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.
I see it differently part of providing a strong incentive for individuals to work at your company is the benefits package. If i was a worker I'd demand the best health care or i'd work somewhere else. Employers are just as much focused on cost as they are on quality, so my argument, for your position, would be, do you think in an attempt to retain, top, talented, very highly educated workforce, companies like Microsoft, Apple, GE, and etc, would lower the standard of their benefits package and go with government run medical insurance?
Companies right now do not go with the lowest cost provider when offering medical insurance to their employees, they go with the company, that will offer the most coverage, does the most efficient job, and satisfies their employees needs. I highly doubt government will do any of the following.
I like how people celebrate the free-market for it's efficiency, but all of a sudden due to cost companies are going to scrape their medical insurance and move to the governments?? Come on great real, there are lower cost providers even for my companies insurance, but yet, they went with a larger more well known company, because of the level of service, they were willing to pay extra to satisfy the employees and offer a very competitive benefits package. I highly doubt any company is looking toward the government as a "highly efficient" competitive part of any benefits package.
How would you argue against this fact (most companies utilize higher cost better quality service programs even when there are cheaper one's in the market?)
This is partly true for large companies but for smaller ones it is not. The smaller companies will drop private coverage and go on the government plan. Some companies yes will do their best to keep under level people but lower level ones they could care less and in a market like today's people with Masters degree's are taking entry level positions.
There is zero incentive for companies to keep private plans.
This is partly true for large companies but for smaller ones it is not. The smaller companies will drop private coverage and go on the government plan. Some companies yes will do their best to keep under level people but lower level ones they could care less and in a market like today's people with Masters degree's are taking entry level positions.
There is zero incentive for companies to keep private plans.
yea well the government will make a crap load of money off a company like Wal-Mart
Yes, i see the government regulations, but you assume, companies, would not innovate to meet the standards and would just fall into government coverage even if it ends up becoming more expensive?
I think most companies even small businesses would rather not deal with all the paper work that is going to come with a government run health-care system, and will do just what they did when SOX's regulations were passed, they'll hire more workers to get in line with the regulations. No company ever wants to go to a government sponsored provider unless it's for a government backed contract and even those are an arm and a leg due to the paperwork.
Well who is to say what the paperwork requirements are. It will certainly be an administrative nightmare, but that will be the burden of the government buerucrats who will work at taxpayers expense, not a companies. For the company itself, it might be a simple process to opt out. SOX is a different process, because the government guidelines are asking public companies to audit their own books. And in that sense, the paperwork requirements that a government may require may very well be greater with a company private plan than a public plan - which would be another tool that the government can use to ensure that private insurance plans are rolled up into a one government service provider.
The real danger is that government plans could be kept artificially low for those that are using it, with taxes or deficit or increased medical cost passed on to non-government medical programs, making up the difference. The government can print money to pay for medical costs, or tax, or simply tell the hospitals "hey I am only going to pay you this much". And society pays the cost in terms of inflation, taxes, or increased medical passed on to those not on the public insurance plan. Private insurance cannot do that. In other words - those with private company plans would be paying for not only there own insurance, but the public government insurance as well. Everyone knows that will happen. The only question is the effect. So - why pay for both a public and private plan at the same time?
If the service level difference is truly there, if those on the public system will take the harsh reality that their medical service will be below par, then I can see private insurance still existing. But can you imagine the political pressure their will be to be competitive service wise, at least until the last private insurance company dies.
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.
