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.
As fate would have it, six months down the road, Alice's husband (Artie) is involved in an auto accident that leaves him in a coma. Alice is now the sole support of the household. On top of all that, she is four months pregnant.
What would Alice's new employer do now?
Another potential dilemma, thanks for pointing this one out too.
If the employer hired Alice with the consideration that health insurance wouldn't need to be provided (assuming this is legal), and now due to circumstances beyond her control she is now uninsured, how would Obama's mandate for employer's kick in?
One other thing -- as far as who is responsible for providing healthcare coverage -- All three groups are (consumer, government, and employers).
The government has to be involved otherwise diseases, like polio or the flu or AIDS, could totally wipe out our population. It's nice to think that the government shouldn't be involved, but the reality is that it has to be involved.
Also, a good many diseases are inexpensive to treat yet can cost a fortune if they go untreated (like high blood pressure, diabetes, etc.). It's in the government's interest to keep the population healthy and productive.
Concerning the aspect of covering everyone, and unfunded mandates for employers, what about equitable treatment of employees?
Under the Obama proposal, if Alice and Betty apply for a job paying $10 per hour, they each will cost an employer about $21,000 per year, plus fringe benefits.
Let's assume Alice is married and her husband's employer provides the "required" health insurance, Alice won't need the coverage. However, Betty is single and the employer will need to provide the "required" health insurance, since Betty wouldn't have any without the job.
Betty will cost the employer at least $5,000 more than Alice due to the requirement to provide the health insurance. How would the Obama plan negate what appears to be an embedded inequity? How will Betty be able to equitably compete with Alice for the job (assuming equal skills for Alice and Betty)?
Under Obama's plan, employers who refuse to provide health coverage to their employees will be required to contribute a percentage of payroll to the national plan. So if employers cherry-pick the job applicants according to whether they need insurance or not, they will not be able to get away from the requirement to contribute to the national plan. There will be no financial advantage to the employer if he chooses Alice over Betty since the premiums he would have paid for Alice would instead go to the national plan. The employer will have to contribute either way. So Alice and Betty will be at a level playing field from the perspective of employability.
The whole point of insurance is to spread out risk among more people so that the cost of insurance is reduced. The more people that are enrolled, the better the economies of scale.
Say there is a new MRI machine in town A. The MRI machine is quite expensive, and the MRI operator has to recoup his investment. But there's only one patient in town who can afford to pay for an MRI scan (either through insurance or cash). The MRI operator will have to charge this one patient an exorbitant fee for the MRI investment to make financial sense. However, if there are thousands of patients who are insured, the cost of the MRI can be spread out among them such that each individual patient can now afford to have their scans. It's all about economies of scale.
When employers are required to cover their employees, you are bringing in a population of people who are younger and relatively healthier into the insurance pool. They will offset the older and sicker patients in the pool who disproportionately utilize health services. This brings down the overall cost of insurance than if you only have smaller pool to begin with.
Younger doesn't always equate to lower health care. The company I worked for had significant medical expenses due to 2 young active employees who broke their legs playing softball. Another significant expense (in the same year) was incurred when 3 young mothers had big problems with their newborns (1 had premature twins, 1 had significant heart defect requiring multiple surguries, and 1 had Down's Syndrome with heart defect). Needless to say that was the year that our insurance carrier DOUBLED our companies rates.
Under Obama's plan, employers who refuse to provide health coverage to their employees will be required to contribute a percentage of payroll to the national plan. So if employers cherry-pick the job applicants according to whether they need insurance or not, they will not be able to get away from the requirement to contribute to the national plan. There will be no financial advantage to the employer if he chooses Alice over Betty since the premiums he would have paid for Alice would instead go to the national plan. The employer will have to contribute either way. So Alice and Betty will be at a level playing field from the perspective of employability.
If an employer is paying insurance for some employees, does this require them to pay for the insurance for subsequently hired employees? I don't see this as a requirement in evaluating Obama's proposal, so what would preclude the employer from cherry picking subsequent applicants not requiring insurance?
If an employer is paying insurance for some employees, does this require them to pay for the insurance for subsequently hired employees? I don't see this as a requirement in evaluating Obama's proposal, so what would preclude the employer from cherry picking subsequent applicants not requiring insurance?
The fact is corporations are all about the bottom line. As expensive as it is for healthcare in this country it only makes sense they will cherry pick people. Then you are going to have people say they don't need it so they are chosen for the job.
I don't see how the government can mandate them to pay into the national fund for someone that is already covered by someone else as the poster you quoted implied. This seems that the increased cost of operating in the US will go up and it will become more feasible to move the job else where.
What happens to all the union/civil servant contracts? Are they all immediately converted to paying 25% of the cost of the premium? Can the Fed gov't legally change that contract?
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.
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.
