Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: xzins; spunkets; blue-duncan
There is absolutely no legitimate reason for employers to be required to pay health insurance. It's idiotic.

Who paid for your health coverage when you were in the service? Would it not be those dairy farmers and red-headed atheletes?

And are you paying for your own health coverage now? Or is it part of your salary, and do you not get the benefit of group discounts not available to the average knucklehead who is either self employed or working for some company that doesn't provide health coverage.

This is a problem that goes beyond our knee jerk conservatism. For many people this is a life and death situation. We need to take that into consideration.

I am leaning towards a workers compensation type system for general health coverage. A cost of doing business. Businesses are required to have workers compensation coverage. It would not be that much more of a burden to also require either a payroll tax to cover healthcare or a requirement that they also provide healthcare coverage.

I'm basically thinking out loud here, but this is something we need to think about.

71 posted on 01/08/2007 9:30:38 PM PST by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies ]


To: P-Marlowe

I am supposed to say that because folks are sick and aren't covered that the government should have health insurance for all. That's the quickest answer, apparently. Let the Fed do it.

Insurance should be personal. My car insurance is personal. Why doesn't my employer pay for that?

This system is what makes it so doggone expensive.

You tell docs that there's a hundred companies out there with billions in coverage money, then the docs are going to increase their prices.

If the docs see all of us walk in and all we've got is our wallet and our savings account, then they will charge accordingly.

Universal health care will not make any difference. It will result in far lessened coverage. I saw it in Germany. I hear about what takes place in Canada.

In short, the person dies with that kind of plan, PM.

Therefore, it is better to have privately owned insurance with lesser coverage than it is to have a government program that allows people to die for refusal to cover.


81 posted on 01/08/2007 9:58:28 PM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and proud of it! Supporting our troops means praying for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies ]

To: P-Marlowe

Paying medical costs for our servicemen and women is the best deal for taxpayers in the country.

"It would not be that much more of a burden to also require either a payroll tax to cover healthcare or a requirement that they also provide healthcare coverage."

Arte you joking, or are you out of your mind? I don't think you have any idea what this will cost. Not a clue.


124 posted on 01/09/2007 2:37:26 AM PST by Jezebelle (Our tax dollars are paying the ACLU to sue the Christ out of us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson