4 ms·

This definitely isn't me. While I want to be able to choose my own insurance because I think I could select a better one, my HSA with my company costs me eithe

This definitely isn't me. While I want to be able to choose my own insurance because I think I could select a better one, my HSA with my company costs me either $0 or like $2 a month. The PPO is like $100 / month. If I got my own, personal insurance, it would easily be $600/mo. Now, I can afford this; but people who make less than a software engineer absolutely could not; and, they're not going to be getting an 8k / year raise (taxes) to compensate for that. It'd be nice (edit: if) they were; but, they won't.

Glyptodon 5y ago
It goes without saying that severing the employer insurance relationship should come with premiums being pushed back into salaries. What exactly that should look like is a pretty open-ended question, though.
- texasbigdata 5y ago
  Correct. You'll have a employer and employee deduction per period to Blue Cross or your insurer of choice. Same for dental, workers comp, etc. OP has an interesting point, but at the societal level it's not fair to do comparisons with an unpriced externality in one of the alternatives.
  - syshum 5y ago
    More and more companies are direct insurance, meaning even if they use an "insurance company" to manage the group, that is just for the administration of the group. The companies are paying the medical costs of the employee directly.
- ipaddr 5y ago
  And funnelled back into taxes which would pay for that $600 cost directly.
- dillondoyle 5y ago
  Or why not tackle the bigger problem at the same time and move towards a more nationalized system.
  - syshum 5y ago
    Because not everyone agree's that a nationalized system is the best solution to the bigger problem, hell we probably do not even agree what the bigger problem is i.e I am sure you believe the market is the problem, where I believe government is the problem, so since I believe government is the problem i certainly do not believe giving more control to the same government that created the problem is the solution to the problem
    - runarberg 5y ago
      A role of a politician is not to ensure there is a complete public consensus before enacting a policy. It is to gather what makes a policy good, persuade the public that it is indeed a good policy, and then finally push through the legislative assembly with a general support from the public. A politician that never acts unless there is a complete consensus is a pretty lousy politician and should probably be voted out of office.
      - syshum 5y ago
        Pretty sure none of that is relevant to my comment, Politicians have been trying to persuade the public to allow the government to take over health care since the 1990's, and have enacted a number of policies to worsen the health market making it harder and harder to operate, to extort the public in to accepting the government as the solution to the problem they have been slowly creating for the last 40+ years. (or really since WWII if you want to count creating the link between employment and insurance by enacting wage controls during the war)
    - markoman 5y ago
      So, the solution is to live with employer-controlled and -connected healthcare and watch them as they cut the coverage and hike the costs year after year. This might be fine when your a SWE in your 20's and not on any meds but for those on BP or diabetic medications, this isn't much of a solution. Government didn't create this problem because it didn't mandate that employee healthcare be a benefit from employers. That was simply "laissez-faire capitalism", i.e., the belief that the market is all-knowing and will eventually guide us to an efficient and effective equilibrium. Except that really only happens in perfect markets and they don't exist outside of textbooks.
irrational 5y ago
Same here. The insurance through my Fortune 500 company is incredibly good and cheap. It would be so expensive if I tried to buy a similar level of insurance at market rates.
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  The insurance from my Fortune 500 company is very cheap, and if you like the insurance options they have then it is very good. But if you'd prefer something else, there is no option at all. I would like to be able to keep my preferred doctor when I switch jobs.
briffle 5y ago
There is no reason your employer can't offer you the insurance, or put the same amount of money in a tax excempt account for your to purchase your own insurance from. The only reason why is employers love you to be 'tied' to them for the benefits.
- t-writescode 5y ago
  Outstanding. Now, given the way the world is, at this second, how do you see this evolution actually going?
whakim 5y ago
Don't companies get to deduct their contributions to health care plans from their payroll taxes, which means the government is effectively subsidizing employer coverage (as opposed to individual coverage)?
unethical_ban 5y ago
Right, so legislate that companies with health insurance plans release the amount of money per employee they're paying to subsidize the plan, and force them to increase wages by no less than that amount.

Glyptodon 5y ago

It goes without saying that severing the employer insurance relationship should come with premiums being pushed back into salaries. What exactly that should look like is a pretty open-ended question, though.

texasbigdata 5y ago
Correct. You'll have a employer and employee deduction per period to Blue Cross or your insurer of choice. Same for dental, workers comp, etc. OP has an interesting point, but at the societal level it's not fair to do comparisons with an unpriced externality in one of the alternatives.
- syshum 5y ago
  More and more companies are direct insurance, meaning even if they use an "insurance company" to manage the group, that is just for the administration of the group. The companies are paying the medical costs of the employee directly.
ipaddr 5y ago
And funnelled back into taxes which would pay for that $600 cost directly.
dillondoyle 5y ago
Or why not tackle the bigger problem at the same time and move towards a more nationalized system.
- syshum 5y ago
  Because not everyone agree's that a nationalized system is the best solution to the bigger problem, hell we probably do not even agree what the bigger problem is i.e I am sure you believe the market is the problem, where I believe government is the problem, so since I believe government is the problem i certainly do not believe giving more control to the same government that created the problem is the solution to the problem
  - runarberg 5y ago
    A role of a politician is not to ensure there is a complete public consensus before enacting a policy. It is to gather what makes a policy good, persuade the public that it is indeed a good policy, and then finally push through the legislative assembly with a general support from the public. A politician that never acts unless there is a complete consensus is a pretty lousy politician and should probably be voted out of office.
    - syshum 5y ago
      Pretty sure none of that is relevant to my comment, Politicians have been trying to persuade the public to allow the government to take over health care since the 1990's, and have enacted a number of policies to worsen the health market making it harder and harder to operate, to extort the public in to accepting the government as the solution to the problem they have been slowly creating for the last 40+ years. (or really since WWII if you want to count creating the link between employment and insurance by enacting wage controls during the war)
  - markoman 5y ago
    So, the solution is to live with employer-controlled and -connected healthcare and watch them as they cut the coverage and hike the costs year after year. This might be fine when your a SWE in your 20's and not on any meds but for those on BP or diabetic medications, this isn't much of a solution. Government didn't create this problem because it didn't mandate that employee healthcare be a benefit from employers. That was simply "laissez-faire capitalism", i.e., the belief that the market is all-knowing and will eventually guide us to an efficient and effective equilibrium. Except that really only happens in perfect markets and they don't exist outside of textbooks.

irrational 5y ago

Same here. The insurance through my Fortune 500 company is incredibly good and cheap. It would be so expensive if I tried to buy a similar level of insurance at market rates.

rootusrootus 5y ago
The insurance from my Fortune 500 company is very cheap, and if you like the insurance options they have then it is very good. But if you'd prefer something else, there is no option at all. I would like to be able to keep my preferred doctor when I switch jobs.

briffle 5y ago

There is no reason your employer can't offer you the insurance, or put the same amount of money in a tax excempt account for your to purchase your own insurance from. The only reason why is employers love you to be 'tied' to them for the benefits.

t-writescode 5y ago
Outstanding. Now, given the way the world is, at this second, how do you see this evolution actually going?

whakim 5y ago

Don't companies get to deduct their contributions to health care plans from their payroll taxes, which means the government is effectively subsidizing employer coverage (as opposed to individual coverage)?

unethical_ban 5y ago

Right, so legislate that companies with health insurance plans release the amount of money per employee they're paying to subsidize the plan, and force them to increase wages by no less than that amount.