Any Conservatives For the Public Option? (dollars, Massachusetts, rates, doctor)

[CaptainNJ]

Originally Posted by Boompa

I'm a Conservative and I am smart enough to know that billions of Health Care Dollars are going to CEO salaries and bribes for Congressmen. These people are parasites draining 20% of the money going into the system. The most economic way to reform it is Single Payer and remove the cap from the Wage Tax to pay for it.

We no longer have Capitalism in this country we have Corporate Fascism and it has to stop

what makes you a conservative?

[lionking]

As far as option,the option I want is a government option for those that are deemed undesirable by the insurance companies.A person who is refused insurance or has to pay a huge percentage of their earnings for insurance due to health reasons needs another option that won't make their whole life perpetual poverty just to pay insurance or medical bills.

Both parties take bribes from insurance and other healthcare people to make laws that increase or protect profit and so insurance companies doesn't have to compete with each other and minimalize risk.

Or create reform that makes insurance accept all and charges based on ones income.Not very freemarket but then again the health industry is trying to dodge having to compete in a free market.At least that's the way I see it....

I would have no issue reading that insurance companies gained record profit if they were providing to all and letting doctors make decisions regarding what treatment is needed,and anything left was profit for them.Instead as a business they seek to loose customers instead of gain customers.They want to be in a business of waging odds and risk like casinos but they want to stack the deck.

[CaptainNJ]

Originally Posted by lionking

I would have no issue reading that insurance companies gained record profit if they were providing to all and letting doctors make decisions regarding what treatment is needed,and anything left was profit for them.Instead as a business they seek to loose customers instead of gain customers.They want to be in a business of waging odds and risk like casinos but they want to stack the deck.

you have any idea what kind of profits health insurance companies are making?

[shorebaby]

Originally Posted by Hoarfrost

Precisely how does it not make sense?

Public Plan is for those who don't have insurance or those who don't want their insurance. A company cannot simply decide that they will not cover employees already covered by a company plan.

They sure can, there is nothing to require employers to insure their employees.

[dorock99]

Originally Posted by shorebaby

HR 3200 applies an 8% tax to employers who do not provide health insurance. A lot cheaper than providing it, employers will dump their plans.

http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/R40724_20090727.pdf
Page 9 under employer mandate.

Also interesting look at individuL mandate. There is a 2.5% tax on individuals if they do not carry insurance.

Hey Shorebaby, how are you doing?

Employers with aggregate wages over $400,000 that chose not to offer coverage would be
required to make contributions equal to 8% of the average wages paid by the employer. Small
employers with aggregate wages below $250,000 would be exempt from requirements. Those
with aggregate wages over $250,000 and below $300,000 would be required to pay 2% of
average wages, those with aggregate wages over $300,000 and below $350,000 would be
required to pay 4%, and those with aggregate wages above $350,000 and below $400,000 would
be required to pay 6%.

Okay so let's do some math

I'm a small business with the following

35 Employees
Average Salary is 60,000
Cost (35*60,000) = 2,100,000 (Operational Cost of Wages in a year)

I met the first requirement of 400,000 based on average wages

Now, I can get private insurance (hypothetically for 400 for single and 500 family)

Only 10 of my employees are married
I'll pay 40% of the cost

25*(400*.6) = 6,000
10*(500*.6) = 3,000

My employees Pay 9,000 a month or 108,000 a year in prems

25*(400*.4) = 4,000
10*(500*.4) = 2,000

As the employer i pay 6,000 a month or 72,000 a year in prems

So total cost is 180,000 a year in Prems for medical coverage

Now the government is going to charge me 8% on how much i pay-out in salary

I pay-out 2,100,000*.08 = 168,000 dollars

My current plan 180,000
Gov plan is 168,000

Yea, that is a savings of 12,000 bucks

WAIT I TRICKED YOU

REMEMBER MY EMPLOYEES PAY A PORTION OF THE COST. I"M ONLY PAYING 40% of the COST.

IT only cost me 72,000 a year, so why would i move to the governments plan?????????

Now

72,000 i pay
168,000 i pay to the government if i have no medical insurance plan (would seem to me the gov is pushing for me to keep my plan not loose it)

See the errors of your thinking???? (Remember Employers pay partial cost in today's medical arena, so if anything, i think those plans where the employer paid 100 percent of cost, employees will now have to pay some of the cost for medical coverage. )


Now, if someone owns a small business my question would be are my prems and stuff in the range of what you pay and is the average salary i quoted higher than average for a company of this size>>?????

[Boompa]

Originally Posted by shorebaby

They sure can, there is nothing to require employers to insure their employees.

In San Francisco employers are required to provide Health Insurance or Pay into a City Plan for each employee. Sounds fair to me.
However if we went Single Payer it wouldn't matter.

[CaptainNJ]

Originally Posted by dorock99

Now, if someone owns a small business my question would be are my prems and stuff in the range of what you pay and is the average salary i quoted higher than average for a company of this size>>?????

for my company, the 8% would be significantly cheaper than paying for insurance privately. its a no brainer, they will quickly lose their coverage and be forced onto the government plan.

[Jill61]

Originally Posted by lionking

As far as option,the option I want is a government option for those that are deemed undesirable by the insurance companies.A person who is refused insurance or has to pay a huge percentage of their earnings for insurance due to health reasons needs another option that won't make their whole life perpetual poverty just to pay insurance or medical bills.

Both parties take bribes from insurance and other healthcare people to make laws that increase or protect profit and so insurance companies doesn't have to compete with each other and minimalize risk.

Or create reform that makes insurance accept all and charges based on ones income.Not very freemarket but then again the health industry is trying to dodge having to compete in a free market.At least that's the way I see it....

I would have no issue reading that insurance companies gained record profit if they were providing to all and letting doctors make decisions regarding what treatment is needed,and anything left was profit for them.Instead as a business they seek to loose customers instead of gain customers.They want to be in a business of waging odds and risk like casinos but they want to stack the deck.

The U.S. Insurance industry takes in $1 trillion in premiums every year and has assets of nearly $4 trillion. That's more than the GDPs of all but 2 countries in the entire world.

The CEOs of the top 10 life and health insurance companies in America, earn an average of $9-12 million a year.

In the meantime, we spend more on health care as a percentage of GDP than Japan, the UK, Germany & Switzerland. Yet we have a lower life expectancy and higher infant mortality rates.





FRONTLINE: sick around the world: Graphs: U.S. Health Stats Compared to Other Countries | PBS

[Boompa]

Originally Posted by CaptainNJ

what makes you a conservative?

For 35 years, until the Bush Dynasty, I was a Republican.
I believe in a Balanced Budget (Bush ccertainly didn't)
I believe we fight wars Congress has declared
I believe that not wanting Government between a Doctor and Patient applies in the case of Abortion too
etc etc

Hundreds of thousands of self respecting conservatives have left the GOP

If you identify with the Jerry Springer Brigade that's your problem

[shorebaby]

Originally Posted by Boompa

In San Francisco employers are required to provide Health Insurance or Pay into a City Plan for each employee. Sounds fair to me.
However if we went Single Payer it wouldn't matter.

Ok every where other than the Peoples Republic of San Fransisco insurance is optional. But look at page 9 of the link I posted above. It does what San Francisco does. It imposes an 8% tax which will entice businesses to dump their health insurance.