David Frum said last night on Bill Moyer's Journal that

[Bandit]

Health Care should be seperated form Employment. Do most Republicans feel this way or is he sort of "out there"? I happen to agree by the way. I see no reason what so ever an employer should be responsible for your health care..

[Ilsa]

1. I've heard alot of libertarian types mention it. I haven't decided

if I agree or not. We've gotten used to the idea, though, haven't we? I would rather employers keep pensions established.

[Kahuna]

2. I do agree with that. Talk about something NOT being constitutional..

:wow:

[monmouth]

3. I agree also. If everyone gets coverage, it will not be necessary for

employers to cover their employees. I think they call that redundancy.

[Historic NY]

8. just think of the money they wouldn't have to spend.

[monmouth]

12. Exactly. Nice raises perhaps for their employees...n/t

[wroberts189]

15. One would think they would be all for it.

And we could use some lobbying ($$$) help as well.

[Captain Hilts]

4. He's Canadian. And this is THE true free market view. It discourages individuals striking out

on their own and hurts the competitiveness of businesses internationally.

It makes NO SENSE to tie healthcare to employment.

[malaise]

5. What if the employer is the one who is actually endangering your health?

That was the historical norm.

[seabeyond]

6. yes it is a republican meme. and lot cheaper going thru group than individual

so a company can get it lower and better than the individual. that is why in the past employment healthcare was offered.

what you are suggesting will be a godsend to insurance companies.

having owned a business for years, i do know the hardship it puts on owners to provide healthcare. especially recently, the cost just keeps going up

[ThomWV]

7. Hidden in you post is the key to the response to your post

Well, of course its not hidden in any way but there is a key word in your post that really defines a part of the problem. That word is 'responsible'. In fact your employer is not responsible for your healt care. What the employer is doing is adding a benefit to the work package to entice you to work for them - they are not taking responsibility for your healt care (financing).

[SoCalDem]

9. Until they are uncoupled, there will BE no universal care

Well-employed, well-covered people will not rise up until they have lost their employer-aided coverage.

It's simple.

People protest vociferously to regain what they have lost (see Palestine).

They do NOT protest so someone else, somewhere, can get something.

[Catshrink]

10. He also used the term "calm conservative"

for those who hold conservative views but don't resort to the tactics deployed by Dick Armey and the obstructionism of Boehner and his ilk. These calm conservatives know that health reform is vital for their own interests but the others are just jostling for political advantage. I thought he was interesting, not that I agreed with him on many points (like letting W's tax cuts expire, etc.).

Link to video of program:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/index-flash.html

BTW, the discussion of Kathleen Hall Jamieson and Drew Altman was really good and well worth watching.

[kag]

11. I have a slightly different perspective.

My husband has worked for the same company for years. He has wanted, many times, to quit and start his own business, BUT...

You guessed it. Our (my) healthcare costs are so astronomical that without his employer's benefits we would be screwed.

So...I get to feel guilty about keeping my husband chained to a job he would just as soon leave, and his employer has platinum handcuffs on him.

I would LOVE to see the uncoupling of employers and healthcare!!!

[LisaLynne]

16. I have heard so many people express this view ...

and I had actually never thought of it, but I do think that universal healthcare would free so many people to strike out on their own and who knows what great things might come out of all that extra innovation?

[nightrain]

13. knr. No. the concept of employer-provided healthcare is

a relic from the 1940s when the US was more dominant in the world economy.

I think healthcare would be better served by a moral choice, of providing it as a service nationwide funded by all of us into a single pot, and then distributed based on need.

[wroberts189]

14. Totally agree... and Tom Baker was the best Doctor Who as well. nt

[slipslidingaway]

17. knr I agree n/t

[Cresent City Kid]

18. There's different ways to look at it

For conservatives, the unlinking of employment and health care frees companies from paying for it, and potential obligations under reform. Who's covered and who's not would be an afterthought if thought of at all. Single payer advocating progressives see the benefit to companies as a side effect of the real issue: covering everyone.

[cui bono]

19. And on the flip side, no reason why your health care should be dependent on employment.