Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
One such theme is the ongoing policy damage caused by the longstanding tax preference for employer-sponsored health insurance. The problems created by this tax distortion are enormous. It has distorted labor markets in favor of employee compensation in the form of healthcare benefits over wages, thereby putting upward pressure on healthcare prices and costs. It has inhibited the development of a robust market serving individual health insurance customers. And as Bradley Herring points out, the tax preference is also regressive, preferentially subsidizing more highly compensated workers.
Good article - well-researched, factual, devoid of sensationalism and/or bloviating. Lot of information there. Let's break it down one topic at a time:
One such theme is the ongoing policy damage caused by the longstanding tax preference for employer-sponsored health insurance. The problems created by this tax distortion are enormous. It has distorted labor markets in favor of employee compensation in the form of healthcare benefits over wages, thereby putting upward pressure on healthcare prices and costs. It has inhibited the development of a robust market serving individual health insurance customers. And as Bradley Herring points out, the tax preference is also regressive, preferentially subsidizing more highly compensated workers.
What about this? I'd argue that the majority of employees who have employer-provided coverage don't even realize that it's in lieu of salary increases.
So how do we correct the imbalance caused by employer-provided insurance? I certainly wouldn't advise denying employees coverage if they have it.
OTOH, I'd strongly recommend lowering the barriers to purchasing insurance across state lines.
So how do we correct the imbalance caused by employer-provided insurance? I certainly wouldn't advise denying employees coverage if they have it.
Get rid of the tax subsidy that created the problem in the first place.
So how do we correct the imbalance caused by employer-provided insurance? I certainly wouldn't advise denying employees coverage if they have it.
Get rid of the tax subsidy that created the problem in the first place.
Not saying I don't agree, but the problem there is twofold - getting Congress to vote on such a proposal and bracing for the backlash from everyone who suddenly has to shop for their own health insurance, not to mention the employers who lose their subsidies. If you think the uproar over the PPACA was loud, better get earplugs for this one.
So how do we correct the imbalance caused by employer-provided insurance? I certainly wouldn't advise denying employees coverage if they have it.
Get rid of the tax subsidy that created the problem in the first place.
Not saying I don't agree, but the problem there is twofold - getting Congress to vote on such a proposal and bracing for the backlash from everyone who suddenly has to shop for their own health insurance, not to mention the employers who lose their subsidies. If you think the uproar over the PPACA was loud, better get earplugs for this one.
Which is why we first need to lay out the case for why it was bad policy to begin with.
So how do we correct the imbalance caused by employer-provided insurance? I certainly wouldn't advise denying employees coverage if they have it.
Get rid of the tax subsidy that created the problem in the first place.
Not saying I don't agree, but the problem there is twofold - getting Congress to vote on such a proposal and bracing for the backlash from everyone who suddenly has to shop for their own health insurance, not to mention the employers who lose their subsidies. If you think the uproar over the PPACA was loud, better get earplugs for this one.
Which is why we first need to lay out the case for why it was bad policy to begin with.
In a rational world that might work, but I suspect that after more than half a century the response you'd get from those with employer-provided health insurance would be something along the lines of "my cold, dead hands."
However, as more and more employers are ditching coverage, the wise employee would try to get ahead of the curve.
So now what about preexisting conditions?
So how do we correct the imbalance caused by employer-provided insurance? I certainly wouldn't advise denying employees coverage if they have it.
Get rid of the tax subsidy that created the problem in the first place.
Not saying I don't agree, but the problem there is twofold - getting Congress to vote on such a proposal and bracing for the backlash from everyone who suddenly has to shop for their own health insurance, not to mention the employers who lose their subsidies. If you think the uproar over the PPACA was loud, better get earplugs for this one.
Which is why we first need to lay out the case for why it was bad policy to begin with.
In a rational world that might work, but I suspect that after more than half a century the response you'd get from those with employer-provided health insurance would be something along the lines of "my cold, dead hands."
However, as more and more employers are ditching coverage, the wise employee would try to get ahead of the curve.
So now what about preexisting conditions?
That's what safety nets are for.
Good article - well-researched, factual, devoid of sensationalism and/or bloviating. Lot of information there. Let's break it down one topic at a time:
One such theme is the ongoing policy damage caused by the longstanding tax preference for employer-sponsored health insurance. The problems created by this tax distortion are enormous. It has distorted labor markets in favor of employee compensation in the form of healthcare benefits over wages, thereby putting upward pressure on healthcare prices and costs. It has inhibited the development of a robust market serving individual health insurance customers. And as Bradley Herring points out, the tax preference is also regressive, preferentially subsidizing more highly compensated workers.
What about this? I'd argue that the majority of employees who have employer-provided coverage don't even realize that it's in lieu of salary increases. Many of those claiming "there was nothing wrong with health insurance before Obamacare" come from that pool. They'll cite "tort reform" as the way to reform health insurance. Or - and I'm 100% in agreement with this - they'll cite the inability to purchase insurance across state lines (and I wonder how much employer-provided coverage distorts that as well).
There's also no question that employer-provided coverage is regressive.
Actually, I believe most realize it is part of the total package. Anyone assuming it is not part of their total compensation, is, well, just uneducated. What it does is help lower the overall cost of insurance when there are so many employees within a company.Good article - well-researched, factual, devoid of sensationalism and/or bloviating. Lot of information there. Let's break it down one topic at a time:
One such theme is the ongoing policy damage caused by the longstanding tax preference for employer-sponsored health insurance. The problems created by this tax distortion are enormous. It has distorted labor markets in favor of employee compensation in the form of healthcare benefits over wages, thereby putting upward pressure on healthcare prices and costs. It has inhibited the development of a robust market serving individual health insurance customers. And as Bradley Herring points out, the tax preference is also regressive, preferentially subsidizing more highly compensated workers.
What about this? I'd argue that the majority of employees who have employer-provided coverage don't even realize that it's in lieu of salary increases. Many of those claiming "there was nothing wrong with health insurance before Obamacare" come from that pool. They'll cite "tort reform" as the way to reform health insurance. Or - and I'm 100% in agreement with this - they'll cite the inability to purchase insurance across state lines (and I wonder how much employer-provided coverage distorts that as well).
There's also no question that employer-provided coverage is regressive.
Actually, I believe most realize it is part of the total package. Anyone assuming it is not part of their total compensation, is, well, just uneducated. What it does is help lower the overall cost of insurance when there are so many employees within a company.Good article - well-researched, factual, devoid of sensationalism and/or bloviating. Lot of information there. Let's break it down one topic at a time:
One such theme is the ongoing policy damage caused by the longstanding tax preference for employer-sponsored health insurance. The problems created by this tax distortion are enormous. It has distorted labor markets in favor of employee compensation in the form of healthcare benefits over wages, thereby putting upward pressure on healthcare prices and costs. It has inhibited the development of a robust market serving individual health insurance customers. And as Bradley Herring points out, the tax preference is also regressive, preferentially subsidizing more highly compensated workers.
What about this? I'd argue that the majority of employees who have employer-provided coverage don't even realize that it's in lieu of salary increases. Many of those claiming "there was nothing wrong with health insurance before Obamacare" come from that pool. They'll cite "tort reform" as the way to reform health insurance. Or - and I'm 100% in agreement with this - they'll cite the inability to purchase insurance across state lines (and I wonder how much employer-provided coverage distorts that as well).
There's also no question that employer-provided coverage is regressive.
Yes, group plans help lower costs for those who have access to a group, either through an employee plan or a professional organization, etc. And the higher the salary, the better your plan, as was mentioned in the article.
For the millions who didn't have recourse to group plans, however, premiums could be double what a group plan offered, which is what made it unaffordable for many. Add exclusions for preexisting conditions, lifetime caps for costly illnesses, and this was the mess that was status quo from the time for-profit insurers entered the market until passage of the PPACA.
Actually, I believe most realize it is part of the total package. Anyone assuming it is not part of their total compensation, is, well, just uneducated. What it does is help lower the overall cost of insurance when there are so many employees within a company.Good article - well-researched, factual, devoid of sensationalism and/or bloviating. Lot of information there. Let's break it down one topic at a time:
One such theme is the ongoing policy damage caused by the longstanding tax preference for employer-sponsored health insurance. The problems created by this tax distortion are enormous. It has distorted labor markets in favor of employee compensation in the form of healthcare benefits over wages, thereby putting upward pressure on healthcare prices and costs. It has inhibited the development of a robust market serving individual health insurance customers. And as Bradley Herring points out, the tax preference is also regressive, preferentially subsidizing more highly compensated workers.
What about this? I'd argue that the majority of employees who have employer-provided coverage don't even realize that it's in lieu of salary increases. Many of those claiming "there was nothing wrong with health insurance before Obamacare" come from that pool. They'll cite "tort reform" as the way to reform health insurance. Or - and I'm 100% in agreement with this - they'll cite the inability to purchase insurance across state lines (and I wonder how much employer-provided coverage distorts that as well).
There's also no question that employer-provided coverage is regressive.
Yes, group plans help lower costs for those who have access to a group, either through an employee plan or a professional organization, etc. And the higher the salary, the better your plan, as was mentioned in the article.
For the millions who didn't have recourse to group plans, however, premiums could be double what a group plan offered, which is what made it unaffordable for many. Add exclusions for preexisting conditions, lifetime caps for costly illnesses, and this was the mess that was status quo from the time for-profit insurers entered the market until passage of the PPACA.
That's right at the heart of the problem. Employment is the key to accessing these 'group plans', and losing one's job can mean losing such access. It's no surprise such a system was welcomed by employers. It's a powerful way to maintain control of their employees. But it's been utterly toxic to the health care market and needs to end.
The dilemma we're facing is how to end it. The best way, in my view, is more painful in the short term. We need to end the tax and regulatory subsidies for a failed system and let the market sort it out. We can beef up the safety net in the meantime, but otherwise keep government out of it.
Of course, that's not the path we're taking. People want socialized medicine. But, in the US at least, "socialism" is a dirty word, so we're creating a delusional hybrid that combines the worst aspects of private greed and state control.
Actually, you don't lose access, and haven't for decades. COBRA gives you the opportunity to continue with the same plan, until you find other insurance or another job with insurance. It is law, you are told of COBRA upon departure from a job, if you have insurance while employed there.
Have you two never worked where insurance is offered?
Actually, you don't lose access, and haven't for decades. COBRA gives you the opportunity to continue with the same plan, until you find other insurance or another job with insurance. It is law, you are told of COBRA upon departure from a job, if you have insurance while employed there.
Have you two never worked where insurance is offered?
COBRA is temporary, and may run out before the individual finds another job and, in the past, people would often stick out a job they hated or take a job for less pay simply because it offered coverage. A person's work life should not be dependent on whether or not they can have insurance to pay for their kid's asthma treatments.
Also, while COBRA premiums are usually the same as the original plan plus a small surcharge, the employee is accustomed to having some or all of their premiums covered by the employer under a group plan. The cost of an individual plan is considerably higher, and family plan premiums are often out of reach.
Actually, you don't lose access, and haven't for decades. COBRA gives you the opportunity to continue with the same plan, until you find other insurance or another job with insurance. It is law, you are told of COBRA upon departure from a job, if you have insurance while employed there.
Have you two never worked where insurance is offered?
COBRA is temporary, and may run out before the individual finds another job and, in the past, people would often stick out a job they hated or take a job for less pay simply because it offered coverage. A person's work life should not be dependent on whether or not they can have insurance to pay for their kid's asthma treatments.
Also, while COBRA premiums are usually the same as the original plan plus a small surcharge, the employee is accustomed to having some or all of their premiums covered by the employer under a group plan. The cost of an individual plan is considerably higher, and family plan premiums are often out of reach.
If it runs out before another job is found, Medicaid, a taxpayer funded handout, is available.
How much of a person's hard earned income they get to keep shouldn't be determined by whether or not another person's kid has asthma.
Actually, you don't lose access, and haven't for decades. COBRA gives you the opportunity to continue with the same plan, until you find other insurance or another job with insurance. It is law, you are told of COBRA upon departure from a job, if you have insurance while employed there.
Have you two never worked where insurance is offered?
COBRA is temporary, and may run out before the individual finds another job and, in the past, people would often stick out a job they hated or take a job for less pay simply because it offered coverage. A person's work life should not be dependent on whether or not they can have insurance to pay for their kid's asthma treatments.
Also, while COBRA premiums are usually the same as the original plan plus a small surcharge, the employee is accustomed to having some or all of their premiums covered by the employer under a group plan. The cost of an individual plan is considerably higher, and family plan premiums are often out of reach.
If it runs out before another job is found, Medicaid, a taxpayer funded handout, is available.
How much of a person's hard earned income they get to keep shouldn't be determined by whether or not another person's kid has asthma.
I'm aware that Medicaid covers dialysis in end-stage renal disease, but not that it would cover something such as asthma. Do you have data to support that?
Also, your second sentence seems discontinuous with the first. It seems to suggest you resent paying for Medicaid.
Actually, you don't lose access, and haven't for decades. COBRA gives you the opportunity to continue with the same plan, until you find other insurance or another job with insurance. It is law, you are told of COBRA upon departure from a job, if you have insurance while employed there.
Have you two never worked where insurance is offered?
COBRA is temporary, and may run out before the individual finds another job and, in the past, people would often stick out a job they hated or take a job for less pay simply because it offered coverage. A person's work life should not be dependent on whether or not they can have insurance to pay for their kid's asthma treatments.
Also, while COBRA premiums are usually the same as the original plan plus a small surcharge, the employee is accustomed to having some or all of their premiums covered by the employer under a group plan. The cost of an individual plan is considerably higher, and family plan premiums are often out of reach.
If it runs out before another job is found, Medicaid, a taxpayer funded handout, is available.
How much of a person's hard earned income they get to keep shouldn't be determined by whether or not another person's kid has asthma.
I'm aware that Medicaid covers dialysis in end-stage renal disease, but not that it would cover something such as asthma. Do you have data to support that?
Also, your second sentence seems discontinuous with the first. It seems to suggest you resent paying for Medicaid.
Are you saying Medicaid doesn't cover asthma.
Actually, you don't lose access, and haven't for decades. COBRA gives you the opportunity to continue with the same plan, until you find other insurance or another job with insurance. It is law, you are told of COBRA upon departure from a job, if you have insurance while employed there.
Have you two never worked where insurance is offered?
COBRA is temporary, and may run out before the individual finds another job and, in the past, people would often stick out a job they hated or take a job for less pay simply because it offered coverage. A person's work life should not be dependent on whether or not they can have insurance to pay for their kid's asthma treatments.
Also, while COBRA premiums are usually the same as the original plan plus a small surcharge, the employee is accustomed to having some or all of their premiums covered by the employer under a group plan. The cost of an individual plan is considerably higher, and family plan premiums are often out of reach.
If it runs out before another job is found, Medicaid, a taxpayer funded handout, is available.
How much of a person's hard earned income they get to keep shouldn't be determined by whether or not another person's kid has asthma.
I'm aware that Medicaid covers dialysis in end-stage renal disease, but not that it would cover something such as asthma. Do you have data to support that?
Also, your second sentence seems discontinuous with the first. It seems to suggest you resent paying for Medicaid.
Are you saying Medicaid doesn't cover asthma.
No.
I'm. Asking. You. If. It. Does.
