As mentioned in an earlier post, employer sponsored health plans dominate the health care market. As already stated, this poses a problem on at least five levels:
1. It reduces the incentives private health insurers have to create a variety of products that could be used by those who do not have group coverage through their employer.
2. It creates a dependence of employees on the employer for health care.
3. It creates a one-size fits all approach for the employees of the company.
4. It creates an ethical problem where an employee’s health is a form of compensation.
5. It means if you lose your job, you lose your health insurance.
This has to change - and that is coming from a Benefits Manager at a Pharmaceutical Company.
One Size Fits All
Employer sponsored health plans usually provide extreme levels of coverage. They can be so rich that they provide many more benefits than 95% of employees need. These plans are of little use but of high cost to everyone enrolled. It could also be the exact opposite – providing little more than the basics and at high costs. The ability to find a plan based on an individual’s needs doesn’t exist in our current system because employer sponsored health plans are not designed with the individual, bur rather recruiting and the masses, in mind. An individual focused plan also won’t exist in a government system. It will only exist in a free market system.
This reality is one of the other major reasons for the rise in health care costs - plans designed with the masses in mind. The customer in our industry is the masses - not the individual. It is the employer and not the employee.
If we are to create a free market where companies compete for people as customers, then you have to create a market of customers. One of the easiest ways of doing that is by ending the employer monopoly over health care.
In the book, “The World is Flat,” Friedman argues for health care reform that ends the dependence of the employee on the employer. Some would argue that this eliminates a very important part of an employer’s ability to recruit and retain top talent. However, this change can be done in two ways:
1. National Health Care Plan
2. Employer Vouchers for Health Care
I have already proven through logic and reason that the first option is too costly, inefficient and unjust for us to adopt. If faced with the facts and a choice between free market reform and government reform, the answer for most becomes obvious. Furthermore, National Health Care would also truly eliminate an important part of an employer's ability to attract and retain top talent.
Vouchers
The second option preserves this ability, takes health care out of the hands of the employer, places health care decisions in the hands of those who need that freedom, and is an easy reform towards Freedom and Justice in Health Care.
Rather than an employer paying directly for an employee's health care in an employer sponsored health plan, an employer can provider a voucher the employee could use in choosing their own insurance, co-op or health share plan - tailored to their own medical needs - that they can take with them to whatever employer they choose to work for (footnote 1). The voucher becomes the competitive piece an employer can use in attracting and retaining their talent – not the plan.
Furthermore, the employer can still receive a tax deduction for a voucher they provide for a private health plan – but not for contributions to an employer sponsored plan – that tax treatment goes away.
The end of the employer sponsored health plan greatly opens up the market to innovate in its product offerings and prices and allows all citizens of every level, employed or unemployed, rich or poor, young or retired, to receive the benefits of the increased competition that will result in the end of the employer sponsored health plan and increase of millions of individual customers. It would figuratively open up the flood gates into an area all but dead by decades of drought. It would bring life to our health care system and all would benefit.
This change should make every heart leap for joy in the true opportunities and blessings that await our Nation after true reform that restores Freedom and Justice to the health care industry.
______________________
Footnotes
1. http://healthcare.cato.org/free-market-approach-health-care-reform
1. It reduces the incentives private health insurers have to create a variety of products that could be used by those who do not have group coverage through their employer.
2. It creates a dependence of employees on the employer for health care.
3. It creates a one-size fits all approach for the employees of the company.
4. It creates an ethical problem where an employee’s health is a form of compensation.
5. It means if you lose your job, you lose your health insurance.
This has to change - and that is coming from a Benefits Manager at a Pharmaceutical Company.
One Size Fits All
Employer sponsored health plans usually provide extreme levels of coverage. They can be so rich that they provide many more benefits than 95% of employees need. These plans are of little use but of high cost to everyone enrolled. It could also be the exact opposite – providing little more than the basics and at high costs. The ability to find a plan based on an individual’s needs doesn’t exist in our current system because employer sponsored health plans are not designed with the individual, bur rather recruiting and the masses, in mind. An individual focused plan also won’t exist in a government system. It will only exist in a free market system.
This reality is one of the other major reasons for the rise in health care costs - plans designed with the masses in mind. The customer in our industry is the masses - not the individual. It is the employer and not the employee.
If we are to create a free market where companies compete for people as customers, then you have to create a market of customers. One of the easiest ways of doing that is by ending the employer monopoly over health care.
In the book, “The World is Flat,” Friedman argues for health care reform that ends the dependence of the employee on the employer. Some would argue that this eliminates a very important part of an employer’s ability to recruit and retain top talent. However, this change can be done in two ways:
1. National Health Care Plan
2. Employer Vouchers for Health Care
I have already proven through logic and reason that the first option is too costly, inefficient and unjust for us to adopt. If faced with the facts and a choice between free market reform and government reform, the answer for most becomes obvious. Furthermore, National Health Care would also truly eliminate an important part of an employer's ability to attract and retain top talent.
Vouchers
The second option preserves this ability, takes health care out of the hands of the employer, places health care decisions in the hands of those who need that freedom, and is an easy reform towards Freedom and Justice in Health Care.
Rather than an employer paying directly for an employee's health care in an employer sponsored health plan, an employer can provider a voucher the employee could use in choosing their own insurance, co-op or health share plan - tailored to their own medical needs - that they can take with them to whatever employer they choose to work for (footnote 1). The voucher becomes the competitive piece an employer can use in attracting and retaining their talent – not the plan.
Furthermore, the employer can still receive a tax deduction for a voucher they provide for a private health plan – but not for contributions to an employer sponsored plan – that tax treatment goes away.
The end of the employer sponsored health plan greatly opens up the market to innovate in its product offerings and prices and allows all citizens of every level, employed or unemployed, rich or poor, young or retired, to receive the benefits of the increased competition that will result in the end of the employer sponsored health plan and increase of millions of individual customers. It would figuratively open up the flood gates into an area all but dead by decades of drought. It would bring life to our health care system and all would benefit.
This change should make every heart leap for joy in the true opportunities and blessings that await our Nation after true reform that restores Freedom and Justice to the health care industry.
______________________
Footnotes
1. http://healthcare.cato.org/free-market-approach-health-care-reform
0 comments: