So you think that making people completely dependent on their employers for those cushy group rate discounts is a wise economic policy? You think that government subsidies to encourage people to stay at ****ty, dead-end jobs that they hate and that they suck at - instead of getting a better job or going back to school - is a wise economic policy? No offense, but WTF kind of retarded idea is that?
Who the **** is encouraging anyone to stay anywhere? And what government subsidies are you talking about? I'm talking about group rate insurance.
Having insurance options at a job sure as **** never encouraged me to stay there if the job sucked.
Then let's not pretend that this has anything at all to do with taxing health benefits specifically, when in reality you just don't like paying any taxes on anything.
Who the **** does like it? And, it DOES have to do with taxing benefits specifically. It has to do with increasing taxes when we're all already paying far too much.
That is absolutely the opposite of how economics works. Employer-funded health insurance means that everyone who ISN'T employed (or is employed by someone who doesn't provide health insurance) can't get it at all, because it drives up the costs of individual plans since group rate discounts are the norm.
Well, my experience working with Humana Insurance says differently.
It makes people dependent on their employers and unwilling to change jobs. And it makes people extremely vulnerable if they suddenly get laid off or get fired or whatever.
No, they aren't extremely vulnerable since your big government offers COBRA. So no, if they get fired or quit or laid off, they get COBRA that will tide them over until they get a new job.
And if people stay at crappy ass jobs they hate just for insurance purposes, that's THEIR problem, not mine, and certainly not the governments. If those people are so hard up they can't figure out how to quit one job with benefits and find another with benefits, then how is forcing them to pay more money going to help them?
What infuriates me to no end is when people who obviously have no understanding of economics try to pose as experts on economic policy.
Actually, I know quite a bit, and I also have bit of knowledge about insurance. But I never, not ONCE insinuated that I was an "expert" on economic policy. So, you may now apologize for misrepresenting what I actually HAVE stated.
Suppose I was earning $100K in income and was sick of paying taxes on it. So my employer agreed to not pay me anything, but just give me a $100K house each year as a "gift" or a "benefit." Do you think the government would look fondly on THAT? How is this any different?
Why do you think that the government deserves to have a cut of every goddamn cent or benefit or anything positive in our lives? We pay a ****ing income tax. That is enough. Forcing us to pay taxes on insurance is only going to make a situation worse. It's not going to change a goddamn thing except make people's wallets even smaller and the government's even bigger. ****ing lovely idea. :doh