Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 10 Nov '11 12:01
    Is it really desirable for our health insurance to be provided by our employers? I understand the group benefits, but couldn't we get that if individuals decided to join a group? Do employers have access to your medical records?
  2. Donation rwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    10 Nov '11 12:17
    Originally posted by dryhump
    Is it really desirable for our health insurance to be provided by our employers? I understand the group benefits, but couldn't we get that if individuals decided to join a group? Do employers have access to your medical records?
    No, it's the stupidest system imaginable. We should have national health care, just like every other industrialized nation.
  3. 10 Nov '11 12:29 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by rwingett
    No, it's the stupidest system imaginable. We should have national health care, just like every other industrialized nation.
    but make it better than ours, workers pay into the system, then if they fall sick pay again for the presciption to help them back to work.. while others [benifit scroungers] pay nothing and get the presciptions free as many as they want.
  4. 10 Nov '11 13:57
    Originally posted by dryhump
    Is it really desirable for our health insurance to be provided by our employers? I understand the group benefits, but couldn't we get that if individuals decided to join a group? Do employers have access to your medical records?
    Employers do not have access to your medical records.
  5. 10 Nov '11 14:20
    It is an inefficient way of doing it, better to have nationalized health care and save costs.
  6. Standard member spruce112358
    Democracy Advocate
    10 Nov '11 16:16
    Originally posted by dryhump
    Is it really desirable for our health insurance to be provided by our employers? I understand the group benefits, but couldn't we get that if individuals decided to join a group? Do employers have access to your medical records?
    We have employer-based health care because of wage and price controls during WWII.

    "Employer-sponsored health insurance plans dramatically expanded as a result of wage controls during World War II. The labor market was tight because of the increased demand for goods and decreased supply of workers during the war. Federally imposed wage and price controls prohibited manufacturers and other employers raising wages high enough to attract sufficient workers. When the War Labor Board declared that fringe benefits, such as sick leave and health insurance, did not count as wages for the purpose of wage controls, employers responded with significantly increased benefits. Between 1940 and 1950, the total number of people enrolled in health insurance plans grew from 20,662,000 to 142,334,000, and by 1958, 75% of Americans had some form of health coverage. Employer-sponsored health insurance was considered taxable income until 1954." (wiki)

    So once again, government regulation is at the root of the problem. Of course, if we did revert to a free market system, costs of health care would plunge so precipitously it would probably cause another depression. But health care costs would be a fraction of what they are in "regulated" Europe (where nation after nation is going broke trying to pay them.)
  7. 10 Nov '11 16:42
    Originally posted by spruce112358
    We have employer-based health care because of wage and price controls during WWII.

    "Employer-sponsored health insurance plans dramatically expanded as a result of wage controls during World War II. The labor market was tight because of the increased demand for goods and decreased supply of workers during the war. Federally imposed wage and price cont ...[text shortened]... hey are in "regulated" Europe (where nation after nation is going broke trying to pay them.)
    So once again, government regulation is at the root of the problem. Of course, if we did revert to a free market system, costs of health care would plunge so precipitously it would probably cause another depression. But health care costs would be a fraction of what they are in "regulated" Europe (where nation after nation is going broke trying to pay them.)

    Wow. Talk about cognitive dissonance!
  8. Standard member spruce112358
    Democracy Advocate
    11 Nov '11 05:07
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    [b]So once again, government regulation is at the root of the problem. Of course, if we did revert to a free market system, costs of health care would plunge so precipitously it would probably cause another depression. But health care costs would be a fraction of what they are in "regulated" Europe (where nation after nation is going broke trying to pay them.)

    Wow. Talk about cognitive dissonance![/b]
    No government-regulated product can ever be as cheap as the level a free market would attain. Where's the dissonance in that?
  9. 11 Nov '11 13:58
    Originally posted by spruce112358
    No government-regulated product can ever be as cheap as the level a free market would attain. Where's the dissonance in that?
    The dissonance lies in its incongruency with reality, an inspection of which would tell you that market forces have failed horribly in controlling costs in every industrialized nation where it has been tried. This is not surprising; as people will pay anything they can to stay healthy, the price elasticity of health care is very low.