What's the "correct" response to this healthcare question...

When I get the "Well I agree more people should be covered but I like my insurance through my job and if there's a government option I'm afraid my company will try to save money by dropping insurance coverage and I'll be forced into the public plan." question.

My responses currently are usually twofold:

1) "You like your insurance because you haven't really had to use it. If you found yourself actually using it and demanding they pay you for what should be covered you would like your insurance a lot less." I can say this to people I know because they know I've been through healthcare and insurance hell with my 3 year old son and usually I know that they are talking about 1-2 trips to the doctor per year at the most from their current coverage.

2) "Don't you think if what you are saying is the case then companies and corporations would be clamoring for a government plan so they could save untold wads of cash? The fact is that a lot of people don't switch jobs or move around or start their own companies because they need health coverage. So it keeps a large number of people in place and semi-captive to employers who do provide health insurance."

I know that both of these responses usually do the trick but is there some actual clause or law or rule that is being advocated for along with this that would prevent employers from doing this? The people I hear this from are not teabaggers or birthers or wingnuts. They're usually moderate and/or dem sympathetic but have been swindled by the media maelstrom.

Please if you can refrain from the "YOU SHOULD KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS ALREADY WHY ARE YOU ASKING US!!!" or accussing me of whatever. I just have not seen any really more direct answer to this question and it's coming up a lot in conversations.

and there will be mechanisms in place that will prevent your company from dumping private insurance to save a few bucks.

They can, however, simply discontinue offering their employees insurance. Nothing is stopping them from doing that now, when you think about it, so nothing will change there except that if they do, you'll have another option.

The public option is for people who must buy coverage individually but can't afford it, for people with chronic health conditions, people who have exhausted their lifetime for profit insurance benefits, and others who are excluded from for profit plans.

who can't get insurance through her job and can't get it on her own because she had a kidney stone several years ago.

I've been uninsurable since 1987, locked out first by price and now by the fact that no company can be bothered to write a policy, even a catastrophic illness policy with a ten grand deductible.

perhaps, by having a public option available health insurance companies will be forced to compete with the government, in the way that UPS and FedEx compete with the USPS. With the right kind of regulations, this could possibly lead to lowering the cost of medical care for everyone, including employers.

I don't give a fuck what people like about their job's plan. Those stupid fuckers will probably be out of a job or their boss will fuck them over and change the plan anyway, so I see no need to build national policy about a bunch of complacent dumbfucks who just pulling a "screw you, I've got mine" because they're currently doing ok.

Believe me, I do agree. But most of these people aren't complacent dumbfucks they're just normal people who aren't political junkies or policy wonk types or losers like us (yes, me) who can sit on the internet all day and discuss this stuff ad nauseum and look up and read assorted bills or sit around and discuss what Joe Scarborough said. They're working people who aren't rich, and who aren't against government helping people, but are nonetheless concerned because they don't understand certain things and don't always have time or the ability to understand the nuances of what is a complicated system.

"if you like your private insurance you can keep it".

When he says that employees assume that their company will be REQUIRED to keep paying for it.

I understood why he was saying it during the primary. I no longer understand. It is disingenuous and misleading at best.

This kind of comment is one of the reasons the good guys are losing the message war.

And to your other point, in addition to saying that "You like your insurance now because you never have to use it" I also point out that there's no guarantee your employer is going to continue to fund that insurance anyway or make you pay more of a portion of a lesser productd.

Companies have already started dropping the policies or making employees pay a larger portion.

My own brother, who is a legacy beneficiary of a very large well known corporation, has to pay more money out of his pocket each year. He is 67. Just yesterday I asked him what he thought the future was with regard to his company continuing to pay for his medicare premium and private insurance premium. He told me he thought they would quit paying anything within three years. I asked him how he felt about that - he said that when he retired (7 years ago) it never crossed his mind that they would quit paying what they said they would pay. When I asked him what he could do about the reneged promises he said - absolutely nothing.

we have lost vision and dental insurance completely. Our office call co-pay has gone from $25 to $80 our prescription co-pay has gone from $3 to $5 to $25 now it's $50.This was in a union shop, wonder about the non-union ones!

I actually don't feel very sorry for him. He gets a pension and is much better situated than most. He really doesn't understand how good he has had it. I told him yesterday 95% of retirees(in the private sector) would probably like to change positions with him.

Your changes are very dramatic. I hope you get some good news.

to avoid big jumps in premium prices.

Every couple of years we'd get new policies, thick books of small print, new lists of in-network and out-of-network doctors, etc.

It's so odd to me that this would actually be a valid question during a time when literally millions of Americans are losing their jobs. It's just so damn short sighted.

We are a shortsighted nation. Even the non wingnuts among us and people who mean well have a bad tendency towards short sightedness and selfishness. It's sad but true.

NT

They will NEVER give back the quality coverage they used to offer and they will continue to soak up any raises the employees have coming. Insurance Companies will continue to squeeze as much bloated profit off of what is left, until people are given another option.

A Public Option is the ONLY guarantee people have ten years from now, against the Insurance Company paying only 50% for prescriptions if they are generic, $20,000 deductibles, and forcing the policy holder to pay 50% out of pocket on TOP tier plans.

Don't think it could happen? Think back to ten years ago to the insurance coverage you had then and compare it to the insurance coverage today. If you really want to know how insurance companies reacted to the government dropping Public Option, compare your coverage back in 1994 to today. People cannot afford the loss they are suffering on it today, which includes insurance premiums absorbing pay increases while paying out less, and it will only get a lot worse in the future.

If they are really happy with it today... It will NOT be there tomorrow, and they will need it tomorrow, but it will be too late to do anything about it.

Employers with payrolls over $500,000 are required to provide health insurance and will pay a fine if they do not provide it. This is the protection against employers dumping their employees into the public option.

Shouldn't we get the benefits?

or in the words of another Democrat "we have nothing to fear but fear itself."

Corporations and companies are only public trusts allowed to exist to help regulate commerce and promote the general welfare.

A universal safety net or government option is needed because corporations can fire employees, cancel coverage, and discriminate against clients with preexisting conditions. If you have a universal safety net, working for this circus isn't as dangerous. If you don't have a universal safety net, please be careful while walking on that tightrope. ;):scared::wow: