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 begining to see that the fringe left on this forum has NO respect for the Constitution. None. Zero. Ziltch.
What next, you are going to tell me that the government should mandate that my company can't buy new computers for their employees and people must start sharing phone lines so that we can reduce our costs and stay "more competitive".
This reminds me of the days when we had "party lines", shared lines that cost less that private lines. When the phone rang, you had to listen for the number of rings before you answered. That told you whether the call is for you or for the "party" sharing your line. Are you trying to tell us that people in your office wouldn't share phone lines?
I agree. The left has no respect for the Constitution. The very underpinnings of our nation are being stripped away, and that seems to be OK with a lot of people.
Yes, that makes sense. I think they could pay a higher wage but they probably won't. Many businesses are in survival mode against foreign competition. A single payer system might just ensure their survival. I'm not sure the employee will see an increase in wage directly related to a single payer system. But rather an increase in job security. It all depends how much of the insurance premium their employer is covering.
Even if it just results in more job security, I am ALL for it.
Plus along with single-payer I'd like to see the repeal of NAFTA, more incentives to get more manufacturers in the U.S. and tariffs on imported goods that we could easily make in this country.
Even if it just results in more job security, I am ALL for it.
Plus along with single-payer I'd like to see the repeal of NAFTA, more incentives to get more manufacturers in the U.S. and tariffs on imported goods that we could easily make in this country.
NAFTA was a terrible idea. It's repeal would be a positive for US manufacturing. As would tax reform. I would like to see the corporate tax be one of the lowest in the world.
NAFTA was a terrible idea. It's repeal would be a positive for US manufacturing. As would tax reform. I would like to see the corporate tax be one of the lowest in the world.
I would be okay with a low corporate tax rate if we had campaign finance reform, that way our "representatives" aren't bought and sold by corporations as they currently are now.
I would be okay with a low corporate tax rate if we had campaign finance reform, that way our "representatives" aren't bought and sold by corporations as they currently are now.
I would love to see campaign finance reform. There are so many things we can do to improve our country.
The career politicians aren't thinking of the big picture.
They are thinking of two things:
How do I bring down my opponents from the other side of the aisle?
How much money did I raise today?
I would be okay with a low corporate tax rate if we had campaign finance reform, that way our "representatives" aren't bought and sold by corporations as they currently are now.
No, they'd just be bought and sold by Pelosi and Reid, as they are now.
Steve Forbes has long said that the American employer needs to get out of the health insurance business. He says the cost to employers is hurting the country, helping to make our products too expensive to compete in the world market. He has long used the figure that each employee costs the employer $10,000/year for insurance. He believes that health insurance should be the responsibility of the individual not the employer.
I agree with Steve Forbes about the problem but my solution is different. I want national health care. We don't have national health care and we aren't going to get it. That's clear. Instead, we apparently are going to have a mandatory insurance law. In light of that, I have to completely agree with Steve Forbes. The employers of America need to get out of the insurance business.
1. With mandatory coverage, those with employer provided insurance are paying less out-of-pocket and allowing the cost to be passed off on the consumer causing higher prices. Those without employer provided insurance are paying totally out-of-pocket while also paying the higher prices required to subsidize those with employer provided insurance. Those with employer based insurance aren't paying for themselves as others are forced to.
2. If those with employer provided insurance have to carry their own private insurance, they will see just how much insurance costs. The cost of insurance is based primarily on the cost of health care. Having to pay for the product themselves, the consumer will become more aware of costs and become a better consumer. Health care costs will go down.
For those reasons, if we are going to have mandatory insurance laws, I call for the ban on employer provided insurance.
Well first of all health insurance is the responsibility of the individual not the employer. My employer doesn't make any contribution to my health insurance. If Forbes is saying that employers and individuals benefits and contributions should be taxed I don't have a problem with that.
To your points
1. Nobody is forcing the employer to pay health benefits. They are paying them because most people want health insurance and the employee can benefit from economies of scale. If an employee's healthcare cost the company $10,000 it will cost the employee a hell of a lot more if he has to purchase it on his own. In order to offer equivalent compensation, the employer will have to offer more than $10,000 per year in salary, which will be passed to the consumer in the form of higher prices.
2. In order for this point to come to fruition, you will have to ban all medical insurance period. Not just employer provided health insurance. If employer based health insurance is banned the person will simply pay more for insurance somewhere else. Healthcare insurance costs will go down a negligible amount. People may pay for a little bit less insurance true but I imagine demand for healthcare insurance is pretty inelastic so this effect won't be that large. Your larger point seems to be that employer plans inflate the cost of health insurance and I don't agree. I agree that the tax subsidy(employer contributions are exempt) might be inflationary, but other than i don't think so.
Another point. The employer does realize some minor benefit in that if it provides employees health plans or heavily subsidized health plans employees will be more likely to be treated for sickness and injuries, than if they simply decide to go without insurance or the minimum and alter how much care they purchase. This is another cost(i have no idea how much or even if this is significant) to be passed to the consumer.
It seems from your post, that the entire point of your idea, is to make people who have good employer based insurance feel the pain of the uninsured/under insured/those who are getting gouged. Just so things will be more fair. This solution has no productive outcome however. It certainly won't help the uninsured/under insured.
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.
MA's universal healthcare system is widely accepted to be a complete failure. Romney was running away from it and trying to blame it on the democrats the day after he pushed it through. But I personally don't have any idealogical objection to universal care.
1. Nobody is forcing the employer to pay health benefits. They are paying them because most people want health insurance and the employee can benefit from economies of scale. If an employee's healthcare cost the company $10,000 it will cost the employee a hell of a lot more if he has to purchase it on his own. In order to offer equivalent compensation, the employer will have to offer more than $10,000 per year in salary, which will be passed to the consumer in the form of higher prices.
I said nothing about anyone forcing employers to provide insurance. I'm calling for a ban on it.
1. Most people have no clue how much their employer provided insurance cost, all they care about is the part that comes out of their pocket which is, general speaking, a fraction of the cost.
2. If we have mandated coverage, those who don't have employer provided insurance will have to buy insurance out of their pockets whiles subsidizing the insurance of those with employer provided insurance by paying -- as we do now -- higher prices for the goods and services bought from those companies.
3. If everyone paid out-of-pocket and realized how expensive it really is to cover an individual, let alone a family, they will a. understand why people without employer provided insurance don't run out an buy policies and b. start trying to figure out how to reduce medical expenses because insurance premiums are based on, among other things, the cost of medical care. That and only that will bring about health care cost reform.
Quote:
2. In order for this point to come to fruition, you will have to ban all medical insurance period. Not just employer provided health insurance. If employer based health insurance is banned the person will simply pay more for insurance somewhere else. Healthcare insurance costs will go down a negligible amount. People may pay for a little bit less insurance true but I imagine demand for healthcare insurance is pretty inelastic so this effect won't be that large. Your larger point seems to be that employer plans inflate the cost of health insurance and I don't agree. I agree that the tax subsidy(employer contributions are exempt) might be inflationary, but other than i don't think so.
That is simply untrue.
1. There is no need to ban all medical insurance. I can't even follow that.
2. My larger point is not that employer based insurance inflates the cost of insurance. My point is that people with employer provided insurance are very often out of touch with both the cost of medical care and the cost of medical insurance and will remain so until they start having to pay out of their own pocket for those things. The better the coverage, the more out-of-touch they are likely to be.
Quote:
Another point. The employer does realize some minor benefit in that if it provides employees health plans or heavily subsidized health plans employees will be more likely to be treated for sickness and injuries, than if they simply decide to go without insurance or the minimum and alter how much care they purchase. This is another cost(i have no idea how much or even if this is significant) to be passed to the consumer.
If mandatory insurance becomes the law, this will be true for everyone -- theoretically. Did you forget that my premise began with the passage of mandatory insurance coverage?
Quote:
It seems from your post, that the entire point of your idea, is to make people who have good employer based insurance feel the pain of the uninsured/under insured/those who are getting gouged. Just so things will be more fair. This solution has no productive outcome however. It certainly won't help the uninsured/under insured.
You bet that's my point. The better the job, the better the pay, the more likely the employer provides insurance. The better the insurance, the more likely there will be little concern on the employees part to contain medical care costs. Consequently those who don't have the good jobs with the good pay -- more and more of us every day, btw -- and the employer provided insurance will pay more for that out-of-pocket mandatory insurance coverage because health care costs won't be contained and that is a significant part of what insurance premiums are based on.
How is it socialistic to want our U.S. products to compete on a level playing field with other countries selling those same products cheaper? Do you want to see our whole manufacturing base be lost, just dry up so we're totally dependent on other countries like we are for oil now?
Companies started offering health care insurance in the first place because there were more jobs than workers at that point in time and they were trying to sweeten the pot. Just because we've been using an employer based insurance method for a few decades doesn't mean it can't be phased out over a few decades and replaced with something else. It would strengthen the U.S.A. if we do. That has nothing to do with the constitution and the so-called slippery slope neo-cons are always crying about.
WHO would "phase it out"? What if I own a business and I don't want to phase out health benefits to my employees? You think we should phase it out, so my question is... who would do it?
When you answer that question, you will find your socialism.
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.
This reminds me of the days when we had "party lines", shared lines that cost less that private lines. When the phone rang, you had to listen for the number of rings before you answered. That told you whether the call is for you or for the "party" sharing your line. 
Are you trying to tell us that people in your office wouldn't share phone lines? 
