Can you find ANYTHING other than one quick mention in an article that it was used for passing the "Reautorization" of the Patriot Act?? (Oddly enough NOT the Patriot Act itself, like you were trying to claim)
... I've Google searched up and down, and have found nothing about Reps usign this procedure to pass the Patriot act, and knowing the poop-fit the Democrats/Media/you would of thrown had they actually done that to pass the bill itself ... I find it highly unlikely. If anything, from what I can find, I think it was used to extend the EXISTING bill in 2005 a few months until such time that the language of the new bill could be hammered out and voted on ... and as I showed to you, it WAS voted on in 2006. So please spare us the garbage that the entire Patriot Act was somehow passed by this procedure.
Incidently enough, I noticed you neglected to highlight the part of the article that mentions this procedure has never been used on anything even CLOSE to this kind of Trillion dollar takeover that this will enact. But then again, who cares about size-of-impact! The Reps did this before, it must be okay! Yeah, so what if Bush "lied" to get into Iraq ... Dems lied lots of times before too, so who cares!?
Obama: .... Employers will see their premiums fall by as much as 3000% .....
So an employer paying a $100 premium will receive as much as $2900 instead?
Why am I not buying this .......?
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
Of course not. They're just pulling numbers out of their asses. Last week, Pelosi said passing the bill will immediately create 400,000 jobs. I can't believe anybody's buying this BS. Just listen to her:
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul. - John Muir
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
"Now, so let me talk about the third thing, which is my proposal would bring down the cost of health care for families, for businesses, and for the federal government. So Americans buying comparable coverage to what they have today -- I already said this -- would see premiums fall by 14 to 20 percent -- that’s not my numbers, that’s what the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says -- for Americans who get their insurance through the workplace. How many people are getting insurance through their jobs right now? Raise your hands. All right. Well, a lot of those folks, your employer it’s estimated would see premiums fall by as much as 3,000 percent [sic], which means they could give you a raise. (Applause.)"
I'm pretty sure he flubbed the line, but meant $3000 based on the context above (probably somewhere around 14-20% of what some family policies cost). That's the trouble with short clips; they usually don't provide context.
Quote: 1. Complexity is never necessary, and it is very often the primary indicator of poor design (and usually results from after-the-fact adoption of compromises). 2. Dropping, etc.... simple: Make it illegal to drop a currently covered patient as long as they remain current on their premiums. 3. I don't totally disagree that some oversight may be helpful and probably required, but no moreso than normal anti-trust, anti-collusion oversight. If my guides above were implemented, competition itself WILL be enough to deal with costs.
If health insurance goes inter-state, there will have to be blanket federal regulations put into place to prevent abuses. Otherwise, insurance companies will move to the states with the weakest regulations or avoid states with higher ratios of sick/non-sick, and offer crappier policies for the money. IMO, blanket federal regs will not necessarily best serve each individual state.
I prefer to force competition to go through state-based exchanges. I went back to the bill summary and read a bit; an exchange sounds complex, but it is really nothing more than a government or non-profit agency that monitors compliance with state laws, which can widely vary from state to state. It is also the interface for people who need to use subsidies. Finally, exchanges will force disclosure of pricing, publish ratings for insurance companies, and force other forms of transparency by insurance companies. Competition alone does not work; its competition coupled with informed consumers that works. That is why I think that stricter regulation of health insurance is needed; it is one of the few enterprises in this country that has little transparency associated with it.
Quote: Cost sharing - a.k.a. "requiring everyone to take part" will also serve to greatly increase the pool of people that are going to the doctor for every sniffle, and making use of their "coverage" (that should merely be insurance). Also, once borders are opened for direct competition, there will be no pressing need for cost sharing as simple market pressures will drop the prices.
This isn't what the studies meant by cost sharing. They meant sharing in the cost of your own health care. We agree on this issue, as you have correctly stated that in last few decades, people have paid less and less out of pocket, leading to overuse of health care. IMO, the bill modestly increases out of pocket expenditures for those in the exchanges and those on Medicare/Medicaid, but it does not do enough to ensure that the majority of Americans who are covered by their employer aren't shielded from costs.
Quote: It is why they are publicly in support of this bill, because in order to not throw their weight into blocking it and to have them go along with the "can't be turned down for pre-existing conditions" aspect, they were awarded with what they've sought for decades - requiring everyone in the nation to purchase their product. It just helps that it can be spun as "cost sharing".
I don't see how else to do this. The reason sick people are dropped and avoided is because they are in no way profitable for insurance companies. If you introduce legislation that forces highly unprofitable customers onto these companies, you will destroy their profit margins, and either drive them out of business or force them to raise rates even higher. IMO, this is a good compromise, b/c it forces many people to be covered. This is a lot like required car insurance; if something bad happens, in the absence of coverage, the rest of us are left holding the bag.
Simple question from a simple man. Who here can answer this with less than 5 min. research time?
Current Health insurance premium $572 per month. Yearly perscription drugs $1600 Dr Visits $20 Deductible $2,000
Now tell me how much It would cost me under the government plan? Keep in mind there are numerous DR visits, scripts without insurance would have run well over 12,000 per year. Major amounts of blood work done each year, two or more MRI's each year. Anybody have a clue?
Depends on whether you are self-insured, get insurance through the workplace, work for a small or large employer, or make income within 400% of the federal poverty line.
Quote: If health insurance goes inter-state, there will have to be blanket federal regulations put into place to prevent abuses. Otherwise, insurance companies will move to the states with the weakest regulations or avoid states with higher ratios of sick/non-sick, and offer crappier policies for the money. IMO, blanket federal regs will not necessarily best serve each individual state.
I prefer to force competition to go through state-based exchanges. I went back to the bill summary and read a bit; an exchange sounds complex, but it is really nothing more than a government or non-profit agency that monitors compliance with state laws, which can widely vary from state to state. It is also the interface for people who need to use subsidies. Finally, exchanges will force disclosure of pricing, publish ratings for insurance companies, and force other forms of transparency by insurance companies. Competition alone does not work; its competition coupled with informed consumers that works. That is why I think that stricter regulation of health insurance is needed; it is one of the few enterprises in this country that has little transparency associated with it.
There won't be too much needed. 1. Require disclosure. 2. Require any plan offered to be valid in at least 40% of all States -- that shouldn't be too hard for them to do, regardless of individual State requirements 3. Require that they do business in ALL States. 4. Require all to carry a single "minimum insurance" plan that is valid in EVERY State.
The Federal Trade Commission can handle the monitoring... that sort of thing is their job already.
Quote: They meant sharing in the cost of your own health care.
This should be between the employer and the employee... the Gov't shouldn't have any say in this at all.... and they certainly should not be reaching into my pockets to tell me my "share". My plan should be whatever my plan is that my employer & I want -- not some Gov't mandated thing. If I don't want insurance, I shouldn't have to have insurance.
Quote: I don't see how else to do this. The reason sick people are dropped and avoided is because they are in no way profitable for insurance companies. If you introduce legislation that forces highly unprofitable customers onto these companies, you will destroy their profit margins, and either drive them out of business or force them to raise rates even higher. IMO, this is a good compromise, b/c it forces many people to be covered. This is a lot like required car insurance; if something bad happens, in the absence of coverage, the rest of us are left holding the bag.
Sadly, if the issue of disallowing the companies to decline pre-existing conditions is forced, there is no other way to do it. I *really* want to say that we should just skip that portion of things because this amounts to nothing short of Corporate Welfare of the highest order. We are telling the insurance industry that we will appease you by forcing money into your pockets if you'd just be kind enough to do this one thing for us.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
One of the reasons insurance is so high is that people refuse coverage until they actually start needing it ... and then complain because the premiums are crazy-high because they have cancer or something.
So you either mandate a minimum plan (similar to car insurance) ... or you let people know that they are going to have crazy high premiums if they choose to ignore insurance until they come down with something.
They meant sharing in the cost of your own health care.
This should be between the employer and the employee... the Gov't shouldn't have any say in this at all.... and they certainly should not be reaching into my pockets to tell me my "share". My plan should be whatever my plan is that my employer & I want -- not some Gov't mandated thing. If I don't want insurance, I shouldn't have to have insurance.
I'm not suggesting that the government come in and dictate your share. What I am suggesting is that in a large number of cases, employers are picking the insurance for employees. Employers are also paying out the premiums by payroll deduction. This adds a step of cost cushioning for employees, and the net result is that employees don't always know how much is spent on their health care and if they do, they interpret it as "free" care rather than spending of their own money.
I am suggesting that some of this money should instead be given to employees, and let them choose their own insurance. This allows people to choose the level of coverage that is right for them, rather than the level of coverage that was selected by someone in HR. Not only this, but people will not overuse as much if they are paying premiums directly out of their own bank account. I was trying to convey (although I admit, I wasn't very clear in the last post) that there isn't enough of this that I could see in the current bill.
Pooled insurance is the only way regular Joe's like me can afford expensive health care when I need it (surgery, chemo, etc.). If someone doesn't want insurance, that is fine, but if they aren't going to participate in the pooling, then either they pay a fine, or they don't get access to the care when they can't pay. It's not really fair to ask doctors and nurses to ignore someone who needs surgery, but it is fair to charge a fine, b/c when that uninsured person needs care and can't pay, the rest of us are in effect paying for that person.
Dow Jones Newswires | Caterpillar Inc. said the health-care overhaul legislation being considered by the U.S. House of Representatives would increase the company's health-care costs by more than $100 million in the first year alone.
In a letter Thursday to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio, Caterpillar urged lawmakers to vote against the plan "because of the substantial cost burdens it would place on our shareholders, employees and retirees." Caterpillar, the world's largest construction machinery manufacturer by sales, said it's particularly opposed to provisions in the bill that would expand Medicare taxes and mandate insurance coverage. The legislation would require nearly all companies to provide health insurance for their employees or face large fines.
The Peoria-based company said these provisions would increase its insurance costs by at least 20 percent, or more than $100 million, just in the first year of the health-care overhaul program.
"We can ill-afford cost increases that place us at a disadvantage versus our global competitors," said the letter signed by Gregory Folley, vice president and chief human resources officer of Caterpillar. "We are disappointed that efforts at reform have not addressed the cost concerns we've raised throughout the year."
Business executives have long complained that the options offered for covering 32 million uninsured Americans would result in higher insurance costs for those employers that already provide coverage. Opponents have stepped up their attacks in recent days as the House moves closer toward a vote on the Senate version of the health-care legislation.
A letter Thursday to President Barack Obama and members of Congress signed by more than 130 economists predicted the legislation would discourage companies from hiring more workers and would cause reduced hours and wages for those already employed.
Caterpillar noted that the company supports efforts to increase the quality and the value of health care for patients as well as lower costs for employer-sponsored insurance coverage.
"Unfortunately, neither the current legislation in the House and Senate, nor the president's proposal, meets these goals," the letter said.
I don't know what to think, as I like to believe I won't be affected -- at least personally or directly by this issue -- but when a major industrial employer in this day and age of our ever-decreasing American manufacturing base, will take a 100 million dollar hit in the first year of this "plan," then it needs another hard look.
Obama is pressing the issue now in the news,...I really hope it fails, but it looks like the Democrats are gonna pull out all the stops to get this done, one way or the other.
Excuse me, but it is embarrassing—really, embarrassing to our country—that the president of the United States has again put off a state visit to Australia and Indonesia because he's having trouble passing a piece of domestic legislation he's been promising for a year will be passed next week. What an air of chaos this signals to the world. And to do this to Australia of all countries, a nation that has always had America's back and been America's friend.
How bush league, how undisciplined, how kid's stuff.
You could see the startled looks on the faces of reporters as Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, who had the grace to look embarrassed, made the announcement on Thursday afternoon. The president "regrets the delay"—the trip is rescheduled for June—but "passage of the health insurance reform is of paramount importance." Indonesia must be glad to know it's not.
View Full Image
Fox News Channel .The reporters didn't even provoke or needle in their questions. They seemed hushed. They looked like people who were absorbing the information that we all seem to be absorbing, which is that the wheels seem to be coming off this thing, the administration is wobbling—so early, so painfully and dangerously soon.
Thursday's decision followed the most revealing and important broadcast interview of Barack Obama ever. It revealed his primary weakness in speaking of health care, which is a tendency to dodge, obfuscate and mislead. He grows testy when challenged. It revealed what the president doesn't want revealed, which is that he doesn't want to reveal much about his plan. This furtiveness is not helpful in a time of high public anxiety. At any rate, the interview was what such interviews rarely are, a public service. That it occurred at a high-stakes time, with so much on the line, only made it more electric.
More Peggy Noonan Read Peggy Noonan's previous columns
click here to order her new book, Patriotic Grace .I'm speaking of the interview Wednesday on Fox News Channel's "Special Report With Bret Baier." Fox is owned by News Corp., which also owns this newspaper, so one should probably take pains to demonstrate that one is attempting to speak with disinterest and impartiality, in pursuit of which let me note that Glenn Beck has long appeared to be insane.
That having been said, the Baier interview was something, and right from the beginning. Mr. Baier's first question was whether the president supports the so-called Slaughter rule, alternatively known as "deem and pass," which would avoid a straight up-or-down House vote on the Senate bill. (Tunku Varadarajan in the Daily Beast cleverly notes that it sounds like "demon pass," which it does. Maybe that's the juncture we're at.) Mr. Obama, in his response, made the usual case for ObamaCare. Mr. Baier pressed him. The president said, "The vote that's taken in the House will be a vote for health-care reform." We shouldn't, he added, concern ourselves with "the procedural issues."
Further in, Mr. Baier: "So you support the deem-and-pass rule?" From the president, obfuscation. But he did mention something new: "They may have to sequence the votes." The bill's opponents would be well advised to look into that one.
Mr. Baier again: So you'll go deem-and-pass and you don't know exactly what will be in the bill?
Mr. Obama's response: "By the time the vote has taken place, not only will I know what's in it, you'll know what's in it, because it's going to be posted and everybody's going to be able to evaluate it on the merits."
View Full Image
Fox News Channel .That's news in two ways. That it will be posted—one assumes the president means on the Internet and not nailed to a telephone pole—should suggest it will be posted for a while, more than a few hours or days. So American will finally get a look at it. And the president was conceding that no, he doesn't know what's in the bill right now. It is still amazing that one year into the debate this could be true.
Mr. Baier pressed on the public's right to know what is in the bill. We have been debating the bill for a year, the president responded: "The notion that this has been not transparent, that people don't know what's in the bill, everybody knows what's in the bill. I sat for seven hours with—."
Mr. Baier interrupts: "Mr. President, you couldn't tell me what the special deals are that are in or not today."
Mr. Obama: "I just told you what was in and what was not in."
Mr. Baier: "Is Connecticut in?" He was referring to the blandishments—polite word—meant to buy the votes of particular senators.
Mr. Obama: "Connecticut—what are you specifically referring to?"
Mr. Baier: "The $100 million for the hospital? Is Montana in for the asbestos program? Is—you know, listen, there are people—this is real money, people are worried about this stuff."
Mr. Obama: "And as I said before, this—the final provisions are going to be posted for many days before this thing passes."
Mr. Baier pressed the president on his statement as a candidate for the presidency that a 50-plus-one governing mentality is inherently divisive. "You can't govern" that way, Sen. Obama had said. Is the president governing that way now? Mr. Obama did not really answer.
Throughout, Mr. Baier pressed the president. Some thought this bordered on impertinence. I did not. Mr. Obama now routinely filibusters in interviews. He has his message, and he presses it forward smoothly, adroitly. He buries you in words. Are you worried what failure of the bill will do to you? I'm worried about what the status quo will do to the families that are uninsured . . .
Mr. Baier forced him off his well-worn grooves. He did it by stopping long answers with short questions, by cutting off and redirecting. In this he was like a low-speed bumper car. In the end the interview seemed to me a public service because everyone in America right now wants to see the president forced off his grooves and into candor on an issue that involves 17% of the economy. Again, the stakes are high. So Mr. Baier's style seemed—this is admittedly subjective—not rude but within the bounds, and not driven by the antic spirit that sometimes overtakes reporters. He seemed to be trying to get new information. He seemed to be attempting to better inform the public.
Presidents have a right to certain prerogatives, including the expectation of a certain deference. He's the president, this is history. But we seem to have come a long way since Ronald Reagan was regularly barked at by Sam Donaldson, almost literally, and the president shrugged it off. The president—every president—works for us. We don't work for him. We sometimes lose track of this, or rather get the balance wrong. Respect is due and must be palpable, but now and then you have to press, to either force them to be forthcoming or force them to reveal that they won't be. Either way it's revealing.
And so it ends, with a health-care vote expected this weekend. I wonder at what point the administration will realize it wasn't worth it—worth the discord, worth the diminution in popularity and prestige, worth the deepening of the great divide. What has been lost is so vivid, what has been gained so amorphous, blurry and likely illusory. Memo to future presidents: Never stake your entire survival on the painful passing of a bad bill. Never take the country down the road to Demon Pass.
The Democrats are assaulting the very pillars of our democracy. As the debate on Obamacare reaches the long, painful end, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is confronting a political nightmare. She may not have the 216 votes necessary to pass the Senate's health care bill in the House.
Hence, Mrs. Pelosi and her congressional Democratic allies are seriously considering using a procedural ruse to circumvent the traditional constitutional process. Led by Rep. Louise M. Slaughter, New York Democrat and chairman of the House Rules Committee, the new plan - called the "Slaughter Solution" - is not to pass the Senate version on an up-or-down vote. Rather, it is to have the House "deem" that the legislation was passed and then have members vote directly on a series of "sidecar" amendments to fix the things it does not like.
This would enable House Democrats to avoid going on the record voting for provisions in the Senate bill - the "Cornhusker Kickback," the "Louisiana Purchase," the tax on high-cost so-called "Cadillac" insurance plans - that are reviled by the public or labor-union bosses. If the reconciliation fixes pass, the House can send the Senate bill to President Obama for his signature without ever having had a formal up-or-down vote on the underlying legislation.
Many Democrats could claim they opposed the Senate bill while allowing it to pass. This would be an unprecedented violation of our democratic norms and procedures, established since the inception of the republic. Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution stipulates that for any bill to become a law, it must pass both the House of Representatives and the Senate. That is, not be "deemed" to have passed, but actually be voted on with the support of the required majority. The bill must contain the exact same language in both chambers - and in the version signed by the president - to be a legitimate law. This is why the House and Senate have a conference committee to iron out differences of competing versions. This is Civics 101.
The Slaughter Solution is a dagger aimed at the heart of our system of checks and balances. It would enable the Democrats to establish an ominous precedent: The lawmaking process can be rigged to ensure the passage of any legislation without democratic accountability or even a congressional majority. It is the road to a soft tyranny. James Madison must be turning in his grave.
Quote: I am suggesting that some of this money should instead be given to employees, and let them choose their own insurance.
The insurance is cheap because the company is getting it at a group rate. This is why company provided insurance is cheaper than individual insurance (which, coincidentally, is where all the very publicized increases have been occurring).
Also, the company is providing that as part of your total compensation package, but they are not beholden to giving you that value as pay - and nor should they be. Why? I'll tell ya why -- if I was handed an extra $12,000/yr to buy my own insurance.... do ya think I'd be buying insurance? Hell no, I'd be looking at upgrading other areas of my life.
Quote: Not only this, but people will not overuse as much if they are paying premiums directly out of their own bank account.
Hell yes they will. I think you might be grossly underestimating just how many will take the attitude of "I'm paying for it, I'm getting my money's worth!".
Quote: if they aren't going to participate in the pooling, then either they pay a fine, or they don't get access to the care when they can't pay
1. If you know you cannot pay for health care and you opt out of the pooling that helps you get it, you deserve what you get. 2. I'm not on board with the fine, but I am on board with denying care to those that can't pay.... and regular insurance should be quite dirt cheap for anyone to get.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
You will be affected. Salt tax, sugar tax, gas tax, beer tax, tobacco tax, income tax, property tax, tanning tax and anything else they can think of. It will be TAXED to pay for this... this...OBAMANATION.
I would love nothing more than to have a dirt cheap, minimum coverage kind of thing. I'm 27, in good shape, by all accounts very healthy. I only use my health insurance for annual physicals and the once every few years that I get a cold/flu/sinus infection or other minor things.
I could skate by for several more years without needing much coverage but my options at work are pretty limited. I have the cheapest plan already but its much more insurance than I need right now. I wouldn't mind shaving some cost in exchange for coverage that only covers an office visit or 2 a year and something that will have my back if I get into a major car accident or the like.
Put something like that on the table I'm more apt to come around.
"All I know is, as long as I led the Southeastern Conference in scoring, my grades would be fine." - Charles Barkley
I run a restaurant. We have 30 employees, and 5 more in the management staff. (3 salaried and 2 hourly) The managers get health insurance, and all empoyees over a certain hourly threshold can buy into a plan as well. It's not free, but it's not $1000 per month either.
They can buy into dental .. health ... life ... disability .....
Our employees, all of them, after a year can enroll in our 401K. The employer matches contributions at 25%.
Let's not assume that health insurance is made mandatory, and my employer has to provide it for every employee without a contribution from the employee.
I have run the numbers. 30 employees will have to be cut to approximately 22-23. Manager staffing will remain about the same as there is no difference in cost at that level.
Raises will be fewer and further between, The bottom line rules all in business, and after finally getting this store to a point where it makes money, I doub that my franchisees are going to go "Yippee! We can start losing money again!!!".
Now this is just 1 restaurant in one city. If every restaurant, grocery store, department store, car dealership, builder. appliance repair shop, and the multitude of other smaller businesses that employ so many also cut (Let's say, conservatively) 20% of their work force ..... what does that do to an economy teetering on the brink already? How would 15% unemployment sound? I know that I'm not alone in running the numbers as far as what becomes possible as far as employment if certain plans are enacted, and figuring potential costs.
Slow measured steps would be the best way to start instead of jumping into the deep end and "fixing" things later.
One other thing to consider .... manufacturing .... kiss many of those jobs goodbye as well if mandatory benefit costs skyrocket. Why pay the price to produce here in America when tyou can pay cheaper wages and much lower benefit costs? Maybe Caterpillar will become "Caterpillar of Mexico".
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
Quote: Let's not assume that health insurance is made mandatory, and my employer has to provide it for every employee without a contribution from the employee.
I have run the numbers. 30 employees will have to be cut to approximately 22-23. Manager staffing will remain about the same as there is no difference in cost at that level.
I don't doubt this for a second. This is why this bill exempts companies under 50 from having to provide coverage. Companies from 51-200 employees also don't have to provide coverage, but if they have more than 30 employees that have to take tax credits in the exchanges to afford insurance, there is a penalty for each employee over 30 that takes tax credits. Companies over 200 employees have to offer coverage, but almost every company this size already offers coverage.
Luckily, in this case, I only have 5 employees, so I won't have to provide coverage. But, even if I did, for 5 small people, I would have to let them go. I can't afford it. It's that simple.
Quote: Let's not assume that health insurance is made mandatory, and my employer has to provide it for every employee without a contribution from the employee.
I have run the numbers. 30 employees will have to be cut to approximately 22-23. Manager staffing will remain about the same as there is no difference in cost at that level.
I don't doubt this for a second. This is why this bill exempts companies under 50 from having to provide coverage. Companies from 51-200 employees also don't have to provide coverage, but if they have more than 30 employees that have to take tax credits in the exchanges to afford insurance, there is a penalty for each employee over 30 that takes tax credits. Companies over 200 employees have to offer coverage, but almost every company this size already offers coverage.
We're a franchise with about 25 locations. Do they count up all locations and lump them into 1 "company", or do they count each location separately?
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
Quote: Hell yes they will. I think you might be grossly underestimating just how many will take the attitude of "I'm paying for it, I'm getting my money's worth!".
There was actually a large experiment conducted in the late 70's early 80's that refutes this.
The experiment was that groups of people were set up with free health care or 25%, 50%, or 95% coinsurance. The groups that paid more out of their own pockets used much less health care. Those who paid less or nothing out of pocket used significantly more health care. There was no detectable difference in health outcomes among the groups (i.e. - the extra use of care did not confer better health).
Quote: The insurance is cheap because the company is getting it at a group rate. This is why company provided insurance is cheaper than individual insurance (which, coincidentally, is where all the very publicized increases have been occurring).
I didn't think about this. You are right here. And after some reading I think some of the elements that we have been discussing are already starting to be used by companies; high deductible policies coupled with HSAs which, in effect, protect employees from catastrophic costs, but have them pay out for basic or routine costs (I think you might have used the analogy of using car insurance to pay for oil changes?)
Quote: 1. If you know you cannot pay for health care and you opt out of the pooling that helps you get it, you deserve what you get. 2. I'm not on board with the fine, but I am on board with denying care to those that can't pay.... and regular insurance should be quite dirt cheap for anyone to get.
The law is that no one can be denied care at ERs, so the fine is really the only viable option to enforce a coverage mandate. Besides, I don't think it's a good idea to overturn the law and put health professionals in positions where they have to deny care. I see too many nasty situations arising in hospital settings.
I would imagine that each franchise would be treated as a separate employer, but I haven't read the actual bill itself, just the summary, so I don't really know.
Quote: and my employer has to provide it for every employee without a contribution from the employee.
This part jumped out at me. Is that really in the proposed bill, that the employees don't have to contribute? I didn't know that, that is a horrible idea. I don't like it that my check is smaller every week but I understand why they're taking that money out and I understand what the ramifications would be if they didn't.
"All I know is, as long as I led the Southeastern Conference in scoring, my grades would be fine." - Charles Barkley
Quote: This part jumped out at me. Is that really in the proposed bill, that the employees don't have to contribute? I didn't know that, that is a horrible idea. I don't like it that my check is smaller every week but I understand why they're taking that money out and I understand what the ramifications would be if they didn't.
This isn't in the bill. The bill requires that every employer with over 200 employees must offer a plan that at minimum covers 60% of the actuarial value of covered benefits. Meaning you would pay 40% of the cost out of pocket. I think YTown was providing a hypothetical situation.
I'll tell you that any employer that has just over 200 people will soon have 199. Wonder how many small businesses employ 200-230 people and how many jobs it will cost. I know if my business had anything in that range I would reduce staffing to 199 if there was any way to do so.
The thing is that something like 95% of companies over 200 employees already offer coverage, so this rule will only really affect a few businesses that don't. So it's really a status quo move; I don't see widespread layoffs to be the result. And also, I don't think businesses are classified as small once they have 200+ employees anyways.
The point is that nobody seems to know what in the hell their health care will cost them if this crap is forced down our throats, or what the level of health care will be. How can anybody be all for this when they have no clue how it is going to effect them and their family?
This is the biggest crock of ****!! All your left wing heroes voted on the same intelligence. It is well documented , not that you would care. Gore and Kerry both gave big speaches about the WMD's in Iraq. You love to throw out the "RW " crap, while you spew the "left wing" talking points.
The articles you provide and expect others to use as reference are bias left wing crap. If I posted something from Fox news you would jump all over it. What a BS double standard.
