Michael Ash skreiv:

> However, I will point out that while people can *in theory* quit their
> jobs at any time and go work for someone else, in practice it can be a
> little tougher.

In practice it depends on personal choices -AND- on the society where
you live.

> This is particularly true in the US where the quality of medical care
> available is often heavily dependent on the employer's health coverage.
> It's certainly true in theory that, say, a father of five with a lot
> of debt and some sick children can leave his job at any moment,
> in practice he might have a tough time of it.

Yes. So lack of good universal healthcare makes an employer -more- like
a feudal lors. The above concern, for example, is completely moot where
I live. There's only two criteria for qualifying for full medical
benefits; 1) Staying legally in the country and 2) For a period (actual
or planned) longer than one year. (which basically means tourists aren't
covered, unless they're EU-citizens in which case they are)

Still, that individual is, even in USA, permitted to work towards
increasing his independence. He can get new better qualifications. His
wife can apply for a job. He can save up money. He can apply for other
jobs (and quit his current one when he gets one) He can even start his
own business.

He may not easily be able to quit -tomorrow- but he has a fair chance of
being rid of the employer in a few years.

Eivind Kjorstad

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 09:09:27 +0100, Eivind Kjorstad
<eivindorama@gmail.com> wrote:

>Michael Ash skreiv:
>
>> However, I will point out that while people can *in theory* quit their
>> jobs at any time and go work for someone else, in practice it can be a
>> little tougher.

>In practice it depends on personal choices -AND- on the society where
>you live.

>> This is particularly true in the US where the quality of medical care
>> available is often heavily dependent on the employer's health coverage.
>> It's certainly true in theory that, say, a father of five with a lot
>> of debt and some sick children can leave his job at any moment,
>> in practice he might have a tough time of it.

>Yes. So lack of good universal healthcare makes an employer -more- like
>a feudal lord.

False dichotomy - there are choices beyond "universal healthcare" and
"employer-provided healthcare".


--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*John.Schilling@alumni.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 18:05:47 -0800, John Schilling
<schillin@spock.usc.edu> wrote:

>On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 09:09:27 +0100, Eivind Kjorstad
><eivindorama@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Michael Ash skreiv:
>>
>>> However, I will point out that while people can *in theory* quit their
>>> jobs at any time and go work for someone else, in practice it can be a
>>> little tougher.
>
>>In practice it depends on personal choices -AND- on the society where
>>you live.
>
>>> This is particularly true in the US where the quality of medical care
>>> available is often heavily dependent on the employer's health coverage.
>>> It's certainly true in theory that, say, a father of five with a lot
>>> of debt and some sick children can leave his job at any moment,
>>> in practice he might have a tough time of it.
>
>>Yes. So lack of good universal healthcare makes an employer -more- like
>>a feudal lord.
>
>False dichotomy - there are choices beyond "universal healthcare" and
>"employer-provided healthcare".

Are there?

David Johnston wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 18:05:47 -0800, John Schilling
> <schillin@spock.usc.edu> wrote:
>> False dichotomy - there are choices beyond "universal healthcare" and
>> "employer-provided healthcare".
>
> Are there?

Of course there are. An obvious middle ground would be to break the
unholy connection between the healthcare company and the employer. One
of the chief problems is that market forces can't properly come to bear
between healthcare companies and those with health coverage (the
employees), because the employee has little or no say in which
healthcare company they choose, and when the employee leaves the company
for another one, he has to use the healthcare company that his new job
uses, regardless of his level of satisfaction with the previous one.

Markets work best when those providing the services have to answer to
those consuming the services, and that's just not happening now;
healthcare companies are beholden to the employers, not the employees,
hence resulting in inevitable dissatisfaction. Break that link and
things will very likely improve, not only in quality, but also in cost
management and prices as well, since healthcare companies don't want to
have expensive services that no one will buy.

(That doesn't mean that employers won't still contribute in some way to
the _funding_, they'll just write a check every month. If you want
something better, pay for the balance yourself. An obvious improvement
there is that the healthcare benefits you are getting from a given
employer are now an explicit dollar figure that you can weigh as a
factor in choosing where to work.)

--
Erik Max Francis && max@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM, Y!M erikmaxfrancis
War is terrible, but slavery is worse.
-- Winston Churchill

On 2007-12-20 18:59:32 -0800, David Johnston <david@block.net> said:

> On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 18:05:47 -0800, John Schilling
> <schillin@spock.usc.edu> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 09:09:27 +0100, Eivind Kjorstad
>> <eivindorama@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Michael Ash skreiv:
>>>
>>>> However, I will point out that while people can *in theory* quit their
>>>> jobs at any time and go work for someone else, in practice it can be a
>>>> little tougher.
>>
>>> In practice it depends on personal choices -AND- on the society where
>>> you live.
>>
>>>> This is particularly true in the US where the quality of medical care
>>>> available is often heavily dependent on the employer's health coverage.
>>>> It's certainly true in theory that, say, a father of five with a lot
>>>> of debt and some sick children can leave his job at any moment,
>>>> in practice he might have a tough time of it.
>>
>>> Yes. So lack of good universal healthcare makes an employer -more- like
>>> a feudal lord.
>>
>> False dichotomy - there are choices beyond "universal healthcare" and
>> "employer-provided healthcare".
>
> Are there?

I get my healthcare through the National Association for the
Self-Employed. I suppose that counts as "employer-provided," though,
since I supply it to myself.

I could, however, get it through DC Comics, if I wanted to go on their
plan. They're not my employer, though, they're my major customer.

kdb

David Johnston <david@block.net> wrote:

>>False dichotomy - there are choices beyond "universal healthcare" and
>>"employer-provided healthcare".
>
>Are there?

I should think so - or else what is that automatic transfer from my
checking account to my HMO each month?

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 02:59:32 GMT, David Johnston <david@block.net> wrote:

>On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 18:05:47 -0800, John Schilling
><schillin@spock.usc.edu> wrote:

>>On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 09:09:27 +0100, Eivind Kjorstad
>><eivindorama@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>Michael Ash skreiv:

>>>> However, I will point out that while people can *in theory* quit their
>>>> jobs at any time and go work for someone else, in practice it can be a
>>>> little tougher.

>>>In practice it depends on personal choices -AND- on the society where
>>>you live.

>>>> This is particularly true in the US where the quality of medical care
>>>> available is often heavily dependent on the employer's health coverage.
>>>> It's certainly true in theory that, say, a father of five with a lot
>>>> of debt and some sick children can leave his job at any moment,
>>>> in practice he might have a tough time of it.

>>>Yes. So lack of good universal healthcare makes an employer -more- like
>>>a feudal lord.

>>False dichotomy - there are choices beyond "universal healthcare" and
>>"employer-provided healthcare".

>Are there?

Yes, there are.


--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*John.Schillin@alumni.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-718-0955 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *

On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 02:59:32 GMT, David Johnston <david@block.net>
wrote:

>>False dichotomy - there are choices beyond "universal healthcare" and
>>"employer-provided healthcare".
>
>Are there?

Here's some examples:
Medicare
Medicaid
Pay as you go
Private insurance
The state pays for epidemic relief