There's been so much debate here and on other forums about Universal
US health care (pro and con) that one gets curious about how much it
NOW costs, say, the average US family, to have 'Health Insurance'.

We guess that the cost is either fully paid by the subscriber?
Or in other cases, partly by the subscriber and partly by their
employer?
Then there are others, we gather who have no health insurance at all?
And we understand there is something called Medicaid?

Insurance cost numbers a) As little as 'a few hundred' b) Over
$12,000, per year have been mentioned?.

But what is a 'typical' (or average) USA cost?

In article
,
terry wrote:

There's been so much debate here and on other forums about Universal
US health care (pro and con) that one gets curious about how much it
NOW costs, say, the average US family, to have 'Health Insurance'.

We guess that the cost is either fully paid by the subscriber?
Or in other cases, partly by the subscriber and partly by their
employer?
Then there are others, we gather who have no health insurance at all?
And we understand there is something called Medicaid?

Insurance cost numbers a) As little as 'a few hundred' b) Over
$12,000, per year have been mentioned?.

But what is a 'typical' (or average) USA cost?

According to the National Coalition on Health Care, $13,000.

http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml

"The average employer-sponsored premium for a family of four costs close
to $13,000 a year, and the employee foots about 30 percent of this cost."

--x--x--x--x--

Based on personal observation, government employees of almost any type
have excellent health insurance policies paid by the employer, with
funds graciously provided by my taxes. Those policies cover vision and
dental as well as regular insurance, and include the employee's family.

Private companies often cover only 50% of the cost of the premium, and
if the employee wants insurance for the rug rats or the spouse, the
entire premium comes from his or her own pocket.

In article , Smitty Two wrote:

According to the National Coalition on Health Care, $13,000.

http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml

"The average employer-sponsored premium for a family of four costs close
to $13,000 a year, and the employee foots about 30 percent of this cost."

--x--x--x--x--

Based on personal observation, government employees of almost any type
have excellent health insurance policies paid by the employer, with
funds graciously provided by my taxes. Those policies cover vision and
dental as well as regular insurance, and include the employee's family.

Private companies often cover only 50% of the cost of the premium, and
if the employee wants insurance for the rug rats or the spouse, the
entire premium comes from his or her own pocket.

The entire premium is coming out of the individual's pocket anyway, even in
employer-sponsored plans. Every dollar the employer spends on purchasing
health insurance is a dollar that is unavailable for spending on salaries or
wages.

It is likewise a convenient fiction that the employer pays half of the FICA
premium. Nope. The employee pays all of it -- half in direct payroll
deduction, and half in the form of a reduced salary.

In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:

In article
, Smitty
Two wrote:

According to the National Coalition on Health Care, $13,000.

http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml

"The average employer-sponsored premium for a family of four costs close
to $13,000 a year, and the employee foots about 30 percent of this cost."

--x--x--x--x--

Based on personal observation, government employees of almost any type
have excellent health insurance policies paid by the employer, with
funds graciously provided by my taxes. Those policies cover vision and
dental as well as regular insurance, and include the employee's family.

Private companies often cover only 50% of the cost of the premium, and
if the employee wants insurance for the rug rats or the spouse, the
entire premium comes from his or her own pocket.

The entire premium is coming out of the individual's pocket anyway, even in
employer-sponsored plans. Every dollar the employer spends on purchasing
health insurance is a dollar that is unavailable for spending on salaries or
wages.

It is likewise a convenient fiction that the employer pays half of the FICA
premium. Nope. The employee pays all of it -- half in direct payroll
deduction, and half in the form of a reduced salary.

Well, if we're segueing into "convenient fictions," here's another one:
Governments have to pay high salaries and provide luxury-class benefits
in order to attract qualified workers away from private industry. In
truth, the pay and benefit scales are often double what industry pays
for comparable skill sets. The city, county, and state here are all
going broke, and it's due in large measure to absolutely obscene wages.

In article , Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:

In article
, Smitty
Two wrote:

According to the National Coalition on Health Care, $13,000.

http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml

"The average employer-sponsored premium for a family of four costs close
to $13,000 a year, and the employee foots about 30 percent of this cost."

--x--x--x--x--

Based on personal observation, government employees of almost any type
have excellent health insurance policies paid by the employer, with
funds graciously provided by my taxes. Those policies cover vision and
dental as well as regular insurance, and include the employee's family.

Private companies often cover only 50% of the cost of the premium, and
if the employee wants insurance for the rug rats or the spouse, the
entire premium comes from his or her own pocket.

The entire premium is coming out of the individual's pocket anyway, even in
employer-sponsored plans. Every dollar the employer spends on purchasing
health insurance is a dollar that is unavailable for spending on salaries or
wages.

It is likewise a convenient fiction that the employer pays half of the FICA
premium. Nope. The employee pays all of it -- half in direct payroll
deduction, and half in the form of a reduced salary.

Well, if we're segueing into "convenient fictions," here's another one:
Governments have to pay high salaries and provide luxury-class benefits
in order to attract qualified workers away from private industry.

Well, they have to do *something*.

In
truth, the pay and benefit scales are often double what industry pays
for comparable skill sets.

Maybe in your state; not in mine, and, I suspect, not in most.

And that's not even remotely close to true in the Federal civil service,
*especially* in management positions. The salary of a cabinet secretary is
something like $160K -- try finding a CEO who will work for that.

For scientists and engineers, Federal salaries are significantly lower than
corresponding private-sector salaries. The principal attractions of Federal
employment are stability, benefits, and the fact that the Federal civil
service in general, and Defense in particular, hand much more responsibility
to capable people at a much younger age than they'd ever see in the private
sector -- it's good for your career.

The city, county, and state here are all
going broke, and it's due in large measure to absolutely obscene wages.

That's because you live in the People's Republic of Kalifornia. Don't make the
mistake of supposing that the rest of the nation has the same insane public
policies. Most state legislatures are wiser than yours.

On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 16:03:28 GMT, Doug Miller wrote:

Maybe in your state; not in mine, and, I suspect, not in most.

And that's not even remotely close to true in the Federal civil service,
*especially* in management positions. The salary of a cabinet secretary is
something like $160K -- try finding a CEO who will work for that.

That's assuming they don't steer federal work to their companies.
BushCo's croniies got stinking rich doing exactly that.

clipped

That's because you live in the People's Republic of Kalifornia. Don't make the
mistake of supposing that the rest of the nation has the same insane public
policies. Most state legislatures are wiser than yours.

Horida has borrowed 600k to continue paying unemployment. From the
federal government.

The salary of a cabinet secretary is
something like $160K -- try finding a CEO who will work for that.

They might work for a $160K salary, but the CEO compensation package
will include all sorts of perks that go way beyond that paltry amount.

In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:

Maybe in your state; not in mine, and, I suspect, not in most.

So your county doesn't hire "Lego engineers" at $40k to teach kids the
principles of engineering by building with Legos? (No I am not making
this up)

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article
,
Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:

In article
,
Smitty
Two wrote:

According to the National Coalition on Health Care, $13,000.

http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml

"The average employer-sponsored premium for a family of four costs
close
to $13,000 a year, and the employee foots about 30 percent of this
cost."

--x--x--x--x--

Based on personal observation, government employees of almost any type
have excellent health insurance policies paid by the employer, with
funds graciously provided by my taxes. Those policies cover vision and
dental as well as regular insurance, and include the employee's family.

Private companies often cover only 50% of the cost of the premium, and
if the employee wants insurance for the rug rats or the spouse, the
entire premium comes from his or her own pocket.

The entire premium is coming out of the individual's pocket anyway, even
in
employer-sponsored plans. Every dollar the employer spends on purchasing
health insurance is a dollar that is unavailable for spending on
salaries or
wages.

It is likewise a convenient fiction that the employer pays half of the
FICA
premium. Nope. The employee pays all of it -- half in direct payroll
deduction, and half in the form of a reduced salary.

Well, if we're segueing into "convenient fictions," here's another one:
Governments have to pay high salaries and provide luxury-class benefits
in order to attract qualified workers away from private industry.

Well, they have to do *something*.

In
truth, the pay and benefit scales are often double what industry pays
for comparable skill sets.

Maybe in your state; not in mine, and, I suspect, not in most.

And that's not even remotely close to true in the Federal civil service,
*especially* in management positions. The salary of a cabinet secretary is
something like $160K -- try finding a CEO who will work for that.

For scientists and engineers, Federal salaries are significantly lower
than
corresponding private-sector salaries. The principal attractions of
Federal
employment are stability, benefits, and the fact that the Federal civil
service in general, and Defense in particular, hand much more
responsibility
to capable people at a much younger age than they'd ever see in the
private
sector -- it's good for your career.

The city, county, and state here are all
going broke, and it's due in large measure to absolutely obscene wages.

That's because you live in the People's Republic of Kalifornia. Don't make
the
mistake of supposing that the rest of the nation has the same insane
public
policies. Most state legislatures are wiser than yours.

Not in Maine.. We like to follow California's lead...Here the State is the
largest employer and the pay and benifits are unbelievable...6 digit pay for
governor appointees for do nothing jobs like Nuclear advisor...We have no
nuke power plants , ect..Agencies like DHHS missplacing a hundred MILLION
dollars and nothing is done about it...The Dems have run this state into the
ground for over 35 years..A true hackarama.....No time limits or fraud
investigation for welfare either.....The State is in the hole BIG time....We
also have publicly funded health care (Dirigo) that is hemorraging money
like a stuck pig....We owe the hospitals , nursing homes and doctors , ect.
over 800 MILLION dollars.....A true Liberal Utopia....

In ,
Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:

In article
, Smitty
Two wrote:

According to the National Coalition on Health Care, $13,000.

http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml

"The average employer-sponsored premium for a family of four costs close
to $13,000 a year, and the employee foots about 30 percent of this cost."

--x--x--x--x--

Based on personal observation, government employees of almost any type
have excellent health insurance policies paid by the employer, with
funds graciously provided by my taxes. Those policies cover vision and
dental as well as regular insurance, and include the employee's family.

Private companies often cover only 50% of the cost of the premium, and
if the employee wants insurance for the rug rats or the spouse, the
entire premium comes from his or her own pocket.

The entire premium is coming out of the individual's pocket anyway, even in
employer-sponsored plans. Every dollar the employer spends on purchasing
health insurance is a dollar that is unavailable for spending on salaries or
wages.

It is likewise a convenient fiction that the employer pays half of the FICA
premium. Nope. The employee pays all of it -- half in direct payroll
deduction, and half in the form of a reduced salary.

Well, if we're segueing into "convenient fictions," here's another one:
Governments have to pay high salaries and provide luxury-class benefits
in order to attract qualified workers away from private industry. In
truth, the pay and benefit scales are often double what industry pays
for comparable skill sets. The city, county, and state here are all
going broke, and it's due in large measure to absolutely obscene wages.

Though I would like to bitch about salaries of municipal and state
department heads and members of various legislatures and governmental and
quasi-governmental boards, it appears to me that the top few executives
and most VPs (not just CEO) of most of the Fortune 1000 companies and a
majority of specialist MDs make much more still.

I doubt that Fortune 500 companies have to compensate their CEOs tens of
megabucks annually and their VPs and other top executives megabucks
annually for skill sets that run the companies into the ground and/or
require multigigabuck taxpayer bailouts. Most foreign large companies,
unlike most USA ones, pay much less than this for executives whose
companies succeed, and less still for executives of companies who don't.

- Don Klipstein )

In article ,
(Don Klipstein) wrote:


I doubt that Fortune 500 companies have to compensate their CEOs tens of
megabucks annually and their VPs and other top executives megabucks
annually for skill sets that run the companies into the ground and/or
require multigigabuck taxpayer bailouts. Most foreign large companies,
unlike most USA ones, pay much less than this for executives whose
companies succeed, and less still for executives of companies who don't.

Interestingly, if you look at pure salaries, there is relatively
little difference between USA and EU (for example). The REAL differences
are largely in the payment of stock options and bonuses.
There was a change in the tax laws a few years ago. The Congress
wanted to "make the interests of the executives more in line with the
interests of the stockholders". They did this by limiting the
deductibility of salary to $1 million a year, effectively capping the
amount of money paid for just working for the company. The other thing
it did was give preferential tax treatment (in an effort to align
interests, doncha know) for stock options and bonuses.
What eventually (actually quite quickly since within two years of
enactment Enron broke) took place is the bonuses and stock options were
paying many more times the money than salary. (One of the Merrill
honchoes had a salary of $300,000 but bonuses and stock options of $300
million. that was the most egregious example I could find). They were
paid to manage the stock prices and not the company. So it really isn't
all the hard to notice that all of the incentives actually worked to the
detriment of the stockholders. Oopsie to Congress.
I think also the Congressional stamp of approval that this would,
indeed, align the interests of the stockholders with the honchos made it
easier for some who might not have crossed the line to do so by
rationalizing it was really for the stockholders, Congress said so.

--
Searching is half the fun: life is much more manageable when thought
of as a scavenger hunt as opposed to a surprise party.
Jimmy Buffett

On Aug 28, 11:53*pm, (Don Klipstein) wrote:
In ,





Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:

In article
, Smitty
Two wrote:

According to the National Coalition on Health Care, $13,000.

http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml

"The average employer-sponsored premium for a family of four costs close
to $13,000 a year, and the employee foots about 30 percent of this cost."

--x--x--x--x--

Based on personal observation, government employees of almost any type
have excellent health insurance policies paid by the employer, with
funds graciously provided by my taxes. Those policies cover vision and
dental as well as regular insurance, and include the employee's family.

Private companies often cover only 50% of the cost of the premium, and
if the employee wants insurance for the rug rats or the spouse, the
entire premium comes from his or her own pocket.

The entire premium is coming out of the individual's pocket anyway, even in
employer-sponsored plans. Every dollar the employer spends on purchasing
health insurance is a dollar that is unavailable for spending on salaries or
wages.

It is likewise a convenient fiction that the employer pays half of the FICA
premium. Nope. The employee pays all of it -- half in direct payroll
deduction, and half in the form of a reduced salary.

Well, if we're segueing into "convenient fictions," here's another one:
Governments have to pay high salaries and provide luxury-class benefits
in order to attract qualified workers away from private industry. In
truth, the pay and benefit scales are often double what industry pays
for comparable skill sets. The city, county, and state here are all
going broke, and it's due in large measure to absolutely obscene wages.

* Though I would like to bitch about salaries of municipal and state *
department heads and members of various legislatures and governmental and
quasi-governmental boards, it appears to me that the top few executives
and most VPs (not just CEO) of most of the Fortune 1000 companies and a
majority of specialist MDs make much more still.

* I doubt that Fortune 500 companies have to compensate their CEOs tens of
megabucks annually and their VPs and other top executives megabucks
annually for skill sets that run the companies into the ground and/or
require multigigabuck taxpayer bailouts. *Most foreign large companies,
unlike most USA ones, pay much less than this for executives whose
companies succeed, and less still for executives of companies who don't.

*- Don Klipstein )- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Maybe there should be legislation that executives not be paid more
than say ten times their lowest paid (regularly employed) worker?

Also bonuses, if any should be based on performance; for the running
average of the last five years and be paid five years hence! So any
executive who bankrupts a company instead of taking a fat bonus, thus
assisting the company closedown, laying off thousands (without a
pension) and then leaving to do the same thing elsewhere, would have a
trail of actual performance. Their salary would be proof of their
ability, or inability, to run and lead an organization.

Yeah that's too socialist for many! Who prefer the the existing sytem
where a pop/movie/sport star and executives make millions and the
indigent sleep on the street!

In article , Doug Miller wrote:
In ,
Smitty Two wrote:

According to the National Coalition on Health Care, $13,000.

http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml

"The average employer-sponsored premium for a family of four costs close
to $13,000 a year, and the employee foots about 30 percent of this cost."

--x--x--x--x--

Based on personal observation, government employees of almost any type
have excellent health insurance policies paid by the employer, with
funds graciously provided by my taxes. Those policies cover vision and
dental as well as regular insurance, and include the employee's family.

Private companies often cover only 50% of the cost of the premium, and
if the employee wants insurance for the rug rats or the spouse, the
entire premium comes from his or her own pocket.

The entire premium is coming out of the individual's pocket anyway, even in
employer-sponsored plans. Every dollar the employer spends on purchasing
health insurance is a dollar that is unavailable for spending on salaries or
wages.

It is likewise a convenient fiction that the employer pays half of the FICA
premium. Nope. The employee pays all of it -- half in direct payroll
deduction, and half in the form of a reduced salary.

What the employer pays for FICA or health insurance premiums is
non-taxable employee compensation/benefit. The gubmint effectively
subsidizes health insurance by allowing employers to pay premiums with the
money spent there deducted from the company's income tax and not
contributing to the employee's taxable income.

Furthermore, USA now has special tax-reducing savings accounts for money
restricted to spending on the specific industries of healthcare and
education. How have the prices of products/services of these industries
compared to the Consumer Price Index? How have industries outside these
two fared in comparison to these two in USA?

- Don Klipstein )

In article ,
(Don Klipstein) wrote:

What the employer pays for FICA or health insurance premiums is
non-taxable employee compensation/benefit. The gubmint effectively
subsidizes health insurance by allowing employers to pay premiums with the
money spent there deducted from the company's income tax and not
contributing to the employee's taxable income.


This write off (AKA "tax expenditures" in the lexicon of
Congresscritter) is the largest one by far. It is about 1/3 bigger than
the second... another market twister known as the mortgage deduction.

Furthermore, USA now has special tax-reducing savings accounts for money
restricted to spending on the specific industries of healthcare and
education. How have the prices of products/services of these industries
compared to the Consumer Price Index? How have industries outside these
two fared in comparison to these two in USA?

You will note that the two major areas of life that refuse to stay
within the inflation of the CPI are the two areas where the government
plays the biggest role in helping to finance it. Coincidence? I think
not!

--
Searching is half the fun: life is much more manageable when thought
of as a scavenger hunt as opposed to a surprise party.
Jimmy Buffett

In , Kurt
Ullman wrote:
In article ,
(Don Klipstein) wrote:

What the employer pays for FICA or health insurance premiums is
non-taxable employee compensation/benefit. The gubmint effectively
subsidizes health insurance by allowing employers to pay premiums with the
money spent there deducted from the company's income tax and not
contributing to the employee's taxable income.


This write off (AKA "tax expenditures" in the lexicon of
Congresscritter) is the largest one by far. It is about 1/3 bigger than
the second... another market twister known as the mortgage deduction.

Furthermore, USA now has special tax-reducing savings accounts for money
restricted to spending on the specific industries of healthcare and
education. How have the prices of products/services of these industries
compared to the Consumer Price Index? How have industries outside these
two fared in comparison to these two in USA?

You will note that the two major areas of life that refuse to stay
within the inflation of the CPI are the two areas where the government
plays the biggest role in helping to finance it. Coincidence? I think
not!

I do note how these 2 "industries" of USA get subsidized towards
"hyper-inflation" by USA taxation policy.

I would blame "The Lobbyists" and the legislators voted into or
staying-in "legislative offices" with significant help from, "charitably":
The portion of America's voters that are in the bottom-49% in
"intelligence"

- Don Klipstein )

"Smitty Two" wrote

Based on personal observation, government employees of almost any type
have excellent health insurance policies paid by the employer, with
funds graciously provided by my taxes. Those policies cover vision and
dental as well as regular insurance, and include the employee's family.

And I thank you for that, being one of them. My costs are 478$ a year just
now. There is talk about doubling or tripling it but haven't seen it happen
yet. I do not have vision or dental care though. Those policy additions
are cheaper to get 'out in town' than via the government.

It was medical free before I honorably retired but the family didnt have
dental unless I paid extra and the dental plan for family was so poor, it
was actually better in the end to put the money on the side and just pay as
needed. The dental for example has a lifetime cap of 1,500$.

The 'vision plan' BTW is 'space available' and there has never been space
for dependants in my 26 years except in Sasebo Japan and for the school age
kids only. (it was impossible to find a local optometrist who spoke enough
english to give a child an eye test so once a year they'ed bring one in).

Then again, this was listed as why my pay was 'comparable' to civilian work
of the same sort for 26 years of my life in the Navy. In fact, they would
calculate the 'medical benefits' as 3,000$ a month offset at the end. They
also said the access to 3 stair steppers, 4 sets of weights, and 1 broken
stationary bicycle (shared by 300 crew and 700 marines) was equal to spa
level accomodations at another 500$ a month and equated my job to that of a
first year data entry job. When I retired, I got hired the next day by a
good company. I get dental for the whole family for 12$ a month with a
2,000$ per person annual cap, and the medical is not bad at 38.50 per month
per person. The problem with the medical is they will not cover any
'pre-existing conditions' for the first 3 years of employment and require a
physical I will not pass being 50% disabled (partly war injury related in
the gulf).

BTW, do you normally get shot at in your line of work? I've had that happen
several times. 2 speed boat attacks, a diver who tried to plant a bomb on
the sides, stuff like that.

I'm not so worried that your tax dollars pay for my health plan as it was
part of the reason why my pay was so low. What I do think is an
embrassament is that the pay is so low, a young E5 (this is middle rank,
takes years to get normally) will qualify for food stamps if he has a wife
and 2 kids and she can't get a good job because he's moving every 2-3
years. It used to be an E6 with only 2 dependants qualified and I was one
of them that served during that era.

In article ,
"cshenk" wrote:

BTW, do you normally get shot at in your line of work?

Not unless I **** off the boss, who keeps a fully loaded pump action 12
gauge behind the "modesty panel" of his desk.

But don't get me started on the whole "hero" thing, with the servicemen,
cops, and firemen. They chose their jobs. As far as I'm concerned
they're no more of a hero than the guy who empties their wastebaskets
and cleans their toilets for minimum wage.

cshenk wrote:
"Smitty Two" wrote

Based on personal observation, government employees of almost any type
have excellent health insurance policies paid by the employer, with
funds graciously provided by my taxes. Those policies cover vision and
dental as well as regular insurance, and include the employee's family.

And I thank you for that, being one of them. My costs are 478$ a year
just now. There is talk about doubling or tripling it but haven't seen
it happen yet. I do not have vision or dental care though. Those
policy additions are cheaper to get 'out in town' than via the government.

It was medical free before I honorably retired but the family didnt have
dental unless I paid extra and the dental plan for family was so poor,
it was actually better in the end to put the money on the side and just
pay as needed. The dental for example has a lifetime cap of 1,500$.

The 'vision plan' BTW is 'space available' and there has never been
space for dependants in my 26 years except in Sasebo Japan and for the
school age kids only. (it was impossible to find a local optometrist who
spoke enough english to give a child an eye test so once a year they'ed
bring one in).

Then again, this was listed as why my pay was 'comparable' to civilian
work of the same sort for 26 years of my life in the Navy. In fact,
they would calculate the 'medical benefits' as 3,000$ a month offset at
the end. They also said the access to 3 stair steppers, 4 sets of
weights, and 1 broken stationary bicycle (shared by 300 crew and 700
marines) was equal to spa level accomodations at another 500$ a month
and equated my job to that of a first year data entry job. When I
retired, I got hired the next day by a good company. I get dental for
the whole family for 12$ a month with a 2,000$ per person annual cap,
and the medical is not bad at 38.50 per month per person. The problem
with the medical is they will not cover any 'pre-existing conditions'
for the first 3 years of employment and require a physical I will not
pass being 50% disabled (partly war injury related in the gulf).

BTW, do you normally get shot at in your line of work? I've had that
happen several times. 2 speed boat attacks, a diver who tried to plant
a bomb on the sides, stuff like that.

I'm not so worried that your tax dollars pay for my health plan as it
was part of the reason why my pay was so low. What I do think is an
embrassament is that the pay is so low, a young E5 (this is middle rank,
takes years to get normally) will qualify for food stamps if he has a
wife and 2 kids and she can't get a good job because he's moving every
2-3 years. It used to be an E6 with only 2 dependants qualified and I
was one of them that served during that era.
Hi,
Isn't that sickening? Black water guys usually make at least $600.00 a
day. and they are not accountable to anyone if they happen to do bad
things. Like murdering a civilian. I worked as GS-11/13 civilian on
military comm. networks worldwide. Used to get shot at from now and then
depending where I was on TDY. I understand what you mean. Interesting
thing is the guys doing bad things all claim they are die hard Christians.

"Tony Hwang" wrote
cshenk wrote:
"Smitty Two" wrote

Based on personal observation, government employees of almost any type
have excellent health insurance policies paid by the employer, with
funds graciously provided by my taxes. Those policies cover vision and
dental as well as regular insurance, and include the employee's family.

And I thank you for that, being one of them. My costs are 478$ a year
just now. There is talk about doubling or tripling it but haven't seen
it happen yet. I do not have vision or dental care though. Those policy
additions are cheaper to get 'out in town' than via the government.
(snip)

Hi,
Isn't that sickening? Black water guys usually make at least $600.00 a
day. and they are not accountable to anyone if they happen to do bad
things. Like murdering a civilian. I worked as GS-11/13 civilian on
military comm. networks worldwide. Used to get shot at from now and then
depending where I was on TDY. I understand what you mean. Interesting
thing is the guys doing bad things all claim they are die hard Christians.

Well, USA pay isnt that high (grin). I'm now in a nice GS-11 equivalent job
with the money spec'd as contractor (this may change). I used to work in
Military Comms, but now I do SQL analyst type things (desk job) and a 'sorta
between tier 1 and tier 2' SQL programming (working on my skills to hit true
tier 2 but not there yet). No more getting chased by speed boats in the
gulf or swimmer attacks at the pier ;-)

"The average employer-sponsored premium for a family of four costs close
to $13,000 a year, and the employee foots about 30 percent of this cost."

--x--x--x--x--

Based on personal observation, government employees of almost any type
have excellent health insurance policies paid by the employer, with
funds graciously provided by my taxes. Those policies cover vision and
dental as well as regular insurance, and include the employee's family.

Nope!

Most insurance plans offered to federal employees (they get to switch during
'open season') don't cover routine vision services. Most don't pay much
toward dental bills.

Uncle Sam's contribution is fixed so the employees have to pay the extra
cost of "gold plated" coverage.


Private companies often cover only 50% of the cost of the premium, and
if the employee wants insurance for the rug rats or the spouse, the
entire premium comes from his or her own pocket.

No question that Federal employees have "pretty gud" health insurance
coverage.

But some companies have better plans and some have worse.

I don't follow this area closely but in the past, some labor union backed
plans were much "better" in that dental and vision were picked up. In
years' past, the Teamsters had negotiated VERY good health coverage.

That's one reason I wonder why the unions are so strong for "ObamaCare."
Depending upon which version of "ObamaCare" we are talking about, "Union
Backed" plans will not be changed or taxed. I guess the unions hope to get
extra members just because they will be permitted to have the same coverage
most middle class folks now have but will partly lose under ObamaCare.

Those plans that aren't protected will effectively be taxed and downgraded
in coverage to permit "affordable" coverage for the un-insured including
those young people who don't want health insurance in the first place.

In article ,
"John Gilmer" wrote:



Uncle Sam's contribution is fixed so the employees have to pay the extra
cost of "gold plated" coverage.

Which is the REAL piece of the government program that should be
instituted. Defined benefit.

--
Searching is half the fun: life is much more manageable when thought
of as a scavenger hunt as opposed to a surprise party.
Jimmy Buffett

"John Gilmer" wrote in message
net...



"The average employer-sponsored premium for a family of four costs close
to $13,000 a year, and the employee foots about 30 percent of this cost."

--x--x--x--x--

Based on personal observation, government employees of almost any type
have excellent health insurance policies paid by the employer, with
funds graciously provided by my taxes. Those policies cover vision and
dental as well as regular insurance, and include the employee's family.

Nope!

Most insurance plans offered to federal employees (they get to switch
during 'open season') don't cover routine vision services. Most don't
pay much toward dental bills.

Uncle Sam's contribution is fixed so the employees have to pay the extra
cost of "gold plated" coverage.


Private companies often cover only 50% of the cost of the premium, and
if the employee wants insurance for the rug rats or the spouse, the
entire premium comes from his or her own pocket.

No question that Federal employees have "pretty gud" health insurance
coverage.

But some companies have better plans and some have worse.

I don't follow this area closely but in the past, some labor union backed
plans were much "better" in that dental and vision were picked up. In
years' past, the Teamsters had negotiated VERY good health coverage.

That's one reason I wonder why the unions are so strong for "ObamaCare."
Depending upon which version of "ObamaCare" we are talking about, "Union
Backed" plans will not be changed or taxed. I guess the unions hope to
get extra members just because they will be permitted to have the same
coverage most middle class folks now have but will partly lose under
ObamaCare.

Those plans that aren't protected will effectively be taxed and downgraded
in coverage to permit "affordable" coverage for the un-insured including
those young people who don't want health insurance in the first place.



The unions hope in time they can dump the healthcare for life plans for
retirees and those still working on the public option cuz it will eventually
be the only thing left standing...The unions need to do this to save their
pension plans by putting that money into the pension plans which are nearly
broke with fewer and fewer paying in and more and more going out to those
taking early retirement instead of layoffs.. Also , Union membership has
been dropping like a rock for a while now as everything they are involved in
is closing up shop or dying which means less and less dues coming in..That
is also the reason for Card Check...They need it to try to force their way
into the retail business , ie. , Walmart , HD , Coscos , Walgreens , Lowes ,
Target , ect. right down to your mom&pop stores....Unions destroy everything
they touch and have long outlived their usefullness..They are nothing more
than a branch of the Democrat Party...The only union growing is the teachers
and government employee unions...Go figure.....

terry wrote:
There's been so much debate here and on other forums about Universal
US health care (pro and con) that one gets curious about how much it
NOW costs, say, the average US family, to have 'Health Insurance'.

We guess that the cost is either fully paid by the subscriber?
Or in other cases, partly by the subscriber and partly by their
employer?
Then there are others, we gather who have no health insurance at all?
And we understand there is something called Medicaid?

Insurance cost numbers a) As little as 'a few hundred' b) Over
$12,000, per year have been mentioned?.

But what is a 'typical' (or average) USA cost?
Hi,
Where I am up here in Alberta Canuck land, we don't pay anything. No
premium payment. Our system is not perfect but everyone is taken care
of. I understand U.S. spends more than us per capita on health care.
And many are left out? That is something I don't understand.
To me health care is service for the public, not profit generating
business.

In article ,
Tony Hwang wrote:

Where I am up here in Alberta Canuck land, we don't pay anything. No
premium payment. Our system is not perfect but everyone is taken care
of. I understand U.S. spends more than us per capita on health care.
And many are left out? That is something I don't understand.
To me health care is service for the public, not profit generating
business.
You pay. It is just that your premium is hidden in the taxes.

--
Searching is half the fun: life is much more manageable when thought
of as a scavenger hunt as opposed to a surprise party.
Jimmy Buffett

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
Tony Hwang wrote:

Where I am up here in Alberta Canuck land, we don't pay anything. No
premium payment. Our system is not perfect but everyone is taken care
of. I understand U.S. spends more than us per capita on health care.
And many are left out? That is something I don't understand.
To me health care is service for the public, not profit generating
business.
You pay. It is just that your premium is hidden in the taxes.

Hmmm,
Our tax rate is lowest in Canada and no sales tax here as well.
Why then your tax does not cover those who don't/can't have coverage?
When we go down there I notice more over weight folks and the portion of
meal they eat at restaurants!!!! Wife and me, one order is enough to
fill us up. Ultimately health is individual responsibility. We just came
back from week end alpine trek reaching up to ~7000 feet in the rockies.
Our ages are closer to 70 now. I retired in '96 from Honeywell. Wife
from hospital operating room in '92. One of my kid is MD. She takes care
of us here half year, then she goes away for volunteer service the other
half. October this year she is going to East Timor to work at TB clinic
there run by Aussie nuns and American doctor. About 5000 suffer from TB
over there due to climate.

Tony Hwang wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
Tony Hwang wrote:

Where I am up here in Alberta Canuck land, we don't pay anything. No
premium payment. Our system is not perfect but everyone is taken
care of. I understand U.S. spends more than us per capita on health
care.
And many are left out? That is something I don't understand.
To me health care is service for the public, not profit generating
business.
You pay. It is just that your premium is hidden in the taxes.

Hmmm,
Our tax rate is lowest in Canada and no sales tax here as well.

Well, when I was traveling to Sask servicing coal analyzers during last
trip since plant was in an outage there was significant OT; the plant
chemist who had oversight of the analyzers as part of his job
description and had gotten quite familiar over the years. Invited to
supper one evening; pay packet had arrived that day. W/ the OT, total
withheld was 50% of gross--that's pretty daggone expensive. Then afaik
all are responsible for GMT which while I no longer know what rate is,
ain't just a percent or two...

And, since this was pretty close to the US border, it was common that
when kids had anything routine such as vaccinations, earache, etc., they
simply took them to Minot or Williston as it would be so long before
there was any opportunity to have them seen in Estevan or Weyburn and
there were no services in Coronach/East Poplar where the plant was
actually located. All in all, the system didn't seem particularly
anything to wish for even then.

Why then your tax does not cover those who don't/can't have coverage?

Something about roughly half to two-thirds of the uncovered are either
undocumented or the well young that choose to spend their dollars
elsewhere. Any critical need patient will get treated simply by showing
up at the emergency room. A major reason for the high per capita cost
is that there is a large fraction of the above groups that simply use
emergency room services as their family doctor; the most expensive way
possible to get services but they mostly choose to not use conventional
services of their own volition.

It's complicated but single-payer gov't controlled isn't going to help
in any way I can see.

--

About 1/4 as much as if the government handled it all.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

dpb wrote:
Tony Hwang wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
Tony Hwang wrote:

Where I am up here in Alberta Canuck land, we don't pay anything. No
premium payment. Our system is not perfect but everyone is taken
care of. I understand U.S. spends more than us per capita on health
care.
And many are left out? That is something I don't understand.
To me health care is service for the public, not profit generating
business.
You pay. It is just that your premium is hidden in the taxes.

Hmmm,
Our tax rate is lowest in Canada and no sales tax here as well.

Well, when I was traveling to Sask servicing coal analyzers during last
trip since plant was in an outage there was significant OT; the plant
chemist who had oversight of the analyzers as part of his job
description and had gotten quite familiar over the years. Invited to
supper one evening; pay packet had arrived that day. W/ the OT, total
withheld was 50% of gross--that's pretty daggone expensive. Then afaik
all are responsible for GMT which while I no longer know what rate is,
ain't just a percent or two...

And, since this was pretty close to the US border, it was common that
when kids had anything routine such as vaccinations, earache, etc., they
simply took them to Minot or Williston as it would be so long before
there was any opportunity to have them seen in Estevan or Weyburn and
there were no services in Coronach/East Poplar where the plant was
actually located. All in all, the system didn't seem particularly
anything to wish for even then.

Why then your tax does not cover those who don't/can't have coverage?

Something about roughly half to two-thirds of the uncovered are either
undocumented or the well young that choose to spend their dollars
elsewhere. Any critical need patient will get treated simply by showing
up at the emergency room. A major reason for the high per capita cost
is that there is a large fraction of the above groups that simply use
emergency room services as their family doctor; the most expensive way
possible to get services but they mostly choose to not use conventional
services of their own volition.

It's complicated but single-payer gov't controlled isn't going to help
in any way I can see.

--
Hi,
Here true emergency is always taken care of. Too many people swarm
emergency rooms. I saw an old lady came to emergency ward for med.
refill. Here there is private clinics as well for rich folks who ca
afford quick service. It's not all public service. Actually origin of
Canadian health care service is Saskatchewan.

"dpb" wrote in message
...
Tony Hwang wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
Tony Hwang wrote:
Any critical need patient will get treated simply by showing up at the
emergency room.

And then they will get a gigantic bill which THEY WILL HAVE TO PAY, at least
if they own anything. I've already decided that if anything even remotely
serious happens to me I will just die, since I can't afford to pay. What's
the point? Save myself so I can be homeless after they take my house? No
thanks.

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
Tony Hwang wrote:

Where I am up here in Alberta Canuck land, we don't pay anything. No
premium payment. Our system is not perfect but everyone is taken care
of. I understand U.S. spends more than us per capita on health care.
And many are left out? That is something I don't understand.
To me health care is service for the public, not profit generating
business.
You pay. It is just that your premium is hidden in the taxes.

In the US, the cost is "hidden" in everything purchased or paid for in
tax dollars. Wonder what would happen to small business if Workers Comp
suddenly disappeared, and just plain one-for-all universal coverage
replaced it? Is it possible highly profitable businesses, small or
large, would pay more than those less profitable? No more ambulance
chasers or insurance adjustors....ohmygosh, watch out for the horrible
"bureaucrats" from the gov.; they might shoot you rather than video-tape
you, with your bad back, up on the roof throwing bundles of shingles
around )

wrote in message
m...
Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
Tony Hwang wrote:

Where I am up here in Alberta Canuck land, we don't pay anything. No
premium payment. Our system is not perfect but everyone is taken care
of. I understand U.S. spends more than us per capita on health care.
And many are left out? That is something I don't understand.
To me health care is service for the public, not profit generating
business.
You pay. It is just that your premium is hidden in the taxes.

In the US, the cost is "hidden" in everything purchased or paid for in tax
dollars. Wonder what would happen to small business if Workers Comp
suddenly disappeared, and just plain one-for-all universal coverage
replaced it? Is it possible highly profitable businesses, small or large,
would pay more than those less profitable? No more ambulance chasers or
insurance adjustors....ohmygosh, watch out for the horrible "bureaucrats"
from the gov.; they might shoot you rather than video-tape you, with your
bad back, up on the roof throwing bundles of shingles around )

Workers Comp. would be FINE if they would eliminate the fraud and fake
lawsuites...Strange how many that get kicked off welfare due to time limits
, marriage , kids over 18 , ect. end up on Workers Comp then SSI
Disability..It is a scam run right out in the open here in the Liberal State
of Maine.....The Republicans TRIED to ammend the healthcare bill with Tort
Reform....The Dems wouldn't allow it...We will STILL have the ambulance
chasers like John Edwards running around and suing for fake injuries....You
mean "bureaucrats" like the ones who CAN'T even run the Cash for Clunkers
Program or any other Government Program for that matter...See the SS adm. or
the VA...God help us....

In , Kurt
Ullman wrote:

In article ,
Tony Hwang wrote:

Where I am up here in Alberta Canuck land, we don't pay anything. No
premium payment. Our system is not perfect but everyone is taken care
of. I understand U.S. spends more than us per capita on health care.
And many are left out? That is something I don't understand.
To me health care is service for the public, not profit generating
business.
You pay. It is just that your premium is hidden in the taxes.

And what Canada pays from taxes to cover everyone there is no higher
percentage of GDP that USA pays from taxes (and government borrowing, to
be paid plus intrerest by taxpayers in the future) to cover only:

Medicare and Medicaid, sCHIPs, military and veterans, the few poor
and low income workers actually benefiting from county programs, and
employer contributions to health insurance premiums of gubmint workers in
healthcare-related agencies.

Canada gubmint spends no higher percentage of GDP than USA does to cover
what USA gubmint does not: The vast majority of private sector workers,
a significant chunk of the unemployed, as well as gubmint employees
outside healthcare-related agencies such as police officers and public
school teachers and court employees.

- Don Klipstein )

In article , Tony Hwang wrote:

Where I am up here in Alberta Canuck land, we don't pay anything.

Absolute nonsense. Did you think health care was free, that the doctors and
nurses work gratis and all the medicine and equipment and facilities just
magically appear at no cost to anyone?

No premium payment.

"No premium" is not the same as "no payment". You're paying for it.

You figure out how.

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , Tony Hwang wrote:

Where I am up here in Alberta Canuck land, we don't pay anything.

Absolute nonsense. Did you think health care was free, that the doctors and
nurses work gratis and all the medicine and equipment and facilities just
magically appear at no cost to anyone?

No premium payment.

"No premium" is not the same as "no payment". You're paying for it.

You figure out how.
Huh?
When I needed Eprex 3 times(1 cc shots by myself) a week it did not
cost me a dime. Still taking anti rejection pills(may be rest of my
life), Immuran and Rapamune every day. Nothing comes out of my pocket.
I just phone in and go pick up the refill.

On Aug 28, 9:51*pm, Tony Hwang wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
In article , Tony Hwang wrote:

Where I am up here in Alberta Canuck land, we don't pay anything.

Absolute nonsense. Did you think health care was free, that the doctors and
nurses work gratis and all the medicine and equipment and facilities just
magically appear at no cost to anyone?

No premium payment.

"No premium" is not the same as "no payment". You're paying for it.

You figure out how.

Huh?
When I needed *Eprex 3 times(1 cc shots by myself) a week it did not
cost me a dime. Still taking anti rejection pills(may be rest of my
life), Immuran and Rapamune every day. Nothing comes out of my pocket.
I just phone in and go pick up the refill.

How great for you but don't be so ignorant as to believe that someone
is not paying for it somewhere.

On Aug 29, 2:22*am, BobR wrote:
On Aug 28, 9:51*pm, Tony Hwang wrote:





Doug Miller wrote:
In article , Tony Hwang wrote:

Where I am up here in Alberta Canuck land, we don't pay anything.

Absolute nonsense. Did you think health care was free, that the doctors and
nurses work gratis and all the medicine and equipment and facilities just
magically appear at no cost to anyone?

No premium payment.

"No premium" is not the same as "no payment". You're paying for it.

You figure out how.

Huh?
When I needed *Eprex 3 times(1 cc shots by myself) a week it did not
cost me a dime. Still taking anti rejection pills(may be rest of my
life), Immuran and Rapamune every day. Nothing comes out of my pocket.
I just phone in and go pick up the refill.

How great for you but don't be so ignorant as to believe that someone
is not paying for it somewhere.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No obviously it IS being paid for (by taxation etc.) and medics of all
types (and researchers) should be well paid. But it more a matter of
eliminating much of the waste and inefficiency (and unnecessary
duplication) from existing systems being run for profit!

In article , Tony Hwang wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
In article , Tony Hwang
wrote:

Where I am up here in Alberta Canuck land, we don't pay anything.

Absolute nonsense. Did you think health care was free, that the doctors and
nurses work gratis and all the medicine and equipment and facilities just
magically appear at no cost to anyone?

No premium payment.

"No premium" is not the same as "no payment". You're paying for it.

You figure out how.
Huh?
When I needed Eprex 3 times(1 cc shots by myself) a week it did not
cost me a dime. Still taking anti rejection pills(may be rest of my
life), Immuran and Rapamune every day. Nothing comes out of my pocket.
I just phone in and go pick up the refill.

You *really* think it's free, that it doesn't cost anything at all? The
doctors and nurses work gratis? The equipment and supplies and facilities
appear by magic?

Think about it.

Doug Miller wrote:

You *really* think it's free, that it doesn't cost anything at all?
The
doctors and nurses work gratis? The equipment and supplies and
facilities
appear by magic?

Think about it.

I can tell you've never heard of transubstantiation, miracles, or even the
rose that appears on Edgar Allan Poe's grave each year on the anniversary of
his death.

I recall a cartoon of a mechanic holding a part from the doctor's BMW and
explaining: "There are many things we just do not know about the
carburetor."

Tony Hwang wrote:
terry wrote:
There's been so much debate here and on other forums about Universal
US health care (pro and con) that one gets curious about how much it
NOW costs, say, the average US family, to have 'Health Insurance'.

We guess that the cost is either fully paid by the subscriber?
Or in other cases, partly by the subscriber and partly by their
employer?
Then there are others, we gather who have no health insurance at all?
And we understand there is something called Medicaid?

Insurance cost numbers a) As little as 'a few hundred' b) Over
$12,000, per year have been mentioned?.

But what is a 'typical' (or average) USA cost?
Hi,
Where I am up here in Alberta Canuck land, we don't pay anything. No
premium payment. Our system is not perfect but everyone is taken care
of. I understand U.S. spends more than us per capita on health care.
And many are left out? That is something I don't understand.
To me health care is service for the public, not profit generating
business.

Do they have "death lists" for granny and gramps? ) What the poor,
ignorant Americans don't realize is that granny and gramps, when they go
to the nursing home, get great care - well, sort of - until Medicare or
their own money runs out. Then they go to the "hopeless" list,
entertained with Bingo games, unidentifiable food, and not much prospect
of rehabilitation. Rehab meaning to increase their function to the max.
possible for their medical condition - like walking to the dining room,
not back to running marathons. The PR is fantastic - granny gets hosed
down at least twice a week in a multi-stall shower room, gets her face
washed and lipstick slathered on daily, and kept in diapers if she isn't
up to running to the toilet without assistance. This is quite fine with
those Americans who favor corporate profit and began voting like
corporate board members when they bought their first share of stock.
Granny is out of the f------ way and her estate might turn a few bucks
when she is gone.


Most dumb *******s don't know that if GOOD CARE was rendered, granny
might be able to walk around living quarters, use a toilet, not suffer
from untreated conditions that might require "risky" treatment or
surgery. Load her with pills every time a new side effect comes along,
give her some magical antidepressants and cholesterol drugs so she will
think she is "happy" and actually receiving treatment that is best for
her. There are hours and hours and hours of paperwork done by nurses,
physicians, pharmacists, dieticians, activity directors, physical
therapists, all making treatment plans that are garbage, and then
writing volumes about how the "plan" ain't working.

When I last worked in a nursing home, I remember a plate of food being
served - cold - that had three unidentifiable items on it. It looked
like samples of stool for some poor human with a rare disease of the GI
system. Family Values? Christian Coalition? Compassionate
Conservatives? What insufferable, hypocritical b.s.