For many people, at least in America, health care is largely subsidized by their employer. Does that system make sense?
Health care is one of the more controversial topics in American politics. Millions of Americans get their health insurance, to pay for the ever-increasing cost of health care, from a plan offered by their employer.
It is easy to see how this situation evolved. In addition to salary, an employer may offer additional benefits as an incentive to take a job. These might include, among other things, generous vacation time, stock options, and yes, cheaper health insurance.
Indeed, that can be an attractive benefit, as health insurance is very expensive. This is due to the fact that health care is expensive. However, large companies that represent hundreds or even thousands of employees, can negotiate lower prices that would be unavailable to individuals.
One downside to this scenario, though, is that having health care offered through an employer means employees are put at a severe disadvantage. A worker might be unhappy with a particular job, but feels they are unable to leave because they can’t afford to lose the health insurance for them and possibly their family.
Additionally, an employer’s choice of plan could impact what medical procedures an employee is allowed to get, or even which doctor they are allowed to have.
So, which is it? Is subsidized health insurance a nice perk that comes with signing on with a big company? Or is it a tool that gives an employer unfair leverage over their employees? Should health care be tied to a person’s employment?
Related questions: Is health care a human right? Health care: private or public? What does it mean to be healthy? Is your sense of self tied to your job?
Health insurance should be a universal right provided by the government rather than a benefit offered by individual employers.
First, many employers do not offer health insurance, especially smaller firms and those that hire lower-income workers. Second, health insurance provided by employers can harm the economy by lowering wages and keeping workers in jobs they dislike solely because they receive some coverage. Third, employer-sponsored health insurance might not meet the healthcare needs of some employees, such as those with mental health issues or severe chronic conditions. Fourth, health insurance acts as an intermediary (i.e., an extra expense and middleman in accessing healthcare). Its main goal is to generate profit, which often leads to denying coverage for genuine healthcare needs. Lastly, health insurance plays a role in determining what coverage an employee has, rather than leaving the needed care decisions up to a doctor and their patients.
A government-run single-payer system eliminates the insurance middleman, can cover most or all costs, guarantees coverage for everyone based on the decisions made between a doctor and their patients, and allows workers to choose employment that better suits their needs.
I think it was a great idea as conceived during World War II. But a lot has changed in 80 years. I think the system needs to change.
What about folks that are retired?
Each of us is born with traits (genes) plus environment including lifestyle choices, occupation which determine health and length of life.
An example, when I was on active duty in the Navy, cigarettes were $1.25 per carton when we were out of federal waters. A definite item that determines your health and how long you will live.
At any rate this could be an item for further discussion.