Theoretically, businesses compete for the best talent by offering “benefits”, such as health insurance. Since it is a financial burden, only successful companies can afford it, so they attract the best employees. Market Darwinism; companies that are not successful enough to offer health insurance will wither and die, and employees who are not competent enough to qualify for a job with benefits must do without, or pay out of pocket. Either way, the likelihood of them prospering is low.
Hang on, if ‘Middle America’ does not want to pay taxation for healthcare, why the hell should it expect the employer to do it instead?
Even socialists would have difficulty getting their heads around that, and I am surprised other parts of the US political spectrum finds this acceptable, why should business pay for something it recieves little benefit from, after all, a worker dies, just get another one out of the box.
All this really smacks of an alarming lack of personal responsibility, you either have collective healthcare systems, or you pay yourself(perhaps with tax breaks), but you don’t go for the middle way, where you still expect someone else to pay for it but make sure that others can’t have it.
You lot need some discipline, social or market, take your pick, but don’t prevent other people getting affordable healthcare and then freeload on your employer, and then somehow look down your collective noses at the less fortunate.
Oh, haven’t you heard? Jesus was rich. He had to hire someone to hold his bag of money, and of course, He had a *very *famous father, with the kind of name that opens a lot of doors. He rode a donkey, in high style, rather than eating it. All that tripe about him hanging out with lowly prostitutes and bad-mouthing wealthy men is just socialist propaganda. If he weren’t wealthy, nobody would’ve listened to him, because who listens to poor people? He was rich, and he wants *us *to be rich, and that the end of the story.
(Although the above sounds like perhaps the most sarcastic thing I have ever written, there are actually “Christian leaders” making these claims, presumably with a straight face.)
No it is not. health care is part of an employee package. It is part of his pay. Just eliminate it from the contracts and with a public option we can seek the best deal for ourselves. Without the option it is un-American price fixing determining the price. Most companies would cut a deal with the employees if they did not have to pay for health care.
The Right likes to talk about personal responsibility. Of course to discipline those who don’t accept it, they rely on socialist agencies like the police departments. They say that if only the government would stop stealing their hard-earned money, they could buy their own insurance and plan for their own retirements. On strictly personal observation, they tend to spend their money on consumer items rather than insurance and such. And I think the past year should show how risky planning for personal retirement can be. There are a lot of people whose finances were destroyed in the recent Wall Street meltdown and investment frauds.
I agree. However I’ve noticed that the people who shout loudest about morality are the most socially immoral.
I’ve worked for multinational corporations and sole proprietorships. Many SPs in this country can’t afford insurance, not providing it doesn’t give them any money to give to the employees to buy it. Larger corporations would likely give their employees a token raise and give the rest to the stockholders.
When I was covered by my wifes insurance, I had companies split the savings with me. I could have applied for their insurance ,so they saved half and I got half.
I hesitate to ask, but what is that saying about me then?
It seems strange to have a bunch of insured people, who do not actually pay for it, complain about some other people who don’t have insurance getting it for nothing.
I am sure that I could put together something about attitudes, dogs and mangers that would suit the thoughts I have.
‘Split the savings’. There’s the problem right there. Let’s say that insurance costs $500/month. The company says, ‘Look. We’ll drop insurance and allow you to get insurance on the open market. We’ll give you a $250/month raise.’ So now you have to buy $500/month insurance with $250 plus your regular contribution. That’s not going to work.
The way I’d handle it is to have single-payer coverage. With single payer the pool is much larger, so premiums go down. Employers would be taxed a lesser amount than they are currently paying because the rates are lower. Even if the employees’ contributions remain the same (converted to a payroll tax), they have better coverage that is portable; and if they lose their jobs, they still have the same coverage while they look for a new one.
You have to understand that I lurk at a gun forum. People there shout about how immoral Society is, and how much better the country would be if only everyone were as moral as they.
And then they post about how much they’d like to shoot illegal immigrants. Or there will be some instance of a crime and the perpetrator is Black and they sarcastically post ‘Well, surprise, surprise!’ And then say how the perp should be killed quickly, and often tortuously. Or they’ll read about a rape and seemingly have a contest to see who can come up with the most gruesome execution. Or they imply that they’re just waiting for someone to do them wrong so they can kill them.
They talk about how righteous they are, yet are completely opposed to the whole ‘Love they neighbour’ thing and helping the poor as Jesus did.
I could do that because I was covered by my wives insurance. I did not have to buy it. The company did not have to pay it.
Insurance companies are exempted from monopoly laws. That should be the first thing to change. You can not really shop for insurance. There is little price differences. A company can cut costs by cutting coverage, having bigger co-pays or making the employees kick in a bigger share. But the costs continually go up. There are no market forces making their prices go down. A public option might be one.
In Michigan the Medicare supplement policies all went up simultaneously about a month ago. There was a section in the paper showing how each policy was climbing in anticipation of a downward effect of the health insurance bill. They would then be free to negotiate back to where they were creating an illusion of lowering prices.
That’s hilarious. I hope a few right-wing lurker’s heads exploded. The 2nd-funniest thing about the teabaggers (after their name) is their complete and utter ignorance about how “socialist” President Obama is, which is, not one fucking bit.
This is exactly why the Republican/right-wing/Blue Dog politicians don’t want any kind of UHC. Nothing that would be useful to a large segment of the American population anyway. Once anything good is implemented, the people will like it, and they’ll scream the next time a right-winger gets into office and threatens to take it away.
Republican/right-wing/Blue Dog politicians and their sympathizers hate middle class and poor Americans, especially poor. I would have added Libertarians but they’re a joke and have no power so their contempt and hatred of American people doesn’t matter.
Well, we do for some things, especially eye care (both glasses and laser surgery), cosmetic surgery, hair replacement, and many ‘optional’ pharmas, etc. In fact I think the market has worked pretty well for those fringe areas, and I’ve frequently heard them held up as a possible model for driving down medical costs in more mainstream areas. Some combination of medical savings accounts, tax credits, etc.
PS I’m with the others who have their doubts about the OP’s story. Having just had a couple kids in and out of the hospital, the amount of checking that goes on at/pre-admission leaves no doubt as to insurance coverage. Not that we should let the facts interfere with a good yarn though.
You are misinterpreting that poll. Just because someone is against the Senate bill does not mean they are against universal health care. Plenty of liberals oppose the Senate bill because it does not have a public option, and is not liberal enough. That should not be confused with opposition to UHC.
Leesha and Fear, I agree with you to a point, but I guess by your test then, there is no UHC in the forseeable future (probably my lifetime). I’d much prefer to talk about reality. Since the current bills in the House and Senate represent HCR, I was quoting those polls. If this watered down version of UHC doesn’t pass, then what chance would a real UHC have?
This is especially true when you consider the politics. There is a perfect storm right now, a President who has said he’s in favor of single-payer, and the Dems with massive edges both in the House and Senate. I would bet my next paycheck that this will be considerably worse for the Dems next year. They will lose approx 20-30 seats in the House, the Senate probably 4-5 seats. It will be even worse in 2012 and 2014, when the Dems will have to defend far more seats than in 2010.