sorry, I agree with his 'liberals'..
I think it should be taken out the 'employment' arena.. it should have never been attached. too many self-employed or part-time and low-wage and right now, unemployed for it to work as being 'employer' based..
I like the exchanges..no matter where you work, or if you work.. you can still get quality,affordable care.. I guess like medicare for all.
that doesn't mean employers can't offer extra benefit packages which would then, as you said, bring costs way down.. once you have your basic coverage on your own, employers could offer 'cosmetic' packages..braces(teeth),dental implants,boobs,lipo,hair removal etc.. or upgraded 'VIP' plans with private rooms,private for profit hospitals.. that kind of additional stuff you can chose.. or not chose, but still have your regular coverage without it being job related..
I also don't agree with his use of "Government paid for healthcare." because it implies that everyone is not paying into a 'single-payer' (and that payer is paying the doctors and hospitals).. and I can't really assume that's what he meant or that's what others would understand as his meaning because too many people like him really think it'll be totally free with no one but Mitt Romney paying for everyone to have healthcare..
My point is simply that if employers offered comprehensive health care for their employees, all of their employees, we wouldn't need Obamacare as it is now. I'm all for single payor ala' Medicare or the VA, but it's obvious business took the wrong track on this. Employers could be enoying higher retention, higher employee health, increased productivity, and so on...
That said, under both circumstances can you imagine how far rates will go down with that kind of participation?
