|
I think the best answer is to separate health care from employment entirely. Stop forcing the employer to subsidize health care at all, make them pay an extra amount for the individual to get their own insurance. Now it is no one's business but the insurance provider and insurance purchaser.That defeats the ability to pool risk, unless you are prepared to accept a nationalized single payer system.
Not necessarily. There are a number of places in Europe where the government is only involved to smooth out the risk pool for the insurance carriers. The intent is to remove the motivation to cherry-pick healthy members and leave expensive patients to a public option, or no option.
But yes, I agree with AndrewR, it would be best for everyone, including employers, if they were out of the business of dealing with health insurance.
But yes, I agree with AndrewR, it would be best for everyone, including employers, if they were out of the business of dealing with health insurance.
You obviously don't have a Cadillac plan.
It sure f%$@ing beats Obamacare.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're right that the best answer is to separate health care from employment entirely, but you do that by turning to government, putting everyone into one big insurance pool and financing the thing with taxes, not premiums. Because that works.Worked wonders for the VA, hasn't it?
I'm very happy with the care I get from the VA.
Statistically, the VA is actually a pretty good system. There are some glaring holes and problems, but even the most recent scandal would be completely negated by universal care.
The VA has higher marks on customer satisfaction. From 1996 to 2006, VA costs per patient remained steady, while private hospital costs increased 40%. During that time the VA's number of patients doubled, while they reduced staff by 10,000.
The VA system is actually incentivized to prevent illness, instead of just treating it. The VA has it's budget. Instead of charging patients who get sick, they just get a budget. It's in a hospital's interests to use preventative measures to keep patients healthy, reducing the number of illnesses they contract.
|
I think the best answer is to separate health care from employment entirely. Stop forcing the employer to subsidize health care at all, make them pay an extra amount for the individual to get their own insurance. Now it is no one's business but the insurance provider and insurance purchaser.That defeats the ability to pool risk, unless you are prepared to accept a nationalized single payer system.
the insurance company pools risk within their clients
Okay, but it isn't really "separat[ing] health care from employment enitrely" if the employer is still paying for it, is it?
Non-normal distribution of data - Yes, I know. But I'm talking IQ, not income. IQ of the whole population will have a normal distribution. IQ, or whatever PC-proxy you like to use for it, undergirds people's ability to make rational choices.
IQ is more or less normally distributed in the U.S. population as a whole.
In my experience, however, it does not in any way meaningfully undergird people's ability to make rational choices. I know any number of fairly dull, hardworking people who save for retirement and do the right things. I also know an inordinate number of [extremely intelligent people who are congenitally unable to make a rational choice -- in some cases, even if their lives and/or liberty depend on it.
In completely unrelated news, I discovered recently that Andy Warhol was alleged to have an IQ of 86. I was rather surprised, even if I don't put much stock in IQ.
I discovered recently that Andy Warhol was alleged to have an IQ of 86.
This would not in any way surprise me.
You're right that the best answer is to separate health care from employment entirely, but you do that by turning to government, putting everyone into one big insurance pool and financing the thing with taxes, not premiums. Because that works.Worked wonders for the VA, hasn't it?
The VA has better quality of care on average for lower costs than the general population. It falls behind on experimental and cutting edge treatments that are more expensive, but handily beats traditional hospitals elsewhere, even with the existing scandals. There is a reason every veteran I know goes to VA hospitals even if they have top tier insurance through current jobs.
I discovered recently that Andy Warhol was alleged to have an IQ of 86.This would not in any way surprise me.
But he designed the cover to Sticky Fingers! With a working zipper! F$@!ing genius.
The VA has better quality of care on average for lower costs than the general population. It falls behind on experimental and cutting edge treatments that are more expensive, but handily beats traditional hospitals elsewhere, even with the existing scandals. There is a reason every veteran I know goes to VA hospitals even if they have top tier insurance through current jobs.You're right that the best answer is to separate health care from employment entirely, but you do that by turning to government, putting everyone into one big insurance pool and financing the thing with taxes, not premiums. Because that works.Worked wonders for the VA, hasn't it?
Yeah, I really like the VA. It sucks going there, because it means something is wrong, but overall my experiences there have all been good.
It wasn't always this good though. Prior to the first Gulf War, the VA was really bad. They had high mortality rates from surgery, patients were lost, bad record keeping, etc. We actually have a very strong track record of mistreating the veterans of every war. Currently, they're getting some of the best attention this country has ever given.
Interesting- in my country we have something called 'alcohol' that people use for many of the same things. I'm surprised that you've never heard of it.
Well, I'm not talking about core hippy habits like pot smoking (though one must wonder at people who enjoy drug use where the altered state is in-house referred to as "being stoned" or having a "head full of zombie". Because being hit in the head with rocks is such fun and zombies are known for clarity of thought. Do they even consider that the name "pot" is derived from "going to pot"?). Now back to the topic.
I do believe a good number of the founding fathers were known to imbibe occasionally. Some more than occasionally.
And let's not mention George Washington's hemp fields...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree with the stance of the business but not the ruling. Why should rights be infringed upon because they own a business?Why should a employee's rights be infringed upon because they have a job?As someone previously stated you don't have to have sex. So women have a right to not get pregnant right? You know how you can do that? Don't have sex. If you want your cake and to eat it too you're gonna have to pay. Why is it there job to pay for something elective?
Look I'm a libertarian. I believe individual rights are paramount and I believe people should be allowed to do whatever they want so long as it does not infinite on another's rights. And glad to provide some diversity.
You don't have to eat, so why should insurance cover lipitor.
And by the way THEY ARE PAYING!!!!!!!!!!111eleven
WHen you say "you gots ta pay" they are PAYING by exchanging their labor for a compensation package that includes comprehensive reproductive healthcare.
I disagree with the stance of the business but not the ruling. Why should rights be infringed upon because they own a business?Why should a employee's rights be infringed upon because they have a job?As someone previously stated you don't have to have sex. So women have a right to not get pregnant right? You know how you can do that? Don't have sex. If you want your cake and to eat it too you're gonna have to pay. Why is it there job to pay for something elective?
Look I'm a libertarian. I believe individual rights are paramount and I believe people should be allowed to do whatever they want so long as it does not infinite on another's rights. And glad to provide some diversity.You don't have to eat, so why should insurance cover lipitor.
And by the way THEY ARE PAYING!!!!!!!!!!111eleven
WHen you say "you gots ta pay" they are PAYING by exchanging their labor for a compensation package that includes comprehensive reproductive healthcare.
QFT
the insurance company pools risk within their clientsI think the best answer is to separate health care from employment entirely. Stop forcing the employer to subsidize health care at all, make them pay an extra amount for the individual to get their own insurance. Now it is no one's business but the insurance provider and insurance purchaser.That defeats the ability to pool risk, unless you are prepared to accept a nationalized single payer system.
Oh god.
A property/casualty insurance company does. Dunno if it translates as well to health insurance.
Not content with being allowed to ignore laws they disagree with, now the claim is that a church organization isn't even required to defend against legal action if they disagree.
I wouldn't worry about it. If there's one thing that the courts are united on its about the power and importance of the courts.
There was a comment in there, I've seen if before. I've long suspected it was true, but haven't really seen it confirmed yet. So I did a search for news stories about men being fired from their jobs because they got a vasectomy. I didn't find any. It might be I'm not hitting the right search terms, but I've never heard of it either before.
The only references to this are hypothetical examples in articles about women being fired from their jobs.