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.
What does that have to do with anything? If dropping prices is what it takes to compete on the world market, Steve Forbes says they would. My issue is that people who buy those products are paying for the employees insurance. Some of those people will be paying for mandated medical insurance out of their own pockets so they would be paying for their own and helping to pay for the insurance of those who have employer provided insurance. They are paying for their own plus those freeloading rich folks with employer provided insurance.
You had a good argument until you spoiled it with the above comment. The vast majority of people with employer provided insurance are not rich.
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.
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.
I agree that the coverage must be individual, not employer based, and think that we should have several pools for insurance.
Noone can be denied coverage, but everyone is required to have it. The fines for not having insurance should be MORE than the price of insurance. That way, the poor and needy can see that perhaps it will be worth it to cancel their "everything included HDTV" packages, "highest available internet package", "all inclusive cell phone bills", etc... and pay for the health insurance instead.
The pools would have to be low, medium, and high risk with prices adjusted accordingly. It 's unfortunate that the sick would have to pay more, but there should be financial incentives for people to want to stay healthy and to care for their health. Low income individuals should get government subsidies to help with their premiums.
In addition, it should be mandatory for hospitals and providers to make known what their rates are. Why is it that we, as consumers, are not made aware of how much something costs until AFTER we get the service? This is not how capitalism works. Make the hospitals reveal what the charges are for the hospital stay per day, for the MRI, etc... and let the consumer choose where they want to go.
This will force the hospitals to compete more efficiently, ultimately lowering their prices and improving service.
TORT reform - There should be a cap for medical malpractice AND the one who looses in court should pay all expenses. That will discourage pranksters and lawyers who sue just because they can without any consequences to them.
By banning employers from providing the insurance you eliminate that problem.
Are you going to start mandating how much vacation time employees get too? What are the limits for your desire for government to control the private sector? More importantly, why is it any of their business what benefits my employer provides for me?
Steve Forbes is right. We, as a nation, can't keep completing in the world market with employer based insurance built into the cost of all the goods we produce. A good universal health care program would level the playing field so that our products can be priced more competitively with other industrialized countries that already do have a universal health care in place.
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 entire position is socialism through and through. Government starts controlling the means of production; even if the goal is more viability on the world market... that is socialism.
These socialists are coming out of the wood work lately.
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 hear your frustration and agree with everything you are saying. But Forbes is not a liberal, btw.
However, there should be some reform. I don't think it needs to happen right NOW, but there definitely needs to be a change. My company, as an example, just dropped several insurance option due to escalating costs. You may be set now, but the problem is that there are no guarantees in the future.
What happens if you stop working or get laid off?
Therefore, I agree with some aspects of reform. Force everyone to have coverage.
Also, though I'm a bleeding conservative, I'm mad at the insurers dropping paying customers who get terminal or long term sickness (like Crohns, etc..) Insurers abuse the system too, but the solution, in my mind, is not government plan, but less restriction enabling more competition.
Isn't Workmen's Comp government insurance already? Maybe we could eliminate that under the program you outlined thus saving the employer even more.
Workman's comp is state mandated insurance and covers disability resulting from injuries as well. However, with nationalized health coverage, the medical part of workman's comp would no longer be needed.
Quote:
Where is this? I believe each state sets its own poverty levels. That's why the states are objecting to federal mandate for raising medicaid limits. It adds to the state's financial burden.
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.
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.
Are you going to start mandating how much vacation time employees get too?
Why? Why would you even bring something like that up?
Quote:
What are the limits for your desire for government to control the private sector? More importantly, why is it any of their business what benefits my employer provides for me?
Why should you freeload on the backs of everyone else? If your employer wants to make sure you can afford insurance, he can pay you more. But once all the cost of insurance comes out of your pocket, you will start thinking of ways to reduce costs. Only then will we have true reform.
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.
