Union pulls support for Obamacare, a sign of things to come?

[bu villain]

It's really very simple.

Employers currently know that if they give health benefits, they are more likely to retain their employees for a longer period of time. They don't hire the best employees - they hire the ones that are the most profitable for the company. If they simply wanted the best, there would be no such thing as outsourcing. They want those that can make them profit, and if they can use health benefits to keep the employee there longer, they will. If you take that away nationwide, then they simply won't offer that benefit anymore. They aren't going to give out $500 more in salary and cut the health benefits, as that does not succeed in tying the employee to the company as tightly as health insurance does.
The employee doesn't know the cost, but he does know that if he leaves, he loses his health insurance - and many are afraid to lose it with the high cost of emergency care.

Healthcare benefits have a psychological impact on the employee more so than just salary, as people get attached to a doctor/physician, and many do not want to change to a company that may not have that same doctor/physician listed on their health care provider plans. For this reason, it is different than straight salary or vacation days.

This doesn't refute any of my points which to reiterate are:

(1) Total compensation would not significantly decrease if health care is not an offered benefit - you actually give evidence that bolsters my stance by saying that health benefits are worth more than the monetary face value to employers because they tie the employer more closely to the company.

(2) We should have a health care policy that removes barriers for the labor force to be more mobile/entrepreneurial

Two things that you do not seem to have contemplated is that, while you are willing to pay more to help cover others insurance costs, not everyone feels the same way as you. Many think that there is no problem to pay extra to help cover others, but others think that each should cover their own family and costs. Why should one group force their will on the other group?

It's not forcing my will because it must be implemented through a democratic process. If we only had to follow the laws we agree with on an individual level, that would be rather chaotic.

The other thing is that many of those that will end up suddenly insured, are not currently insured - by choice. They currently choose to spend their money on other luxury items - TVs, cars, better housing, etc (non-necessities). I used to see it all the time when I had a retail business. I sold car audio systems back then, and I saw many people that chose to spend their money on amps and subs, rather than get health insurance. These are a lot of the people that you will be insuring under Obamacare.

As I stated above, there will always be people who wish a certain law did not apply to them. If we can carve out reasonable exceptions, then that makes sense to do but in the case of health insurance, you really need everyone in from the beginning. It is the only way to avoid people from jumping on the wagon only after they get sick. Having everyone in the pool is an unfortunate necessity.