P@triot
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #41
Health insurance tied to employment is retarded. Does the ACA even address this? I sure haven't heard that it does. Why in the world should health insurance be dictated by where you're employed or by how many hours you work and if you lose your job you also lose your health insurance? Dumb, dumb, dumb.
What is "dumb, dumb, dumb" is the fact that you think your health insurance has to be tied to your job . You can get your own health insurance any time you want, and you can keep it for life, regardless of your job.
Most full time jobs offer health insurance as part of their benefits package, which ties one's health insurance to their job. Most people who have health insurance have it through their job. When the job goes so does the insurance. That's what's dumb. It shouldn't be tied to employment at all. Are you suggesting that people should not take the insurance that's offered with a job but rather purchase something separately? If companies would give the employee that 'benefit' in money (increased salary), peachy. I've not heard of companies doing that.
Actually, evvery single company I have ever worked for - except for ONE - gave you the money if you declined the healthcare insurance.
Furthermore, even if that was not the case, if you don't like insurance being tied to your job, then decline that perk and pay for your own insurance. Problem solved! It will never again be tied to your job. That's the beauty of America (before the dumbocrats) - you have choice.