The main points of the article, in my words, are:
- People who buy their insurance through their employer are not truly insured against health problems because a change at their job could end their insurance at any time.
- Health overhaul should not be viewed as a program for the poor (as I say it should be) because most Americans are poor when it comes to healthcare in the sense that they would have trouble paying their expenses in the event of a job loss or other emergency.
If we had to choose between doing health insurance through employers or doing the overhaul proposed by Congress, maybe we should go with the overhaul. An easier solution is to transition away from employers providing benefits. Money was invented so people would not have to be paid in bartered services. Much of this problem would disappear if people were paid in money. Employer-captive is the real problem.
The part about many Americans being unprepared for life’s financial ups-and-downs is true too. Again, the solution is not to find a Band-Aid to manage this fact. The better approach is for people to be prepared, i.e. set aside money to cover life’s ups-and-downs.
It seems like supporters of the current overhaul proposal offer complicated Band-Aids to deal with healthcare problems but do not address the problems themselves.
CJ - I'm sure there is much we may not agree on and I may not follow your arguments, but agree to your conclusion, although I suggest a slight correction.
ReplyDeleteEmployees should not be provided insurance, instead the funds should be remain tax deductible to employers and be forwarded into a health care reimbursement account and those funds allowed to be rolled over year after year. That one simple reform would help put the power over health care spending into the hands of Americans and cut out the unnecessary parties.
However, your arguments are completely wrong. If you have a job change you are eligible for COBRA which continues your benefits until you purchase a new policy.
Employees should not be provided insurance, instead the funds should be remain tax deductible to employers and be forwarded into a health care reimbursement account and those funds allowed to be rolled over year after year.--conservative generation
ReplyDeleteThis sounds similar to HSAs, which I strongly support.
However, your arguments are completely wrong. If you have a job change you are eligible for COBRA which continues your benefits until you purchase a new policy.--conservative generation
COBRA is only available for 18 months. Making an analogy to life insurance, it's like buying a term policy whose term is "however long you're at your current job + 18 months" instead of something normal like 20 years.
CJ - most definately I prefer a reform that makes health insurance more like life insurance :) If that's your point.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the current legislation HR3200 will be mandating the type of coverage offered private or public. If keeping your current coverage is the objective, HR3200 is not the solution. If the issue is that COBRA is insufficient for long-term illness, then wouldn't it make more sense to extend COBRA beyond 18 months for those with longterm illnesses only. Something tells me that this would be far cheaper than $1 trillion over ten years.