health insurance bill

[brin]

" I won't participate in this thread any further because I'm surprised it hasn't gotten shot down already for political reasons...this is precisely a political thread...which kind of "bill" does everyone think we are talking about."

arc - I think the owners and the moderators are smart enough to see you are the one trying to bring politics into this thread and thereby try to close the thread. This has little to do with politics but much to do with the health of our country. Try to lighten up !

 

[TonyKoehler]

Just wanted to see others thoughts on the new health insurance bill. Good or bad. If I want to retire at 62 and draw social security benifits at 65, will I be required to carry health insurance till retirement age, etc. . If so, what are the requirements and what if all insurance companys say you are uninsurable? Any thoughts?

Didn't read all the way through to start with, but the way I understand it, if you're 62 now, it won't affect your insurance until you're 66. They only start collecting revenue for the new bill now--they don't change/provide any benefits for 4 years! That's why they could claim that it saves money over 10 years! Collect revenue for 10 years and only pay benefits for 6. What business couldn't save money doing that?

 

[turbo36]

The title of this thread should read..

"I got mine, and I couldn't care less about any other American who has to die or suffer pain because they weren't as successful or lucky as me. Everyone could be a millionaire if they just wanted it bad enough"

Imagine...a bunch of bus drivers being millionaires and Snapon Tool salesman..the only reason they arent millionaires is that they just don't want it bad enough...therefore...why should we care if a catastrophic illness destroys their childrens future..

I got mine.

People have no clue as to what the bill actually entails and are making comments based on their perceptions of what pundits and chain emails are telling them to think, not reality. There is no rationing...there is no change to your insurance plan unless your employer decides to change it...but wait, that happens already...

You people afraid of rationing and an influx of people into the health care system..are these people that are laying dead and dying in the gutter, and you want them to stay out of your health care system so your "WAIT" time isnt impacted? You don't think that maybe there could be an expansion of jobs (if you believe your own rhetoric about an increase in patients). Fact is either these people don't need health care services or they do, and if they do...BY ALL THAT IS HOLY they should **** WELL GET IT. I dont care what their background is...Im not here to judge other human beings...thats GOD"S JOB...but many of you seem to be vying for that job. Many of you people sound like the people in the ER I work at that complain about their wait time on a upset stomach and someone in the next room is bleeding out, yet the upset stomach is the loudmouth screaming and carrying on about malpractice suits. Baby want their binky.

Cant have it both ways...hmmm...my opponent likes my ideas so he is wrong...or he likes his own ideas...still wrong...never mind that if he likes my ideas and is wrong, that makes ME wrong too...You cant talk about expanding an industry..creating extra demand for that same industry, and then complain about a declining job market in the same sentence and be considered credible in any way.


I won't participate in this thread any further because I'm surprised it hasn't gotten shot down already for political reasons...this is precisely a political thread...which kind of "bill" does everyone think we are talking about.

IBTL

You hit the nail on the head, many of those complaining about the new "socialist" health plan are already on the old "socialist" health plan ( Medicare, Medicaid, VA etc. etc) and they don't want that screwed up by adding others.

I don't know what the real solution is but as an employer the current system puts me at a great disadvantage compared to my global opponents. My third biggest expense is health care. If I moved my factory to China the wages I would pay would amount to less then my health care bill, how's that for reality?

 

[dave1949]

You hit the nail on the head, many of those complaining about the new "socialist" health plan are already on the old "socialist" health plan ( Medicare, Medicaid, VA etc. etc) and they don't want that screwed up by adding others.

I don't know what the real solution is but as an employer the current system puts me at a great disadvantage compared to my global opponents. My third biggest expense is health care. If I moved my factory to China the wages I would pay would amount to less then my health care bill, how's that for reality?

One thing I don't understand is the opinion support received for employer-sponsored/subsidized health insurance. Think about it, you are willing to allow your employer to decide for you how some part of your compensation will be spent; because you don't really have any other good options if you want to purchase health insurance. If that is/were the government, all heck is raised. Not a very consistent viewpoint.

One of the worst things that happened to health insurance was when employers began to subsidize it - in lieu of wages - back in the 1940's. It's no bargain to employers to deal with it, just headaches and administrative overhead. The fact that large employers have enough bargaining leverage to at least somewhat hold down rising costs means individuals and small businesses are automatically at a disadvantage in the market. There is no free lunch, what is not paid by one is paid by another.

Who did HMO's market themselves to? Large employers, not individuals. That just added a cost layer with little to no benefit to the end consumers. I would like to see employers taken out of the health insurance equation. Put end consumers back in touch with the issues and let the market work it out.
Dave.

 

[canoetrpr]

My main point at the time with that statement was more to demonstrate that we are not necessarily bound to an employer for health insurance which is what it seemed to me canoetrpr was implying.

Lost, I didn't mean to imply that by my statement but upon re-reading my post I can see how it might have been seen that way. What I was trying to point out was that more so than any other industrialized country, health insurance is typically provided through the employer in the USA.

I understand that one of the principal reasons for this is that it is tax efficient to do it this way as the premiums can then be payed with pre tax dollars. Consequently a MUCH larger chunk of the general population gets their insurance this way than through an individual purchase.

I also expect that if you take up employment at many employers, you simply get the health benefits that come with the job. Are you able to opt out of them and get an increase in wage that is the fair market value of the health coverage you refuse?

The downside of the tax code encouraging this, is that you can't necessarily take your health insurance with you if you decide to leave.

I will fully admit that my understanding might be incorrect here so please correct me if this is the case.

Having one's own health insurance provided through / tied to his employer then becomes a reason for a person to stay under-employed due to the risk of losing coverage by moving to another employer (for pre-existing conditions - that may have developed while at the previous employer), of if things do not work out in a new job.

In my opinion this is a distortion to the labour market. Capitalism requires the free movement of both labour and capital to maximize the efficiency and productivity of resources in the economy.

One can debate about how much of a distortion this is and what exact impact it has on the American economy. My personal opinion is that it is significant and unreported and worse - it is hard to measure.

I have a number of friends, colleauges and family who claim that there are many occasions in the past when they hung onto a job primarily because of the health benefits it provided, a few others who decided not to quit their job, go back to school to change careers for the same reason, and one or two who might have considered starting a small business or become self employed.

Policy has to be assessed on a longer term perspective than one or two years. For freer movement of labour, it is better to encourage a health policy that results in insurance that is tied to the individual rather than to the place of employment.

 

[2manyrocks]

These are issues that are like the issues with employer retirement plans. Many of your rank and file employees rely on the employer to figure out what plan to get and then the employees participate. If left on their own, some employees wouldn't get health insurance any more than they would put aside money for retirement.

In theory, a employer should be able to drive a better bargain on health insurance than individual employees. In practice, I have seen the HR department fail to shop health insurance coverage and then everybody got hit with a huge premium increase in the next plan year because HR messed up and couldn't move the coverage elsewhere by the time they realized what was coming.

There are so many variables in how this actually plays out from individual to individual and company to company that I suppose the possible outcomes and opinions are endless for good reason.

 

[LostInTheWoods]

The title of this thread should read..

"I got mine, and I couldn't care less about any other American who has to die or suffer pain because they weren't as successful or lucky as me. Everyone could be a millionaire if they just wanted it bad enough"

This is a tired song that's been played all too often. "If you don't agree with me, then you must be ignorant, or racist, or just plain mean". If I can't provide facts that stand up to scrutiny, then *click* let the recording play...

Imagine...a bunch of bus drivers being millionaires and Snapon Tool salesman..the only reason they arent millionaires is that they just don't want it bad enough...therefore...why should we care if a catastrophic illness destroys their childrens future.

If I ever become a millionaire, I'll let you know if it changes my opinion. In the meantime, I'll still be showing up for work every morning.

I got mine.

Let's discuss just exactly how I "got mine".

I "got mine" by not relying on others to provide it for me. I "got mine" by taking out student loans to afford college. I "got mine" by working at least one, often two jobs while going to college, because student loans didn't cover all the bills, and weren't available once I entered graduate school. I "got mine" by working long hours, which turned into long days, that turned into long years filled with sacrifices. I "got mine" by following just one of many paths open to every single citizen of this country. I "got mine" by joining the National Guard during a time of war to do two things. One, help pay for those student loans. Two, to serve my country in a time of need. Which reminds me, the Guard and Reserves offer health insurance for both individuals and families that is very inexpensive. Yet another way someone can obtain insurance.

Now that I "have mine", I'd just as soon not see it squandered on fraud and waste. That's a huge reason I question this bill. If its so fantastic, why did it require closed-door meetings and sweetheart deals after we were promised it would be out in the open? If they were discussing national defense, then yes, I could understand the need for secrecy. But private meetings about our healthcare?

People have no clue as to what the bill actually entails and are making comments based on their perceptions of what pundits and chain emails are telling them to think, not reality. There is no rationing...there is no change to your insurance plan unless your employer decides to change it...but wait, that happens already...

Then please, tell us what's in it that you support so strongly. What are you basing your comments on? What is the "reality" that we are not seeing? I'm not trying to be sarcastic. I'd really like more reasons to support this. I just don't see it.

You people afraid of rationing and an influx of people into the health care system..are these people that are laying dead and dying in the gutter, and you want them to stay out of your health care system so your "WAIT" time isnt impacted?

Think of all the people you know. All the people you see day in and day out. How many do you see "that are laying dead and dying in the gutter"?

There's oversimplification to make a point, then there's oversimplification that misses the point. No one who's "laying dead and dying in the gutter" is refused treatment. And we've already established there are numerous programs and agencies to assist those in need, even when things aren't quite so bad as your example. The current system is inadequate. It does need adjustment. That much I readily concede. But I think you're being a little extreme.

And do you reallybelieve the vast majority of people are more worried about their wait times than the proper care of patients and the proper means of changing healthcare to assist those patients?

Im not here to judge other human beings...thats GOD"S JOB...but many of you seem to be vying for that job.

Read Proverbs. Not for religious purposes, merely for some common sense sayings. Sort of like reading the little tidbits in Farmer's Almanac.

Proverbs 27:12 A prudent person foresees danger and takes precautions. The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.

Proverbs 12:11 A hard worker has plenty of food, but a person who chases fantasies has no sense.

Proverbs 28:19 A hard worker has plenty of food, but a person who chases fantasies ends up in poverty.

Proverbs 13:16 Wise people think before they act; fools don't--and even brag about their foolishness.

Many of you people sound like the people in the ER I work at that complain about their wait time on a upset stomach and someone in the next room is bleeding out, yet the upset stomach is the loudmouth screaming and carrying on about malpractice suits. Baby want their binky.

Remind me again, who exactly is insensitive to others?

Cant have it both ways...hmmm...my opponent likes my ideas so he is wrong...or he likes his own ideas...still wrong...never mind that if he likes my ideas and is wrong, that makes ME wrong too...You cant talk about expanding an industry..creating extra demand for that same industry, and then complain about a declining job market in the same sentence and be considered credible in any way.

Um, I can't follow that at all. Consider my credibility shot.

I won't participate in this thread any further because... which kind of "bill" does everyone think we are talking about.

The one the OP mentions by name in the first line of his original post. It is no secret.

To the OP. Sorry if this thread has been derailed from its original intent. As you can see, I think most of us in the good 'ole USA really don't know exactly what to expect. Either how it will affect you in your current situation, or how it will affect the rest of us as we try to plan our lives. It has been fed to us as one feeds castor oil to a three-year-old. "Shut up and take this, its good for you".

Some posters running their own businesses have shown some support for this bill. I don't know their reasoning, but I also don't know the specifics of how this will play out for them. I remember that the US Chamber of Commerce wasn't a huge fan of the bill, so I was under the impression that if "the world's largest business federation representing the interests of more than 3 million businesses of all sizes, sectors, and regions..." was not for it, there might be issues.

When I read this, it seems as though the bill will be a mixed bag for business owners. Some good, some bad. I am not a business owner, so its hard for me to say.

The ChamberPost: Aftermath: New Realities for Businesses in the Wake of the Health Care Law

Trust me. I WANT to believe this will work. I WANT to believe this will help businesses. I WANT to believe it will help those who need help without making things worse. I want to believe it's the best thing for me, my neighbors, my co-workers, and for the future of my children. I want to believe everyone will end up a winner.

But there are always losers.


Respectfully,

Lost

 

[LostInTheWoods]

Lost, I didn't mean to imply that by my statement but upon re-reading my post I can see how it might have been seen that way. What I was trying to point out was that more so than any other industrialized country, health insurance is typically provided through the employer in the USA.

Canoetrpr,

I suspect what you say is true. Its mostly conjecture on my part, but from what I understand of the healthcare delivery in most other nations, I agree.

I understand that one of the principal reasons for this is that it is tax efficient to do it this way as the premiums can then be payed with pre tax dollars. Consequently a MUCH larger chunk of the general population gets their insurance this way than through an individual purchase.

LOL, we Americans (by that I mean the US "Americans") are a crafty bunch when it comes to trying get get as much mileage out of our greenbacks before the tax man reaches in.

That's not to say we're all clueless. We KNOW taxes are necessary. I believe everyone should pay taxes. And not because I'm crying about "how come I have to pay them and he doesn't". I think everyone needs to have an investment in their country. They need a tangible way to "feel" that investment. And your tax burden should be directly tied to the deficit ... deficit goes up, your taxes go up. Deficit goes down, your taxes go down. Then we'd see an electorate responsive to the masses.

I also expect that if you take up employment at many employers, you simply get the health benefits that come with the job. Are you able to opt out of them and get an increase in wage that is the fair market value of the health coverage you refuse?

I have been employed at several places in my life that offered health insurance. I every case, I was able to elect to not participate. I don't know if that is true in all instances.

In some instances, the employer would offer some monetary compensation to those who chose to forego the insurance. But not always. And I have no way of knowing if it would be for the true market value.

...you can't necessarily take your health insurance with you if you decide to leave.

Very true.

Having one's own health insurance provided through / tied to his employer then becomes a reason for a person to stay under-employed due to the risk of losing coverage by moving to another employer (for pre-existing conditions - that may have developed while at the previous employer), of if things do not work out in a new job.

In my opinion this is a distortion to the labour market. Capitalism requires the free movement of both labour and capital to maximize the efficiency and productivity of resources in the economy.

There's a reason the USA is known as The Land of Opportunity. You can always leave your job and take a risk. And you do need to compare health insurance between the two employers (or what you can get for yourself if staring your own business).

The preexisting problem issue is one that certainly needs to be fixed. Does it impact the free movement of labor (US spelling )? I don't know. That is an answer I'd leave to economists. I would agree that it would be difficult to measure.

For freer movement of labour, it is better to encourage a health policy that results in insurance that is tied to the individual rather than to the place of employment.

I believe that most things should be tied to the individual, but that's a soapbox I'll stay off of for a while.

Part of the problem is that the individual will lose his first choice, and that is whether or not he even wants insurance. *apologetically climbs down from soapbox*

As for tying it to the individual, I looked at the summary on the healthreform.gov website. I don't see where it will necessarily be tied to the individual under the new plan. I could have easily missed something, though.

I did see this about pre-existing conditions:

HELP FOR UNINSURED AMERICANS WITH PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS UNTIL EXCHANGE IS AVAILABLE (INTERIM HIGH‐RISK POOL)猶rovides access to affordable insurance for Americans who are uninsured because of a pre‐existing condition through a temporary subsidized high‐risk pool. Effective in 2010.

I see no info on just how "affordable" it will be, or what happens after the "temporary" pool disappears.

I'd really like to draw on your experiences in Canada. Have you had much interaction with the healthcare system there? Does it resemble what is in our new bill? Are you happy with certain aspects? Unhappy?


Respectfully,

Lost

 

[brin]

Do any of you remember back prior to about the late 1970's when you got insurance from your employer it was only for a major injury or illness requiring hospitalization and or surgery. The insurance did not cover Doctor visits, drugs , tests or lab work..just covered major problems and back then we all paid that out of our pocket and then if you had to go to the hospital you paid the first 20% and insurance paid the rest...How did we stray so far ? and how can we get back to a patient/consumer driven price camparing market ?

 

[LostInTheWoods]

Do any of you remember back prior to about the late 1970's when you got insurance from your employer it was only for a major injury or illness requiring hospitalization and or surgery. The insurance did not cover Doctor visits, drugs , tests or lab work..just covered major problems and back then we all paid that out of our pocket and then if you had to go to the hospital you paid the first 20% and insurance paid the rest...How did we stray so far ? and how can we get back to a patient/consumer driven price camparing market ?

Brin, I think those days are gone, for a variety of reasons. The new medical technology we have now is great, but it costs tons of money to both own and operate.

For good or bad, there are an ever-increasing number of government regulations (long before the new healthcare bill) influencing the delivery of medicine that require both time and money to comply with.

And not to beat a dead horse, but I doubt docs back in the good 'ol days spent such a large portion of their income on malpractice premiums, transcriptionists, billing clerks, secretaries, fax machines, copy machines, etc, etc. Then, of course, you have so many employees, you need an office manager.

Even the 80/20 policies, where you pay twenty percent can be a pretty big impact to your finances these days. 20% of $50,000 for a major hospitalization is gonna hurt.