Posted on 11/07/2019 4:40:53 AM PST by The Houston Courant
Henry Ford once said “a customer can have a car painted any color—so long as it’s black.” The automobile was new to the market, and Ford wanted his factories to run so efficiently that the cost could be low enough “that no man making a good salary will be unable to own one.” Once competitors entered the market, that approach obviously changed. New automakers offered different colors and more choice on a variety of options. And because of competition—and relatively little government intervention—one thing has remained remarkably consistent: the cost of an automobile (adjusted for inflation).
Unlike the free-market environment that exists for the manufacture and sale of automobiles, health care operates in a heavily regulated market. A further complication of the healthcare industry in the United States is that it is tied to employment—which is something that sets us apart from people in other countries.
Employer-based health insurance was not common before World War II. On October 3, 1942, President Roosevelt via Executive Order froze any and all wage increases in both the private and public sector. The wage freeze, however, did not apply to employer-provided insurance and pension benefits. So employers—fiercely competing for workers—were left with no other options but to offer more competitive benefits packages, including health insurance. By 1953, 63% of Americans had employer-based health insurance, compared to only 9% in 1940.
https://www.houstoncourant.com/houston-voices/2019/american-business-wants-out-of-healthcare
(Excerpt) Read more at houstoncourant.com ...
It ought to be like auto insurance.
But the insurance was mostly major medical, you still paid for regular doctor visits etc,
How come you have never made a single comment here?
Back in 2003 when we had a 6 month old and two year old, I bought health insurance through a broker. United Health Care plan with low copay/deductible for the four of us for $400/mth. Haven’t been able to afford health care ins since obamacare
it ain’t about “healthcare” ....its about control and power
https://thefederalist.com/2016/02/19/why-socialized-health-care-is-unjust/
Once you get past that the arguments become a lot clearer...as well as the solutions
As the article says:
”Empowering employees to shop for their own plans permits the companies to leave the insurance risk industry, and to do so with fixed costs and budget.”
That’s great for the employer. Instead of having to provide insurance they can offer a flat payment which may or may not be adequate for the employee to find insurance.
Employees, on the other hand, are now on their own in the individual market which in many states offers very limited options.
Doesn’t mean anyone wants the Government to handle healthcare. What’s your point?
Employers can still offer health coverage for enhanced treatment and services, but that is entirely discretionary.
Obviously, that's their point. Building the (false) narrative that people want the government to bail them out of the mess they've got themselves into.
Swap it!
Make employer Auto insurance mandatory.
But healthcare is covered by Health Savings Account.
Let people bitch about their car insurance but health is solved.
UK National Health Service to Deny Treatment to ‘Racists’ and ‘Sexists’
What could possibly go wrong?
https://summit.news/2019/11/05/uk-national-health-service-to-deny-treatment-to-racists-and-sexists/
This is even worse than China’s social credit score, which to my knowledge doesn’t yet punish people by withdrawing medical treatment if they engage in wrongthink.
First it was deplatforming people from social media websites, then it was deplatforming people from bank accounts and mortgages. Now it’s deplatforming people from hospital treatment.
Literally eliminating people’s right to basic health care because of their political or social opinions.
This is where we’re at, and this is why the UK is truly the capital of Clown World Order.
SOCIALISM: BUYING OTHER PEOPLE STUFF
You are wrong about Canada.
Every individual in Canada pays through sales tax,
for the cadillac awesome healthcare for the PRIVILEGED FEW!
You peasant pay for Royalty.
The privileged few are the connected elite state workers.
You pay for them.
But you get junk.
That is how socialism works. You pay for junk.
The MORE you pay,
the BETTER the privileged few live.
Thanks for your contribution and ignorance.
If you as a Canadian understood how socialism actually works, you would have stated as such. You did not.
Canada is not separate. ALL Government taxes go into a giant pot, and only the privileged few spend it, but not on you.
The employee then has a choice between making up the difference himself, or getting a health plan with a bigger deductible and more exclusions.
What many companies have been doing in the meanwhile is making positions be part-time, and thus not eligible for company benefits.
Companies started offering health insurance during WWII when there were wages controls. The insurance was added as a substitute for wages.
We should either tax it as income, or move to a complete free market. That would solve a bunch of problems and it would focus the nation’s attention on the true “cost.”
I would bet most employees have little or no idea what their insurance really costs.
Uh, whut?
Every individual in Canada pays through sales tax ...
Read my post. That's exactly what I said. My point is that individuals pay the taxes for their health care system, and there is no expectation that employers are responsible for insuring their employees.
Thanks for your contribution and ignorance.
Learn to read, you jackass.
“it ain’t about “healthcare””
A few advantages of employer-provided healthcare:
1. I think when the employer pays the premium, the entire premium is deducted from the business’s income whereas when an individual pays the premium the deduction isn’t as large. When the dust settles it’s cheaper to let the employer pay the premiums.
2. It is an incentive for people to be employed.
3. The insured people that are employed are on the average healthier than the ones that aren’t employed. Thus the costs to the insurer are lower for the employed ones and they can give better rates to them.
This whole paradigm where people think an employer is responsible for paying their medical bills is idiotic.
So under that business model would you be willing to start funding an HRA?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.