3 ms·
Single-payer is one option, but for those of us who don't trust the US federal government to do it right, there is another option. There are three main reasons
by pitaj 7y ago
Single-payer is one option, but for those of us who don't trust the US federal government to do it right, there is another option.
There are three main reasons employer-provided insurance is so popular:
- The ACA failed Americans by resulting in drastically higher insurance plan prices
- The ACA requires employers to provide health insurance
- A dollar spent by your employer on health insurance is not subject to payroll taxes, but individual plans are
Additionally, a secondary effect of employers covering the insurance costs of their employees is that insurance is not subject to individual pricing pressure, since most people don't even know the cost of their insurance.
To fix this, I propose the following:
- Roll back the ACA, allow those with preexisting conditions to use medicare or medicaid instead
- Provide tax benefits to people purchasing personal healthcare plans
- Provide tax incentives for employers to transfer their company coverage to the individual employees
- pnutjam 7y agoTranslation, private companies make Bank and dump the unhealthy on taxpayers.
- enraged_camel 7y ago>>but for those of us who don't trust the US federal government to do it right Why do you not trust them to do it right? Both Medicare and VA Health Care are run pretty well and are extremely popular amongst their recipients.
- 8note 7y agoI'm not clear what people with pre-existing conditions should do if they don't trust the federal government to do it right.
- lotsofpulp 7y agoThe mandate to for health insurers to pay for healthcare for people with pre-existing conditions caused higher health insurance premiums. If you want to pay for it with medicare or medicaid, then taxes will go up instead of health insurance premiums. There's no free lunch, and there's nothing wrong with ACA other than not forcing everyone onto healthcare.gov and eliminating employers from the healthcare equation altogether. That, or just provide healthcare for everyone via taxes. Either way, taxes/health insurance premiums, the cost is going to be borne by everyone one way or the other.
- scarface74 7y agoHow many people both have a pre-existing condition and can afford insurance on the private market? If you are part of a group insurance plan through a company, they have always been required to accept people with pre-existing conditions at the same price.
- lotsofpulp 7y agoThe group’s total price, and hence per member price, would go up, at least for the following year. There is no scenario where people can use more healthcare and pay lease. The only solution is to spread it out over more people. The only way to lower per member price is to have lower total costs, which means restricting your pool of members to healthier lives, which nicely coincide with cushy white collar jobs that can afford to offer benefits.
- scarface74 7y agoThat’s true. But it has nothing to do with the ACA as the parent post claims. Insurance companies have never been allowed to exclude people who are eligible under their group plan.
- lotsofpulp 7y agoMy issue with the parent post was that I interpreted it as claiming the ACA causing health insurance premiums to rise, to which I wanted to point out that any legislation that would have resulted in more people getting healthcare would have resulted in either higher insurance premiums or taxes. Therefore it’s moot to complain that ACA caused one’s health insurance premiums to rise. The only way to provide more healthcare for cheaper is to increase the supply of labor, I.e. doctors and medicines.