In article ,
Jim Yanik wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote in news:kurtullman-
:

In article ,
Jim Yanik wrote:


It's to the employer's benefit to have healthy employees.

But it isn't to society's benefit to have the company's pay for it.

the company is not in business for "society",it's in business for itself.
but companies are profitable while paying for their employee's healthcare.
Gee, you 'd better tell that to GM, Chrysler, Ford, etc. They
missed that. Only Ford managed to dump off the healthcare to the UAW in
time.

It's also considered part of the employee's compensation for work
performed.

So what? Pay me directly and let me buy my own.

99% of the HC problems stem from that.

No,mostly from gov't regulation.
Stifles competition and adds overhead in compliance.

Mostly the fact that I only pay about 20% of my healthcare
expenses out of my own pocket. And that includes the o-o-p part of the
premium. Something that heavily subsidized, you get all sorts of pervese
incentives to overspend going on. The current plans only exacerbate that
concern.



--
Searching is half the fun: life is much more manageable when thought
of as a scavenger hunt as opposed to a surprise party.
Jimmy Buffett