Crazy idea .... no company should be allowed to offer health insurance for employees.

[Statistical]

Simply pay employees a fair wage and let them buy their own insurance (like they do with every other type of insurance).

The employer based system resulted in a two tier system. Employers negotiate for best rates however those without employer based insurance face much (2x, 3x, 10x 20x) higher premiums. As a result people without employer based coverage who can survive without health insurance don't get coverage this further slides the risk pool so that only that most desperate and sickest remain.

It is stupid. If you have a $40K job + $15K health insurance why not have companies just pay you $55K a year and buy a $15K policy?

In a perfect world we would have single payer but even without single payer no employer based coverage would at least result in a level playing field. Imagine if you could shop for health insurance (including as a choice a public option) like you do homeowners or auto insurance. Wouldn't that make more sense.

[cbdo2007]

1. "no company should be allowed"

I say let companies do whatever they want. I certainly wouldn't ban companies from offering an extra incentive to their employees.

[Statistical]

3. However that "extra" incentive is the basis for our utterly broken health care system.

If a company wants to provide "extra incentive" what is wrong with cash?

Company pays cash to purchase health insurance to "give" to employees
VS
Company simply pays more cash to employees

[cbdo2007]

7. You seriously think the main problem with our health care system is that companies

provide health insurance to their employees??

I don't think I've ever heard someone with that opinion before.

[Statistical]

12. I think it creates a whole host of issue.

It fragments the population into the haves and the have nots. It subsidizes the insurance costs for large entities and places all that on the backs of those who have no other choice (people who need coverage and have no employer based plan). When an insurance company "gives" a company a 3% or 5% reduction it isn't free money. It is simply paid for by those with the least means, the last options, the last control.

For the record I have always had employer based coverage. I think it was a good idea (when proposed by unions 50 years ago in lieu of wage increases). However today it provides no real value and creates tremendous inefficiencies in the system.

My prefered system would be single payer.

However in the absence of that I would like to have real choice and competition.

Imagine if tomorrow there was no employer based coverage. Your employer simply paid you more (the amount they currently are paying for benefits) and you purchased the level of coverage you wanted (just like you do w/ homeowners or auto insurance).

Insurance companies were required to offer a single universal rate for coverage (price varying only based on level of coverage). Also among your choices was a handful of public options. Those with low income would receive subsidies to assist with purchasing coverage.

[leftofcool]

33. Thanks, I will keep our employer provided health coverage

If we had to pay for it out of pocket it would be almost 1700 a month with a 2500 deductable. I like to eat and have my cancer treatments.

[hobbit709]

2. There should be health COVERAGE not insurance.

[another saigon]

4. or

we could do like most EU countries, provide coverage for all and for the well off, offer private insurance if they desire.

[kiva]

5. I suspect you'll soon get half of your idea, unfortunatly

the half that doesn't include a benefit for workers. For the past couple of months many DUers have posted that their employer-based insurance is going up and/or benefits are being cut. I just found out that my once fairly good (covered most of my doctor visits and scripts) is being gutted.

Of course there is no increase in pay, in fact a substantial pay cut - I'm one of those overpaid and overcompensated state employees, so we're taking a double hit to help balance the budget.

[JVS]

6. No, because it's better for the company to be able to use its size as leverage to get a bargain...

from the insurance company.

The more you make individuals participate in the insurance market, the more they get screwed. Which is why the health insurance reform that was passed several months ago is terrible.

[Statistical]

9. By that logic shouldn't homeowners & auto insurance be a benefit

The reality is that insurance companies can screw individual policy holders simply because they have no choice.

The world current breaks down as:
1) those with employer based coverage
2) those without coverage but are (or think they are) healthy enough to risk it
3) those with no other choice

Insurance companies can rob group 3 blind because they simply have no other choice.

Prohibit employers from offering insurance and require insurance companies to offer a single rate and the population becomes
1) everyone

[JVS]

14. Prohibiting groups 1 and 2 means that everyone is going to be in group 3

[Statistical]

18. Except group 3 is a single large group.

Insurance companies can't rape the living crap out of everyone.

If they could your car insurance for example would be $18490384239434343 per year. Why isn't it? Oh yeah because nobody would buy it.

The fragmentization of the population is what has allowed insurance companies to place MASSIVE premium increases on a small subset.

Insurance companies overall aren't that profitable. They make about 5% of the premium collected however that isn't even. The margin on largest of employer based policies may be 1% or less while margin on private policies (among those who have no choice) may be 10% or even 20%.

We are still paying the same amount for health care we are simply creating a society of haves (those with "good" or at least "decent" coverage) and the have nots. Nothing about the employer based system makes the overall cost lower. It simply places more of the burden on the have-nots and slightly less on the haves. Nothing progressive about that.

[JVS]

21. No. It's a bunch of individuals who are now forced into the market.

Our bargaining mechanisms have been discarded.

[Statistical]

23. Public option.

If the public option plan for xyz level of coverage was $280 a month and the private plans were $320 to $700 per month why would you pick anything but the best plan?

[JVS]

24. There is no public option.

[Statistical]

28. There also is no requirement that employers not offer coverage.

What about a policy where
a) employers receive no tax benefits for offering coverage (the ONLY reason they offer anything)
b) employees can deduct their health insurance costs (tax benefit to employee not employer)
c) multiple plans including public option
d) public assistance for those at the bottom

[JVS]

30. Sorry, your idea sucks. As I've said before it results in a weaker consumer position.

I don't care how you dress it up. It's a fundamentally bad idea.

[Yavin4]

35. You Do Understand that Employer Based Coverage Is The Prime Obstacle To Single Payer

Because a few corporations are generous with health care coverage, it creates a have/have not situation, and the "haves" don't want any changes made to their coverage.

Recall, that Obama kept repeatedly saying that if you're happy with your employer based coverage then nothing will change.

[leftofcool]

37. No, he did not say that.

He said, if you are happy with your current health converage you don't have to change it, you can keep it.

[Statistical]

38. The reality is happy or not YOU CAN'T CHANGE it.

More tax breaks for big companies, higher prices for have-nots, no choices for anyone.

[leftofcool]

39. Big companies? Even small companies offer health insurance.

My husbands company employees only 78 people. They offer health insurance and pay fot it. If they didn't I wouldn't be able to get cancer treatments or health converage. Thanks, but some of us are happy with ours.

[JVS]

17. And if a company wants to make sure that all its employees are insured to drive or have...

homeowners' insurance, that's fine with me. I think the shareholders might be miffed, but if the CEO determines that the employees will serve the company better with these things, so be it. The reason they introduced health coverage is that the company has an interest in their people being healthy. If auto insurance were ever to become such an expensive and complicated mess that employees' mobility and therefore productivity were hindered, companies would take action to make sure their people had coverage.

[Statistical]

26. Actually the reason for employer based coverage NEVER had anything to do with health.

Nothing.

Restaurant workers for example (an area one would think health would be VERY important) as a whole have a lower % of employer based plans than any other industry.

The only reason for health insurance (and other non-wage benefits) was the govt placed restrictions on wage increases after WWII. Some smart Union leaders realized if they couldn't get higher wages they could push for employers providing non-cash based compensation.

It never has and never will be about health. Employers currently get a very large tax deduction for offering non-cash compensation. It is simply a mechanism to reduce corporate taxes on profits. Nothing more. All that is paid for those who by back luck have no employer based coverage.

[JVS]

29. The union leaders were simply going after what the white collar employees had.

Engineers, managers, etc. were already insured because they were difficult to replace.

[hughee99]

19. I get homeowners and auto through my company

and at a discount because they "collectively bargain" for their employees.

If insurance companies are required to offer a single rate to everyone based on a government instituted requirement, what have you seen to this point that has led you to believe it wouldn't be a rate that screws just about everyone? You're still going to have for-profit insurance companies, and they're going to make sure that the single rate guarantees them a profit.

And as long as you have competing insurance agencies, they'll find a way (not using price) to try to only get the healthy people as customers and force the unhealthy to go to another company.

[Statistical]

22. Public option.

If you simply had cash in your bank account, could pick any policy in the US (including a dozen public plans) why would you pick a non-optimal choice?

[hughee99]

40. And if you're going to have all insurance companies offer the same price and coverage

why does it matter if your employer pays for it or pays you extra and you pay for it.

Why would you need a choice of dozens of plans if the all offer the same thing at the same price?

[JVS]

27. Some hate the ability to collectively bargain, whether in the labor or insurance market

[zipplewrath]

8. There was such a plan

It was called single payer. Go figure.

It will come, and the GOP will probably bring it to us. US based companies are going to get tired of having to provide insurance as a direct cost, while competing globally with companies that see this cost shared across the economy. Sooner or later it will be the Chamber of Commerce clamouring for a single payer system.

[Gaedel]

25. It will come, and the GOP will probably bring it to us.

It was called single payer. Go figure.

It will come, and the GOP will probably bring it to us."


I guess that this is probably like "only Nixon could go to China" reasoning.

You could be right, the recently passed medical bill might be such a turkey that a GOP-controlled Congress at the behest of their corporate masters could dump it all on the governments (fed and state).


Corporate health care was an outgrowth of WWII.






the unions were bargaining with the employers, but the wage and price stabilization folks in Washington limited allowable pay raises. The unions wanted more and so the idea of "benefits" as a substitute for wages was born. Before that, there was no corporate health care.

[zipplewrath]

32. With or without HCR

The problem was, and is, that the cost of health CARE is getting more expensive than the majority of folks can afford. Companies have been bearing this cost for decades but they're even starting to balk at the cost. The bill that got passed did little if anything to really address this problem. It will continue until something changes to cause us to get control of health care costs. Ultimately it will bankrupt the government as well, but I suspect the private sector will cause the change before it gets to that point.

We had a chance to address the problem in a democratic style. We didn't.

[JVS]

36. Go to India, organize a hospital staff, get H1B visas for entire staff, move staff to US,...

charge less, PROFIT.

[rurallib]

10. individual policies give insurance companies an excuse

to deny or restrict coverage. And charge ridiculous rates.
The only real answer is an insurance pool of the whole AKA universal health care.

[TheKentuckian]

11. The employer based system is a fiasco.

[nessa]

13. Your idea sounds very much like McCain's idea, in 2008..

http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/10/news/economy/tully_healthcare.fortune/

The way things are right now, if companies pay more for health care benefits, and take that money out of employee's paychecks, you get less tax revenue because benefits are tax deductible, the company costs are neutral and the insurance company gets more.

The employee still has no say in choosing the health plan.







edited to fix whose paycheck

[geek tragedy]

15. You're right--it is a crazy idea.

Literally insane.

[seabeyond]

16. that is what republicans want. individual policy = more money for insurance. group

policy means less money for the insurance company. they ahve been working hard to get no insurance thru work

[Statistical]

20. I would place the condition of public option along with no employer based plans.

Private for profit insurance would still have to compete with a public option.

Everyone gets same choices (including public option), everyone pays same rate. Govt provides subsidies for those with lower income.

[seabeyond]

34. interesting. health insurance for employees was a strong reason we sold business

hubby felt a responsibility to employees, yet every year it was raised significantly and harder adn harder to find good insurance for employees

[Yavin4]

31. I Agree with Your Post.

Employer based health care is discriminatory. It discriminates against those employers who cannot afford to offer health care, and it imperils the workers for those employers.

Also, it gives employers a massive financial incentive to discriminate against older workers, women in their child bearing years, and anyone else with large medical needs.

Finally, forcing everyone to buy health insurance on their own would create massive chaos, and from that chaos would come a single payer health care system. Americans will only do the right thing when a crisis occurs.