5 ms·

Has there ever been an effort to ban employer sponsored health care? I bet it would be a much bigger issue for people if they were paying for it personally rath

by flukus 9y ago

Has there ever been an effort to ban employer sponsored health care? I bet it would be a much bigger issue for people if they were paying for it personally rather than having their employer shell out.

notfromhere 9y ago
It's still a huge issue, given that even if you have insurance, out of pocket costs can reach 12k per family before it kicks in to 100%. Healthcare is about to be 1/5 of the U.S. economy (compared to ~10-12% elsewhere)
paulddraper 9y ago
For me, that was the most egregious part of Adorable Care Act: I have to tie medical insurance to my employer. And there was a failed effort to repeal the ACA. It drives me crazy. I can choose auto insurance, life insurance, home insurance, disability insurance all independently from other decisions, but health is this special category that is legally linked to my employer.
- maxerickson 9y ago
  Isn't it messier than that? I'm pretty sure you could decline your employer provided coverage and buy a plan from an ACA marketplace. It's just that it wouldn't make sense to do that at an additional cost of thousands of dollars.
  - paulddraper 9y ago
    Correct. You could decline the benefits if you really wanted (e.g. if you were Christian Scientist), but you lose thousands of dollars of your compensation. The ideal would be for your employer to deliver the same value in the form of salary, and then you have the choice free and clear.
    - RightMillennial 9y ago
      TIL: "Christian Scientist" does not refer to someone who is both a Christian and a scientist. It's some quacky, new religious movement, anti-science cult. [Edit] Corrected "new age" to "new religious movement".
      - maxerickson 9y ago
        New age has a fairly clear meaning, Christian Science doesn't match up with it in a couple of ways. It began in the late 1800s and is firmly rooted in Christianity. New Age is a later 20th century thing that is not strongly tied to any historical religion.
      - paulddraper 9y ago
        > new age 1870s > anti-science Though popular medicine was only a little sciency when they were founded. > quacky They use to have lots of celebrity adherents: Joan Crawford, Mickey Rooney, George Hamilton. Kind of like Scientology nowadays.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
maxerickson 9y ago
Obamacare went in the other direction, penalizing employers for not providing insurance (and for providing insurance that doesn't meet certain standards). Some of the Republican proposals this year had provisions for matching the employer tax break on health insurance, but none of them got rid of it (a less drastic step than banning employer provided insurance would be to only give individuals tax deductions for insurance).
maxxxxx 9y ago
When McCain ran against Obama he wanted to get rid of employer health care. I don't remember the details though.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> Has there ever been an effort to ban employer sponsored health care? Yes, there is, but from the other direction from the one you are interested in (universal single-payer). There's also been efforts to eliminate tax and other incentives and mandates that make employer-sponsored care common, which is probably closer to what you are looking for, though the people backing that would generally be ideologically opposed to prohibiting employer-sponsored health care. > I bet it would be a much bigger issue for people The reason health care is a major political issue across the spectrum is that it's costs are already a giant issue for most people. There's disagreement on what to do about it, not on whether it's a big issue that people feel significant impact from. Your solving a non-problem by looking for ways to make it a big issue.
kageneko 9y ago
I don't think there's been a serious effort yet. I seem to recall proposals floating around in the past 6 months, though. One thing I remember is making employer healthcare be taxable income.

by flukus 9y ago

notfromhere 9y ago

It's still a huge issue, given that even if you have insurance, out of pocket costs can reach 12k per family before it kicks in to 100%. Healthcare is about to be 1/5 of the U.S. economy (compared to ~10-12% elsewhere)

paulddraper 9y ago

For me, that was the most egregious part of Adorable Care Act: I have to tie medical insurance to my employer. And there was a failed effort to repeal the ACA. It drives me crazy. I can choose auto insurance, life insurance, home insurance, disability insurance all independently from other decisions, but health is this special category that is legally linked to my employer.

maxerickson 9y ago
Isn't it messier than that? I'm pretty sure you could decline your employer provided coverage and buy a plan from an ACA marketplace. It's just that it wouldn't make sense to do that at an additional cost of thousands of dollars.
- paulddraper 9y ago
  Correct. You could decline the benefits if you really wanted (e.g. if you were Christian Scientist), but you lose thousands of dollars of your compensation. The ideal would be for your employer to deliver the same value in the form of salary, and then you have the choice free and clear.
  - RightMillennial 9y ago
    TIL: "Christian Scientist" does not refer to someone who is both a Christian and a scientist. It's some quacky, new religious movement, anti-science cult. [Edit] Corrected "new age" to "new religious movement".
    - maxerickson 9y ago
      New age has a fairly clear meaning, Christian Science doesn't match up with it in a couple of ways. It began in the late 1800s and is firmly rooted in Christianity. New Age is a later 20th century thing that is not strongly tied to any historical religion.
    - paulddraper 9y ago
      > new age 1870s > anti-science Though popular medicine was only a little sciency when they were founded. > quacky They use to have lots of celebrity adherents: Joan Crawford, Mickey Rooney, George Hamilton. Kind of like Scientology nowadays.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

maxerickson 9y ago

Obamacare went in the other direction, penalizing employers for not providing insurance (and for providing insurance that doesn't meet certain standards). Some of the Republican proposals this year had provisions for matching the employer tax break on health insurance, but none of them got rid of it (a less drastic step than banning employer provided insurance would be to only give individuals tax deductions for insurance).

maxxxxx 9y ago

When McCain ran against Obama he wanted to get rid of employer health care. I don't remember the details though.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> Has there ever been an effort to ban employer sponsored health care? Yes, there is, but from the other direction from the one you are interested in (universal single-payer). There's also been efforts to eliminate tax and other incentives and mandates that make employer-sponsored care common, which is probably closer to what you are looking for, though the people backing that would generally be ideologically opposed to prohibiting employer-sponsored health care. > I bet it would be a much bigger issue for people The reason health care is a major political issue across the spectrum is that it's costs are already a giant issue for most people. There's disagreement on what to do about it, not on whether it's a big issue that people feel significant impact from. Your solving a non-problem by looking for ways to make it a big issue.

kageneko 9y ago

I don't think there's been a serious effort yet. I seem to recall proposals floating around in the past 6 months, though. One thing I remember is making employer healthcare be taxable income.