4 ms·

short of act of congress, there is no alternative. Access to healthcare is part of your compensation in the US. I would have to quit if my company wasnt provi

short of act of congress, there is no alternative. Access to healthcare is part of your compensation in the US. I would have to quit if my company wasnt providing a reasonable medical coverage because these costs can otherwise bankrupt a person in this country

ribosometronome 3y ago
>Access to healthcare is part of your compensation in the US. Which is, itself, due to acts of Congress. Our system is the product of intentional design.
- Domenic_S 3y ago
  Sort of. The Stabilization Act of 1942 (act of Congress) authorized FDR's Executive Order 9328 [0], which was a price/wage stabilization Order meant to keep the economy stable during WWII. Because companies could no longer compete via wages, they began competing with fringe benefits -- health insurance being chief among them. It's been that way ever since. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stabilization_Act_of_1942 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stabilization_Act_of_1942
zamfi 3y ago
> I would have to quit if my company wasnt providing a reasonable medical coverage because these costs can otherwise bankrupt a person in this country Your insurance would be functionally quite similar if you purchased it in the private market, and its relative cost compared to your company's premiums depends on your age (and smoker status) compared with the average at your company. But the upshot is that your cash compensation is probably quite a lower because your employer is paying for your healthcare bills. This bundling doesn't necessarily serve you or your employer, though if you're an older employee with dependents who are also covered, you may be benefitting from an implicit subsidy by younger employees without dependents.
- pixl97 3y ago
  >, you may be benefitting from an implicit subsidy by younger employees without dependents. And they in reverse benefit from me paying a higher tax bracket because of my higher income. This is one of those tradeoffs we all make in a society. We'd all be better off at the end of the day if healthcare was separated out from work and we'd just pay it out of taxes directly, like every other reasonable country out there.
  - zamfi 3y ago
    > This is one of those tradeoffs we all make in a society. ...ooookay? Not sure how to process this defensive take, but at least you make it clear what demographic you belong to. My point was entirely financial: on the (heavily regulated) open market, health insurance for older folks is more expensive than for younger folks, while companies typically pay the same premium for each individual employee regardless of age. I'm not making any claims about whether younger employees benefit from this weird arrangement---which is what you seem to be addressing here---just noting that they would pay less on the open market than their employers are paying on their behalf, while older employees would likely pay more. (I say this as a parent who very much benefits from employer-sponsored healthcare.)
thegrim33 3y ago
It doesn't help your case to be hyperbolic, you just come off as irrational and emotional. The average ACA insurance plan costs $477 per month. You can pay that with a job paying federal minimum wage, the lowest legal wage allowable by law anywhere in the country. That's miles away from bankruptcy.
- tristor 3y ago
  That average ACA insurance plan also covers almost nothing. All health insurance is not equal.
  - meetingthrower 3y ago
    Totally false. I've been on ACA silver plans and all expense paid corporate plans. At the end of the day the true costs are pretty equivalent - $20K for a family of 4 per year in cash going to insurance/healthcare. With ACA, that is subsidized massively downward for lower incomes. And the employee pays some. And if you are truly poor (in most states) you get free medicaid plans.
    - nobody9999 3y ago
      >And if you are truly poor (in most states) you get free medicaid plans. The quality of care for Medicaid patients is generally crap. Go and ask your doctor if they accept Medicaid patients, or even those on ACA plans. I'd wager the answer is a big 'no'. The differences in quality of care and levels of access are stark, with most Employer subsidized insurance >> ACA plans >> Medicare >> Medicaid.
      - meetingthrower 2y ago
        Again, 100% false on ACA. (I would agree that medicaid is a PIA, but it's free!) The ACA plans are run by the same carriers as employer plans in my state. Blue Cross, Harvard Pilgrim, etc. Networks are exactly the same. Price is equivalent. If you are paying less through your employer it is because employer is paying insurance company or self insuring instead of paying you the cash. For many industries, especially blue collar, it would actually be much better for employees to do ACA plans as they would pay much less for their healthcare post subsidies. The ACA has been such a boon for small businesses and entrepreneurs - before ACA you basically couldn't get insurance. Now it is actually a non issue.

ribosometronome 3y ago

>Access to healthcare is part of your compensation in the US. Which is, itself, due to acts of Congress. Our system is the product of intentional design.

Domenic_S 3y ago
Sort of. The Stabilization Act of 1942 (act of Congress) authorized FDR's Executive Order 9328 [0], which was a price/wage stabilization Order meant to keep the economy stable during WWII. Because companies could no longer compete via wages, they began competing with fringe benefits -- health insurance being chief among them. It's been that way ever since. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stabilization_Act_of_1942 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stabilization_Act_of_1942

zamfi 3y ago

> I would have to quit if my company wasnt providing a reasonable medical coverage because these costs can otherwise bankrupt a person in this country Your insurance would be functionally quite similar if you purchased it in the private market, and its relative cost compared to your company's premiums depends on your age (and smoker status) compared with the average at your company. But the upshot is that your cash compensation is probably quite a lower because your employer is paying for your healthcare bills. This bundling doesn't necessarily serve you or your employer, though if you're an older employee with dependents who are also covered, you may be benefitting from an implicit subsidy by younger employees without dependents.

pixl97 3y ago
>, you may be benefitting from an implicit subsidy by younger employees without dependents. And they in reverse benefit from me paying a higher tax bracket because of my higher income. This is one of those tradeoffs we all make in a society. We'd all be better off at the end of the day if healthcare was separated out from work and we'd just pay it out of taxes directly, like every other reasonable country out there.
- zamfi 3y ago
  > This is one of those tradeoffs we all make in a society. ...ooookay? Not sure how to process this defensive take, but at least you make it clear what demographic you belong to. My point was entirely financial: on the (heavily regulated) open market, health insurance for older folks is more expensive than for younger folks, while companies typically pay the same premium for each individual employee regardless of age. I'm not making any claims about whether younger employees benefit from this weird arrangement---which is what you seem to be addressing here---just noting that they would pay less on the open market than their employers are paying on their behalf, while older employees would likely pay more. (I say this as a parent who very much benefits from employer-sponsored healthcare.)

thegrim33 3y ago

It doesn't help your case to be hyperbolic, you just come off as irrational and emotional. The average ACA insurance plan costs $477 per month. You can pay that with a job paying federal minimum wage, the lowest legal wage allowable by law anywhere in the country. That's miles away from bankruptcy.

tristor 3y ago
That average ACA insurance plan also covers almost nothing. All health insurance is not equal.
- meetingthrower 3y ago
  Totally false. I've been on ACA silver plans and all expense paid corporate plans. At the end of the day the true costs are pretty equivalent - $20K for a family of 4 per year in cash going to insurance/healthcare. With ACA, that is subsidized massively downward for lower incomes. And the employee pays some. And if you are truly poor (in most states) you get free medicaid plans.
  - nobody9999 3y ago
    >And if you are truly poor (in most states) you get free medicaid plans. The quality of care for Medicaid patients is generally crap. Go and ask your doctor if they accept Medicaid patients, or even those on ACA plans. I'd wager the answer is a big 'no'. The differences in quality of care and levels of access are stark, with most Employer subsidized insurance >> ACA plans >> Medicare >> Medicaid.
    - meetingthrower 2y ago
      Again, 100% false on ACA. (I would agree that medicaid is a PIA, but it's free!) The ACA plans are run by the same carriers as employer plans in my state. Blue Cross, Harvard Pilgrim, etc. Networks are exactly the same. Price is equivalent. If you are paying less through your employer it is because employer is paying insurance company or self insuring instead of paying you the cash. For many industries, especially blue collar, it would actually be much better for employees to do ACA plans as they would pay much less for their healthcare post subsidies. The ACA has been such a boon for small businesses and entrepreneurs - before ACA you basically couldn't get insurance. Now it is actually a non issue.