"Wes" wrote in message
...
"John R. Carroll" wrote:


"Wes" wrote in message
...
"John R. Carroll" wrote:

As for whether the "concept" is to destroy private insurance, I'm sure
there are plenty of people who want to. Like John, I think it's
probably
inevitable -- not because something else wouldn't work,

Employers are going to drive this dynamic, in my opinion.
If I can, as an employer, pay a couple of grand per year to the
government
per employee and dump my healt-care costs, I'm going to do so ASAP. I'll
have to in the end anyway because I'll be competing with people that
have.
Employer based health-care will be as dead as a door nail by Monday
morning.

Two grand?

That's the "fine", yes, and it's paid to the IRS. You'll never see it
directly.
This assumes that your epmloyer has 50 or more employees.
Otherwise, there isn't a penalty but i will be elgible for a tax credit if
I
choose to offer coverage, even if we share the cost.
Small business will finally get a fair shake.

A very simple solution would have been to have one group. Why are the
feds a group and
small business a bunch of very small groups? There is an issue though.

This is what the public option that Republican's reviled was all about.
The group would have been that portion of the American public that wanted to
be part of the public group.

Requiring the public option would be about the same as single payer - the
most sensible thing to do if you want to flex a lot of purchasing power.


I can see a group being limited if the employer is self insured. Many
Fortune 500
companies are.

Yes, the in effect institute their own single payer plan for their work
force.
They cut out the middle man and have insurance companies compete for the
right to administer the group.
What you seem to be missing is that if it weren't economical to do this,
nobody would and that it's sort of ass backwards for the American public not
to do what employers that self insure do.




Where is the rest of the money coming from?

That's your problem.

That's a bit cold. Glad I don't work for you.

You giving all your employees a
raise so they can fork over the rest of what takes for converage?

Maybe, but only if I have to. That's the way free markets work Wes and
with
15 million unemployed, I can probably find someone qualified and motivated
that will work for your wage. I'm even going to hire a contractor to come
in
and explain it to you so I don't have to do my own dirty work and if I do
choose to subsidize your coverage, there is going to be a line item for it
on your check every week for you to look at.

I'm assuming you are engaging in hyperbole.

Hardly. Were the health care markets truly free youd see what chaos and
extorsion looked like at first hand.


As far as line items. Everything including
the employer part of medicare and ssi should be on the check. I'm a big
fan of everyone
knowing just how much tax they are paying to the state and feds. Too bad
when I buy
something from a store, I can't see how much embeded taxes I'm paying for
an item.


Most of us above room
temperature know part of our compensation is not on our W-4 forms.

You'd think that but it isn't actually the case. People percieve the value
of health care coverage based on their usage, not it's cost.

That is your opinion.

Not really. It's an opinion formed by having every insurance carrier I've
ever bought group coverage from come in and spend significant time
educationg my employees about the value of their coverage and also providing
me with ta bunch of tools to reinfoece the message on my own throughout the
year.

While I carry auto insurance with unlimited medical, I don't hope
to have a car crash to give my insurance a whirl. I doubt any of us want
to die early and
get value out of our life insurance.

Eventually, you wouldn't carry medical coverage in conjunction with any of
the insurances you buy.
In fact, with yearly and lifetime limits removed as part of what's just
passed, you might want to look at all or your coverages and see what you can
do to eliminate duplication.

There also wouldn't be a medical component to Workers Compensation coverage.
All of these put Americans at a tremendous competetive disadvantage Wes.

You'd be in a different situation were you self employed or a contractor
because you'd be in the private market.
Under that set of facts, yes, you could keep your plan if you liked it.

Tax treatment for private contractors sucks. There I bet we see eye to
eye on. I'm all
for extending the same tax treatment to the self employed carrying their
own policy as
those like me that work for a corporation.

I'd rather the reverse be true. Health care premiums would go down
significantly if the revenue pool were reduced.




What ought to be increasingly clear to you is that a public option or
single
payer system is in your best interests and, as an employer, mine.
What we have now puts us both at a competitive disadvantage in todays
world
marketplace. The only winners are the insurance and pharmaceutical
industries.

I'm going to wear my self out on this. Insurance has to respond to
regulation and will
tack on the profit needed to come out whole. They may loose in one year
but the next year
they will adjust.

The cost of health care is rising so rapidly because the business model in
the health care industry if fee per service driven.
The really simple version of this is that medical professionals can create
demand whenever they want to and insurance companies LIKE THAT because they
simply raise premiums and their percentage of the action stays the same.
More Services Provided/Higher costs = Higher Profits. It's that simple.

What we need to get to is a model that rewards cost effective equivalent
outcomes and penalizes or discourages overuse.


The public option is a system that will administrated by unionized
government workers
sucking at the teat of those that actually pay into our system. It will
stick most of the
population into a single model of heathcare with no opportunity for
experimentation and
change. It will be under constant pressure to keep costs under control.
Good by grand ma
on that one.

Of course the elite will have their separate system. They always do.

It isn't only "the elite" Wes. It's a matter of priorities. Regardless, you
will always be able to do what people the world over do and plus up your
coverage on your own.

Who was that guy
from Canada that didn't wait for his country to treat him but came here
for good treatent.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/che...heart_sur.html

That wasn't even hard to find on google and I have a poor memory.

The worlds best health care isn't delivered in the US Wes. Not even close.
There are two countries that I can think of right off the top of my head
where care is significantly better and much, much cheaper.
Let me guess, you are one of those that still thinks we are number on in
health care technology as delivered.
We aren't Wes and haven't been for a decade.

Here is some other "news" for you. Barak Obama really is a US National, not
Kenyan.
I know. It's hard to believe, but true none the lessG



As far as Pharma based in the US, we should not pay a cent more than
Canada or the EU for
the same damn drugs. Now what happens when they move to another country
to counter that,
that is something we will just have wait and see about.

The very next health care initiative ought to rescind the law forbidding the
feds from negotiating the best price for drugs under part D.
I can't imagine either the public or any member of Congress opposing that
and if you wanted to close the "donut hole" yu cold do it right there and
overnight.

This law is the dumbest damned thing I've ever seen. Well, almost the
dumbest. I've seen some really stupid things in my time.
Keeping GM alive, among other things, was dumber.


JC