How did we ever get to the point that employers were expected to pay for your health insurance?

reply to post by tothetenthpower


Well that is good that you just one adequate care because advancement will slow to a crawl once they fix prices down to where you cant afford to do R & D. If the damn government didnt make them jump through 10k hoops and take years and years to approve drugs then maybe R & D and brining new drugs to market might stay a bit cheaper.

reply to post by WhatTheory


You missed my point. NO it's not screw everybody else. Obviously we pay taxes that help out everybody when they require more care than I do.

As I said, if I need better healthcare, I have outlets I can go to pay for them, to receive that updated care.

And I have done so in the US because yes, I do agree with you that the more you pay, the better service you are going to get.

~Keeper

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
You missed my point.

I don't think so. However we are not going to change each other opinions so what is the point in arguing any further.

If you are happy with your system then that is great. The point I am making is that 85% of Americans are happy with their healthplan as it currently stands. Sure, there are some improvement which could make that number go even higher and reduce some costs.

However, I and most Americans don't want Ovomit changing our system to mimic your system or the EU type of system. We are happy with the government on the outside. They are already to involved.

reply to post by WhatTheory


That I can certainly respect, If I was an American and had lived with your system all my life, I wouln't want them changing it either.

That's because if I had the same type of life I have here in Canada, I would probably we very well taken care of by my HMO or whatever.

And I also agree that our system is flawed and could be much better.

~Keeper

reply to post by grapesofraft


The trouble with type of argument is that instead of the expensive world of scarcity that we are brought up to believe in, we live in a world of plenty.

Were it not for corruption, greed and amorality, there would be enough of everything to go round including free healthcare and education for all. We are an intelligent, resourceful species that get ever more efficient at everything we do, and yet the costs of everything forever rise to hieghts that price out higher and higher percentages of the population. My grandfathers' income was enough to raise a whole family and own two homes, both my parents had to work multiple jobs to get ahead. Myself, I have become resigned to the fact that I will never earn enough to even own my own home let alone raise a family.

The American system of healthcare is corrupt. You are biggest healthcare market from which you should reap the benefits of economies of scale and yet, I may be wrong, but I believe you pay more per head of population for healthcare than anyone else.

In the words of Stephen Fry: "It's rotten! Rotten to the core!"

(For the quote nerds: A Bit of Fry and Laurie-The Rotten Apple sketch)

Originally posted by sharps
Were it not for corruption, greed and amorality, there would be enough of everything to go round including free healthcare and education for all. We are an intelligent, resourceful species that get ever more efficient at everything we do, and yet the costs of everything forever rise to hieghts that price out higher and higher percentages of the population. My grandfathers' income was enough to raise a whole family and own two homes, both my parents had to work multiple jobs to get ahead. Myself, I have become resigned to the fact that I will never earn enough to even own my own home let alone raise a family.

And do you know why this is the case? Answer: Government.
The government is already involved heavily in every aspect of our lives. You mention your grandfather. Well, slowly since his generation, government has been getting more and more involved into our lives. It's called incrementalism. So I sure hope you are not for the total control of government regarding our healthcare because what makes you think there will be no fraud, waste or corruption when government is who started this problem in the first place?

Screw Ovomit's healthcare plan!

[edit on 8/1/2009 by WhatTheory]

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by grapesofraft

 

Well, as an employer who has ALWAYS provided full healthcare benefits to their employees, I beg to differ.

Companies should be the ones providing health care or providing it at reduced rates. My company does well, pretty darn well actually, and I have never had a problem providing these things, even when I was just starting out.

The problem with self reliance is that companies would rather deal with a company when it's insuring people, than the actual individual. It reduces paper costs and headaches when it comes to filing for benefits and coverage.

And nationalized health care is not bad. It's just a matter of how you set it up. Sure there are some horror stories, but nothing's perfect. I live in Canada and have NEVER had a problem with the healthcare system, if I did, I can ALWAYS pay for better service through other means.

And I have a child whose medical bills would total over 50K a year without my government healthcare program.

~Keeper

With all due respect, you are totally wrong. The reason we have employers paying for healthcare is because they get tax deductions for doing it. The private citizen gets ZERO tax benefits for paying for their own. With companies paying for your healthcare, as soon as you lose your job...you lose your healthcare, tell me how that system works? Oh you think it can be fixed with nationalized healthcare? Well that doesn't exactly address the actual problem, it just sticks a bandaid on it, a very very expensive bandaid.

"The tax exemption of employer-provided medical care has two different effects, both of which raise health costs. First, it leads employees to rely on their employer, rather than themselves, to make arrangements for medical care. Yet employees are likely to do a better job of monitoring medical care providers—because it is in their own interest—than is the employer or the insurance company or companies designated by the employer. Second, it leads employees to take a larger fraction of their total remuneration in the form of medical care than they would if spending on medical care had the same tax status as other expenditures.

If the tax exemption were removed, employees could bargain with their employers for higher take-home pay in lieu of medical care and provide for their own medical care either by dealing directly with medical care providers or by purchasing medical insurance. Removal of the tax exemption would enable governments to reduce the tax rate on income while raising the same total revenue. This hidden subsidy for medical care, currently more than $100 billion a year, is not included in reported figures on government health spending.

Extending the tax exemption to all medical care—as in the current limited provision for medical savings accounts and the proposals to make such accounts more widely available—would reduce reliance on third-party payment. But, by extending the hidden subsidy to all medical care expenditures, it would increase the tendency of employees to take a larger portion of their remuneration in the form of medical care. (I discuss medical savings accounts more fully in the conclusion.)"

www.hoover.org...

[edit on 14-8-2009 by yellowcard]