5 ms·
because it was haphazardly stitched together we ended up with healthcare that 1. does not cover everyone 2. it is rationed by for-profit companies 3. is is exp
by usausa9 8y ago
because it was haphazardly stitched together we ended up with healthcare that
1. does not cover everyone
2. it is rationed by for-profit companies
3. is is expensive and can bankrupt you
4. tied to employment which means you can lose it easily
5. confusing since you often have to deal with paperwork and multiple providers
If you are rich and can afford it the american system is great but it is awful for everyone else.
- calyth2018 8y ago4a. Because US health coverage tied to employment, it serves as golden handcuffs. But hey, got to have those profits...
- StephenAmar 8y agoThat's the case in other countries, like France.
- usausa9 8y agoyou are right, it forces people to stay in jobs they don't like a forego other opportunities like starting a business.
- refurb 8y agoYet entrepreneurism is highest in the US, not countries with universal coverage.
- octonion 8y agoWhat is your source for that claim?
- refurb 8y agohttps://thegedi.org/global-entrepreneurship-and-development-index/ https://thegedi.org/global-entrepreneurship-and-development-...
- robbrit 8y agoGoes to show that health care is not the only factor that people consider when starting a business. It's possible that other factors are significantly more important, enough so that people will start businesses in the US despite the poor health care - in my experience the availability of investment and networking opportunities is a huge factor.
- rdiddly 8y agoLot of variables not being controlled-for there...
- ggreer 8y agoThe reason health insurance became an employment perk was because of a tax loophole created during World War II. From A History of Employee Benefits and Taxation[1]: > At the same time, the federal controls on wages was leading to significant angst and frustration among the labor market, and the threat of widespread strikes and other forms of labor protest became a serious threat to the economy and war effort. In response, the War Labor Board implemented a new income tax exemption to employers sponsoring employee health plans. This made employer contributions deductible on federal returns, while the benefits were entirely tax-free, to the employees [3]. > What started as a measure to avert crisis and labor strikes ended up becoming an expectation. As more and more employers leveraged these tax-benefitted health plans, American workers grew accustomed to getting their health insurance through work, rather than as individuals. The end of the war and the return home of American GIs exposed more workers to the new system, reinforcing its popularity and utilization [3]. By the 1960s, employer-sponsored health insurance plans had overwhelmingly displaced the formal individual market, a status that has persisted right into the start of the 21st century and provided a central tenant of the Affordable Care Act of 2008 [4]. In my opinion, this is yet another example of how even the most well-intentioned legislation can have disastrous consequences if it fails to account for incentives and second-order effects. 1. https://taxandbusinessonline.villanova.edu/resources-taxation/article-taxation/a-history-of-employee-benefits-and-taxation.html https://taxandbusinessonline.villanova.edu/resources-taxatio...
- pessimizer 8y agoThis quotation carefully skirts around the actual reason why health insurance became an employment perk and why a tax loophole was created during WWII. In an intentionally deceptive way (not by the poster, but by the original author.) People were getting their insurance through their unions. Before the unions started doing this, nobody associated health insurance with employment. This made people grateful and happy with their unions. The government, in order to weaken the unions, paid employers to give their employees insurance with a tax break. Not understanding this makes the first sentence completely unconnected to the rest of the text. Health insurance was not a raise, heath insurance was an intentionally union-breaking subsidy to businesses to give bosses more leverage on wages. i.e. this was not well-intentioned.
- darpa_escapee 8y ago> If you are rich and can afford it the american system is great but it is awful for everyone else. I know plenty of incredibly wealthy people who fly to places like France and Israel to see specialists, so take from that what you will.
- thatfrenchguy 8y agoComing from middle class in France to upper-middle class in the US, the quality of care in the US is so subpar it makes me sad. Sure, in exchange, you don't have to plan your annual visit to the optometrist 3 months in advance, but I'd rather have a doctor that actually cares instead of useless shiny tech.
- refurb 8y agoHmmm... as someone who came from Canada, I find the quality of care in the US superior to what I got in Canada.
- octonion 8y agoIt should be noted your opinion is contrary to every survey covering this topic I've ever seen.
- robbrit 8y agoI'm in the same boat as refurb, however these are just anecdotal experiences. It's possible that we're in rich areas (I know I am) and so the quality of the care reflects the clientele. In Canada it's more of a one-size-fits-all approach, but that one size is better than the average US hospital.
- refurb 8y agoIndeed it's my experience only. I would agree that the quality of care in the US has a much bigger spread than Canada. However, as a middle class person in both countries, there are benefits that you get in the US, you don't get in Canada.