Geisinger instituting no-hire policy for tobacco users

Don't individuals pay for their own Health Insurance? Why does the employer have to do it?

 

In america health insurance is actually offered by the employer to the employee to pay for. They pay anywhere from all of it, AKA unions to a quarter of it. Employers do not have the ability to go to other states and buy insurance. It is offered in that state only. So if you don't like the service and the rising in fees of your insurance company in your state chances are you are not going to get another one that won't be much cheaper. Insurance still operates like the old telephone and cable companies did. Its not a free market system in the least. Especially with the employer paying most of it. Now if the govt paid a bit and then their were options that would be different.

Australia is set up similar to that scenario. it is much cheaper and better insurance and coverage.

 

Have you never noticed in American shows, applicants for jobs asking about the insurance benefits, or if it "includes Dental"?

 

If it's not a proper Free Market system, maybe making it such will fix the problem. Government restrictions and input into something does not make it private or free market. True Capitalism has a society where the private sector runs everything (except the courts, police & army which are controlled by the government) without government restricting the freedom of private companies.

I'm all for systems paid for by taxation, but the big issue is what happens when you run out of money and the government cuts funds to public services.

This Forbes article highlights some of the problems currently facing "socialised medicine".

 

If this were some joke or satire meant to point out the inconsistency of our drug laws or healthcare system, then I'm all for it. If they're seriously going to turn down smokers for employment well, uh, that's going a bit far to say the least.

 

Eh, I'm not that surprised. I'm trying to quit smoking for the more affordable health insurance and better job options- I live in Oklahoma, where there are plenty of smokers and plenty of companies that won't hire smokers. It's kind of obnoxious, but it is good inspiration to quit rather than just contemplating it.

 

youu friends are correct. The amount of goverment involvement in our "private" healthcare system makes it a mockery to call it a free market system. A lot of people in this thread are using the phrase without knowing what it really means. A true free market healthcare system would have such features as competitve pricing, concern for the customers, and other such outdated concepts.

 

lol

 

Concern for the customers? lol.

 

The Banking crisis I think showcases what happens when you let an institution do whatever it wants with no proper control. Endless need for profit often leads to a company making risky decisions, with no regard for its employees or customers. Still executives get bonuses despite the failings of banks, while staff lower down get laid off. If that is Capitalism I'd rather not have it

 

There's a pretty big difference, though - you don't choose your race, or whether you are disabled; these things are out of your control and not your choice, therefore you can't be discriminated on them. But taking legal drugs IS a personal choice, and with every personal choice there comes the responsibility to bear the consequences - in this case, the risk of being turned down for a job. It stands to reason that if I'm a smoker, I'm not going to look for a job in a company who doesn't permit smoking. Logical.

 

Ritchie, a few points:

1. Your article has no credibility. At the beginning, it blindly asserts that Obamacare will force the US healthcare system into the "same reckoning" seen in systems with universal care. Really? Can you explain to me how a law forcing people to get personal health insurance coverage from private companies that operate in the free market (often, though not exclusively, for profit) will have the same fate as a system that is funded and directed entirely by the government? If that's true, hasn't she undermined her own argument (and yours)?

2. If you're going to argue that one thing is better than another thing, you actually have to, you know, compare them. Which makes it strange that the article included absolutely no discussion of the deficits in US healthcare. For instance, the complaints about how desperately cruel the system is that 25% of Canadians occasionally skip some medicines doesn't really seem so bad when you consider that in some states in the US, exactly the same percentage of people have no health insurance of any kind at all.

3. Nor does this article explain why, in spite of the dis-satsifaction, independent, credible, international organizations consistently rank these countries' healthcare systems as superior to the US in terms of delivering the best care to the most people. Especially since these rankings are based on actual data, not just government promises or legal obligations that may not always be met in reality.

4. Much of the thrust of that article seems to be discussing how bad things are when a government obsessed with austerity underfunds the programs in question. Fine. But wouldn;t the logical solution there just be avoiding that scenario? In what other arena would you credibly argue "Maybe the government shouldn't do this because even if they are good at it now they would do a bad job if they got all their funding taken away." Isn't that true of literally everything? Should the UK privatize the military, the police, and the Parliament too? After all, they could do a pretty crappy job if someone made cuts that were too steep.

 

The problem with any system that works on limited funds is what to do when the funding runs out.
The UK's population is increasing by quite a rate and a small island is not really meant for 70million people. There is not enough money to adequtely service every person in the country, and that is a problem. Because we don't spend as much of our GDP on healthcare as nations like France (who can afford to do it) we have various problems associated with cost-cutting.

The problem with private healthcare is the price (which may or may not be solved by having a proper free market) and the idea of placing value on human life. Everyone should get healthcare when they need it, that is moral and right. But having cheap healthcare is no good if it doesn't work very well.

The arguments I see generally levelled at Obamacare is that the prices won't decrease because government interferance in the system is greater not less. Then again, some people are just weird. I recall lots of protests about how bad US healthcare was, yet when plans were put in to change it they still complained anyway.