7 ms·

Ideally they would be coupled to our government, but since they aren't providing that, our employers should be obligated to ensure they are providing us with th

by z_open 9y ago

Ideally they would be coupled to our government, but since they aren't providing that, our employers should be obligated to ensure they are providing us with the means to keep ourselves healthy.

wincy 9y ago
We should be able to get health insurance and bargain based on community groups or individually tax-free rather than by employer. If the entire Mormon church could collective bargain for health insurance for its members it would be WAY cheaper than any employer (because they don't drink alcohol or smoke).
- maxxxxx 9y ago
  Just make one big risk pool nationwide. Easy to administer .
  - adventured 9y ago
    The parent was suggesting a superior risk pool. One big risk pool nation-wide isn't superior. The bottom 50% of healthcare consumers represent a mere 3% of all healthcare spending each year. That's the ideal risk pool, we know who that pool consists of: overwhelmingly younger people. 5% of healthcare consumers, are responsible for about 50% of all healthcare costs. That pool consists overwhelmingly of people over the age of 50. That's the high risk pool. Including them into any pool, isn't an improvement to the pool's cost structure. What you're arguing for is that including them is superior morally. That's a perfectly legitimate premise obviously. It's radically inferior financially/economically, if we're talking about building risk pools.
    - walshemj 9y ago
      Well eventually those young people will be over 50 and make more call on health services.
    - maxxxxx 9y ago
      Picking risk pools is not smart and I doubt it's economical either in the long run. You can pick young, healthy people first. That works for a while but then these people get older. Now you have to kick them out. This is good for short term profit but you can't run a system like that long term. If you eliminate thinking about risk pools and just insure the whole country the same you can also eliminate a lot of bureaucracy.
- qwerty456127 9y ago
  Can't it actually do this? Can't a club of people establish a nonprofit and buy insurance collectively somewhat the way corporations do?
  - virmundi 9y ago
    Probably not. States set what insurance can allow. If your state blocks small groups from getting insurance, then you’re out in the cold. http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2011/05/02/group-health-insurance-employer.html http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2011/05/02/group-health-...
    - qwerty456127 9y ago
      > States set what insurance can allow. Why? From my perspective the whole problem with healthcare and insurance is these are way far from a free markets. Wouldn't it be better if the insurance companies would just look at what people want and offer just that for the prices that make both sides interested?
      - virmundi 9y ago
        I don't think the states should have much power over this particular market. Insurance definitionally crosses state bounds. If I get in a car accident in Kentucky, Florida blue still pays my bills. This is clearly a federal commerce clause issue. If that's the case, the Feds should bust the limits. Specifically I was replying to the idea of incorporating a large group outside the bounds of a company for insurance purposes. As it stands, the states may block it.
  - zrail 9y ago
    This is something that is coming down the pike with the changes the current administration has made for "association health plans". They solve some micro problems (healthy self-employed people will be able to buy cheap group health insurance without being part of a traditional employer group) while also making the overall problem much worse (the individual exchanges become a de-facto high risk dumping ground and get way more expensive). This is a problem for high income self-employed people with preexisting conditions. They probably won't be able to buy into an association health plan and they won't get premium subsidies from the government because they make too much, which means their premiums will be a ridiculous percentage of their income. I switched from self-employed contracting to full time W2 with my biggest client back in December. The biggest reason is because they offered to pay for very good small group health insurance.
tzahola 9y ago
My government takes a 20% cut from my salary for the exact same reason. Nevertheless, our public health care is so shitty that every self-respecting employer includes private healthcare in their package. So the government is basically forcing me to pay for something that I don’t intend to use (because I don’t want to die from nosocomial infections in a moldy hospital room).
- qwerty456127 9y ago
  Would you mind sharing the country name? I am sure (because I've tried it myself) the quality standards differ by orders of magnitude in different countries where it works this way.
  - tzahola 9y ago
    Hungary
pathseeker 9y ago
That's historically the way it has been but it's absurd in general. Would you argue the same thing about housing, food, and water (they should all be provided by the employer)? Really what we need is an expectation of being able to buy healthcare on our own with regular incomes.
- gambiting 9y ago
  No, the american approach is beyond absurd. Of course my employer should pay into(government ran) healthcare on my behalf. Of course they should pay into a pension plan. And yes, currently, if I stay beyond my mandated 7.5 hours, my employer has to provide food during that time. My employer also has to provide water during working hours. If my employer asks me to go somewhere on company business, they have to provide housing.
  - pc86 9y ago
    I wait with bated breath for the day we can have serious conversations about these topics without these ridiculous posts intentionally misrepresenting the other person's argument.
    - rectang 9y ago
      We can't have a reasonable conversation about it because it's a zero-sum war between labor and capital. It's not possible to decide issues such as benefits on the basis of what's best for the economy because where the benefits come from doesn't have a big macro-economic impact. What this argument is about is who gets how much of the pie.
      - SamReidHughes 9y ago
        Compared to America's current health care regulations it's not zero sum at all.
        rectang 9y ago
nitwit005 9y ago
Why would you want that? I mean it. Why should your employer pick your health care, returement savings, or life insurance choices? Even if the best case where they act if your best interest, you have to deal with all your benefits changing when you change jobs.

by z_open 9y ago

Ideally they would be coupled to our government, but since they aren't providing that, our employers should be obligated to ensure they are providing us with the means to keep ourselves healthy.

wincy 9y ago

We should be able to get health insurance and bargain based on community groups or individually tax-free rather than by employer. If the entire Mormon church could collective bargain for health insurance for its members it would be WAY cheaper than any employer (because they don't drink alcohol or smoke).

maxxxxx 9y ago
Just make one big risk pool nationwide. Easy to administer .
- adventured 9y ago
  The parent was suggesting a superior risk pool. One big risk pool nation-wide isn't superior. The bottom 50% of healthcare consumers represent a mere 3% of all healthcare spending each year. That's the ideal risk pool, we know who that pool consists of: overwhelmingly younger people. 5% of healthcare consumers, are responsible for about 50% of all healthcare costs. That pool consists overwhelmingly of people over the age of 50. That's the high risk pool. Including them into any pool, isn't an improvement to the pool's cost structure. What you're arguing for is that including them is superior morally. That's a perfectly legitimate premise obviously. It's radically inferior financially/economically, if we're talking about building risk pools.
  - walshemj 9y ago
    Well eventually those young people will be over 50 and make more call on health services.
  - maxxxxx 9y ago
    Picking risk pools is not smart and I doubt it's economical either in the long run. You can pick young, healthy people first. That works for a while but then these people get older. Now you have to kick them out. This is good for short term profit but you can't run a system like that long term. If you eliminate thinking about risk pools and just insure the whole country the same you can also eliminate a lot of bureaucracy.
qwerty456127 9y ago
Can't it actually do this? Can't a club of people establish a nonprofit and buy insurance collectively somewhat the way corporations do?
- virmundi 9y ago
  Probably not. States set what insurance can allow. If your state blocks small groups from getting insurance, then you’re out in the cold. http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2011/05/02/group-health-insurance-employer.html http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2011/05/02/group-health-...
  - qwerty456127 9y ago
    > States set what insurance can allow. Why? From my perspective the whole problem with healthcare and insurance is these are way far from a free markets. Wouldn't it be better if the insurance companies would just look at what people want and offer just that for the prices that make both sides interested?
    - virmundi 9y ago
      I don't think the states should have much power over this particular market. Insurance definitionally crosses state bounds. If I get in a car accident in Kentucky, Florida blue still pays my bills. This is clearly a federal commerce clause issue. If that's the case, the Feds should bust the limits. Specifically I was replying to the idea of incorporating a large group outside the bounds of a company for insurance purposes. As it stands, the states may block it.
- zrail 9y ago
  This is something that is coming down the pike with the changes the current administration has made for "association health plans". They solve some micro problems (healthy self-employed people will be able to buy cheap group health insurance without being part of a traditional employer group) while also making the overall problem much worse (the individual exchanges become a de-facto high risk dumping ground and get way more expensive). This is a problem for high income self-employed people with preexisting conditions. They probably won't be able to buy into an association health plan and they won't get premium subsidies from the government because they make too much, which means their premiums will be a ridiculous percentage of their income. I switched from self-employed contracting to full time W2 with my biggest client back in December. The biggest reason is because they offered to pay for very good small group health insurance.

tzahola 9y ago

My government takes a 20% cut from my salary for the exact same reason. Nevertheless, our public health care is so shitty that every self-respecting employer includes private healthcare in their package. So the government is basically forcing me to pay for something that I don’t intend to use (because I don’t want to die from nosocomial infections in a moldy hospital room).

qwerty456127 9y ago
Would you mind sharing the country name? I am sure (because I've tried it myself) the quality standards differ by orders of magnitude in different countries where it works this way.
- tzahola 9y ago
  Hungary

pathseeker 9y ago

That's historically the way it has been but it's absurd in general. Would you argue the same thing about housing, food, and water (they should all be provided by the employer)? Really what we need is an expectation of being able to buy healthcare on our own with regular incomes.

gambiting 9y ago
No, the american approach is beyond absurd. Of course my employer should pay into(government ran) healthcare on my behalf. Of course they should pay into a pension plan. And yes, currently, if I stay beyond my mandated 7.5 hours, my employer has to provide food during that time. My employer also has to provide water during working hours. If my employer asks me to go somewhere on company business, they have to provide housing.
- pc86 9y ago
  I wait with bated breath for the day we can have serious conversations about these topics without these ridiculous posts intentionally misrepresenting the other person's argument.
  - rectang 9y ago
    We can't have a reasonable conversation about it because it's a zero-sum war between labor and capital. It's not possible to decide issues such as benefits on the basis of what's best for the economy because where the benefits come from doesn't have a big macro-economic impact. What this argument is about is who gets how much of the pie.
    - SamReidHughes 9y ago
      Compared to America's current health care regulations it's not zero sum at all.
      - rectang 9y ago

nitwit005 9y ago

Why would you want that? I mean it. Why should your employer pick your health care, returement savings, or life insurance choices? Even if the best case where they act if your best interest, you have to deal with all your benefits changing when you change jobs.