Humm... I tried to find it for you but I'm afraid a Google search for "Hillary" and "Skank" turned up far too many entries to wade through. Sorry.

What is McCain smoking? Either he's WAAAAAaaaaay off base, or he has some plan that's way too complex for simpletons like journalists to understand.

This looks like a recipe for disaster if you ask me. Consumerism will go up, health plan enrollment will go down, and after inflation catches up with the tax breaks, we'll all be just as badly off as we were before, only worse because our employers will no longer provide health insurance.

I generally dislike required employer-provided insurance. The only benefit it carries is protection for people who the insurance providers would otherwise consider intelligible. But it really has massively inflated the cost of insurance as well as expectations for what medical coverage should look like. Anyone who's ever had to go on cobra and/or shop for their own coverage knows that employer provided plans are intensely costly and seriously overkill for most people.

I think when the market gets involved and more consumers have more control over their individual choices that it is typically a good thing.

I, however, think that letting market forces control such basic needs as health care is just asking for disaster.

Why? I truly am curious and don't wish to jump to conclusions.

Either leave it to the free market or completely nationalize health care. Employer mandated seems like the worst of both worlds.

If something in between has to be done then individual mandates seem the better way to go. But all because of a historical accident (wage freezes during WWII) we're stuck with a method that really makes no sense (in that it puts all of your eggs in one basket: lose your job, lose your insurance. Might as well require that all investments be put in employer stock so that if your company goes tits up you score a hat trick of suck).

Well, since if you lose your job, you also lose your ability to pay for your insurance, I don't see why they shouldn't be linked.


I'm not saying it worked out that way, but isn't employer-based insurance supposed to benefit from the economy of scale that individually-purchased insurance could never match?

I think that is the intent, but doesn't always work out that way. For example, my children are insured through the school my wife teaches at. There, the employee is covered as a benefit, but when adding family members, there are added costs to the employee. We have three children and pay the exact same amount as someone with six children or some with one child.

So in pricipal, it's what was intended, but the limited choices often make it more expensive than it would be otherwise. Why should someone with one child pay the same amount as someone with six?

Yes and no. That's largely offset by 1) the fact that they can't refuse coverage to anyone, so the higher costs associated wite higher risk employees who would be charged higher rates individually are distributed across everyone and 2) to be sure that everyone's needs are met, the plans have a lot of overkill built in. A single man doesn't particularly need coverage that includes prenatal care, but that's what they pay for.


To answer Leo's question, while I have no doubt that a free market would result in more affordable options and I fully appreciate all of the drawbacks of any socialized situation, in the end I can't shake the feeling that it feels entirely wrong to me that a person's monetary situation dictates their access to health care. Money is a social tool, it is not a measure of the worth of someone's life.