Gee, ya think? Senators Worry That Health Overhaul Could Erode Employer Insurance Plans.
Hey, guys. That’s the whole idea.
And Blanche Lincoln doesn’t get it:
Senator Blanche Lincoln, Democrat of Arkansas, said preserving employer-sponsored insurance “needs to be a huge objective.”
No, senator. The “huge objective” should be to get people out of plans that are tied to their employers, and into their own private plans that are portable, by leveling the tax-deduction playing field.
The United States Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business, which represents small employers, said the proposed requirement amounted to a new tax and would frustrate the creation of jobs.
Only an economic ignoramus (i.e., much of the Congress) would think otherwise. So a company has a choice of hiring someone who doesn’t need or want insurance (because she’s young and healthy, or has it through her husband’s plan) but the cost of hiring her is buying a redundant policy for her to government specs. Guess what? Others will work overtime instead. That’s assuming that the business case closes for the business to get started at all, of course.
Rand – the problem with the one tax-deduction plan proposed (McCain’s) is that it doesn’t come near to covering the cost of private insurance. Not to mention the whole recission issue.
The flip side of the small business coin is that many small businesses don’t get started or have trouble growing because the business can’t offer health insurance.
Bottom line – there is nothing sacred about private insurance. If it meets a need, fine, if not, so what?
“it doesn’t come near to covering the cost of private insurance.”
If it did cover the entire cost of private insurance then it would no longer be a deduction, Chris. Then it becomes something called Universal Coverage.
The point is freedom. The freedom to choose. I made it through my 20’s with no insurance at all. Did I get sick and go to the doctor? Yes. It still ended up being cheaper for me in the long run to just cover my own costs then it would have been to maintain insurance. Hell, it was even a cheaper option than anything that the gov’t could have provided.
TANSTAAFL. There ain’t nothing free about free healthcare. Pardon my double negative.
Bottom line – there is nothing sacred about private insurance.
Yes, there is. It’s private. Once the government takes over your health care, you’re a fool if you don’t think they’ll take over the rest of your life and lifestyle.
Josh – I made it through my 20’s with no insurance at all. Yeah, and if you’d stacked up a car, I would have had to pay for your emergency room bill. That’s inefficient and unfair to me, since you were a free rider.
Rand – I don’t hear our Canadian or British friends complaining about how the government has taken over the rest of their life or lifestyle.
In fact, as I have said before, if “socialized medicine” is so bad, how come no major political party in any country that has it is even advocating abolishing it?
Those must be some pretty selective ears you’ve got there then. I hear it all the time. And there are groups in those countries who want to abolish or reform it.
Further, you’re just damn deaf if you haven’t heard the medical horror stories of socialized medicine coming from Britain and Canada these days.
Rand: I specifically said political party, and that was for a reason. The Conservate Party of Great Britian loves ‘socialized medicine’. The Conserative Party of Canada wants to increase funding for their system.
So, if “socialized medicine” is so bad, why aren’t these political parties trying to abolish it?
Further, you’re just damn deaf if you haven’t heard the medical horror stories of socialized medicine coming from Britain and Canada these days.
Or our own home-grown socialized medicine establishment – the health care system for the armed forces and retirees.
Bottom line – there is nothing sacred about private insurance.
Again I say, you have no sense of what liberty is.
And I recall, the last time you claimed you didn’t hear foreigners complaining, it was to say Iranians weren’t asking for help against an oppressive government. You were proved wrong about that as well.
Leland – I just provided a link to the official Conservative Party line in two countries. Refute that, if you can.
why aren’t these political parties trying to abolish it?
Because a) they’re as misnamed as the “Democratic Party” and b) the people there aren’t familiar with any other system and c) they unknowingly piggy back off the US pharma system, just as the European economies have been on the dole for decades because we bore the bulk of the expense for their defense.
Are you so foolish as to think that the mere word “conservative” is some kind of magic rhetorical talisman that you can lay down as a trump card around here? Particularly when I’ve never claimed to be a conservative? Or a Republican?
Rand – you can’t seriously argue that the Canadians come running south for medical care and yet are not familiar with the US system?
Regarding “conservative,” my point was that if any party would be opposed to “socialized medicine” it would be the conservative one. Again, I am not aware of ANY political party in Canada or the UK advocating getting rid of their health care system.
It’s possible that they are all idiots. It’s also possible that they know something we don’t.
Rand – you can’t seriously argue that the Canadians come running south for medical care and yet are not familiar with the US system?
Of course they are. They know they’ve got the best of both worlds — “free” health care, and a good system when they need it.
Again, I am not aware of ANY political party in Canada or the UK advocating getting rid of their health care system.
There are no “conservative” parties in Canada or the UK, at least no large ones.
There are no “conservative” parties in Canada or the UK, at least no large ones.
My thought as well. Further, how does the link prove that no one is complaining? So let me refute.
Again, I am not aware of ANY political party in Canada or the UK advocating getting rid of their health care system.
Do you know of any UK political party advocating getting rid of the Church of England?
Leland – apparently the Church of England meets the needs of Britons.
More on point, please note I said political parties. But, looking at your links (in order from left to right):
1) Apathetic patients are a valid problem.
2) Those Poles getting health care in Poland are going from one socialized medicine system to another – not sure that proves much.
3) Brown’s wise man apparently hasn’t persuaded many folks of the wisdom of his views.
4) There’s a lot of stuff in that article, but “Other private-sector health options are blossoming across Canada, and the government is increasingly turning a blind eye to them, too, despite their often uncertain legal status.” is misleading. In fact, Some 65% of Canadians have some form of supplementary private health insurance.
Gerrib: So, if “socialized medicine” is so bad, why aren’t these political parties trying to abolish it?
Me: Do you know of any UK political party advocating getting rid of the Church of England?
Gerrib: apparently the Church of England meets the needs of Britons.
So by Gerrib’s logic for supporting socialized medicine in the US, based on happiness of other countries; the US should adopt an official religion. After all, if it works in Europe, wouldn’t we want it too?
Leland – no, you missed the point, while completely ignoring the substantive statements I made.
If the people of Britain had a problem with the Church of England, they would abolish it, or at least some political party would be calling for that. Since there is not (to my knowledge) such a movement afoot, I assume that the British people are okay with the church.
Since the British people are happy with “socialized medicine” and the American poeple are unhappy with the current system, maybe the Americans might want to consider “socialized medicine.”