Mercnbeth
Posts: 11766
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: awmslave quote:
Employers will be responsible to provide insurance for ALL full and part time employees at their cost. I have never understood why are employers involved in health-care? Would it be enough if they pay a decent salary? They do not have magic funds that come somewhere else than profits from business operations. Can anybody explain this? I'll give it a try... First, you know of course right now they aren't right? The manifesto is only for discussion purposes. DISCLAIMER OVER You can take the response in two directions; the history of employer/employee relationship in the US or why I propose it as an idea to address the current health care issue. The historical path takes too long and would end up high-jacking the thread. The short version is that the benefit was an employer compromise to stem the growing tide of the US moving to socialism during the last Depression. The decision was made by the 'movers & shakers' of the time that the best way to stem the tide of that movement was to give some desired goals to the workers as union concessions. After WWII when the job markets boomed, non-union workers and service providers were "given" that benefit as a incentive for employment. The cost wasn't such a big deal in those days. Ironically, because of the success of 'voluntary', or employer provided health-care, the US health system diverged from Europe which instead went directly to 'nationalized' health care after WWII. Now look - that is a VERY short version and more was left out than included, but if you want more details do a historical search on the US labor movement starting in the 1920s - 30s. Getting back to today, assigning the expense at the employer level does a couple of things. First, it takes the burden of administration and cost control out of the hands of the government which has no concept of budgeting and administration. Noteworthy in the President's speech last night, again missed by most, was he was going to fund a big chunk of it by cutting back on; quoting the President (click on it and it will take you to the text of the speech) "this plan would eliminate is the hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and fraud". No current health insurance company could survive such an admission from its CEO. Hell, the CEO couldn't survive admitting it. Yet, somehow putting more administration responsibility in the hands of the same administrators and increasing the use by 46 Million people will eliminate the problem. You buying that? Businesses can't be taxed, neither can this expense be added on to them to impact their bottom line. Any bottom line impact will just work it way back up the P&L and be added to the end unit cost. As a result everyone will pay in increased service charges and/or fees. However, if you increase the pool the cost from the insurance company should go down. For instance, I pay about $250/month per employee for the health coverage or about $45,000 per year. I know my people pretty well and I would guess that claims for the past 3 years averaged less than half that amount, or about $22,000. Now some of that 'extra' has to be put in reserve for 'catastrophic' claims; cancer, heath attack, etc. However for discussion purpose lets say net of that and expenses it produces a current 'profit' to my company of $5,000. On my floor there are 10 other similar businesses, but only 3 others pay for their employees. If all 10 business had to buy insurance the pool of 'healthy' workers gets greater and the cost should be less. "Should" would be the word to focus upon and here is where administration and management comes into play. A bureaucrat, whose only existence is pushing papers, will get a renewal bill increasing premiums under those conditions and just pay it. An owner, or a manager whose income and/or bonus is reliant on the bottom line, will challenge and/or shop to keep the pressure on the source. Existing anti-trust regulations, if enforced, will insure that price fixing non-reflective of the growing pool of insured and the reduction of the premium to claims ratio. Bottom line it is the best method to accomplish the goal of universal coverage at the lowest expense to the citizen base. Appreciating that its a complicated question I hope I provided some insight to consider.
< Message edited by Mercnbeth -- 9/10/2009 3:21:19 PM >
|