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 part of his healthcare plan, Obama plans to mandate (item #3 in link):
Employers that do not offer meaningful coverage or make a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees will be required to contribute a percentage of payroll toward the costs of the national plan.
He also stated that the plans offered to Federal Employees would be his baseline model. The Federal Government generally pays 72% of the premiums for their employees (see Government's Share in following link):
So, is Obama proposing that employers pick up 72% of the cost of premiums for all of their employees, and their families? In looking at the Federal Benefits Premiums Chart (next link provided, plan #112), the major Blue Cross program, with the lower family benefits, appears to cost $795 per month, with the employer paying $596 of this expense and employees the remaining $199.
Even with this plan, you have specific doctors you need to see for the coverage to apply, and a $600 per year "out of pocket" expenditure before the benefits kick in (next link, page 17)
Goverment run or goverment supported healthcare doesn't work. Besides, one would have hoped---really, I mean REALLY hoped----that with social security,medicare and medicaid costing too much(by adding to the current federal deficit and $30 - 40 trillion in unfunded future liability) and with Mr. Bush medicare part D adding more than $10 trillion in future cost(3 times more bigger than social security problem) we would not be working on another so-called welfare program.
I am now going to go back to watching Indiana Johns with my brothers. Indy is searching for holy grail. Like him, President Bush and Baby boomers know how to fly, land, no!
Last edited by jessica1000; 05-10-2008 at 06:06 PM..
Perhaps when the election comes into focus, employers might start publicizing the potential impact to their cost, and employee compensation.
I wonder if this would cause a shift in compensation, away from pay and more toward fringe benefits (employee ends up funding some/much of the eventual cost).
A few years back a number of the employers began making interviewees aware of the cost of providing the fringe benefits as a part of the package a person was being offered. These were obviously white collar jobs with large companies but it is not an insignificant cost.
I personally feel that the only way to get a handle on healthcare is to control the cost of services provided. Just saying that everyone is going to have health insurance will not solve the root issue which is the runaway escalation of costs. A friend of mine (who has insurance) recently had surgery and was in the hospital for 4 days/3 nights. The bill was over $50,000. When the insurance company gets bills like that, they are going to increase their rates which will then have to be passed along to the employee.
A few years back a number of the employers began making interviewees aware of the cost of providing the fringe benefits as a part of the package a person was being offered. These were obviously white collar jobs with large companies but it is not an insignificant cost.
I personally feel that the only way to get a handle on healthcare is to control the cost of services provided. Just saying that everyone is going to have health insurance will not solve the root issue which is the runaway escalation of costs. A friend of mine (who has insurance) recently had surgery and was in the hospital for 4 days/3 nights. The bill was over $50,000. When the insurance company gets bills like that, they are going to increase their rates which will then have to be passed along to the employee.
I agree.
In addition, how will his mandates effect small to mid sized companies or start-ups?
Just about everything is run by the government. Your property taxes, income taxes and sale taxes all go to government-run programs. Through our tax money, the government provides many services including the roads you drive on, the trash that gets picked up every week, the police response, etc. etc. etc. So I would say government-run programs work and work very well, because if you leave it up to the individuals, no one would give a damn. There is way too much "ME" in this country, and not enough "WE"
Universal health care would not be any different from the many government-run programs we are all accustomed to. Not having to go through greedy insurance companies, the savings will be immediate and huge. I have to give it to the greedy insurance companies though. Not only do they manage to buy off most of the politicians, they apparently succeed in brainwashing normally intelligent people as well.
Also, if we have universal health care, there would be no need for medicaid and medicare programs.
The problem is the US government isn't exactly good at keeping programs funded. This is why a lot of countries with Universal Healthcare lag far behind in medical technology. The thing is, there is no incentive to keep the technology up-to-date.
Unfortunately, healthcare isn't just something you can throw money into and expect to work overnight.
You mean first world countries like France, England and Canada lag far behind in medical technology? Wow! This is like totally new to me. But I will buy that anyway. Assuming the US has the greatest medical technology, what good would it do people if they can't afford it? Selfishness and greed, my friend, are the reason this country with the "greatest medical technology" throws its poor and sick out on the street like garbage.
You mean first world countries like France, England and Canada lag far behind in medical technology? Wow! This is like totally new to me. But I will buy that anyway. Assuming the US has the greatest medical technology, what good would it do people if they can't afford it? Selfishness and greed, my friend, are the reason this country with the "greatest medical technology" throws its poor and sick out on the street like garbage.
I suppose it's a trade off then. Either excellent service, but low availability, or excellent availability with poor service.
By the way, you should check out the survival rates of patients in those 'first world' countries. Often times the governments of European nations will pay for their citizens to come to the US for treatment, especially in cases of mental or trama sufferers.
In addition, how will his mandates effect small to mid sized companies or start-ups?
The key point is that he isn't offering his idea up as a Gov't provided service, resulting from taxes/revenue. Instead, he is offering up the idea of requiring employers to foot a decent portion of the bill, at least from what I can tell about his proposal and the cost of the largest (Blue Cross) healthcare program offered to federal employees and members of Congress.
So the point is that employers, and I didn't see any exemption for small businesses, will apparently have this new cost. I would expect to see this become a substantial discussion point as part of the post primary election.
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.
