Kurt Ullman wrote in
:
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.
Many companies -are- profitable while paying part or all of their employees
healthcare.
But the "Big Three" have been MISMANAGED.Unions are complicit in that.
It's also considered part of the employee's compensation for work
performed.
So what? Pay me directly and let me buy my own.
the original argument was that companies could get better deals thru group
discounts.However,that may not hold true anymore.
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.
No,because excessive gov't regulation STILL increases your costs even if
you're paying for them yourself.
employers are NOT "subsidizing" healthcare.
It's part of the employee's compensation,that they EARNED.
It's no freebie.
And WRT the "Big Three",their union employees apparently have NOT earned
their excessive benefits.They were not productive enough to pay for
them,and that's reflected in the companies unprofitability.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net