3 ms·

Seems like easy solution would be to ban that entirely. So everyone would be forced to get health insurance from free market. The compensation could be moved to

by Ekaros 3y ago

Seems like easy solution would be to ban that entirely. So everyone would be forced to get health insurance from free market. The compensation could be moved to regular pay. And tax deduction given.

School-Cotton 3y ago
> Seems like easy solution would be to ban that entirely It’s not really “easy” to reform/change anything this significant in the US. It is not like a European country with a functioning modern parliament that can make laws. In the US system both major parties have to agree in order to pass anything of substance, which due to hyper-polarization means essentially nothing gets passed.
koolba 3y ago
That would be a double whammy of positive side effects. Besides decoupling the insurance from employment to facilitate career changes and even quitting, it would also bring down the average price of insurance for people who currently get it on the individual market as the average corporate worker is statistically healthier than the rest of the population. Eliminating the tax deduction is not enough as even at break even the company offering health insurance is a net win from the lower risk pool. It had to be an additional penalty / tax.
muststopmyths 3y ago
So… mostly the original design of Obamacare ? That went over swimmingly. There are enough “easy” solutions if the only goal is well-being of the citizen. That’s not always the priority for some obscure reason
jandrewrogers 3y ago
To some extent, that would just move the problem around rather than solving it. In the US, the individual States have a lot of control over how healthcare is implemented, as a Constitutional matter. Every time a State looks into eliminating employment-based insurance, rudimentary analysis shows systemic risk due to arbitrage and adverse selection that is nearly impossible to design out of the system legally. Due to fundamental differences in how individual States are governed and funded, and their respective Constitutions, this is a durable feature of trying to change the way the system works (i.e. harmonizing it is infeasible). The US healthcare system is stuck in a deep local minima. The cost of transitioning to a different equilibrium is so high that it is obviously politically infeasible any most if not all States. I don't like the current system but if there was a viable path to a different model, at least some States would have taken it.

by Ekaros 3y ago

Seems like easy solution would be to ban that entirely. So everyone would be forced to get health insurance from free market. The compensation could be moved to regular pay. And tax deduction given.

School-Cotton 3y ago

> Seems like easy solution would be to ban that entirely It’s not really “easy” to reform/change anything this significant in the US. It is not like a European country with a functioning modern parliament that can make laws. In the US system both major parties have to agree in order to pass anything of substance, which due to hyper-polarization means essentially nothing gets passed.

koolba 3y ago

That would be a double whammy of positive side effects. Besides decoupling the insurance from employment to facilitate career changes and even quitting, it would also bring down the average price of insurance for people who currently get it on the individual market as the average corporate worker is statistically healthier than the rest of the population. Eliminating the tax deduction is not enough as even at break even the company offering health insurance is a net win from the lower risk pool. It had to be an additional penalty / tax.

muststopmyths 3y ago

So… mostly the original design of Obamacare ? That went over swimmingly. There are enough “easy” solutions if the only goal is well-being of the citizen. That’s not always the priority for some obscure reason

jandrewrogers 3y ago

To some extent, that would just move the problem around rather than solving it. In the US, the individual States have a lot of control over how healthcare is implemented, as a Constitutional matter. Every time a State looks into eliminating employment-based insurance, rudimentary analysis shows systemic risk due to arbitrage and adverse selection that is nearly impossible to design out of the system legally. Due to fundamental differences in how individual States are governed and funded, and their respective Constitutions, this is a durable feature of trying to change the way the system works (i.e. harmonizing it is infeasible). The US healthcare system is stuck in a deep local minima. The cost of transitioning to a different equilibrium is so high that it is obviously politically infeasible any most if not all States. I don't like the current system but if there was a viable path to a different model, at least some States would have taken it.