Mandated Health Care For Retail Employees

[Bill from NYC]

I have mixed emotions, and would like to hear some views on this topic.

 

I am thinking that legislation such as this will discourage workers in places such as Wal-Mart from unionizing.

On the other hand, health care is one of the many items that Wal-Mart deprives them of, and it costs taxpayers instead.

 

What do you guys think?

 

Boycott Wal-Mart

[IowaBill]

I have mixed emotions, and would like to hear some views on this topic.

 

I am thinking that legislation such as this will discourage workers in places such as Wal-Mart from unionizing.

On the other hand, health care is one of the many items that Wal-Mart deprives them of, and it costs taxpayers instead.

 

What do you guys think?

 

Boycott Wal-Mart

457469[/snapback]

 

Tying legislation to the presence of a collective bargaining agreement seems like a bad idea to me. I know it is "popular" for some groups to continually bash Walmart, but I am not sure it is warranted here as regards health insurance. Wal Mart does provide health insurance to its employees at some levels. Is it "good" health insurance?? Probably not, BUT does anybody think that the "mom and pop" stores that Walmart has supposedly put out of of business all over the country would have provided health insurance to their entry level employees???? Does anybody think that "mom and pop" stores only employ full time staff with a compensation package that allows them to raise a family, buy a house, etc, etc. I don't think "mom and pop" stores met the criteria people want Wal Mart to meet. If a company (Walmart, Target, Lowes, etc) has to pay 3.00 / hour per employee for health insurance, who do you think is going to pay for it?? The customers (you and me), and aren't we taxpayers?? If the Suffolk County government is trying to deal with a health insurance issue by forcing select employers based on the presence , or lack thereof, of a collective bargaining agreement, I thikn they are out of line. The issue is the cost of health care and health insurance. The answer is NOT forcing select employers to pay for it. Unfortunately, for all my ranting, I don't have an answer.

[KRC]

Tying legislation to the presence of a collective bargaining agreement seems like a bad idea to me.  I know it is "popular" for some groups to continually bash Walmart, but I am not sure it is warranted here as regards health insurance.  Wal Mart does provide health insurance to its employees at some levels.  Is it "good" health insurance?? Probably not, BUT does anybody think that the "mom and pop" stores that Walmart has supposedly put out of of business all over the country would have provided health insurance to their entry level employees????  Does anybody think that "mom and pop" stores only employ full time staff with a compensation package that allows them to raise a family, buy a house, etc, etc.  I don't think "mom and pop" stores met the criteria people want Wal Mart to meet.  If a company (Walmart, Target, Lowes, etc) has to pay 3.00 / hour per employee for health insurance, who do you think is going to pay for it??  The customers (you and me), and aren't we taxpayers??  If the Suffolk County government is trying to deal with a health insurance issue by forcing select employers based on the presence , or lack thereof, of a collective bargaining agreement, I thikn they are out of line.  The issue is the cost of health care and health insurance. The answer is NOT forcing select employers to pay for it.  Unfortunately, for all my ranting, I don't have an answer.

457542[/snapback]

 

 

Very good points. Adding health insurance is going to raise the price of goods. People do not realize that they are the ones who will be paying for this. I guess they theought the "rich" will be paying for it.

 

Government should NEVER be involved in forcing companies to supply health insurance. The market dictates salaries and benefits. Nobody is forcing people to work at Walmart. If they do not like the salary or the benefits package, try getting another job. You control your destiny, not the federal government. If you are relying on someone else to get you what you need, it is your fault, not the government.

[KD in CA]

On the other hand, health care is one of the many items that Wal-Mart deprives them of, and it costs taxpayers instead.

 

 

 

Huh???

 

How exactly does Wal Mart "deprive" anyone from obtaining health care? Do they also deprive them from obtaining auto or homeowners insurance?

 

As Ken said, no one is forcing people to work at Wal Mart.

[Bill from NYC]

Huh???

 

How exactly does Wal Mart "deprive" anyone from obtaining health care?  Do they also deprive them from obtaining auto or homeowners insurance?

 

As Ken said, no one is forcing people to work at Wal Mart.

457585[/snapback]

 

I understand both your point and your question. Keep in mind that I make no claim to have all the answers to this issue, I was just hoping to discuss and get the opinions of others.

 

There are books written about how unfair to workers Wal-Mart is said to be. They are said to operate on the very fringes of legality when it comes to discrimination, using illegal aliens, punishing workers who want to unionize, etc.

They have been known to order workers to change their days off in lieu of receiving overtime pay. They closed a store in Canada for voting to unionize. In Suffolk County, they lost a 10 million dollar discrimination suit.

I think we both are aware of their reputation.

 

Generally, I frown on government intervention wrt private business. Right now, we are paying for Wal-Mart employee health with tax dollars. If the change is made, Wal-Mart WILL pass along the increased costs to shoppers, no doubt.

I don't patronize Wal-Mart, so I might take less of a hit.

 

Truthfully, I think that it is the job of organized labor to attack Wal-Mart, not that of the government. I don't see why they don't simply call for a national boycott, with informational picket lines.

Andy Stern of SEIU says he wants to devote more funds to organizing workers. He was joined by Hoffa Jr. of the Teamsters, and 2 other large international unions.

I guess we will soon know how serious they are.

In the meantime, it IS nice to see Wal-Mart getting some heat.

[VABills]

Except if Walmart is doing something illegal punish them. For legislation to be passed that applies only to Walmart is BS. Maryland did this and then repealled it when it wasn't going to pass through the courts.

 

Otherwise Walmart is a business like any other business and they are there to make money. If they can hire enough people to do the job and they can do so without giving them top tier health insurance, they are not under any obligation to do so. Supply and demand. If the workers want to unionize, so be it. But if Walmart wants to close a store that unionizes that too is their call. If the union is strong they will entice Target, Kmart, etc... to fill in behind and give them some incentives. But if it isn't cost effective especially with union mandates on a store then no business will stay open there if he doesn't make economic sense.

[Bill from NYC]

Except if Walmart is doing something illegal punish them.  For legislation to be passed that applies only to Walmart is BS.  Maryland did this and then repealled it when it wasn't going to pass through the courts. 

 

Otherwise Walmart is a business like any other business and they are there to make money.  If they can hire enough people to do the job and they can do so without giving them top tier health insurance, they are not under any obligation to do so.  Supply and demand.  If the workers want to unionize, so be it.  But if Walmart wants to close a store that unionizes that too is their call.  If the union is strong they will entice Target, Kmart, etc... to fill in behind and give them some incentives.  But if it isn't cost effective especially with union mandates on a store then no business will stay open there if he doesn't make economic sense.

457647[/snapback]

From the Link:

 

>>>>>The bill would apply to large retail stores like Wal-Mart, Walgreens, K-mart, C-V-S, Target and B-J's Wholesale Club.<<<<<

 

Also, I am not sure if it is legal to close a store just because workers vote to unionize. Not saying that it isn't mind you; I don't know.

 

Btw, thanks to all for the good responses. Were these original, or did you guys have a pow wow of sorts on the secret board?

[VABills]

From the Link:

 

>>>>>The bill would apply to large retail stores like Wal-Mart, Walgreens, K-mart, C-V-S, Target and B-J's Wholesale Club.<<<<<

 

Also, I am not sure if it is legal to close a store just because workers vote to unionize. Not saying that it isn't mind you; I don't know.

 

Btw, thanks to all for the good responses. Were these original, or did you guys have a pow wow of sorts on the secret board?           

457650[/snapback]

I would not know about any secret board, I am not privey. Second, no the Maryland law when relooked at would apply only to Walmart, hence the big issue. Thirdly, no store is obligated to remain open ever.

 

Also, if you read your article, health coverage is provided, but some employees choose not to take it. Probably because they either have to pay some stipend out of their paycheck or they get a little extra if they opt out of it.

[Live&DieBillsFootball]

Forcing big stores to provide health insurance puts them on an even floor with other large companies that already provide these benefits. It definitely will be passed on to the customer but in the end I feel it is worth it.

 

I would rather pay higher prices than have to pay higher taxes to cover these people through Medicaid.

 

At least the companies will work hard to come up with a medical plan that is cost effective rather than rely on Medicaid which has a record of over coverage, abuse, and fraud.

[IowaBill]

Forcing big stores to provide health insurance puts them on an even floor with other large companies that already provide these benefits.  It definitely will be passed on to the customer but in the end I feel it is worth it. 

 

I would rather pay higher prices than have to pay higher taxes to cover these people through Medicaid.

 

At least the companies will work hard to come up with a medical plan that is cost effective rather than rely on Medicaid which has a record of over coverage, abuse, and fraud.

457669[/snapback]

 

At what point is a store "big" enough to force them to provide health insurance. Employer paid health insurance had its primary genesis during WWII when wages were frozen during war production. Employer provided health care was offered as a benefit to keep workers (Kaiser Shipbuilding). It made good business sense to provide health insurance / health care then. When it makes good business sense to provide health insurance at a certain level, you can bet WalMart will do so. Agree or disagree with their policies, it is an extremely successful company. The idea that higher prices due to mandated health coverage will lower taxes because of lower Medicaid costs is probably a bad one. The way to address Medicaid fraud and costs is to address them at the source, NOT by legislation that applies only to select companies.

[KRC]

Forcing big stores to provide health insurance puts them on an even floor with other large companies that already provide these benefits.  It definitely will be passed on to the customer but in the end I feel it is worth it.

 

Let me guess, you do not (or have never) run your own business. Anyone who has would absolutely shutter at this notion. The government cannot (nor should not) dictate how a company runs their business, what benefits they provide their employees, etc.

 

 

 

I would rather pay higher prices than have to pay higher taxes to cover these people through Medicaid.

 

The problem is with the government forcing companies under new regulations, you are now paying for the company to supply the insurance (through higher prices) and paying the government (through higher taxes) to make sure the company is providing the insurance and providing the insurance at what the government feels is fair. Nothing like increasing the size of government to do something that should be strictly in the private sector.

 

 

At least the companies will work hard to come up with a medical plan that is cost effective rather than rely on Medicaid which has a record of over coverage, abuse, and fraud.

457669[/snapback]

 

How can it be cost effective if the government is involved? It is not like they have a history of doing things properly. The companies will be forced to provide government mandated insurance. The government will need to determine what type of insurance and how much insurance to provide. This is an absolutely scary thought.

[Mickey]

Very good points. Adding health insurance is going to raise the price of goods. People do not realize that they are the ones who will be paying for this. I guess they theought the "rich" will be paying for it.

 

Government should NEVER be involved in forcing companies to supply health insurance. The market dictates salaries and benefits. Nobody is forcing people to work at Walmart. If they do not like the salary or the benefits package, try getting another job. You control your destiny, not the federal government. If you are relying on someone else to get you what you need, it is your fault, not the government.

457568[/snapback]

The problem is, we are paying for it anyway. Unless we are prepared to turn away bleeding babies from emergency rooms, treatment of the uninsured is paid for and paid for in the most expensive manner possible, through emergent care.

 

I read an interesting piece in Slate today which discussed the growing divorce of health care benefits and employment. A fast growing category of uninsured people are the employed uninsured. It is becoming a huge problem for hospitals. In fact, the article I read discussed why HCA was having such problems that people like Frist needed to unload their stock. HCA has concentrated their expansion in southern states partly based on their belief that they would fare better in "business friendly" states. However, those states are far more likely to have a lot more employed but uninsured citizens compared to other states. At the same time, they can't turn people away in emergencies any more than hospitals in other states can. The result is that 15% of their services are to the uninsured.

In the short term they absorb that revenue hit but in the long term adjust their rates to compensate so that those of us still insured pay the bill.

 

Blaming poorly skilled and lowly paid workers for not having insurance assumes that they can somehow magically transform themselves from poorly skilled and lowly paid workers into something else. I do not think that there has ever been a point in our entire history where there were not a whole lot of poorly skilled and lowly paid workers. Workers unable to pay for their own insurance. It is a constant in any society and in every economy. We can find a way to deal with it as effectively and inexpensively as possible, knowing that it won't be a pain free solution or we can turn people away at emergency rooms and accept that there will be people from babies to octogenarians dying in hospital parking lots from perfectly treatable causes simply because they have no insurance. What we are doing now is forcing the healthcare industry to provide the treatment we are not heartless enough to deny to the uninsured and then deluding ourselves into thinking that it isn't costing us anything.

 

When the widgets are people's lives, supply and demand doesn't work so well. You are absolutely right that forcing employers to provide health insurance increases the costs of the goods and services provided by those employers. However, treating the uninsured increases the costs of health care to the insured and provides treatment to the uninsured in the most inefficient and expensive manner possible. Those costs have gone up so much that increasing numbers of employers are no longer providing health insurance as a benefit thereby increasing the numbers of uninsured patients and so on.

 

Unless we are going to deny treatment to the uninsured, even in emergency situations, somehow we have to figure out how best to defray the cost of health care. Under the present "system" the cost of treating the uninsured is on the back of two horses, hospitals and the federal government. Hence medicaid, medicare and health care costs go up and up and up. If we forced employers to provide a basic plan to all their employees, those costs would be transferred to the costs of goods and services. The cost then gets spread not on the back of two horses but on the backs of millions and millions of transactions occuring in the market place every time a good or service is exchanged.

 

The only way to handle a financial burden too big to bear is to elimenate the burden (no treatment for the uninsured) or spread it out so that the impact on any one person is manageable (mandating employer provided insurance is just one way of doing that).

 

That is just the way I see it Ken. I don't pretend to be an expert though and I am not at all happy about mandating anything but I am just not sure how else we deal with this problem other than through some sort of cost spreading to cover treatment of those too poor to pay for their own.

[KRC]

The problem is, we are paying for it anyway.  Unless we are prepared to turn away bleeding babies from emergency rooms, treatment of the uninsured is paid for and paid for in the most expensive manner possible, through emergent care.

 

I read an interesting piece in Slate today which discussed the growing divorce of health care benefits and employment.  A fast growing category of uninsured people are the employed uninsured.  It is becoming a huge problem for hospitals.  In fact, the article I read discussed why HCA was having such problems that people like Frist needed to unload their stock.  HCA has concentrated their expansion in southern states partly based on their belief that they would fare better in "business friendly" states.  However, those states are far more likely to have a lot more employed but uninsured citizens compared to other states.  At the same time, they can't turn people away in emergencies any more than hospitals in other states can.  The result is that 15% of their services are to the uninsured. 

In the short term they absorb that revenue hit but in the long term adjust their rates to compensate so that those of us still insured pay the bill.

 

Blaming poorly skilled and lowly paid workers for not having insurance assumes that they can somehow magically transform themselves from poorly skilled and lowly paid workers into something else.  I do not think that there has ever been a point in our entire history where there were not a whole lot of poorly skilled and lowly paid workers.  Workers unable to pay for their own insurance.  It is a constant in any society and in every economy.  We can find a way to deal with it as effectively and inexpensively as possible, knowing that it won't be a pain free solution or we can turn people away at emergency rooms and accept that there will be people from babies to octogenarians dying in hospital parking lots from perfectly treatable causes simply because they have no insurance.  What we are doing now is forcing the healthcare industry to provide the treatment we are not heartless enough to deny to the uninsured and then deluding ourselves into thinking that it isn't costing us anything.

 

When the widgets are people's lives, supply and demand doesn't work so well.  You are absolutely right that forcing employers to provide health insurance increases the costs of the goods and services provided by those employers.  However, treating the uninsured increases the costs of health care to the insured and provides treatment to the uninsured in the most inefficient and expensive manner possible.  Those costs have gone up so much that increasing numbers of employers are no longer providing health insurance as a benefit thereby increasing the numbers of uninsured patients and so on. 

 

Unless we are going to deny treatment to the uninsured, even in emergency situations, somehow we have to figure out how best to defray the cost of health care.  Under the present "system" the cost of treating the uninsured is on the back of two horses, hospitals and the federal government.  Hence medicaid, medicare and health care costs go up and up and up.  If we forced employers to provide a basic plan to all their employees, those costs would be transferred to the costs of goods and services.  The cost then gets spread not on the back of two horses but on the backs of millions and millions of transactions occuring in the market place every time a good or service is exchanged.

 

The only way to handle a financial burden too big to bear is to elimenate the burden (no treatment for the uninsured) or spread it out so that the impact on any one person is manageable (mandating employer provided insurance is just one way of doing that).

 

That is just the way I see Ken.  I don't pretend to be an expert though and I am not at all happy about mandating anything but I am just not sure how else we deal with this problem other than through some sort of cost spreading to cover treatment of those too poor to pay for their own.

457757[/snapback]

 

 

You can start by eliminating the need to everyone to pay for someone to go to the emergency room because they have the sniffles. You can also eliminate the entitlement mentality that is flooding our society. Both are items which reduce the burden on everyone else.

 

As was mentioned previously in this thread, as long as people are willing to work for lower wages and no benefits, why the hell would a company give this stuff away? It makes no sense in our economy. When they cannot keep the workers due to the salaries or benefits, they will need to increase one or both to get people to work there. Simple market economics, which requires NO government intervention.

 

Increasing the size of government or increasing the tax burden always results in disaster. Personal responsibility is a good thing. We should try it sometime.

[IowaBill]

The problem is, we are paying for it anyway.  Unless we are prepared to turn away bleeding babies from emergency rooms, treatment of the uninsured is paid for and paid for in the most expensive manner possible, through emergent care.

 

I read an interesting piece in Slate today which discussed the growing divorce of health care benefits and employment.  A fast growing category of uninsured people are the employed uninsured.  It is becoming a huge problem for hospitals.  In fact, the article I read discussed why HCA was having such problems that people like Frist needed to unload their stock.  HCA has concentrated their expansion in southern states partly based on their belief that they would fare better in "business friendly" states.  However, those states are far more likely to have a lot more employed but uninsured citizens compared to other states.  At the same time, they can't turn people away in emergencies any more than hospitals in other states can.  The result is that 15% of their services are to the uninsured. 

In the short term they absorb that revenue hit but in the long term adjust their rates to compensate so that those of us still insured pay the bill.

 

Blaming poorly skilled and lowly paid workers for not having insurance assumes that they can somehow magically transform themselves from poorly skilled and lowly paid workers into something else.  I do not think that there has ever been a point in our entire history where there were not a whole lot of poorly skilled and lowly paid workers.  Workers unable to pay for their own insurance.  It is a constant in any society and in every economy.  We can find a way to deal with it as effectively and inexpensively as possible, knowing that it won't be a pain free solution or we can turn people away at emergency rooms and accept that there will be people from babies to octogenarians dying in hospital parking lots from perfectly treatable causes simply because they have no insurance.  What we are doing now is forcing the healthcare industry to provide the treatment we are not heartless enough to deny to the uninsured and then deluding ourselves into thinking that it isn't costing us anything.

 

When the widgets are people's lives, supply and demand doesn't work so well.  You are absolutely right that forcing employers to provide health insurance increases the costs of the goods and services provided by those employers.  However, treating the uninsured increases the costs of health care to the insured and provides treatment to the uninsured in the most inefficient and expensive manner possible.  Those costs have gone up so much that increasing numbers of employers are no longer providing health insurance as a benefit thereby increasing the numbers of uninsured patients and so on. 

 

Unless we are going to deny treatment to the uninsured, even in emergency situations, somehow we have to figure out how best to defray the cost of health care.  Under the present "system" the cost of treating the uninsured is on the back of two horses, hospitals and the federal government.  Hence medicaid, medicare and health care costs go up and up and up.  If we forced employers to provide a basic plan to all their employees, those costs would be transferred to the costs of goods and services.  The cost then gets spread not on the back of two horses but on the backs of millions and millions of transactions occuring in the market place every time a good or service is exchanged.

 

The only way to handle a financial burden too big to bear is to elimenate the burden (no treatment for the uninsured) or spread it out so that the impact on any one person is manageable (mandating employer provided insurance is just one way of doing that).

 

That is just the way I see it Ken.  I don't pretend to be an expert though and I am not at all happy about mandating anything but I am just not sure how else we deal with this problem other than through some sort of cost spreading to cover treatment of those too poor to pay for their own.

457757[/snapback]

 

There are a number of moderately succesful programs (mostly private) that have been formed to deal with the growing problem of the working uninsured. I spent a fair amount of time in the "textile and furniture belt" area of both North Carolina and Virginia andworked on developing two of them. Probably one of the more successful efforts is Project Access in Asheville, North Carolina. Without going into too many details it is a joint project of the local medical society, the existing hospitals and several community organizations. It doesn't get rid of Medicaid, as it doesn't address health care to the indigent. It does, however, deal very effectively with overuse of emrgent care services and it provides a quality stream of medical services to a population that would not otherwise be able to afford it. Many of these programs are in smaller cities (Asheville probably has about 75K people in it) and may not be as a effective in a bigger city / population area like Suffolk County, NY. Additionally, if the working unisured continues to grow at the rate it has, voluntary run programs of this nature will NOT be able to cope with the issue. Not sure what the solution is, but there are places where this problem can be addressed, with minimal cost to the taxpayer.

[Mickey]

You can start by eliminating the need to everyone to pay for someone to go to the emergency room because they have the sniffles. You can also eliminate the entitlement mentality that is flooding our society. Both are items which reduce the burden on everyone else.

 

As was mentioned previously in this thread, as long as people are willing to work for lower wages and no benefits, why the hell would a company give this stuff  away? It makes no sense in our economy. When they cannot keep the workers due to the salaries or benefits, they will need to increase one or both to get people to work there. Simple market economics, which requires NO government intervention.

 

Increasing the size of government or increasing the tax burden always results in disaster. Personal responsibility is a good thing. We should try it sometime.

457773[/snapback]

 

Who decides that it is just a case of the sniffles and not whooping cough? Where will that decision be made, in a hospital emergency room or by a citizen with no medical degree or training? Who is to perform this national triage everytime a person with no insurance is sick?

 

True story: A guy is in a car accident caused by an old lady who drove in front of him. He has lots and lots of kids, some adopted. The injuries put him out of work and out of insurance. He paid for insurance out of his own pocket but at some point, he had to choose, pay the mortgage or the insurance? Goceries or insurance? Heat or insurance? Then one day his 11 year old daughter comes down with the "sniffles". Normally they would have taken her in to be sure her fever was nothing to be concerned about but they had no money to pay for the service out of their pockets so they didn't. Two days later her temp spiked, she went septic, burst appendix. Nearly died. Spent 12 days in the hospital and underwent emergency surgery. The whole thing cost way, way, way more than it had to.

 

The bottom line problem is that we are either going to refuse treatment to the uninsured and learn to accept the reality that people will die because they can't pay for treatment or we have to find a way to pay for treatment for those who can't afford it. You don't want employers to have to do it and have the costs spread out across a broad swath of society. I assume you don't want national healthcare. I'm guessing you would get rid of medicaid and medicare if you had the chance. The magic of the "free market" is not going to result in health care for those who can't afford it. It hasn't and it won't. What is the solution to the core problem, medical treatment for those who can't afford it?

[Mickey]

There are a number of moderately succesful programs (mostly private) that have been formed to deal with the growing problem of the working uninsured.  I spent a fair amount of time in the "textile and furniture belt" area of both North Carolina and Virginia andworked on developing two of them.  Probably one of the more successful efforts is Project Access in Asheville, North Carolina.  Without going into too many details it is a joint project of the local medical society, the existing hospitals and several community organizations.  It doesn't get rid of Medicaid, as it doesn't address health care to the indigent.  It does, however, deal very effectively with overuse of emrgent care services and it provides a quality stream of medical services to a population that would not otherwise be able to afford it.  Many of these programs are in smaller cities (Asheville probably has about 75K people in it) and may not be as a effective in a bigger city / population area like Suffolk County, NY.  Additionally, if the working unisured continues to grow at the rate it has, voluntary run programs of this nature will NOT be able to cope with the issue.  Not sure what the solution is, but there are places where this problem can be addressed, with minimal cost to the taxpayer.

457790[/snapback]

I think this is a classic case of avoiding painful reality. There are two choices here ultimately. Refuse medical treatment to those who can't afford it or find the best way to pay for that treatment. People want to beleive in a magic bullet on this one that if we just reduce fraud and abuse or unnecessary treatment or reform tort law, etc, etc, the problem will go away and it won't cost a dime or result in people dying from lack of insurance. Ken is right, just pushing this off to employers isn't a solution without a cost. It might not be the best way to do it, it might even be the worst way for all I know.

 

I have heard all sorts of criticism of the solutions that have, from time to time been proposed but I have not yet heard those critics offer a viable alternative.

[Gavin in Va Beach]

Solution for healthcare: From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs. It's so simple I don't see why some government hasn't tried it before...

 

 

[stuckincincy]

FWIW, I seldom shop at Wal-Mart...maybe once or twice a year. I find their stores poorly-lit, filthy, and loaded with cheesy goods, so I patronize their competitors.

[IowaBill]

You can start by eliminating the need to everyone to pay for someone to go to the emergency room because they have the sniffles. You can also eliminate the entitlement mentality that is flooding our society. Both are items which reduce the burden on everyone else.

 

As was mentioned previously in this thread, as long as people are willing to work for lower wages and no benefits, why the hell would a company give this stuff  away? It makes no sense in our economy. When they cannot keep the workers due to the salaries or benefits, they will need to increase one or both to get people to work there. Simple market economics, which requires NO government intervention.

 

Increasing the size of government or increasing the tax burden always results in disaster. Personal responsibility is a good thing. We should try it sometime.

457773[/snapback]

 

I agree with your statement that health insurance benefits should be market driven in terms of them being offered by the employer. Additionally increasing the size of the govt. to address this issue probably would be a less than stellar idea. I am not sure, however, how we eliminate the entitlement mentality as regards health care services. One could argue that waht drives people to seek health care, regardless of thier ability to pay is the instinct we wll have to stay alive. Given that we are justifiably proud of our health care delivery system, it being among the best in the world, and we all have a fairly strong survival instinct, I don't think we will ever stop people from seeking health care services. the problem then becomes how it is provided, who pays for it, and how effeciently it can be carried out. I think if we accept that people seek the services because of their quality and the need for them, we will be more successful in ensuring access at a reasonable and managable rate. Let's not deny anybody, let's provide for everybody in a way that makes sense.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

I have heard all sorts of criticism of the solutions that have, from time to time been proposed but I have not yet heard those critics offer a viable alternative.

457867[/snapback]

 

Probably because there isn't one. Individual health care in America is an exclusive-use limited resource governed by a free-market economy, period. Reforming it the way everyone would like would require one of two things: making it a non-exclusive use resource (a practical impossibility), or change the economic system under which it operates (an impractical possibility). The only other option is to accept that individual health care is a privilege, not a right.

 

Frankly, there is no good option. Fixed resources + elastic demand = not everyone participates, no matter what your economic model. Every "solution" I've ever heard is either a mechanism for transferring the privilege from one class to another, or rationing it so that no one gets to participate.