Bud, if you really believe that a team of FOUR "specialists collectivly" FORGOT to look at a chart? There's nothing to discuss. lol
And I have had people tell me plenty of other experiences where the M.O. was cut first, ask questions later. Point being I wasn't there to witness it. I didn't see it first hand. So to me I don't know the accuracy of those stories.
Funny thing Arch, I've said all along that humans make mistakes. This was not a mistake. Pure and simple. It was simply overlooking ANY form of addressing the issue or looking where the problem may be other than surgery.
I've been hospitalised myself Arch. The very first thing the doctor does every day is check the chart. It's a no brainer hands down.............
And if you had actually looked at my post I said I never have endorsed this health plan/ It does far too little to address many health care issues. It also does not include tort reform which is a critical issue to help lowering the cost of health care.
Both parties have some great idea, but neither is truely willing to listen to each other and work together to solve this massive problem in our nation.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
Quote: Bud, if you really believe that a team of FOUR "specialists collectivly" FORGOT to look at a chart? There's nothing to discuss. lol
So in essence you are claiming malpractice, right? Aside from your insightfulness these 4 specialists would have operated - but you stopped them, right?
Quote:
And I have had people tell me plenty of other experiences where the M.O. was cut first, ask questions later. Point being I wasn't there to witness it. I didn't see it first hand. So to me I don't know the accuracy of those stories.
Quote: do you see companies as evil if they are turning a profit? (it sure seems the news does)
I would never use the word 'evil' ... but it all depends on the situation.
Somewhere along the line 'turning a profit' became this cult-like mantra that trumped all rational thought ... companies began operating for the largest possible gains in a quarter, without thought to the company's long term future or it's product.
You cite Anthem and other health insurance companies, and present this grossly misleading 'hey, times are tough, they've got to raise rates' ... well, that might hold water ... except these companies aren't even doing what they're supposed to. They have entire floors of buildings dedicated to doing every single thing they can to make sure that they don't have to pay out claims. Makes no difference if the claims are legitimate -- they want to find a way to skirt doing what they advertise.
And so in that respect, it's hard not to get angry with them when they raise rates and claim it's a necessity.
Toyota is another example you use ... in the name of expanding profits, they forgot about their product. A lot of people are dead as a result.
Evil? Absolutely not. A problem? I happen to think so.
The news is preying on what they know to be a largely-held public opinion, which amounts to 'these idiot fat cats who screwed everything up are living large while me and everyone around me is screwed'.
I think that perhaps that's the wrong argument ... but I understand the sentiment. People have watched a string of Enrons and WorldComs and Madoffs and ornate parties with ice sculptures urinating vodka thrown by companies who's stock has become worthless.
In the end, we really should be attacking the 'turning a profit is good' mentality. Now, don't get me wrong -- I'm not saying turning a profit is bad. I'm merely saying that 'turning a profit is good' shouldn't be a mantra for every situation.
We should acknowledge that we now have a litany of examples before us showing us that the pursuit of profit can lead to disastrous results. In fact, overpursuit of profit can often lead to no profit, or debt.
Illegal immigration is a by-product of the 'turning a profit is the end-all' mentality. As is jobs being lost overseas.
Turning a profit IS good ... just so long as it's within reason. And that shouldn't be a monetary figure of any sort -- just common sense. Is this short-term gain going to have negative long-term effects for the company? What risks are inherent in said pursuit? Is my pursuit of profit damaging the quality of product, the quality of life in the community, etc., etc.?
So in essence you are claiming malpractice, right?
I'm not so quick to call it malpractice. Would the exploratory surgery have given them the answer? Yes it would have. What I'm saying is it was the least logical, most extensive, most expencive way to find the answer.ie....your Hummer is sputtering so you rebuild the motor first to find out the motor was fine without checking your timing and spark plugs first.
You spendt thousands of dollars only to find out one of your spark plugs was fouled out.
Quote: Aside from your insightfulness these 4 specialists would have operated - but you stopped them, right?
It wasn't insightfull at all. It was a VERY basic first step that anyone and everyone would check first. Basic logic, nothing insightfull about it. Like I said, when your stomach hurts as a kid your mom would ask what you ate and when was the last time you pooped.
And yes, I had power of attorney and simply asked the nurse to look at his chart and tell me the same thing as my mom asked me as a kid.
You're reaching to the moon and back on this one Arch.
Quote:
We could talk stories all day.
Which is why I used an example I had first hand experience with Arch.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
I'm sorry, as soon as I started to read your post I couldn't help but think of this.
Then I got to this part.
Quote: In the end, we really should be attacking the 'turning a profit is good' mentality. Now, don't get me wrong -- I'm not saying turning a profit is bad. I'm merely saying that 'turning a profit is good' shouldn't be a mantra for every situation.
Attacking!? I'm sorry but if I don't "turn a profit". I don't eat. I don't pay the mortgage. I don't pay the bills.
In short, I lose everything I've worked for. So, NO this is not what we should be "attacking".
We also have a litany of examples before us showing us that the pursuit of profit is the american way of life. Accet it, deny it, but you can't pretend it is not the driving force behind "the American dream".
Quote: Attacking!? I'm sorry but if I don't "turn a profit". I don't eat. I don't pay the mortgage. I don't pay the bills.
In short, I lose everything I've worked for. So, NO this is not what we should be "attacking".
You need to read more closely.
I said --
Quote: I'm merely saying that 'turning a profit is good' shouldn't be a mantra for every situation.
I didn't say that turning a profit is bad ... I said that it has snowballed to the point where that answer somehow became uniform for any given situation.
We're not talking about paying the bills or the mortgage or eating -- we're talking about multi-national corporations making reverberating ill-advised business decisions in the name of making a good mark in the next quarter.
Somewhere along the line, 'turning a profit' became 'maximizing all potential profit as quickly as possible regardless of future negative consequences' ... that's not a good thing, and the proof is in the pudding.
Quote: I didn't say that turning a profit is bad ... I said that it has snowballed to the point where that answer somehow became uniform for any given situation.
Isn't that why most people go into business, large or small. Make money. React, adapt, make money.
Quote: I'm merely saying that 'turning a profit is good' shouldn't be a mantra for every situation
Name one company that lives by that motto. If you don't make a profit, you don't stay in business.
Quote: Somewhere along the line, 'turning a profit' became 'maximizing all potential profit as quickly as possible regardless of future negative consequences'
Not true, in my line of work The only way you stay employed, is with quality work at a resonible price.
If you think like that you don't get the next job.
Isn't that why most people go into business, large or small. Make money. React, adapt, make money.
Yes, but to what extent?
Shouldn't a business hire illegal immigrants at $2 an hour?
After all, react, adapt, make money. That's why you go into the business, right?
Quote: Name one company that lives by that motto.
Google just announced a split with China over their censorship practices. They stand to lose a large chunk of profit in doing so. Their CEO has explained that their mission statement informs shareholders of their purpose, which coincides with their beliefs regarding China.
Now, Google and their shareholders are still going to be making a healthy return on their investments ... just not all that they can get.
(I also imagine both sides will eventually come to a profitable compromise)
Quote: Not true, in my line of work The only way you stay employed, is with quality work at a resonible price.
Quote: [ Somewhere along the line 'turning a profit' became this cult-like mantra that trumped all rational thought ... companies began operating for the largest possible gains in a quarter, without thought to the company's long term future or it's product.
You cite Anthem and other health insurance companies, and present this grossly misleading 'hey, times are tough, they've got to raise rates' ... well, that might hold water ... except these companies aren't even doing what they're supposed to. They have entire floors of buildings dedicated to doing every single thing they can to make sure that they don't have to pay out claims. Makes no difference if the claims are legitimate -- they want to find a way to skirt doing what they advertise.
And so in that respect, it's hard not to get angry with them when they raise rates and claim it's a necessity.
Toyota is another example you use ... in the name of expanding profits, they forgot about their product. A lot of people are dead as a result.
Evil? Absolutely not. A problem? I happen to think so.
The news is preying on what they know to be a largely-held public opinion, which amounts to 'these idiot fat cats who screwed everything up are living large while me and everyone around me is screwed'.
I think that perhaps that's the wrong argument ... but I understand the sentiment. People have watched a string of Enrons and WorldComs and Madoffs and ornate parties with ice sculptures urinating vodka thrown by companies who's stock has become worthless.
In the end, we really should be attacking the 'turning a profit is good' mentality. Now, don't get me wrong -- I'm not saying turning a profit is bad. I'm merely saying that 'turning a profit is good' shouldn't be a mantra for every situation.
We should acknowledge that we now have a litany of examples before us showing us that the pursuit of profit can lead to disastrous results. In fact, overpursuit of profit can often lead to no profit, or debt.
Illegal immigration is a by-product of the 'turning a profit is the end-all' mentality. As is jobs being lost overseas.
Turning a profit IS good ... just so long as it's within reason. And that shouldn't be a monetary figure of any sort -- just common sense. Is this short-term gain going to have negative long-term effects for the company? What risks are inherent in said pursuit? Is my pursuit of profit damaging the quality of product, the quality of life in the community, etc., etc.?
This sums it up PERFECTLY, Phil. Props.
Look...EVERY company has the right to make money. Every company and business SHOULD try to operate at a profit and make money.
The problem is today's CEO's and businesses are too short sighted...they're so focused on quarterly earnings that they forget about the long-term health of the business.
You kind of see this on the show Undercover Boss, when CEO's REALLY see what their decisions have done to the employees of their company: some are very miserable for the sake of "maximizing return for their shareholders."
I'm NOT...I repeat, NOT saying "turning a profit is bad." But my God, sometimes I feel like we're all going to be working for minimum wage, or far less of what we should be making, for the sake of "maximizing return for shareholders."
I think what we are talking about here but no one has come out to actually say it.....is Business Ethics.
I see nothing wrong with a company making a profit....whatever that profit may be...if it is done upright and ethically.
But looking at the one situation....If you have an insurance company spending money to find a way to avoid paying "legitimate" claims....then there is a problem. At the same time we also need to realize that they have the right and need to protect themselves from paying false claims...
So how do you police Business Ethics? Well for one thing we don't want the government doing it. That would definitely be an oxymoron if we ever saw one...lol. I suppose we want to give more credence and powers to institutions similar to the Better Business Bureau. Certain things need to be more transparent and "more readily" available to the common person.
I mean if you knew Insurance Company A did not try to skip on legitimate claims but had a slightly higher rate. And Company B was cheap but was known to cheat its clients.....Which company would you want to use to cover your family?
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
Your missing Phils point, that some things in excess are not good, including turning profits at the expense of products and employee morale/productivity.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
Quote: Your missing Phils point, that some things in excess are not good, including turning profits at the expense of products and employee morale/productivity.
This.
And if the "American Way" is turning profits at the expense of morale/productivity, then that's just sad.
Problem is, like most things we as society do, we lump all into a category made up of a smaller sample than we realize.
Not ALL companies pinch every penny to feed the guys at the top. Not ALL companies cheapen their product quality to increase profits.
But when a few do, and they get the news coverage, we tend to lump them all together. And more often than not, smaller companies with more hand-on owners tend to treat their employees very well. And from my personal experience with meeting execs from large corps, it seems those that were execs from early in their careers are less likely to think about the people before the profit, and the guys that worked their way up from the bottom tend to think more of the product and people, while considering profit.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
Quote: Your missing Phils point, that some things in excess are not good, including turning profits at the expense of products and employee morale/productivity.
This.
And if the "American Way" is turning profits at the expense of morale/productivity, then that's just sad.
It IS sad because there are way too many "Americans" who believe this is the "Way."
You've seen doctors, a team of four highly regarded specialists ignore looking at the input and out put of a patient or his chart when consulting Arch? Really? When was that exactly?
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
Quote: You've seen doctors, a team of four highly regarded specialists ignore looking at the input and out put of a patient or his chart when consulting Arch? Really? When was that exactly?
Reading comprehension. Bet they offer that at a community college near you.
I speak of what I know - I did not say I had, or knew of 4 doctors that did or didn't do what ever you say they did or didn't do.
Can you understand what I said, and contrast that to what you want it to look like I said?
Plus, I find it odd that no one in that hospital that your dad was in bothered to look at that. And if your dad couldn't speak after having a stroke - how did anyone know he was in pain?
And yet you were the one that basically said "give him a laxative".
By the way - I'm still waiting to hear exactly what is in this health reform bill that will change anything other than making taxpayers pay more. Can you enlighten me as to how this reform will prevent mistakes or prevent surgeries? I know, I've asked 3 times now - yet you haven't given an answer.
Just like mac can't answer the questions he's asked.
Just like legalizeweed can't give a link to the ceo of an oil company that "got $300 billion" in retirement.
Lets take this one step farther Arch (most of this posted is directed at folks like MAC, and others who want govt healthcare)
I will take my chances with a private company running healthcare...
the govt can't even run social Security or the Post Office which are BOTH BROKE
Face it, Life Insurance companies make money from your impending death...is this immoral, unethical, or wrong?
Medical Insurance is a service provided at a market cost...it is NOT a right
If I have a god given right to free healthcare then I also have:
1. A unlimited right to all the free food I want..If I can't eat I die. 2. I also have an unlimited right to all the water I want to drink at a zero cost...with no water to drink I die.
Healthcare is a "resource" and it is not unlimited..there is a limited amount available for everyone...a cost must be paid to use it...bottom line
Healthcare like everything else is a "Scarcity"
Quote: What Scarcity IS and IS NOT Scarcity is the most basic concept in all of econmics. Scarcity means that we DO NOT EVER have enough of everything including time to satisfy our every desire. Scarcity exists because human wants ALWAYS exceed what can be produced with the limited time and resources that are available.
Scarcity is NOT a shortage.
Scarcity IS NOT poverty
Scarcity occurs among the rich and poor alike. Even the richest person on earth faces scarcity. low income levels DO NOT create more scarcity. high Income levels DO NOT create less scarcity.
The cost and availability and accessability of Healthcare is directly related to the 5 factors of Productions
Quote: The 5 factors of production are
1. Land - Natural resources that are available from Land. These are limited.
2. Labor - Is human resources/main power. includes all productive members of soceity IE steelworks, IT professionals, restaurant workers, CEO's, and any other job or service.
3. Physical Capital - consists of factories, hospitals, and equipment used in production of ALL goods or services.
4. Human Capital - Is the economic characterization of the education and training of workers. How much a nation produces depends not only on how many hours worked, but how productive people are. That depends in part on education and training. To become more educated, a person must invest time and resources to improve their human capital just as a business must invest time and resources to increase its physical capital.
5. Entrepreneurship - This actually a subdivision of labor. It involves the human resources that perform the functions of organizing, managing, and assembling the other factors of production to make a business venture.
Entrepreneurship is important because coporations are seen as greedy and evil yet they take ALL the risk and put ALL their assets on the line to create new technologies, open new businesses, hire more workers, and experimenting on new things.
so the greedy corporation (The Entrepreneur) are seen as nothing more then greedy evil individuals because they wish to make a ROI(Resonable Return on Investment) on a businesses they created.
Have you ever started a business? Have you ever risked your house, your property, your savings account, etc to start a business or a new idea?
If not, then you really have no place or business whatsoever in deciding what the true cost of healthcare is. I am sure a business knows more about the market then the average ordinary citizen does.
how does this strike you mac?
Say you start a business selling radios for cars, and it costs you $186 dollars in total cost including man power and hours to produce those radios.
You decide to sell them at a 10% markup on cost to get a reasonable ROI and have a semi-successful business.
In comes the government and "forces" you to sell those radios at $100 dollars a piece.
How will you stay in business?
is that fair to you, the business man that put "everything" on the line to get your business started?
Arch understands this because he runs his own business. The guy has put himself on the line to get out there, and has probably risked more then most people on this forum to get his business started and to be successful.
If people like Arch are forced to pay for others healthcare, how does that help his business? if anything it HURTS small business owners, and it iprevents them from taking ANY new risks, hence the creation and production of new jobs is greatly stunted.
I swear very few have even a basic understanding of economics and how the system functions.
the reason there are NO JOBS here at all compared to the 1950's is because government regulations have driven them all out of here to foreign countries....that is FACT if you want to admit it or not.
IF there were more productive jobs here, less government regulations, more people would have jobs, more could afford to pay their own healthcare, and less would be mooching off the public treasury.
The money in the treasury is meant for "productive" ends to benefit soceity
Treasury money is meant for:
1. paving roads. 2. fixing bridges 3. national defense. 4. government loans to help small businesses get started. 5. production of new infrastructure to faciliate manufacture and production.
Treasury money IS NOT meant to go to unproductive things like Healthcare and a welfare state.
Remove ALL restrictions place on businesses since the 1950's and corporate tax break to those who bring jobs back here, and in 3 years...Everyone will be able to afford their own healthcare as 80% of the population will have a job much better then working at Mcdonalds...the Dems and their handout programs and corporate taxes have severely hurt the productive economy of the USa in the last 40 years....the Republicans had a hand in that as well, but not as bad as the Dems have.
Yes I am saying to CUT CORPORATE TAXES corps make jobs for people, they are not evil...this whole idea of "the greedy corporation is evil" is just insane....
THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO WAY YOU CAN GET QUALITY HEALTHCARE FOR FREE UNDER A STATE SPONSORED SYSTEM.
I can have care AS FAST as I need it...if im willing to pay for it.
I had a Wisdom tooth pulled yesterday
I was in bad pain, I called the Oral surgeon he took me "yesterday" I stated I had cash upfront to pay "at time of arrival" i was seem promptly.
under a government run system...there may be 15 people ahead of you. Since all are equal...have fun waiting
i believe those who can pay should be seen....I have bills to pay too just like everyone else.
however, I do not uselessly spend my money on the latestest and greatest Ipd, Cell Phone, SUV, or whatever. Nor do I charge things on my credit card just because i want something...i still say 95% of america's problems have to do with unsound management of money...our government is a prime example...they can't even function and budget their money...why can't the government only spend what they take in on taxes? that should be a requirement.
The government has no right to perpetually put us into debt...
If people "saved" 10% of their earnings, they could afford to see a doctor when they need to.
Insurance should only take effect for hospital stays and surgeies and such
Office visits should be paid out of pocket.
Does your car insurance pay for your oil change?
no it pays for "emergency damages"
healthcare should be the same
Office visits and minor procedures should be paid out of pocket.
surgeries, delivering babies, and extended hospital stays is what should be covered under insurance with a deductable.
a person IS NOT entitled to free healthcare and free doctor visits...thats unrealistic....
I don't want to live in a socilaist country
If a person wants to live in a socialist country, move to canada or europe
I like the capitalist system thank you, its the best in the world...its not perfect, however by god I have a choice as to what I want to opt into, and I have a choice what I want to spend my money on....
The bottom line is America WAS NOT NOR EVER INTENDED to be an empire....
We are going to have to change our ways sooner rather then later....as some point a true conservative like Ron Paul or someone is going to become President and that man will "severly" cut government spending big time.
We have no reason to have bases over seas
We have no reason to spend trillions of dollars a year maintaining an empire.
We have no reason to require us to borrow 3 billion a day to run our country.
You may want your child to be in debt for 200,000 dollars to the government upon its birth, I do not thank you very much.
Quote: the reason there are NO JOBS here at all compared to the 1950's is because government regulations have driven them all out of here to foreign countries....that is FACT if you want to admit it or not.
You state this as fact, but it is not. Its simply a matter of dirt cheap labor in other countries.
One example: India's per capita income is 38000 rupees (roughly $830). Assuming a minimum wage in the US of $7.25 at 40 hours per week, a person making minimum wage would make roughly $15,000 dollars a year. I quote 15,000 versus anything added on top like benefits because its easy to see that there is simply no competition even without benefits; India is the choice if a business wants to save on labor costs.
A comprehensive report from Doing Business showed that the US is the 2nd easiest country in the world in which to employ workers (page 22 of link below). This means that the US essentially allows companies the greatest flexibility in its employ of workers.
Healthcare in the US is a racket, driven by an endless cat and mouse games played by the insurance companies and government.
It blew up when Ronald Reagan required hospitals to care for any patient that walked through the door, with no chance of reimbursement for hospitals. That act resulted in hospitals having exessive overheads and everyone else having to pay for the uninsured. Explain to me how that was not a socialist act.
There is a difference between ROI and RROI, frankly and making a profit only has a little bit to do with the cost of goods thanks to the marketing wizards that exist.
To answer your question I am qualified by your defintion to answer your question regarding the true cost of healthcare as I have been self insured as well as in a company sponsored insurance plan that I have the right of approval.
Try competing against a larger company that can offer a more comprehensive healthcare plan when one of your employee child has a realitively small disability that requires him to pay 3 times the going rate for insurance. Try hiring people when you explain that they will have to become self insured or lose an employee because he found out that he had cancer and can't be self insured.
I am looking forward to have an alternative that will let me be part of a bigger plan, public option, I am all for it. We have been seeing 15 percent increases per year for healthcare and we are covering the majority of costs. No, I am not a fan of insurance companies, but I as a individual have no ability to change how they operate.
You think that regulations are bad, I make a living off of regulations. They are not as bad as you make it seem and they have a place in our society where we can't just move away from something we don't like. Go back a few years and look how pollution was hurting this country, that is no longer the problem, because of regulations. Yet the moment something goes wrong, people decry the failure of the government to act. Tainted meat, Peanut Butter, Lettuce, H1N1, Chinese toys, all of that, yet they forget that they are probably alive because of some regulation.
Employee cost as much as regulations don't drive companies out, yet no one on the right is willing to talk about resonable tarriffs to allow us to compete in the global economy and give us a chance.
Complian all you want about social security and medicare, no one is suggesting that they end. They work, despite their problems.
Quote: If people like Arch are forced to pay for others healthcare, how does that help his business? if anything it HURTS small business owners, and it iprevents them from taking ANY new risks, hence the creation and production of new jobs is greatly stunted.
These are the proposed bills. On page 2, the Senate bill (the one that might be passed by reconciliation) specifies that there will be NO employer requirements on businesses with less than 50 employees. If small businesses decide to offer coverage in order to compete for workers with larger companies, they will be afforded tax credits (page 7).
So your question is "Why does the mainstream media "Demonize" American Companies?" which presupposes a moral order in which American companies are the righteous and any criticism of the righteous that comes from the "mainstream media" must logically be demagoguery. And you call other people "sheeple"? Let me ask you a question: you mentioned GM and Anthem as two American companies whose goal is supposed to be turning a profit. Do you think there is any difference between these two companies?
So it's okay to force businesses with more than 50 employees to add even MORE red tape. That won't affect jobs at all, will it?
As it now stands, full time employees at companies with more than 50 employees for the most part have their health care paid for - at a minimum, the employees have an option to buy into it. Family coverage costs more - as it should.
So what do these new prospective regulations do? How do they help anyone?
Oh, that's right - we're going to insure an extra 30 million people that either can't afford it, or don't want to afford it. And the money for that will come from where?
Quote: So it's okay to force businesses with more than 50 employees to add even MORE red tape.
When did he say it was okay to do that? He was refuting a specific claim made by Knight about small business owners. Stop putting words in his mouth. It's not good for effective discussion.
Quote: So it's okay to force businesses with more than 50 employees to add even MORE red tape.
When did he say it was okay to do that? He was refuting a specific claim made by Knight about small business owners. Stop putting words in his mouth. It's not good for effective discussion.
Okay - here's effective discussion: Does this newest bill differentiate between companies that employ more than 50 employees - and will those companies have regulations put on them that companies that don't employ more than 50 won't have?
Discuss.
True or not? According to him - and the bill he cited - those companies over 50 employees will have certain rules they have to play by.
That's what I said in my first post - screw the "big" companies.
Gotta get the money somewhere, right?
So, correct me if I"m wrong here: You employ more than 50 people, you have new red tape to deal with. Yes or no.
Or break it up into 'Mini" companies....so if you have like 10,000 employees...you can have like 200 minicompanies.....Bonus....talk about the tax break opportunities....LOL
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
Quote: So, correct me if I"m wrong here: You employ more than 50 people, you have new red tape to deal with. Yes or no.
Looked it up today. 50-200 employees, not required to offer coverage, but companies that have any full time employees that receive tax credits for using the exchanges (only employees living near the poverty line are eligible for these credits) will be assessed a $750 penalty per employee. Penalizes companies for passing low income full time employees off to federal subsidies and/or Medicaid.
Over 200 employees, required to offer coverage; employee can opt out if they want to (really doesn't do anything, as almost every firm over 200 employees offers coverage).
Let me ask you a question: you mentioned GM and Anthem as two American companies whose goal is supposed to be turning a profit. Do you think there is any difference between these two companies? 