Why won't a company switch to government health care?
If you watched Obama's news conference today, he didn't really answer this question. And I'm wondering why? Is it because they want most people to go to a government program?
Here is the transcript of the question: Quote:
Would the government be able to run a non-profit healthcare agency better than the for-profit insurance companies? Do you think Obama needs to work on his answer a little? I'll be watching the healthcare infomercial tomorrow, but I'm worried that they aren't going to do it right. I wonder if it will eventually be like the FICA tax. I pay 6%, my employer pays 6%. It is capped at $92k or something. I could also see it being 2% if your are under 20, 4% 20-40, 6% 40-60, 8% 60+. And yes, it is a 'new tax', but I am already being 'taxed' by my health insurance company, and my quality of care isn't all that good if I am sick. (If I really get hurt it is good) |
Employers would drop their own healthcare costs the day government healthcare goes into affect. I'm a bit jaded, but I honestly doubt they would then turn that "profit" back to the employee with a pay raise to overcome the increased tax burden the government would impose on them.
So the 80% or whatever Americans actually have healthcare will take it from both sides as a result. |
Err... How is this different from the employer chosing to change healthcare supplier in any other way? If it's cheaper and supplies a comparable or better service, then keep it?
If it turns out to be awful, then scrap it and go back to the for-profit service. Right? Or will black helicopters be over the hospital everytime someone enters a hosptal under a govt plan and then follow them everywhere, making sure they get shitty healthcare and die... so they can't complain? Really, folks... the "Socialised Medicine!" scare in the US looks utterly ridiculous to the rest of the world, and considering your healthcare is ranked below Cuba's.... Maybe you need a little of the rest of the world's solution. |
Quote:
But private healthcare costs are kept artificially high, and, like any good business, are built on a system of maximized profits/minimized costs. For something like health, I don't think it's the best solution. I think it should be legal to have such a solution, and that if people wanna pay for it, go ahead. But the companies are using your money to make profits, not to provide you with the best coverage possible. Personally, I think he's doing something right, and I always have believed that government healthcare is something a nation should do. It just makes sense to me, but then again, I've lived in different countries and experienced it firsthand, and I've seen the advantages. I think America is lagging behind in terms of a few issues, and healthcare is a big one. Education, too. You're right, tisonlyi, USA could learn a few good things from other countries. |
So far the argument against a public health care option seems to be that certain people will not be able to extort the public anymore....
Seriously I'm hearing people say "Government health care would be bad because it would be cheaper than private health care". |
As an outsider....to me it seems that the bottom line is this:
People should not have to choose between food & shelter and the most basic health care, especially not in the wealthiest nation on the planet. The Obama administration needs to make the plan accessible, sensible, and the plan needs to be easy to follow. There are many models to borrow from. Look around. |
It seems to me that healthcare reform without a government option will mean that insurance company premiums have to go up. One way or another we are all going to pay to cover pre-conditions, the uninsured and also insure that people do not go broke when they get seriously injured or sick. It's either higher taxes, higher premiums or both.
I guess the government could give stipends to those who cannot afford to buy private insurance if there is no government plan. If the government is going to pick up the costs whether private plan or public plan one has to wonder why pay for insurance company profits as well. Maybe it would make sense if we are convinced that the (for profit) insurance companies are providing better quality coverage even with their profits than the government can. I believe the only way to stick with private plans is if there is some way to get healthcare costs down via free market competition. As it stands now there is little or no competition in healthcare providers and costs are out of control. Maybe the Libertarians are right and if the government got completely out of healthcare there would be more competition and the costs would come down but I doubt it. Without competitive pricing for healthcare the government will probably have to control it somehow. I wish President Obama would discuss this in greater detail but I think he is trying to keep all interested parties at the table and avoid what happened to Hillarycare in the 90s. |
perhaps the system will be such that employers can't use the government plan as their company's plan. In other words, the companies still do business as usual (bidding for private insurance plans for their employees), but now the employees can opt out of the company plan and use the public option instead.
|
Quote:
It will be interesting to see what the Obama Plan is tonight... |
Quote:
|
Quote:
It does sound like this public plan is going to only be for those too poor, or too sick to have any other insurance company want them. (Or at least that is what I hope it would be used for) If all of the small business people, self-employed, early retirees, and in-between job unemployed were able to form one big risk pool, their rates would be reasonable for the basics and catastrophic coverage. |
asu, i've often thought about that...what if like 20 people who are either unemployed or self employed pooled together..it's larger than a lot of small businesses and anything is better than teh quotes i'm getting for being self employed and the only person employed....
|
I dont even know where to begin. I will keep it as short as I can.
The government health plan will cost billions of dollars, if not trillions. Thats, 500,000,000,000... or 1,000,000,000,000. That money has to come from somewhere. There is no such thing as a government program taking less money, it doesn't happen. Obama's saying they are going to cut the fat from all these programs already in place to pay for socialized health care is just political haranguing. They will make it look like they are taking money, but they will just turn around and give it right back to the same people under a different name. So the net tax revenue to pay for all this is going to be astronomical. That money will come from "the rich" in the form of new taxes. "The Rich" are those people who pay the wages to 95% of all working Americans. So, they will have to pay more money to pay for socialized health care. To keep to the point... Employers will dump their private insurance plans, because it makes absolutely no fiscal sense for them to pay for two different health care systems, which is what the end result will be. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Are those without kids exempted from school taxes? Are those without automobiles exempted from paying for public roads? |
Quote:
Those without kids SHOULD be exempted from school taxes. As for roads and emergency services, I'd definitely be willing to work on a plan to exempt people from paying for them so long as they are barred from using them. |
Ace, while that may be so, things are getting worse, not better. Companies are dropping their healthcare plans because of premium costs and many workers cannot afford their premiums even if they are available where they work.
How easy is it to visit a doctor, get medication, and go to the emergency room if you can't pay for it? How much of this is subsidized by the government if you are uninsured? ---------- Post added at 12:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:13 PM ---------- Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
I was referring to the number of people who have access to or who can afford health insurance. Consider the number of companies who are opting to not have it available as one aspect. |
Quote:
In auto insurance, every person is able to obtain coverage regardless of their record. Extreme substandard risks are pooled and assigned to insurance companies based on a percent of premium written or market share. People place in these pools are subjected to much higher premiums, which I do not think has to be the case with medical insurance. The point is I think we can make some changes in our existing system to get everyone covered with reasonable premiums - and there is always the possibility to subsidize those at certain low income levels. I would much rather do things like the above rather than the government for all practical purposes, take over the entire system. |
Quote:
And the 1 trillion is just an estimate based on the assumption that anybody could sign up for the government plan I think. Why wouldn't the government plan raise it's rates to cover expenses year after year just like the health insurance companies do? The government doesn't need to have growth or profits though, and that's what scares the insurance companies and the Friedman/Rand capitalists. There are cheap things we can do to lower health care costs, they just aren't politically popular. (Like having kids exercise 3-5 times a week at school in PE class, which would do more for their life/self esteem than any other class). Or even separating the overweight kids and putting them through a 'Biggest Loser TV Show' type of thing for 6 months. Other adults can do things to reduce the amount of health care they will use as well like monitoring blood pressure and getting simple blood tests, limit drug use, eat healthier food, exercise more, breathe cleaner air, be safe, etc... I do think that the CDC should be able to provide vaccinations to the poor in the face of a general health emergency (like if the H1N1 virus had started to kill tens of thousands and there was a vaccine, but people couldn't pay for it). And there should be some insurance reform to make sure everyone can get it at a reasonable rate. It is a complicated system and some things need to change, but I think they need to work on getting it right. Even if it means the insurance companies will have to lose some money. |
Quote:
"The Rich" are those people who get richer off the backs of 95% of all working Humans. I've never had any kind of health care, I checked into it, it'd cost me near 1/4 of my wage. screw that, I'm not going to be a slave to an insurance company. my car insurance costs me under $50ish a month, they take the risk that I could put an entire family in the hospital, disable them for life, for $50 a month. I've needed a Dr. maybe 5-6 times since I got off moms family insurance probably 25-30 years ago. just a simple urine test and a 5 minuet chat (where the Dr. questioning was totally on the wrong path) cost $1300.00. that's ridiculous. I mean $1300.00, near 2 weeks hard labour and I learn nothing from their test and questions ? robbery plain and simple. |
I think the other thing you have to look at here is that the medical industry has been well established in this country under the current system we have since...well since the beginning.
What will a sudden change do to this established system? It's quite possible it could throw the whole thing into chaos. I hear that government health care is "cheaper." But it's only really cheaper for those who have to pay for their own health insurance and don't work for a company that provides it. The rest of us end up paying more since our taxes will go up to pay for everyone else. Plus now that more people can "afford" health care what will that do to the health care system? Will hospitals be more overcrowded? Will it be even more difficult to schedule an appointment with a doctor? Will the government not reimburse the hospitals and clinics enough because the government feels they are charging too much anyway and what would be the results of that? You can't just propose a drastic change in the way people pay for health care and expect the system itself to just seamlessly transition. There could be major impacts that no one has ever thought of. Plus those of us with health care are most likely going to have to change to the government policy (unless their company likes wasting money) so that could be a big change in to the type of care we receive and what we are covered for. Honestly the last thing I want to worry about is the type of health care I am going to have. I'm happy with what I have no and would rather not change anything. And I would rather not pay more taxes than I already do. I do not feel it is the government's responsibility to provide medical care for the populace, at least not this government's responsibility. It's not in our Nation's charter to do such. The only thing a national health care system will do is to increase the power of the federal government and increase it's influence on your daily life. |
Quote:
---------- Post added at 02:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:45 PM ---------- Quote:
|
Quote:
Why does this scene from Full Metal Jacket seem appropriate. :) Every person making money has to work harder or pay more in premiums, medicare/medicaid taxes, and any possible new health co-op taxes because people want to do whatever they want, but also want the best high class health care. Yes, some basic health care, medical research should be paid for by taxes because it is better if we prevent spreadable diseases from infecting everyone. But, I'm thinking the real healthcare reform would be to have the health insurance companies(or non-profit co-op, or government) have the equivalent of liability coverage. |
Quote:
Getting back on topic. If I ran a health care insurance company and there is a non-profit government plan on the table, I would set my rates so I could cherry pick the healthiest classes of people. To the contrary of making me honest, the government plan would encourage me to game the system. If I sell some employer group plans that are not profitable, I would go to those groups and say your premiums are X% higher than the government plan, you should switch. With the profitable group plans, I would lower premiums or make sure I offered something marginally better than the government plan to keep the business. In the end the government plan will end up with the least profitable risks. The government plan would have to raise premiums accordingly. And then for the profitable plans I kept could raise premiums, maintaining as small an advantage over the government plan as possible to keep the profitable business. I love it when a plan comes together. If any health care insurance companies come out in support of a government option, you should wonder why. |
Why not propose a hybrid plan, where your taxes "buy" base coverage for everyone in the country (yearly physical, a high deductible ER/hospital coverage, prescription coverage), and then allow people to supplement that with private insurance?
Also, is anyone in favor of divorcing health benefits from employment? (In other words, keep private insurance, but have it so everyone purchases it individually, thus removing the issues of losing your benefits when you lose your job and/or not leaving a bad job because you can't afford to lose the insurance) |
Quote:
1) The government will not raise premiums to control cost. They will eliminate care or raise taxes. 2) You can not cherry pick the healthest. Companies have a set fee for all employees. A non-smoking, 22 year-old pays the same rate as a 400 lb., 58 year-old smoker. This, my friend, is the real problem with the high cost of health insurance. It should work like car insurance - the higher the risk, the higher the premium. Don't like your premium? Drop 200 lbs and quit smoking. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
You Americans are ALREADY paying for health care insurance (and some pretty high rates at that) All you have to do is implement a gov't run health car system where you eliminate the fat cat middle men (do you know that your average medical bill, only 16% of the bill is for the doctor's time) and your costs will decrease. You get the same health care, just eliminate the parasites who are getting rich off sick people. Ultimately, there are ALLOT of people in the USA who are profiting on the suffering of others (the insurance companies). They are the ones who don't want to change the status quo. In the end, it's all about the money. Always has been, always will be. ---------- Post added at 04:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:38 PM ---------- Quote:
What heappens when services keep getting moved to the rich health care plan? What about the doctors who don't want to work with the poor? |
if you prorate health insurance so that the healthiest pay the least and the unhealthiest the most, then the second someone gets, say, cancer, their rates shoot up and they're in the poor house. How is that a good system?
|
Quote:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat.../2102rank.html |
Quote:
70% of all medical bills in America are associated with heart disease, cancer, and obesity related issues (joints, diabetes, circulation, etc.) Heart disease and cancer are in the 70-th percental for preventable and nearly all heart/cancer/obesity illnesses are preventable and can be dramatically reduced through the behavior of the individual. The point is that we should manage costs by making risky choices expensive - just like when you drive recklessly. |
Quote:
A single payer plan could work, the only problem is - choice. If at some point I want a better plan than you do, should I have the right to make a sacrifice and pay for it? I say, yes. I also, think that every person should be guaranteed insurable with no pre-existing conditions as long as they participate in the system from birth. People that are hard to place could be randomly assigned to insurance companies based on market share, so the each company gets a fair share of hard to insure risks. In my opinion no child in this country should be without health insurance and when the child becomes an adult they should be required to have some type of minimal coverage that they pay for, unless they are disabled and unable to work. Or, we could have disability waivers of premium, so that those who become disabled and can not work have their premiums waived without the policy being canceled. ---------- Post added at 09:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:06 PM ---------- Quote:
---------- Post added at 09:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:08 PM ---------- Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Every "single-payer" system in Europe allows you to pay for your own procedures if you wish |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
ace what would stop you from buying that plan if you wanted it? If you want to buy such a plan then clearly there is demand for such a plan and thus the private sector would handle that itself.
I don't see why lowering the cost of health care for everyone is a bad thing.... |
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:34 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project