Scroll down for a discussion on "Health Insurance Isn't All It's Cracked Up to Be" within the General Insurance Agent Discussions.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Prescri...2574980&page=1
ABC News has been showing this special alll week about health insurance. This is the link it on the web. Good read!!...
Excellent article, John Stossel does it again. I'm really suprise that he still has a job, I suspected that ABC would of dump him a while ago since he is so opposite of their other coverage.
I agree with a lot of that story. First of all I completely disagree with group insurance. Your company owns and controls the plan, not you. You have no choice - your employer can change plans at will or even drop it altogether. If you quit you're screwed: it's Cobra which most people can't afford or you go uninsured. It's a race to find a new job so you remain HIPAA eligible and a waiting period isn't applied to your new coverage. If you're fired for cause you may not even get Cobra offered.
Health insurance details are not discussed at initial interview levels and more often then not you don't even know the cost until your hired. Then you find out you pay half and it's $650 to add your family. Wouldn't matter if it was cheap. Then three years goes by and you find out you have a new high-deductible plan and now you have to pay more.
The story also points out something people forget - NO ONE gets free healthcare through work. If you're making $45,000 and have free health you would be making $50,000 without it. It's frick'n figured into your salary!!!
Everyone should have their own plan and non-underwritten plans should be available to everyone. We pay our own auto, life, and home-owners insurance. I have no idea how even came up with the concept that employers should pay for health. My health has nothing to do with my employer. Should my employer pay for my auto insurance?
I couldn't agree more! I was suprised much more by the force with which he tells it, then with the stupidity of the people he is talking too. Nothing is free. Nothing.
First of all I completely disagree with group insurance.
John, how do you propose a business owner who has health issues get coverage without group insurance? Remember, not all states have high risk pools.
Everyone should have their own plan and non-underwritten plans should be available to everyone.
John, you're smart enough to know that if we have non-underwritten plans available to everyone, the cost for everyone would be more. You'd have the healthy subsidizing the unhealthy. I thought you were a free-market guy.
I think he meant that non-underwritten plans be made available for those who couldn't qualify for a regular plan. Now I would go along with that but the cost would be quite a bit, so I would imagine for some public assistance would be needed.
I think he meant that non-underwritten plans be made available for those who couldn't qualify for a regular plan. Now I would go along with that but the cost would be quite a bit, so I would imagine for some public assistance would be needed.
Either way, someone is subsidizing it. Be it through higher premiums or through tax dollars. Heck, even in a group plan the risk is spread among all participants. But if the employer is paying some or all of the cost, it's a fair trade off to the employee. In addition, an employee has the option to not participate in the group plan and get individual coverage.
I'm saying what I think SHOULD happen. Currently you're right - non-underwritten plans are not available or they're completely out of the price range for most people.
Saying that if you're healthy and going into the job market you should get your own plan. If you don't your employer has you by the gonads. You are at his whim on how much you pay, which plan you have, and if you even have a plan in the future.
I still live in the now. If I run across a small business owner who's uninsurable I recommend a small group plan. It is what it is.
But I stand by my statement: I hate group coverage. I have a least 4 calls per week that start with this:
"I'm on Cobra and can't afford it"
And end like this:
"I'm sorry but I can't help you."
I've also love these conversations:
"I'm a diabetic and my new job doesn't offer health insurance"
"I'm covered but they want $600 to add my family"
"We have an HMO and I can't stand it"
"My employer just switched plans. Now I'm paying $200 more but I have a discount for name brand drugs, but I'm on a lot of medication"
"I'm laid off and my job says they don't have to offer me Cobra because of the group size. My coverage ends in two weeks and I have three major conditions."
Although group health pays my bills, I too do not like the situation. It, along with the various government programs, clouds the issues in people's minds.
Otherwise reasonable people, have no idea about the true costs of healthcare, and they expect it to be paid.
If every single employee was sat down and given the option to choose a higher salary or health benefits, most people would look into private insurance and choose the higher salary. However, most people who have insurance through their job have no idea what it costs them, either directly or indirectly.
I think he meant that non-underwritten plans be made available for those who couldn't qualify for a regular plan. Now I would go along with that but the cost would be quite a bit, so I would imagine for some public assistance would be needed.
Either way, someone is subsidizing it. Be it through higher premiums or through tax dollars. Heck, even in a group plan the risk is spread among all participants. But if the employer is paying some or all of the cost, it's a fair trade off to the employee. In addition, an employee has the option to not participate in the group plan and get individual coverage.
Obviously some people will need assistance. In limited cases such as the single mother of two children working on are near poverty level is one I would support on giving aid too. Its a matter of where you draw the line, some people will always need assistance either long or short term, but things are what they are. We live in a compassionate society and in the end I believe some assistance is okay and I would prefer to do it that way then to enact a total blown National H/C system.
To help finance it I suggest means testing SS and Medicare. That would be the trade off, we end SS and Medicare as we know them today.
I have seen more and more small employers offer the individual to go get a policy on their own and they will compensate them for it, either partially or fully.
The biggest tragedy is in Maryland an employer is not allowed to pay for any portion of their employee's individual plan. I understand part of the theory behind that but it punishes small employers who want to help but can't.
The way I understand it the employer simply cannot contribute to the employee's premiums. If the employee has a HSA I don't know whether or not the employer can help fund the HSA account. Very good question and I'll probably never get a rock solid answer from the MIA.
The biggest tragedy is in Maryland an employer is not allowed to pay for any portion of their employee's individual plan. I understand part of the theory behind that but it punishes small employers who want to help but can't.
Hummm, maybe they need to increase wages reflecting the savings of not providing h/c?
Johnpet, you stated you have no idea how the concept for an employer to pay health insurance came about. Well, it started during World War II when there was a shortage of labor. Companies could not raise wages because of price controls imposed by the Feds, so what they did was add fully paid health insurance as a benefit to attract employees. After the WWII, labor came to expect this perk and unions fought hard to make sure it was included in collective bargaining agreements. This "trickled down" to small businesses. Soon all employees came to believe that employer paid health insurance was expected, even mandated (which, of course it was not and still is not).
"Health Insurance Isn't All It's Cracked Up to Be"
Linear Mode
