SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : A US National Health Care System?

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: TimF who wrote (2027)9/6/2007 12:48:35 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) of 42652
 
To late to edit the last post so I'll add to it here.

I don't have as much of a problem with employer provided health insurance as I do with government subsides or tax breaks for providing such insurance. Without such benefits it never would have been as common. Absent such benefits it still would have some momentum (people have gotten used to it) but it would still decline a bit over time. Some people having insurance provided this way is not a problem. Most people paying for their medical care through low to moderate deductible insurance provided for by their employer in response to government incentives probably is.

In addition to encouraging more companies to give health insurance as a benefit to their employees, the subsidies probably also keep down deductibles and co pays. They also, to the extent the employee has a choice between one form of compensation or another, makes the value of the insurance far higher than the value of the cash they could take as an alternative. Both tend to insulate the patient/consumer from any consideration of the real cost of the health care they receive. If the choice was between $X towards insurance, and $X in cash, people would at least see the cost of insurance, if not directly the cost for each treatment.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext