I disagree that it "then renders subsidies irrelevant." The 40 million Americans without health care are NOT on welfare, they are GAINFULLY (DO, not TRY) employed. Unfortunately, supply and demand doesn't merit their gainful employment with health benefits.
Okay ... I understand your point of view, but I think you've missed mine. If the folks you cite do not have health care, I see it as THEIR responsibility to seek other circumstances in which it becomes available. They are working gainfully, but not reasonably - by definition - because the compensation they receive does not meet their (or your) idea of "reasonable." It is the worker's (supplier of labor) job to negotiate reasonable terms with the employer (consumer of labor). Union organization is one way to force the issue through monopolistic (and market-inefficient) behavior.
"Seeking other circumstances" can mean anything from getting another job to night school for another career to going on strike. Anything.
Non-sequitur - Health care became coupled to employment during WWII as a way to compensate executives during a salary freeze. It was then picked up by unions in their contracts, and eventually became common practice and expectation. IMO, health care should have NOTHING to do with your job; it should be more like car insurance, where each consumer negotiates it individually. For those who favor unions, that is a natural function for the union to provide - not the employer.
If you realize this places a lot of responsibility on the worker/consumer, then you understand my thinking. Subsidies, in essence, provide the means for people to be irresponsible for themselves. Of course, political pressure to provide those subsidies is one of the ways of "seeking other circumstances" that I referred to above ... I just don't think it's anywhere close to being the most effective.
I have absolutely no quarrel with any person or organization that chooses to give charity voluntarily. I do have a problem with coerced charity.
- Mitch |
