danemodsandy
Well-known member
I'd Like to Clarify....
....Something here.
Earlier in this thread, I advocated for employer participation in health care. I think that some are taking that to mean that I want employers to offer "free" insurance to all employees, on a mandatory basis. Nothing could be further from the truth, at least the free part. I do believe that healthcare coverage should be mandatory.
What I envision is a system that takes into account both employers and employees. Employers most definitely have an effect on the health of their employees; occupational hazards and stressors (both physical and emotional) are one of the major sources of health problems.
But other major sources of health problems are lifestyle and genetics, for which employers bear no responsibility. That means people should be picking up part of their own healthcare costs. But how much?
Well, it's my seat-of-the-pants reasoning that since most people spend roughly one-third of their lives in the workplace, subjected to those occupational hazards and stressors over which they have little control (not if they want to keep their jobs, anyway), then employers could reasonably be expected to pick up one-third of the tab, with the other two-thirds being expected of the employee. The employee pays for the proportion of his life where he (or his genetic makeup) calls the shots, and the employer pays for the part where he calls the shots. Simple, at least in theory.
This system would have quite a few advantages for employers. First, a workforce with access to healthcare is a workforce more able and ready to work, with fewer missed days. There would be advantages when unforeseen hazards injured workers; since workers would be covered for their injuries, there would be less justification for lawsuits. And the taxation needed to support public hospitals, with their huge burdens of uncollectible patient debt, should diminish over time.
The system would also have advantages for employees. First, mandatory healthcare coverage legislation would create a huge pool of prospective insureds, creating competition that should lower costs. People should be healthier overall, having earlier access to intervention, and education about the effects of lifestyle on health. That should increase their productivity, and therefore, hopefully, their earnings. They would hopefully pay less in taxes, exactly as employers would, because they too are currently paying for the public health system, which is so wasteful, expensive, and renders such horrendous quality of care.
If some employers have to drive a Lexus 400 instead of a 600 as a result of the cost of their healthcare contributions, that's quite all right with me. And if some employees have to drive a seven-year-old Taurus instead of signing up to buy a shiny new Dodge Ram pickup on time payments, so that they can afford their share of coverage, that's also very acceptable to me. The plain damn truth is that healthcare costs, and if we are to get that cost under control, everyone has to bear a share of the burden. The costs will have to come out of everybody's "fun stuff" budget, most likely. That's never pleasant, but sometimes it's necessary.
We cannot have a mandatory healthcare insurance system without business picking up the tab in some form or another. If we don't ask businesses to contribute directly, then marketplace factors will force them to pay wages and salaries that take the cost of healthcare insurance into account, at least in times of a strong economy.
So, in my humble opinion, we can pick which bullet to bite, but we're going to have to bite one, and soon.
As Linda Richman used to say, "Discuss!"
....Something here.
Earlier in this thread, I advocated for employer participation in health care. I think that some are taking that to mean that I want employers to offer "free" insurance to all employees, on a mandatory basis. Nothing could be further from the truth, at least the free part. I do believe that healthcare coverage should be mandatory.
What I envision is a system that takes into account both employers and employees. Employers most definitely have an effect on the health of their employees; occupational hazards and stressors (both physical and emotional) are one of the major sources of health problems.
But other major sources of health problems are lifestyle and genetics, for which employers bear no responsibility. That means people should be picking up part of their own healthcare costs. But how much?
Well, it's my seat-of-the-pants reasoning that since most people spend roughly one-third of their lives in the workplace, subjected to those occupational hazards and stressors over which they have little control (not if they want to keep their jobs, anyway), then employers could reasonably be expected to pick up one-third of the tab, with the other two-thirds being expected of the employee. The employee pays for the proportion of his life where he (or his genetic makeup) calls the shots, and the employer pays for the part where he calls the shots. Simple, at least in theory.
This system would have quite a few advantages for employers. First, a workforce with access to healthcare is a workforce more able and ready to work, with fewer missed days. There would be advantages when unforeseen hazards injured workers; since workers would be covered for their injuries, there would be less justification for lawsuits. And the taxation needed to support public hospitals, with their huge burdens of uncollectible patient debt, should diminish over time.
The system would also have advantages for employees. First, mandatory healthcare coverage legislation would create a huge pool of prospective insureds, creating competition that should lower costs. People should be healthier overall, having earlier access to intervention, and education about the effects of lifestyle on health. That should increase their productivity, and therefore, hopefully, their earnings. They would hopefully pay less in taxes, exactly as employers would, because they too are currently paying for the public health system, which is so wasteful, expensive, and renders such horrendous quality of care.
If some employers have to drive a Lexus 400 instead of a 600 as a result of the cost of their healthcare contributions, that's quite all right with me. And if some employees have to drive a seven-year-old Taurus instead of signing up to buy a shiny new Dodge Ram pickup on time payments, so that they can afford their share of coverage, that's also very acceptable to me. The plain damn truth is that healthcare costs, and if we are to get that cost under control, everyone has to bear a share of the burden. The costs will have to come out of everybody's "fun stuff" budget, most likely. That's never pleasant, but sometimes it's necessary.
We cannot have a mandatory healthcare insurance system without business picking up the tab in some form or another. If we don't ask businesses to contribute directly, then marketplace factors will force them to pay wages and salaries that take the cost of healthcare insurance into account, at least in times of a strong economy.
So, in my humble opinion, we can pick which bullet to bite, but we're going to have to bite one, and soon.
As Linda Richman used to say, "Discuss!"
