Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueStreak
Healthcare coverage should have never been seen as a "perk" of employment in the first place. That notion in and of itself, makes me crazy. A "perk" is something that's nice to have, but you don't necessarily need. Paid time off, shift preferences, more vacation time and the like.
I'm beginning to believe that this uniquely American attitude that healthcare coverage is something only those who feel privileged by virtue of employment status and the type of job they have is at the root of our healthcare reform problems. What makes a union member, or anyone else for that matter, think they are more deserving of decent quality medical attention than anyone else?  If people want to be rewarded for working and/or rewarded more for working harder, as the case may be, then they can seek greater monetary compensation for their services.
The attitude we have towards any attempt at healthcare reform makes me want to puke. We should be treating it as a "need", not as a "perk". Because a "need" is exactly what it is.
Dave
|
It became a "perk" because of the confluence of government - mandated wage controls that were rolled out during WWII, and heated competition for labor during that time. Because employers couldn't compete for labor with wages, they resorted to competing with "perks", such as company paid health insurance. Following the war, unions included health benefits in collective bargaining.
If you don't like the "attitude" about treating benefits as employer - funded health care, you should dislike Obamacare as well. Obamacare cements the requirement of employer - funded healthcare into federal law.