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.
That is very true. I wonder how the union members feel about this?
Nita
Not a union member, but I have family members that are and am pretty close to the topic.
If a worker is going to your factory, breathe in/work around hazardous chemicals and the company/OSHA doesn't provide adequate protection then health costs are more significant than raises. Plus you want your kids covered in case anything bad happens.
I've seen a lot of people being very responsible and going to work in places like this because of the health benefits so their kids can be covered, when they could work somewhere nicer but the benefits suck.
If there was an adequate form of government coverage. American workers could compete a lot better. There would be a lot of perks for America too. That doesn't matter though because this wouldn't help stock portfolios and investors, so its not an issue worth covering.
"the average survival rate for all forms of cancer is three to four percentage points higher in the United States than it is in Canada, thanks in part to Canada's long waiting lists"
Canadians seeking health care have a 'wait problem' | Washington Examiner (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/OpEd-Contributor/Canadians-seeking-health-care-have-a-wait-problem-46847927.html - broken link)
Lets think about this, we spend 50% more than Canada yet they get better bang for their buck and have a longer life expectancy (this was done by the World Health Organization). Imagine if we adopted some form of their system (even better, the French system or somewhere ranked higher) and still spent a larger portion of our GDP on it. If the money was appropriately spent, instead of on beauracracy and profits (1% profits, I'm not sure what the beauracracy is but I'm betting at least 10-15% of total health care spending) we'd be able to do great things.
Current estimates put U.S. health care spending at approximately 15.3% of GDP, second only to East Timor (Timor-Leste) among all United Nations member nations.[7] The health share of GDP is expected to continue its historical upward trend, reaching 19.5 percent of GDP by 2017.[32][33] Of each dollar spent on health care in the United States 31% goes to hospital care, 21% goes to physician services, 10% to pharmaceuticals, 8% to nursing homes, 7% to administrative costs, and 23% to all other categories (diagnostic laboratory services, pharmacies, medical device manufacturers, etc.[10] Reports on the percentage of costs that go to profits varies from 25-30%.
Theres a lot of administrative fat in here that could be cut out. Administration, redundant tests. Profits on meds, equipment, etc.
I never claimed it said nothing about health care, I claimed that it was not a deciding factor in them opening up a new facility north, per their own statements, I'm disputing the whole thread who claims it was a deciding factor.
Do you have the ability to read the title again? "Canada taking US Jobs because of lower health costs" Hell, not even the story claims that.
Sorry, but I do not hold a corporate position with their organization in order to be authorized to speak on their behalf. You and the OP though seem to think you have the authority to though, tell me, what position do you or the OP have with Toyota that authorizes you to claim it was health care costs, and tell me if your job title is higher than the one interviewed who acknowledged it was due to costs in training?
I tried to subtly tip you off to your error but since you're so full of yourself and being such a **** about what you think is my error. I'm going to correct you point blank:
That guy you quoted -- Gerry Fedchun -- the one interview in the article? He doesn't work for Toyota, he's the president of the Canadian Auto Parts Manufacturers’ Association. Says so clearly right in the article. There are no statements from anyone who works for Toyota in that article.
The entire industrialized world is doing it. Employer based Medical Coverage is as obsolete as our railroads. Everyone else has Single Payer and the employers don't have to be involved
You're right: the employers don't have to be involved. Instead the tab is paid by exorbitant taxes on workers. Leftists complain that Walmart passes on to the states the cost of insuring its employees for health care. Canadian and European companies go Walmart one better by passing the cost on directly to their workers. Neat trick! No wonder American companies are moving off shore.
You're right: the employers don't have to be involved. Instead the tab is paid by exorbitant taxes on workers. Leftists complain that Walmart passes on to the states the cost of insuring its employees for health care. Canadian and European companies go Walmart one better by passing the cost on directly to their workers. Neat trick! No wonder American companies are moving off shore.
And yet the taxes they pay in Canada for health care cost both the employers and employees less than US employees and employers pay for health care including those health care costs paid for by taxation, i.e. Medicaid, hidden costs, etc.
Oh, and somewhere there's a post where it explains that Canadian employers pay a health care tax.
And yet the taxes they pay in Canada for health care cost both the employers and employees less than US employees and employers pay for health care including those health care costs paid for by taxation, i.e. Medicaid, hidden costs, etc.
Oh, and somewhere there's a post where it explains that Canadian employers pay a health care tax.
Does anyone wonder how an insurance company gets away with it? Check out ERISA, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
"ERISA establishes minimum standards for retirement, health, and other welfare benefit plans (including life insurance, disability insurance, and apprenticeship plans).
The protective laws under ERISA only apply to private employers (non-government) that offer employer-sponsored health insurance coverage and other benefit plans to employees. ERISA does not require employers to offer plans; it only sets rules for benefits that an employer chooses to offer. ERISA laws do not apply to privately purchased, individual insurance policies or benefits."
"ERISA, in the guise of protecting the working person's rights, replaced all state laws that protected an employee's rights to benefits from an insurance company or employee trust. Under the laws of most states, a wrongful denial of benefits can result in a jury verdict awarding the employee the denied benefits, damages for emotional distress, and punitive damages. Under ERISA, there is no right to a jury trial, and the most that an employee who has wrongly denied benefits can receive is the denied benefits. What has an insurance company or employee benefit trust fund got to lose from denying benefit claims? If they are sued, the most they can lose is the value of the benefits they denied in the first place. Where it used to be that an insurance company had to think hard and long before denying benefits because of the possibility of emotional distress and punitive damages, now, because of ERISA, denial is a no brainer. What is there to lose?"
That seems strange. I can't imagine a surgeon performing surgery without a prior auth unless it was an emergency surgery. If that is the case, the doctor should be able to appeal with the medical documentation.
Yes, and when the doctors' request falls on deaf ears, they can't do anything. As happened with Nataline. Here's a bit of time line from that case:
- On Dec. 10, Sarkisyan and her doctors made the first request for Cigna to pay for the liver transplant.
- On Dec 11, a Cigna-employed physician, Stephen Crawford, wrote back and said that the health-insurance policy would not pay for it. In the letter, Crawford says that Sarkisyan was too sick for the surgery to work.
- Sarkisyan's four UCLA doctors immediately wrote back to Cigna, appealing the decision. They argued Sarkisyan would have a 65% chance of surviving for six months after the liver transplant, based on studies of similar patients. The doctors reckoned Sarkisyan had an 85% chance of avoiding a recurrence of cancer because of the successful bone marrow transplant.
- Cigna hires an oncologist and transplant surgeon to review the appeal but never reversed its clinical decision.
- the California Nurses Association, a powerful union lobby, gets involved, joining Sarkisyan family and friends in protesting Cigna's decision.
- On Dec 19, the association announces plan to march on Cigna's office.
- On Dec 20, about 150 nurses and friends picket Cigna's office while others call.
- Later On Dec 20, Cigna decides to make an exception.
- Just a few hours later, Nataline dies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimMe
And they get what they pay for. Ask Liam Neeson.
I guess, you would say the same about Nataline and her family too.
How about you liberal/socialists be honest, for once? There is NO "Healthcare Reform." NOTHING is being reformed. What you want, is socialized medicine. You want everyone to pay for YOUR healthcare, thus reducing your own costs. At least, for once, be honest in your thoughts and I'd respect you more.
Its like saying "Prochoice." No, you aren't. You are PRO abortion (which I am for too). Just be honest and tell the truth for once.
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.
