General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsEmployers do not belong in health care
Hear me out, please.
My spouse and I started our professional career in the early 80s, worked for a large corporation that offered several plans, with yearly open enrollment.
After a major reduction in force, we moved to Florida, working for a small start up. I was surprised when the owner would give us a report that he received from the insurance company, listing the provider and the amount paid.
Why is it his business, I was angry. Why is it his business if someone in the family, not even the employee, has to see a specialist - a cardiologist, oncologist, neurologist, nephrologist or others? Yes, the employee would often tell the boss about health problems, but it should be up to the employees. Especially if the patient is a family member.
But then of course I realized that the boss pays for the insurance so he has a right to see the paperwork.
Then we moved across the country to California. Again working for a small family owned business. This was a consulting company, meaning employees came and went. The rule was that we sent their medical information to the insurance company but that we kept a copy in our files. I really felt uncomfortable about that so decided to stop this rule.
No.... bristled the owner. Don't do this. (I did not stay long there. When he was running in the corridor, demanding to be connected to our immigration lawyer so that he could become a citizen and vote for the Republicans, I blurted out that our votes would cancel each other..).
Interesting, this being California in the mid 90s, I was advised that it was better NOT to keep medical information on site, in case one employee was HIV positive where such information was protected by law.
I don't know whether business owners still handle health insurance this way, but, when I had the chance, I decided to go into the individual market. I got tired of either my or my spouse's employer switching plans, and we changed several jobs ourselves so I figured that as long as I was relatively young and healthy, I should get my own. I got one of the "Blues" and the cost were not too bad until we moved to another state and I reached a "round" age.
In the meantime we would be faced with COBRAs that were getting more and more expensive. And, yes, some of the plans were quite generous. This was when I realized that most people who are covered by their employer plans have no idea the true cost of the insurance, until they left and were faced with COBRA payments. And that this is one reason why medical expenses have been climbing so high in the past 2 or 3 decades.
I have no idea whether my individual plan covered maternity and birth control pills. I am now on Medicare, so I don't know whether my plan would have been cancelled under ACA. But I agreed with those angry citizens whose plans were cancelled because they did not offer maternity coverage. I've always maintained that purchasing one's individual plan, one does not have to subscribe to a generous plan as offered by an employer. That along the way individuals' needs change as they grow older.
Several years ago my spouse decided to start a consulting business and pay COBRA for 18 months until Medicare would kick in. That COBRA, including management fee, was about $1,000 a month, and included $15 co-pay for a doctor visit. Mine was about $450 a month with $1,500 deductibles. And yes, at some point I needed expensive medical attention and the "Blue" paid everything after my out of pocket which by then were $4,500. I think that for the year the "Blue" paid more than $100K for my treatment.
I don't know why business owners do not stand in the front line to demand replacing employer provided insurance with a single payer one. Before the ACA was signed into law, one of the blackmailers who were against the public option, Senator Mary Landrieu, had an op-ed in the WSJ claiming that small business owners were against the public option.
I recently met a small business owner who is running for the state house and asked her about it. One reason, she speculated, is that all business owners are members in the same organization, like the chamber of commerce, they like to present a united front and insurance companies are important members.
I think that employers have no business in offering health care insurance. They should increase the employees wages and salaries and let them shop for themselves. They should be able to do this now that ACA eliminated pre-existing conditions. Once employers are out of the picture, then it is nobody's business whether one's insurance pays for birth control pills and abortions. And perhaps we need the Supreme Court to side with the Hobby Lobby on Monday, to push this idea to the front.
Frankly, I think that if employers will get out of the health insurance business and all of us will have to provide for our own, this will provide a strong push for a single payer.
OK, start shooting.
djean111
(14,255 posts)buy their own insurance. Maybe I am cynical.
question everything
(47,580 posts)would be a good start.
djean111
(14,255 posts)amount to their employees - give someone a really great raise and then see them get cheaper insurance elsewhere.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)is that it helps to discourage employees from quitting.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)the quicker we will get to single payer. A major obstacle for single payer currently is the "I don't need it, I get coverage through my job" mentality.
question everything
(47,580 posts)he said that he was not campaigning on a single payer system because "most people liked their coverage" through their employers.
Of course, this was before the floor fell under all of these happy employees.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)question everything
(47,580 posts)though they are telling us that it is very narrow. Just for birth control pills and just for these ma and pa operations. Still, would be nice it this could be the first chink in the employer provided health insurance.
shanti
(21,675 posts)health insurance should have nothing to do with ones employment. it should be totally separate. when a person loses a job that provides health insurance, their coverage basically ends (i know, COBRA, but still...).
hopefully, this will change. i'm all for single-payer.
maced666
(771 posts)It was the gradual takeover by employers that prices gradually began to rise - no, you don't need that 95 dollar 'overnight kit' for a hospital stay (toothbrush, toothpaste etc.) because for one you can buy that for 3.95 outside hospital walls. But the insurance is paying for it. Might as well accept it.
But all the repub establishment, health industry lobbyists and many Dem established politicians shut down any efforts to do away with the current system.
unblock
(52,489 posts)health care is a basic need that doesn't have much to do with employment per se.
employers usually want to stick to their core competencies and just pay money to not deal with the rest.
but not with health insurance.
why? because health insurance is a very cost-effective employee retention tool. it might cost $5,000 a year to provide someone with health insurance, but that's far more effective than simply giving them $5,000 more in their paycheck.
but something very important about capitalism is that the players don't always like what's good for the game.
people being able to freely take, leave, or switch jobs on their merits is the essence of capitalism. but competitors prefer less competition, not more.
seveneyes
(4,631 posts)or some other reason that is currently accepted.
McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)B Calm
(28,762 posts)health insurance coverage. Wages remain low because employers have this strangle hold on employees!