[polygotdomain]

I completely agree. While it's counter intuitive, many businesses want to maintain control of employee's healthcare. Some companies look at it as a way to compete by offering better benefits than their competitors. A lot of companies like controlling healthcare because it keeps employees tied to their employer. If you temporarily lose your insurance when you switch a job, all of the sudden switching doesn't look as good. When you get to really larger companies, then they have the ability to self-insure, which means they can control the costs a hell of a lot more.

Of course, since many companies prefer less regulation, the last thing they'd want to do is hand over the keys to what they do for the healthcare for their employees over to the government. With things how they are now, they can always cut or pair back their plans if they want to cut costs. That lever would be gone with single payer.

Like many things, the system is set up to benefit those in charge rather than those who it's meant to serve. You can look just about anywhere outside the US and see that universal healthcare is a much better system, but better for who? Not much of a benefit for those who make the decisions, so we keep the flawed system we have.

[TuringNYC]

>> Some companies look at it as a way to compete by offering better benefits than their competitors.

Do they really? I've see only select hedge funds actually advertise their health plans. Even that is usually that "we pay 100% of premiums." Most plans are impossible to assess until you actually get to the job and see the tiers available and support available. The devil is in the details -- network coverage for your specific state, co-insurance, co-pays, deductibles, % premium paid, support like QoS/tier.

[polygotdomain]

Competition based on benefits really comes in at the low end and the top end of employment.

If you're a tradesperson, just having insurance coverage is a big thing. It doesn't matter if it's not great, it's better than nothing. Leaving a job with insurance for one without insurance is likely going to cost you thousands of dollars out of pocket for the same coverage.

At the top end, companies will have plans that cover so many things at very high percentages, meaning that your out of pocket for health insurance will be surprisingly small. Less competitive companies simply can't offer that.

It's only in the middle where the details of a plan matter, and those are going to be the hardest details to find.

[franktankbank]

It doesn't take people long to learn that outside of extreme life shattering cases insurance nets you negative. That is, once a hospital that treated your broken arm learns you have insurance they will increase your net cost, that is (again) they will charge some to your insurance and then also the amount you pay out of pocket is somehow more than what they'd charge an uninsured person. Health insurance for the 20-40 crowd is a diabolical racket.

[joquarky]

My medications cost less now than they did when I had insurance.

I think this is a trend a lot of people need to keep an eye on. Heuristics are changing as the system grows more complex.