They may have a labor cost advantage, but they put themselves at a HUGE disadvantage in terms of labor quality and employee retention.
This would not be true only if the "non-providing" company paid higher wages instead of providing healthcare benefits which the employee could either use to buy coverage or not.
If all individuals were required to carry catestrophic policies (just like in theory drivers are required to have a base level of auto insurance) risk would be spread out over a larger patient population (due to people currently without coverage obtaining it), costs would decrease (since cost increases in proportion to risk, let's assume the reverse to be true as well), and people could be further incentivized to purchase these plans by making some or all of the premiums tax deductable or eligible for some type of tax credit.
Good points, and I think that the place to start putting a cap on health care cost is with tort reform. The concept of a cap on punative, non-economic damages is one way to go, another being to place an exemption on contingency fees on certain parts of the settlement.
Health care costs have been spiraling out of control, as have insurance costs. As an example, I had a broken foot, which was diagnosed at a hospital emergency room. I had been seeing a doctor (ortho) about foot pain and swelling, and he had perscribed anti-inflamatory drugs, as well as "water pills." No x-rays or other diags... Anyway, it turns out that I had three broken bones in my foot, and when I took the X-rays from the hospital to show him, just to update my records, I later found out that he had billed my insurance company for $125 for the diagnosis of a broken foot. Of course, I called my insurance, and told them the story, but they said that technically, he was within his right to do that. Of course, I've never seen that Dr again, and if ever asked about an ortho, I specifically tell them NOT to see him...
BTW, I have to pay for my own health insurance. I recently bumped my deductable to $2500 and my out of pocket expense to $5000 due to rate increases. For me to keep my $500/1500 coverage would have cost me over $550/month. Now, it's back down to a more reasonable $350/month... Even in the years where I haven't gone to a single Dr or files a single claim, my rates have gone up at least 20% a year.
At the rate of increase, I figure that I'll only be able to afford medical insurance for about another 4 or 5 years. As it is, my #1 expense is taxes, #2, my mortgage, #3, my health insurance (if I wouldn't have made the change, #2 would have been health insurance).
Mark
This point is one of my hot buttons. My health ins. comes from my employer, and I have to pay part of the cost (actually, all of it, but the part I see is the more aggravating part because I am reminded so often). But I don't get to choose deductibles, or coverage.
My policy is expensive. It covers such expensive items as fertility services and domestic partners. And, of course, almost any diagnostic test I might ever want.
I have never used nearly as much in medical care as I have paid in premiums, but I do need catastrophic coverage. I might get more choices next year, but that would really enrage some people who would have to pay more of the noticeable premium.
Why can't we make health ins. more like car ins, where the state has a pool for people who can't get coverage otherwise?