[NYFriend]

It's true that employer provided insurance is a tax write-off, but there are insurance options that are alternatives to HMO's. Are we talking about the argument that all insurance is bad for the health care system? There is an argument to be made there. I disagree, but you could argue that any insurance 1) encourages over use of health care by removing the finacial responsibility for care from the patient; and 2) the market power of insurance companies allow them to negotiate health care fees that are too low and force providers to overcharge private pay patients to make up the differance, effectively using private pay to subsidize the insured's health care.

[m1911]

NYFriend: You may be right - but it especially hurts when the private insurers have to compete with government supplied care and government supported care. Also, on your last post to Monster Zero, "your employer picks up a bigger portion of our health insurance costs than we do." just means that your paycheck is smaller than it could be. It's all counted as part of your compensation. Of course

elbucko: I think that Monster Zero was referring more to what happened with the HMOs when they became Federal pets rather than their more distant origins.

Pete: I agree that the wage freezes created the benefit plans that led to the tax incentive - which only shows that gov't meddling usually leads to more gov't meddling. I try not to bash HMOs. I don't think it is good policy that businesses get a tax credit and individuals don't. And one origin of the problem the HMO Act was supposed to fix was Medicare/Medicaid - again, government meddling to fix government meddling.

Kaisersrsic: A comment - "If a person does not like their HMO, they should pay for a better plan". I agree, but I think that they should get the same tax incentives they would get if they got it through their business.