Skip to main content

View Diary: "Can a corporation exercise religion?" (87 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  There is no main point there, simply two (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Occam was an optimist

    "imagine some farfetched shit", which, in the context of a diary relating to ACA, I took to be piss poor analogies to the health case status quo (since they clearly are even further off base from the ACA). That is what I replied to.

    That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

    by enhydra lutris on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 07:27:52 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  OK, calm down, I thought it was obvious that I (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      enhydra lutris

      agreed on the central point - Employers have no duty, nor should they be required by law to provide any health insurance products to their employees.  

      It's a collossal mess if you ask me.  

      At some point in the past it must have made sense, but that time has long since past.  I'm not quite sure why we are still putting up with such an inefficient system that sucks up so much time for everyone involved.

      •  The original idea, which worked, BTW, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Occam was an optimist

        was to get more citizens covered by health insurance. They made employer contributions to employee health care plans tax exempt to the employees, correctly figuring that unions and other employees would lobby to receive part of their compensation in this form. It became quite widespread. Shitloads of people got insurance and got it more cheaply than they otherwise could have.

        Now it is a problem largely because you lose your insurance if you quit and the insurance companies pull that pre-existing condition shit.

        That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

        by enhydra lutris on Mon Jul 30, 2012 at 11:35:24 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, I agree the pooling and spreading of risk (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          enhydra lutris

          is the whole premise behind keeping insurance premiums affordable and matched to a product that provides value.

        •  But it became a way to steal part of earned (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          enhydra lutris, peregrine kate

          compensation.

          IT = employer negotiated insurance.

          It worked at first because people generally stayed for a long time with the same employer.  So there wasn't much demand for portability when changing jobs because people didn't change very often.

          But once it was widely adopted it morphed into a tax-advantaged profit extraction practice, wherein an insurance company extracted more and more of the workers' earned compensation while they are relatively healthy and working, and paying little out in claims.

          But NOW insurance companies are enabled BY LAW to deny benefits 18 months after that worker leaves that job - for any reason.

          If the current system of employer mediated insurance is so good - why can't there be a law extending COBRA as long as the former employee wants to stay on it.

          Then we might start to see a truly competitive market for insurance products.  A new employer's plan would have to be competitive or the person would reject what they are offering as reasonable compensation.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site