Health Insurance for FE Agents?

[yaknow1]

You cannot escape the fact that healthcare came about because companies offered it to attract talent and to subsidize low wages during WWII.

Employers have never required an employee to be a part of their health insurance plan. An employee has always had the choice to purchase their own health insurance.


Edit: IIRC, you can take a cobra plan that matches what you currently have. You have to pay for it though.


The bottom line is this: nobody has ever been required to purchase an employers health care offering. People have always been free to buy their own policy.

I will ignore all of the above stated errors in fact and logic. Simply remove the life insurance example and debate the point made.

Subsidize? The word you are looking for is supplement. If I had to make that correction, it's a pretty clear indication that I'm wasting my time.

 

[Bishop Don Shizzle]

I will ignore all of the above stated errors in fact and logic. Simply remove the life insurance example and debate the point made. Subsidize? The word you are looking for is supplement. If I had to make that correction, it's a pretty clear indication that I'm wasting my time.

Sure, supplement is a better and more accurate term. The conjecture is on your part not mine. ----------

What I stated is correct. Nobody is debating the free market. For that matter nobody is debating anything you just stated, especially portability. You cannot escape the fact that healthcare came about because companies offered it to attract talent and to subsidize low wages during WWII. Employers have never required an employee to be a part of their health insurance plan. An employee has always had the choice to purchase their own health insurance. Edit: IIRC, you can take a cobra plan that matches what you currently have. You have to pay for it though. The bottom line is this: nobody has ever been required to purchase an employers health care offering. People have always been free to buy their own policy.

Read it again. ........... I'm not sure if you have a comprehension problem or not. Employees have always been free to purchase their own health insurance. Nobody has ever been required to take a companies health insurance.

To your point about what is tied to an employer or not...that is a companies decision.

 

[yaknow1]

Employees have always been free to purchase their own health insurance.

Pre-ACA where exactly could a woman undergoing chemotheropy for breast cancer find coverage?

Pre-ACA where would you place a self-employed attorney with ulcerative colitis? What would he pay vs a group health plan?

 

[GordieHowe]

Pre-ACA where exactly could a woman undergoing chemotheropy for breast cancer find coverage?

Pre-ACA where would you place a self-employed attorney with ulcerative colitis? What would he pay vs a group health plan?

What about trans vaginal meth ?

 

[yaknow1]

What about trans vaginal meth ?

That's one way of adminstering it

 

[Bishop Don Shizzle]

Pre-ACA where exactly could a woman undergoing chemotheropy for breast cancer find coverage?

Pre-ACA where would you place a self-employed attorney with ulcerative colitis? What would he pay vs a group health plan?

This is irrelevant. Lets go back and look at what was posted ie the point being made.

Newby said:

3. I have never believed that employers should be paying any portion of their employees health insurance. I think that is a huge part of what has always been wrong with our system. It makes it not portable and keeps the people using the system to be sheltered from the cost of the system. That has skyrocketed costs. It needs to be free market or single payer but neither one should involve employers in any way.

I said:

Ok Newbizzle! Companies started offering health insurance to attract people (during WWII) to their company, thus, it was the free market system at work. Same as companies that offer a pension.

You said:

Agreed. Most people working for the man won't ever agree with you (see) that they need the free market. The man could increase their salary and they can choose how to invest their premium dollar.

Is your car insurance tied to your employer? No.
Is your homeowner's insurance tied to your employer? No.
Is your life insurance tied to your employer? No.

Why the heck should your health insurance be tied to your employer?

What you fail to comprehend is that businesses offer health insurance in order to attract talent. This is how businesses compete in a free-market economy. Whether or not something is tied to your employer or not is irrelevant. Some employers even offer tuition assistance in order to compete and get talent.

Ever hear of group life insurance? You're an insurance agent and you don't know that several companies provide group life to their employees????? Your health insurance is tied to a persons job because the employer offers it as a benefit.

Do some research and get the facts.

You then proceeded to make an argument that nobody was arguing.

Eh, specious. There is an ample and much larger free market for those who shop OUTSIDE the group offering. Not so with healthcare. You might want to do some research regarding the portability of group life vs. group health.

What I stated is correct. Nobody is debating the free market. For that matter nobody is debating anything you just stated, especially portability.

You cannot escape the fact that healthcare came about because companies offered it to attract talent and to subsidize low wages during WWII.

Employers have never required an employee to be a part of their health insurance plan. An employee has always had the choice to purchase their own health insurance.


Edit: IIRC, you can take a cobra plan that matches what you currently have. You have to pay for it though.


The bottom line is this: nobody has ever been required to purchase an employers health care offering. People have always been free to buy their own policy.

I will ignore all of the above stated errors in fact and logic. Simply remove the life insurance example and debate the point made.

Subsidize? The word you are looking for is supplement. If I had to make that correction, it's a pretty clear indication that I'm wasting my time.

Sure, supplement is a better and more accurate term. The conjecture is on your part not mine. ---------- Read it again. ........... I'm not sure if you have a comprehension problem or not. Employees have always been free to purchase their own health insurance. Nobody has ever been required to take a companies health insurance.

To your point about what is tied to an employer or not...that is a companies decision.

Pre-ACA where exactly could a woman undergoing chemotheropy for breast cancer find coverage?

Pre-ACA where would you place a self-employed attorney with ulcerative colitis? What would he pay vs a group health plan?

I choose this format to help you try and stay on track. To address your question, is irrelevant. You tried to make your case agreeing with Newby. Newby's point was that employers should not provide health insurance for workers...the free market should just take its course. By you asking those two questions above, you are supporting employer sponsored health care. My point is simple. When a company provides health care it is doing so as a way to compete for talent. That is the free market system. Employers competing with each other for talent.

 

[yaknow1]

This is irrelevant.

Agreed.

You miss the whole point that health insurance as an inducement to employment came about subsequent to government wage controls (wage ceilings). You miss the point that "free market" doesn't exist as such because of statutory protections for members of group health plans that didn't exist for individuals in the "free" market pre-ACA. Tuition assistance is a poor example, because there are no statues outlinigng guarantees for employees, as there are for group health plans.

You are arguing a very narrow point and don't seem to have a grasp on the true workings and origins of our current healthcare marketplace. If it makes you happy,I'll agree that no one was "forced" to accept health insurance offered by her employer, but she would find coverage with ongoing chemotherapy nowhere else.

As an illustration, which would most people rather have? $15,000 raise, or $9,000 worth of subsidized health insurance? Numbers not to scale.

Six G'n'ts in and I'm reminded of a proverb about fools and folly.

 

[Bishop Don Shizzle]

Agreed. You miss the whole point that health insurance as an inducement to employment came about subsequent to government wage controls (wage ceilings). You miss the point that "free market" doesn't exist as such because of statutory protections for members of group health plans that didn't exist for individuals in the "free" market pre-ACA. You are arguing a very narrow point and don't seem to have a grasp on the true workings and origins of our current healthcare marketplace. If it makes you happy,I'll agree that no one was "forced" to accept health insurance offered by her employer, but she would find coverage with ongoing chemotherapy nowhere else.

You make some good points, even though they are completely irrelevant to your original post. Yes, health care provided by employers was followed by wage controls. Once the wage controls were gone, employers continued to provide coverage.


I'm somewhat confused. You say things should be free market. ACA is anything but that!

So you got your Seagrams gin? Everybody got they cup but they ain't chipped in? You better make it to the local MLK breakfast this morning.

----------

Six G'n'ts in and I'm reminded of a proverb about fools and folly.

I see you like to make smart ass narcissistic statements. As Abe Lincoln said, Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.

 

[yaknow1]

You make some good points, even though they are completely irrelevant to your original post. Yes, health care provided by employers was followed by wage controls. Once the wage controls were gone, employers continued to provide coverage.


I'm somewhat confused. You say things should be free market. ACA is anything but that!

So you got your Seagrams gin? Everybody got they cup but they ain't chipped in? You better make it to the local MLK breakfast this morning.

----------

I see you like to make smart ass narcissistic statements. As Abe Lincoln said, Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.

There has never been a free true market of health insurance in the US the way there is for life, auto, or home.

Seagrams? Nah. But my homey Dr. Dre came through with a gang of Tanqueray. Tanqueray and chronic? Yeah...

 

[Bishop Don Shizzle]

There has never been a free true market of health insurance in the US the way there is for life, auto, or home. ..

You're correct. Don't think there ever will be. I think we will end up with a system like South Korea has.