Posted on 06/23/2011 1:08:52 PM PDT by Sir Napsalot
(snip) Now, I don’t pretend to know how many employers will drop coverage if some workers are offered subsidies to help them buy private coverage on their own. In Massachusetts, not many employers have dropped; (snip) But if these issues won’t be settled for a few years, one thing is certain right now: It would be a fantastic thing — not some calamity — if more people got coverage from the exchanges instead of from their employers. Yet both parties act as if it would be a disaster. (snip) What’s more, the whole GOP line about Democrats “dumping” people into “government-run” care is preposterous. For starters, the exchanges offer choices from among competing private carriers. (snip) Whatever quarrels you may have with the Affordable Care Act, these insurance exchanges are a historic achievement. (snip) The only real objection to moving beyond our archaic regime of employer-based care is the public cost. But once you think about it for 30 seconds, this, too, turns out to have an easy fix — because we’re not adding to health costs, we’re just moving them from one place to another. (snip) In an even modestly sane version of 21st-century America, as I argued in my book “The Tyranny of Dead Ideas,” we’d be talking about a “grand bargain” to shift health costs from private payrolls to public budgets as a way to boost business competitiveness and health security. And we’d figure out an economically rational way to fund this shift (modest consumption tax, anyone?) that business could endorse. As Kevin Hassett, a former McCain economic adviser, has told me, such a funding swap would be fine for the economy even though it would leave government officially “bigger.”
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
As long as you don't have a break in credible coverage of more than 61 days, there are no penalties for pre-existing conditions.
In Taxachusetts employers are forced to insure all full time employees under Romneycare - and it has to be full-blown coverage, kicking many lesser plans out of the state....this will happen with Obamacare.
Healthcare is a club held over employees heads too, forcing employees to go to screenings and self-help clinics and quit certain activities to (it is told) keep the rates stable, it doesn't but that's what is portrayed....employers act as an extra arm of the government.....for this year's example, initiating Michelle's "Let's Move" concept in the workplaces
If you could get cheap subsidized car insurance through your full time employer - with private insurance being prohibitively higher, we'd all be looking at Obamacarcare....and don't even think about not buckling up, you could be fired.
Employers are refusing to hire and are firing smokers (even if they only smoke at home) because of perceived higher health care costs to the employer...if it was car care you could get fired for speeding on your own personal time.
Shoulda woulda coulda becomes can will must.
It’s the should do/must do distinction.
Undesirables will die waiting on ER floors.
Socialism always sounds good on paper.
My guess is if most workers in the USA did not depend on employer provided health care that we would once again become a nation of entrepreneurs. Most simply can’t afford to take a chance leaving an existing job and a health care plan that already covers what a new plan would consider preexisting conditions to pursue an entrepreneurial dream, especially if they have family. Average dependent workers are like a dog on a leash, and our country is becoming a corporatist mindset nation, instead of one that is entrepreneurial and free thinking at heart. Health care is a big problem and reason.
They feel compelled because that was the paradigm.
We need a definite shift in that.
There is no requirement to have health insurance. As individuals, our goal should be to become self-insured.
Employer supplied health insurance is/was compensation.
It should be (should have been) taxed as compensation.
The system that is going into place addresses NONE of the problems of the one it is replacing. And I am one who thinks the old system was dysfunctional and needed reform. The reform that was needed was COMPETITION.
Now all we are doing is shifting 50 state run monopolies into one humongous Federal run monopoly.
Employer supplied health insurance is/was compensation.
It should be (should have been) taxed as compensation.
The system that is going into place addresses NONE of the problems of the one it is replacing. And I am one who thinks the old system was dysfunctional and needed reform. The reform that was needed was COMPETITION.
Now all we are doing is shifting 50 state run monopolies into one humongous Federal run monopoly.
Take it away from Employers,allow Insurance companies to compete across state Lines ,encourage the Use of Health Savings accounts,allow Individuals to contract with Private doctors, Hospitals,Directly. Keep the Government out of it as much as possible
There is in Massachusetts - we got Romneycare - yippee/sarc...if you don't have insurance you are yearly heavily fined that you must pay so you get further away from affording health insurance
As individuals, our goal should be to become self-insured.
Absolutely, the problem with the current system(IMHO) is that employer subsidized insurance keeps costs high, a private policy in MA is expensive and very limited variety - Romneycare is too intrusive and so will Obamacare when it gets really rolling.
Health insurance companies are heavily regulated (currently by the individual states). The states limits the number of companies who can sell insurance in the state, what they can charge, what they must cover, co-pays .... everything basically.
So in essense, THEY ARE, government agencies.
The only difference is the selected few insurance companies can lobby state legislators to up premiums, lower coverage, etc. And they know their competition will get the same rules ... so, no real competition.
It’s a price-fixing racket. If anyone else ran a racket like this they would be prosecuted under RICO laws.
If insurance companies had REAL competition, costs of insurance (and subsequentel cost of care) would go down.
However, that options has been off the table for decades.
Exactly
In other words, it will never happen.
Let’s just dump this government instead!
Oh come on. I have a Business. Do you think we pay business taxes. NO,No and NO. We are broke at the end of each year. We pay out all profits to the owners. Do you think I would rather have the 14,000 we pay per month for health insurance or a tax deduction. DUH!!!!!!
True. But the reality of our current situation is what it is, and the government is a big part of the problem. Providing tax incentives to employers to provide health insurance to their employees started it. The rules states inact to protect group insurance at the expense of private insurance don’t help.
You work for one company, but want to work for another, but the other company won't hire you because of pre-existing conditions?
I guess the details matter here, but if you have the skills that other company needs, why wouldn't they hire you? Does your pre-existing condition prevent you from doing your job? How does any of this mean your employer is holding your health "over your head?"
A company, especially self insured may look at a candidate with an expensive health condition prior to hiring.
I for one can’t say I’d blame them.
This bears repeating. What we have now is not an open health insurance market, it is a farce, and because of that, we are going to be foist something even worse.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.