U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Happy Easter!
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-14-2011, 10:53 AM
 
2,539 posts, read 2,313,777 times
Reputation: 492

Advertisements

Self funded plans, rather than fully funded plans, are less costly to employers, especially if the employer's stop-loss insurance is cheap, as it should be, from the government. The employer would then have a cheap healthcare plan, so he wouldn't have to gouge the employee. More cost savings to the employee, means a more healthy economy, and more jobs. This would be a modified version of Medicare, would allow for more competition among the healthcare plans. It wouldn't be single payer unless there is a dominant, low cost healthcare provider who has a good self funded plan. Catastophic loss would be carried by the government, and employers/employees would get a break.

Last edited by freefall; 06-14-2011 at 11:39 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-14-2011, 12:13 PM
 
Location: Portland, OR
8,803 posts, read 7,316,798 times
Reputation: 4496
Quote:
Originally Posted by freefall View Post
Self funded plans, rather than fully funded plans, are less costly to employers, especially if the employer's stop-loss insurance is cheap, as it should be, from the government. The employer would then have a cheap healthcare plan, so he wouldn't have to gouge the employee. More cost savings to the employee, means a more healthy economy, and more jobs. This would be a modified version of Medicare, would allow for more competition among the healthcare plans. It wouldn't be single payer unless there is a dominant, low cost healthcare provider who has a good self funded plan. Catastophic loss would be carried by the government, and employers/employees would get a break.
Yeh, catastrophic loss would be carried by the government, which is funded by taxpayers, who take the loss.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-14-2011, 12:17 PM
 
13,180 posts, read 12,719,450 times
Reputation: 4531
Quote:
Originally Posted by freefall View Post
Self funded plans, rather than fully funded plans, are less costly to employers, especially if the employer's stop-loss insurance is cheap, as it should be, from the government. The employer would then have a cheap healthcare plan, so he wouldn't have to gouge the employee. More cost savings to the employee, means a more healthy economy, and more jobs. This would be a modified version of Medicare, would allow for more competition among the healthcare plans. It wouldn't be single payer unless there is a dominant, low cost healthcare provider who has a good self funded plan. Catastophic loss would be carried by the government, and employers/employees would get a break.
Allow me to translate:

Employee's should take crappier insurance from their employers. That way it will be less costly for the employer. (duh) If the employer spends less money on the employee, then they will reward the employee by "gouging" him less.

Further benefits from employee's taking less benefits...more jobs for everyone!

( Because we all know corporations making their highest profits in history hire people out of the kindness of their heart....like what's going on now)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-14-2011, 12:18 PM
 
Location: Austin
29,005 posts, read 15,598,602 times
Reputation: 7753
Quote:
Originally Posted by freefall View Post
Catastophic loss would be carried by the government, and employers/employees would get a break.

And where do you think the government would get the money to cover those losses????

The taxpayers, so No thanks.

If your health care is not important enough for you to pay the entire cost of your health insurance, why should I pay for your health insurance ????
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-14-2011, 12:24 PM
 
13,180 posts, read 12,719,450 times
Reputation: 4531
I think I'm going to try your theory tomorrow at work.

I'm going to tell the boss I'm dropping my family's health insurance.

That should save him lots of money!

He will be so grateful that he will give me a raise in pay greater than the benefit I just gave up, AND hire my lazy cousin!

And I'll have the last laugh!..............Palin/Joe The Plumber 2012
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-14-2011, 12:30 PM
 
6,209 posts, read 6,603,302 times
Reputation: 3091
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003 View Post
And where do you think the government would get the money to cover those losses????

The taxpayers, so No thanks.

If your health care is not important enough for you to pay the entire cost of your health insurance, why should I pay for your health insurance ????
Let me spell it out for you. Because for many, most likely not you because you are a special case, the costs per month for for-profit health insurance premiums are approaching mortgage rate costs, that's why. Do you get it now? By the way, I don't live in a potato patch of a town I live in the DC area, not cheap.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-14-2011, 12:33 PM
 
Location: Hillsboro, OR
2,200 posts, read 3,684,886 times
Reputation: 1360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003 View Post
And where do you think the government would get the money to cover those losses????

The taxpayers, so No thanks.

If your health care is not important enough for you to pay the entire cost of your health insurance, why should I pay for your health insurance ????
That would be easy to say if health costs weren't already ridiculous.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-14-2011, 03:05 PM
 
2,539 posts, read 2,313,777 times
Reputation: 492
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTHokieFan View Post
Yeh, catastrophic loss would be carried by the government, which is funded by taxpayers, who take the loss.
The reason why the CEO of United Healthcare paid himself a billion dollar bonus a few years back is because the healthcare companies with deep pockets charge employers a ton to provide Full coverage to their employees.You are already paying the catastophic insurance 'tax' but don't realize it. If companies were allowed to Self-insure, without the worries of the catastrophic claim, all employers and employees would see a reduction in what they pay. Ultimately the country would win, because the probability of expensive claims is spread over millions of people. This would allow companies to hire more freely, because they aren't taking such a hit on having to provide full coverage.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-14-2011, 03:10 PM
 
14,253 posts, read 14,788,246 times
Reputation: 13621
Quote:
Originally Posted by freefall View Post
The reason why the CEO of United Healthcare paid himself a billion dollar bonus a few years back is because the healthcare companies with deep pockets charge employers a ton to provide Full coverage to their employees.You are already paying the catastophic insurance 'tax' but don't realize it. If companies were allowed to Self-insure, without the worries of the catastrophic claim, all employers and employees would see a reduction in what they pay. Ultimately the country would win, because the probability of expensive claims is spread over millions of people. This would allow companies to hire more freely, because they aren't taking such a hit on having to provide full coverage.
Many companies do self-insure. Mine does.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-14-2011, 03:12 PM
 
14,920 posts, read 10,757,489 times
Reputation: 4828
Quote:
Originally Posted by freefall View Post
Government should reduce rising employer healthcare costs that get passed on to employees
I agree. Divorce health insurance from employment and institute a universal, single payer healthcare system.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top