There is no debate to be had here. Both sides realize that health care is going to break employers and or employees over the next 15 to 20 years. Not good for all involved.
I’m not sure what the best remedy is, but this issue is best dealt with before we really start to feel the real hit.
I’m in favor of a Gov sponsored accrual system. One where every US citizen has a couple years of coverage at 18. Then as you work, you can add to it, say 1 year of coverage for every 5 years worked. Then you can use it as you like. We could make it beneficial for employers by covering new employees for the first year, so when that person is fully trained and making money for the Co., the company picks them up with tax break offsets. Employees in this system wouldn’t have to worry as much about layoffs and could make good long term career decisions without being dictated by medical coverage. I think a system like this would only lubricate the free market.
I would pay for some of this by slapping an additional 20% tax on alcohol, tobacco, all junk food, and all fast food. If you don’t want to pay, then don’t use those products. The more you don’t use those products, the less you cost the system.
We also need to realize that, like banks, insurance companies can will increasingly have an impact on the economy. Regulation is need to separate medical decisions from financial ones, as best we can. In a way, most medical decision don’t make sense from a financial standpoint anyways. FI, if I lopped off my finger and its going to cost 100K to reattach it, would I take a 50K payoff to live without a finger? The short answer is, YES! Thats a new boat for 1 lousy finger. Also, does a 700K surgery make sense for a 70 year old? On paper, No. If it were my grandfather? Absolutely. Is that 70 YO going to repay that 700K with productivity? No.
