4 ms·

If workers are terrified of changing, employer-linked healthcare is probably a big part of that.

by BrainInAJar 10y ago

aklemm 10y ago
I would love to see the dynamism that would spring from decoupling health insurance plans and employment.
- BuckRogers 10y ago
  I agree but you wouldn't get that far to see. You'd just hear absolute brain-piercing screams about 'socialism' until that plan was stopped.
  - Kerrick 10y ago
    Nothing about decoupling health insurance and employment says it has to be nationalized. It could be like car or home or life insurance, where you buy your own without your employer's input.
    - BuckRogers 10y ago
      It's probably too late for that idea to pan out. We already have that and it's a (overly expensive) mess. Some blame the gov't and regulations but I place the blame at the market[0]. Healthcare (and the military) is the biggest racket going on today for sure. I mean racket in the traditional term, gov't and private market collusion. Since the elderly and lower classes already have no-charge healthcare, we're already one foot in. May as well just expand Medicare for all to single-payer to those of us who work for a living. I think we need nationalized insurance and private market medicine. Nothing will be perfect but we can definitely do better. [0]http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/11/750pill-pharma-company-under-investigation-by-senate-for-price-gouging/ http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/11/750pill-pharma-compan...
- WalterBright 10y ago
  They're tied together because then the premiums are paid for with before-tax dollars rather than after-tax dollars. The original reason employers offered it was because in WW2 there was a government-imposed wage freeze, and companies got around that by offering benefits like health insurance.
  - clevernickname 10y ago
    So the solution is to stop taxing dollars spent on health care, period. Which, coincidentally, is a large part of Trump's health care plan (untaxed contributions to "Health Savings Accounts" that can accumulate without limit, can be shared with any family member, and are completely transferred on death as part of your estate).
    - davty 10y ago
      Or, you know, socialize healthcare :).
      - duncan_bayne 10y ago
        ... which is just as problematic, ethically speaking, as socialised corporate losses (e.g. bank bailouts). I don't see how anyone can be in favour of one, but not the other. In practice, though, most people favour one or the other, but not neither of both.
        unprepare 10y ago
        You dont see why people believe society should help a gunshot victim but not a bank that sold questionable loans? To most people, there is an extremely obvious distinction.
        duncan_bayne 10y ago
        Sure, there is a massive difference. I think society should support the former, but not the latter. But those arguing for socialised medicine aren't arguing that society should help the gunshot victim, they're arguing that the money to do so should be coerced from members of society. That coercion is morally wrong, regardless of how worthy the recipient is. Also, if societal support were voluntary, people could choose between supporting the gunshot victim or the bank.
eeeeeeeeeeeee 10y ago
This is why I don't understand why there is not greater support for national healthcare among the conservative / business community. Why do employers want to pay for that? If you decouple healthcare from employment, you encourage a lot more people to take risks and start new companies or simply try a different company. Or maybe it is evil and employers know that healthcare is another way to keep their employees from bailing for another company.

If workers are terrified of changing, employer-linked healthcare is probably a big part of that.

aklemm 10y ago

I would love to see the dynamism that would spring from decoupling health insurance plans and employment.

BuckRogers 10y ago
I agree but you wouldn't get that far to see. You'd just hear absolute brain-piercing screams about 'socialism' until that plan was stopped.
- Kerrick 10y ago
  Nothing about decoupling health insurance and employment says it has to be nationalized. It could be like car or home or life insurance, where you buy your own without your employer's input.
  - BuckRogers 10y ago
    It's probably too late for that idea to pan out. We already have that and it's a (overly expensive) mess. Some blame the gov't and regulations but I place the blame at the market[0]. Healthcare (and the military) is the biggest racket going on today for sure. I mean racket in the traditional term, gov't and private market collusion. Since the elderly and lower classes already have no-charge healthcare, we're already one foot in. May as well just expand Medicare for all to single-payer to those of us who work for a living. I think we need nationalized insurance and private market medicine. Nothing will be perfect but we can definitely do better. [0]http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/11/750pill-pharma-company-under-investigation-by-senate-for-price-gouging/ http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/11/750pill-pharma-compan...
WalterBright 10y ago
They're tied together because then the premiums are paid for with before-tax dollars rather than after-tax dollars. The original reason employers offered it was because in WW2 there was a government-imposed wage freeze, and companies got around that by offering benefits like health insurance.
- clevernickname 10y ago
  So the solution is to stop taxing dollars spent on health care, period. Which, coincidentally, is a large part of Trump's health care plan (untaxed contributions to "Health Savings Accounts" that can accumulate without limit, can be shared with any family member, and are completely transferred on death as part of your estate).
  - davty 10y ago
    Or, you know, socialize healthcare :).
    - duncan_bayne 10y ago
      ... which is just as problematic, ethically speaking, as socialised corporate losses (e.g. bank bailouts). I don't see how anyone can be in favour of one, but not the other. In practice, though, most people favour one or the other, but not neither of both.
      - unprepare 10y ago
        You dont see why people believe society should help a gunshot victim but not a bank that sold questionable loans? To most people, there is an extremely obvious distinction.
        duncan_bayne 10y ago
        Sure, there is a massive difference. I think society should support the former, but not the latter. But those arguing for socialised medicine aren't arguing that society should help the gunshot victim, they're arguing that the money to do so should be coerced from members of society. That coercion is morally wrong, regardless of how worthy the recipient is. Also, if societal support were voluntary, people could choose between supporting the gunshot victim or the bank.

eeeeeeeeeeeee 10y ago

This is why I don't understand why there is not greater support for national healthcare among the conservative / business community. Why do employers want to pay for that? If you decouple healthcare from employment, you encourage a lot more people to take risks and start new companies or simply try a different company. Or maybe it is evil and employers know that healthcare is another way to keep their employees from bailing for another company.