Im not far from that bottom age honestly, but the biggest issue I have with being soft on this. I just had someone in my company get fired after being with them for 22 years. He's out of a job. That's not that worst part. He has NO healthcare. Health care is basically a modern form of slavery in this country, it makes people unwilling to try to move out on their own because either a) they can't make enough money to afford it or b) they can't make enought money to afford someone else.
You're a slave to the company that pays your health insurance.
As I said above I am in full agreement that getting healthcare through employers is an awful way to do it - not only as you say does it restrict people starting up on their own or switching jobs but the time you are most likely to be unemployed is when you have a severe health issue and most need the coverage which is madness.
My issue is more the logistical one of how to transition off a model that has been in place since World War 2 and therefore has a lot of our modern day healthcare infrastructure built around it. I feel it more urgent to focus on those who currently have no coverage, provide help to those struggling to afford their premiums/co-pays and to open up Medicare/Medicaid to buy-ins all of which which I feel is achievable by a modest increase in taxes for the wealthy. I’d hope that as more people tried the buy-ins to Medicare it would gradually lead to more of a phase out of employer health plans.
i appreciate there are risks to that approach but the alternative, which is as I understand it move to Canada’s model of coverage for most healthcare funded by taxes within 4 years, is a logistical nightmare I can’t see how you practically implement even if there was broad based support which I just don’t see currently.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Americans like the idea of "Medicare-for-all," but support flips to disapproval if it would result in higher taxes or longer waits for care.
www.apnews.com
