Posted on 10/17/2007 10:34:27 PM PDT by Lorianne
"The U.S. employer-based health-insurance system is failing," declares a new report by the Committee for Economic Development (CED). The CED is a Washington, D.C.-based policy think tank comprised of business and education leaders. And it is right: Employer-based health-insurance is indeed failing.
Between 2000 and 2007, the percentage of firms offering health insurance benefits fell from 69 percent to 60 percent. The percentage of people under age 65 with employer provided insurance dropped by 68 to 63 percent. In absolute numbers, those covered by job-based insurance fell from 179.4 million to 177.2 million.
Employers are jettisoning health insurance because costs are out of control. Since 2001, premiums for family coverage have increased 78 percent, while wages have gone up 19 percent and inflation is up 17 percent. The consequence is that health insurance is the number one domestic policy issue in the 2008 presidential race.
So what is the CED's prescription for our ailing health insurance system? The report promisingly begins by recommending the creation of "a system of market-based universal health insurance." In order to achieve this, the CED would make health insurance mandatory for every American.
The CED proposal envisions the creation of independent regional exchanges that would act as a single point of entry for each individual to choose among competing private health plans. The exchanges would set minimum benefit plans. The exchanges would also cut through the thickets of state health insurance regulations that add substantially to the costs of insurance. Individuals could purchase insurance above and beyond the minimum benefit plans with after tax dollars.
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
The ability to choose to pay for the insurance that more closely fits your needs.This system sure doesn't provide that. Those shopping for private insurance who have even the most minor chronic health condition are priced out of the market. Don't ever take an anti-depressant if you want to afford private insurance. You're poison after that.
no, but health care will be more expensive.More expensive than now? Why are people leaving the US to have surgery? We have one of the most expensive systems in the world already.
It's probably more of a boat anchor for American business than corporate income taxes. These businesses have to compete with international businesses that aren't burdened by the cost of such an expensive system.
The managed benefits of corporations providing health insurance (and savings plans) to their employees is win for both the employee and employer.True. For those that work for large corporations. It doesn't work that way for the self employed or small businesses.
The idea is to grow the size of the insurance groups to spread the risk further. Spreading the risk is the principal behind insurance in the first place.
If you’re old and sick with only one leg, insurance probably doesn’t top the list of worries.No, but untreated major health problems sure do keep you from dealing with your other worries. It's a good way to drive people to homelessness. We pay one way or another.
My 82 year old mom just got a pacemaker as a result of her Medicare insurance. I'm sure glad we didn't have to leave her to the mercy of the market for un-affordable insurance.
What's the big deal? Just as for employees of private business, the money being spent to provide those benefits would instead be paid to them in salary. Then they could shop for the best value in private insurance along with everyone else. The resulting market discipline would restrain costs.
Then let the employees pay doctors and hospitals when the need their services, sort of like you do when you fill up your gas tank or go to the market for groceries.Works good until you become a quadriplegic in an accident.
Insurance is about spreading risk. You probably won't become a quadriplegic but if you do the gas tank just got orders of magnitude larger. I guess just not driving would be an option but in this case suicide is illegal as well.
Doctors offices have gotten all uppity and want bankers hours.Minor emergency centers already address this. People just don't use them.
Of course, the nurse would have to be able to prescribe and would have to work under a physician.This exists also. I forgot the title but I've seen one before when going in for a serious sinus infection. I was told it's one step above being an EMT.
To those who are healthy why do they have to have insurance? I don’t insure my car for full coverage because it is a 1993 Volvo - if it wrecks I either pay to fix it or junk it. I save about 200 bucks per year on car insurance. Similarly with health insurance - if I don’t have it and say I break my arm I pay out of pocket. How much is a broken arm say 2000 bucks? My group plan costs me about 300 per month for a reasonable health policy with a 500 deductible. SO my out of pocket per year is 4100 bucks - if I pay for my broken arm I actually saved 2100 dollars!I sure hope you don't become a quadriplegic in an accident. I have a feeling we'll be picking up your bills then. You can junk your cars but suicide is illegal.
Insurance is about spreading the risk.
One of the main differences would be the individuals would now be rated based on the risk they represent. An employer provided plan costs the same premium for everyone whether you are a 50 year old obese chain smoker or a 25 year old triathalon winner.It goes beyond poor life choices. Many diseases are passed on genetically. Not a lot we can do about that. So if Cancer runs in your family don't bet on being able to afford insurance. Especially with coming genetic screening technology.
It sounds like Big Brother.
Are you saying manufacturers shouldn’t be free to develop the price structures as they see fit from nation to nation?The only problem with that is the government interferes with the system to protect the drug companies from competition. Now we have a system where Americans subsidize pharmaceuticals for the rest of the world. Not all of these other countries are poor. While blaming Canada is popular they are hardly in need of our charity.
I think the drug companies do a wonderful job at creating breakthrough medicines. Patent protection has its place. But the system is screwed up. Real capitalistic competition would do wonders for the market. And we already give foreign aid to poor countries.
I’m not sure I’d agree with the idea of charging different rates for folks in different age groups. You would significantly lower the fees in the group for the young, and destroy the ability of people in the elder high risk groups to obtain insurance. Ultimately that would shrink the pool of the insured and result in the rates for the younger group being impacted negatively anyway.Right, we all need to pay for a lifetime of healthcare. The youth of today will be old one day as well. Insurance is about spreading risk. The larger the pool the better.
That was my point : )
Most employers haven’t a clue what they buy into for their employees yet they write specs for bidding purposes for everything else all the time. As a result they pay for many more services than they need, want or ever will use. They need to smarten up and their emplyees would be much better off.
yep
Thank you. Perfectly said.
Honestly, I’m not sure what the thinking is behind the price differential. It could be that Canada only allows a percentage over cost. Other than that, I have no clue. IMO, manufacturers should be able to charge what the market will bear. That’s how all other business works.
As for the government, I wish it would get it sticky fingers out of it and shut up.
I realize foreign nations get aid, but the guy on the street probably doesn’t see much if any of it.
This is an issue where both sides can make some pretty good arguements. I’ll acknowledge that.
Well, that’s the way I see it. I’m 56 by the way, so my turn at getting lower rates is ahead. I don’t like sticking to younger people, but I was young raising a family and I played the game. That’s how it goes.
Thanks for the response.
Thank you MarMema.
Point taken. I have no problem with people insuring themselves against catastrophic health problems. That wouldn't cost that much for the average young person. But that is not what health insurance has become. We are insuring that we can go to the doctor if we catch the flu or a simple cold.
Note that we insure our houses against catastrophic loss but not against minor problems. We should treat health the same way. Insure against an uncommon but tragic health problem and pay as you go for the day to day stuff. This would cut out the middleman to a large extent and greatly reduce the financial burden on our real health organizations, the ones with doctors and nurses.
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.