Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
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)
 
Old 03-07-2009, 06:56 PM
 
Location: Pinal County, Arizona
25,100 posts, read 39,258,323 times
Reputation: 4937

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by HubbleRules View Post
It did NOT used to be this way 10 years ago. Family coverage was available and proportionately much less expensive than today.
To which I fully agree.

The point was and is, employees have been making contributions to the coverage for their families for decades. I believe TM is / was suggesting that employers would cover, 100% of the premium for the family coverage - which is not the case.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-07-2009, 06:58 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,297 posts, read 120,747,599 times
Reputation: 35920
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatday View Post
Do you need insuance to own that car TM?
I was thinking about this after I posted the last time. Do you need insurance if you buy the car on credit? It has been so long since I've done that; I don't remember, but I'm betting the creditor wants it insured.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TristansMommy View Post
LOL.. maybe in GD Universe last time I was looking for a job I never had to ask if the coverage extends only to ME etc.. That happened in the last 6 years!!
I just verified this with DH: he has always had to pay extra for me and our daughters. We have been married 29 years. Now maybe not every company does it this way, but it certainly is the case in IT/engineering.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-07-2009, 06:59 PM
 
Location: Pinal County, Arizona
25,100 posts, read 39,258,323 times
Reputation: 4937
If, IF there was a program, similar to what Members of Congress get AVAILABLE - and Americans were given CHOICES - purchasing this plan, or purchasing another plan of your choice or have no insurance at all, then, that would work

BUT, to FORCE Americans - to MANDATE that Americans have to have health insurance as dictated by the Government - will not fly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-07-2009, 07:04 PM
 
1,319 posts, read 1,617,185 times
Reputation: 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatday View Post
I did not say TM that it was the same with each and every employer.

I will say again, and stand by my statement, that it has been common place for employers to offer paid insurance for the employee and require the employee pay, in part, or in whole, for additional coverage for their family.

And, I dare say, I have far more experience that you have ever had TM. And, that is a fact.
OK - I see what you're saying...

I do think however that most people EXPECT to contribute towards employer sponsored health care in the private sector.

I don't know ANY private company where even employee-only coverage is free...

My point however is that the costs being passed on to employees are so high that many people are being forced to go without...

This is a good part of the reason why we have 47 million uninsured Americans today.

And the number of under-insured is probably at least as high.

Something has to be done. The current system is broken - and it is high time we admit it and create another one to replace it.

Obama get's high marks from me for having the courage to take on the difficult problems.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-07-2009, 07:07 PM
 
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
5,224 posts, read 5,011,689 times
Reputation: 908
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatday View Post
Mandating that EVERYONE has health insurance will not happen - Besides that, it will be IMPOSSIBLE to accomplish.

Um.. I wouldn't be so sure about that GD..

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/01/bu...tml?ref=policy

"Insurers, of course, are eager to influence the debate, and the industry trade association offered its own proposals last year. They include some important concessions, including the idea of requiring insurers to cover everyone. "

"But the industry is also taking a very public role in voicing concern about some of the proposals being floated. In supporting legislation that would prevent the companies from refusing to cover people with existing medical conditions, the insurers have said the government must require everyone to buy insurance, subsidizing the cost for those who cannot afford it. "

Now.. this is discussions.. and every aspect is included in these discussions.. But there is a push for making coverage available to EVERYONE .. including people like myself who have LIMITED, if ANY choices in insurance (currently I'm uninsured.. having trouble affording the monthly cost.. which is high and I have only 1 option, as all otheri nsurance companies will not insure me). AND.. if they are mandated to cover EVERYONE that applies, then they are also looking tomake it MANDATORY.. WHICH, I think is a great idea.. it spreads the risk over a larger pool...making premiums lower (same concept as with the system now.. the bigger the company the lower the per employer premium).

CHange is a coming.. it may not be a
complete UHC.. BUT .. it will definately be something positive.

"Given the current sentiment, the insurers understand that they won’t be able to beat back all efforts at sweeping change, as they did so successfully during the Clinton administration. Instead, they are scrambling to make sure they are not perceived as obstructing the goal of making the country’s health care more affordable and accessible."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-07-2009, 07:08 PM
 
1,319 posts, read 1,617,185 times
Reputation: 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatday View Post
If, IF there was a program, similar to what Members of Congress get AVAILABLE - and Americans were given CHOICES - purchasing this plan, or purchasing another plan of your choice or have no insurance at all, then, that would work

BUT, to FORCE Americans - to MANDATE that Americans have to have health insurance as dictated by the Government - will not fly.
National Health Insurance does not mean that you are forced to have only the coverage and plan provided by the government.

The well off will still be able to buy private supplemental insurance. They do that today in countries where there is national health care.

As far as Mandating coverage goes - I think it could be made to work. We mandate that people have auto insurance today. And all lenders mandate homeowner's insurance coverage as part of their mortgage agreement.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-07-2009, 07:29 PM
 
Location: Pinal County, Arizona
25,100 posts, read 39,258,323 times
Reputation: 4937
Quote:
Originally Posted by HubbleRules View Post
The well off will still be able to buy private supplemental insurance.
Why only supplemental? Why should I not be able to purchase, if I want to, private insurance only? Why should I be forced to contribute to a government run program?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-07-2009, 07:37 PM
 
1,319 posts, read 1,617,185 times
Reputation: 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatday View Post
Why only supplemental? Why should I not be able to purchase, if I want to, private insurance only? Why should I be forced to contribute to a government run program?
For the same reason that you are forced to contribute to Social Security, Medicare, National Defense, Federal Highway System, NASA, ....

It's for the public good...

By the way - you WOULD be able to buy private insurance - I'm sure it would still be offered.

But you'd still be on the hook for whatever the national coverage premiums are...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-07-2009, 07:49 PM
 
Location: Pinal County, Arizona
25,100 posts, read 39,258,323 times
Reputation: 4937
Quote:
Originally Posted by HubbleRules View Post
For the same reason that you are forced to contribute to Social Security, Medicare, National Defense, Federal Highway System, NASA, ....

But - I don't contribute to Social Security or Medicare
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-07-2009, 07:51 PM
 
Location: Pinal County, Arizona
25,100 posts, read 39,258,323 times
Reputation: 4937
Quote:
Originally Posted by HubbleRules View Post
But you'd still be on the hook for whatever the national coverage premiums are...
There are millions in the "underground economy" - paid cash - no witholdings - do not file tax returns.

What about them? Will they have insurance?
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

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:05 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top