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?
Originally posted by dryhumpNo, it's the stupidest system imaginable. We should have national health care, just like every other industrialized nation.
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?
Originally posted by rwingettbut 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.
No, it's the stupidest system imaginable. We should have national health care, just like every other industrialized nation.
Originally posted by dryhumpEmployers do not have access to your medical records.
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?
Originally posted by dryhumpWe have employer-based health care because of wage and price controls during WWII.
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?
Originally posted by spruce112358So 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.)
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.)
Originally posted by KazetNagorraNo government-regulated product can ever be as cheap as the level a free market would attain. Where's the dissonance in that?
[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]
Originally posted by spruce112358The 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.
No government-regulated product can ever be as cheap as the level a free market would attain. Where's the dissonance in that?