Originally Posted by mcbear
Your last two paragraphs show that you have no understanding of how any of the models work. You have not read any of the projections nor have you looked at the fiscal logistics of the currently working models.
As I said earlier, I would prefer that no taxes be used to deal with this issue however REALITY says that this is going to be the one biggest problem that faces this country for the next 50+ years. It is growing and it is not going to go away.
I am very glad that your current employer partners with you on your health insurance. You, like I are in the MINORITY. I imagine that should your next job move, whether voluntary or involuntary not have such a good deal that you might reset your priorities on the issue.
News flash - if I could rely upon the government for health coverage, I sure as fuck wouldn't be doing what I do today. I'd be doing something I enjoy a hell of a lot more.
Knowledge workers get health benefits. Period. In tons of cases, even people down to laborers get benefits. Does every laborer get bennies? No, it depends on the company for which you work.
Is health insurance important for you? Then do your fucking homework and chose to work for companies that provide it, instead of any hole in the wall that will have you. You can do the same job - ANY JOB - at 5 different places, and they'll all have different packages.
The "straw man" argument is that there are able bodied, able minded people in this nation who can't get jobs paying above minimum wage, or can't do the same job at a company that would provide bennies. Just as ignorance of the law isn't an excuse for running afoul of it, there's no implicit entitlement to equal benefits based on the job one does. A janitor at a mom & pop cleaning company probably won't get bennies - a janitor for a school probably will.
Regarding your assertion that I'm not familiar with "models", etc., it's true that insofar as possible I try to keep myself from rigidly adhering to conventional thinking.
Consider this - the cost of insuring 350,000,000 people should be significantly less per person
than the cost employees and employers pay for private insurance. Why? Insurance is legalized gambling. Your premiums don't begin to cover the cost of care should you get sick with almost anything...the fully realized costs of administering and delivering healthcare services are amortized across the average number of people paying in to the system. Very easy, efficient math. The problem is, the smaller the group of people in a plan, the more expensive it is for everyone, and the more difficult it is for the plan to remain solvent and provide a decent level of benefits.
I firmly believe that if there was only one "pool" of insureds, encompassing every American, the cost of providing that level of service would drop. The efficiencies of scale to be realized would be, frankly, enormous, further reducing the cost per capita of insurance.
The government could negotiate discounts even deeper than what HMO's typically discount, doing so without concerns of profitability, because the administrative burden on healthcare providers would diminish due to the simplification of the entire system.
Private healthcare could continue, opting to service the ultra-rich if they so desired, further inspiring and propogating our current system of global medical leadership.
I'm sure since everyone here is expert on everything, there'll be thousands of reasons why this half-baked premise wouldn't work...I'm even more certain that nobody will show any interest in refining this model so that it could become more workable, because tearing things down and dreaming about impossibly complicated and patently unfair win-lose scenarios is more enjoyable than backing a potential win-win scenario.