4 ms·

The problem in the United States (where mit is based) is that a lot of benefits like health insurance and job security are tied to you working a full-time job w

by herge 12y ago

The problem in the United States (where mit is based) is that a lot of benefits like health insurance and job security are tied to you working a full-time job with your employer. It would be more interesting to look at more socialist countries, where benefits are provided more by the government instead of the employer. For example, France has experimented implementing 35 hour work weeks by giving extra days off in the month to white collar workers.

nickff 12y ago
Health insurance is only tied to employers in the US because of IRS tax rules; I find it very strange that one troublesome government intervention can be used to justify further meddling. Why not simply give all Americans the same tax benefits which are currently given to those with employer-sponsored health benefits?
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > Health insurance is only tied to employers in the US because of IRS tax rules No, that's part of how the employer-centric market got started; its now tied to employers for a number of other reasons, including cultural expectations, and the fact that employers as large purchasers can get better prices per covered individuals than individual purchasers, meaning that even without a tax advantage, an employer can provide greater value to employees by providing them a group plan than providing them money with which they can then by an individual plan.
  - nickff 12y ago
    So... if it wouldn't do any harm, why not give all Americans the same tax benefits which are currently enjoyed by those with employer-sponsored health benefits? Would you not agree that treating all citizens equally, and giving them the freedom to choose how and where they get their healthcare would be an improvement on the current system?
    - georgemcbay 12y ago
      "why not give all Americans the same tax benefits which are currently enjoyed by those with employer-sponsored health benefits?" Because large companies have a hugely skewed amount of political power due to campaign finance and lobbying and while I don't think they (large corps) engineered the current system purposefully, I do believe they recognize that it is beneficial for them to maintain it as it helps to keep the wage slaves in line.
    - orangecat 12y ago
      IIRC McCain tried in 2008. It was partially financed by taxing expensive employer-provided plans, and was promptly demogogued as "taking away your existing insurance". Would you not agree that treating all citizens equally, and giving them the freedom to choose how and where they get their healthcare would be an improvement on the current system? Of course. Economists all over the spectrum agree that either individual insurance should be tax-deductible or employer-provided insurance should be taxed. But it will never happen, because politics. See http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/07/19/157047211/six-policies-economists-love-and-politicians-hate http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/07/19/157047211/six-poli...
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      > So I'd suggest that net neutrality is actually a side show here, the real culprit is monopolies. If you mean why not excluded premiums from taxation for all health insurance (with the same limits applied to the pre-tax status of employer-paid health insurance premiums), that's probably a good idea. (Of course, a substantial number of individual purchasers get better tax treatment as individual purchasers through the ACA exchanges by way of the tax credit for premiums.) > Would you not agree that treating all citizens equally, and giving them the freedom to choose how and where they get their healthcare would be an improvement on the current system? I'd agree that not tax-favoring employer-paid premiums over individually-paid premiums would be an improvement over the current system. If you have problems with other distinctions that exist in the status quo, I'd prefer to discuss them specifically rather than generally.
- mikaraento 12y ago
  I think the biggest reason health insurance is provided by the employer, rather than bought by individuals is adverse selection. Simplistically: people who are more likely to suffer an illness (e.g., people with pre-existing conditions) will buy more insurance, and people who think they'll be healthy (e.g., younger people) will buy less. This drives up the amount of payments per insured, which drives up price, which further drives healthy people not to insure. That's why you want health insurance purchase to be independent of risk of illness, which is (at least somewhat) what the employer-provided insurance does. This is probably also the main reason state-provided health insurance might be a good idea. Banerjee's and Duflo's 'Poor Economics' gives you a more detailed and nuanced explanation pp. 147-151. Great reading throughout.
  - niels_olson 12y ago
    The definitive treatment is Paul Starr's Social Transformation of American Medicine http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/142863.The_Social_Transformation_of_American_Medicine http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/142863.The_Social_Transfo... Tl;dr: adverse selection is one of many reasons we are where we are.
tenementfunster 12y ago
Fascinating points you mention here, it's almost like you watched the news or something.

by herge 12y ago

nickff 12y ago

Health insurance is only tied to employers in the US because of IRS tax rules; I find it very strange that one troublesome government intervention can be used to justify further meddling. Why not simply give all Americans the same tax benefits which are currently given to those with employer-sponsored health benefits?

dragonwriter 12y ago
> Health insurance is only tied to employers in the US because of IRS tax rules No, that's part of how the employer-centric market got started; its now tied to employers for a number of other reasons, including cultural expectations, and the fact that employers as large purchasers can get better prices per covered individuals than individual purchasers, meaning that even without a tax advantage, an employer can provide greater value to employees by providing them a group plan than providing them money with which they can then by an individual plan.
- nickff 12y ago
  So... if it wouldn't do any harm, why not give all Americans the same tax benefits which are currently enjoyed by those with employer-sponsored health benefits? Would you not agree that treating all citizens equally, and giving them the freedom to choose how and where they get their healthcare would be an improvement on the current system?
  - georgemcbay 12y ago
    "why not give all Americans the same tax benefits which are currently enjoyed by those with employer-sponsored health benefits?" Because large companies have a hugely skewed amount of political power due to campaign finance and lobbying and while I don't think they (large corps) engineered the current system purposefully, I do believe they recognize that it is beneficial for them to maintain it as it helps to keep the wage slaves in line.
  - orangecat 12y ago
    IIRC McCain tried in 2008. It was partially financed by taxing expensive employer-provided plans, and was promptly demogogued as "taking away your existing insurance". Would you not agree that treating all citizens equally, and giving them the freedom to choose how and where they get their healthcare would be an improvement on the current system? Of course. Economists all over the spectrum agree that either individual insurance should be tax-deductible or employer-provided insurance should be taxed. But it will never happen, because politics. See http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/07/19/157047211/six-policies-economists-love-and-politicians-hate http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/07/19/157047211/six-poli...
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > So I'd suggest that net neutrality is actually a side show here, the real culprit is monopolies. If you mean why not excluded premiums from taxation for all health insurance (with the same limits applied to the pre-tax status of employer-paid health insurance premiums), that's probably a good idea. (Of course, a substantial number of individual purchasers get better tax treatment as individual purchasers through the ACA exchanges by way of the tax credit for premiums.) > Would you not agree that treating all citizens equally, and giving them the freedom to choose how and where they get their healthcare would be an improvement on the current system? I'd agree that not tax-favoring employer-paid premiums over individually-paid premiums would be an improvement over the current system. If you have problems with other distinctions that exist in the status quo, I'd prefer to discuss them specifically rather than generally.
mikaraento 12y ago
I think the biggest reason health insurance is provided by the employer, rather than bought by individuals is adverse selection. Simplistically: people who are more likely to suffer an illness (e.g., people with pre-existing conditions) will buy more insurance, and people who think they'll be healthy (e.g., younger people) will buy less. This drives up the amount of payments per insured, which drives up price, which further drives healthy people not to insure. That's why you want health insurance purchase to be independent of risk of illness, which is (at least somewhat) what the employer-provided insurance does. This is probably also the main reason state-provided health insurance might be a good idea. Banerjee's and Duflo's 'Poor Economics' gives you a more detailed and nuanced explanation pp. 147-151. Great reading throughout.
- niels_olson 12y ago
  The definitive treatment is Paul Starr's Social Transformation of American Medicine http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/142863.The_Social_Transformation_of_American_Medicine http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/142863.The_Social_Transfo... Tl;dr: adverse selection is one of many reasons we are where we are.

tenementfunster 12y ago

Fascinating points you mention here, it's almost like you watched the news or something.