We all saw the Regressives cut Medicaid without caring that it meant millions of citizens losing their health insurance. With universal coverage we’d see similar but on a bigger scale. Regressives will always play up spite and self-righteousness , will always find a scapegoat who is “cheating”, will always play up high taxes being “bad for business”, plus of course we’d all like to pay less in taxes. We would still need the “face eating leopard” meme. Even then, it would be better for the rest of us, but it would still be the same fight
First and foremost this would be a HUGE boon for small businesses. They are currently hugely outclassed in offering benefits which hampers hiring. It’s also significantly more costly per employee for them.
Second, huge boon for employees who can change jobs left and right regardless of life circumstances. Currently the best way to improve your wages and/or get promoted to a bigger position is to get a job at a new company.
Third, huge boon for entrepreneurs who can now take bigger risks to start a new business because regardless of what happens, they don’t have to worry about losing their healthcare
All of these things will have long term knock-on effects of leveling the opportunities for non wealthy people as well.
I’ll say it for the millionth time. Every single stance the GOP takes is bad for small businesses, bad for the economy, bad for the country.
I’ll say it for the millionth time. Every single stance the GOP takes is bad for small businesses, bad for the economy, bad for the country.
Bad for PEOPLE in general.
People would have more job mobility. You could quit (or get fired) and not have to worry about becoming bankrupt due to healthcare.
People that don’t have insurance will be able to seek aid. Less people will die of preventable illness. People can focus on getting better without the stress of “how will I pay for this? I’m ruined”
About half the US would declare civil war because they are so fucking stupid?
Many companies would lose profit. Many greedy fucks would not be able to afford their third yaht and fifth house.
If healthcare were decoupled from employment, Americans could protest in much larger number and for a longer period of time.
A general strike would become viable.
and suddenly many people who have been wanting to start their own businesses, make that career move, or move to where the jobs are would finally feel secure enough to do so. I suspect this would boost the economy everywhere in ways it would be hard to predict.
A better life for 99.999999% of the country.
The other 0.0000001% are already so wealthy that their life will be exactly the same except that they will be furious about the 99.999999% having an easier life.
my friend would get the blood pressure meds he needs instead of searching for magic pills at the health food store.
have they checked cost+ drugs for the medication, they got a lot of stuff now that is way cheaper than insurance
yeah but you have to see a doctor to get the script to get the meds…
Several people I know would retire from management level positions. It would energize upward advancement in a number of institutions.
Well, we’d retire. We have enough saved to manage þrough to our deaþs, except for healþcare. It’d be retiring early, and in all likelyhood we’d take different jobs which aren’t as high-stress; let someone younger deal wiþ þe bullshit þat Management is. So maybe not full-on retire. We continue to work mainly because healþcare in þe US is stupid.
Things happening to you medically would stop defining your life. I called for a check on something, get a date in 2 days and be scheduled for a radiology, all 100% free.
In Canada it’s more like 30 days or more, and you could expect a US single.payer system to be less efficient since it hasn’t been refined for several decades
The US would be switching to an entirely different system, but wouldn’t be able to “refine” it? What a bunch of unprovable bullshit.
Also, if you think the US doesn’t already have waiting lists for specialists, then I honestly do not know what to tell you. Wait times are not a uniquely socialized medicine thing.
I’d probably go to the doctor.
I’ve got a bowel obstruction 2 years ago and i had to pay 6k for my deductible and my insurance paid 12k. I got a tube down my nose, some xrays and stayed a night. I currently know its going to happen again any day now and it almost happend two nights ago and I was in horrendous pain. I could go to the doctor and they could probably help me and stop it from happening again. However, I dont have 6k to spare to find out. So until it is debilitating, we’ll just have to see what happens.
US would start catching up to the technologically advanced nations in life expectency. A lot more people would start businesses or take a chance on dream jobs. The us would become more competitive with other countries as businesses would no longer have it as a cost. Its essentially like subsidizing your whole economy and many of our competitors do just that so we have to compete with that.
The major factors in the US’s low life expectancy are guns and automobiles. Because the required medical care for the damage those things cause is already guaranteed, universal healthcare would have a relatively small impact on life expectancy, especially in the short term.
It’s possible infant mortality would benefit. Major reasons for our (the US’s) poor performance there are people that do not seek medical care (polling suggests about 2/3 of this is either driven by or related to cost concerns), and differences in how we track infant mortality statistics (for example, the US counts all infants, even if they are born severely premature, while most countries exclude some prematurely born infants from their statistics).
Because the required medical care for the damage those things cause is already guaranteed
Lol, no, you’re still going to have to pay for that.
The (lifesaving) care is guaranteed, whether you are able to pay or not. The resulting debt could cause a lot of problems, but few of them contribute immediately to life expectancy.
Quality of life, sure. Feeling financially secure in your present position, absolutely. But not how long your ticker keeps ticking.
I would like to point out that the two need not be connected. We could unmarry healthcare and jobs by making it a law that you could cash out your healthcare coverage. This would open the market for more competitive nealthcare administrators as the people using the insurance would be the ones choosing. I think it would also increase the popularity of paying direct for the simpler stuff and only carrying insurance for the big stuff. This I think is an important step as it would realign what medical care actually costs when you take out all the middlemen taking their cut. And then, when you do move to universal healthcare, the prices would be more accurate. Otherwise we are going to end up with nationalize anthem or united healthcare for determining what medical care you get, which will be a nightmare.
Can you not? My ex has always opted out of health insurance because mine was much better. Now that she needs her own, she had to choose between getting it through her employer and getting it through the ACA marketplace
So my point was if they just go straight to universal, it will end up underpaying doctors, which will lead to further shortages of doctors. So by doing it in two steps, we can hopefull preserve the doctors we have, and maybe even make it a progession people want to be in again.
But why is your ex getting insurance through her employer now bad. Neither path is going to change the current system before that happens.
You said people should be allowed to cash out of their employer provided healthcare, but you can already opt out. My ex has a smallish employer with expensive plans, so even after the employer contribution, it wasn’t clearly better than marketplace plans. We already are at a place where you can choose the public option.
Or do you mean specifically bringing the employer contribution with you? That would destroy the marketplace for people who can’t bring their employer contribution. It’s also likely to result in employers very quickly giving up those benefits
There is also the HSA which arguably could be called a step in that direction. Employers providing much less of an insurance plan but in conjunction with savings that can be used for medical care. The problem with the current implementation is it doesn’t serve well the people who need it most. People with existing conditions can not afford them without savings and people with lower incomes can’t save.
But yeah, thinking about that more, that may be a path. Allow/define a bare bones high deductible insurance plan which can eventually become universal, then encourage employer HSA contributions, including with fairness tests. Now basic and catastrophic care is covered for everyone universally and the employer benefit is on top of
By cashout, I meant employers pay cash to people who choose not to have the insurance. It would require some rules that set mins, and for large companies say the value has to be based on the plans people who are using the insurance choose to avoid them creating a shit option just to cash out less.
HSA’s aren’t what they appear to be. They are actually retirment saving plan for those who can afford to fund them and not use them. They grow tax free, can be invested in the market, and you don’t pay any tax if you spend them on medical expenses years down the line. It is also designed to transfer cost from the employer to the employee. Some employers will put money in the hsa to soften the transfer, but many do not.
The only reason I suggest the middle step is to try and protect the numbers of medical professionals. If we just swap to universal, the gov will try to lowball everything. That will cause smart people to avoid the profession. And of course they will probably make striking illegal, so the balance of the union will be mostly gone.
I disagree with HSA being a retirement plan, but yes, they give the person more control, something for the long term. There are some tax advantages to building it as retirement savings that streamers like to focus on, but that really should be a second priority to covering a lifetime of healthcare
Last time looked closely, the tradeoff in my company was that for an identical cost for me, I could choose
- Traditional ppo with low copays and deductibles
- High deductible health plan (HDHP) plus HSA to fully cover the annual deductible
That made it very compelling: the coverage should almost always be equal for equal cost. But unusually we don’t need that much medical care so I’d have something left over to help pay for next year. If we were able to start with just a couple healthy years, it would really make a difference in health costs. If you started young, it’s true that you build up a lot of savings for retirement, but it would only take a few healthy years at any age to cover, say a major operation (always in conjunction with HDHP). Or I don’t know if you could use it for COBRA if between jobs, but if you had enough you could cover even uninsured healthcare. The trick of course is how do you keep making an optional contribution when money is tight?
Think of it this way. What is the difference between putting money in a savings accout vs an HSA.
First it is pretax money so you get some savings there. Second no tax on growth.I am sure you can guess which is a bigger financial gain overall.
But now think about this. You have a $1000 medical bill. Do you pay it from the hsa or you savings account. Well both are getting interest, but the HSA is probably getting a higher rate if invested in the stock market. And the HSA has tax free interest unlike the bank account. So the correct financial answer is to pay it from your savings account, and leave the money in the HSA for retirement. Thus it’s really a retirement plan. The key thing is that only people who have the extra money can afford to use it. So poorer people don’t get any benefit from it at all.
Global warming would probably be solved, because hell would also have frozen over.
Instead of making people contractors to avoid paying benefits companies would make people employees to have more control over them.
