Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Money and Finances
Reply to "30 years mortgages and employer-based healthcare"
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Universal health care is a separate issue from employer-sponsored health care. We could all be on the ACA and have a choice of the same range of health insurance companies. Then people wouldn't stay in crappy jobs just for the health care. Having the ACA for all Americans would promote entrepreneurship and continue to prop up the health insurance industry. I'm not a politician or an expert in health care, but I think that's the way to go in the US.[/quote] I agree. I understand that historically employers wanted to be able to entice good workers and one way to do that was to differentiate benefits. Over time, it became the norm to offer health care as a benefit. Why can't the employers ear mark the funds they would spend on healthcare per employee and allocate the money to the employee to spend on the ACA. Money would be payable directly to the exchange, the employee would not be able to take the money and use it for something else. Employees would still receive employer subsidized healthcare but it would no longer be tied to your job. [/quote] The problem with this setup is that it still stifles employment flexibility. If employers are still on the hook for a certain amount of subsidy for each employee, that increases the cost of each employee and stifles hiring and reduced or part time schedules. Rather than a set amount, it could be calculated as a percentage of their hourly wage or salary, remitted to a fund the same way FICA is, and then the employee’s insurance receives the subsidy. Since AI and the gig economy are here to stay, flexibility is everything. It is better for society to have 500 people employed 32 hours a week or on a lower full time salary than 400 people at 40 hours a week with 100 unemployed. In order to keep people employed, the cost of hiring and keeping employees needs to be reasonable. I think about this especially with my kids who will be going to college and becoming adults soon. My kids are not stupid or lazy, but the employment landscape looks scary.[/quote]
Options
Disable HTML in this message
Disable BB Code in this message
Disable smilies in this message
Review message
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics