6 ms·

I agree. My wife's company offers better insurance than mine so I had always been on hers and declined the insurance offered by my company. Her company just imp

I agree. My wife's company offers better insurance than mine so I had always been on hers and declined the insurance offered by my company. Her company just implemented a policy stating that if the spouse is eligible for insurance through their own employer there would be a $200 per month surcharge for them electing to use her companies. I understand where her company is coming from but I think we as a nation (US) can do better.

magduf 7y ago
>but I think we as a nation (US) can do better. No, we can't. If we could, we would. Things are like this because we want them to be like this: it's reflected in how we vote. We've had candidates pushing for "Medicare for all", universal healthcare, etc., and who gets elected? The candidates promising to go the other direction. Clearly, American society and its voters do not want this.
- cj 7y ago
  People evolve. So do their opinions and beliefs. Just because Universal Healthcare didn't catch on the first time doesn't mean it's dead forever. It'll happen eventually. Maybe in 4 years, maybe in 40.
  - magduf 7y ago
    Maybe you're willing to wait 40 years for people to evolve, but I'm not. There's better places to live.
- briandear 7y ago
  As an American voter, I definitely don’t want this. Health services, like any economic good, are scarce. I’d rather have rationing through the market then rationing via government (and yes, there has to be rationing; it’s not an unlimited good.) Maybe some poor don’t get the best care quickly, but under a government system, everyone is equally limited in their access to care (i.e. waiting lists.) Someone who provides significant value to society waits in line behind a person who doesn’t provide much value — that isn’t good for society. It’s unsaid because it’s incendiary, but all people in society aren’t equally important to that society: an electrical engineer is more useful than an unemployed cashier. With price-based rationing, those that generate more value have easier access to scarce care resources than those who generate less value. It’s logical, but politically tough because those that generate little value outnumber those that produce high value — and those low value people vote.
  - saagarjha 7y ago
    > With price-based rationing, those that generate more value have easier access to scarce care resources than those who generate less value. No, it just means that people who are rich can afford healthcare and those who aren’t can’t. > It’s logical, but politically tough because those that generate little value outnumber those that produce high value — and those low value people vote. Should they not?
  - greesil 7y ago
    It's not a XOR proposition. That's why it's called "the public option". If you want alternative health care to what's provided by the government, you can pay for it.
  - allday 7y ago
    Maybe some poor don’t get the best care quickly an electrical engineer is more useful than an unemployed cashier low value people Well, I mean, it's rare for someone to be so upfront with their blatant sociopathy, so thanks for that I guess. It’s logical ah, that ol' dogwhistle
    - jtms 7y ago
      Ad hominem. Attack the idea not the person. Just because someone has a different view than you doesn’t make them a sociopath.
    - NikolaNovak 7y ago
      While I disagree with briandear, I don't find it sociopathic. (It's like the PG said - be aware of what the Taboos/unspeakable ideas are in society.) I live in Canada as an immigrant, love it here, would never move, and USA health/insurance system frankly baffles me, even having lived there for a year previously. Don't even remotely understand why people put up with sheer complexity and opaqueness. But I appreciate people like the GP [briandear] that eloquently and clearly help me understand alternative perspectives different to my own. I think it's a very valid, very core discussion of values and goals: is it equal care for all, or do we prioritize it? And I agree with GP [briandear] that shying away from this core discussion muddles the issue. Sometimes it feels like USA builds ever more complex systems to mask the goals and direction of its health care system, rather than a simple system that would fess up and do whatever it's meant to do efficiently :-/
kmlx 7y ago
"declined the insurance offered by my company." don't know how it is in the US, so this may look uninformed, but are you getting extra $$$ added to your salary, equivalent to what the employer was paying for the insurance?
- wonderwonder 7y ago
  No, I don't get the difference. The company keeps what it would pay towards my insurance but I don't have anything deducted from my check for what would be my share of the insurance either. Edit: My wife though pays more for her company insurance as they would need to insure me as well.
- moate 7y ago
  Not typically, but it's possible that someone might be able to negotiate this with their bosses. Typically people opt out of company insurance because of one of the following reasons: It's cheaper for them to find services through the marketplace (extremely uncommon, but possible), They have superior insurance through a spouse or family member, they feel that the insurance they're provided with isn't sufficient and they would prefer to purchase better insurance themselves.
- shagmin 7y ago
  It's not the norm, but I was once offered a job where if I declined health insurance they'd pay me the difference - it was a 4 person company.
noxToken 7y ago
This is one of the main pain points of health insurance policies in the US that makes it nearly impossible to see if you're getting true value. A monthly premium, a copay per visit, a deductible, co-insurance/cost share and out of pocket maximums. Then factor in potential fees from an employer. All of that aside, it's impossible to know how much you're actually going to visit the doctor aside from chronic ailments.

magduf 7y ago

>but I think we as a nation (US) can do better. No, we can't. If we could, we would. Things are like this because we want them to be like this: it's reflected in how we vote. We've had candidates pushing for "Medicare for all", universal healthcare, etc., and who gets elected? The candidates promising to go the other direction. Clearly, American society and its voters do not want this.

cj 7y ago
People evolve. So do their opinions and beliefs. Just because Universal Healthcare didn't catch on the first time doesn't mean it's dead forever. It'll happen eventually. Maybe in 4 years, maybe in 40.
- magduf 7y ago
  Maybe you're willing to wait 40 years for people to evolve, but I'm not. There's better places to live.
briandear 7y ago
As an American voter, I definitely don’t want this. Health services, like any economic good, are scarce. I’d rather have rationing through the market then rationing via government (and yes, there has to be rationing; it’s not an unlimited good.) Maybe some poor don’t get the best care quickly, but under a government system, everyone is equally limited in their access to care (i.e. waiting lists.) Someone who provides significant value to society waits in line behind a person who doesn’t provide much value — that isn’t good for society. It’s unsaid because it’s incendiary, but all people in society aren’t equally important to that society: an electrical engineer is more useful than an unemployed cashier. With price-based rationing, those that generate more value have easier access to scarce care resources than those who generate less value. It’s logical, but politically tough because those that generate little value outnumber those that produce high value — and those low value people vote.
- saagarjha 7y ago
  > With price-based rationing, those that generate more value have easier access to scarce care resources than those who generate less value. No, it just means that people who are rich can afford healthcare and those who aren’t can’t. > It’s logical, but politically tough because those that generate little value outnumber those that produce high value — and those low value people vote. Should they not?
- greesil 7y ago
  It's not a XOR proposition. That's why it's called "the public option". If you want alternative health care to what's provided by the government, you can pay for it.
- allday 7y ago
  Maybe some poor don’t get the best care quickly an electrical engineer is more useful than an unemployed cashier low value people Well, I mean, it's rare for someone to be so upfront with their blatant sociopathy, so thanks for that I guess. It’s logical ah, that ol' dogwhistle
  - jtms 7y ago
    Ad hominem. Attack the idea not the person. Just because someone has a different view than you doesn’t make them a sociopath.
  - NikolaNovak 7y ago
    While I disagree with briandear, I don't find it sociopathic. (It's like the PG said - be aware of what the Taboos/unspeakable ideas are in society.) I live in Canada as an immigrant, love it here, would never move, and USA health/insurance system frankly baffles me, even having lived there for a year previously. Don't even remotely understand why people put up with sheer complexity and opaqueness. But I appreciate people like the GP [briandear] that eloquently and clearly help me understand alternative perspectives different to my own. I think it's a very valid, very core discussion of values and goals: is it equal care for all, or do we prioritize it? And I agree with GP [briandear] that shying away from this core discussion muddles the issue. Sometimes it feels like USA builds ever more complex systems to mask the goals and direction of its health care system, rather than a simple system that would fess up and do whatever it's meant to do efficiently :-/

kmlx 7y ago

"declined the insurance offered by my company." don't know how it is in the US, so this may look uninformed, but are you getting extra $$$ added to your salary, equivalent to what the employer was paying for the insurance?

wonderwonder 7y ago
No, I don't get the difference. The company keeps what it would pay towards my insurance but I don't have anything deducted from my check for what would be my share of the insurance either. Edit: My wife though pays more for her company insurance as they would need to insure me as well.
moate 7y ago
Not typically, but it's possible that someone might be able to negotiate this with their bosses. Typically people opt out of company insurance because of one of the following reasons: It's cheaper for them to find services through the marketplace (extremely uncommon, but possible), They have superior insurance through a spouse or family member, they feel that the insurance they're provided with isn't sufficient and they would prefer to purchase better insurance themselves.
shagmin 7y ago
It's not the norm, but I was once offered a job where if I declined health insurance they'd pay me the difference - it was a 4 person company.

noxToken 7y ago

This is one of the main pain points of health insurance policies in the US that makes it nearly impossible to see if you're getting true value. A monthly premium, a copay per visit, a deductible, co-insurance/cost share and out of pocket maximums. Then factor in potential fees from an employer. All of that aside, it's impossible to know how much you're actually going to visit the doctor aside from chronic ailments.