5 ms·

Not sure why you're getting down voted - tying health care to employment is a burden on both companies (at least small ones) and workers.

noobermin 8y ago
I'm sympathetic but I'm not sure how it's related.
coltonv 8y ago
Probably because he didn't make it clear that the reason he brought up Medicare for All was because the whole reason contractors are so prevalent is so you don't have to pay for healthcare for them, effectively separating your workers into two classes. Medicare for All would be beneficial in this example as it would totally remove the burden on company to provide a healthcare plan. Without that crucial context, it sounds like he's just randomly bringing up hot-button political issues.
colechristensen 8y ago
In countries with socialized medicine already, how many people are covered by private health insurance and is it paid for by the employer? The answers are "lots" and "mostly"
- keithnz 8y ago
  I'm in NZ, it's not too common. There is private health insurance, but it mainly is for extra beyond what the state provides and to short circuit wait lists for certain elective medical procedures. It's also pretty cheap, a few companies will pay for it, mostly employees get a discount through their work places. Most small small businesses wouldn't offer it at all. According to stats around 35% of NZ adults ( from 2015 ) have private insurace.
  - WaylonKenning 8y ago
    My private health insurance in NZ costs $1650 USD a year, including dental and optical, and nearly unlimited hospital care. On earnings of $~100K USD, you'd pay $26.5K USD in income tax, $1.2K in compulsory accident insurance, for a total tax rate of 28.12% (https://www.paye.net.nz/calculator.html https://www.paye.net.nz/calculator.html).
- ejstronge 8y ago
  > In countries with socialized medicine already, how many people are covered by private health insurance and is it paid for by the employer? > The answers are "lots" and "mostly" I would appreciate citations for this statement. As it is here, I suspect the 'lots' actually are a wealthier subset of the overall population; indeed, I imagine the subset of employer-paid insurance beneficiaries is smaller in most other countries. If you'd like to read more about this topic, NEJM has published a series on the healthcare systems of many countries[1]. 1. See 'Related Articles' here: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1413937 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1413937
- chongli 8y ago
  The difference is that it's a perk, not a necessity. If you get diagnosed with cancer and then subsequently fired, you don't have to remortgage your home (if you have one) in order to pay for your treatment.
- walshemj 8y ago
  Yeh but its shit (in the UK) from experience I had a major operation and having Bupa gave me zero benefits. All it means is you have a" benefit" that is supposedly worth "800 quid) costs you 400 in tax I would rather have had an extra £800 in my pension. Its interesting my current employer does not do private health for this reason.
- robocat 8y ago
  I would like to see some facts back that up. Perhaps for the richest quartile, but surely not the poorest quartile... The point of socialised healthcare is to provide some cover to the otherwise least fortunate in your society.
- flukus 8y ago
  In Australia it's ~50% and I've never heard of anyone getting it paid by the employer, it's an alien concept. Even that 50% is with the government abusing the tax system to force people to take out basic private insurance.
  - Tehdasi 8y ago
    My company does actually give a subsidy to health care, so it's not a totally alien concept in Australia. But it's pretty rare.
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  "The answers are "lots" and "mostly" Where would that be? Name examples. In Germany you certainly don't get it paid by the employer.

noobermin 8y ago

I'm sympathetic but I'm not sure how it's related.

coltonv 8y ago

Probably because he didn't make it clear that the reason he brought up Medicare for All was because the whole reason contractors are so prevalent is so you don't have to pay for healthcare for them, effectively separating your workers into two classes. Medicare for All would be beneficial in this example as it would totally remove the burden on company to provide a healthcare plan. Without that crucial context, it sounds like he's just randomly bringing up hot-button political issues.

colechristensen 8y ago

In countries with socialized medicine already, how many people are covered by private health insurance and is it paid for by the employer? The answers are "lots" and "mostly"

keithnz 8y ago
I'm in NZ, it's not too common. There is private health insurance, but it mainly is for extra beyond what the state provides and to short circuit wait lists for certain elective medical procedures. It's also pretty cheap, a few companies will pay for it, mostly employees get a discount through their work places. Most small small businesses wouldn't offer it at all. According to stats around 35% of NZ adults ( from 2015 ) have private insurace.
- WaylonKenning 8y ago
  My private health insurance in NZ costs $1650 USD a year, including dental and optical, and nearly unlimited hospital care. On earnings of $~100K USD, you'd pay $26.5K USD in income tax, $1.2K in compulsory accident insurance, for a total tax rate of 28.12% (https://www.paye.net.nz/calculator.html https://www.paye.net.nz/calculator.html).
ejstronge 8y ago
> In countries with socialized medicine already, how many people are covered by private health insurance and is it paid for by the employer? > The answers are "lots" and "mostly" I would appreciate citations for this statement. As it is here, I suspect the 'lots' actually are a wealthier subset of the overall population; indeed, I imagine the subset of employer-paid insurance beneficiaries is smaller in most other countries. If you'd like to read more about this topic, NEJM has published a series on the healthcare systems of many countries[1]. 1. See 'Related Articles' here: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1413937 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1413937
chongli 8y ago
The difference is that it's a perk, not a necessity. If you get diagnosed with cancer and then subsequently fired, you don't have to remortgage your home (if you have one) in order to pay for your treatment.
walshemj 8y ago
Yeh but its shit (in the UK) from experience I had a major operation and having Bupa gave me zero benefits. All it means is you have a" benefit" that is supposedly worth "800 quid) costs you 400 in tax I would rather have had an extra £800 in my pension. Its interesting my current employer does not do private health for this reason.
robocat 8y ago
I would like to see some facts back that up. Perhaps for the richest quartile, but surely not the poorest quartile... The point of socialised healthcare is to provide some cover to the otherwise least fortunate in your society.
flukus 8y ago
In Australia it's ~50% and I've never heard of anyone getting it paid by the employer, it's an alien concept. Even that 50% is with the government abusing the tax system to force people to take out basic private insurance.
- Tehdasi 8y ago
  My company does actually give a subsidy to health care, so it's not a totally alien concept in Australia. But it's pretty rare.
maxxxxx 8y ago
"The answers are "lots" and "mostly" Where would that be? Name examples. In Germany you certainly don't get it paid by the employer.