As someone who works in a medium-sized company's benefits department and someone who can't get health insurance on her own, yes, I believe it is the employer's responsibility to provide health insurance.
Out of curiosity,
I don't want to derail the thread, and if we need to move to another thread, by all means let's do so.
Sorry, U. We've been having lots of that up here in MI.What industry?
Everything tied to automotive.
They are even doing that for babies now. Isn't it sick?
Sick implies that the people doing this might get better. That saddens me greatly to hear that. What's next? Putting the babes on the hillsides for the wolves for inferior genetic combinations?
As a business owner, I want to provide my employees with health insurance, because getting sick is not a matter of 'if' but 'when'. Also, people have lives outside of work, and I have to allow for them hurting themselves pretending they are the Duke Boys (really happened, but now I have a better HR doing the interviewing. Plus, I made up a reason to have them fired, but don't tell anybody that.)
I need to minimize this impact on my operations.
With a spreadsheet one can project future costs, and determine it is less costly in the long run to provide insurance than to not. Because retraining and long(er) absenteeism ends up costing more than the monthly insurance premium. And I certainly DO NOT want to pay my employees more, so they can purchase their own insurance -- I WANT TO REMAIN IN CONTROL because this directly affects my business.
In fact, the concept that the cost of the premium is less than the cost of lost business without the premium is why insurance can even exist, and why insurance companies can stay in business.
Both are costs, but one is less than the other.
Making the comparison between a known fixed future cost (the insurance premium) versus the future random cost to my operations, because of longer absenteeism and retraining expense is the heart of what is called 'Risk Management'.
---
Getting to the question of whether or not it should be 'mandated' to provide insurance: I have to side with 'no', but a good business would provide it anyways. I can only imagine the law exists, because some people try to take advantage of other people... imagine that.
.
Everything tied to automotive.Sorry, U. We've been having lots of that up here in MI.What industry?
Yeah, Michigan is definiely getting hit the hardest in that industry. I know one of my uncles got paid out to retire from GM. Another had worked for Chrysler and I'm not sure what his status is at this point.
|
As someone who works in a medium-sized company's benefits department and someone who can't get health insurance on her own, yes, I believe it is the employer's responsibility to provide health insurance.
Out of curiosity, ** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **
I don't want to derail the thread, and if we need to move to another thread, by all means let's do so.
Your questions won't derail the thread; they're the logical follow-up.
I don't think healthcare is the employer's responsibility. Instead, I think it's each individual's responsibility to make sure they provide their own healthcare (to themselves and any dependents). Whether that health coverage comes as part of a benefits package, or as an out-of-pocket expense is six of one or half a dozen of the other.
If an individual makes the conscious decision not to get health coverage from somewhere, then they had better be prepared to deal with the consequences when something happens. To me, it's a matter of personal responsibility.
That said, I think there are some things we here in the States could change to make it easier and some concessions the government could make that would lighten the burden on people.
-Skeld
PS: I say this as someone who has excellent health coverage provided by my employer as part of my benefits package. I realize some people aren't as fortunate.
+1 totally agree. I also have a great full coverage healthcare provided through my job.
My sister would love to be able to buy her own health insurance, but no one will sell her a policy for any amount of money she could offer because she has a pre-existing genetic condition (Crohn's Disease).
She HAS to get health coverage from her job, and if she loses that, her necessary, life-saving medicines and doctors visits will all be out-of-pocket.
If she worked at a job where she didn't get health insurance, I don't know if she could earn enough money to cover both her living and medical expenses and have anything left over for savings.
Does the world OWE her a policy? No. But I think it's cruel that based on your genetics - which you have absolutely no control over - the world can say "This one gets health care, and this one does not." They are even doing that for babies now. Isn't it sick?
You see maybe its because I'm Canadian but yes the whole of society does owe her health care. I can't imagine living somewhere where you have to worry "if I get (shot, sick, break my leg, develop MS, etc) where will I get the money to get treatment?". Basic treatment is a right not a privilege.
I live in Alberta and the conservatives here are always trying to introduce privatization. We know from experience (through privatized phone, power, etc) that the claims of savings in cost and improved system delivery are complete lies. The exact opposite is true actually.
So I believe basic healthcare should be available to everyone. Any good employer will provide additional coverage (dental, optical, etc) and that anyone wanted full coverage for things (private hospital rooms, etc) should get additional coverage themselves.
Of course now that the Democrats have lost thier needed 60 seat majority in the Senate, those of you who prefer the present status quo can breathe a bit easier now.
I'm not sure if there is anyone alive who prefers the status quo. There are too many things in our healthcare sytem that need to be/could be fixed/improved; state insurance regulations/barriers being one, prescription reform, TORT reform, etc. etc. Hopefully these debates/arguments will lead to scrutiny of all possible items. If we could get the darn politicians out of the lobbyists pockets.
|
I'm not sure if there is anyone alive who prefers the status quo. There are too many things in our healthcare sytem that need to be/could be fixed/improved; state insurance regulations/barriers being one, prescription reform, TORT reform, etc. etc. Hopefully these debates/arguments will lead to scrutiny of all possible items. If we could get the darn politicians out of the lobbyists pockets.
I have no faith in either party (especially the Republicans) in getting a bipartisan agreement to happen.
I'm not sure if there is anyone alive who prefers the status quo. There are too many things in our healthcare sytem that need to be/could be fixed/improved; state insurance regulations/barriers being one, prescription reform, TORT reform, etc. etc. Hopefully these debates/arguments will lead to scrutiny of all possible items. If we could get the darn politicians out of the lobbyists pockets.I have no faith in either party (especially the Republicans) in getting a bipartisan agreement to happen.
Hopefully the furor the general public is going thru will be a wake up call to both parties, or make a 3rd party viable. The entrenched pols are a problem. We need real political reform to hope to get anything improved.
EDIT: Until then, employees depend on business owners and gov't. Too hard to provide healthcare on your own dime.
It made a lot more sense in the era where people trained vocationally and stayed at one company their whole lives. Nowadays where you are expected to change employers several times in order to build a resume and career, it's a needless burden on the worker.
We should just have an insurance system that makes sense. Nothing about the way it works now is good.
It made a lot more sense in the era where people trained vocationally and stayed at one company their whole lives. Nowadays where you are expected to change employers several times in order to build a resume and career, it's a needless burden on the worker.
We should just have an insurance system that makes sense. Nothing about the way it works now is good.
You bring up a good point. Employee mobility, oftentimes caused by the business or economy, needs insurance mobility.
My sister would love to be able to buy her own health insurance, but no one will sell her a policy for any amount of money she could offer because she has a pre-existing genetic condition (Crohn's Disease).
She HAS to get health coverage from her job, and if she loses that, her necessary, life-saving medicines and doctors visits will all be out-of-pocket.
If she worked at a job where she didn't get health insurance, I don't know if she could earn enough money to cover both her living and medical expenses and have anything left over for savings.
Does the world OWE her a policy? No. But I think it's cruel that based on your genetics - which you have absolutely no control over - the world can say "This one gets health care, and this one does not." They are even doing that for babies now. Isn't it sick?
You see maybe its because I'm Canadian but yes the whole of society does owe her health care. I can't imagine living somewhere where you have to worry "if I get (shot, sick, break my leg, develop MS, etc) where will I get the money to get treatment?". Basic treatment is a right not a privilege.
I live in Alberta and the conservatives here are always trying to introduce privatization. We know from experience (through privatized phone, power, etc) that the claims of savings in cost and improved system delivery are complete lies. The exact opposite is true actually.
So I believe basic healthcare should be available to everyone. Any good employer will provide additional coverage (dental, optical, etc) and that anyone wanted full coverage for things (private hospital rooms, etc) should get additional coverage themselves.
+1!!!
Durn crazy Americans. ;-)
I need to ask a favor from everyone. Let's please keep it on topic and don't make this a private vs. government backed health care debate. I would deeply appreciate it. :)
|
Just to jump in with my thoughts...
Simple answer to the original question: No.
Long answer:
I don't believe that medical insurance should be tied to the employer at all. We need to look at this argument as an insurance argument, not as a right or privilege argument. The "problem" with the current system is that larger employers get cheaper rates because they employ more people. By conjecture, smaller businesses get higher rates. Which means that individuals get the highest rates of all. This actually makes logical sense, because this is how insurance is always done, the difference is that for most insurance policies the group is the entire collective that buys insurance. In Healthcare your group is much smaller - in the individual the group is simply yourself.
What this causes is that the revenue of the insurance company is much higher than it should be, because the risk is the same, per person, no matter whether you are in an individual policy or a large corporation policy. So what is the solution to this argument? To create a way to group everyone together, or at least group them into larger groups. Whether this is to let people join the policy of a larger group (I.E. similar to COBRA) indefinitely then that would be fine. Another possibilty would be to foster the development of new groups. Other country's solutions have been to group the entire nation into "one group," although I simply don't think that is a feasible alternative with our political environment.
If a company wanted to help you pay that premium, then I say that is the company's prerogative. The biggest problem now is that the only way to get into a group policy... is through the employer.
Just as an FYI, and to not derail too much:
I need to ask a favor from everyone. Let's please keep it on topic and don't make this a private vs. government backed health care debate. I would deeply appreciate it. :)
Can i ask why?
It is a valid point that if Zeugma's sister lived in the UK or france, that she woul be able to get treatement. That she would pay proportionately less for it. She ways also be contributing to pay for it her self regardless of the benifits her profession gives her.
Why restrict the debate?
I need to ask a favor from everyone. Let's please keep it on topic and don't make this a private vs. government backed health care debate. I would deeply appreciate it. :)
I agree with Zombieneighbors. If you don't think that businesses should provide healthcare to their employees, you should be allowed to say what you think would make a better alternative. Also, if you disagree with someone's suggestion, you should be able to say why.
Maybe spoilerizing things will keep the level of discourse positive and tone down knee-jerk reactions. Would that work, Garydee?
Maybe spoilerizing things will keep the level of discourse positive and tone down knee-jerk reactions. Would that work, Garydee?
Yes, that would probably work.
Maybe spoilerizing things will keep the level of discourse positive and tone down knee-jerk reactions. Would that work, Garydee?
Maybe spoilerizing things will keep the level of discourse positive and tone down knee-jerk reactions. Would that work, Garydee?** spoiler omitted **
|
|
I don't usually do this, but...
The intent of this thread was established in the first post.
[potentially hazardous statement] The question is only related to opinions regarding a national healthcare system if you have decided to use this thread as your own political soapbox. [/potentially hazardous statement]
I'll reiterate the questions:
How do you feel--should employers be required to provide health insurance?
Is it an employer's responsibility to ensure you are insured?
If the employer didn't cause your injury or malady, why is it their responsibility?
As you can see, the theme is business-based, not government.
I have no say on what or how anyone chooses to respond in this or any thread, but if you want to digress, please start another thread.
[potentially hazardous statement][rant] Andrew's InterWebs Pet Peeve #1: People who post to threads with responses that indicate they totally didn't pay attention to the thread title, the first post, or they just don't care about the spirit of the thread. I'm not talking about threadjacking, or throwing out the occasional non sequiturs; no, I'm talking about the person who does the following, for example:
Thread Title: "What's Your Favorite Eggs Dish for a Big Breakfast?"
Careless Poster's Response Post: "I don't like eggs; I like oatmeal. Also, I don't like a breakfast. I eat oatmeal for snack before going to bed. My favorite oatmeal is Irish Stone Meal..."
Come on, man! Why are you wasting bandwidth? If you don't like eggs, don't even bother reading the thread. If you love oatmeal, then start your own thread declaiming the finest glories of oatmeal.
If my example is baffling you, replace 'eggs' with 'employer-provided health insurance' and replace 'oatmeal' with 'public option' or 'governement-provided health insurance'.
[/potentially hazardous statement][/rant]
I need to ask a favor from everyone. Let's please keep it on topic and don't make this a private vs. government backed health care debate. I would deeply appreciate it. :)Can i ask why?
It is a valid point that if Zeugma's sister lived in the UK or france, that she woul be able to get treatement. That she would pay proportionately less for it. She ways also be contributing to pay for it her self regardless of the benifits her profession gives her.
Why restrict the debate?
I think Andrew just answered for me.
|
In fairness, Andrew, your question wasn't "What's Your Favorite Eggs Dish for a Big Breakfast?"
It was "Do you enjoy having eggs for breakfast?" (a yes or no question, like the one you asked)
To which an acceptable response is, "No, I prefer oatmeal."
When you ask the question, "Should employers be responsible for healthcare?", one would hope that anyone answering "no" would be explaining why. Specifically, anyone responding "no" should explain whose responsibility healthcare is, if it's not an employer's. If someone's opinion is that it's the government's responsibility, then that is, in fact, a valid response to your question.
In fairness, Andrew, your question wasn't "What's Your Favorite Eggs Dish for a Big Breakfast?"
It was "Do you enjoy having eggs for breakfast?" (a yes or no question, like the one you asked)
To which an acceptable response is, "No, I prefer oatmeal."
I agree if it was left to that I wouldn't have a problem. What usually happens next is that the "political soapbox" starts. It becomes "my oatmeal is superior to your eggs and let me give you the stats to prove that I'm right and then I'm going to preach to you how eating eggs is backwards.". The egg lovers then get irritated with the oatmeal lovers and then all hell breaks loose.
|
|
I agree if it was left to that I wouldn't have a problem. What usually happens next is that the "political soapbox" starts. It becomes "my oatmeal is superior to your eggs and let me give you the stats to prove that I'm right and then I'm going to preach to you how eating eggs is backwards.". The egg lovers then get irritated with the oatmeal lovers and then all hell breaks loose.In fairness, Andrew, your question wasn't "What's Your Favorite Eggs Dish for a Big Breakfast?"
It was "Do you enjoy having eggs for breakfast?" (a yes or no question, like the one you asked)
To which an acceptable response is, "No, I prefer oatmeal."
What if we don't like eggs or oatmeal and like to eat toast?
What if we don't like eggs or oatmeal and like to eat toast?I agree if it was left to that I wouldn't have a problem. What usually happens next is that the "political soapbox" starts. It becomes "my oatmeal is superior to your eggs and let me give you the stats to prove that I'm right and then I'm going to preach to you how eating eggs is backwards.". The egg lovers then get irritated with the oatmeal lovers and then all hell breaks loose.In fairness, Andrew, your question wasn't "What's Your Favorite Eggs Dish for a Big Breakfast?"
It was "Do you enjoy having eggs for breakfast?" (a yes or no question, like the one you asked)
To which an acceptable response is, "No, I prefer oatmeal."
I will tell you how much better my eggs are than your toast and then I will preach to you how backwards you are for eating toast. ;)
|
|
What if we don't like eggs or oatmeal and like to eat toast?I agree if it was left to that I wouldn't have a problem. What usually happens next is that the "political soapbox" starts. It becomes "my oatmeal is superior to your eggs and let me give you the stats to prove that I'm right and then I'm going to preach to you how eating eggs is backwards.". The egg lovers then get irritated with the oatmeal lovers and then all hell breaks loose.In fairness, Andrew, your question wasn't "What's Your Favorite Eggs Dish for a Big Breakfast?"
It was "Do you enjoy having eggs for breakfast?" (a yes or no question, like the one you asked)
To which an acceptable response is, "No, I prefer oatmeal."
The only thing to do at that point is invoke Godwin's Law on the thread and call it a day.
I will tell you how much better my eggs are than your toast and then I will preach to you how backwards you are for eating toast. ;)
I ask you, where is the love for corn flakes?
Wow. I only mentioned 'national healthcare' because that is the system in which I live. I was just trying to give context to that fact and how it takes a lot of strain off of the employer or private insurance. Either would be supplemental insurance not primary insurance here.
By the way apparently toast, oatmeal and eggs are a much more compelling thing to talk about and it has derailed the thread. Which is ironic as you were trying to put it back on track as you saw it.
|
|
Wow. I only mentioned 'national healthcare' because that is the system in which I live. I was just trying to give context to that fact and how it takes a lot of strain off of the employer or private insurance. Either would be supplemental insurance not primary insurance here.
By the way apparently toast, oatmeal and eggs are a much more compelling thing to talk about and it has derailed the thread. Which is ironic as you were trying to put it back on track as you saw it.
Oh, well. I was pretty sure that would happen this afternoon--there should be a Godwin-equivalent heuristic stating that any attempt to re-track an unmoderated thread will immediately result in (50/50) either Godwin's Law or the complete dissolution of the thread topic into comedic non sequiturs and sfrums.
Speaking of which, I surprised those diminutive relations of the Na'vi didn't show up by now...
At any rate, maybe it'll get back on track tomorrow.
|
|
Wow. I only mentioned 'national healthcare' because that is the system in which I live. I was just trying to give context to that fact and how it takes a lot of strain off of the employer or private insurance. Either would be supplemental insurance not primary insurance here.
By the way apparently toast, oatmeal and eggs are a much more compelling thing to talk about and it has derailed the thread. Which is ironic as you were trying to put it back on track as you saw it.
Oh, well. I was pretty sure that would happen this afternoon--there should be a Godwin-equivalent heuristic stating that any attempt to re-track an unmoderated thread will immediately result in (50/50) either Godwin's Law or the complete dissolution of the thread topic into comedic non sequiturs and sfrums.
Speaking of which, I surprised those diminutive relations of the Na'vi didn't show up by now...
At any rate, maybe it'll get back on track tomorrow.
Smurfs? :P
|
|
I highly recommend the movie Gattaca for a good look at the implications of genetic profiling in society.
Wow. This looks like just the kind of dystopian film I love! I wonder why I never heard of it before (maybe Monsanto or Amgen suppressed it, somehow?)
The Wikipedia link also shows how they are already using our genetic information against us, not that I needed to be told.
|
Referring back to the original question.
Employers should not provide health insurance. One of the big problems with health care right now is that the system is not designed with incentives to provide good care. Doctors are paid based on what procedures they are able to bill their patients for, their incentive is to please the insurance company or medicare/ medicaid. The insurance companies cater to businesses and their goal is to minimize costs for business while providing the benefits package the companies HR department feels is a good mix... no where in this mix is my need to be healthy really addressed beyond the efforts to minimize my cost to the insurance carrier.
I want my doctor to be thinking about how best to please ME and I want him to be compensated based on how well he takes care of ME. Likewise I want to choose insurance based on my needs. Company provided insurance plans are there to make employers happy not patients.
Pre-existing conditions are a big issue but I think the solution to that should be separate from whether or not your employer is providing your health insurance.
Your questions won't derail the thread; they're the logical follow-up.
Okay.
If an employer must provide health insurance, who is required to provide the health insurance to the employer?
Say Joe the FLGS owner has a chronic disease (MS, for instance). How does the "Employer must provide it" crowd fix that problem?
|
|
...If an employer must provide health insurance, who is required to provide the health insurance to the employer?
Say Joe the FLGS owner has a chronic disease (MS, for instance). How does the "Employer must provide it" crowd fix that problem?
Off the cuff, I'd say no-one provides for the employer. I think (that is, I understand, not agree with) the idea is that the employer is self-sustaining or he wouldn't be an employer. I suppose the employer is covered under his own policy (through whatever underwriter he's using for his business, of course).
All of this assumes a model wherein it is profitable (or at least not unprofitable) to insure your employees. If insuring your workforce results in business-negative strategies to stay profitable and afloat--closing early, only operating certain days of the week, price increases, etc.--then the model isn't working, and your business ceases being a capital venture...
|
|
You might feel that way as an employer Ogre, but the cold fact is that if my employer did not provide access to a group plan and partial contribution to it. I'd have to pay a lot more for an individual plan, an expense most likely that I could not afford as I really doubt that my salary would go up to match the difference.
I am not convinced. Independent contractors make substantially more than employees of a firm specifically because they have to pay for their own benefits and taxes. Companies are very aware of the total cost of compensating employees and when they hire independents they take that into account. Currently I am an independent contractor and get to enjoy those higher wages which would otherwise be wasted on double coverage. My wife's employer only offers a few options for healthcare and most of them are expensive and offer tons of benefits which take away my options.
For myself, I'd prefer a system of socialised medicine but we know the kneee-jerk that would get in this country.
My years working in the healthcare industry have given me a deep seated cynicism with regards to the US governments ability to do anything right with regards to health care. Every time the government makes changes it takes away options and eventually makes things more expensive for the end consumers.
|
|
Ogre, I don't understand how your wife's company insurance plan takes away options from you. Are you also covered under her plan as a spouse? You said you are an independent contractor, so do you buy your own insurance or are you on her plan, or is it a combination instead of one-or-the-other? Just asking for clarification about your set-up.
Actually since the employer himself is also an employee of his own corporation he could just as easily have the same policy his workers are signing up for.
Some employers don't have corporations. Some are sole proprietorships.
If Joe is working for himself, should he be required to buy a health insurance policy? There is no Joe, Inc. There is only Joe.
And what penalties should Joe face when he decides "No, I think I can spend that money better elsewhere"?
I highly recommend the movie Gattaca for a good look at the implications of genetic profiling in society.They are even doing that for babies now. Isn't it sick?Sick implies that the people doing this might get better. That saddens me greatly to hear that. What's next? Putting the babes on the hillsides for the wolves for inferior genetic combinations?
+1