2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumThere's a major advantage to single payer...
That no one, not even Sanders, seems to be talking about, and that is the major boom it would create to entrepreneurs.
Many small businesses and entrepreneurial ventures never get started due to the high cost of providing their employees health benefits. With a single payer system millions of new jobs would be created by removing this cost from the employer and resulting in a stimulus for people to open their own businesses. It would also make it more financially feasible for larger businesses to keep more jobs in the country rather than overseas.
Win, win, win!
+ it's just the morally right thing to do.
PatrickforO
(14,516 posts)payer is put in place. Thanks for the analysis.
pugetres
(507 posts)Employer provided insurance held a lot of power. Excluding pre-existing conditions from the premium cost calculations made it possible for entrepreneurial folks to actually strike out on their own.
Combining and thus increasing the insurance pool under a single-payer plan is a no brainer. Lower cost and universal coverage benefits everyone.
tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)On many fronts.
Cassiopeia
(2,603 posts)When starting a new business you don't have a true idea of what you will make for the first year and getting subsidies in place are overwhelming without that solid number.
It helped a few with the entrepreneurial spirit, but not those that would really look to build a business with little accounting help.
The PPACA was written for insurance companies, not people. That's the simple fact. Single payer, even in it's worst renditions, is done for the people, not the corporations.
Fairgo
(1,571 posts)The idea that health cared should somehow be the responsibility of your employer is an aberration to begin with. A related value is that single payer opens the the risk people can take in changing jobs, advancing their careers, learning new skills. We should not be chained to a job for fear of living without health care. The natural relationship between health care and work life is the exact opposite of what we have all been forced to live for a generation.
tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)Completely agree. I've known many people who stayed in crappy jobs just so they wouldn't lose their health coverage. It shouldn't be that way.
global1
(25,168 posts)It seems like it would be a headache to monitor the plans and most every year look to switch to a plan that is cheaper to the company. I'm sure that HR departments have health insurance salesmen badgering them on an on-going basis to get their business. I know if I was an HR person - I wouldn't want to deal with that never ending problem. I would be most thankful to get that off my back and leave it in the hands of the employee and the single payer plan. I'd be glad to set a portion of the money spent in the past to maintain a company health plan and give it the employee to pick the best plan for their situation. At most - I wouldn't mind helping the employees make their health insurance decisions - but I wouldn't have to try and find a plan that works for all the employees and satisfies the boss or corporate that it is the least expensive for the company.
Why wouldn't all companies flock to a single payer plan that they wouldn't have to worry about?
polly7
(20,582 posts)"Think General Motors, who now makes more cars in Canada than the U.S., because their costs are just $800 per year per employee for health care."
And this:
An Improved Medicare-for-all system provides business with many benefits:
It reduces labor costs by 10-12% (a 3.3% additional tax on wages* versus today's 10-15% of wages for medical insurance).
It reduces liability and auto insurance costs.
It reduces worker compensation costs, likely by half.
It eliminates health benefits management costs and yearly insurance company and labor contract negotiations for health care.
It creates healthier personnel and more employee stability, reduces absenteeism, and eliminates employer health system complaints.
It reduces the need for part-timers, and provides easier recruiting (no pre-existing disease or COBRA issues).
It eliminates employee health-related debt and personal bankruptcies.
It will expand the U.S. economy and business climate by freeing up family income to purchase new products and services.
Though I don't know how closely this aligns with objectives in the movement for single payer there now.
http://www.businesscoalition.net/index.htm
But honestly, this just makes sense!
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)I agree it's probably a good thing, but not quite the boost to entrepreneurship implied. But it is a positive overall. Again, if it is realistically passable.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)But still, a heck of a lot lower than what they pay now for premiums for family plans.
Here is an interesting link from 2014, for average family premiums and employer premiums for health insurance. This is on a Keiser web site, so I don't know if this is just Keiser plans...probably is.
http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/family-coverage/
For example, in California, the premium for a family plan: (remember these are 2014 numbers so they'd be higher now):
The employer's contribution is $12,489
The employee contribution is $4,955.
Right now the median income for Cali is $61,320. so with Bernie's plan:
The employer's contribution is $4,047 (6.6%)
The employee's contribution us $1,349 (2.2%)
Oh whoops...I forgot, Bernie's plan is based on a single employee, not per family, so how will it be handled per family? 2x for two adults? What about addition of kids?
Cassiopeia
(2,603 posts)not for the 1%. That's the major problem with single payer, a loss of control by our employers.
scottie55
(1,400 posts)Partly because of her health insurance, and my health problems.
Imagine if we had real freedom.
Freedom.
Freedumb if you are a Republican.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Everything about our value as a person is tied into what we can produce. Not even what we can produce, rather that we can produce. That we can work meaningless, needless jobs to prove that we deserve to live. That we could cut so many unnecessary jobs, and still take care of every citizen, but choose not to because then they wouldn't be working, and thus wouldn't be earning the right to exist on the planet is sad. There's more than enough homes for the homeless, and more than enough food for the hungry but we don't fix those problems because they need to earn that, never mind that th deck is stacked against anyone who has fallen slightly out of line with the production oriented society.
And I hate talking about this stuff because I always feel like a conspiracy theorist, should be over in creative speculation or something.
But Bernie gives me hope that we can move things in a better direction, one that cares about everyone, that will heal people that need it regardless of their ability to pay for it because no one's life should be held for ransom.
tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)That's why having a single-payer system is a moral issue...access to healthcare is a right for every American, every human. Whether you have a job and "produce" is inconsequential.
Healthcare is part of the commons, something that we all share, no different than our right to clean air, water, food.
thesquanderer
(11,955 posts)re: "Many small businesses and entrepreneurial ventures never get started due to the high cost of providing their employees health benefits. "
That's not really a factor, as the ACA does not require that a business provide health benefits until they have more than 49 full-time employees. So the cost of employee health insurance is not a deterrent to an entrepreneurial venture, unless the venture requires 50+ employees from day one, which would be pretty unusual... you'd have to have a lot of startup capital to be able to start paying that many employees before you have any revenue coming in!