For Health insurance, why do we have employers buy it?

Everyone talks of portability in insurance, but why are we set on having the employer choose our health care? Should my employer choose my car or my house? The system is designed to have the employer choose the plan, but they have never asked me what I need. I pay about $6,000 on my employer 80/20. I would love to have a high deductible plan where I pay the 1st $10,000, then covered 100% after, but can not buy (wife with pre-existing). If this were an option, I could save about $3,600 per year. And I have never payed that much in any year for health care (except maybe kids birth). There is no reason the employer should take on this responsibility. The practice started back after WWII when the government had wage freezes. Employers could not give people raises, so they offered "perks" like health care to lure prospective employees. Unfortunately, like most things in government, once the catalyst (wage freeze) is removed, the results stick around (sort of like taxes on toll roads which were paid for decades ago).

If we really want to save money on health care (that's what this entire debate is about), then we should take responsibilty for our own insurance. This is the start.

2009-11-20T07:40:26Z

Angela,
If you look at the numbers, the amount of people who can not afford insurance is about 6 to 8 million (the other 30 million is made up of illegals, people who could afford but choose not to, and people who are eligible for aid, but have not signed up).

One point I did not make is that any money's that the company currently pays toward health coverage for an individual would, by law, be required to go to the individual. Also, the tax credit given to companies would go to the individual not the employer. Thus, the individual would not lose any money (nor would the company). The benefit would be the individual could get their own policy which would save them money, and the company would be out of the insurance providing business (I have done this as a small business owner and it really sucks).

The only people who could reasonably be against this would be human resources personnel who would need to look for work.

2009-11-20T07:42:37Z

Angela,
And I take offense at the 3rd world outcome statement. This is just stupid. We have one of the best health care systems in the world.

And please do not use the tired argument of life span as a proxy for health care. If you look at the data, our lower life span is due more to lifestyle than health care. Look at our survival rates for most cancers. We are at the top by a huge margin.

2009-11-20T07:44:58Z

Gillian,
I will refrain from using expletives, but you obviously have no idea what is in the health bill.

Angela Q2009-11-20T07:05:36Z

Favorite Answer

The issue is that most people cannot afford to pay for individual coverage. "Saving money" by getting a policy that covers almost nothing hardly counts as being insured. For an individual to get comprehensive coverage would be unaffordable to anyone who is not able to pay for all their health care costs out-of-pocket.

So the net effect would be that more people would end up uninsured. Period. That's what you want. It would certainly "save" the country money on health care spending if 1/3 of current health care consumers were cut off from the system. Since we're already at 3rd world outcomes, that would sink us even lower. ∠°)

11

Anonymous2009-11-20T07:23:11Z

You're correct on this issue.

Most people think their employer is paying for their health insurance, but the money they spend is considered part of your income. So you always paid for it, it just didn't seem like it.

With the looming government takeover of health care the employers will be able to unload the burden to the government. So no one will keep their insurance. Another lie by Obama.

I'm not sure if he's ever told the truth, but another lie is that there will not be fines for anyone who doesn't have health insurance. There are fines and imprisonment for such a violation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnDxqboVxMY

Either way you look at it, a takeover of our health insurance system is against the constitution and will turn our country into a socialist fascist 3rd world nation.

I know 70% of the country is against it, but this administration doesn't care what the people want. They're going to shove this down our throats anyway.

11

Philip H2009-11-20T07:26:48Z

First, It is part of you pay. It assures you actually spend the money to get the insurance.
Second, it is a tax exemption for the money spent to buy insurance. If you paid for it directly, you would have to pay income tax on the money before you spent it on the insurance.
An easy problem to remedy, but just try to get Congress to give you a write-off for the money earned that was spent by you for your health care insurance.
Government is like that.
It is the individual States that regulate health care insurance, so the Federal Government can't "give" you portability of your policy.
It is up to the states to work out the details needed to resolve these issues. That needs to be changed.
I agree that each citizen needs to be responsible, self sufficienf and self reliant, self insured, and take care of his own family.

11

?2016-09-09T03:31:17Z

Today the principal factors are ERISA and to preserve key staff. At the begin, years in the past, it used to be to compete with Unions. ERISA made it not possible to present a kit of perks to at least one institution of staff, adding house owners as staff, with out supplying it to all. That is, if the important thing pros demanded wellness coverage, to preserve them, it needed to provided to all salary staff. There are a few classes -- you've salary or salaried, you've complete time or aspect time. The rule is sweet for all in a class or none. It's particularly an subject of legislation that are supposed to be left to the states. For an worker the benefits of having an corporation masking wellness care are first-class -- institution plans imply that you simply get in despite pre-current stipulations. Group plans are consistently less expensive than similar man or woman plans. If the corporation units it up competently the worker can pay his proportion of advantages in earlier than tax bucks -- that is a minimum of 35% reduction correct there for the larger salary earners. For an corporation there are much less advantages -- however for unmarried mothers, mum and dad of enormous households, the older worker, or individuals with pe-current stipulations -- the must keep at the employers wellness care plan works like a heavy chain maintaining them dependable and scared of wasting the activity.

00

ClanMan2009-11-20T07:42:46Z

This is not about "health care"

This is about more government revenue through taxation, and more government control of us. They could care less if we are covered or not.

I have a feeling that this will be taken right off the top of our paychecks. So, if you do not have a job, you dont have to pay. More incentive to be poor.

20

Related Questions

Why do employers buy health insurance?Why does everyone think that their employer should buy their health insurance?Do you buy your own health insurance or do you get it through your employer?Do you believe an employer should be forced to buy your health insurance?Should employers be forced to carry health insurance?

Trending Questions

Are you going to get the covid vaccine?12 answersCould Biden force people and the military to take the vaccine against their will?9 answersSince it promotes the prioritization of career over family, is feminism a capitalist or Marxist movement?5 answersSo liberals ruined their own cities, ruined society with cancel culture, lgbt, and now they ruined yahoo ?7 answersWhy does everybody hate Mike Lindell?7 answers