"Third, we must move from an employer-based system to a consumer-based system, which will make health insurance both more affordable and portable, and thus more accessible. Our current employer-based system doesn't let the free market function because the overwhelming share of the cost is picked up by the employer, while the person actually using the system, the employee, pays only a small fraction of the bill and often doesn't even know what the total cost is."
2007-12-20 15:34:37 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/issues/candidates/mike-huckabee/#poverty
2007-12-20 15:34:52 · update #1
Capitalism lowers costs. We need to remove the government and employers from the system, for two reasons.
First, when the consumer is not the payer, he tends to consume without regard to cost. This should be obvious to anyone who stops to think about it.
Second, when the government or employer pays for healthcare, the customer is not the consumer. Therefore, the supplier of the service is not responsible to the consumer for satisfying his need.
So, Huckabee has a point, but I doubt very seriously if he completely understands the ramifications.
Edit: I've got to say that you guys don't understand capitalism. Employers don't pay for healthcare out of the goodness of their hearts. If they have to pay X dollars for your healthcare, that is X fewer dollars they can pay in your salary.
2007-12-20 15:43:11 · answer #1 · answered by desotobrave 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
someone better give that guy a clue, that currently we do have a consumer based system, which he is saying is such a problem.
Just happens to be some employers are the consumers of group policies, as benefits for employees.
Don't know about you but my deductibles and premiums have jumped over the past several months.
how is this a bad thing?
You employer pays you the amount equal to the amount they are paying for your health care, which ends up being 1/3 what your premium will cost on your own.
I had a employer that did that once, no body at the company had health insurance, because they couldn't afford the stuff, even with the employer giving them axtra $$ if they turned in their health insurance reciept. Don't count on corporations doing anything even close to this.
2007-12-20 23:56:54 · answer #2 · answered by avail_skillz 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
My small-business employer uses, this program, he pays me more in exchange for almost no health coverage. Fortunately there's a doctor nearby that deals only with people without insurance so I get a good deal, good care only when I need it, and I take care of myself a little better cause I know how much it's gonna cost me if I don't. I also started saving more, just in case I get into an accident or something.
It makes sense to me, but then again I know how much you are really paying for that check-up.
2007-12-21 06:29:16 · answer #3 · answered by Samuel 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think he's a complete hypocrite!
Gee! Huckabee wants to take away employer paid health care and force the poor and middle class to absorb 100% of the cost of health insurance and medical treatment.
Thank God, that as President he will recieve health care that is 100% paid by the tax payers for the rest of his life for himself and family--no copayments & no premiums ever. 100% Socialized medicine.
If Hukelbee thinks that citizens should pay 100% of the cost for health care then he should do the same.
If Huckelbee is such a conservative guy then why should he recieve socailized medicine for the rest of his life?
He's got a lot of nerve as far as I'm concerned.
2007-12-20 23:52:59 · answer #4 · answered by Citizen1984 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Sounds like a program Republicans would love. Help big business so they can make more money and the employees will benefit as the wealth trickles down to help them with their medical expenses. Sounds like something a "good Christian" would like. Help the poor learn what it is like to pay the total cost of their health care.
2007-12-20 23:53:42 · answer #5 · answered by rec 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
It makes a ton of sense. Pre existing conditions are a big issue and when you change jobs your new health care provider tries to dump everything on the previous provider. BIg issues would be resolved. The only problem is if people get paid to buy health insurance they'll be taxed on the money....
2007-12-20 23:49:55 · answer #6 · answered by netjr 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I agree. Health care should not be employer based. Freedom to do what you want involves healthcare, if the only healthcare that is affordable is employer provided what happens to people that want to start their own businesses or other ventures outside of corporate life? Current options for healthcare outside employer provided healthcare are expensive and not very good from what several of my self-employed friends have mentioned. I could go on......
2007-12-20 23:48:34 · answer #7 · answered by Todd O 3 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Not sure if this means he wants workers to pay the entire premium. I propose that employers set a limit to their contribution and then allow employees to chose whatever company they want in the nation as long as they are willing to pay the difference.
If people think this translates into a one for one pay raise, they are only fooling themselves. Companies would simply pocket the difference and leave people high and dry.
2007-12-20 23:45:25 · answer #8 · answered by Chi Guy 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Like it or not. He is correct and it would keep the Government out of it which would triple the cost and make getting service impossible. Look at Canada and UK. Government always messes things up.
2007-12-20 23:47:30 · answer #9 · answered by paulj53@att.net 5 · 3⤊ 2⤋
That's okay with me. If my employer doesn't have to buy my insurance then they will pay me more and I can get my own policy.
I have no idea how this is a bad thing.
2007-12-20 23:46:57 · answer #10 · answered by Manbearpig 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋