Comment by Spooky23
20 days ago
It’s not that simple. Pretax premiums could be wiped out with the stroke of a pen.
I worked at an entity with 300+ thousand employees and Probably another 200k retirees… I was able to pay full cost to retain my health insurance from them.
The benefits and out of pocket costs are incredible - my current CEO asked me why I do that rather that use the company insurance and I walked through it with him. It’s not possible to buy that coverage, between the legacy insurance plan and huge risk pool, only the largest entities can have the best insurance.
The “simple answer” is pretty easy. Put a 10% payroll tax with a $5M income cap, and build out Medicare with whatever benefits are doable under that cost structure. Let the market compete for extended benefits, which would work like a traditional insurance market.
The doctors and medical industries would be happy. People would gain newfound job mobility and freedom. Most people would save money vs the payments they make today. Rich people would be sad because taxes.
> People would gain newfound job mobility and freedom
Something tells me the people in charge most definitely do not want this at all…
> Rich people would be sad because taxes.
Something tells me the people in charge most definitely do not want this at all…
It is sad how many allegedly and vocally "free market" capitalists don't actually want a liquid and free labor market. The shame is that most of them also don't know what "free market" technically means anymore.
“Free market” means freedom to exploit resources without government oversight. It’s not in any way related to fairer labor regulations (those are usually undesirable for free market absolutists, by definition)
5 replies →
I think they do know and that's why they don't want it.
Very few people seem to understand what a free market is, although it is very clear what it is.
> only the largest entities can have the best insurance
Exactly. The bigger the better.
I'm still baffled why local and state govts aren't easing into a public option.
Ditto the largest (self-insured) employers. It'd be so easy to extend benefits to their partners, local supporting businesses (eg daycares), and so forth.
> I'm still baffled why local and state govts aren't easing into a public option.
That's easy enough to answer: lobbying efforts by major insurance companies (and insurance company adjacent companies) prevented it. In many states such lobbying efforts prevented it entirely in the legislature adding direct laws and some state constitutional amendments that states explicitly weren't allowed to build a public option as a part of their healthcare exchanges. It was a big part of the uproar when the ACA was passed at the federal level, a big part of why many states' healthcare exchanges were sabotaged and broken on Day One, and a large part of why the ACA itself made too many compromises in how it established the state-driven healthcare exchanges.
Hmmm. If you happen to know any one or org working on this, I'd greatly appreciate it. TIA
1 reply →
> I'm still baffled why local and state govts aren't easing into a public option.
Because socialism is well known for unsustainable costs and poor service.
Larger health insurance pools are better. Regardless of societial structure.
Right, like how Walmart and McDonald's are subsidized by taxpayers.
Businesses like Walmart and McDonald's should pay their own costs without relying on the crutch of the public purse.
If these businesses are so inefficient that they can't survive without handouts then it is good and proper and correct that they die off and be replaced by more efficient businesses.
1 reply →