Just to clarify, few US workers have the entirety of their health insurance premium paid by their employer. (I hope I’m reading you correctly.)
Traditionally, the employer pays half the premium and the other half is deducted from your pay pre-tax. However, as health premiums have gone up and up, employers pay a smaller and smaller percentage of the premium, or stop paying a portion at all.
US insured workers don’t get their insurance for free. (For example, I insure just myself and even with part of my premium paid, I still pay hundreds of dollars each month out of my pay.) And if employers didn’t have to pay for health insurance at all, there is no way, IMO, that they’d pass that savings on to their employees. It is to laugh.
It would appear that the underlined portions provide her (and indeed, many others) with all of the distinction she requires. It’s difficult (for me) to imagine how a discussion of whether they are distinctive enough to drive policy could be other than polemic.
It’s not about SS disability benefits vs. Medicaid, but SS disability benefits vs. health insurance benefits. Curlcoat’s has been making posts like these:
Her posts show absolutely no sympathy for the insureds who, like her, paid into a system and expected the system to be there for them when they needed it - whether their child was born healthy or not - only to be disappointed. The OP’s people don’t want Medicaid; they want their insurance to pay for the necessary healthcare they thought they were entitled to by virtue of paying into the system for years.
My point: Curlcoat paid into the SS system and expects to receive the benefits when she needs them. I believe she would howl bloody murder if the government did what the insurance company did. What if the government discovered on review that under their policy she really wasn’t disabled enough or they decided not to cover her specific disability any more, and cut off the monthly checks?
Maybe we should ask her directly if she is expecting the entire U.S. government to care that she became disabled? Although she apparently does, she still cannot seem to muster a shred of compassion for these poor people with the sick child.
Well, there’s a good point I hadn’t considered. :rolleyes: If they no longer had to offer this benefit to attract and keep valued employees, they would not pass along the expense savings in the form of raises for their employees, IMO, as I stated.
I guess I missed the point of your argument. Since there isn’t any proposal that will make employers less inclined to offer health insurance benefits, I don’t understand why you brought it up. Employers wouldn’t pay salaries if they could get away with it, but I don’t see the relevance of that either.
? I’m not trying to make any point beyond expressing my opinion. What, all snark in the pit has to contribute to the argument at hand? It’s offhand, get it?
It’s not going to happen automatically, but when negotiating salaries, everyone would just adjust expectations upward to compensate. How could they not?
Really, I’m talking about current employees. Beyond that, most people, IME, don’t really negotiate their salaries. (They can, but they don’t.) In my company, for example, the majority of employees we have? I’d be shocked if any of them besides management negotiated their salaries when they came in.
For sure, but still, over time, salaries would tend to rise to compensate for the lack of health insurance benefits. That doesn’t seem unlikely or laughable at all.
ETA: also, replace “negotiating” with “negotiating and comparing” and my statement is applicable to more people.
I honestly do not agree. The employer no longer has to offer the benefit, it no longer becomes his concern. (In the same way that I wouldn’t necessarily expect an employer to take my mandatory auto coverage into account when offering a salary.) I realize that a good employer knows their market and will offer pay relative to, say, housing costs to stay competitive. Would a good employer consider health costs when constructing pay scales? I would hope. Would an average employer? I doubt it. And, I feel I must add, my opinion is colored by years of working with my boss on company-wide budgets. I can see where they would gladly get rid of the expense (assuming it’s picked up by the government) and only nominally consider the impact on what pay they should offer. (Especially in the industry and locales we operate in.) I don’t doubt the professional classes are savy enough to negotiate and compare. But that’s not the majority of workers. I simply don’t see it happening.
This is the reason many people feel that offering the public option wouldn’t be much of an option at all. Private insurance would greatly suffer, and people would be forced/driven to the federal rolls. That most companies to stay competitive in their industry would simply eliminate the offerings, especially for lower end workers.
I think that assuming that this stuff isn’t negotiated though, is incorrect. People are mobile in their jobs, or at least should be; if not, shame on them. Talent will flow to the best deal, all things considered. If someone is young and healthy and single you bet that the top line is what will be most important to them. If they are married or have kids that will use the healthcare comprehensively, or if they are in poor health relatively speaking, then it will be a more holistic decision (again, for knowledge workers, not the great unwashed).
Fair enough. I’m sure it’s somewhere in the middle of your position and mine. I’m admittedly viewing this from the “professional class” perspective, but I was around when my company was formed and the founders were going through the “how much can we pay ourselves/everyone” exercise, and they were very open about the give and take. Our salaries would definitely be higher if they weren’t paying for health insurance, partially because they knew they had to pay enough to make leaving our old jobs feasible, and if they took away healthcare, they’d need to compensate us so we could provide it ourselves. Then again, these are pretty enlightened dudes that understand when you pinch pennies and when you don’t. So they’re unusual.
And I’d like to hear why does she think that she’s entitled to not be euthanized, while that child had to be aborted for no other reason than to save money.
Have you heard the one about the guy who goes into a hospital and comes out all better and the insurance company paid everything they were contractually obligated to pay?
She’s her. Whereas the baby, parents, people scammed by insurance companies etc… are just idiot, mooching non-people who aren’t her or her husband. How can you not just *see *that the latter only deserve scorn ? It’s painfully obvious, really. Frankly, not understanding this basic fact of life puts you squarely in the second category, if your brazen not_being_curlcoatness wasn’t enough.
