Sober thoughts on health care
 

"H the K" wrote in message
m...

Eisboch wrote:

America does not have a health care crisis.

America has a welfare crisis.

Eisboch


Spoken like a "true Republican have."
"I've got mine, screw the poor, eh?"




I'll give you a personal example of what I am talking about Harry.

I have a nephew who simply can't hold a job. It's not that he's not
capable of doing so.
He just can't tolerate working for anybody. He one of those people who,
after two weeks on a job, thinks he's smarter than anyone else in the
company. He has made his way through life doing all kinds of
"self-employed" type work .... flipping cars, building decks on houses, etc.
He's not lazy ... he just can't work for anyone but himself.

After he got married and had a couple of kids, he started to realize that he
should have some form of health insurance to cover his growing family. He
tried again getting a "real" job with benefits, but as before, it didn't
last. I got involved in a discussion with him and made the point that he
may have to change his arrogant attitude in the best interests of his
family. Sometimes you have to do things in life that you don't want to do
because you have responsibilites to others in addition to your own, was my
pitch.

Well, he tried again and again gave up and went back to his screwball way of
making a living.
No health insurance. Can't afford it.

Recently his young daughter developed a potentially serious medical problem.
She ended up at the Children's Hospital in Boston and received excellent
care. She now has surgery scheduled to correct the medical condition.

He laughs at me and my lectures now. All the costs are covered by someone
else.

Eisboch

Sober thoughts on health care
 

On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 02:01:51 -0400, Wizard of Woodstock
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 21:59:18 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 19:40:49 -0700, Jack wrote:


Sounds like you need to get a job with some benefits, and rescue your
wife from having to support you and from providing you with your own
health care.

Yeah, but ... tying health care to business is the wrong approach, IMO.
Besides the anti-competitive costs to business in the world market, if
you get sick with a long-term illness, you are SOL. A dirty little
secret, most employee health insurance policies end when you aren't
collecting a pay check. Try paying for CORBA with just a disability
check, if you even get a disability check.

I believe there is a need for a national system for situations like
this.

What I don't like about this Obamacare is that it's going to force
choices on people and that bothers me.

From what I've been reading, if your job status changes (like changing
jobs/companies, etc.) or there are benefit changes (like an increase
in co-pay), you and/or your employer are forced into the "qualified"
system rather than just pay the increased co-pay. The "qualified"
plans are run by Federal bureaucrats who are going to tell you what is
and what isn't acceptable.

Additionally, if would appear that treatments will be rationed by
"cost effectiveness". Meaning that, to use me for example, if the
Feds decide that the Retuxin treatment isn't effective because of cost
vs my age (I'll be 63 on Monday), that I'll be forced into a
different treatment that is cheaper and not as effective - but it will
cost less.

Personally, I don't want to be taking percocet for the rest of my life
because some douche bag bureaucrat decides that my treatment isn't
worth the money being spent on a costly, but very effective treatment
regime. If what I"m reading is correct, I can't even pay for the
treatment myself - that's not an option.

And you have to be suspicious of this Obamacare if Congress critters
aren't getting the same Obamacare as the average citizen.

"In the health debate, liberals sing Hari Krishnas to the "public
option" -- a new federal insurance program like Medicare -- but if
it's good enough for the middle class, then surely it's good enough
for the political class too? As it happens, more than a few Democrats
disagree.

On Tuesday, the Senate health committee voted 12-11 in favor of a
two-page amendment courtesy of Republican Tom Coburn that would
require all Members and their staffs to enroll in any new
government-run health plan. Yet all Democrats -- with the exceptions
of acting chairman Chris Dodd, Barbara Mikulski and Ted Kennedy via
proxy -- voted nay."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124786946165760369.html

That right there has got to tell you something and as I understand it,
Federal employees will get the keep their very generous plans - paid
for by the taxpayer.

It's got to say something when even Bernie Sanders wants to stay out
of the very system he is to hot to trot on. Personally, I agree with
the general consensus on this - if it's good enough for me and you,
it's good enough for them too.

Dollars to donuts, Obamacare wouldn't even make it out of comittee if
the Congress critters were forced to accept the same system as the
American citizen.

Do we need some kind of health care system for those who can't afford
it or protect them and their families? Yes - absolutely - I agree.

Do I need it or want it? Absolutely not.

Good points. One of my brothers was for changing the health care
system before he got some rare ailment. Now he's reaping many, many
of times more in benefits than he's paying for insurance, and wants to
keep his plan. Just the drug costs are a kazillion dollars.
Makes sense to me. Doesn't address the problem though.
And a sticky one it is.
I see the main issues as not everybody kicking in - for whatever
reason, defensive medicine, inefficient treatment by medical staff,
excessive insurance company vigorish, excessive drug company vigorish,
essentially dishonest medical practices (eg., the insurance company
will pay for those $10 12 ounce bottles of water when we bill them)
and the list goes on. I'll bet about 10-20% of medical costs are
outright fraud by medical providers. Then you got your "want to live
forever at whatever cost" syndrome.
Sticky indeed.

--Vic

Sober thoughts on health care
 

Eisboch wrote:
"H the K" wrote in message
m...

Eisboch wrote:
America does not have a health care crisis.

America has a welfare crisis.

Eisboch

Spoken like a "true Republican have."
"I've got mine, screw the poor, eh?"



I'll give you a personal example of what I am talking about Harry.

I have a nephew who simply can't hold a job. It's not that he's not
capable of doing so.
He just can't tolerate working for anybody. He one of those people who,
after two weeks on a job, thinks he's smarter than anyone else in the
company. He has made his way through life doing all kinds of
"self-employed" type work .... flipping cars, building decks on houses, etc.
He's not lazy ... he just can't work for anyone but himself.

After he got married and had a couple of kids, he started to realize that he
should have some form of health insurance to cover his growing family. He
tried again getting a "real" job with benefits, but as before, it didn't
last. I got involved in a discussion with him and made the point that he
may have to change his arrogant attitude in the best interests of his
family. Sometimes you have to do things in life that you don't want to do
because you have responsibilites to others in addition to your own, was my
pitch.

Well, he tried again and again gave up and went back to his screwball way of
making a living.
No health insurance. Can't afford it.

Recently his young daughter developed a potentially serious medical problem.
She ended up at the Children's Hospital in Boston and received excellent
care. She now has surgery scheduled to correct the medical condition.

He laughs at me and my lectures now. All the costs are covered by someone
else.

Eisboch



For everyone like your nephew's kid, there are 10 more kids who don't
get any medical attention, or the wrong sort of medical attention or the
cheapest of "patches" medical attention, or medical attention long after
whatever problem there is has escalated into something a lot more serious.

Virtually every other modern western nation has proper medical
insurance/coverage as a basic right. We are about the only country which
does not.

Why not? Because the medical insurance companies/drug
companies/hospitals don't want it...it's socialism, it interferes with
profit, it forces economies, it changes things.

I just love the TV ads in which that crook who used to run HCA whines
about the possibility of "government bureaucrats" making health
decisions...as opposed to "insurance company bureaucrats" making health
decisions?

Sober thoughts on health care
 

"H the K" wrote in message
m...


For everyone like your nephew's kid, there are 10 more kids who don't get
any medical attention, or the wrong sort of medical attention or the
cheapest of "patches" medical attention, or medical attention long after
whatever problem there is has escalated into something a lot more serious.


That's because health care and insurance has become unaffordable for many.
Make it more affordable for those that can work.

How?

By relieving those who pay for health insurance the costs of development of
new equipment, procedures and drugs. *That* should be the role of the
government. If we can bail out wall street corporations, we can subsidize
some of the medical industry.

Users of the health care system should pay for services rendered and not the
development costs of those systems. Make the use cost affordable, not free.
Of course those who cannot work to pay for their medical service needs
should be cared for by us, but not those who can pay, but don't or won't.

Eisboch

Sober thoughts on health care
 

Eisboch wrote:
"H the K" wrote in message
m...
For everyone like your nephew's kid, there are 10 more kids who don't get
any medical attention, or the wrong sort of medical attention or the
cheapest of "patches" medical attention, or medical attention long after
whatever problem there is has escalated into something a lot more serious.


That's because health care and insurance has become unaffordable for many.
Make it more affordable for those that can work.

How?

By relieving those who pay for health insurance the costs of development of
new equipment, procedures and drugs. *That* should be the role of the
government. If we can bail out wall street corporations, we can subsidize
some of the medical industry.

Users of the health care system should pay for services rendered and not the
development costs of those systems. Make the use cost affordable, not free.
Of course those who cannot work to pay for their medical service needs
should be cared for by us, but not those who can pay, but don't or won't.

Eisboch

Eisboch,
I hope you realize you are talking to a brick wall.



--
Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq.

This Newsgroup post is a natural product. The slight variations in
spelling and grammar enhance its individual character and beauty and in
no way are to be considered flaws or defects

Sober thoughts on health care
 

On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 03:57:10 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 19:11:16 -0700, jps wrote:

On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 21:24:20 -0400, H the K
wrote:

Eisboch wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message
...

Reformers' Claims Just Don't Add Up
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, July 17, 2009 4:20 PM PT


. America has a health care crisis.

---------------------------------

America does not have a health care crisis.

America has a welfare crisis.

Eisboch


Spoken like a "true Republican have."
"I've got mine, screw the poor, eh?"

There's a ton of small businesses like mine that are already stressed
by the cost of providing health care. Expect there are a lots having
to drop coverage because of cost. Ours has been going up at more than
10% a year and we've had to opt for inferior coverage to what we had
originally to keep it within our means.

I suppose if you're not currently operating a business, you might be
unaware how challenging the situation is...

If the business is stressed by providing health care, why provide it?
There is no governmental mandate that you do so. The only mandate in
most states is for the provisioin of Workman's Comp. Are your
employees incapable of providing thier own? Is the compensation given
your employees inadequate for their needs? Do you pay full cost of
their insurance? It is a common practice for businesses to help
relieve the (voluntary) stress of coverage by putting part or all of
the cost of coverage on the employee, even if their coverage is a
group. Have you explored HSA's, HRA's, FSA's? Are you aware that
insurance companies compete for you business? Are you aware that
HDHP's are desgined to keep premiums low? If your insurance is a
group, is it a PPO? If you are genuinely concerned about covering
your employees, have you earnestly explored all insurance options?

(I owned a manufacturing concern for more than a decade. It wouldn't
in your best interest to complain about any naivete on my part, in
asking these questions. (And I am also a licensed insurance agent.))



One of the weaknesses of your arguement is the competitive nature of
attracting desireable employees for your small business. In my experience,
employer health plans is a major consideration in the eyes of people
accepting positions in a company.

My state, (MA) also has had some screwy insurance laws over the years.
Things like requirements for 100 percent employee participation in the group
plan your company offers. I couldn't have multiple plans. If we had a Blue
Cross plan, I couldn't also offer a Tufts or Harvard plan as well.
This presented problems when a prospective employee's family doctor was
affiliated with one plan, but not with the company's plan. We had
situation once, early in the company's beginnings, where a key employee had
a youngster with a medical problem that was being managed by a doctor who
was affiliated with Harvard but not with Blue Cross. We ended up having to
change the whole company plan over to Harvard to make sure his kid and
family remained covered.

Eisboch


If the insurance provided was a PPO based group plan, the
consideration would be one of whether to remain in network or not.
There are benefits to encourage an insured to stay in network; but,
it's not necessary for the insured to do so. Still, a doctor
in-network can recommend a specialist outside of the network in a
circumstance that would allow the insured in-network benefits, 80/20
co-insurance, low out-of-pocket maximums, etc.
Too, the workforce, for the most part, is not ignorant of the
fact that coverage with the majority of employers will be with the
understanding that the prospective employee will have to participate
in paying for the coverage. Even still, those costs of doing business
that don't qualify as business expenses are ultimately passed onto the
consumer. If a business struggles to compete in the marketplace,
whether it's in the SOA or manufacturing, it competes in offering
product at competitive prices. Offering to pay for an employee's
health insurance may impact the cost of the final product. However,
one of the noted qualities of competition is that it leads to
innovation, and innovation can lead to discovering ways to lower costs
in all areas of the business unit. If a business finds it necessary
to offer a premium health insurance to attract key employees, then it
has the potential to lower costs elsewhere. Also, an enterprising
business can be innovative in attracting quality employees, within the
confines of the law, without the necessity of offering to provide
health insurance.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

Sober thoughts on health care
 

On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 21:37:40 -0700, jps wrote:

snipped for brevity

There's a ton of small businesses like mine that are already stressed
by the cost of providing health care. Expect there are a lots having
to drop coverage because of cost. Ours has been going up at more than
10% a year and we've had to opt for inferior coverage to what we had
originally to keep it within our means.

I suppose if you're not currently operating a business, you might be
unaware how challenging the situation is...

If the business is stressed by providing health care, why provide it?
There is no governmental mandate that you do so. The only mandate in
most states is for the provisioin of Workman's Comp.

It's standard in our industry where I'm a small player. Large
employers provide and I compete in the same market for expert
employess.

Are your
employees incapable of providing thier own? Is the compensation given
your employees inadequate for their needs? Do you pay full cost of
their insurance? It is a common practice for businesses to help
relieve the (voluntary) stress of coverage by putting part or all of
the cost of coverage on the employee, even if their coverage is a
group.

We cover employee only and deduct for spouse and dependents. There's
no way we could cover families.

Have you explored HSA's, HRA's, FSA's?

We have an FSA in place.

Are you aware that
insurance companies compete for you business?

Yes, painfully.

Are you aware that
HDHP's are desgined to keep premiums low?

Yes, we're considering a move to one.

If your insurance is a
group, is it a PPO?

Yes, Regence.

If you are genuinely concerned about covering
your employees, have you earnestly explored all insurance options?

Abso-****ing-lutely.

(I owned a manufacturing concern for more than a decade. It wouldn't
in your best interest to complain about any naivete on my part, in
asking these questions. (And I am also a licensed insurance agent.))

When I moved my company from CA to WA we enjoyed significantly lower
premiums. CA had already started the steep climb. After double digit
hikes in rates, it has become painful.

I identified the problem to a state representative 5 years ago at a
small dinner reception. And while it was a known problem, it wasn't
the state's only problem nor high on the priority list. I expect it's
higher now.

Do you think that health insurance reform legislation won't require
that employers pay for health insurance, in some measure, for all of
their employees?

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

Sober thoughts on health care
 

On Jul 18, 10:52*pm, Vic Smith
wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 19:40:49 -0700 (PDT), Jack
wrote:



On Jul 18, 9:58*pm, Vic Smith wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 20:55:56 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:

"Jack" wrote in message
....

Reformers' Claims Just Don't Add Up
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, July 17, 2009 4:20 PM PT

• America has a health care crisis.

---------------------------------

America does not have a health care crisis.

America has a welfare crisis.

My wife pays a bit over 25% of her gross salary for our insurance.
Quite a "tax" there, huh?
But we have other income.
Her workmates make less than her, and have more people to insure.
Guess what they pay for insurance?
Nothing.
They go to the emergency room.
For everything.
Can't afford anything else.
I wonder who pays for those e-room services.
Neat system, eh?

--Vic

Sounds like you need to get a job with some benefits, and rescue your
wife from having to support you and from providing you with your own
health care.

Why would I do that? *I like retirement, and I'm doing just fine.
And so is she.
Sounds like you should leave the sermons to Father Ryan.
You're not good at it.

--Vic

Ah... it sounded like you were complaining about the high cost of
insurance. But now I understand that you're both "retired", with your
wife choosing to work at a basic job where the insurance cost 25% of
her pay. Nothing wrong with that.

I agree that the people who choose to not insure, then use the
emergency room for free health care is a problem. However, if you're
rooting for national health care so your wife can quit work and I'll
have to pick up your health care tab... well, I have a problem with
that.

Preach on.

Sober thoughts on health care
 

wrote in message
...


Too, the workforce, for the most part, is not ignorant of the
fact that coverage with the majority of employers will be with the
understanding that the prospective employee will have to participate
in paying for the coverage. Even still, those costs of doing business
that don't qualify as business expenses are ultimately passed onto the
consumer.

Often argued, but simply not true. Again, in this state there was a 100
percent enrollment requirement in the particular plan you offered. A PPO
might allow out of network referrals, but that doesn't help when there is an
existing medical condition and the parents of a kid are comfortable with
their existing pediatrician, which was the case in the example I gave. What
the insurance rule mean is that people end up choosing jobs based on what
health program the company subscribed to rather than the job, income or
career opportunity. Idiotic.

The only exception to the 100 percent rule was if the employee was otherwise
covered by his/her spouse in a different plan.

The commonly held belief that the cost of the program was simply passed onto
the consumer may be true in some types of businesses, but not all. In our
case we competed with companies in other states that didn't have health
plans at all, or with foreign competition. If we tried to pass on the
health care costs, it would diminish our capture ratio of contracts. So, it
comes out of profits (assuming there are any) and weakens the growth of the
company.

Health care programs administered by small business was one of my biggest
pet peeves. A small business isn't designed to administer health care. It
would be far better to increase the salaries of all employees to the amount
that the company contributed (in my case, 75 percent) and allow the
employees to buy their own insurance. That would be fair to all, but
couldn't do it in MA.

Eisboch

Sober thoughts on health care
 

"Just Regigie" wrote in message
...

Eisboch,
I hope you realize you are talking to a brick wall.




I know. Everything should be free.
I'll never understand, I guess.

Eisboch