Would this work?

[Hydrae]

With regard to health care "reform", is there a way we can disconnect it from being employer based? If it were an agreement between myself and my insurer I can see several advantages. The insurance companies would have to market their services (and thus prices) to me directly, not my companies HR department. I would obviously have many more options which would greatly increase the competition for my dollars.

Also, with this option there would be many less issues related with losing coverage when you change jobs to existing issues. Since your insurance would just stay with you, you would not have to get "recertified" as being insurable every time you change your job. Also, COBRA would be a thing of the past.

Finally, would this not do great things for the economy and the health of our corporations? Since my company no longer has to support my health insurance they could either have a greater bottom line (probably the first thing they would look at unfortunately) or be able to give me a pay bump.

Oh, and in regards to the fact that most of us pay for our insurance with pre-tax dollars, just set up a deduction for your premiums. Perhaps limit the amount you can deduct.

So, what say the great minds of CP to such a plan?

[Stewie]

Thank governmental wage freezes in the 40s for the system we have now. There are always ways to circumvent new laws.

Third-party payer systems with a bottomless pit of payers always leads to abuse. That's where we are with health care. It's the 800 lb. gorilla in the room. There are millions of people in this country relying on the existing system to pay their way. Who's going to take the pay cut, or lose their job to enact the change?

[patteeu]

With regard to health care "reform", is there a way we can disconnect it from being employer based? If it were an agreement between myself and my insurer I can see several advantages. The insurance companies would have to market their services (and thus prices) to me directly, not my companies HR department. I would obviously have many more options which would greatly increase the competition for my dollars.

Also, with this option there would be many less issues related with losing coverage when you change jobs to existing issues. Since your insurance would just stay with you, you would not have to get "recertified" as being insurable every time you change your job. Also, COBRA would be a thing of the past.

Finally, would this not do great things for the economy and the health of our corporations? Since my company no longer has to support my health insurance they could either have a greater bottom line (probably the first thing they would look at unfortunately) or be able to give me a pay bump.

Oh, and in regards to the fact that most of us pay for our insurance with pre-tax dollars, just set up a deduction for your premiums. Perhaps limit the amount you can deduct.

So, what say the great minds of CP to such a plan?

Both the democrats and the Republicans have proposed reforms that would encourage this. The reason we have employer provided health insurance is because of the tax breaks businesses are offered for providing compensation in this form rather than in cash. Both Republican and democrat proposals would do away with this damaging tax break. You might wonder why they can't agree to get anything done. Here's the scoop.

Republicans, including both George W. Bush and John McCain talked about doing away with the business tax break and replacing it with an individual tax credit with which individuals could buy insurance directly. democrats opposed this by claiming that Republicans were trying to strip people of their employer-provided healthcare. People have been conditioned to believe that healthcare comes from the employer so this was a damaging indictment even though it was disingenuous.

Congressional democrats have talked about doing away with the tax break without giving any corresponding tax credit or deduction to individuals. They want to raise money with this measure while hiding the fact that they are trying to strip healthcare away from employment just as they criticized Republicans for doing just months ago. The most liberal among them also want to make sure employer provided healthcare is replaced with government provided healthcare instead of individual-purchased options.

It's idiotic when both sides seem ready to make a reform but they can't find a way to agree on it. I believe this is one of the best things we can do to realign the healthcare economy back to where it should be with individual healthcare consumers paying directly for their health insurance, if not their healthcare. I endorse your idea or some other variant of the same thing.

[Hydrae]

Thank governmental wage freezes in the 40s for the system we have now. There are always ways to circumvent new laws.

Third-party payer systems with a bottomless pit of payers always leads to abuse. That's where we are with health care. It's the 800 lb. gorilla in the room. There are millions of people in this country relying on the existing system to pay their way. Who's going to take the pay cut, or lose their job to enact the change?

From the sounds of what is currently being proposed those pay cuts/job losses are coming anyway. I just think this would be a better long term approach that might actually fix a few of the issues. Heck, it may even lower costs to the consumer in the long run.

[KILLER_CLOWN]

I don't like the fact uncle sugar has any say in this, just like everything else stay away from it since everything you touch turns to a corrupt/money laundering scheme. Not that the current health care system isn't just that but take the corruption and multiply it by 10.

[BucEyedPea]

I'm for separation of govt and medicine. That is the best bet for quality, efficiency, and cost lowering over time with technology as it is in anything else.
It also covers the most people. Just because it's not absolute and doesn't cover all should not be the govt's business.

What employers do should be a matter of the private property ownership and negotiations for good workers. But at least everyone including the self-employed should get that same tax break as a matter of equality under the law, if the govt wants to incentivize anyone at all on it.

[Rain Man]

I sure wish that health care would be uncoupled from employers. I try to be a good employer and I pay all of the insurance costs for my employees (not their families, but at least for the employee). When costs keep going up at double-digit rates, it makes it really tough for me. If I back off, then I'm the bad guy for cutting benefits, but if I keep them, that money comes straight off my company's profits, which has all sorts of bad repercussions.

[BigChiefFan]

Everyone that wants insurance has the RIGHT to PURCHASE it, just like they'll HAVE TO DO with the government plan. How the government can even propose this is absurd.
NO MORE TAXES.

[patteeu]

Everyone that wants insurance has the RIGHT to PURCHASE it, just like they'll HAVE TO DO with the government plan. How the government can even propose this is absurd.
NO MORE TAXES.

What does this post mean?

[BucEyedPea]

What does this post mean?

You're kidding? I understood it.

[patteeu]

You're kidding? I understood it.

Great. Well then explain it to me. What is the absurd thing that the government is proposing? What does he mean that everyone has a RIGHT to purchase health insurance? Seriously, I don't get his post and I'm skeptical about whether you really do or whether you're just reading what you want to read again.

[bobbymitch]

patteeu - Can't speak for BCF but his use of the word RIGHT was off. Just about everyone can purchase a health insurance contract if they want to (at some price). Under the gobment plan, you won't be required to purchase their coverage, but you will be taxed 2.5% of your AGI if you don't.

Insurance companies shot themselves in the foot a long time ago. Let's face it insurance is based upon the law of large numbers. The many will "pay" for the losses of the few. Insurance companies also collect a ton of money, most of it put in reserves (long term and short) to pay for future claims. The long term reserves can be invested in "brick and mortar" (buildings), bonds, etc. which is why many shopping centers and office buildings are owned by insurance companies.

Here is where I think that insurance companies screwed the pooch -

An individual gets rated by his or herself. Your medical history is pertinent. However, if you belong to a large group, say a big corporation, there is no real physical involved and you pay a stipulated cost, based upon the negotiations between your employer and the insurer.

What insurance companies should have done is to create a non-affiliated "group" to throw the individuals into.

Group rates are based upon that group's payouts. Lower than expected losses would mean rates could be kept level from year to year. Higher losses would relate in higher costs. Several years ago my employer changed from a co-pay to no co-pay. Well, people went to the doctor for every hangnail, headache, bump, and bruise. So what happened, doctors payments and ER visits skyrocketed. The plan was tweaked the next year, and doctor/ER payments went down and our renewal rates stabilized.

So if they would have created a class of "non-affiliated" where individuals could have gotten insurance, perhaps we wouldn't be going through this mess.

When I was working, my employer, had a creative way of handling health insurance costs. They had three tiers of costs for the same plan. Those in the upper pay bands paid the most, those in the middle bands paid the actual costs, and those in the lower bands paid the least. It was costed out so the upper bands subsidized the lower bands.

Do I love my coverage, you bet!!! My wife has had two bouts of breast cancer and we paid under $1,000 for her chemo and radiation. Yes, I probably do pay more than average, but the peace of mind is priceless.

When I turn 65, my coverage will become secondary to Medicare. There is no option!

[pikesome]

I sure wish that health care would be uncoupled from employers. I try to be a good employer and I pay all of the insurance costs for my employees (not their families, but at least for the employee). When costs keep going up at double-digit rates, it makes it really tough for me. If I back off, then I'm the bad guy for cutting benefits, but if I keep them, that money comes straight off my company's profits, which has all sorts of bad repercussions.

If you quit providing HC to your employees are you going to give them the money you're spending on it to them in cash? If so, wonderful. But I'm more than a bit skeptical that even a majority of employers will. Even then the real value of those dollars goes down because it's now taxed like normal income. Unless the Gov allows people to claim a deduction. Coupling HC to your job sucks but I'm not sure we can back this bus up and go down another path.

[patteeu]

patteeu - Can't speak for BCF but his use of the word RIGHT was off. Just about everyone can purchase a health insurance contract if they want to (at some price). Under the gobment plan, you won't be required to purchase their coverage, but you will be taxed 2.5% of your AGI if you don't.

My question for BCF is primarily about his opposition to what "the government proposed" and his line about no new taxes. This thread is about a proposal from Hydrae, not the government. I'm not sure if that's what he means by the government proposal or if he's talking about something completely different. When he disapproves of new taxes, I again don't know if he's talking about hydrae's plan or something else. In any event, given his support for Obama during the campaign, I find it pretty incredible that he's opposed to new taxes. What was he thinking?

Insurance companies shot themselves in the foot a long time ago. Let's face it insurance is based upon the law of large numbers. The many will "pay" for the losses of the few. Insurance companies also collect a ton of money, most of it put in reserves (long term and short) to pay for future claims. The long term reserves can be invested in "brick and mortar" (buildings), bonds, etc. which is why many shopping centers and office buildings are owned by insurance companies.

Here is where I think that insurance companies screwed the pooch -

An individual gets rated by his or herself. Your medical history is pertinent. However, if you belong to a large group, say a big corporation, there is no real physical involved and you pay a stipulated cost, based upon the negotiations between your employer and the insurer.

What insurance companies should have done is to create a non-affiliated "group" to throw the individuals into.

Group rates are based upon that group's payouts. Lower than expected losses would mean rates could be kept level from year to year. Higher losses would relate in higher costs. Several years ago my employer changed from a co-pay to no co-pay. Well, people went to the doctor for every hangnail, headache, bump, and bruise. So what happened, doctors payments and ER visits skyrocketed. The plan was tweaked the next year, and doctor/ER payments went down and our renewal rates stabilized.

So if they would have created a class of "non-affiliated" where individuals could have gotten insurance, perhaps we wouldn't be going through this mess.

When I was working, my employer, had a creative way of handling health insurance costs. They had three tiers of costs for the same plan. Those in the upper pay bands paid the most, those in the middle bands paid the actual costs, and those in the lower bands paid the least. It was costed out so the upper bands subsidized the lower bands.

Do I love my coverage, you bet!!! My wife has had two bouts of breast cancer and we paid under $1,000 for her chemo and radiation. Yes, I probably do pay more than average, but the peace of mind is priceless.

When I turn 65, my coverage will become secondary to Medicare. There is no option!

I couldn't agree more with your point about where insurance companies screwed the pooch.

[patteeu]

If you quit providing HC to your employees are you going to give them the money you're spending on it to them in cash? If so, wonderful. But I'm more than a bit skeptical that even a majority of employers will. Even then the real value of those dollars goes down because it's now taxed like normal income. Unless the Gov allows people to claim a deduction. Coupling HC to your job sucks but I'm not sure we can back this bus up and go down another path.

Initially, companies will retain a portion of the savings but eventually a new competitive equilibrium should be reached where most of those savings end up back in the payroll expense column. You're right about the tax disadvantage for giving employees cash instead of healthcare fringe, but that's exactly what Hydrae's excellent proposal is supposed to fix. IMO we should do away with the deduction altogether (in favor of lower rates), but in the interest of not letting the perfect get in the way of the good, I wouldn't be opposed to transferring the deduction to the employee who purchases his own insurance.

[Pioli Zombie]

With regard to health care "reform", is there a way we can disconnect it from being employer based? If it were an agreement between myself and my insurer I can see several advantages. The insurance companies would have to market their services (and thus prices) to me directly, not my companies HR department. I would obviously have many more options which would greatly increase the competition for my dollars.

Also, with this option there would be many less issues related with losing coverage when you change jobs to existing issues. Since your insurance would just stay with you, you would not have to get "recertified" as being insurable every time you change your job. Also, COBRA would be a thing of the past.

Finally, would this not do great things for the economy and the health of our corporations? Since my company no longer has to support my health insurance they could either have a greater bottom line (probably the first thing they would look at unfortunately) or be able to give me a pay bump.

Oh, and in regards to the fact that most of us pay for our insurance with pre-tax dollars, just set up a deduction for your premiums. Perhaps limit the amount you can deduct.

So, what say the great minds of CP to such a plan?

It would depend on who proposes it. If its a Republican it would be a swell idea. If it was a Democrat it would be of the Devil and would be remindful of the early days of Adolph Hitler.
Posted via Mobile Device