Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Apr 22, 2020 10:26:30 GMT -5
Not sure if that is directed at me but I'm not complaining about having my health insurance through my employer. I was saying that my F you money would have to include paying for my own insurance. My fiancé is self-insured so it isn't that big of a deal to me. I know that I will need an extra $1k to pay for insurance plus deductbles, just like he does. My comment wasn't directed at you at all. It was in response to Ruka's list. Gotcha. I was quoted by someone else regarding employer health insurance so I assumed you were talking to me, too.
|
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 7,368
|
Post by pulmonarymd on Apr 22, 2020 10:57:13 GMT -5
Insurance is tied to employment only so far as employees DECIDE to tie it to their employment. If you don't want it tied to your employment, go buy it on the open market. People generally CHOOSE to tie it to their employment because they can get a better deal than open market rates. It's like saying "my company has a cafeteria with good prices, but I don't think my food choices should be tied to my employment". They're not, it's an option that nobody is forcing you to exercise. Understandably, people who enjoy the cafeteria and good prices don't want that taken away as an option just because some people wish the cafeteria didn't exist. It's not enough for them to just not use the cafeteria, they want to take the cafeteria away from other people because they don't like it themselves. Just like it makes no sense that if you ate at the cafeteria every day, if you get laid off then of course you can't eat at the cafeteria anymore. Getting a good deal on something because of your job doesn't mean you are entitled to that same good deal when you no longer work there. Nice misdirection. The market should never have been tied to employment. We should have some sort of private/public systgem, not tied to employment, so people are not tied to jobs, and will not be left bankrupt. The importance of this will become even greater as this situation goes on, as many people will lose their job, lose their health insurance as a result, and if they get sick with COVID, be left bankrupt as a result of a hospitalization. Or is there some other solution to this issue as you see it. These are all people who got their insurance thru their workplace. Unless you are one of those people who think you can pay 15-12k for insurance for your family on $15/hour
|
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 7,368
|
Post by pulmonarymd on Apr 22, 2020 10:58:08 GMT -5
And the tying of health insurance to employment is a huge mistake. Many people could decide to leave jobs, be self employed, or retire if that wasn't the case. Do you think there could be a solution to that problem, or are you going to continue to complain about paying for someone else's birth control. How many people are going to be uninsured soon because of the economic collapse. Do you think it is reasonable to expect corporations to keep peolple on their health insurance with an economic meltdown? Why is that directed to me? When do I complain about someone getting birth control? If an employee is laid off, no I do not think it is reasonable to force the employer to keep them on their health insurance. How many businesses can carry that and for how long? There are businesses that will be shut for a couple of months and some that will never reopen because they have gone bankrupt. Because you are frequently saying you do not want to pay for others healthcare
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Apr 22, 2020 11:11:15 GMT -5
Insurance is tied to employment only so far as employees DECIDE to tie it to their employment. If you don't want it tied to your employment, go buy it on the open market. People generally CHOOSE to tie it to their employment because they can get a better deal than open market rates. It's like saying "my company has a cafeteria with good prices, but I don't think my food choices should be tied to my employment". They're not, it's an option that nobody is forcing you to exercise. Understandably, people who enjoy the cafeteria and good prices don't want that taken away as an option just because some people wish the cafeteria didn't exist. It's not enough for them to just not use the cafeteria, they want to take the cafeteria away from other people because they don't like it themselves. Just like it makes no sense that if you ate at the cafeteria every day, if you get laid off then of course you can't eat at the cafeteria anymore. Getting a good deal on something because of your job doesn't mean you are entitled to that same good deal when you no longer work there. Nice misdirection. The market should never have been tied to employment. We should have some sort of private/public systgem, not tied to employment, so people are not tied to jobs, and will not be left bankrupt. The importance of this will become even greater as this situation goes on, as many people will lose their job, lose their health insurance as a result, and if they get sick with COVID, be left bankrupt as a result of a hospitalization. Or is there some other solution to this issue as you see it. These are all people who got their insurance thru their workplace. Unless you are one of those people who think you can pay 15-12k for insurance for your family on $15/hourIf you can't afford insurance, then you can't afford it. It doesn't suddenly become cheaper or more affordable by not tying it to employment. People have been getting a good deal for a long time...people become convinced they deserve that good deal forever. No different than relying on your cheap cafeteria for food. If you've designed your life to have no money left and only be able to eat if you have your cheap cafeteria...that's your own fault for living with such reliance. Insurance costs what it costs...if you can't afford it outside your job...then you can't afford it outside your job. Untying it from employment doesn't change that. People should DEFINITELY plan their finances so that they can afford insurance outside of their job. But let's say insurance has NO ties to a job...not available in any way as a benefit. How do you think those people making $15/hour are going to afford 15-12k (your numbers) just because it isn't tied? That's the problem, people have become reliant on a good deal, to the point they've screwed themselves if that good deal ever goes away. I don't see "people are stupid and will think a good deal lasts forever" is a valid reason to take away good deals from everyone else. The solution is "if you don't want health insurance tied to employment, then don't tie it to your employment". You have that option today...and if you can't afford that option today, then you certainly can't afford that option if you were FORCED into that option as the only way.
|
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 7,368
|
Post by pulmonarymd on Apr 22, 2020 11:13:19 GMT -5
Nice misdirection. The market should never have been tied to employment. We should have some sort of private/public systgem, not tied to employment, so people are not tied to jobs, and will not be left bankrupt. The importance of this will become even greater as this situation goes on, as many people will lose their job, lose their health insurance as a result, and if they get sick with COVID, be left bankrupt as a result of a hospitalization. Or is there some other solution to this issue as you see it. These are all people who got their insurance thru their workplace. Unless you are one of those people who think you can pay 15-12k for insurance for your family on $15/hourIf you can't afford insurance, then you can't afford it. It doesn't suddenly become cheaper or more affordable by not tying it to employment. People have been getting a good deal for a long time...people become convinced they deserve that good deal forever. No different than relying on your cheap cafeteria for food. If you've designed your life to have no money left and only be able to eat if you have your cheap cafeteria...that's your own fault for living with such reliance. Insurance costs what it costs...if you can't afford it outside your job...then you can't afford it outside your job. Untying it from employment doesn't change that. People should DEFINITELY plan their finances so that they can afford insurance outside of their job. But let's say insurance has NO ties to a job...not available in any way as a benefit. How do you think those people making $15/hour are going to afford 15-12k (your numbers) just because it isn't tied? That's the problem, people have become reliant on a good deal, to the point they've screwed themselves if that good deal ever goes away. I don't see "people are stupid and will think a good deal lasts forever" is a valid reason to take away good deals from everyone else. The solution is "if you don't want health insurance tied to employment, then don't tie it to your employment". You have that option today...and if you can't afford that option today, then you certainly can't afford that option if you were FORCED into that option as the only way. So the richest country in the world just says F*** you to a large part of its population. Remember, with the way unemployment claims are going, that is a boatload of people potentially
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Apr 22, 2020 11:18:49 GMT -5
If you can't afford insurance, then you can't afford it. It doesn't suddenly become cheaper or more affordable by not tying it to employment. People have been getting a good deal for a long time...people become convinced they deserve that good deal forever. No different than relying on your cheap cafeteria for food. If you've designed your life to have no money left and only be able to eat if you have your cheap cafeteria...that's your own fault for living with such reliance. Insurance costs what it costs...if you can't afford it outside your job...then you can't afford it outside your job. Untying it from employment doesn't change that. People should DEFINITELY plan their finances so that they can afford insurance outside of their job. But let's say insurance has NO ties to a job...not available in any way as a benefit. How do you think those people making $15/hour are going to afford 15-12k (your numbers) just because it isn't tied? That's the problem, people have become reliant on a good deal, to the point they've screwed themselves if that good deal ever goes away. I don't see "people are stupid and will think a good deal lasts forever" is a valid reason to take away good deals from everyone else. The solution is "if you don't want health insurance tied to employment, then don't tie it to your employment". You have that option today...and if you can't afford that option today, then you certainly can't afford that option if you were FORCED into that option as the only way. So the richest country in the world just says F*** you to a large part of its population. Remember, with the way unemployment claims are going, that is a boatload of people potentially That has nothing to do with whether you can get insurance through an employer. You're arguing for making insurance more affordable, or some other change. The idea of "unlink it from employment" doesn't magically make it cost less. It's not hard to think through. Let's say employment is not linked to insurance in any way. How are those same people going to afford insurance? They're not, because simply unlinking that benefit from employment doesn't make it less expensive. People who say "unlink insurance from employment" inevitably mean something different...they mean change healthcare in other ways that are unrelated to whether healthcare is a workplace benefit. It almost always comes out, because the linking of the 2 is voluntary at the individual level.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Apr 22, 2020 11:22:42 GMT -5
Why is that directed to me? When do I complain about someone getting birth control? If an employee is laid off, no I do not think it is reasonable to force the employer to keep them on their health insurance. How many businesses can carry that and for how long? There are businesses that will be shut for a couple of months and some that will never reopen because they have gone bankrupt. Because you are frequently saying you do not want to pay for others healthcare I do not believe I have ever said I do not want to pay for anyone's healthcare. I do not want socialized medicine because, like everything else with our government, it would be a shit show (let's look at VA hospitals for proof of that). . And I have friends in countries with socialized healthcare and they tell me of the wait times for things that we take for granted in the US (and a google search confirms that wait times for specialists in Canada are a lot longer than in the US - I've had cancer twice, I need to be seen ASAP when I get something suspicious). I have very good insurance and I do not want to take a step backwards in terms of care that I receive, even if it is just how quickly I get seen. What I have said time and time again, is that we need to addressed the COST of healthcare. It is crazy how much this country spends and as liberals like to point out, our outcomes are no better or even worse than countries that spend less. Now, some of it is that the salaries that doctors make (do a google comparison comparing what Canadian doctors get paid versus US), malpractice claims in the US compared to other countries (it's like hitting the damn lottery in the US), administrative costs because of the nightmare we have turned reimbursements into (not to mention, insurance execs make a LOT of money), we have zero price controls on prescriptions (I do not want a US company to be able to charge anyone in the US one cent more than they charge other countries), and so on and so on. Before we just push the cost from employers to tax payers, FIX THE COST. Once we address the cost of healthcare, it will be a much easier pill to swallow as to who pays for it.
|
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 7,368
|
Post by pulmonarymd on Apr 22, 2020 11:24:22 GMT -5
So the richest country in the world just says F*** you to a large part of its population. Remember, with the way unemployment claims are going, that is a boatload of people potentially That has nothing to do with whether you can get insurance through an employer. You're arguing for making insurance more affordable, or some other change. The idea of "unlink it from employment" doesn't magically make it cost less. It's not hard to think through. Let's say employment is not linked to insurance in any way. How are those same people going to afford insurance? They're not, because simply unlinking that benefit from employment doesn't make it less expensive. People who say "unlink insurance from employment" inevitably mean something different...they mean change healthcare in other ways that are unrelated to whether healthcare is a workplace benefit. It almost always comes out, because the linking of the 2 is voluntary at the individual level. I was pointing out it should have never been linked in the first place, and it is unaffordable for most people, so a solution to the problem is needed. Thanks for you explanation, I needed it
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Apr 22, 2020 11:24:29 GMT -5
Let's just play through the argument. You have what you want. Starting January 1, 2021, no employer may offer health insurance as a benefit. Everyone who wants insurance must now purchase it in the ways available to them today outside of their employer.
What problem do you see solved by this? Do you think more or fewer people have health insurance?
|
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 7,368
|
Post by pulmonarymd on Apr 22, 2020 11:26:07 GMT -5
Let's just play through the argument. You have what you want. Starting January 1, 2021, no employer may offer health insurance as a benefit. Everyone who wants insurance must now purchase it in the ways available to them today outside of their employer. What problem do you see solved by this? Do you think more or fewer people have health insurance? Doesn't immediately solve anything. You think people would elect the same people they are now if they knew they could not afford insurance? Nice strawman though
|
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 7,368
|
Post by pulmonarymd on Apr 22, 2020 11:30:48 GMT -5
Because you are frequently saying you do not want to pay for others healthcare I do not believe I have ever said I do not want to pay for anyone's healthcare. I do not want socialized medicine because, like everything else with our government, it would be a shit show (let's look at VA hospitals for proof of that). . And I have friends in countries with socialized healthcare and they tell me of the wait times for things that we take for granted in the US (and a google search confirms that wait times for specialists in Canada are a lot longer than in the US - I've had cancer twice, I need to be seen ASAP when I get something suspicious). I have very good insurance and I do not want to take a step backwards in terms of care that I receive, even if it is just how quickly I get seen. What I have said time and time again, is that we need to addressed the COST of healthcare. It is crazy how much this country spends and as liberals like to point out, our outcomes are no better or even worse than countries that spend less. Now, some of it is that the salaries that doctors make (do a google comparison comparing what Canadian doctors get paid versus US), malpractice claims in the US compared to other countries (it's like hitting the damn lottery in the US), administrative costs because of the nightmare we have turned reimbursements into (not to mention, insurance execs make a LOT of money), we have zero price controls on prescriptions (I do not want a US company to be able to charge anyone in the US one cent more than they charge other countries), and so on and so on. Before we just push the cost from employers to tax payers, FIX THE COST. Once we address the cost of healthcare, it will be a much easier pill to swallow as to who pays for it. Are you willing to put price controls on other segments of the economy? Limit salaries of other people? You want to do that because you do not like the cost of health care. See what happens to applications to work in healthcare if you do that
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,309
|
Post by swamp on Apr 22, 2020 11:32:11 GMT -5
Let's just play through the argument. You have what you want. Starting January 1, 2021, no employer may offer health insurance as a benefit. Everyone who wants insurance must now purchase it in the ways available to them today outside of their employer. What problem do you see solved by this? Do you think more or fewer people have health insurance? Not enough information to answer. are the employers going to give the money they spent on health insurance benefits to the employee? Is health insurance deductible on taxes? Does the government have an exchange, or do you have to call a broker? is there a penalty if you don't purchase it like the ACA? So many variables.............
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Apr 22, 2020 11:32:12 GMT -5
Let's just play through the argument. You have what you want. Starting January 1, 2021, no employer may offer health insurance as a benefit. Everyone who wants insurance must now purchase it in the ways available to them today outside of their employer. What problem do you see solved by this? Do you think more or fewer people have health insurance? Doesn't immediately solve anything. You think people would elect the same people they are now if they knew they could not afford insurance? Nice strawman though Oh the irony, you don't honestly see that your whole "uncouple insurance from employment" is a strawman? You want more affordable healthcare yes? But instead of saying "i want more affordable healthcare", your solution is "make healthcare a lot more expensive by taking away people's benefits, so that maybe people will demand a political change so that other people will pay for their more expensive healthcare". Might as well argue "everyone should be forced to live in a cardboard box, maybe then we'll all elect people to give us free mansions". You can say "we should make healthcare more affordable on the open market" without the unnecessary additive of "and unlink it from employment". Unlinking it from employment means MORE people have no healthcare. You're simply arguing to make a problem even worse so that your solution seems more viable. And doing so while arguing that you want to remove choices people have today, in order to force them into a less desirable state where they do NOT have that choice, in hopes that by forcing them into a bad situation you can take advantage of the horrible situation you've created to further a political agenda. Very Trumpian of you!
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Apr 22, 2020 11:32:48 GMT -5
Insurance is tied to employment only so far as employees DECIDE to tie it to their employment. If you don't want it tied to your employment, go buy it on the open market. People generally CHOOSE to tie it to their employment because they can get a better deal than open market rates. It's like saying "my company has a cafeteria with good prices, but I don't think my food choices should be tied to my employment". They're not, it's an option that nobody is forcing you to exercise. Understandably, people who enjoy the cafeteria and good prices don't want that taken away as an option just because some people wish the cafeteria didn't exist. It's not enough for them to just not use the cafeteria, they want to take the cafeteria away from other people because they don't like it themselves. Just like it makes no sense that if you ate at the cafeteria every day, if you get laid off then of course you can't eat at the cafeteria anymore. Getting a good deal on something because of your job doesn't mean you are entitled to that same good deal when you no longer work there. Nice misdirection. The market should never have been tied to employment. We should have some sort of private/public systgem, not tied to employment, so people are not tied to jobs, and will not be left bankrupt. The importance of this will become even greater as this situation goes on, as many people will lose their job, lose their health insurance as a result, and if they get sick with COVID, be left bankrupt as a result of a hospitalization. Or is there some other solution to this issue as you see it. These are all people who got their insurance thru their workplace. Unless you are one of those people who think you can pay 15-12k for insurance for your family on $15/hour Isn't that what Obamacare did? The low paid people get subsidies. I'm pretty sure no one making $15/hr is paying $15k a year for healthcare.
|
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 7,368
|
Post by pulmonarymd on Apr 22, 2020 11:34:30 GMT -5
Nice misdirection. The market should never have been tied to employment. We should have some sort of private/public systgem, not tied to employment, so people are not tied to jobs, and will not be left bankrupt. The importance of this will become even greater as this situation goes on, as many people will lose their job, lose their health insurance as a result, and if they get sick with COVID, be left bankrupt as a result of a hospitalization. Or is there some other solution to this issue as you see it. These are all people who got their insurance thru their workplace. Unless you are one of those people who think you can pay 15-12k for insurance for your family on $15/hour Isn't that what Obamacare did? The low paid people get subsidies. I'm pretty sure no one making $15/hr is paying $15k a year for healthcare. Yes it did, and republicans haven't stopped complaining
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Apr 22, 2020 11:34:33 GMT -5
Let's just play through the argument. You have what you want. Starting January 1, 2021, no employer may offer health insurance as a benefit. Everyone who wants insurance must now purchase it in the ways available to them today outside of their employer. What problem do you see solved by this? Do you think more or fewer people have health insurance? Not enough information to answer. are the employers going to give the money they spent on health insurance benefits to the employee? Is health insurance deductible on taxes? Does the government have an exchange, or do you have to call a broker? is there a penalty if you don't purchase it like the ACA? So many variables............. It's today's environment...because the only argument is "unlink it from employment". I think you could presume that the net employer expense would be paid out to employees (i.e. the net cost to the employer continues to be in the compensation bucket, that becomes payroll).
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,309
|
Post by swamp on Apr 22, 2020 11:35:34 GMT -5
Not enough information to answer. are the employers going to give the money they spent on health insurance benefits to the employee? Is health insurance deductible on taxes? Does the government have an exchange, or do you have to call a broker? is there a penalty if you don't purchase it like the ACA? So many variables............. It's today's environment...because the only argument is "unlink it from employment". I think you could presume that the net employer expense would be paid out to employees (i.e. the net cost to the employer continues to be in the compensation bucket, that becomes payroll).yeah, I'm not willing to presume that..................
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Apr 22, 2020 11:37:21 GMT -5
I do not believe I have ever said I do not want to pay for anyone's healthcare. I do not want socialized medicine because, like everything else with our government, it would be a shit show (let's look at VA hospitals for proof of that). . And I have friends in countries with socialized healthcare and they tell me of the wait times for things that we take for granted in the US (and a google search confirms that wait times for specialists in Canada are a lot longer than in the US - I've had cancer twice, I need to be seen ASAP when I get something suspicious). I have very good insurance and I do not want to take a step backwards in terms of care that I receive, even if it is just how quickly I get seen. What I have said time and time again, is that we need to addressed the COST of healthcare. It is crazy how much this country spends and as liberals like to point out, our outcomes are no better or even worse than countries that spend less. Now, some of it is that the salaries that doctors make (do a google comparison comparing what Canadian doctors get paid versus US), malpractice claims in the US compared to other countries (it's like hitting the damn lottery in the US), administrative costs because of the nightmare we have turned reimbursements into (not to mention, insurance execs make a LOT of money), we have zero price controls on prescriptions (I do not want a US company to be able to charge anyone in the US one cent more than they charge other countries), and so on and so on. Before we just push the cost from employers to tax payers, FIX THE COST. Once we address the cost of healthcare, it will be a much easier pill to swallow as to who pays for it. Are you willing to put price controls on other segments of the economy? Limit salaries of other people? You want to do that because you do not like the cost of health care. See what happens to applications to work in healthcare if you do that Aww, therein lies the rub. You want what other countries in terms of healthcare but you want it to be a free for all with the taxpayer footing the bill. Government run anything has price controls. Medicaid/Medicare have extremely low reimbursements. If we have medicare for all then costs are going to have to be cut. Just curious...Canada has doctors even though they make significantly less than the US. Why would you assume that the US doctors would suddenly quit?
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Apr 22, 2020 11:37:39 GMT -5
It's today's environment...because the only argument is "unlink it from employment". I think you could presume that the net employer expense would be paid out to employees (i.e. the net cost to the employer continues to be in the compensation bucket, that becomes payroll).yeah, I'm not willing to presume that.................. Well it's a hypothetical exercise, so I was being the most generous in the assumption to the opposition by saying if their idea went through, they could presume employees would receive that as payroll which is to the benefit of their argument.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Apr 22, 2020 11:39:33 GMT -5
Isn't that what Obamacare did? The low paid people get subsidies. I'm pretty sure no one making $15/hr is paying $15k a year for healthcare. Yes it did, and republicans haven't stopped complaining You keep making blanket statements about republicans. I'm a republican and I have no issue with someone getting a subsidy for healthcare. I dislike the ACA because it did absolutely squat to address the COST of healthcare. Just shifted who pays for it. Let's say it again for those in the back....why can't we lower our healthcare costs to the level of the countries that liberals like to hold out as great systems?
|
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 7,368
|
Post by pulmonarymd on Apr 22, 2020 11:39:37 GMT -5
Doesn't immediately solve anything. You think people would elect the same people they are now if they knew they could not afford insurance? Nice strawman though Oh the irony, you don't honestly see that your whole "uncouple insurance from employment" is a strawman? You want more affordable healthcare yes? But instead of saying "i want more affordable healthcare", your solution is "make healthcare a lot more expensive by taking away people's benefits, so that maybe people will demand a political change so that other people will pay for their more expensive healthcare". Might as well argue "everyone should be forced to live in a cardboard box, maybe then we'll all elect people to give us free mansions". You can say "we should make healthcare more affordable on the open market" without the unnecessary additive of "and unlink it from employment". Unlinking it from employment means MORE people have no healthcare. You're simply arguing to make a problem even worse so that your solution seems more viable. And doing so while arguing that you want to remove choices people have today, in order to force them into a less desirable state where they do NOT have that choice, in hopes that by forcing them into a bad situation you can take advantage of the horrible situation you've created to further a political agenda. Very Trumpian of you! And you keep missing the point. Unemployment has surged, the majority of those people will lose their health insurance as a result. Our system is not prepared for this, because we link insurance to work. We need to have a way of avoiding this disaster, and unlinking it from work is the answer, with some sort of public plan. Now if your employer wants to give you insurance in place of that, that is their choice. But the people who get insurance through work have a luxury that those who do not cannot inderstand
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,309
|
Post by swamp on Apr 22, 2020 11:39:54 GMT -5
and i'm hypothetically thinking that isn't going to happen.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Apr 22, 2020 11:41:29 GMT -5
Oh the irony, you don't honestly see that your whole "uncouple insurance from employment" is a strawman? You want more affordable healthcare yes? But instead of saying "i want more affordable healthcare", your solution is "make healthcare a lot more expensive by taking away people's benefits, so that maybe people will demand a political change so that other people will pay for their more expensive healthcare". Might as well argue "everyone should be forced to live in a cardboard box, maybe then we'll all elect people to give us free mansions". You can say "we should make healthcare more affordable on the open market" without the unnecessary additive of "and unlink it from employment". Unlinking it from employment means MORE people have no healthcare. You're simply arguing to make a problem even worse so that your solution seems more viable. And doing so while arguing that you want to remove choices people have today, in order to force them into a less desirable state where they do NOT have that choice, in hopes that by forcing them into a bad situation you can take advantage of the horrible situation you've created to further a political agenda. Very Trumpian of you! And you keep missing the point. Unemployment has surged, the majority of those people will lose their health insurance as a result. Our system is not prepared for this, because we link insurance to work. We need to have a way of avoiding this disaster, and unlinking it from work is the answer, with some sort of public plan. Now if your employer wants to give you insurance in place of that, that is their choice. But the people who get insurance through work have a luxury that those who do not cannot inderstand I'm so confused...isn't there a marketplace where if you need insurance you can go get it? And if your income is below a certain threshold you get huge subsidies for it? Did that suddenly go away and I do not know it?
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Apr 22, 2020 11:42:24 GMT -5
and i'm hypothetically thinking that isn't going to happen. I'm hypothetically in agreement with you.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,309
|
Post by swamp on Apr 22, 2020 11:43:34 GMT -5
And you keep missing the point. Unemployment has surged, the majority of those people will lose their health insurance as a result. Our system is not prepared for this, because we link insurance to work. We need to have a way of avoiding this disaster, and unlinking it from work is the answer, with some sort of public plan. Now if your employer wants to give you insurance in place of that, that is their choice. But the people who get insurance through work have a luxury that those who do not cannot inderstand I'm so confused...isn't there a marketplace where if you need insurance you can go get it? And if your income is below a certain threshold you get huge subsidies for it? Did that suddenly go away and I do not know it? It is currently there, but there is a continual push to undo the ACA. Also, a few states basically have no plans to choose from.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Apr 22, 2020 11:45:54 GMT -5
Oh the irony, you don't honestly see that your whole "uncouple insurance from employment" is a strawman? You want more affordable healthcare yes? But instead of saying "i want more affordable healthcare", your solution is "make healthcare a lot more expensive by taking away people's benefits, so that maybe people will demand a political change so that other people will pay for their more expensive healthcare". Might as well argue "everyone should be forced to live in a cardboard box, maybe then we'll all elect people to give us free mansions". You can say "we should make healthcare more affordable on the open market" without the unnecessary additive of "and unlink it from employment". Unlinking it from employment means MORE people have no healthcare. You're simply arguing to make a problem even worse so that your solution seems more viable. And doing so while arguing that you want to remove choices people have today, in order to force them into a less desirable state where they do NOT have that choice, in hopes that by forcing them into a bad situation you can take advantage of the horrible situation you've created to further a political agenda. Very Trumpian of you! And you keep missing the point. Unemployment has surged, the majority of those people will lose their health insurance as a result. Our system is not prepared for this, because we link insurance to work. We need to have a way of avoiding this disaster, and unlinking it from work is the answer, with some sort of public plan. Now if your employer wants to give you insurance in place of that, that is their choice. But the people who get insurance through work have a luxury that those who do not cannot inderstand Yep, and those people will be in precisely the same situation we'd ALL be in if we just unlinked it. It's not as if you simply cannot buy insurance without an employer. You've just stumbled upon your own inconsistency. "If your employer wants to give you insurance in place of that, that is their choice". No, that's not a choice if you unlink insurance from work. You're arguing for "we should have an affordable public plan". But your way of getting there is to make the situation far worse, so that your plan sounds better in a worse situation. The argument you're really wanting to make is "affordable public plan"...you know...like ACA right? You're essentially arguing "unlink it, make it worse, force people to political action...oh then you can re-link it once I've gotten the thing I really wanted". Just argue for the thing you actually want (in this case seemingly a public plan that's nothing like ACA)...rather than arguing for this whole roundabout way. You're arguing about all these people being in such a bad position now...meanwhile you're arguing you want to put EVERYONE in that same position lol. "Oh isn't it awful, all these people will lose their jobs and have to buy insurance that isn't through their employer, it's just AWFUL...my solution is that we should take this thing I'm claiming is awful and make everyone do it".
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Apr 22, 2020 11:46:27 GMT -5
and i'm hypothetically thinking that isn't going to happen. That's fine with me, that just makes my argument much much stronger.
|
|
mollyc
Familiar Member
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 2:12:25 GMT -5
Posts: 871
|
Post by mollyc on Apr 22, 2020 11:46:50 GMT -5
Just curious...Canada has doctors even though they make significantly less than the US. Why would you assume that the US doctors would suddenly quit? Sorry for the side note but as someone who has seen the financial statements of doctors in my part of Canada, how much money do US doctors make if they are getting significantly more then Canadian doctors? Thank you.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Apr 22, 2020 11:46:52 GMT -5
I'm so confused...isn't there a marketplace where if you need insurance you can go get it? And if your income is below a certain threshold you get huge subsidies for it? Did that suddenly go away and I do not know it? It is currently there, but there is a continual push to undo the ACA. Also, a few states basically have no plans to choose from. I get that there is a push to undo the ACA (I don't see that happening) but she is arguing as if there is no ACA and a person making $15/hr will have to pay $15k a year. There might not be choices but I'm assuming each state has at least one plan available, correct?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,454
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Apr 22, 2020 11:47:46 GMT -5
Insurance is tied to employment only so far as employees DECIDE to tie it to their employment. If you don't want it tied to your employment, go buy it on the open market. People generally CHOOSE to tie it to their employment because they can get a better deal than open market rates. ... ... It doesn't suddenly become cheaper or more affordable by not tying it to employment. ... No, not "suddenly" but it is important to understand why it is cheaper when it is provided by an employer. That employer proves a pool of people to insure. The larger that pool, the cheaper the rate more person. There are other ways that "pools" can be created and provide a lower cost than the open market insurance plans.
|
|