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.
Let's say that I employ a bunch of people, and that I'm covering 80% of their premiums each month. If their premium is $500/mo, then I'm putting up $400/mo, per employee.
Along comes the "public option." By definition, it must be affordable, right? It's not going to be a $500 plan, right? No, it'll probably be more like $200-$300. But for the sake of this conversation, let's say it's $400/mo - the same as what I'm paying for my employees.
I can continue to pay $400, and the employees can put in $100, and I can pay for someone to administer that plan and deal with all the other hidden costs of providing healthcare as an employer, or I can say "forget this" and drop the whole thing and give my employees a $400/mo stipend to go buy whatever insurance they want.
Are you seeing it now? Employer provided coverage will practically disappear, and it won't take long.
It's so patently obvious what the Democrats in Congress (led by Obama) are trying to get to, it's ridiculous. We even have President Obama and Barney Frank openly admitting that a single payer system is their ultimate goal, and that a "public option" is the first step required in order to get there.
Anyone can advocate for it if that's really what they want, but they should at least be honest about their true intentions. It's such an obvious lie when the people here say "nobody's talking about a single payer system, just let us have this one teensie weensie little thing..." To those people, I say, "Sorry, but you're an obvious liar and despite all your attempts to ridicule those opposed to your view, it's not working, and everybody knows what you're really after."
On a semi-related note, I'm going to my local Congresscritter's town hall meeting tonight. On the agenda: healthcare. Should be interesting...
Well, i think your example highly depends on government still allowing employers to receive a tax credit for covering individuals. This is why we need a serious debate on the issue, because you have a very valid concern as a business owner that needs to be addressed.
This debate has so many different angles it is really hard to form an educated opinion without hearing from all the different people in health care coming forward and providing answers to the vast amount of questions.
Personally i think as long as government provides you with the tax incentive to continue to provide coverage, i think, you will continue to do it, but i have a feeling government will write some form of legislation, that makes it hard for you to opt out so quickly.
Anyway, that was my initial fear, i figured it would at some point maybe not in the first 10-20 years, but some where down the road it would turn into a single payer system. The question is do you think the medical insurance companies will go away that willingly? My response is no, even if the government runs a single payer system, they'll run it like they run defense contracts, in my opinion. They will awarded and contact third party insurance companies and their insurance providers for different sections of the country. I mean, the government is not interested in doing all the paper-work and leg work involved with providing coverage, but i believe, they do want to more hands on control, but none of the work.
Well, i think your example highly depends on government still allowing employers to receive a tax credit for covering individuals. This is why we need a serious debate on the issue, because you have a very valid concern as a business owner that needs to be addressed.
This debate has so many different angles it is really hard to form an educated opinion without hearing from all the different people in health care coming forward and providing answers to the vast amount of questions.
Personally i think as long as government provides you with the tax incentive to continue to provide coverage, i think, you will continue to do it, but i have a feeling government will write some form of legislation, that makes it hard for you to opt out so quickly.
Anyway, that was my initial fear, i figured it would at some point maybe not in the first 10-20 years, but some where down the road it would turn into a single payer system. The question is do you think the medical insurance companies will go away that willingly? My response is no, even if the government runs a single payer system, they'll run it like they run defense contracts, in my opinion. They will awarded and contact third party insurance companies and their insurance providers for different sections of the country. I mean, the government is not interested in doing all the paper-work and leg work involved with providing coverage, but i believe, they do want to more hands on control, but none of the work.
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.
Why should government supplement your health insurance if you're so small government? Seems like a big subsidy to the insurance industry, which as a small government conservative I would assume you would be against.
Go back and read the thread you will see why I answered this way.
I'm not here to defend insurance companies. But I think a reality check about their profits is in order. First of all insurance companies offer many lines of insurance besides health insurance. So when you see a profit statement from an insurance company like, say, the Hartford, you should understand that all that profit was not generated solely from health insurance. I suspect (although I don't know and perhaps someone more knowledgable about the health insurance industry can enlighten us) that the health insurance line is the least profitable for most insurers. The second point I'd like to make is your characterization of insurance company profits as "obscene." What measure are you using? I seem to remember that insurers' return on investment is about 6.5%. Microsoft's, by contrast, is about 30%. By that standard their profits do not appear to be obscene. Just sayin...
Yes, why don't we let someone more knowledgeable about the health insurance industry enlighten us.
Quote:
My name is Wendell Potter and for 20 years, I worked as a senior executive at health insurance companies, and I saw how they confuse their customers and dump the sick – all so they can satisfy their Wall Street investors.
I know from personal experience that members of Congress and the public have good reason to question the honesty and trustworthiness of the insurance industry. Insurers make promises they have no intention of keeping, they flout regulations designed to protect consumers, and they make it nearly impossible to understand—or even to obtain—information we need. As you hold hearings and discuss legislative proposals over the coming weeks, I encourage you to look very closely at the role for-profit insurance companies play in making our health care system both the most expensive and one of the most dysfunctional in the world.
. . .
It recently became abundantly clear to me that the industry’s charm offensive—which is the most visible part of duplicitous and well-financed PR and lobbying campaigns—may well shape reform in a way that benefits Wall Street far more than average Americans.
. . .
The average family doesn’t understand how Wall Street’s dictates determine whether they will be offered coverage, whether they can keep it, and how much they’ll be charged for it. But, in fact, Wall Street plays a powerful role. The top priority of for-profit companies is to drive up the value of their stock.
. . .
To help meet Wall Street’s relentless profit expectations, insurers routinely dump policyholders who are less profitable or who get sick. Insurers have several ways to cull the sick from their rolls. One is policy rescission. They look carefully to see if a sick policyholder may have omitted a minor illness, a pre-existing condition, when applying for coverage, and then they use that as justification to cancel the policy, even if the enrollee has never missed a premium payment.
. . .
They also dump small businesses whose employees’ medical claims exceed what insurance underwriters expected. All it takes is one illness or accident among employees at a small business to prompt an insurance company to hike the next year’s premiums so high that the employer has to cut benefits, shop for another carrier, or stop offering coverage altogether – leaving workers uninsured. The practice is known in the industry as ―purging. The purging of less profitable accounts through intentionally unrealistic rate increases helps explain why the number of small businesses offering coverage to their employees has fallen from 61 percent to 38 percent since 1993, according to the National Small Business Association.
This has been parroted half a dozen times in this thread alone. I believe the bills in the House have an amendment that does not allow companies to simply drop their employees health insurance plans and force them to go on the public option.
oh give me a break. that makes no sense. so what would be a justified reason for them to switch to the government plan?
oh give me a break. that makes no sense. so what would be a justified reason for them to switch to the government plan?
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.
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.
then the company just wont offer health insurance. whatever the lower cost option is, companies will take. since the purpose of this is to ultimately end up with only a public plan, thats what will happen.
you cant listen to what politicians say, you have to think what their real goal is. what they say means nothing.
A company cannot simply decide that they will not cover employees already covered by a company plan.
Come on, let's be honest here; yes they can. And they do. Which is kind of the point of needing a public option in the first place.
Companies are reducing and eliminating benefits all over the place. And what they do maintain, they "make up for" in a lack of monetary compensation by way of starting salaries and raises, so you have less cash in your pocket to spend since more of your compensation package is going towards covering the high cost of your health care.
According to Wendell Potter (quoted above), small businesses offering coverage to their employees has fallen from 61 percent to 38 percent since 1993. You can't blame the government for that -- that's entirely on the back of the health care industry that intentionally forces them out with higher and higher premiums.
The point is, that while it's reasonable to be concerned about corporations stopping offering paid health care as a benefit of employment with them, it's unreasonable not to recognize that the health care industry is already forcing employers out of providing health care to their employees, and it's a risk people are already taking without the safety net of a public option.
And if Big Insurance is forced to become more competitive, there's also at least as good a chance that more companies will start offering paid health insurance as a benefit to attract better employees and encourage retention, as there is for the opposite scenario the other side claims will happen.
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
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.
