|
"My personal opinion is that both Clinton and Obama are being overly-optimistic about health care reform during this campaign because neither is addressing the costs that will be born by ALL Americans in order to make health care affordable to ALL. Clinton came closest last week when she stated that under her plan health care insurance would be capped at 5-10% of an individual or family's annual income. For many individuals without health care, this would be a huge boon. But for tens of millions of Americans who currently accept a substandard wage in return for "good benefits," paying 5-10% of their income for health care would represent a de facto 5-10% pay cut. Both candidates promise that if you like your current plan, you won't have to switch, but it is the employer and NOT the employee who chooses whether to offer a health plan and at what cost. If a national plan is made available, many employers (including already financially pinched state governments) will drop their plans and WILL NOT raise salaries to compensate for the higher premiums. For many, many Americans -- even those who view health insurance as a fundamental right -- this is going to be a very hard sell in the midst of an economic recession."
It will only mean a de facto 5 to 10% pay cut if the employers don't have to compete for good employees, and keep in mind benefits can be cut by any business at any time. Businesses, big and small, are not required to offer health insurance, they just have to offer it to all employees if they offer it to any. Large businesses generally offer health insurance because if they don't, their best employees will go elsewhere. Having a single payer system would level the "paying field". Instead of including health insurance as a benefit, companies will have to pay more cold hard cash to get and keep the best employees.
If you think that those of us who have insurance aren't paying for those who don't, think again. Doctors and hospitals charge what they do not just to make a profit, but to cover their ass. Hospital districts have to charge higher taxes to cover the cost of treating so many uninsured people in emergency rooms instead on doctor's offices and clinics. Think of the cost of lost productivity when people let health problems get out of hand. To me it's analogous to education - "If you think education is expensive, try ignorance."
Many health insurance programs offered by businesses discriminate against single and/or childless people. I'm single, 51, have no kids and won't be having any. The company I work for pays for my health insurance in full, but it only covers 80% of the cost after meeting a $1400 deductible. My out of pocket costs can be as high as $4K a year. No matter how long I work here, I will get the same benefit. This year, they pay about $1840 for the year to cover me. Someone who has been here for 5 years gets their spouse and children covered, at a cost to the company of $7751 per year. They have the same deductible, but they do have a higher out of pocket limit ($7300). Regardless, someone who is married with children (we cover domestic partners also), gets almost $6K more a year - TAX FREE - in terms of compensation. Is that fair? It depends on who you ask. Do I have a right to seek employment elsewhere? Of course! But would the company be able to cover more of my medical costs if they weren't paying 100% of the coverage for families? Well, yeah! So all things considered, I would rather make more in salary and pay for my own insurance through payroll deduction and get EVERYONE COVERED. That's the thing that's so crazy about the American system. We pay the most and get the least!
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
