medicare pool - even if you have a job that does not pay any health benefits. Does anyone under the age of 50 think it will be there for us? With the huge influx of baby boomers getting Medicare come 2011 and
beyond - there is no way Medicare will be able to cover the costs of all these people. IT WILL GO BROKE. Besides Medicare, you have Medicaid, the VA system and TriCare which has already tripled in medical costs ( a direct cost of our wars) - all of these will contribute. Should the country have a single payer universal health care plan in the future? It would save the country from medical bankruptcy - which is inevitable - if nothing is done.
Glad to see someone else gets it!
This health care bill will bankrupt us faster than any single-payer system could.
Yae the employer should most definitely not be offering health insurance,let the employee buy it on there own.That will help the U.S. compete on a global level.Then we should get rid of minimum wage laws so we can compete globally with slave labor,we can get rid of the 8 hour work day and we can work 7 days a week to make up the lost income and be able to afford our single payer health care system.Then we can get rid of child labor laws so junior can get a job at wallmart so they can help pay for health care,but by then it should really be affordable!
What a crock of capitalistic ****!How about this,lets make it mandatory for the employer to provide health insurance and then the government can fine them when they don't cover there employee's.
I'll bet we would see a lot of lobbyist trying to lower the cost of health care then!
Forbes is dead-on right, and he's NOT some wild-eyed demon liberal.
The OP is also dead-on right. We need universal coverage, period, and not by forcing people to sign up for whatever the greedsters in the insurance want to sell us. I know that Mitt Romney did this in MA, with the help of the late Ted Kennedy, but I see little mention of it anywhere. Maybe it's working well, would be good to get some input from people in MA.
One of the things that's helped to cripple General Motors is that $1500.00 in the price of EVERY vehicle is for health care costs of their current and retired workforce. How can GM compete with the foreign makers who do NOT have to pay these costs?
WHY should every small business operator who wants to offer health care benefits be faced with sorting out all of the various offerings of numerous insurance firms, and why should ANY business have to pay these costs in the first place?
America dearly needs to join the developed world and provide universal health care to all citizens.
__________________
- Please follow our TOS.
- Any Questions about City-Data? See the FAQ list.
- Want some detailed instructions on using the site? See The Guide for plain english explanation.
- Realtors are welcome here but do see our Realtor Advice to avoid infractions.
- Thank you and enjoy City-Data.
If employers got out of providing their employees insurance, and people had to pay for their own through individual plans, it would only take 2 or 3 years for everyone to be clamoring on the streets of Washington - demanding nationalized health insurance from their government. I believe this would be both liberals and conservatives on the streets demanding this.
I love my group plan provided by my job, fwiw. I pay $160 a month for gold-standard insurance for my family. God forbid if I worked a normal low-wage job though. It would easily be $500+ a month.
You are correct on both counts. . . .those who now have some sort of employer subsidised insurance would be rioting for a single payer system and those who have gold plated plans would have no choice but to trade their personal "good luck" for equity for all.
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.
