Another health care thread.

[Buonas]

Originally Posted by atlcomedy

... "Will I still get quality care & what will the immediate impact be on my checkbook?"...

Quality care? are you kidding me?

they have to take the employers OUT of the health care equation do get any improvement.
then they have to restrict the insurances from some things they can do and thus hijack the entire process.

both things are not in the current proposed reform.

conclusion: no real reform, just another cash register receipt for chapter 11.

[TexTushHog]

Whether it costs an individual more or less than the current system will depend on quite a few factors, including their age, their state of health, whether they are in an individual or a group plan, the quality of their current plan, and most importantly, their income. Without knowing that, there is no way to answer that question. So the original question is impossible to answer because there isn't enough information given.

As for employers dropping coverage, I don't think that will happen. The Senate plan on which the compromise is to be based will tax employers of a certain size who don't cover their employees. The amount of that tax is supposed to be punitive so that there is an incentive for them to maintain that coverage. If employers drop coverage in large numbers, then it is a simple matter to adjust the size of the tax upwards until they pick it up again in similar numbers.

I am an employer who pays 100% of the health care premium for my employees, with a low deductible, and I have no plans to drop my coverage for my employees.

[pjorourke]

If you love the Post Office and the Public School system, you will love public healthcare.

[atlcomedy]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

I am an employer who pays 100% of the health care premium for my employees, with a low deductible, and I have no plans to drop my coverage for my employees.

& you employ how many people?

Originally Posted by pjorourke

If you love the Post Office and the Public School system, you will love public healthcare.

actually I'll take the post office

[charlestudor2005]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

If you love the Post Office and the Public School system, you will love public healthcare.

Originally Posted by atlcomedy

actually I'll take the post office

And as far as public school is concerned, state universities seem to do OK. Why are they so much better than local public schools?

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

And as far as public school is concerned, state universities seem to do OK. Why are they so much better than local public schools?

a) Define good

b) College education isn't free. There are private competitors. Etc.

[pjorourke]

BTW, where the hell is that damn "beating dead horse" smiley?

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

I am an employer who pays 100% of the health care premium for my employees, with a low deductible, and I have no plans to drop my coverage for my employees.

Including dependent coverage? If so, boy are you dumb. You just picked up the cost of coverage for all your employees spouses. Their employers are very thankful.

[atlcomedy]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

BTW, where the hell is that damn "beating dead horse" smiley?

[Sisyphus]

Originally Posted by atlcomedy

I think this guy's thoughts are pretty typical: "Will I still get quality care & what will the immediate impact be on my checkbook?"

I have to assume the $5k is out of pocket & doesn't include his employer's contribution to his health care. If not, I'd like to meet him. In fact Congress should meet him.

There was article in yesterday's weekend edition of WSJ, "You Get the Same Coverage as Your Senator? Yes & No." which reads in part....

"The majority of Americans, those who receive health insurance from employers, are expected to remain on those plans if the overhaul bill passes. Their insurance choices wouldn't change much."

If that's accurate... and you're one of them... the change in your total health care cost (defined as your premium + any adjustment in your other tax rates) is most likely to be driven by how much your other tax rates change to pay for all - or certain aspects of the program. There is a redistributive income effect to the total plan as the article points out,

"Uninsured people would get subsidies to help them buy coverage, and for lower-income people, the subsidies would be considerable. A family of four earning $29,000 a year would have their premiums capped at a level equal to $72.50 a month. The subsidies would get smaller on a sliding scale. A family of four earning $88,000 would pay premiums as high as $697 a month."

But, it's difficult to tell how much of it is born by higher-income folks IN the exchange & how much is born by us all.

Granted, I've seen/heard numbers that are all over the map but this seems like a rather straight-forward explanation (if accurate) that one could use to begin to figure out just how much the plan impacts them directly, pro or con. Look at the rate of change between those two income/HC-premiums & see where you fit on the scale should you wind up in the exchange.

Not the be all & end all of the math as the piece goes on to say,

"People with subsidies would be directed toward a plan that covers on average 70% of their health costs. By comparison, the Blue Cross and Blue Shield plan that most federal workers choose pays an average of 87% of their health costs."

Here' a link to the complete article:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...373585266.html

[TexTushHog]

Originally Posted by atlcomedy

& you employ how many people?

About a dozen or so. It varies by two or three depending on comings and goings.

Originally Posted by pjorourke

Including dependent coverage? If so, boy are you dumb. You just picked up the cost of coverage for all your employees spouses. Their employers are very thankful.

Kids, yes, absolutely. I couldn't look at myself in the mirror, or my employees in the face is I didn't.

Spouses, no, not directly. Almost everyone who is married has a spouse that works. One employee doesn't, so I raised his salary enough so he could cover her. Otherwise, it was duplicative as you point out because the other three or four spouses worked.

[Rudyard K]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Kids, yes, absolutely. I couldn't look at myself in the mirror, or my employees in the face is I didn't.

Spouses, no, not directly. Almost everyone who is married has a spouse that works. One employee doesn't, so I raised his salary enough so he could cover her. Otherwise, it was duplicative as you point out because the other three or four spouses worked.

Interesting? So, are you discriminating against singles? In other words, two people in the same position...one married with children...one single. You are obviously spending more in compensation to the married than the single.

[John Bull]

Don't know why you would be assessed points. You stuck to the thread and were courteous. That's all we ask.

[npita]

Originally Posted by John Bull

And anyone who thinks a "non-profit" health care system would produce the medical innovations

Half of the new drugs developed every year are developed by the NIH. The problem is that under the Bayh-Dole act, the NIH (and every other taxpayer funded reasearch institution) is allowed to grant the patent rights from the fruits of publicly funded research to a private company. The question about health care is not between public vs. private, but a question of how publicly funded health care woud be implemented.

We ALREADY have a type of publicly funded health care. Employers who provide health care get to write off part of that expense, so that people with NO health care are subsidizing those whose employers provide health care.

[Rudyard K]

Originally Posted by npita

We ALREADY have a type of publicly funded health care. Employers who provide health care get to write off part of that expense, so that people with NO health care are subsidizing those whose employers provide health care.

Well of course the employer gets to write off the expense. That's because it is an expense to the employer...just like COGS, and salaries, and any other expense.

The question is not whether the employer should get to write off the expense...that is just a wordsmith game to make it sound like the employer is getting some kind of tax break. It is an expense of the employer and the employer is paying it for business purposes.

The question is should the employee be required to report it as income and pay tax on the income? That has a complete different ring to it, and trying to get that sold to the population means one has to have some strength in his convictions.