When thousands of people donate no more than $100 per person per election, we can build a campaign without money from special interests. _______________________ But it's about more than money. We need your energy and your enthusiasm, too. Sign up to volunteer on Jim Hansen's campaign for Congress.
 _______________________ 
|
|
You must Register and Login before you can correspond with this community.
|
|
|
|
|
|
These community forums are intended solely as a tool for people to express their views. As long as everyone in the forums acts in a respectful manner, the discussions will remain unmoderated by campaign staff.
The campaign is not responsible for forum content. Views expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect Jim Hansen's views, nor the views of his campaign.
Take them for what they are, an informal conversation about issues that matter to all Idahoans. And by all means, participate!
|
|
|
| You are not authorized to post a reply.
|
|
| Author |
Messages |
|
Steven Csik
Posts:6
 |
| 25 Apr 2006 7:07 |
 Alert
|
One of the really big burdens for any employer, whether it's giant GM
or a small business with a handful of employees, is providing health
insurance for employees.
As a small business operator with 5 employees, I've watched our premium
rates rise 35% in the last 5 years. The reason we've been able to
keep that rise so "low" is that we've cut benefits by discarding vision
insurance, doubling deductibles, co-pays and employee co-insurance
responsibilities. Our business will discard dental insurance
entirely because this last 10% rise pushed premiums too high.
We're literally paying more and more for insurance each year and
getting less and less.
The burden on the employer is not just a financial one; there's also an
emotional one. How do you let an employee go who doesn't quite
fit into your business when you know that letting them go means they'll
forgo not only the salary but also health insurance for the next couple
of months, even if they find another job immediately.
If politicians really believe that small businesses are the job
producing engines of our economy, if they really believe in private
enterprise, they'll start looking at alternatives to employer supplied
health insurance. Getting rid of employer provided health
insurance would really stimulate private enterprise.
|
|
|
|
|
William Brudenell
Posts:3
|
| 25 Apr 2006 18:01 |
Alert
|
Perhaps if executive compensation at the large corporations was more reasonable, some of them could afford better health, vision, dental insurance for employees. Or, they could provide health, vision, dental insurance for laid-off employees for a couple of months, giving the employee coverage until they obtain it from a new employer.
I realize that unreasonably high executive compensation does not apply to most small corporations and businesses.
Bill Brudenell |
|
|
|
|
Steven Csik
Posts:6
|
| 28 Apr 2006 0:07 |
Alert
|
I don't believe the system of employer supplied health insurance is fixable. The system has been in place for the last 60 some years and still isn't satisfactory. Anybody not working doesn't have health insurance, except possibly for "charity" insurance, Medicaid. Many jobs don't supply health insurance. Many people with jobs have low quality insurance, because the only factor the employer used to select insurance was price, not quality.
Even top-of-the-line health insurance won't necessarily save you. Unless you're really very rich, if you get sick enough, long enough, you'll be paying health care providers your last dollar; you will go bankrupt.
There are at least two alternatives to employer supplied health insurance: 1. Each person gets their own insurance. 2. One nation-wide insurance covers everybody.
The first alternative -- each person gets their own -- won't work. Health insurance is too complicated to be a free market commodity bought by the average person. How many of us undestand our present insurance policy? We may know what deductibles, co-pays, and patient con-insurance responsibilites mean, but how about out-of-pocket maximums, life-time maximums, pre-exisiting conditions exclusions, pre-certification requirements, maximum allowable charges, medically necessary services, non-covered services, drug formularies, provider networks, and the effects of going outside of network versus staying in network on any of these variable. These variables, their maeanings and values, are all set individually by each insurance company. Can you really hope to successfully comparison shop for health insurance?
In the second alternative -- one national insurance program that covers everyone -- wouldn't that one national insurer have to be the government? Probably. Is that bad? Government programs are as good or bad as the attention voting citizens pay to them. Government programs, including national health insurance, can work well if we, as voters, insist to our representatives that they should work well. So far, the only group that's done any insisting to government representatives has been insurance companies, and insurance companies, indeed, have a system that works well for them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|