5 ms·

From the article: > Instead of asking the gamers to try a product the way Netflix would, "Get Health Reform Right" requires gamers to take a survey, which, upo

by Deestan 17y ago

From the article: > Instead of asking the gamers to try a product the way Netflix would, "Get Health Reform Right" requires gamers to take a survey, which, upon completion, automatically sends the following email to their Congressional Rep: > "I am concerned a new government plan could cause me to lose the employer coverage I have today. More government bureaucracy will only create more problems, not solve the ones we have."

orangecat 17y ago
Ugh. I don't support the proposed plan, but protecting "employer coverage" is just about the worst possible reason to oppose it. Why should my employer have anything to do with my health insurance, any more than they do with my housing or auto expenses? In fact, much of my opposition to Obama's plan is that it strengthens that foolish and harmful dependency.
- icey 17y ago
  Just a minor nit, there is no such thing as "Obama's" plan. There is a House bill and a Senate bill (currently under review for amendments), and he hasn't endorsed either yet.
- walkon 17y ago
  If health benefits didn't have tax breaks, employers would probably stop giving them and would be able to pay a bit more in salary (benefit cost - increased taxes). I personally would prefer to be paid more and use that to select my own health plan, that way it would be portable.
  - potatolicious 17y ago
    Except non-employer health plans rarely cover pre-existing conditions, which ultimately is what ails most people and contributes most to prolonged suffering in quality of life. I'm of the opposite opinion, having grown up in Canada (now in the US). I'd much rather have a public plan, even if it means worse care for a moderately well-to-do individual like myself. The whole American health care debate appears to me as a matter of the haves vs. the have-nots, with the added complexity that a lot of have-nots seem to incorrectly identify themselves as haves.
    - orangecat 17y ago
      Except non-employer health plans rarely cover pre-existing conditions, which ultimately is what ails most people and contributes most to prolonged suffering in quality of life. There definitely needs to be a solution for those who are uninsurable, but employer coverage is a lousy mechanism for that. I'd much rather have a "public option" that charges a reasonable multiple of what the premium for a healthy person would be. That would ensure that you could always get coverage, and provide a guaranteed ceiling on your expenses.
    - walkon 17y ago
      The game would be significantly changed if employers stopped offering it as part of a benefit package. I'm sure the housing hazard insurance industry would look much different if it was a standard employment benefit. Ultimately, insurance of any kind is a financial risk mitigation pool. The financial risks are spread over those in the pool instead of just one. Everyone in the pool shares the cost of everyone else. I don't want the government creating a super large public pool that I am required to pay for, even if I'm allowed to choose not to be a member of it.
      - abstractbill 17y ago
        The financial risks are spread over those in the pool instead of just one. Everyone in the pool shares the cost of everyone else. I don't want the government creating a super large public pool that I am required to pay for, even if I'm allowed to choose not to be a member of it. This uniquely American attitude is honestly one of the very few reasons I occasionally consider moving back to Britain.
      - potatolicious 17y ago
        > I don't want the government creating a super large public pool that I am required to pay for, even if I'm allowed to choose not to be a member of it. This may seem innocuous to Americans, but for us Canadians this sentence epitomizes why American health care is in the mess it is today. The lack of concern for your fellow man is disconcerting at best - and based on people I've talked to here in the US people generally don't feel that other people being sick and dying will negatively affect them. IMHO this is the big difference: in socialized medicine countries we acknowledge that when a large swathe of the population goes without basic medical care, we all lose - lost productivity, general misery, etc. There's at least the general notion of paying up "for the greater good". In America I get the feeling it's more treated as "meh, maybe you should work harder". The level of apathy demonstrated for people less fortunate is frankly the one thing that has shocked me ever since moving here, and nowadays is part of my "definition" of the American consciousness. It's always someone else's problem, not our collective problem.
amalcon 17y ago
Well, I doubt that would work too well either. A rash of e-mails of the same general form will probably be attributed to a few spammers spoofing return addresses, rather than to a genuine movement. These people probably get spam about political issues all the time.

by Deestan 17y ago

orangecat 17y ago

Ugh. I don't support the proposed plan, but protecting "employer coverage" is just about the worst possible reason to oppose it. Why should my employer have anything to do with my health insurance, any more than they do with my housing or auto expenses? In fact, much of my opposition to Obama's plan is that it strengthens that foolish and harmful dependency.

icey 17y ago
Just a minor nit, there is no such thing as "Obama's" plan. There is a House bill and a Senate bill (currently under review for amendments), and he hasn't endorsed either yet.
walkon 17y ago
If health benefits didn't have tax breaks, employers would probably stop giving them and would be able to pay a bit more in salary (benefit cost - increased taxes). I personally would prefer to be paid more and use that to select my own health plan, that way it would be portable.
- potatolicious 17y ago
  Except non-employer health plans rarely cover pre-existing conditions, which ultimately is what ails most people and contributes most to prolonged suffering in quality of life. I'm of the opposite opinion, having grown up in Canada (now in the US). I'd much rather have a public plan, even if it means worse care for a moderately well-to-do individual like myself. The whole American health care debate appears to me as a matter of the haves vs. the have-nots, with the added complexity that a lot of have-nots seem to incorrectly identify themselves as haves.
  - orangecat 17y ago
    Except non-employer health plans rarely cover pre-existing conditions, which ultimately is what ails most people and contributes most to prolonged suffering in quality of life. There definitely needs to be a solution for those who are uninsurable, but employer coverage is a lousy mechanism for that. I'd much rather have a "public option" that charges a reasonable multiple of what the premium for a healthy person would be. That would ensure that you could always get coverage, and provide a guaranteed ceiling on your expenses.
  - walkon 17y ago
    The game would be significantly changed if employers stopped offering it as part of a benefit package. I'm sure the housing hazard insurance industry would look much different if it was a standard employment benefit. Ultimately, insurance of any kind is a financial risk mitigation pool. The financial risks are spread over those in the pool instead of just one. Everyone in the pool shares the cost of everyone else. I don't want the government creating a super large public pool that I am required to pay for, even if I'm allowed to choose not to be a member of it.
    - abstractbill 17y ago
      The financial risks are spread over those in the pool instead of just one. Everyone in the pool shares the cost of everyone else. I don't want the government creating a super large public pool that I am required to pay for, even if I'm allowed to choose not to be a member of it. This uniquely American attitude is honestly one of the very few reasons I occasionally consider moving back to Britain.
    - potatolicious 17y ago
      > I don't want the government creating a super large public pool that I am required to pay for, even if I'm allowed to choose not to be a member of it. This may seem innocuous to Americans, but for us Canadians this sentence epitomizes why American health care is in the mess it is today. The lack of concern for your fellow man is disconcerting at best - and based on people I've talked to here in the US people generally don't feel that other people being sick and dying will negatively affect them. IMHO this is the big difference: in socialized medicine countries we acknowledge that when a large swathe of the population goes without basic medical care, we all lose - lost productivity, general misery, etc. There's at least the general notion of paying up "for the greater good". In America I get the feeling it's more treated as "meh, maybe you should work harder". The level of apathy demonstrated for people less fortunate is frankly the one thing that has shocked me ever since moving here, and nowadays is part of my "definition" of the American consciousness. It's always someone else's problem, not our collective problem.

amalcon 17y ago

Well, I doubt that would work too well either. A rash of e-mails of the same general form will probably be attributed to a few spammers spoofing return addresses, rather than to a genuine movement. These people probably get spam about political issues all the time.