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.
Political leaders in the USA are liars... but in the UK perfectly honest
On the '60 year mistake' comment- Daniel Hannan is a minor MEP on the far right of the conservative party. He does not represent the majority veiw, even David Cameron (conservative party leader) has dismissed his comments as nuts. Does the NHS need reform? Yes- but in the direction of European social insurance systems, the veiw endorsed by most conservatives in this country.
Did you read my entire post? Seriously, dude, you do not want to get into a debate of wits with me, i will happily put you in your place, very quickly. (Yea the gloves are off, i'm getting really tired of the people that are just spreading lies, because of their inability to think on their own)
Now, in reference to the post in which you qoted if you actually read through the post and did not focus on the typo. You would have realized, i was referring to page 9 of shorebaby's government plan, which the US will charge 0.08 to companies that do not have a health plan, now if you could do basic math you would have realized this, because an intelligent and smart person would have noticed the typo and would have probably said how did he get to 168,000, oh let me use 4th grade division skills 168,000/2,100,000 and would have come up with 8%.
Basically attempting to tell me to get a calculator, shows that you are in fact unable to do basic math, if you want to challenge me to a debate on the issue try me? Are you up for the challenge?
Now, in reference to my numbers are way off, I'd highly advise, you to go back to my original post, in which i adjusted the numbers to reflect the average cost of a family of 4, which is 13,000 and i still was able to prove through 4th grade math and division, that the government charge of 8% will be much more expensive for a company of 35 or 35,000 people. If you continue to insult me because of your inability to reason, i will embarrass the hell out of you, so if you're looking for intelligent debate, i advise you to refrain from petty insults.
400 is low for single but not out of the question. i believe its around 450 or so for a single for us for our plan. however, 500 for a family? no way. we dont typically cover families but i believe the number is around 1100 or so for family coverage.
Yea, well, if i used what i currently pay for health care, my company pays 100% of the cost and i only pay $30 bucks a month, which amounts to 300-400 bucks a year, so if i used myself as the general rule and my co-workers, i could have made the numbers look significantly better.
I gave you the benefit of inflating the average salary to 60k just to prove that even under a seriously ridiculously high salary range for a small business or large business the option of not having a plan would be more expensive for private companies than actually having a health plan.
Now, like i said before, because you are not capable of doing basic math, do not come after me and attack me personally. If you could do basic math you'd be arguing my figures or coming up with your own based on the assumptions. You have most of the information, besides, the only thing you lack are state and federal subsidies, all of which will act to reduce cost for private companies, that are offering employees Medical Health Plans.
Anyway, what is the highest level of education you have obtained, i need to know, because I'm not using magic tricks unless you think basic math is a magic trick.
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%." -Page 9 of the Bill
NCHC | Facts About Healthcare - Health Insurance Costs (http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml - broken link) -cost of a family of 4, 13,000 a year which are included i my assumptions (13/12)*1000 = 1,078 a month) The article also stated most employers cover 70% of the cost, so basic math again 1078*.7 = 750. Use some more basic math employee pays 354 a month or 354*12 = 4,428 of the cost...it is really sad i have to break it down for you on this level. The short cut way would be to (13*.3)*(12*1000)/12 = 325
(3.9)(12000)/12 = 3,900 a year is what the employee would pay for family in a year
EE is usually half this cost (6.5*.3)*(12*1000)/12 = (1.95)*(12000)/12 = 1,950 for a single employee in a year (remember they are 70% of the company pop)
Which means the employer is paying -3,900+13,000 = 9,100 (employee+family cost to employer)
Which means the employer is paying -1,950 +6,500 = 4,550 (employe only cost to employer)
So again shortcut math for an employer with a workforce pop of 35k and 30% are families and i'd assume single is half the cost of family 70% are single
(9,100*10,500) = 95,550,000 Family Cost to the Employer in a year
(4,550*24,500) = 111,475,000 Employee only Cost to the Employer in a year
Total = 207,025,000
Now the final assumption is the average Salary, because the government said it would take 8% of the average cumulative salary if the company did not offer a medical plan
I assumed a company of 35k would have an average salary of 45,000 (which may be very high than the norm)
35*45 = 1,575,000,000 *.08 = 126,000,000 Million if you decide not to have a health plan for employees
If the government adds additional competition, the cost of premiums charged by the private industry, will have to fall to keep pace. Also, i'd anticipate companies, would charge employees more than 30% of the cost. Point of the matter is the public option would force this private insuranance companies to lower their premiums or go out of business, because companies will start to switch. Knowing the American Private Sector an additional competitor will knock prices down. Now, the option may not go down as low as government immediately, but you have to realize, the private sector offers a far superior product to government, so most employers and employees will continue to keep the option, because the service is much better. Anyone that disagree answer this question do you shop at Target or Walmart? - Those that want quality do not care about saving .10 cents on an item and will continue to shop at Target, those that are price sensitive will switch over to Walmart...Now, i reconfigured my numbers based exactly on stats given and provided, so under these assumption the government option is cheaper, but if i used other assumptions where employees paid more of the cost the companies plan was much cheaper. The end result depends on how serious private medical companies are in maintaining clients not only on reputation, but also now having to compete on price. The government option is good for the consumer!!!! SO STOP ARGUING AGAINST YOURSELF INTEREST.
IT IS JUST FREAKING BASIC MATH (IF YOU LIKE ME TO TUTOR YOU I CAN CERTAINLY DO IT IF IT WILL HELP YOU CRITICALLY THINK ON YOUR OWN)
Well smart one my numbers were very generous because i based them on an average Salary of 60,000 dollars. Now, if i were using a larger corporation don't you think the average salary would fall?? Perhaps to 45,000 as there would be more bottom dwellers than high paid executives??????????????
Let's raise the number to 35,000 (you should have been able to do the basic math on this)
Based off your request I'll pretend I'm a large corporation and I'll change my assumptions
I'm a large corporation with the following
35,000 Employees
Average Salary is 45,000
Cost (35*45,000) = 1,575,000,000 (Operational Cost of Wages in a year, yea that's billions)
I met the first requirement of 400,000 based on average wages
Now, I can get private insurance (hypothetically for 500 for single and 1083 family based on your data)
Only 30% of my employees are married (same percentage as before)
I'll pay 40% of the cost as i did before
I pay 10,420,000 a month or 125,000,000 a year in prems
Gov plan 1,575,000,000*.8 = 126,000,000 (with no plan in place)
Employer 124,000 a year in prems 125,00,000 (with a plan in place)
STILL FREAKING CHEAPER THAN NOT HAVING A PLAN IN PLACE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
YOU CANNOT ADD OR DO BASIC MATH IF YOU COULD NOT DEDUCE I WOULD RESPOND TO YOUR COMMENT WITH THIS!!
NOW ARGUE THAT AND STOP SPREADING LIES!
STILL SAVE MORE THAN A MILLION BUCKS EACH YEAR KEEPING YOUR OWN PLAN THAN GOING TO THE GOVERNMENT PLAN, SO EXPLAIN WHY A COMPANY WOULD MOVE TO THE GOVERNMENT PLAN AND ABANDON A PRIVATE PLAN?
Two Examples i've given now. One in which the gov plan is cheaper and one in which the gov plan is not.
1. Do you believe more competition decreases prices? - If Yes you should welcome the government as an additional competitor to the private industry
2. Do you believe the government will offer a far superior service in terms of efficiency and people will switch over? - If no then private insurance companies will continue to exist
3. Who here is willing to give up their current coverage for the public option? (Even if at the start it is considerably cheaper than you current coverage?)
Hopefully my ranting leads to some serious intelligent discussion on the issues. This is too complex an issue for us to let political quackery weigh on our decisions.
As a conservative, I find myself on the fence regarding the "public option." On one hand, I want all American's to have access to affordable health insurance, and I am also slightly offended by the obscene profits that insurance companies often make. I am especially offended by these profits while they turn away those with pre-existing conditions. Insuring the healthy appears to be the driving goal because its a cash cow for Big Insurance.
On the other hand, I don't believe government is being straight with us over who will pay for the "public option." As a result, I am not convinced that taxes won't be raised on the middle class. Further, history has shown that government cannot be trusted to draft, enact, and manage entitlement programs efficiently.
Therefore, I am on the fence on this issue. Where do other conservatives stand?
As a conservative your first objection should be the unconstitutionality of the federal government even making a "public option" proposal. Where does the US Constitution give Congress the authority to become involved with health care in any way shape or form?
All other issues, whether you think they are good or bad, are secondary to this violation of the Supreme Law of the Land. This issue has absolutely nothing to do with reforming health care, or providing taxpayer funded insurance, and everything to do with the federal government illegally seizing more power away from the States and the people.
As a conservative your first objection should be the unconstitutionality of the federal government even making a "public option" proposal. Where does the US Constitution give Congress the authority to become involved with health care in any way shape or form?
All other issues, whether you think they are good or bad, are secondary to this violation of the Supreme Law of the Land. This issue has absolutely nothing to do with reforming health care, or providing taxpayer funded insurance, and everything to do with the federal government illegally seizing more power away from the States and the people.
Yea, but as a small government libertarian the government as already over stepped its boundaries, by not allowing states the opportunity to enforce the 10th Amendment. Government also runs our agriculture industry through price controls, subsidies, and tariffs, they have no constitutional mandate to do this yet they do and you don't complain????
Get real dude, i'm willing to get rid of Social Security, Farm Subsidies, and a host of other government backed intervention into the private sector for Health Care, sorry, this much to important an issue, for an increasingly fat, unhealthy, lazy a$$ American public.
Yea, i hate the idea that government is going to have a lot of access to very personal information of mine, but if i have to trade in resources i'd rather have health care than a government sponsored annuity plan, high prices on wheat, to maintain a farming industry we do not need to the extent it is funded. The only thing i would advise is that the Obama Administration tackle all of the issues, a public option is a start, but we need tort reform and a number of other issues, to make this truly beneficial for all parties involved. LET THE GREAT DEBATE START!!
Some seem to be OK with the Government mandating the benefits, "Perks" that a business, large or small, have to give to their employees.
Well, personally - I'm NOT OK with the Government interferring with the "perks" I provide to my employees -
Government needs to stay AWAY from such things. It is not their place - nor their right.
Greatday you know i disagree with you on a lot of other issues, but we are in the same general ball park on our feelings of government. However, they coerce you into paying higher manufacturing prices, because they politically pander to labor union, lobbyist, and a host of other industries, and the first time they actually propose a service that could actually help the general population we are all blindly against it without even weighing the merits of the argument. This is silly and stupid and is again a perfect case of Americans arguing against their self interest.
Look, it's great to be of the principle of small government in theory, when its application significantly benefits you, but the more i weigh the options the more i feel this is something that is going to benefit me more than hurt me. This is about the only program backed by the government, that i may actually find useful. I'm certainly not going to get a dime from social security, the federal reserve prints money each year and destroys my wealth, we have so many subsidies going to large businesses that do not need, which help rise my cost as a consumer, business, and investor, this is actually the first time, i've actually felt, that i may pay into a program that actually significantly benefits me. I cannot say that about the rest of government waste. It is about controling the scarcity of resources and right the scarcity of health care is not in my favor. I mean it is more in my favor as a young worker, but each year i get older, each year i become a less profitable investment for the insurance companies, so I'll take a little bit of government intrusion. I wish and would prefer it was done by the State and voted in by the people, but if the states do not stand up for me in terms of my health, then i'll gladly accept the help form the federal government at a cost to some of my freedoms. Perhaps, i was wrong before about government in health care, maybe i'm right about everything else, but perhaps i'm wrong, well, i do not want to find out the hard way, my generation is the generation of change, and we have yet to see it take place, but it is bound to happen. We need a healthier America if we are seriously going to compete with the rest of the emerging world. WE need a larger America and a more prosperous America, we have a lot of debt to pay off and we need all the dam illegals and workers we can get.
We still have no idea how this will be paid for and even on here I have yet to have anyone tell me how we are going to pay for it.
I really have no problem with a PO so long as it is NOT mandated and so long as precautions are taken so that every employer does not dump their work force on the PO. I don't like this whole HIE thing that is controlled by the government. Why can't the government just offer their plan WITHOUT the HIE. Put it out there right next to the private companies and see if it works.
People act as if Health Care provided by their employer is Free, it isn't. Your Employer is paying good money for it and it is, in the end, coming out of what you could have been paid. That is why the Unions in Europe jumped on Nationalized Health Care. It means you can go into contract negotiations without having to worry about what you will give up to keep Health Care
What about people who do not work for Unions? How will it affect them?
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.
