On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 07:21:55 -0500, wrote:

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?

So, I answered all your questions and narry a syllable retort. You
seem only to want to take pot shots.

My sincere hope is that the public option represents a competitive bid
against the scammers that currently make profit through health care.

I take it you're among the profiteers whose living comes from taxing
our access to proper health care?

H the K wrote:
BAR wrote:



There is no access to health care
problem.


We've been hearing that b.s. from conservatives for decades. It wasn't
true then and it isn't true today.

Provide examples of the problem you allege people have accessing health
care in the USA?

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

Health Reform: Many extravagant claims have been made on behalf of the
various health care "reforms" now emerging from Congress and the White
House. But on closer inspection, virtually all prove to be false.


I have what is continually described as "Gold Plated Health Care," by
those who tell me I have have the best and how happy I am, and get the
best health care in the world.

My hearing changed one afternoon, lost all high frequency hearing in the
right ear. This is "Sudden Hearing loss." According to what I have
read, immediate treatment (within one week) might restore the lost hearing.

The first Ear, Nose and Throat specialist insisted it was long term
hearing loss and isn't treatable.

Second opinion, second doctor, several days later, recognized it as
sudden hearing loss and sent me for an MRI, but no treatment was offered.

Got a referral to a good specialist, had to wait two months for an
appointment. I'm still waiting.

Now, just why is it that the Canadian system would be worse?

BAR wrote:
H the K wrote:
BAR wrote:



There is no access to health care
problem.


We've been hearing that b.s. from conservatives for decades. It wasn't
true then and it isn't true today.

Provide examples of the problem you allege people have accessing health
care in the USA?


Oh, please. Do some reading on other than reich-wing sites. Why do you
righties always try to insist that everyone else do your homework for you?

thunder wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 11:44:00 -0400, BAR wrote:


The problem most of us have is the falsehood that you push that
providing everyone with government funded health insurance will solve
the problem of access to health care. There is no access to health care
problem. The problem is that people are not paying for the health care
they are receiving and the costs are being passed onto those who are
paying via their health insurance.

It can be argued that those very same health insurance plans aren't
paying their fair share. You do know that health insurance plans get a
*very* discounted rate, don't you? There is also a new trick many are
using. If the hospital is in the network, they pay the pre-negotiated
discounted rate, but here's the trick. When the hospital is not in the
network, many insurance plans still will only pay the discounted rates.
That also leaves the health care professionals SOL.

Get everyone who uses the hospital to pay for the services they use.

Add to that, if you don't have insurance, you pay through the nose, far
above normal rates.

I thought they weren't allowed to deny you care if you couldn't or
wouldn't pay for it.

When you go to a restaurant and sit down and eat a meal and get up and
walk out without paying for it you are stealing. But, when you go to the
hospital emergency room and receive medical care and leave without
paying for it nobody says anything. Both are examples of stealing.

Gene wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 13:59:50 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 13:03:18 -0400, Gene
wrote:

On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 12:38:59 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 11:21:54 -0400, Gene
wrote:

Medicare pays a billion dollars a year for test strips that 20% are
faulty. That's capitalist America at work.

Are the ones from UK or Canada better?
Probably not, in fact, they are most likely the same ones. Thus, the
big issue I have is that all of them were probably made 50 miles from
where I am typing and shipped to the UK and Canada... but they pay
about 50% as much for those items as I do. I always have to stand in
long lines *here* to get the high dollar prescription filled....
So if the bloated US medical system didn't subsidize these things they
might not exist at all?
Bloating sure must incur significant expenses, but why does the VA pay
a different rate than I do?
I assume it is a negotiated price, one way or the other.

And how am I supposed to barter medicines?

Your prescription problem sounds local.
And is probably headed your way. Recently, pharmacies have begun to
keep short hours and close on Sundays. This includes ones in grocery
stores (and there aren't many), Revco, Walgreens, Phar-mor, CVS,
Rite-Aid, Kerr..... etc. Note that the STORE might be open, but the
pharmacy is closed.
I am generally at the store in the middle of the day so what?

My wife and I are gainfully employed in the middle of the day. Only
answer is to do without..... which is what I had to do.

Of it helps them contain costs, that is what you can expect more of
under government managed health care.
You might reach a point where you have to go to a government pharmacy
that is only open 9-5 M-F and there are not very many of them. Ever
been in a state where the government is the only one to sell alcohol?

Sure, I live in one. How do the prices compare?
http://www.ncabc.com/pricing/pricebook.aspx

Open every day 9-9 except Sunday to placate the born again
Christians....

There might only be one state store in a town or even a county.
Publix (grocery store) fills
my prescriptions faster than I can buy my groceries. They also give
you most antibiotics for free.
Here, you aren't getting ANYTHING for free. Last antibiotics I was
prescribed cost ME $25.00 per pill after my insurance paid a few token
dollars.
I know they aren't really "free" but what they are saying is the
generic of the 5 most commonly prescribed antibiotics are so cheap at
the wholesale level that they can give them away to get you in their
store. A shrewd businessman would make the "free" prescriptions take
longer to fill, in hopes you would shop longer.

BTW the other good thing about Publix is they don't try to perpetuate
the mystique of prescription drugs. Most pharmacies try to tell you
this is a complicated process that takes an hour or more. Once your
profile is in the Publix computer they just type in the prescription,
count out the pills and put the label the computer spits out on the
bottle. If you have conflicting drugs, the computer will spit out a
warning right away. I assume it also compares your other prescriptions
and detects "doctor shopping" too but I have never heard of anyone
getting busted but I don't really know any abusers.

This is not much different than groceries.... no mystique, just a very
real need. If you stand at the register with your bread and milk and
there are 20 registers and 2 checkers, you are likely to get ****ed
off and leave. You are much less likely to do that with the kid's
whooping cough prescription... and they all know it. How do I know?
Because I walked out of about 4 pharmacies, before I realized they
were all following the same business model. I was going to wait for
the better part of an hour WHEREEVER I was...


Find a better store.

"Eisboch" wrote in message
news

"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




You calculated in your machine costs and development costs to your product.
Why should the government pay for just one segment? If the government was
paying for development, very few drugs and devices would make it to market.
Greed may be a driving factor. Last company I worked for was a Biomed
company. The venture capitalists dumped $35 million in to the company with
hope for a large return. Unfortunately, they picked some bad management. I
doubt if a stage 1 Urinary Incontanance would be high up the list of
government programs. Does cost the people suffering about $700 million a
year in supplies.

"Yogi of Woodstock" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 07:40:45 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"H the K" wrote in message
news:RISdnWicQMEEZf_XnZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@earthlink. com...


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.

Now there's a good point and one that should be taken into account.

And there's an additional issue - Americans are actually paying for
costs of other nations for drug treatments. Did you know that I can
get Retuxin in France, paying for it myself, for about 1/4 the cost of
obtaining the same treatment in the US? In Germany, if I paid for it
myself, it's about 1/3 the cost. Same in Spain.

It's almost worth flying to France every couple of months to get it.

The only drawback is that it's France. :)

I do like Spain though.

But I don't speak Spanish.

And I don't like German food.

Rosetta Stone is about $250 to teach you Spanish.

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 05:27:08 -0700 (PDT), Jack
wrote:


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.

No, my wife is 17 years younger than me and will be working for a long
time yet, insurance or not. And she's the highest paid in her unit
except for the manager. The rest there can't afford the insurance, so
they go to the e-room for everything. That's the problem. The high
cost of health care/insurance. There ain't no free lunch except the
one those paying for health insurance are buying for the others.
Whether I complain about it or not, you may have noticed that others
are.

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.

Tell me your problem with paying my SS and I'll shed a couple tears.
My problem isn't with paying, it's with a system that only *some* pay
into, and a system that locks people into jobs because health
insurance isn't universally available and portable. Stifles and puts
artificial constraints into movement in the job market, and gives
foreigners a competitive edge in trade.

--Vic

Part of our high costs are the E room. I had a toothache while in Sorrento,
Italy. A Saturday and no dentist working. I was told to go to the local
hospital and go to the "Pronto Soccorso" entrance. Happens to be free to
everyone, foreign, locals etc. Was like a walk in doctors office. There
were people there with hurting ankle, etc. Had a Doctor, nurse & aid and
clerk. No big tests, no major equipment. If you needed more, they sent you
to the hospital, where I would have had to pay. Much cheaper setup than our
E rooms and Urgent Care clinics.

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

This is usually the point when the insurance carrier declairs that it was
a pre-existing condition and refuse to pay anything. Been there for that
approach.



There are lots of dirty little secrets in connection with our current
health care insurance fiasco, and some of them are not so little and not
so secretive. There are all sorts of horror stories, for example, relating
to denials of needed service, making patients and their providers jump
through hoops, reimbursement horrors, et cetera.

It's sort of humorous that those who oppose the modernizations being
discussed think everything will get "worse" when the government steps in.
I suspect the percentage of those satisfied with the way social security
and medicare are run is higher than those who are satisified with the way
medical insurance is run.

Hell most of us in Medicare are happy with the product. No co pays, go to
the doctor anytime. Unfortunately it is threatening the Federal Budget.
We gets lots for very little. Sort of like the welfare people. Go to the E
room or Urgent Care for a cold or scratch. No costs. When I paid for
insurance for wife and I, paid about 1200 month, with a 2K deductible and
co-pays. Now we pay about $420 a month total with supplemental and no
co-pays.