Why does the EMPLOYER have to PROVIDE healthcare benefits in the USA?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

if the fee for health came out of the salary directly to the government like in the UK (the very rich should pay a lot more though). The employer pays his/her own company taxes to the government? Bypassing the insurance companies.

[Captain Hilts]

1. No good reason, unless it's a coal mine, an iron smelter, etc. nt

[rurallib]

2. yep, pretty illogical ain't it.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

6. the companies could pay their workers a little more

and no outsourcing. Do they pay health benefits for workers in India and the Phillipines?

[rurallib]

14. no idea if they do, but I doubt it. That's one big plus in their

eyes for outsourcing.
One of Grassley's aides told me on the phone the other day that if employer's didn't have to pay insurance that money would not go to employees. I was a bit astounded and asked her who would get the money. She said employers would keep it. Again I was astounded. I couldn't even argue with her I was so fuddled.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

22. Congress could make laws that employers give the money to workers

Greed

[John Q. Citizen]

3. It's an historical artifact that goes back to WWII. Wage and price controls and labor shortages

meant that companies had a tough time finding workers. They offered health insurance as an incentive that got around the wage controls.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

4. since unemployment is higher these days.........

[John Q. Citizen]

8. It's a stupid idea as a way to cover a population. but that's how it came to be.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

9. If small businesses were released from this burden they could pay workers more and have more profit

[John Q. Citizen]

10. I favor a system like they have in Canada. But what it looks like we are going to get is screwed.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

11. Yes Canada has it right why didn't we do that in the first place?

When did the Canadian system arise?

[John Q. Citizen]

12. The 1960s. It started out in Saskatchuan then spread to other provences. it's still

administered under national guidelines by the provinces so there is some variation between plans, but not a lot.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

13. I guess they didn't have giant health insurance companies to contend with?

[John Q. Citizen]

15. They did but they also had a political leader with back bone and vision. In fact,

the day there system went into effect, there was a nationwide Doctors strike. The government imported temporary physicians at great cost to provide health care and the strike fell apart after about 20 days.

Doctors there now like their system and make about the same as doctors do in the US. They have a lot more GP and fewer specialist per capita, because they have a system and can plan for what's needed, unlike us.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

30. I like the idea of having a larger primary/preventative care rather than expensive secondary care

[harun]

5. If we had a real media they would ask the congress critters that.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

7. Congress should address this issue

[high density]

16. The media thinks the most viable thing is doing it the GOP way: nothing. Status quo forever

It's maddening.

[kath]

17. Health care should NOT be tied to employment.

This should be stopped NOW.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

20. yes

[earth mom]

37. Yep. nt

[Orsino]

18. Benefits need to come from an entity that has the power to negotiate.

And lately, it doesn't seem that Congress is capable. x(

[avaistheone1]

19. You make a compelling point.

:thumbsup:

[Rosa Luxemburg]

21. They should have had this ready in 2006

[TheKentuckian]

23. Employer based health care is a powerful support mechanism for corporatism

It's clearly a huge drawback for the employees and small business but it gives corporations a mighty hook and an excuse to lowball.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

25. employer based health needs chipping away

[TexasObserver]

24. Because that allows insurance companies to control citizens.

I agree with you. The insurance industry should have no role in the process. Does Federal Express run the Post Office?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

26. The system we have now needs to fade quickly and be replaced

[OwnedByFerrets]

27. Who has said they have to. My employer does not.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

33. yes that's the other problem

paying the whole benefits per month is pricey and it shouldn't be.

[depakid]

28. Along with an historical artifact, unions have reinforced the notion over the years

to protect their particular members.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

32. I can understand this in the old days but now unions should be supporting single payer

After all if the government is there for workers then unions should be happy.

[mtnester]

29. Give me a $8.00 an hour raise and I would have no problem giving up

this BENEFIT my company provides. Because after taxes come out, that is the raise I would need to cover my insurance costs, as well as those of my spouse, in a way that is provided as a BENEFIT from my employer. As long as every dime I pay becomes tax deductible, of course.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

31. If you had a single payer system and were not a milionaire

you would be OK. In the UK they don't take too much out of your salary.

[mtnester]

34. That's fine too

and is my preference

[Hippo_Tron]

35. Welfare capitalism

After World War II we decided that it was better for corporations to provide benefits for their employees rather than to build a national health care system. The Europeans built actual social welfare systems instead of relying on businesses to look out for the welfare of their employees. The problem is that now that this system is the status quo, it is very difficult to dismantle.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

38. dismantling will be a task but is needed

[Hippo_Tron]

40. Agreed it's no longer a practical system, especially with globalization

But the unfortunate fact is that it won't be dismantled overnight.

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

36. They've never HAD to, they did it to compete and gain the best workers.

Competitor B and C provide it so Company A needs to as well to attract employees.

The sad fact is that the health insurance industry likes it this way and they have extreme political power. That isn't going to change over night. There is no way congress would ever vote for it.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

39. Why wouldn't Congress do something about it?