carlfense Posted February 5, 2014 Author Share Posted February 5, 2014 What are those percentages? No idea. What are the percentages of lazy takers? Link to comment
tschu Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 It's really ridiculous that insurance is still tied to employers in any way shape or form. There's no reason for it. (Well, it's ridiculous that healthcare is still tied to insurance in any way shape or form, but that's another story. sigh.) 1 Link to comment
sd'sker Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 It's really ridiculous that insurance is still tied to employers in any way shape or form. There's no reason for it. it really stifles a capitalistic economy. who can afford to be an entrepreneur unless you have a well insured spouse? Link to comment
strigori Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 It's really ridiculous that insurance is still tied to employers in any way shape or form. There's no reason for it. (Well, it's ridiculous that healthcare is still tied to insurance in any way shape or form, but that's another story. sigh.) You would think the business world would be leading the charge on moving to single payer. It would remove one hell of an expensive headache that changes and increases every year. Link to comment
rawhide Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Sorry Carl, With those two enthralling stories, thought you would have scoured Breibart for more statistics. Have to ask my wife; she took stats in college. My stat means an entirely different thing. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 I'm really trying to figure out if this is a good thing or bad thing. Honestly, I am taking a back seat and just sitting and watching. I have no power to change anything so why get all worked up about it. The question that does come to mind is..... OK....one of the reports I saw on this issue is that a lot of people will work less hours so they can get below the threshold to get subsidies to buy health insurance. Have those added subsidies been calculated on how much they will cost? Now, I understand that the subsidies are put in place supposedly to help someone who can't afford health insurance. However, it appears to me that they are saying people will force the issue by working less so they are making less so they get the subsidy. Work less, paid less equals less income taxes paid. Less taxes paid and at the same time, those people are costing the system more money. I would like to see a calculation on how this all fits in with the estimates on how much this program is costing us. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 It's really ridiculous that insurance is still tied to employers in any way shape or form. There's no reason for it. I have always thought the same way as an employer. Why am I responsible for providing health insurance? I think we can thank unions for that. However, on the flip side, no matter what, the companies will end up paying for it anyway. If they make it so it isn't tied to an employer, the company will just be taxed to pay for it. Link to comment
knapplc Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 I've been on this kick about freeing employers from healthcare burdens for a while now. We should remove employers from healthcare entirely anyway. It's absurd to put this burden on employers. Why don't we require employers to provide group food plans for their employees? Or group housing? Group transportation? Link to comment
carlfense Posted February 5, 2014 Author Share Posted February 5, 2014 It's really ridiculous that insurance is still tied to employers in any way shape or form. There's no reason for it. I have always thought the same way as an employer. Why am I responsible for providing health insurance? I think we can thank unions for that. Not unions, actually. The modern system of getting benefits through a job required another catalyst: World War II. Thomasson says that if the Great Depression inadvertently inspired the spread of employer-based health insurance, World War II accidentally spread the idea everywhere. "The war economy is an entirely different ballgame," Thomasson says. The government rationed goods even as factories ramped up production and needed to attract workers. Factory owners needed a way to lure employees. She explains that the owners turned to fringe benefits, offering more and more generous health plans. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=114045132 More at the link. Link to comment
carlfense Posted February 5, 2014 Author Share Posted February 5, 2014 Sorry Carl, With those two enthralling stories, thought you would have scoured Breibart for more statistics. Have to ask my wife; she took stats in college. My stat means an entirely different thing. Eh. I don't think they're that enthralling . . . I just think that it's helpful to see some real (even if hypothetical) examples about how/why workers might benefit from this . . . beyond just being lazy takers. Link to comment
carlfense Posted February 5, 2014 Author Share Posted February 5, 2014 I've been on this kick about freeing employers from healthcare burdens for a while now. We should remove employers from healthcare entirely anyway. It's absurd to put this burden on employers. Why don't we require employers to provide group food plans for their employees? Or group housing? Group transportation? You're right. That's why we should have gone straight to single payer instead of this detour through the "free market" alternative. Apparently that was too big of a leap even for the Democratic majority. Oh well. It will happen in time. Link to comment
rawhide Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Doesn't just about every newfangled doodad get accepted but not without a lot of screaming, scratching and foot dragging?? Except for the internetz; Gore done good there. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 It's really ridiculous that insurance is still tied to employers in any way shape or form. There's no reason for it. I have always thought the same way as an employer. Why am I responsible for providing health insurance? I think we can thank unions for that. Not unions, actually. The modern system of getting benefits through a job required another catalyst: World War II. Thomasson says that if the Great Depression inadvertently inspired the spread of employer-based health insurance, World War II accidentally spread the idea everywhere. "The war economy is an entirely different ballgame," Thomasson says. The government rationed goods even as factories ramped up production and needed to attract workers. Factory owners needed a way to lure employees. She explains that the owners turned to fringe benefits, offering more and more generous health plans. http://www.npr.org/t...oryId=114045132 More at the link. Interesting..... well, that goes against a lot of pro-union propaganda that I have read over the years. No, I don't have a link....I'm going off of memory. Now, I find it funny that unions would take credit for it. Link to comment
carlfense Posted February 5, 2014 Author Share Posted February 5, 2014 Interesting..... well, that goes against a lot of pro-union propaganda that I have read over the years. No, I don't have a link....I'm going off of memory. Now, I find it funny that unions would take credit for it. It probably goes against some anti-union propaganda as well, eh? Link to comment
strigori Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 It's really ridiculous that insurance is still tied to employers in any way shape or form. There's no reason for it. I have always thought the same way as an employer. Why am I responsible for providing health insurance? I think we can thank unions for that. However, on the flip side, no matter what, the companies will end up paying for it anyway. If they make it so it isn't tied to an employer, the company will just be taxed to pay for it. Its entirely possible that an employer may still have to pay something in taxes for a healthcare system, but its almost certainly going to be dramatically lower than the extortion racket the insurance companies run right now. As it would absolutely be taken out of workers pay, basically a bump in the medicare deduction. And not having to even deal with shopping plans and all that headache would be worth a ton too. Link to comment
Recommended Posts