Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 17:55:38 -0400, hk
wrote: On 3/31/10 5:46 PM, jps wrote: On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 15:28:52 -0400, wrote: wrote in message ... wrote in message ... I won't bore you again with the tale or details, but I did a survey once that proved that it would have been less costly for my (former) company and for the employees if I had simply paid for or re-impursed the cost of the services that you described to the employees and had a Major Medical insurance plan to cover serious, catasrophic or life threatening injuries or illness. Unfortunately, the state of MA nor the Insurance companies would allow such a thing. Eisboch You once did a survey that proved something. Sure. In one specific case. But, I guess Mitt didn't like your plan. The one he pushed is much stronger than the one that just passed. Of course, he's against it after he was for it. -- Nom=de=Plume My company was representative of a typical small business who collectively employ about 80% of the population. It may have been a specific case, but it was representative of what happened when HMO type health plans became popular. BTW ... the one Mitt signed .... (under a heavily Democratic state populous) isn't exactly working out very well, particularly for small business. It has advantages to the insured, but is causing small business to cut back or avoid growth. Again, since small business is the major employer, it has ramifications that aren't so good overall. Maybe small businesses are just going to have to account for the real cost of doing business, including taking care of the folks who generate the income. I'm burdened because I choose to be, no matter the state law. It may indeed limit my growth but I know whomever is in my employ has a medical safety net that they can rely on. Walmart wouldn't be nearly as successful if they accounted for the true cost of maintaining a human being. Socialism for the rich. The easy answer and the one used by most modern nations is to lift the direct burden of providing health care coverage from individuals and businesses and lay it against society as a whole. That way, individuals and businesses pay their fair share of a societal cost. That's why the reaction from the right is so astounding. This is the Republican's wet dream of a health care bill. Protect the monied scum who make a profit by providing nothing but administrative process. The public option is the only way we're going to see competitive rates in this country. That'd be a good first step towards the ultimate goal of single payer. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Martha Coakley: I will deny life saving treatment | General | |||
Olympic Coverage | General | |||
Katrina coverage | General |