Freedom

Amen to this. It's nice to agree with The Rocker for a change.

My 23-YO daughter was born with congenital heart defects that have been repaired but in the long run essentially make her a slave to the employer-subsidized health insurance system. She's had major surgeries or interventions at ages 3, 7, 9 and 18. None were critical but all were essential. She probably faces another heart valve replacement sometime in the next 10-20 years.

She can only get very expensive and limited insurance on herself: almost $400 bucks a month for a 23 YO female-- no maternity benefits either!! That's a $1000 Deductible, 80-20, $2,000 OP Limit and a relatively low $1,000,000 Lifetime benefit. Most plans have a 3, 5, or 8 Million Lifetime Maximum Benefit.

She can really only afford this because her employer is willing to help significantly with the cost. At this point, she faces a lifetime of choices compromised by health insurance considerations.

 

My brother will face the same issues. He's still in college, but with epilepsy he will be forced to choose a career path that can help pay for his medication and constant doctor's visits. Sucks.

 

If I don't have the freedom to choose the one health plan that my employer dictates that I have, and to slavishly abide by all of their decisions and to pay whatever premium they demand, I will truly have lost something.

 

I've often thought that people from rural areas would benefit the most from universal healthcare. They'd have the freedom to keep living where they grew up and not worry about having to move to an urban area to get a job with good health benefits.

 

Do you all know how we ended up with Employer-sponsored health insurance? At a time when wages were frozen, Employers negotiated with insurance companies to offer a group plan that they could offer to compete for Employees... at least that's what they teach you in insurance school. Economic historians may say something different.

 

We learned the same thing in Economics, Managerial Accounting, and Strategic Management.

 

This very thing is touched on during one of my favorite moments from "Sicko" (yeah, I know it's Michael Moore. Just give it a try):

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/jHM-YQj5LwU&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/jHM-YQj5LwU&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

 

Good post Rimrocker and I agree. I've mentioned this before as a small business owner we can't hire people even during boom times because we can't afford things like health insurance. We don't even have health insurance for us the owners but have to get it ourselves. I pay one of those high deductable Blue Cross plans.

If the burden of health care was taken off of us as either a business or individuals it would make it easier for us to hire and also a more fluid job market.

 

maybe if it was branded as a means to stimulate the economy and make business more competitive, health care reform would stand a better chance?

 

Very nicely said rimrocker. I wish more people would take the time to think it through like that.

Sam did a nice job of summing up the status quo and what would be lost if we change health care.

 

No, that would not weaken the intense lobby of one of the most lucrative industries in the nation.

 

Good post Rim, but you are not understanding those who are crying "freedom". The average person (minus the political motivations) WANT healthcare reform. Just as there is tons of wasted government spending, there is tons of wasted money spent in healthcare. What many of us do not want is the government taking care of us. I spend 12 1/2% of my income towards my "government retirement", that when i do retire and if its there, it will be barely enough to put food on my table. This current bill is crap by forcing people to buy insurance. Im one of those who do not have insurance because I can not afford and justify the costs. Im younger with no serious health issues. I would love to buy a policy for $100 a month that would only cover serious illness or injuries. For $75 a month, my car insurance has several hundred thousands of dollars of coverage. For $100 a month, I can buy a couple million dollars worth of contractor insurance coverage. I should pay for what I choose and what my risk assessment is determined. I shouldn't have to subsidize those who aren't paying and those who choose to live an unhealthy lifestyle.

You speak of entrepreneurship, but the more government controls, the more it stifles entrepreneurship. This is not about Republican or Democrat as both parties only seek to make themselves stronger. We as American people need to start telling all politicans "no" to bad policies. No to the Afgan war, No to the Iraq war. No to the patriot act. No to the pointless bailouts. No to poor healthcare.

 

So, you do agree with rimrocker.

 

Not to quibble, but when I went to work for my current firm, I had my choice of 5 different insurance products. Administaff brought in an HR person that thoroughly explained the differences. I chose the one that was the best for me.

I am very lucky that way. A lot of people do get a choice amongst insurance products, many can couple that with a health care savings account as well.

 

I found this on the nytimes (old article):
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/02/b...mployers-pay-for-health-insurance-anyway.html

"There is no good reason for any of this, aside from historical accident. During World War II, federal wage controls prevented employers from wooing workers with higher pay, so companies started offering health insurance as a way around the law. Of course, this form of nonmonetary compensation is still pay. When the war ended, the practice stuck."

That's how it got started, but a big reason is explained here: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/key-elements/health-insurance/exclusion.cfm

"Employers’ payments covering premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance are exempt from federal income and payroll taxes. Any portion of premiums paid by the employee is typically excluded from taxable income and is therefore also tax-free, although some employers require employees to pay their share of premiums out of after-tax income. The exclusion of premiums lowers most workers’ tax bills and thus reduces their after-tax cost of health insurance coverage. This effective tax subsidy is a major reason why most Americans have health insurance coverage through either their own employer or that of a family member. Other factors also play a role, however, including the lower costs of group coverage and reduced administrative expenses."

Many across the political spectrum have adovated doing away with it, including Obama. Though labor unions are very much against getting rid of it.

 

The "lower" cost of group coverage is often only the part of the cost that may be passed through to the Employee. More and more only the cost to the actual employee is subsidized and s/he must pay full fare for dependent coverage.

Also, the biggest advantage of group coverage is "lack of" underwriting moreso than lower cost. This has created a group of "haves" and "have-nots" and this is to what rimrocker was referring.

Too many motivated or talented people opt for a group health plan over what the desire of their heart is and so they waste their talent and ingenuity for the safety of health coverages. It's hard to criticize them individually for the choice but maybe that is a reason that the system should be reformed.

 

How many is a lot of people?

Can you quantify this?

Most regional markets for health insurance are dominated by one or two companies - health insurance has long been the one of the most heavily monopolized industries around:

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/04/ama_insurance_study.html

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090822...pdGlvbgRjcG9zAzMEcG9zAzgEcHQDaG9tZV9jb2tlBHNl

 

We have three separate companies we can choose from and each company has 2-3 different plans/options for us to choose from.

 

Social security and medicare? That's not retirement. That's "keep you from starving to death".

It doesn't. You have the option to pay only a tax that would (in theory) cover a possible visit to the ER.

All the more reason to want this bill to pass.

How about $200/month. The tax for no insurance is (last time I looked) $2500/yr.

I don't think you can compare car insurance and health insurance on a cost basis.

Well, yeah - that would be great, but insurance does not work that way.

YOU* ALREADY DO! Under Obama's plan, they'd pay a tax to lower your subsidy. Hopefully, eventually the unhealthy will pay more or the healthy will pay less. That's rather complex though, so I can understand why it is not in the bill now.

*This is rather ironic, since what you are b****ing about it what you are relying upon, since you are not insured. Please don't get cancer Space Ghost, I don't want to have to subsidize your chemo.

Entrepreneurs will never cover everyone. Thus the public option. Like schools - you'll have the option to use the entrepreneur's plan if you so choose.

I need an alternative before I can truly qualify this plan as "poor healthcare". The only alternative at the moment is the status quo, and it sucks.