RE: Doing Away With Employer Healthcare (Full Version)

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



Message


Shoedaddy -> RE: Doing Away With Employer Healthcare (11/6/2012 5:24:04 PM)

What businesses need to do is eliminate paid sick days, maternal leave, workers' compensation, retirement benefits and hazardous pay.




tazzygirl -> RE: Doing Away With Employer Healthcare (11/6/2012 5:29:02 PM)

And you believe I will cry over this? Hardly. Tying employees to employer insurance policies is an outdated form of financial slavery. It used to be a perk to pull the best and the brightest in. Now its just a joke.

I truly dont care about the effectiveness of your ability as a corporation to compete. Why is that? Because you dont care enough about your employees to even figure out what is going on with the new set of laws. So, while you settle back and listen to those whispering in your ears, I will continue to advocate for National Health Care....

Which is what this thread is about... and since you mentioned your decisions has nothing to do with insurance, why are you bringing it up?




LookieNoNookie -> RE: Doing Away With Employer Healthcare (11/6/2012 5:31:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shoedaddy

What businesses need to do is eliminate paid sick days, maternal leave, workers' compensation, retirement benefits and hazardous pay.


Uhhhhmmm....that would be a no.

I want my employees to be healthy, hence why I pay for 100% of their health care.

I want my employees to have some "fuck you" time, whether it's in "sick days" or simple time off....paid.

Healthy employees are those who can reduce stress.

Stress free employees are better employees.

Stress reduction requires some time away on occasion, without worrying that their ability to pay the rent is minimized.

However that occurs.




LookieNoNookie -> RE: Doing Away With Employer Healthcare (11/6/2012 5:42:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

And you believe I will cry over this? Hardly. Tying employees to employer insurance policies is an outdated form of financial slavery. It used to be a perk to pull the best and the brightest in. Now its just a joke.

I truly dont care about the effectiveness of your ability as a corporation to compete. Why is that? Because you dont care enough about your employees to even figure out what is going on with the new set of laws. So, while you settle back and listen to those whispering in your ears, I will continue to advocate for National Health Care....

Which is what this thread is about... and since you mentioned your decisions has nothing to do with insurance, why are you bringing it up?


You will when employers (such as Darden and others) simply eliminate full time employment which by the way, will raise their costs, discounting their ability to offer wage increases.

Yes, you'll give a shit.

As to why I brought up insurance (checking the header) that is what this discussion was about...ergo...my comments.




LookieNoNookie -> RE: Doing Away With Employer Healthcare (11/6/2012 5:50:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

And you believe I will cry over this? Hardly. Tying employees to employer insurance policies is an outdated form of financial slavery. It used to be a perk to pull the best and the brightest in. Now its just a joke.

I truly dont care about the effectiveness of your ability as a corporation to compete. Why is that? Because you dont care enough about your employees to even figure out what is going on with the new set of laws. So, while you settle back and listen to those whispering in your ears, I will continue to advocate for National Health Care....

Which is what this thread is about... and since you mentioned your decisions has nothing to do with insurance, why are you bringing it up?


Hon...I advocate for national health care!

You know why?

Because I pay 100%, and not of a basic plan....full medical, dental, vision.

When all employers are mandated to do what I do already....I'll finally have an even playing field (and I'll make more money).

National health care mandates will be profitable for my firms. (Try reading my posts in complete form before advocating that I'm against your opinion).

I don't cover my employees 100% because the feds tell me to....I do it because it's the right thing to do...so, while you blather about "Because you dont care enough about your employees to even figure out what is going on with the new set of laws.", be aware, whether or not I'm unbelievably knowledgeable about this issue or supremely incoherent....I already pay these fees for every employee because I believe in keeping my employees healthy.

It's profitable to do so.

And they don't pay a dime (other than 10 bucks to go see a doctor and 30 bucks for prescriptions).

I'm simply against a program that like every other federal mandate since SSI began, gives the feds a brand new bank account to bankrupt you.

And rest assured....that's exactly what this mandate is....a new bank account they can dip in to.

Nothing more.




tazzygirl -> RE: Doing Away With Employer Healthcare (11/6/2012 6:08:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

And you believe I will cry over this? Hardly. Tying employees to employer insurance policies is an outdated form of financial slavery. It used to be a perk to pull the best and the brightest in. Now its just a joke.

I truly dont care about the effectiveness of your ability as a corporation to compete. Why is that? Because you dont care enough about your employees to even figure out what is going on with the new set of laws. So, while you settle back and listen to those whispering in your ears, I will continue to advocate for National Health Care....

Which is what this thread is about... and since you mentioned your decisions has nothing to do with insurance, why are you bringing it up?


You will when employers (such as Darden and others) simply eliminate full time employment which by the way, will raise their costs, discounting their ability to offer wage increases.

Yes, you'll give a shit.

As to why I brought up insurance (checking the header) that is what this discussion was about...ergo...my comments.


People want full time to get insurance. I can work three jobs if I have insurance.

Is that really that hard to understand?





DesideriScuri -> RE: Doing Away With Employer Healthcare (11/6/2012 6:09:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
quote:

And, from the link, it was pointed out that half of the employees currently take the insurance now. So, half the employees already have insurance, so there would be less of a change towards preventive care, it all that's required is having insurance. But, half the employees don't take it. Why not? Isn't it something they need? And, if it's provided by Big Gov, having their hours cut means less $$ in their pockets from the start.

hahahaha.... you are funny. Go back and read just how those policies work.
quote:

OMG!! The employees aren't covered by the stop-loss?!?!?

OMG!!! Like!!! I know!!! Right?!?! HOW DARE THEY?!
Actually, if you took the time, you would see that is directly from a site that offers that type of insurance coverage that you speak about.
Self-Insurance Institute of America, Inc.
If YOU dont like how THEY word things, take it up with THEM.


And, how is it that a bill couldn't be passed to include the employee in the stop-loss?

quote:

quote:

Now, I wonder what would happen if an employee hits the $70k stop-loss, and the Federal Government then takes over for the insurance company, the employer, and the employee? Nah, that couldn't be written. The employee would have to be kept out of that.

Explain how that takes government out of the insurance business?
See, even you cant see a way around it.


Hey. I'm trying to compromise here. But, the Federal Government would only take over after the stop-loss was hit.

If the insurance company didn't have to worry about covering a stop-loss, what would that do to premiums? What would it do to cost of care (actual costs for the care, not the cost of insurance)? Would it cost the American taxpayer $2.5T/decade?




tazzygirl -> RE: Doing Away With Employer Healthcare (11/6/2012 6:11:24 PM)

quote:

Hey. I'm trying to compromise here. But, the Federal Government would only take over after the stop-loss was hit.

If the insurance company didn't have to worry about covering a stop-loss, what would that do to premiums? What would it do to cost of care (actual costs for the care, not the cost of insurance)? Would it cost the American taxpayer $2.5T/decade?


Self insurers are allowed to set their own policy, up till now. Explain to me how we would get a standard insurance coverage under your proposal?




DesideriScuri -> RE: Doing Away With Employer Healthcare (11/6/2012 6:12:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
Thing is though with preventative healthcare, and educated, healthy choices available,  we would find less burden on healthcare systems by the aged, live to 95 with a clear head and workable body, give out and all done in one day.........not the slow undoing for decades that we see due to the way we do things.


Are healthy choices available? Who can not take preventative measures?

What's funny is that I was lambasted for asserting that if we, as a population, cut down on our consumption, increased our activity levels, and took to a more self-sustaining lifestyle, the amount of health care necessary to stay healthy would drop precipitously.

Here you are, making very similar claims. How much you want to bet that you don't get ramrodded over this?




tazzygirl -> RE: Doing Away With Employer Healthcare (11/6/2012 6:14:22 PM)

quote:

Here you are, making very similar claims. How much you want to bet that you don't get ramrodded over this?


Why would he?




DesideriScuri -> RE: Doing Away With Employer Healthcare (11/6/2012 6:38:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
quote:

Hey. I'm trying to compromise here. But, the Federal Government would only take over after the stop-loss was hit.
If the insurance company didn't have to worry about covering a stop-loss, what would that do to premiums? What would it do to cost of care (actual costs for the care, not the cost of insurance)? Would it cost the American taxpayer $2.5T/decade?

Self insurers are allowed to set their own policy, up till now. Explain to me how we would get a standard insurance coverage under your proposal?


You do know that Obamacare sets a minimum for all insurance policies, right? Perhaps, the Federal government could pass a massive one page bill requiring the stop-loss maximums. Just throwing that out there, off the top of my head.




DesideriScuri -> RE: Doing Away With Employer Healthcare (11/6/2012 6:40:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
quote:

Here you are, making very similar claims. How much you want to bet that you don't get ramrodded over this?

Why would he?


Exactly




tazzygirl -> RE: Doing Away With Employer Healthcare (11/6/2012 6:40:05 PM)

And then they rename it something else. Loopholes.




tazzygirl -> RE: Doing Away With Employer Healthcare (11/6/2012 6:41:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
quote:

Here you are, making very similar claims. How much you want to bet that you don't get ramrodded over this?

Why would he?


Exactly


I think you have a different definition for preventative care than I do.




tazzygirl -> RE: Doing Away With Employer Healthcare (11/6/2012 7:05:13 PM)

quote:

Who can not take preventative measures?


This is what I view preventative care as....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preventive_medicine





DesideriScuri -> RE: Doing Away With Employer Healthcare (11/6/2012 7:40:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
quote:

Here you are, making very similar claims. How much you want to bet that you don't get ramrodded over this?

Why would he?

Exactly

I think you have a different definition for preventative care than I do.


The very first sentence of the wiki entry:
    quote:

    Preventive medicine or preventive care consists of measures taken to prevent diseases, (or injuries) rather than curing them or treating their symptoms.


That's exactly what I take preventive care to be.




tazzygirl -> RE: Doing Away With Employer Healthcare (11/6/2012 7:51:41 PM)

Definitions ----------------------------Level Definition
Primary prevention --- Methods to avoid occurrence of disease.[11] Most population-based health promotion efforts are of this type.
Secondary prevention --- Methods to diagnose and treat existent disease in early stages before it causes significant morbidity.[12]
Tertiary prevention --- Methods to reduce negative impact of extant disease by restoring function and reducing disease-related complications.[13]
Quaternary prevention --- Methods to mitigate or avoid results of unnecessary or excessive interventions in the health system.[14]


This is the disconnect you and I have, I think.

You see disease as preventative... its not always.

Prevention could be the lumpectomy after finding cancer.




LookieNoNookie -> RE: Doing Away With Employer Healthcare (11/7/2012 4:02:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl


quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

And you believe I will cry over this? Hardly. Tying employees to employer insurance policies is an outdated form of financial slavery. It used to be a perk to pull the best and the brightest in. Now its just a joke.

I truly dont care about the effectiveness of your ability as a corporation to compete. Why is that? Because you dont care enough about your employees to even figure out what is going on with the new set of laws. So, while you settle back and listen to those whispering in your ears, I will continue to advocate for National Health Care....

Which is what this thread is about... and since you mentioned your decisions has nothing to do with insurance, why are you bringing it up?


You will when employers (such as Darden and others) simply eliminate full time employment which by the way, will raise their costs, discounting their ability to offer wage increases.

Yes, you'll give a shit.

As to why I brought up insurance (checking the header) that is what this discussion was about...ergo...my comments.


People want full time to get insurance. I can work three jobs if I have insurance.

Is that really that hard to understand?




Honey, it's not at all difficult to understand....as I said, I pay my employees full medical, every aspect. Follow me....(I didn't write this shit....I'm only reporting it....I'll still pay 100%....the rest of the business world isn't going to...read the papers).

Listen carefully....Darden, the largest restaurant business in the USA has already determined they're going to start shifting to 30 hour work weeks (they're already purchasing the software at a cost of MILLIONS of dollars) because 32 hours is the cutoff for health care BECAUSE they feel that YOU, the average consumer will not pay the additional costs to eat at their establishments due to the new federal (ObamaCare) health mandates.

And guess what? They got bucks....enough to do studies to determine what you CAN pay....not necessarily what you might.

They already know what you're willing to pay...it's easy to discern....psychometric studies are old hat...this is basic stuff.

The world is about to change for blue collar people....not for the wealthy....and the US just voted in that cause.

Honey, people like me are always going to do fine because we plan for this kind of shit.

We anticipate this shit.

But believe it or not, like Ford when he doubled wages because he felt that any product he sold....that his own employees couldn't afford....was an economic fallacy.

He was right.

Romney or someone (other than Obama) understood this.

That growth in income is the way out of debenture....debt....owing....having....growing....

Obama wants you to be indebted...and indebted you are about to become.

The wealthy will always find a way out but...the wealthy also know that if there aren't any buyers (i.e., income growth), there's no way up the ladder.

We are about to experience a decade of Washington subservience...and frankly, while people like myself will do exceptionally well....the rest, who could have been on a rise to political and economic nirvana, are now destined to be taxed to death, starved until they are bleeding, inflated until a loaf of bread is unaffordable, and in the end....suffering instead of winning because....those evil Republicans WANTED you to be wealthy because if you were....you could afford all the high priced shit we had for sale.

I'm not going to sit here and tell you I told you so because frankly....I really don't give a shit.

We....I.....told you for the last 4 years.

Now you get to write a check....and baby...it's gonna hurt.....you.

Not me...and not most Republicans.

When the Democrats of the world realize, truly, intrinsically, that Republicans don't want to push you down but rather....elevate you up....you'll be mowing grass right next to me.

And I'll be thrilled to have you as a neighbor.




tazzygirl -> RE: Doing Away With Employer Healthcare (11/7/2012 4:17:19 PM)

quote:

Obama wants you to be indebted...and indebted you are about to become.


How?

Hurt me? Naaa... I will be fine... just like everyone else who is used to tightening their belts and doing without.

The long term effects of what you are speaking about doesnt hurt just me, or my economic level... it hurts yours as well.


2,000 restaurants and 180,000 employees

How many of those employees do you believe actually work full time hours?

About 25 percent of Darden workers are full time, meaning they work more than 30 hours a week.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-10-07/business/os-darden-part-time-workers-20121007_1_darden-restaurants-health-insurance-olive-gardens

75% already have no insurance. And you make this sound like its going to be some big, huge hardship. Included in that 25% is the management team and the office staff.

So, lets be honest here.... out of 45,000 people, how many are really going to lose their insurance? Most dont carry it.

And what is this going to bring Darden? The worse of the worse in staff and angry annoyed customers as a result.

Saving those few pennies is not going to be worth it.




LookieNoNookie -> RE: Doing Away With Employer Healthcare (11/7/2012 5:27:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

Obama wants you to be indebted...and indebted you are about to become.


How?

Hurt me? Naaa... I will be fine... just like everyone else who is used to tightening their belts and doing without.

The long term effects of what you are speaking about doesnt hurt just me, or my economic level... it hurts yours as well.


2,000 restaurants and 180,000 employees

How many of those employees do you believe actually work full time hours?

About 25 percent of Darden workers are full time, meaning they work more than 30 hours a week.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-10-07/business/os-darden-part-time-workers-20121007_1_darden-restaurants-health-insurance-olive-gardens

75% already have no insurance. And you make this sound like its going to be some big, huge hardship. Included in that 25% is the management team and the office staff.

So, lets be honest here.... out of 45,000 people, how many are really going to lose their insurance? Most dont carry it.

And what is this going to bring Darden? The worse of the worse in staff and angry annoyed customers as a result.

Saving those few pennies is not going to be worth it.


Call me in 3 years and tell me where I was misinformed.




Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 [5] 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625