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.
Wages are stagnating because employers will not/can not give raises when it costs so much more to insure their employees, year after year. Wages have actually decreased this past decade, in relation to inflation, for the first time in US history.
...
So, you are arguing that healthcare is the reason why many employers do not give raises? I find that hard to believe. Common sense and experience tells me that when the insurance goes upbeyond what a company wishes to subsidize for their employees, healthcare benefits are renegotiated between the company and insurance or a new insurance is found. If you are adding in the cost of insurance to the actual wage brought home as part of the employee package and are saying that wages have decreased, I would like to see that data.
If I may interject.....none of the ideas currently being discussed in Congress would nationalize health care. Private insurance companies would still be involved, doctors would still largely be privately employed (sans military, VA and those employed by county hospitals), and hospitals would still largely be privately owned. Heck, the public option has been removed, so all of this talk of Obama wanting to nationalize health care is psyco-babble. It would be more appropriate to debate whether the proposed changes would actually do anything to lower health-care costs and make insurance more affordable, without subsidy.
As for Germany, it's my understanding that they operate under more of a social insurance model, as opposed to Britian, in which the NHS pretty much runs everything (health care delivery and finance, although private insurance is an option).
Is not reconciliation between the two bills from the two houses still considering the public option? I swear I heard that...care to give me a link? I havent meantioned Obama - his 'proposed' ideas are not a proposed bill in either house, although some of his ideas are contained in the bills.
I dont understand the German model as you have given a very general definition to.
So, you are arguing that healthcare is the reason why many employers do not give raises? I find that hard to believe. Common sense and experience tells me that when the insurance goes upbeyond what a company wishes to subsidize for their employees, healthcare benefits are renegotiated between the company and insurance or a new insurance is found. If you are adding in the cost of insurance to the actual wage brought home as part of the employee package and are saying that wages have decreased, I would like to see that data.
You would be wrong, at least partly. Benefits could be renegotiated, and a new insurer could be found. In most cases, though, the employer absorbs much of the increase for fear of losing talented employees. In many cases, a small portion of the increase is shifted to employees in the form of higher deductbles, co-pays and co-insurance.
What many don't know is that a lot of small companies actually self-insure. True, the employees see an insurance company on their card, but that's only because the employee has paid a fee to allow employees to use that network, and the employer gets the benefit of the cost negotiations offered through that network. Still, the employer pays all costs directly through its insurance fund, then reinsurance is purchased to cover costs incurred over a certain threshold. In many cases, of course, the cost of reinsurance has risen.
Is not reconciliation between the two bills from the two houses still considering the public option? I swear I heard that...care to give me a link? I havent meantioned Obama - his 'proposed' ideas are not a proposed bill in either house, although some of his ideas are contained in the bills.
I dont understand the German model as you have given a very general definition to.
Right now it appears the public option is a no-go in the Senate version, and the House will undoubtedly have to live with the Senate version if anything's going to pass.
Cancer treatment in the U.S., in general, is way beyond that of rest of the world from my understanding. This is not to say that it isn't way expensive though.
I don't understand what this 'healthcare right' entails that so many speak of - nor have I heard anyone even TRY to define it. Could you please do so since you believe this? What are the limits of this right you speak of?
Try to picture this senorio in your mind. You go to college, open your own business, acquire health insurance, make 6 figures, get married, buy nice home, have 2.5 children, wife gets cancer, business sinks, lost your insurance, acquire medical dept, acquire new job, acquire new insurance, coverage denied to wife because of pre-existing condition, medical bills pile up. Lose house, lose wife. Bankrupt.
Purple - first off, I want to say thank you. As one who is for UHC, I appreciate your attempts to try to be civil when so many who have posted here against your opinions are not. It is impressive to me.
I do have some questions for you though, would you have available a percentage of Americans who have left the country to have a procedure performed? The only procedures I have heard commonly enough that many Americans have had done out of country is dental work (gone to Mexico).
You also say that you don't want the government running Healthcare - have you heard of a plan (you dont even have to go as far as a bill) where the government is NOT running the new changes to the system? The single-payer plan I have heard of is government ran - not government regulated. Might you have links to dispell my understanding? I admit that i havent looked at the German version of NHC - how is it different than the Canadian version or the British version (the two I have read about)?
I bet I can get those stats.
Just the other day I was reading about the growth of hospitals in Mexico because many are going there to have surgery done. People can save hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Quote:
The United States National Health Care Act establishes a unique American national universal health insurance program. The bill would create a publicly financed, privately delivered healthcare system that uses the already existing Medicare program by expanding and improving it to all U.S. residents, and all residents living in U.S. territories. The goal of the legislation is to ensure that all Americans will have access, guaranteed by law, to the highest quality and most cost effective healthcare services regardless of their employment, income, or healthcare status
I realize H.R. 676 doesn't allow for the sale of private insurance and I would be in favor of removing this ban. If people want to buy private health insurance, they should be allowed to.
Quote:
Who will run the health care system?
There is a myth that with national health insurance the government will make the medical decisions. But in a publicly financed, universal health care system, medical decisions are left to the patient and doctor, as they should be. This is true even in the countries like the U.K. and Spain (or in U.S. systems like the VA) that have socialized medicine.
In a public system, the public has a say in how it’s run. Cost containment measures are publicly managed at the state level by elected and appointed agencies that represent the public. This agency decides on the benefit package and negotiates doctor fees and hospital budgets. It also is responsible for health planning and the distribution of expensive technology. Thus, the total budget for health care is set through a public, democratic process. But clinical decisions remain a private matter between doctor and patient.
I would also be in favor of lowering the age for Medicare by 5 years every 5 years. This can give private health insurers time to adjust to the new system. I realize Medicare isn't perfect and I would be in favor of improving it and expanding access to it for everyone. I like that the Canadian system allows people to pay a monthly premium. I don't see why we can't have that in the United States. It would depend on your income and your age. We can also have surcharges for people who are overweight and smokers because of the strain they would put on the system.
The Frontline article explains more about how the system works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by songgirl
Wages are stagnating because employers will not/can not give raises when it costs so much more to insure their employees, year after year. Wages have actually decreased this past decade, in relation to inflation, for the first time in US history.
Companies are combating the crazy cost increases by more off shoring, hiring more part-time workers or using contractors to fill positions one occupied by benefited employees. So, even as we emerge from this recession and more people are back to work, it's obvious that less people are going to have health insurance. Companies are increasingly creative in finding ways to get around providing benefits.
People who do have a job with health insurance are often unable to advance their career because they know that one pre-existing condition in the family would negate their ability to obtain coverage anywhere else.
It leaves the American worker in a really lousy situation. Companies are suppressing wages, replacing us with non-benefited employees and insurance companies are stifling the ability for anyone with a preexisting medical condition to explore more profitable employment opportunities.
We're getting more screwed every year that nothing is done to address the run-away costs of health care.
My boss even admitted that a big reason why my employer relies so much on part-time people is so they don't have to provide health insurance.
So, you are arguing that healthcare is the reason why many employers do not give raises? I find that hard to believe. Common sense and experience tells me that when the insurance goes upbeyond what a company wishes to subsidize for their employees, healthcare benefits are renegotiated between the company and insurance or a new insurance is found. If you are adding in the cost of insurance to the actual wage brought home as part of the employee package and are saying that wages have decreased, I would like to see that data.
I've got to go to the dentist so I'll have to get back to this later. But for now, consider that when an employee is hired, employers consider the comprehensive package of how much an employee costs relative to how much he is worth to them. This includes the outlay of both salary and benefits. If the cost to insure them goes up, employers are much less likely to increase their salary as well. This is common sense and it's all about the bottom line.
Health care cost increase this past decade = 400%
Salaries * in relation to inflation = 0
Purple - first off, I want to say thank you. As one who is for UHC, I appreciate your attempts to try to be civil when so many who have posted here against your opinions are not. It is impressive to me.
I do have some questions for you though, would you have available a percentage of Americans who have left the country to have a procedure performed? The only procedures I have heard commonly enough that many Americans have had done out of country is dental work (gone to Mexico).
You also say that you don't want the government running Healthcare - have you heard of a plan (you dont even have to go as far as a bill) where the government is NOT running the new changes to the system? The single-payer plan I have heard of is government ran - not government regulated. Might you have links to dispell my understanding? I admit that i havent looked at the German version of NHC - how is it different than the Canadian version or the British version (the two I have read about)?
Try to picture this senorio in your mind. You go to college, open your own business, acquire health insurance, make 6 figures, get married, buy nice home, have 2.5 children, wife gets cancer, business sinks, lost your insurance, acquire medical dept, acquire new job, acquire new insurance, coverage denied to wife because of pre-existing condition, medical bills pile up. Lose house, lose wife. Bankrupt.
...uhuh...ok? Is that your definition of a right?....doesnt seem coherent to me...
He was AGAINST taxing health care plans (we all remember how he mocked McCain for that, don't we?)
He was AGAINST funding for abortions.
He was AGAINST funding for illegals.
He said his plan would save $2500 on premiums - a LIE.
He said you could keep your plan if you liked it - a LIE.
So what you're saying is a MAJORITY of Americans realized they were voting for a politician who campaigned on a platform of health care reform.
Do these Americans no longer want health care reform?
Because, when they started talking health care last summer, you'd think this idea just came out of nowhere.
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.
People going abroad
