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.
Small businesses don't have the large risk pool like larger companies do so their premiums are higher. If one employee incurs a costly illness, it can cause the premiums for the small business to skyrocket.
I don't think our "representatives" were trying to hurt small businesses with this bill but they certainly didn't help. It would have been nice if small businesses in a state or area could pool together for a lower rate.
Of course I prefer a single-payer system but in the meantime while we're wasting $$ on for-profit health insurance companies....that's an idea that could have helped small businesses.
hmm. well i don't consider myself liberal or conservative. but i think the fair thing would be that whatever they vote in, should apply to them also...hows that for fair?
Well first off , we cound not compete....with big business. Every time we tried to attract new and better workers , the pre existing issues would come up , and throw out our entire, sort of affordable ," plan". Very qualified people would come to us , looking for an entry level Company to latch onto...all looked promising until the issue of " benefits" came up . That retarded ed our ability to grow, and , over the years , became part of our down fall....we just could not compete.
Second, not being able to grow along with miss opportunities when we saw them, eventually drove away long time employees, who were the back bone of our niche business.
I reverted to making all workers independent contractors , paying more than the going scale ( which also cut our available growth funds ) , and eventually the end of the business. Sales were also effected. The Unions were a problem when competing for Government jobs , and larger contracts.The Union companies did have higher overhead than us , but kept the contracts , it was always a vicious circle.... I did hold on for 25 years , but never grew in size as the others that had and could provide the benefits. Just a small part of the problem , from a direct perspective, the ramifications were much more than I can easily relate here. Sort of being like a second class citizen on your own Country. We were in the Trucking Business , carving out a niche market in industrial machinery transport.
That's unfortunate. I find it intriguing that there have been many posts that have argued for free market solutions and blame givernment interference and regulation for the health care crisis.
Yet only one poster mentioned (at least in passing) enacting anti-trust laws to break up oligarchies, allow new entrepreneurs to venture into the market, increase competition and thus increase capitalism while at the same time lowering costs and providing services for consumers.
None of them have acknowledged that it is the "meddling government" that has allowed the anti-trust exemption from which these companies have profited greatly from.
Yet do they mention the lucrative contracts the government allowed oil companies to bid on in Iraq, making record profits while citizens were being gouged.? The "socialist-like" bailouts that started under a "fiscally responsible regime".
Lou Dobbs did a report a while back on a company (I think Dept of Defense) that was going to give a contract to a Euro company because American companies could not bid as low due to their health costs for employees.
Let's just keep it real, conservatives (Barry and the dems are guilty as well) are for "corporate socialism" and not at all concerned about true capitalism and competition, else they would ensure small business and entrepreneurs are encouraged and protected.
hmm. well i don't consider myself liberal or conservative. but i think the fair thing would be that whatever they vote in, should apply to them also...hows that for fair?
Nothing is or ever will be fair...when it comes to our elected officals....All I can say...so far ..is with what is being voted on today and tomorrow ( hopefully improved in the House ), is at last we have recognizing that health care is a right , and not a privilege, that alone is what we have been fighting for for 50 years, and can be considered progress.
Nothing is or ever will be fair...when it comes to our elected officals....All I can say...so far ..is with what is being voted on today and tomorrow ( hopefully improved in the House ), is at last we have recognizing that health care is a right , and not a privilege, that alone is what we have been fighting for for 50 years, and can be considered progress.
That's unfortunate. I find it intriguing that there have been many posts that have argued for free market solutions and blame government interference and regulation for the health care crisis.
Yet only one poster mentioned (at least in passing) enacting anti-trust laws to break up oligarchies, allow new entrepreneurs to venture into the market, increase competition and thus increase capitalism while at the same time lowering costs and providing services for consumers.
None of them have acknowledged that it is the "meddling government" that has allowed the anti-trust exemption from which these companies have profited greatly from.
Yet do they mention the lucrative contracts the government allowed oil companies to bid on in Iraq, making record profits while citizens were being gouged.? The "socialist-like" bailouts that started under a "fiscally responsible regime".
Lou Dibs did a report a while back on a company (I think Dept of Defense) that was going to give a contract to a Euro company because American companies could not bid as low due to their health costs for employees.
Let's just keep it real, conservatives (Barry and the Dem's are guilty as well) are for "corporate socialism" and not at all concerned about true capitalism and competition, else they would ensure small business and entrepreneurs are encouraged and protected.
They don't like the " protected" part one bit....... When we had deregulation in 1980 , I first was against it. I had carved out a niche within the system , that I could live with.... I soon found out , that under deregulation there were many opportunities available to me , as , I could change quickly , the big guys could not.... but , over the years , they did , with the help of the very people who promoted less regulation, that in the beginning made ther operating permits worthless , and did , cause the demise of a lot of old inefficient companies. The Unions were also a big part. They never wanted deregulation.
Well first off , we cound not compete....with big business. Every time we tried to attract new and better workers , the pre existing issues would come up , and throw out our entire, sort of affordable ," plan". Very qualified people would come to us , looking for an entry level Company to latch onto...all looked promising until the issue of " benefits" came up . That retarded ed our ability to grow, and , over the years , became part of our down fall....we just could not compete.
Second, not being able to grow along with miss opportunities when we saw them, eventually drove away long time employees, who were the back bone of our niche business.
I reverted to making all workers independent contractors , paying more than the going scale ( which also cut our available growth funds ) , and eventually the end of the business. Sales were also effected. The Unions were a problem when competing for Government jobs , and larger contracts.The Union companies did have higher overhead than us , but kept the contracts , it was always a vicious circle.... I did hold on for 25 years , but never grew in size as the others that had and could provide the benefits. Just a small part of the problem , from a direct perspective, the ramifications were much more than I can easily relate here. Sort of being like a second class citizen on your own Country. We were in the Trucking Business , carving out a niche market in industrial machinery transport.
Thank you for replying. I hope this new system works to help small business in every way. If not the dems should accept responsiblity and turn it all over to republicans.
I lean mostly to the left liberal side, but I am not so sure of the current bill that is going through the Senate. It looks like everyone was paid off to get what they want for their own state just to pass it. There is no doubt we need to reform the current system, so what would be your plan? I am currently one of the people who work full time, but my employer offers no insurance, and I cannot afford private insurance. Still, I feel this bill is flawed, so I thought I would ask the other side for their viewpoint.
How about focusing on the health CARE itself and not the stupid insurance? Insurance doesn't save lives, the CARE does.
As a seasoned independent health insurance agent, I can tell you that the larger corporate groups who self insure -- meaning they pay for their employees medical expenses except for catastrophic situations when the STOP-LOSS insurer steps in and pays, pay a LOT less than smaller businesses and get a lot more than the smaller businesses do for their investment because they are primarily only paying for the 5% of employees who are sick and they are not paying the insurance company to cover every single office visit. By using the insurance for BIG things only (which is what ALL insurance is SUPPOSED to be about), you get the protection you need and you save a ton of money.
Small businesses on the other hand, who use insurance agents who are nothing more than order takers for $20 office visit co-pay plans with low deductibles, pay through the nose for first dollar coverage. They are even gullible enough or stupid enough to think they have "the best" group health plan available (because it is the most expensive). However, they never stop to consider that if a valued employee fell ill and had to be on 10 expensive prescriptions each with a $50 co-pay, that would set the employee back $500 per month or $6000 per year JUST of Rx co-pays! What kind of (awful) protection is that? Isn't medical insurance supposed to PROTECT YOU when you are sick? Little do people realize that CO-PAY PLANS DO NOT PROTECT when protection is needed most. Not only that but they are THE MOST EXPENSIVE plans out there.
So when it comes to health insurance you DON'T always get what you pay for. In fact most of the time if you are smart, you'll pay a lot less and get more protection when it is most important. However, you have to think like the big companies to do this.
To a smaller company this means choosing a high deductible plan for the employees and then through a Health Reimbursement Arrangement, reimburse the employees for some or all of the initial expenses they have until they reach the deductible of $2000 or so (for an individual plan), when the insurance would kick in and cover everything --INCLUDING the RX, 100%.
This kind of set up is a win-win situation for the employee who is sick (as they get their needs met/reimbursed when they have them by the employer who gets a 100% tax deduction) and for all employees contributing to the plan as a LOT LESS is deducted from their paycheck because the plan is a more affordable high deductible plan -- which also has much better protection than the expensive co-pay plan.
But I digress. I started out saying why don't we just focus on the care and I meant it. The taxpayers would all pay a lot less and the problem of not providing adequate care to those who need it, would be solved if rather than FORCING a government insurance program down ALL of our throats when we clearly DON"T WANT IT and can't afford it and most of us don't need it, to instead just provide vouchers for care for those who need it. If those who need care are taken care of, that will solve the problem right? And what would be so horrible if we could do this for a tiny fraction of what the current plan is expected to cost (that we have to pay for for three years before it even starts and anyone gets any benefit)?
And like with the examples above, maybe at times there are 30 or 40 million uninsured (but more like 15 million continuously uninsured) of those maybe only 5% need care. So why didn't Obama first think to introduce a program that would simply take care of those who are sick? There is no need for us taxpayers to shell out hard earned money for the other 95% of uninsured who are healthy and don't need the insurance anyway. What is being proposed in Washington, if it is anything like what they have in Massachusetts, is tantamount to the overpriced co-pay plans most small businesses get because they don'[t know any better.
I lean mostly to the left liberal side, but I am not so sure of the current bill that is going through the Senate. It looks like everyone was paid off to get what they want for their own state just to pass it. There is no doubt we need to reform the current system, so what would be your plan? I am currently one of the people who work full time, but my employer offers no insurance, and I cannot afford private insurance. Still, I feel this bill is flawed, so I thought I would ask the other side for their viewpoint.
Absolutely nothing. In a free enterprise society, it will take care of itself. Our healthcare is not a government problem and should stop being that.
The constitution of our country has certain rules for which we may be taxed. Making sure your neighbor has everything he needs is not one of them. Our governments job is to keep our country safe so we can go about the business of taking care of ourselves. The government needs to get its nose out of our personal business. My health is a very personal thing. Seeking healthcare is my business, not the federal government's.
How about focusing on the health CARE itself and not the stupid insurance? Insurance doesn't save lives, the CARE does.
As a seasoned independent health insurance agent, I can tell you that the larger corporate groups who self insure -- meaning they pay for their employees medical expenses except for catastrophic situations when the STOP-LOSS insurer steps in and pays, pay a LOT less than smaller businesses and get a lot more than the smaller businesses do for their investment because they are primarily only paying for the 5% of employees who are sick and they are not paying the insurance company to cover every single office visit. By using the insurance for BIG things only (which is what ALL insurance is SUPPOSED to be about), you get the protection you need and you save a ton of money.
Small businesses on the other hand, who use insurance agents who are nothing more than order takers for $20 office visit co-pay plans with low deductibles, pay through the nose for first dollar coverage. They are even gullible enough or stupid enough to think they have "the best" group health plan available (because it is the most expensive). However, they never stop to consider that if a valued employee fell ill and had to be on 10 expensive prescriptions each with a $50 co-pay, that would set the employee back $500 per month or $6000 per year JUST of Rx co-pays! What kind of (awful) protection is that? Isn't medical insurance supposed to PROTECT YOU when you are sick? Little do people realize that CO-PAY PLANS DO NOT PROTECT when protection is needed most. Not only that but they are THE MOST EXPENSIVE plans out there.
So when it comes to health insurance you DON'T always get what you pay for. In fact most of the time if you are smart, you'll pay a lot less and get more protection when it is most important. However, you have to think like the big companies to do this.
To a smaller company this means choosing a high deductible plan for the employees and then through a Health Reimbursement Arrangement, reimburse the employees for some or all of the initial expenses they have until they reach the deductible of $2000 or so (for an individual plan), when the insurance would kick in and cover everything --INCLUDING the RX, 100%.
This kind of set up is a win-win situation for the employee who is sick (as they get their needs met/reimbursed when they have them by the employer who gets a 100% tax deduction) and for all employees contributing to the plan as a LOT LESS is deducted from their paycheck because the plan is a more affordable high deductible plan -- which also has much better protection than the expensive co-pay plan.
But I digress. I started out saying why don't we just focus on the care and I meant it. The taxpayers would all pay a lot less and the problem of not providing adequate care to those who need it, would be solved if rather than FORCING a government insurance program down ALL of our throats when we clearly DON"T WANT IT and can't afford it and most of us don't need it, to instead just provide vouchers for care for those who need it. If those who need care are taken care of, that will solve the problem right? And what would be so horrible if we could do this for a tiny fraction of what the current plan is expected to cost (that we have to pay for for three years before it even starts and anyone gets any benefit)?
And like with the examples above, maybe at times there are 30 or 40 million uninsured (but more like 15 million continuously uninsured) of those maybe only 5% need care. So why didn't Obama first think to introduce a program that would simply take care of those who are sick? There is no need for us taxpayers to shell out hard earned money for the other 95% of uninsured who are healthy and don't need the insurance anyway. What is being proposed in Washington, if it is anything like what they have in Massachusetts, is tantamount to the overpriced co-pay plans most small businesses get because they don'[t know any better.
The Unions share a lot of the blame for what we have all over the Country. They have bargained themselves into Cadillac health plans...and now , thats what all employies want. yes it is not only inflationary , but is inefficient for any small business to afford such coverage. health care for everyone is the best way. I agree ,get rid of " insurance" all together , and get on to the business of health care , not insurance as it has become known today.
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.
