NOYB wrote:



What you suggested are now known as HSA's. I looked into them. BC/BS has
some available in my area, but they weren't very attractive. It's a high
deductible plan, but it can't offer per-visit copays and can't have
prescription coverage. I figured that I would put the money I saved on
premiums into each employees HSA to use as they needed. Unfortunately, one
employee is on expensive meds, and the premium savings on the
high-deductible plan would not have been enough to pay for her meds.

I wasn't looking for co-pays or prescription coverage. All I wanted was
a decent major medical plan for catastrophic illness or injury (like
what was common prior to the invention of HMO's). My company would pay
for all other medical expenses. It was still less expensive than paying
the HMO premiums.

The consumer is partly to blame for this mess. A co-payment of only 5
or 10 bucks looks like too good of a deal to pass up, which is the
primary reason the HMO's caught on. Long term though, it is not in any
body's best interests.

Now, seniors on fixed incomes is another matter entirely. Their medical
coverage needs are quite different than those in their working years
with families. An entirely different systems is needed for them.

Eisboch

JohnH wrote:



Kerry promises Blue Cross for all, but never says that federal
employees pay a share of their insurance. For my wife, the share is
about $225 per month. Kerry leaves out the fact that the federal
workers, whose insurance he wants to give everyone, are earning a
salary which enables them to pay a share. He acts as though no one
will pay anything. What a hypocrite.

John H


Exactly right, which is why his "plan" is flawed.
Kerry needs to step out of his protected little world full of government
bennies, backed up by a safety net of Heinz ketchup and see what the
real world has to deal with.

Eisboch

JohnH wrote:
Where have I excused oafish behavior?

Where have you criticised oafish behavior, except by those who disagree
with your political opinions?

DSK

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
Harry Krause wrote:



It's a threat...and once again, reason enough why health care for
workers should not be in the hands of employers.




I agree that health care should not be in the hands of employers, but
for different reasons.

Business, small and large, operate to provide a product or service,
hopefully making a profit in the course of doing so. Success benefits
the owners, stockholders and employees and usually causes the business
to grow which creates the need for more jobs and employment.

The advent of HMO's back in the late 70's, early 80's added the cost of
administrating and often paying for the bulk of private health insurance
leading to a disparity in coverage. Some businesses can afford decent
plans and pay for the bulk of the cost. Other struggling businesses have
to settle for second rate plans and pass more or all of the cost to the
employees. IMHO, this is not right ... one's job status should not
determine the quality of health care one or one's family receives.

Which brings a question to mind. I happened to listen to John Kerry
giving his stump speech in Florida this afternoon. In it, he repeated
his pledge to enable everyone to choose their health plan and doctors,
just like those in Congress do.

I don't know how he plans on doing this. In our mutual home state of
Massachusetts, a small business (less than 50 employees last time I
checked) is required to have 100 per cent participation in a particular
health plan in order for the company to participate. This means that if
you want Blue Cross/Blue Shield, all the employees of the company must
sign up for it (unless the employee is covered by a spouse's plan by
another employer). Same is true for Harvard, Pilgrim or any of the
group plans. This causes problems because not all doctors participate
in all the plans. For those potential employees whose doctor does not
participate in the chosen company plan must either change doctors or
decline the job.

So, is Kerry saying he is going to completely disassemble and then
reassemble group health plans is the US? I don't think so.

I did an analysis several years ago when I still owned a small company.
Using one of the employees who represented a "typical" family (wife and
two young children) and looking at the number of times one of the family
members visited a doctor during the course of a year I discovered that
it would be less costly to provide a major medical plan for catastrophic
illness or injury and have my company pay 100 percent of all the normal
medical costs, doctor visits and prescriptions for his entire family.
The employee had a son with a chronic health problem that required
frequent doctor visits and still it would have been less expensive to
pay cash for all the visits and medication *and* pay for 100 percent of
the major medical plan compared to the monthly HMO premiums and
restrictions on choice of doctors.

I approached Blue Cross, Pilgrim and Tuffs with this concept. All
refused to provide a major medical plan.

Eisboch



The model Kerry refers to is the FEHBA- Federal Employes Health Benefit
Association. Under this program, dozens, perhaps hundreds of health
plans are offered to federal employees, with the government paying about
80% of the average premium of several of the biggest plans.

How can the government pay 80% of everyone's health insurance premium *and*
cut the deficit, while raising only the taxes on those folks earning over
$200,000? Kerry's a liar, and only the dumbest of the dumb would believe
that he's not going to raise taxes on the middle class.

Harry Krause wrote:




Exactly wrong. Really. Neither of you understand what Kerry is discussing.


Maybe that's part of Kerry's problem. You can't consider it if you
can't understand it.

If (as you explained in another post) Kerry is modeling his plan after
FEHBA:

1. He should say so. All he has said is that everybody should have the
same health plan options that those in Congress do. He states that he
chose Blue Cross. He has said nothing about FEHBA.

2. I suspect (but can't prove) that it will never work. The deep
pockets of government can afford to pay 80 percent of federal employee's
premiums. There is no accountability. In private industry, where most
are employed, health care premiums can break the bank, particularly in
small businesses.

3. Is Kerry suggesting that the federal government will pay the premiums
for private industry? This I have to see, because I KNOW that will
never fly.

Eisboch

JohnH wrote:

[...]
I know the majority of folks in the Netherlands prefer the election of
Kerry. I have an ongoing discussion with a good friend almost weekly
on this very matter. He gets most of his US news (the television
variety) from CNN or one of the Netherlands stations. Most of the US
media is biased towards the liberal philosophy, as is most of the
European news. Perhaps this has some bearing on the attitudes in
Europe.

I have some trouble interpreting liberal in this respect. Speaking in terms
of left and right: liberal is considered right-wing over here and socialist
left. (democrats, christian democrats and social democrats are somewhere in
between) Common sense here, in your eyes would be far left probably. The
media are spread out more or less over the political spectrum. Media from
the states (mostly cnn here) are considered to be ultra rightwing (to be
taken with so large a grain of salt that you will get some kidney
problems).


My comment on your manners had nothing to do with your politics. It
had to do with your manners. You have not shown the manners I
associate with Netherlanders, a wonderful people and very mannered.

You're generalizing, you know that? It borders on rasicm. Telling me to
behave more like you expect from your image is ridiculous.

There are some very ill-mannered children in Amsterdam, of course!
I don't really get what you are hinting at? There are ill mannered children
everywhere, that is inherent with kids. Some older child, but still bad
mannered, is residing in your white house btw.


--
vriendelijke groeten/kind regards,

Jelle

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
JohnH wrote:



Kerry promises Blue Cross for all, but never says that federal
employees pay a share of their insurance. For my wife, the share is
about $225 per month. Kerry leaves out the fact that the federal
workers, whose insurance he wants to give everyone, are earning a
salary which enables them to pay a share. He acts as though no one
will pay anything. What a hypocrite.

John H


Exactly right, which is why his "plan" is flawed.
Kerry needs to step out of his protected little world full of government
bennies, backed up by a safety net of Heinz ketchup and see what the
real world has to deal with.

Eisboch


Exactly wrong. Really. Neither of you understand what Kerry is discussing.

Therein lies the root of the Kerry problem. If Kerry cannot communicate his
plans in a manner that a majority of the voting public can understand Kerry
is doomed to loose the election.

JohnH wrote:
I was accused of 'excusing', not 'not criticizing'.

Can't you keep one simple subject straight? You attacked Jelle for
having "bad manners." I then pointed out that your concept of "bad
manners" depends on political affiliation. Now you're blabbering about
excuses.

... If you check,
you'll find that I have criticized behavior on both sides.

Uh huh. When have you criticised any of the Bush-Cheney cheerleading squad?

... You happen
to have two on your 'side' who are extreme in their name calling.

Really? I'm not aware that anybody is on my 'side.'

I suppose you think that everybody who thinks you're a moron is somehow
all on the same 'side.' Maybe it's a coalition of those who can see the
obvious.

DSK

Exactly, No one does. If you look at his web site, he doesn't tell you a
thing, except it will be great.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

Exactly wrong. Really. Neither of you understand what Kerry is discussing.

NYOB,
It would be nice if Kerry discussed the specifics of his health plan,
without the details people will either assume it is a "free health plan" for
all or a plan that will bankrupt businesses.

It would be possible to come up with a health plan that would be better for
small businesses and their employers than the one they currently have, but
you can't tell because Kerry isn't telling anyone.


"NOYB" wrote in message
...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
Harry Krause wrote:



It's a threat...and once again, reason enough why health care for
workers should not be in the hands of employers.




I agree that health care should not be in the hands of employers, but
for different reasons.

Business, small and large, operate to provide a product or service,
hopefully making a profit in the course of doing so. Success benefits
the owners, stockholders and employees and usually causes the business
to grow which creates the need for more jobs and employment.

The advent of HMO's back in the late 70's, early 80's added the cost of
administrating and often paying for the bulk of private health insurance
leading to a disparity in coverage. Some businesses can afford decent
plans and pay for the bulk of the cost. Other struggling businesses have
to settle for second rate plans and pass more or all of the cost to the
employees. IMHO, this is not right ... one's job status should not
determine the quality of health care one or one's family receives.

Which brings a question to mind. I happened to listen to John Kerry
giving his stump speech in Florida this afternoon. In it, he repeated
his pledge to enable everyone to choose their health plan and doctors,
just like those in Congress do.

I don't know how he plans on doing this. In our mutual home state of
Massachusetts, a small business (less than 50 employees last time I
checked) is required to have 100 per cent participation in a particular
health plan in order for the company to participate. This means that if
you want Blue Cross/Blue Shield, all the employees of the company must
sign up for it (unless the employee is covered by a spouse's plan by
another employer). Same is true for Harvard, Pilgrim or any of the
group plans. This causes problems because not all doctors participate
in all the plans. For those potential employees whose doctor does not
participate in the chosen company plan must either change doctors or
decline the job.

So, is Kerry saying he is going to completely disassemble and then
reassemble group health plans is the US? I don't think so.

I did an analysis several years ago when I still owned a small company.
Using one of the employees who represented a "typical" family (wife and
two young children) and looking at the number of times one of the family
members visited a doctor during the course of a year I discovered that
it would be less costly to provide a major medical plan for catastrophic
illness or injury and have my company pay 100 percent of all the normal
medical costs, doctor visits and prescriptions for his entire family.
The employee had a son with a chronic health problem that required
frequent doctor visits and still it would have been less expensive to
pay cash for all the visits and medication *and* pay for 100 percent of
the major medical plan compared to the monthly HMO premiums and
restrictions on choice of doctors.

I approached Blue Cross, Pilgrim and Tuffs with this concept. All
refused to provide a major medical plan.

Eisboch



The model Kerry refers to is the FEHBA- Federal Employes Health Benefit
Association. Under this program, dozens, perhaps hundreds of health
plans are offered to federal employees, with the government paying about
80% of the average premium of several of the biggest plans.

How can the government pay 80% of everyone's health insurance premium
*and* cut the deficit, while raising only the taxes on those folks earning
over $200,000? Kerry's a liar, and only the dumbest of the dumb would
believe that he's not going to raise taxes on the middle class.