RE: Employers looking at health insurance options

RE: Employers looking at health insurance options (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

tazzygirl -> RE: Employers looking at health insurance options (10/26/2010 1:08:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail The answer will not be found in tort reform. Which is what the other babblers are going to come on with. Tort reform would provide 1/2 of 1%... hardly worth the time to even consider. Havingn said that, i would like to see some sort of reform. We live in a sue happy society. I would love to see a mediation system installed.

tazzygirl -> RE: Employers looking at health insurance options (10/26/2010 1:10:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl To a business, a tax deduction is never a moot point. Its more than just the tax deductions, its also the medicare and SS taxes as well. Then a business has to worry about staying competitive. Don't see them going up. I don't have a crystal ball but business taxes probably wont be effected. Employers pay a share of those taxes. The less we deduct before taxes, the more we pay in taxes.... and the more they have to pay as well.

mnottertail -> RE: Employers looking at health insurance options (10/26/2010 1:12:06 PM)
Rather to late anyway, since all the doctors have moved to Puerto Rico according to a 'well-placed' insurance peddler.

Moonhead -> RE: Employers looking at health insurance options (10/26/2010 1:18:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101024/ap_on_re_us/us_employer_health_plans Seems many employers are willing to drop their health care coverage under obama care. Says that the employers will have to give employees raises to cover the missing benefit, but I have never heard that requirement in the law. This is a right to work state. You don't necessarily deserve a raise because you lose a benefit. It's the law. there is no provision mandating a raise to cover the benefit. However, you will find as more and more companies do drop their health care (nobody wants to be first, but there are millions of employees employed by companies willing to be second to drop their coverage), that many will replace some or all of that compensation just to remain competitive in the labor market. The fun will start when people that are dropped realize how much more Obamacare will cost them than the wages that replace employer coverage. We will go to single payer. The people on Wall Street and Corporate Boardrooms are too prideful to admit that they are totally wrong. Going to single payer is going to save them a pantload. Yup, and cost Americans a pantload in the form of higher premiums and reduced standards of care. Reduced standards of care? How the fuck are they going to manage that? Rent patients an autoclave, a scalpel and a copy of Grey's and tell them to do the operation themself?

cuckoldmepls -> RE: Employers looking at health insurance options (10/26/2010 1:19:09 PM)
Yes tort reform is a start, and will probably lower the costs of health care by at least 10%. Remember, most of the democrats in Congress are lawyers, and 95% of all money raised by trial lawyers goes to democrats. That's why they block tort reform at every turn. This is also why they claim that tort reform would only lower the cost of health care about 7%. Well let's say the electronic record keeping works, and miraculously, they manage to cut down on fraud, well you're still looking at 20% savings right there with all 3 combined. That adds up to billions of dollars. If you want to solve the health care crisis, it's like everything else, you can't do it half ass. Every aspect of health care including tort reform must be addressed and together it will lower the cost of health care. We don't need a massive bureaucracy to accomplish this either. We just need a few regulations at the state level to solve these problems. It's unconstitutional at the federal level. The feds only have the authority to regulate what crosses state lines. This means they can only regulate private insurers who sell across state lines, medical equipment, and the pharmaceutical industry who sells across state lines. They cannot regulate health care itself. That's a local person walking into their local hospital. There's nothing interstate commerce about that.

tazzygirl -> RE: Employers looking at health insurance options (10/26/2010 1:20:36 PM)
quote: That's why they block tort reform at every turn. This is also why they claim that tort reform would only lower the cost of health care about 7%. 1/2 of 1%. Per the CBO.

hlen5 -> RE: Employers looking at health insurance options (10/26/2010 1:26:23 PM)
Tazzy, I always like that you have references to back up your posts. These were in that same article you referenced. "Employers are actively looking at that. "I don't know if the intent was to find an exit strategy for providing benefits, but the bill as written provides the mechanism," said Deloitte's Keckley, the consultant." "My conclusion on all of this is that it is a huge roll of the dice," said James Klein, president of the American Benefits Council, which represents big company benefits administrators. "It could work out well and build on the employer-based system, or it could begin to dismantle the employer-based system." I'm willing to withhold judgement on the reform bill's impact and I hope it will be more cost effective for employers to keep coverage on their employees.

hlen5 -> RE: Employers looking at health insurance options (10/26/2010 1:31:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk quote: ORIGINAL: hlen5 DomYngBlk, was your reply for me? If you think I'm a righty, you are greatly mistaken. I'm for an overhaul of our current healthcare system, I think the reform got overtaken/sidetracked by the insurance industry. Bending low....my apologies Apology accepted (curtsies (sp?))[;)]

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Employers looking at health insurance options (10/26/2010 2:18:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: ORIGINAL: hlen5 What I want to know is how did this health care reform go from "providing a saftey net to ensure lower costs for all" to "everyone must have insurance, even if self purchased"? What company is NOT going to dump health care when it's incumbent upon the insured to be insured? EFS Erin Shields, a spokeswoman for the senators who wrote that part of the law, says she's confident that when companies do the math, they'll decide to keep offering coverage. That's because employers get to deduct the cost of workers' health care from the company's taxes. Take away the health plan and two things happen: Employers lose the deduction and they'll probably have to pay workers more to get them to accept the benefit cut. Not only will the company's income taxes go up, but the employer will also face a bigger bill for Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes. So it's not as simple as paying $2,000 and walking away. "It is clearly cheaper for employers to continue providing coverage," Shields said. Another wrinkle: the health insurance tax credits available through the law are keyed to relatively Spartan insurance plans, not as generous as most big employers provide. Send your workers into the insurance exchange, and valuable employees might jump to a competitor that still offers health care. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/25/health-care-will-employer_n_773253.html Tell Erin shields to get her head out of Washington's ass and talk to people in the real world.

tazzygirl -> RE: Employers looking at health insurance options (10/26/2010 2:37:55 PM)
You may not agree with her, and that is your right to disagree when things make sense otherwise. From all the complaints when the health care bill was being hashed out in the media, even to the date it was signed, the complaints have been Drs would leave the field in droves. I dont see a mass exodus, yet, i withhold judgement. But, i did predict this was all coming, the push for a single payer system. Seems even businesses may be the ultimate push. And i have no complaint with that.

defiantbadgirl -> RE: Employers looking at health insurance options (10/27/2010 1:04:58 PM)
Health insurance shouldn't be employer based. It causes too much age discrimination. Companies are getting rid of older workers and refusing to hire older workers to keep insurance premiums down. The more older workers a company employs, the higher the insurance premiums. Health care should be non-profit. Health insurance should only be for cosmetic procedures. At least then when they refuse payment they won't be killing anyone. Medically necessary health care should be universal. For those worried about death panels, who is more likely to refuse payment? A company with the goal of maximizing profit or a non-profit system? Countries with universal health care have higher life expectency than the US. Universal health care is not perfect, but at least it prevents age discrimination in employment.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

2.929688E-02