|
Sober thoughts on health care
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. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- IBD Exclusive Series: Government-Run Healthca A Prescription For Failure -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yet even as many Americans start to have second thoughts about our government's possible takeover of the health care system, Congress is rushing to make it happen. On Friday, the House Ways and Means Committee approved a bill that would radically change our current system and expand coverage for the uninsured. The action came a day after the head of the Congressional Budget Office said none of the plans under review would slow health care spending. None of them. Still, lawmakers and the White House press on, relying on GOP weakness in the House and a new veto-proof majority in the Senate. They're also relying on a lack of awareness that claims made on behalf of national health care may be mostly false. Among them: • America has a health care crisis. No, we don't. Forty-seven million people lack insurance. Of the remaining 85% of the population, or 258 million people, polls show high satisfaction with the current coverage. Indeed, a 2006 poll by ABC News, the Kaiser Family Foundation and USA Today found 89% of Americans were happy with their own health care. As for the estimated 47 million not covered by health insurance, 20 million can afford to buy it, according to a study by former CBO Director June O'Neill. Most of the other 27 million are single and under 35, with as many as a third illegal aliens. When it's all whittled down, as few as 12 million are unable to buy insurance — less than 4% of a population of 305 million. For this we need to nationalize 17% of our nation's $14 trillion economy and change the current care that 89% like? • Health care reform will save money. Few of the plans now coming out of Congress will save anything, says the CBO's current chief, Douglas Elmendorf. In fact, he says, they'll lead to substantially higher costs in the future — costs that will be "unsustainable." As it is, estimates for reforming health care range from $1 trillion to $3.6 trillion. Much will be spent on subsidies to make a so-called public option more attractive to consumers than private plans. To pay for it, the president has suggested about $600 billion in new taxes, meaning that $500 billion to $2.1 trillion in new health care spending over the next decade will be unfunded. This could push up the nation's already soaring deficit, expected to reach $10 trillion through 2019 without health care reform. Massive new tax hikes will probably be needed to close the gap. • Only the rich will pay for reform. The 5.4% surtax on millionaires the president is pushing gets all the attention, but everyone down to $280,000 in income will pay more. Doesn't that still leave out the middle class and poor? Sorry. Workers who decline to take part will pay a tax of up to 2% of earnings. And small-businesses must pony up 8% of their payrolls. The poor and middle class must pay in other ways, without knowing it. The biggest hit will be on small businesses, which, due to new payroll taxes, will be less likely to hire workers. Today's 9.5% jobless rate may become a permanent feature of our economy — just as it is in Europe, where nationalized health care is common. • Government-run health care produces better results. The biggest potential lie of all. America has the best health care in the world, and most Americans know it. Yet we hear that many "go without care" while in nationalized systems it is "guaranteed." U.S. life expectancy in 2006 was 78.1 years, ranking behind 30 other countries. So if our health care is so good, why don't we live as long as everyone else? Three reasons. One, our homicide rate is two to three times higher than other countries. Two, because we drive so much, we have a higher fatality rate on our roads — 14.24 fatalities per 100,000 people vs. 6.19 in Germany, 7.4 in France and 9.25 in Canada. Three, Americans eat far more than those in other nations, contributing to higher levels of heart disease, diabetes and some cancers. These are diseases of wealth, not the fault of the health care system. A study by Robert Ohsfeldt of Texas A&M and John Schneider of the University of Iowa found that if you subtract our higher death rates from accidents and homicide, Americans actually live longer than people in other countries. In countries with nationalized care, medical outcomes are often catastrophically worse. Take breast cancer. According to the Heritage Foundation, breast cancer mortality in Germany is 52% higher than in the U.S.; the U.K.'s rate is 88% higher. For prostate cancer, mortality is 604% higher in the U.K. and 457% higher in Norway. Colorectal cancer? Forty percent higher in the U.K. But what about the health care paradise to our north? Americans have almost uniformly better outcomes and lower mortality rates than Canada, where breast cancer mortality is 9% higher, prostate cancer 184% higher and colon cancer 10% higher. Then there are the waiting lists. With a population just under that of California, 830,000 Canadians are waiting to be admitted to a hospital or to get treatment. In England, the list is 1.8 million deep. Universal health care, wrote Sally Pipes, president of the Pacific Research Institute in her excellent book, "Top Ten Myths Of American Health Care," will inevitably result in "higher taxes, forced premium payments, one-size-fits-all policies, long waiting lists, rationed care and limited access to cutting-edge medicine." Before you sign up, you might want to check with people in countries that have the kind of system the White House and Congress have in mind. Recent polls show that more than 70% of Germans, Australians, Britons, Canadians and New Zealanders think their systems need "complete rebuilding" or "fundamental change." • The poor lack care. Many may lack insurance, but that doesn't mean they lack care. The law says anyone who walks into a hospital emergency room must be treated. America has 37 million people in poverty, but Medicaid covers 55 million — at a cost of $350 billion a year. Moreover, as many as 11 million of the uninsured qualify for programs for the indigent, including Medicaid and SCHIP. But for some reason, they don't sign up. Are they likely to sign up for the "public option" when it's made available? |
Sober thoughts on health care
"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 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. It isn't meant to add up, just a big excuse to jump taxes to keep the government in a life style in which they are accustomed to. They will start small, same thing they did in Canada years ago. New taxes at the top. Years go by and the top becomes the middle class. Over time, they will notch up taxes, $99 for port and $1 more for health care. And the governments idea of rich, isn't the same as everyone thinks. Your not working poor, you are rich and they will tax it from you. Welcome to modern day slavery, taxation. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- IBD Exclusive Series: Government-Run Healthca A Prescription For Failure -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yet even as many Americans start to have second thoughts about our government's possible takeover of the health care system, Congress is rushing to make it happen. On Friday, the House Ways and Means Committee approved a bill that would radically change our current system and expand coverage for the uninsured. The action came a day after the head of the Congressional Budget Office said none of the plans under review would slow health care spending. None of them. Still, lawmakers and the White House press on, relying on GOP weakness in the House and a new veto-proof majority in the Senate. They're also relying on a lack of awareness that claims made on behalf of national health care may be mostly false. Among them: • America has a health care crisis. No, we don't. Forty-seven million people lack insurance. Of the remaining 85% of the population, or 258 million people, polls show high satisfaction with the current coverage. Indeed, a 2006 poll by ABC News, the Kaiser Family Foundation and USA Today found 89% of Americans were happy with their own health care. As for the estimated 47 million not covered by health insurance, 20 million can afford to buy it, according to a study by former CBO Director June O'Neill. Most of the other 27 million are single and under 35, with as many as a third illegal aliens. When it's all whittled down, as few as 12 million are unable to buy insurance — less than 4% of a population of 305 million. For this we need to nationalize 17% of our nation's $14 trillion economy and change the current care that 89% like? • Health care reform will save money. Few of the plans now coming out of Congress will save anything, says the CBO's current chief, Douglas Elmendorf. In fact, he says, they'll lead to substantially higher costs in the future — costs that will be "unsustainable." As it is, estimates for reforming health care range from $1 trillion to $3.6 trillion. Much will be spent on subsidies to make a so-called public option more attractive to consumers than private plans. To pay for it, the president has suggested about $600 billion in new taxes, meaning that $500 billion to $2.1 trillion in new health care spending over the next decade will be unfunded. This could push up the nation's already soaring deficit, expected to reach $10 trillion through 2019 without health care reform. Massive new tax hikes will probably be needed to close the gap. • Only the rich will pay for reform. The 5.4% surtax on millionaires the president is pushing gets all the attention, but everyone down to $280,000 in income will pay more. Doesn't that still leave out the middle class and poor? Sorry. Workers who decline to take part will pay a tax of up to 2% of earnings. And small-businesses must pony up 8% of their payrolls. The poor and middle class must pay in other ways, without knowing it. The biggest hit will be on small businesses, which, due to new payroll taxes, will be less likely to hire workers. Today's 9.5% jobless rate may become a permanent feature of our economy — just as it is in Europe, where nationalized health care is common. • Government-run health care produces better results. The biggest potential lie of all. America has the best health care in the world, and most Americans know it. Yet we hear that many "go without care" while in nationalized systems it is "guaranteed." U.S. life expectancy in 2006 was 78.1 years, ranking behind 30 other countries. So if our health care is so good, why don't we live as long as everyone else? Three reasons. One, our homicide rate is two to three times higher than other countries. Two, because we drive so much, we have a higher fatality rate on our roads — 14.24 fatalities per 100,000 people vs. 6.19 in Germany, 7.4 in France and 9.25 in Canada. Three, Americans eat far more than those in other nations, contributing to higher levels of heart disease, diabetes and some cancers. These are diseases of wealth, not the fault of the health care system. A study by Robert Ohsfeldt of Texas A&M and John Schneider of the University of Iowa found that if you subtract our higher death rates from accidents and homicide, Americans actually live longer than people in other countries. In countries with nationalized care, medical outcomes are often catastrophically worse. Take breast cancer. According to the Heritage Foundation, breast cancer mortality in Germany is 52% higher than in the U.S.; the U.K.'s rate is 88% higher. For prostate cancer, mortality is 604% higher in the U.K. and 457% higher in Norway. Colorectal cancer? Forty percent higher in the U.K. But what about the health care paradise to our north? Americans have almost uniformly better outcomes and lower mortality rates than Canada, where breast cancer mortality is 9% higher, prostate cancer 184% higher and colon cancer 10% higher. Then there are the waiting lists. With a population just under that of California, 830,000 Canadians are waiting to be admitted to a hospital or to get treatment. In England, the list is 1.8 million deep. Universal health care, wrote Sally Pipes, president of the Pacific Research Institute in her excellent book, "Top Ten Myths Of American Health Care," will inevitably result in "higher taxes, forced premium payments, one-size-fits-all policies, long waiting lists, rationed care and limited access to cutting-edge medicine." Before you sign up, you might want to check with people in countries that have the kind of system the White House and Congress have in mind. Recent polls show that more than 70% of Germans, Australians, Britons, Canadians and New Zealanders think their systems need "complete rebuilding" or "fundamental change." • The poor lack care. Many may lack insurance, but that doesn't mean they lack care. The law says anyone who walks into a hospital emergency room must be treated. America has 37 million people in poverty, but Medicaid covers 55 million — at a cost of $350 billion a year. Moreover, as many as 11 million of the uninsured qualify for programs for the indigent, including Medicaid and SCHIP. But for some reason, they don't sign up. Are they likely to sign up for the "public option" when it's made available? |
Sober thoughts on health care
"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 |
Sober thoughts on health care
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?" |
Sober thoughts on health care
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 |
Sober thoughts on health care
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... |
Sober thoughts on health care
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... All the more reason to provide a reasonable way for those whose coverage has been dropped to obtain same. |
Sober thoughts on health care
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. |
Sober thoughts on health care
|
Sober thoughts on health care
On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 19:40:49 -0700 (PDT), Jack
wrote: On Jul 18, 9:58Â*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 |
Sober thoughts on health care
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. Another compassionate, empathetic Republican. |
Sober thoughts on health care
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. |
Sober thoughts on health care
On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 22:58:02 -0400, gfretwell wrote:
I haven't seen anything in any of the plans that will make it cheaper for you. We are all going to have to absorb the cost of the 41 million uninsured. There may be some savings getting them out of the ER but not near enough to cover the expense of giving them full coverage. Yeah, but, most countries with universal health care spend @10% GDP on health care. We're rapidly approaching twice that. There must be some savings somewhere. |
Sober thoughts on health care
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.)) -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
Sober thoughts on health care
|
Sober thoughts on health care
On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 20:58:58 -0500, 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 Exactly. We're all taking it in the shorts for a screwed up system. |
Sober thoughts on health care
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. |
Sober thoughts on health care
"H the K" wrote in message m... 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?" You missed the point entirely, Harry. Nobody is talking about "screwing the poor". Those that can't afford health insurance are the reason we *have* a crisis. Health care isn't the problem. Affording it is the problem. Man, you are so programmed into your way of thinking that you jump to typical and immediate conclusions. Eisboch |
Sober thoughts on health care
"jps" wrote in message ... 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... I, for one, am well aware of the challenge presented to small businesses with regard to health insurance programs. I witnessed it go from an affordable benefit that a company could offer and pay 100 percent of the premiums for to a major component of operating costs over a relatively short period of time. For this reason, I've long been an advocate of returning to the "Major Medical" form of health insurance coverage that existed before the HMO/PPO programs became popular, starting back in the 80's. They marked the beginning of the expodential rise in health insurance premiums that small businesses have had to absorb since. Large corporations can often (and do) self-insure, but a small business can't. Health insurance, like other forms of insurance, should be to prevent the financial wipeout of an individual and his/her family in the event of a catastrophic injury or health problem. It should not be designed to cover every little ailment or boo-boo that comes along that can easily and routinely treated at home. It's another example of passing personal responsibily off to someone else to take care of, just like how school systems are now expected to teach kids about everything under the sun in addition to traditional academic subjects. The current administration's plan for health plan responsibilities are certainly not in the best interests of your small business. Eisboch |
Sober thoughts on health care
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 |
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 |
Sober thoughts on health care
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 |
Sober thoughts on health care
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?" What is next after the government, Democrat, takeover of health care? |
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 Sounds like more tax breaks for corporations to me. No thanks. |
Sober thoughts on health care
Eisboch wrote:
"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 I'm not advocating "free" anything. Where do you get these ideas? |
Sober thoughts on health care
BAR wrote:
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?" What is next after the government, Democrat, takeover of health care? The soylent green factory for right wingers? :) |
Sober thoughts on health care
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. |
Sober thoughts on health care
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 02:07:48 -0400, gfretwell wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 22:15:34 -0500, thunder wrote: Yeah, but, most countries with universal health care spend @10% GDP on health care. We're rapidly approaching twice that. There must be some savings somewhere. Virtually all of the innovation comes from the US. If it wasn't for the amount of money we are willing to throw at health care we wouldn't have most of the drugs and machines we take for granted. Why would anyone go through development and FDA approval for a drug if the government was going to make you give it away? You can hate corporate America and the capitalist system but that is what brings most innovation to the world. If you know a diabetic, ask how many test strips they throw away each month that give error readings. Medicare pays a billion dollars a year for test strips that 20% are faulty. That's capitalist America at work. |
Sober thoughts on health care
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. |
Sober thoughts on health care
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 03:42:42 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote: Health insurance, like other forms of insurance, should be to prevent the financial wipeout of an individual and his/her family in the event of a catastrophic injury or health problem. It should not be designed to cover every little ailment or boo-boo that comes along that can easily and routinely treated at home. When my youngest boy was ineligible for our insurance, we looked around for a strictly major medical policy for him - bare bones, just cover any catastrophe. It was cheap - I mean like $4-500/yr? Something like that. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:30 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com