Government will force me to benefit from Insurance Reform

[Greebo]

I have been given reason to believe that my employer, who offers an insurance plan but at 100% our cost, will now be required to subsidize our health insurance due to their size (>50<100 employees). Or else - something like an or else of $2k/month/employee as I understand it.

This will reduce the amount I pay in premiums - which is a big chunk of my paycheck.

I honestly feel dirty thinking about it.

[fountainhead777]

But see you will only benefit in the short term because that is all the current government thinks in. You will pay much more taxes on to account for it and the costs of health care will go up and the quality will likely go down. So do not worry; we are all getting screwed.

[Greebo]

But see you will only benefit in the short term because that is all the current government thinks in. You will pay much more taxes on to account for it and the costs of health care will go up and the quality will likely go down. So do not worry; we are all getting screwed.

The assumption here is that Government is *incapable* of implementing successful plans. That is an invalid assumption.

I actually work in the health care industry. My client is a privately owned health ins. provider. My *employer* is an IT consulting company.

The general consensus at the client is "we don't have a ****ing clue how this will play out yet". It might very well work.

But working or not is not what is wrong with the legislation - nor why I feel dirty.

[Fbones24]

Is it wrong to accept assistance via government programs? I have been grappling with this question now for a while and have had this discussion with many people. I believe it is wrong as I would be asking people to live and work for my benefit and accepting public assistance would make me a hypocrite. Is there any way to justify benefiting from any government program (ie: unemployment, Social Security, etc.)? I think I too would feel very dirty.

[Greebo]

Is it wrong to accept assistance via government programs? [/q]

It is wrong to be forced to pay for government programs involuntarily. However, if you are forced to do so, then there is no reason not to benefit from them, so long as you do not lie in order to do so. If I'm forced to pay for Soc Sec, then I'll collect Soc Sec.

This is different. I'm benefiting from my employer being DIRECTLY forced to pay for something I, via my agreement with my employer, did not ask them to pay for.

[q]I have been grappling with this question now for a while and have had this discussion with many people. I believe it is wrong as I would be asking people to live and work for my benefit and accepting public assistance would make me a hypocrite. Is there any way to justify benefiting from any government program (ie: unemployment, Social Security, etc.)? I think I too would feel very dirty.

On the other hand, I own rental property. My taxes support section 8 housing. However, I REFUSE to take section 8 tenants - because I could get more rent from the Government than I could get from the free market tenants. I refuse to profit from Government more than I can profit from the free market - even though I know my taxes are helping pay for my own profit in that case.

Might not be much difference, but its a matter of pride, on the rentals.

[Jake_Ellison]

I have been given reason to believe that my employer, who offers an insurance plan but at 100% our cost, will now be required to subsidize our health insurance due to their size (>50<100 employees). Or else - something like an or else of $2k/month/employee as I understand it.

This will reduce the amount I pay in premiums - which is a big chunk of my paycheck.

I honestly feel dirty thinking about it.

I wouldn't worry. You'll soon be paying for that, as your employer will have to cut a greater proportion of his workforce than whatever percentage of his profits this will cost him. And even if your job's not at risk from that, it is at risk from the increased possibility that the whole business will become inviable and close.

[Alone]

The assumption here is that Government is *incapable* of implementing successful plans. That is an invalid assumption.

Any evidence to the contrary would be helpful in refuting the "assumption."

[freestyle]

I have been given reason to believe that my employer, who offers an insurance plan but at 100% our cost, will now be required to subsidize our health insurance due to their size (>50<100 employees). Or else - something like an or else of $2k/month/employee as I understand it.

This will reduce the amount I pay in premiums - which is a big chunk of my paycheck.

I honestly feel dirty thinking about it.

Where do you suppose this extra money will come from?

Don't feel guilty. You should first do all you can to make sure that you're not one of the employees they will cut so they can attempt to maintain their profit margins.

[Greebo]

Any evidence to the contrary would be helpful in refuting the "assumption."

I will not note the Military, the Courts, and the Federal or State police systems, as those are proper forms of Government and I believe your intention here was to seek to prove that Government cannot successfully implement NON proper systems. However, if you meant to suggest that Government simply failed outright at everything it attempts, then those three do deserve note.

A small sampling of non-morally justified activities/plans of the Government (at various levels) that have succeeded (at least to date, and for long enough to qualify as a success):

- National road system

- Apollo moon missions, not to mention NASA in general, despite budget issues, is an unqualified success in the realm of scientific research

- National parks

- Smithsonian Museums

- Fire protection services

Note, I am not endorsing the Government's undertaking of these programs - I am recognizing that they work - arguably as well as any free-market commercial system would work. In the case of the roads, possibly better (Government after all can force people to surrender their land in order to create a more efficient road network).

It is important to recall that as radicals for reason, it is necessary to be radicals for reality, as well. Asserting that Gov't programs cannot succeed is false, and making such assertions harms our credibility. Our argument rests on moral foundations - don't undermine those foundations with easily disprovable claims about irrelevant matters.