Legal Question: Calling all Lawyers (non-BB)

[Froback]

My company is doing its annual enrollment for benefits for the coming year.

New this year is an extra charge to include my spouse under my medical coverage if my spouse is eligible to gain health care via her own employment.

Since my Spouse works for a school district, she is eligible, yet the medical coverage options at my work have always been better.

So my question is, from a legal standpoint, would this not be a case of discrimination by making me pay more for my spouse to have coverage than I would if say she was a stay-at-home mom, or worked in a type of job that didn't offer coverage to its employees?

For example currently to add my wife it would cost me X per month.  If my wife quit and was unemployed, it would cost me X-50 per month.

[JimR]

My company is doing its annual enrollment for benefits for the coming year.

New this year is an extra charge to include my spouse under my medical coverage if my spouse is eligible to gain health care via her own employment.

Since my Spouse works for a school district, she is eligible, yet the medical coverage options at my work have always been better.

So my question is, from a legal standpoint, would this not be a case of discrimination by making me pay more for my spouse to have coverage than I would if say she was a stay-at-home mom, or worked in a type of job that didn't offer coverage to its employees?

For example currently to add my wife it would cost me X per month.  If my wife quit and was unemployed, it would cost me X-50 per month.

WFW

[Bench]

So my question is, from a legal standpoint, would this not be a case of discrimination by making me pay more for my spouse to have coverage than I would if say she was a stay-at-home mom, or worked in a type of job that didn't offer coverage to its employees?

Ah, yes. Working spouses: the classic discrete and insular class protected under our constitution. Finally Charles Hamilton Houston's dreams have been realized. We have overcome!

[MusicMan]

My company is doing its annual enrollment for benefits for the coming year.

New this year is an extra charge to include my spouse under my medical coverage if my spouse is eligible to gain health care via her own employment.

Since my Spouse works for a school district, she is eligible, yet the medical coverage options at my work have always been better.

So my question is, from a legal standpoint, would this not be a case of discrimination by making me pay more for my spouse to have coverage than I would if say she was a stay-at-home mom, or worked in a type of job that didn't offer coverage to its employees?

For example currently to add my wife it would cost me X per month.  If my wife quit and was unemployed, it would cost me X-50 per month.

The tax code hammers the everloving shit out of two-income couples, and you're worried about the $50 difference per month?

The Coach/counselor nailed it.

[Kent's Moustache]

To answer your question more directly than our sarcastic friends, no.

Your question reminds me, though, of an interesting question posed by Professor Lino Graglia in my Con Law II class.  Does it make any sense, in our modern American society, that the word "discriminate" should have a connotation that is much more negative that its plain, dictionary meaning?  We all "discriminate" every day, from choosing our breakfast cereal; to selecting what tie goes with what shirt; to hiring, promoting, demoting, and firing employees; to picking the right canteloupe at the grocery store; to ordering a beer at the bar; etc.

"Discrimination" is not evil.  It's a common fact of life.  The real evil is "wrongful discrimination."  In your case, no one has successfully argued that it's "wrong" to discriminate against a double-income married couple when assigning cost values to group health insurance premiums.  However, if you want to pay me $250/hour, with a $50,000 retainer, to pursue that case for you, then I'll give it a rip.  

[hostros7]

However, if you want to pay me $250/hour

Considering he is potentially litigating over an $50/month for health care, I'm going to ahead and guess the answer to this question, at least on a purely financial basis, will probably be a no

[Froback]

Considering he is potentially litigating over an $50/month for health care, I'm going to ahead and guess the answer to this question, at least on a purely financial basis, will probably be a no

Actually the figure of 50 was purely arbitrary, but you would be correct, it is not worth the effort, but I just found it odd that they started doing this now.  Just seems like one more way they are trying to save a buck at the expense of their employees.

[Phil_in_CS]

Actually the figure of 50 was purely arbitrary, but you would be correct, it is not worth the effort, but I just found it odd that they started doing this now.  Just seems like one more way they are trying to save a buck at the expense of their employees.

and this is unusual how?

[JimR]

and this is unusual how?

or wrong how?

[Limey]

or wrong how?

Not wrong in a legal sense.  Just another example of the erosion of benefits available to employees.  When the whole healthcare system is predicated on employers providing affordable programs for their employees, and employers stop doing that (even incrementally, as is happening here) then the healthcare system is actually breaking down.

[MusicMan]

Not wrong in a legal sense.  Just another example of the erosion of benefits available to employees.  When the whole healthcare system is predicated on employers providing affordable programs for their employees, and employers stop doing that (even incrementally, as is happening here) then the healthcare system is actually breaking down.

The health insurance system is breaking down.  The quality of healthcare itself is superior.  It is the insurance that must be addressed.

[hostros7]

Not to get into a debate on the topic but don't they go hand in hand?  Someone without good health insurance generally cannot obtain good health care.  Agreed there is great health care these days.

[MusicMan]

Not to get into a debate on the topic but don't they go hand in hand?  Someone without good health insurance generally cannot obtain good health care.  Agreed there is great health care these days.

When people recenter the debate on "then why does everyone come to America for their operations" - this is what they're missing.  Yes, provision and insurance go hand it hand; but only one side is clearly broken, and that is what must be addressed.

[Ankh]

But only one side is clearly broken, and that is what must be addressed.

fix one side, break the other.  What happens when 10's of millions of people are able to fully avail themselves of high-quality health-care when the capacity of such quality cannot increase nearly as fast?

[Phil_in_CS]

Not to get into a debate on the topic but ....

that's never stopped us before.

We switched to an HSA, where the boss kicks in some money, and I can kick in more, about 3 years ago. There's a $5k annual deductible for my family, so everything is paid for from the HSA money, which is tax deferred. After 3 years, we have well over 2 years worth of deductibles in there, and we can continue to contribute. The money is ours to keep if I change jobs. Until I'm 65 it can only be used for health care, and I can roll it into an IRA after that. No taxes until I roll it, and then as per an IRA. Money I put in  is pre-tax too.

I like the plan. You are quite exposed the first year you are on it though, since you haven't built up the savings account yet and you have that $5K annual deductible.

[HurricaneDavid]

New this year is an extra charge to include my spouse under my medical coverage if my spouse is eligible to gain health care via her own employment.

How does your company even know what options are available to your wife at her place of employment?

[Frobie]

How does your company even know what options are available to your wife at her place of employment?

That's exactly what I was thinking.

I'm sure they will make him sign something that says he is telling the honest-to-goodness truth, but beyond that I wonder what they would do to enforce this.  Depending on the "surcharge" they would levy, it's hard for me to imagine how paying someone to hunt down working spouse insurance non-enrollees would be worth the effort or money versus just paying for the dang insurance in the first place.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a big pussy.  I stop at stop signs, I show up for jury duty when I have to, and I don't get in the express lane unless I really do have 15 items or less.  But this seems like a system that's designed to punish honest people.

[Froback]

That's exactly what I was thinking.

I'm sure they will make him sign something that says he is telling the honest-to-goodness truth, but beyond that I wonder what they would do to enforce this.  Depending on the "surcharge" they would levy, it's hard for me to imagine how paying someone to hunt down working spouse insurance non-enrollees would be worth the effort or money versus just paying for the dang insurance in the first place.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a big pussy.  I stop at stop signs, I show up for jury duty when I have to, and I don't get in the express lane unless I really do have 15 items or less.  But this seems like a system that's designed to punish honest people.

Pretty much.  And me being a honest type (no REALLY) I basically allow them to screw me by telling the truth.

[Andyzipp]

a) Working Spouse is not a protected class.  No one is being discriminated against.

b) Welcome to capitalism.  Companies have no legal responsibility to provide health benefits to their employees.  They do so to hire and retain good employees (or at least good-enough employees).  If the benefits offered by your company are what you consider to be substandard, look for employment elsewhere.  If enough people do that, to the point it affects the company's ability to make money, the company will revaluate what they are offering.

c) It costs your company money to insure you and your family.  If, to be more profitable, they try to save money by writing their voluntary insurance policies a certain way, well, they should be doing that.

[Froback]

The health insurance system is breaking down.  The quality of healthcare itself is superior.  It is the insurance that must be addressed.

Well I think it all stems for two things: First the thought that everyone is entitled to health care.  While I feel for those that cannot afford to get the best of care, the foundation of this society has been, you want something, work for it and you can get it.  Nothing is (or should be) given to you.  The problem is we all have a soft spot for those that seemingly cannot care for themselves so we make all sorts of things up to "help" them.  In the end it erodes that which made this country great.

The second thing is the expectations that people in medicine should be perfect.  They are human and therefore like the rest of us make mistakes or screw up from time to time.  But the difference is that when they screw up someone else can die from it.  The reality should be, people have a choice.  If doctor A has a history of mistakes or screw-ups people will stop going to them and go to a doctor who "screws-up" less.  Just like in all other areas of business.  But because people want to hold doctors responsible if something goes wrong and exact their "pound of flesh" then you get insurance companies.  Ones to protect the doctors in case things go wrong, and then ones to help people pay for those "increased" costs that result from those insurances the doctors have to pay for.

If we got rid of all that, I am sure Doctors just like any other business group would have to bring prices in line to what the market would dictate to them.  Right now, they just keep going up and up because insurances keep having to go up and up to compensate for the increased costs to them.  It is all a vicious cycle that we have allowed to exist, because of the people feeling like they "deserve" something for someone else's mistake.  We all make them, but I don't see anyone suing because my computer crashed from a software error and forced me to reboot when I was writing a paper or program or just playing a game.

The problem is people in our society want to fix the result, not the issue.  They want to pretend like the issue isn't really the problem.

[Andyzipp]

 It is all a vicious cycle that we have allowed to exist, because of the people feeling like they "deserve" something for someone else's mistake.  We all make them, but I don't see anyone suing because my computer crashed from a software error and forced me to reboot when I was writing a paper or program or just playing a game.

I know, right?!? Thank you!

Love,

Microsoft.

[JackAstro]

The Coach/counselor nailed it.

Coachselor? Counceloach? I like the ring of either.

[Duman]

How does your company even know what options are available to your wife at her place of employment?

Your wife puts her place of work on the info sheet for the doctors office, also on that sheet is a HIPAA release allowing them to provide info to the insurance for billing.  That would be my guess that it comes second hand through the medical provider.

[Froback]

Your wife puts her place of work on the info sheet for the doctors office, also on that sheet is a HIPAA release allowing them to provide info to the insurance for billing.  That would be my guess that it comes second hand through the medical provider.

But then it would require them to do checks of this info for each person to track down if that place of employment actually does provide insurance to them.  I have to admit this sounds like alot of money for them to do all this, not to mention a ton of time.  And then you would get your typical invasion of privacy cry's.  Seems like a big expense for them to try to enforce.

[Billy Zabka]

Since my Spouse works for a school district, she is eligible, yet the medical coverage options at my work have always been better.

One question I have.

What kind of amazing health insurance do you have?

When I was 22 and in grad school (2004), I paid in to my mother's (a teacher in Texas) health insurance.  I blew out my ACL and had the full reconstructive surgery.  For $280.

What kind of amazing health insurance do you have that is better than the school district plan?

[Andyzipp]

One question I have.

What kind of amazing health insurance do you have?

When I was 22 and in grad school (2004), I paid in to my mother's (a teacher in Texas) health insurance.  I blew out my ACL and had the full reconstructive surgery.  For $280.

What kind of amazing health insurance do you have that is better than the school district plan?

Well, I don't know about the OP, but the insurance plan I'm on, your surgery would have cost you $20 for the inital doctor's visit, and then nothing.  We have 100% coverage and no deductable in network.

[Limey]

The health insurance system is breaking down.  The quality of healthcare itself is superior.  It is the insurance that must be addressed.

As the system is designed so that the vast majority of customers can only access it with insurance, the system breaks down when insurance breaks down.

[Limey]

fix one side, break the other.  What happens when 10's of millions of people are able to fully avail themselves of high-quality health-care when the capacity of such quality cannot increase nearly as fast?

Already there.  Circa 50 million Americans don't have health insurance.  I'm sure some of those choose not to have it, I suspect the vast majority cannot afford it.

[Andyzipp]

Already there.  Circa 50 million Americans don't have health insurance.  I'm sure some of those choose not to have it, I suspect the vast majority cannot afford it.

Our system says they should do what it takes to get better jobs that provide insurance or make money to afford insurance.

[Limey]

First the thought that everyone is entitled to health care.  While I feel for those that cannot afford to get the best of care, the foundation of this society has been, you want something, work for it and you can get it.  Nothing is (or should be) given to you.  The problem is we all have a soft spot for those that seemingly cannot care for themselves so we make all sorts of things up to "help" them.  In the end it erodes that which made this country great.

The preamble of the Constitution says:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

[subnuclear]

Already there.  Circa 50 million Americans don't have health insurance.  I'm sure some of those choose not to have it, I suspect the vast majority cannot afford it.

of those 45 million:
14 million of those qualify for Medicaid but don't apply for it
12 million are illegal aliens (why they are counted as Americans is not clear, but they are in that number)
8 million have a household income greater than $75,000
8 million have a household income between $50,000-$75,000

Its a mixed bag of people.

[Jacksonian]

The preamble of the Constitution says:

Promote.  Not guarantee.  You can argue how well our government promotes the general welfare, but there's nothing in the Constitution that guarantees the general welfare.  Plus there's a number of ways the US government operates today that are agruably in opposition with the Constitution or in some way against the intended spirit of the Constitution.  It ain't perfect, but, IMO, it's better than anyone else's.

[Limey]

of those 45 million:
14 million of those qualify for Medicaid but don't apply for it
12 million are illegal aliens (why they are counted as Americans is not clear, but they are in that number)
8 million have a household income greater than $75,000
8 million have a household income between $50,000-$75,000

Its a mixed bag of people.

I think illegal aliens are counted because they can get free emergency treatment, which is the most expensive form of healthcare, and those of us with health insurance pay for it.

[Limey]

Promote.  Not guarantee.  You can argue how well our government promotes the general welfare, but there's nothing in the Constitution that guarantees the general welfare.  Plus there's a number of ways the US government operates today that are agruably in opposition with the Constitution or in some way against the intended spirit of the Constitution.  It ain't perfect, but, IMO, it's better than anyone else's.

Understood.  I'm merely using this to juxtapose the interpretation that the US is foundded on the principle of "I got mine, you get your own".  How the general welfare is promoted is a matter of opinion.  For healhtcare, the US decided to go with a private hospital system paid for, in the vast majority of cases, by insurance.  Not a system embraced by any other industrialised and/or first world country, but it is what it is.

Now that the system is breaking down (because of the insurance end of things) it's not out of character with the Constitution to consider fixes and/or alternatives.

[Duman]

I have always been an opponent of government run health care.  However, I am conflicted now as a I watch my friends deal with they system. Both are teachers.  Two months ago, her esophagus ruptured and she has been in the hospital since.  She has had over 25 surgeries and is still in ICU.  They hope to start bringing her up out of the drug induced unconsciousness soon.  Her leave has already been exhausted.  He is only able to work a few days a week because the hospital is an hour away. 

It is possible she will live but I am scared of the medical bills that will follow.  I can't imagine being able to withstand that. 

When political/philosophical debates become real, that is when you find out where you really stand on these issues.

If you are so inclined, say a prayer for Rita, her family and her 2nd grade students who don't really get all of this.

[Froback]

Understood.  I'm merely using this to juxtapose the interpretation that the US is foundded on the principle of "I got mine, you get your own".  How the general welfare is promoted is a matter of opinion.  For healhtcare, the US decided to go with a private hospital system paid for, in the vast majority of cases, by insurance.  Not a system embraced by any other industrialised and/or first world country, but it is what it is.

Now that the system is breaking down (because of the insurance end of things) it's not out of character with the Constitution to consider fixes and/or alternatives.

Actually insurance only is a recent phenomenon.  As is several instances of the government "helping" people.  There was a time when the Texas had a massive drought (at least I think that was it) and applied for government aid.  The President at the time (might have been Teddy Roosevelt, but around that time) responded by stating something to the effect "I cannot find any basis in the Constitution to support the government intervening the help.  Furthermore I think it would undermine the unity that this country was founded up where neighbor picks up his neighbor in a time of need.  This breads at better relationship among the people rather than an expectation that someone else will help them out, so I don't need to".  This is a huge paraphrase on my part, I recall hearing a guy on the radio reading it off, so I don't have full recall of who it was and what he specifically said.

So the reality is that while at the time some government intervening has helped, and helped immediately, the long term results of this "help" ended up eroding alot of what made America the place it was and to a certain degree still is.  The other problem this governmental "help" caused was an expectation of them "helping" again and again until now we are looking at the government running too many things that people should be doing for themselves.  It creates an environment where insurance is more and more required.  Go ask some of the more elderly types like Jim (no offense) about if their parents or grandparents ever thought about insurance.  My guess is this is something that has come about around WWII and later.  And in the grand scheme of things, that is really recent stuff for the US.

[Limey]

I have always been an opponent of government run health care.  However, I am conflicted now as a I watch my friends deal with they system. Both are teachers.  Two months ago, her esophagus ruptured and she has been in the hospital since.  She has had over 25 surgeries and is still in ICU.  They hope to start bringing her up out of the drug induced unconsciousness soon.  Her leave has already been exhausted.  He is only able to work a few days a week because the hospital is an hour away. 

It is possible she will live but I am scared of the medical bills that will follow.  I can't imagine being able to withstand that. 

When political/philosophical debates become real, that is when you find out where you really stand on these issues.

If you are so inclined, say a prayer for Rita, her family and her 2nd grade students who don't really get all of this.

Over 50% of bankruptcies in the US are the result of unforeseen medical expenses.

By way of example, the UK, nor most other first world countries, does not have Government run healthcare.  They have a Government administered insurance scheme that pays for healthcare, and if you take that insurance to a Government-run provider, there are no out-of-pocket- expenses.  Not unlike most insurers over here, who will have different benefit structures based on in-network and out-of-network providers.

The UK also has a large private healthcare industry, and commercial insurance policies to pay for its use.  In fact, the purchase of a qualified insurance plan earns you a reduction in your National Insurance (think FICA) contributions.  My old employer over there provided such insurance to its employees for free.  So we had the option to go private, go "national health service" and we got a tax break (6% down from 9%).

Regardless, from what I understand, none of the Presidential front-runners from either side are proposing a Government-run ("single payer") scheme.

Just FYI, the Government-run Medicare scheme runs at a 3% cost overhead.  Insurance companies run at about 30% overhead.  Canada administers its health insurance system for less money than Blue Cross / Blue Shield spends to administer its insurance scheme for the State of Connecticut.

Lastly, who would you like to have making decisions about your treatment: an elected Government official (or an appointee of an elected Government official) who wants your vote, or a insurance company bean-counter whose bonus is predicated on not providing you with treatment?

[Limey]

Actually insurance only is a recent phenomenon.  As is several instances of the government "helping" people.  There was a time when the Texas had a massive drought (at least I think that was it) and applied for government aid.  The President at the time (might have been Teddy Roosevelt, but around that time) responded by stating something to the effect "I cannot find any basis in the Constitution to support the government intervening the help.  Furthermore I think it would undermine the unity that this country was founded up where neighbor picks up his neighbor in a time of need.  This breads at better relationship among the people rather than an expectation that someone else will help them out, so I don't need to".  This is a huge paraphrase on my part, I recall hearing a guy on the radio reading it off, so I don't have full recall of who it was and what he specifically said.

So the reality is that while at the time some government intervening has helped, and helped immediately, the long term results of this "help" ended up eroding alot of what made America the place it was and to a certain degree still is.  The other problem this governmental "help" caused was an expectation of them "helping" again and again until now we are looking at the government running too many things that people should be doing for themselves.  It creates an environment where insurance is more and more required.  Go ask some of the more elderly types like Jim (no offense) about if their parents or grandparents ever thought about insurance.  My guess is this is something that has come about around WWII and later.  And in the grand scheme of things, that is really recent stuff for the US.

The UK's National Health Service was only initiated after WWII.  Before that, it was pay-as-you-go for those that could, or charity hospitals for those that couldn't.

[Froback]

Lastly, who would you like to have making decisions about your treatment: an elected Government official (or an appointee of an elected Government official) who wants your vote, or a insurance company bean-counter whose bonus is predicated on not providing you with treatment?

I guess my point is that because of past actions (and inactions) our society has removed the possibility that I want, which is I should be able to go to the doctor of my choice and be charged a reasonable rate, outside of the need for insurance at all.  There should be no need, because they are providing a service like any other business and can do so at affordable rates if they don't have to fear I will sue them in to oblivion if they screw up.

There was a time when medical treatment occurred this way.  It is only through the recent past that this possibility was corrupted to the point that it doesn't seem possible anymore.

To me, if they are bad doctors, there is so many ways this can be reported and researched that those that don't practice good medicine would eventually be force out of business much like any other local business today.

But then I tend to take an idealic look at this type of thing, because I know it is feasible, but given human nature I am not so sure it is possible.

[Froback]

The UK's National Health Service was only initiated after WWII.  Before that, it was pay-as-you-go for those that could, or charity hospitals for those that couldn't.

It is my supposition that this is when things went down hill from a health care perspective.  No in quality, but in cost.  I think these actions were done with the best of intentions, but the long term impact ended up being more negative than the initial boon it was created to be.

[Limey]

It is my supposition that this is when things went down hill from a health care perspective.  No in quality, but in cost.  I think these actions were done with the best of intentions, but the long term impact ended up being more negative than the initial boon it was created to be.

How so?

[Jacksonian]

Lastly, who would you like to have making decisions about your treatment: an elected Government official (or an appointee of an elected Government official) who wants your vote,

"Vote for me or die!" 

I'm running for office.  Who's with me?

[Nate in IA]

"Vote for me or die!" 

I'm running for office.  Who's with me?

Sorry, I already signed up for Ron Paul's campaign.

[Jacksonian]

Sorry, I already signed up for Ron Paul's campaign.

Ok.  Nate in the "die" column.  Check.

[Nate in IA]

Ok.  Nate in the "die" column.  Check.

I don't live in New Hampshire but I sure do like their State motto...

[Limey]

"Vote for me or die!"

In John Grisham's "The Rainmaker", the fictitious company "Great Benefit" was based on the real company "American General" and their habit of selling health insurance policies in poor neighbourhoods and then not paying claims.

[Andyzipp]

"Vote for me or die!" 

I'm running for office.  Who's with me?

Cake for me, please.

[Froback]

How so?

Because more people began to feel they were entitled to more, because it was "given" to them.  If they had to pay for it directly themselves they would have had more appreciation for what they received, much like money earned vs given to someone.  If people realized how expensive things were getting, they would cause a market shift to more affordable options, thus controlling the market.  When it is someone else's responsibility (like the government) they don't care about the cost, and largely ignore the escalation of the issue until it becomes too late.

I am not sure I am being clear with this, but hope I am making my point.

Instead of people working for a goal they begin to treat the goal as being an entitlement.  The goal in this particular case is medical care.  If you want medical care, just like if you want food or shelter, you need to work for it in some fashion.  Even the Constitution does not indicate that the government is required to provide you with basic needs, but that you should desire these things enough to work for them and the Constitution provides protections for you to be able to work for these things.  People have perverted the meaning into the government shall ensure that everyone is provided for even on some basic level, which is wrong.  And it is wrong that it has been done that way.  Why work for that which is given freely?

Human nature is to do as little as possible to get maximum satisfaction.  Thus while your intent is to help people through things like government assisted medical care, you are in fact causing people to stop trying, because they don't "need" to.  You can look at Social Security in this country.  It was originally designed to help out people during the depression when work was hard to find and companies were going bankrupt with took pension plans with them, thus it was harder to put things away for retirement.  SS was create to offset some of these issues, but then people began to think of it as "their retirement fund" and stopped saving even when they could afford to.  Now the system is in a bad way, because 1) it was created to be a temporary thing and has grown into a permanent thing, and 2) because of so many people relying on it rather than being a supplement to what they should have been relying on it is becoming insolvent.  Too often the government tries to help out its citizens in short-sided ways without putting in place a way to end such programs that were intended to be temporary.  And eventually it becomes impossible to get rid of because society has adapted to rely on it, because of human nature to always want the maximum for the minimum effort.

Hope this makes some kind of sense and gives you an idea of where I am coming from.

[Limey]

Because more people began to feel they were entitled to more, because it was "given" to them.  If they had to pay for it directly themselves they would have had more appreciation for what they received, much like money earned vs given to someone.  If people realized how expensive things were getting, they would cause a market shift to more affordable options, thus controlling the market.  When it is someone else's responsibility (like the government) they don't care about the cost, and largely ignore the escalation of the issue until it becomes too late.

I am not sure I am being clear with this, but hope I am making my point.

Instead of people working for a goal they begin to treat the goal as being an entitlement.  The goal in this particular case is medical care.  If you want medical care, just like if you want food or shelter, you need to work for it in some fashion.  Even the Constitution does not indicate that the government is required to provide you with basic needs, but that you should desire these things enough to work for them and the Constitution provides protections for you to be able to work for these things.  People have perverted the meaning into the government shall ensure that everyone is provided for even on some basic level, which is wrong.  And it is wrong that it has been done that way.  Why work for that which is given freely?

Human nature is to do as little as possible to get maximum satisfaction.  Thus while your intent is to help people through things like government assisted medical care, you are in fact causing people to stop trying, because they don't "need" to.  You can look at Social Security in this country.  It was originally designed to help out people during the depression when work was hard to find and companies were going bankrupt with took pension plans with them, thus it was harder to put things away for retirement.  SS was create to offset some of these issues, but then people began to think of it as "their retirement fund" and stopped saving even when they could afford to.  Now the system is in a bad way, because 1) it was created to be a temporary thing and has grown into a permanent thing, and 2) because of so many people relying on it rather than being a supplement to what they should have been relying on it is becoming insolvent.  Too often the government tries to help out its citizens in short-sided ways without putting in place a way to end such programs that were intended to be temporary.  And eventually it becomes impossible to get rid of because society has adapted to rely on it, because of human nature to always want the maximum for the minimum effort.

Hope this makes some kind of sense and gives you an idea of where I am coming from.

Not to dismiss your well laid out missive, I believe that, in a civilised society, everyone should be entitled to healthcare.  How a society cares for its sick is a barometer of society as a whole.

Irrespective of that touchy-feely stuff, the healthcare system in this country is a major drain on businesses, particularly heavy industry which is getting the crap kicked out of it by everyone else, and restricts the abilities of individuals to pursue their dreams and desires.  It restricts entrepreneurship and holds families in poverty.  In that, I would argue that it is un-American.

The Federal Government builds roads to aid commerce and mobility.  Providing healthcare would do exactly the same thing.

[NeilT]

Not to dismiss your well laid out missive, I believe that, in a civilised society, everyone should be entitled to healthcare.  How a society cares for its sick is a barometer of society as a whole.

Irrespective of that touchy-feely stuff, the healthcare system in this country is a major drain on businesses, particularly heavy industry which is getting the crap kicked out of it by everyone else, and restricts the abilities of individuals to pursue their dreams and desires.  It restricts entrepreneurship and holds families in poverty.  In that, I would argue that it is un-American.

The Federal Government builds roads to aid commerce and mobility.  Providing healthcare would do exactly the same thing.

Personally, I think local and state governments should be issuing bonds to provide health care.  Just me.

[BizidyDizidy]

Personally, I think local and state governments should be issuing bonds to provide health care.  Just me.

Aren't you a municipal bond attorney?

[Limey]

Personally, I think local and state governments should be issuing bonds to provide health care.  Just me.

Many States do have healthcare schemes (such as the PA scheme enjoyed by my in-laws).  I don't care if it's done at the State or Federal level, but I believe it can and should be done.  I understand that such schemes are heavily favoured in opinion polls (see other thread for comments about slanted polls, NTTAWWT).

[NeilT]

Aren't you a municipal bond attorney?

That has nothing to do with it.  Nothing.

[Froback]

Not to dismiss your well laid out missive, I believe that, in a civilized society, everyone should be entitled to healthcare.  How a society cares for its sick is a barometer of society as a whole.

Irrespective of that touchy-feely stuff, the healthcare system in this country is a major drain on businesses, particularly heavy industry which is getting the crap kicked out of it by everyone else, and restricts the abilities of individuals to pursue their dreams and desires.  It restricts entrepreneurship and holds families in poverty.  In that, I would argue that it is un-American.

The Federal Government builds roads to aid commerce and mobility.  Providing healthcare would do exactly the same thing.

I don't know I look at it differently I guess.  While I agree how a society cares for its sick is a good barometer, but I guess my perspective is that it is society's responsibility not the government.  So I separate the two.  I think when the government gets involved it removes the fabric of the society because society stops helping its own and lets someone else do it (in this case the government).

Health care should be an individual thing, what one person might need might be more than another, and not enough for still another.  When dealing with this kind of diversity it is best left to the individual and the society in which they exist, rather than have some government come in and make sweeping generalizations (because that is the best they can do).

As for the issue with big industry, they are being killed by unions and the fact that their competitors have an unfair advantage as a result of the way things are (international trade stuff combined with them not using Union labor in the US).  I recall hearing (so if the facts are a bit off, forgive) that a car made in a union plant makes about $250 profit for the company, where as the same car made in a non-union plant makes $2500 profit for the company.  When this is going on, it is hard for the companies using union workers to compete and they just can't move their base, because the expense (in cost and lost production) would be even more detrimental.  But that is a whole different can of worms.

But I think we are at a point where we have a run-away train as far as health care (and health insurance) is concerned.  That is why it as you stated "restricts entrepreneurship and holds families in poverty".  It has gone unchecked too long, because people were insulated from it by some factors like government intervention and health insurance and the like.  So in a way it is like an addict, we have become dependent on something that we shouldn't have been using in the first place.  It is much harder to get off of it when you get to this stage.  If we (as a society) can get off of it, it would be better in the long term, but very painful in the short term.  And I just don't think our society has the stomach to see it through.  This is evident by their losing resolve in other areas, just because it is hard.  But again that is another tangent I would rather avoid.  Tackle one beast at a time type of thing, you know.

[drew corleone]

I believe that, in a civilised society, everyone should be entitled to healthcare.  How a society cares for its sick is a barometer of society as a whole.

I agree, insomuch as it is a reflection of society, and not just government. But it's not as if society turns the proverbial blind eye to the underpriveleged. How many doctors volunteer their time at free clinics? How many philanthopic citizens participate in fund-raising efforts to help those that require specialty care?

The system is far from perfect, we'll all agree, but let's not slide down the slippery slope that portrays anyone with reservations regarding socialized medicine as a heatless, callous monster.

[Jacksonian]

Providing healthcare would do exactly the same thing.

This ignores freedoms the govt could then dispense with.

[JimR]

That has nothing to do with it.  Nothing.

a NeilT full employment measure

[NeilT]

a NeilT full employment measure

It may not be good public policy, but on a personal level it works for me.