Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Businesses should be prevented from providing health insurnace to employees

Posted 2 years ago on Jan. 20, 2012, 11:53 a.m. EST by FreeDiscussion1 (109)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

There should be a ban on businesses offering to pay for their employees health care insurance,,, and here is why and how it should be done. First, how it should be done. Companies should not offer to "provide" health insurance. However, they should funnel the exact amount of money they were paying for employee healthcare and give that money to the employee. NOTE: The payment to the insurance company would be given to the employee. Then the employee gets their own private insurance and pays for it from the money provided by the employee. What this does. It allows the employee to pick the insurance they want from the company they want that represents the hospital they want to go to. The employee owns their own insurance taking the decision out of the company. In return, the company does not have to spend the time and money on researching all the insurance companies and selecting the one that may not be in the interest of the majority of the employees. And,,,, most important, insurance companies will lower their insurance rates. WHAT????? Yes, lower. HOW? Insurance companies know they MUST provide insurance and the company will pay what ever it takes to get insurance. One large premium for 500 employees means the insurance company knows they will automatically get the value for 500 with little work. If each individual person is looking for insurance then the insurance companies will have to fight for each and every 500 policies, a potential rather than a certain number. Insurance goes down when competition for those 500 kicks in. Let ME decide the best insurance for me and my family, not some lady in the back office.

232 Comments

232 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 9 points by nucleus (3291) 2 years ago

Many industrialized nations, most in fact, provide socialized health care for all citizens.

This frees employers from having to provide this service, and largely from the cost of it, which is spread over the entire society. Thus Honda, Toyota, Mercedes, BMW and others are not excessively burdened by health care costs and are both more competitive and more profitable.

You would think that US industry would find this a strong economic argument in favor of universal care, and be screaming for public health insurance, but instead they are screaming for the complete elimination of it.

Nationalizing health insurance - Medicare for all - would dramatically reduce the cost of care by eliminating the 30+ percent profit and overhead of private insurers as well as the public cost of covering those with private insurance who are denied care by their providers and an increase in the quality of health due to preventive screening and treatment that every citizen would receive automatically.

Yes the health care system needs work, and a lot of it. But cutting out private insurers would reduce costs on 100,000,000 people by 25% or more in a single step and do much to reduce the rapid escalation of medical costs, much of which is driven by insurance premiums and the cost of medical billing.

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

We probably would have had some kind of single payer if the government hadn't interfered with salaries during the second world war. Companies couldn't attract workers with pay so they started offering benefits.

[-] 1 points by nucleus (3291) 2 years ago

Not sure if what you say is correct. Assuming it is, it could be explained by huge demand for labor in a rapidly growing economy stimulated by 70-90% top tax rates on income.

[-] 2 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

The 1942 Stabilization Act prohibited employers from offering higher wages, the bigger companies got around it by offering benefits packages. What would have happened without that is only guess work on my part, but the other industrialized countries moved to national health insurance when medical costs began to climb.

[-] 2 points by nucleus (3291) 2 years ago

Interesting, wage and price controls implemented to control inflation in a boom economy generated by deficit spending on war production.

[-] -2 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

I dont want the government taking care of my healthcare. If the current government cant keep track of $15 Trillion in debt,,,, well..

[-] 3 points by flip (6369) 2 years ago

you're silly - do you know how other "advanced" countries do it - with much better results than we have - it is not gov't taking care of your health care it is gov't acting as the insurer - talk to any young doctor - not the old ones who got rich on the system - the young ones will tell you that single payer is the only thing that makes sense - it would also eliminate our entire deficit. i am sure you can find an australian, or a austrian or a swede in your area and ask them about health care - see if they want our system

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by flip (6369) 2 years ago

no time to read the book - esp by a hack like pipes but you tell me where i got it wrong and i will tell you why pipes is a hack! the truth is obvious to all who want to see - poor steve forbes - he is blind!.........."Last night on CNN, The Wonk Room’s health care blogger Igor Volsky debated Lou Dobbs and Sally Pipes, a special-interest funded health care pundit. Igor fended off a series of common myths proffered by both Dobbs and Pipes about the current health reform debate. Some key quotes from Igor’s appearance:

– “[The CBO report] said that the public health insurance option would reduce premiums for families by about 10 percent on average. So health reform — if we do it right, if we do it in a comprehensive manner, if it includes a public plan – will lower costs for American families.”

– “If you put [the total cost of the bill] in the context of inaction, in the context of doing nothing, then a trillion dollars is a very good investment for health care costs that will push many middle-class families into bankruptcy. … It’s about the middle class.”

– “This notion that it’s being ‘rammed through’ I think is highly inaccurate and is used by some on the political right to kill reform.”

Watch it:

Previous in TP Politics

Next in TP Politics

By clicking and submitting a comment I acknowledge the ThinkProgress Privacy Policy and agree to the ThinkProgress Terms of Use. I understand that my comments are also being governed by Facebook's Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.

[-] -1 points by Galt01 (55) 2 years ago

Just as I suspected. Anyone who disagrees with your position is wrong and anyone who says what you want to hear is right. Typical - and then there is common sense.

[-] 2 points by flip (6369) 2 years ago

nothing to say - free market madness - let's make everything private - roads, fire dept, military, education - feudalism rules - free market rules - don't you think - moron!

[-] -1 points by Galt01 (55) 2 years ago

we haven't had a "free" market in 100 years

[-] 3 points by flip (6369) 2 years ago

correct and now you want a free market in health care - madness - does that qualify as moronic - i think so - what do you think?

[-] -1 points by Galt01 (55) 2 years ago

why do you think healthcare is so expensive? because of lack of government involvement?

[-] 1 points by flip (6369) 2 years ago

ins company admin and profit for starters - read this - DR. STEVEN NISSEN: Well, I think we need to contain costs with a system that doesn’t reward doing the wrong things. We have what I like to call "perverse incentives." And this is talked about in Escape Fire extensively by myself and by Don Berwick, the former administrator of Medicare, that these incentives basically pay physicians to do procedures, to do things to patients. We aren’t being paid for quality, we’re being paid for quantity. And as a consequence, we drive more and more utilization, more and more procedures, and that’s why we spend so much and we get so little.

AMY GOODMAN: Talk about your own clinic. Cleveland Clinic is known throughout the world, and it’s a very interesting model. It’s similar, Dr. Steve Nissen, to Mayo Clinic.

DR. STEVEN NISSEN: Yeah. It is actually a little different, the Mayo Clinic. And I’ll tell you one thing that I am proud of in our institution, is we are not reimbursed on a fee-for-service basis. Every physician that works at the clinic gets a salary. So when you see a patient, there is no incentive to do procedures that may be not needed. There is a simple formula that says you get paid for coming to work every day and taking care of patients. You do your job. Now, we’re well paid. The physicians are well paid. And they all know they could make more money in private practice, not in an institution like that, but people feel very proud of the fact that we are not incentivized to do things to people.

[-] 0 points by Galt01 (55) 2 years ago

No where do you mention malpractice insurance to defend against bogus lawsuits. Nowhere do you mention State controlled monopolies. Typical. Ask yourself why are Physicians paid for quantity rather than quality?

[-] 1 points by flip (6369) 2 years ago

what does that have to do with you hack giving bad info - docs are paid this way because our system is broken or didn't you notice? - Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, and New Zealand all have "no-fault" systems of malpractice compensation that radically alter the relationship between doctors, patients, and the legal system [Yes, I realize that New Zealand is not in Scandinavia. But they have the same kind of system].

How does it work? You fill out a form. Really, that's it. All clinics and hospitals are required to provide patients with a form they can fill out to describe what happened to them in the event of malpractice -- it's generally better to have a lawyer help you fill out the form, but in theory it's simple enough that anyone could do it. The form then goes to an government-appointed review board, which includes three representatives from the health care unions and five elected officials. Roughly 40% of all claims that are filed result in an award to the patient, a much higher rate than US civil law produces. Non-economic losses are determined by a pre-set formula -- losing your eye is worth 75,000 Euro, losing a hand is worth 150,000 Euro, etc. (I'm making these numbers up) -- and not subject to appeal. Maximum damages are set at 880,000 Euro ($1.2 million).

Patients who are unhappy with their initial settlement can appeal their award to an arbitration board, which is used rarely but is available to the patient at no cost. In many cases the entire appeal is handled by mail. What's more, payouts from trials brought under the Patient Torts Act are generally lower than those paid out through the Compensation Fund. Total awards for cases that go to trial are capped at $730,000.

[-] 0 points by Galt01 (55) 2 years ago

"we are a rich country" So you are laying claim to the wealth created by the PEOPLE in this country. What wealth have you created to do your part?

[-] 0 points by Galt01 (55) 2 years ago

So you are for a single payer healthcare system?

[-] 1 points by flip (6369) 2 years ago

the most logical system - yes - gov't ins like medicare - use any doc you like - since we are such a rich country we could do it better than most of europe at less cost than we spend now

[-] 0 points by Galt01 (55) 2 years ago

what is the most important question?

[-] 2 points by flip (6369) 2 years ago

this is what started the discussion if i remember correctly - "do you know how other "advanced" countries do it with much better results than we have?" - - and i would point out at the same time insuring all of their people!

[-] 0 points by Galt01 (55) 2 years ago

how about in a lawsuit - loser pays like in France. No mention of that

[-] 2 points by flip (6369) 2 years ago

lots of problems to be solved - you are tinkering around the edges of the problem - i don't blame you - if you are married to your ideas you must find a way to defend them and that is really the only way. unless you want to discuss the most important questions you can stop now!

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

100years?????

There's never been a free market

There will never be a free market.

It's an illusion.

It's a mirage.

The term itself was defined by those that control it.

[-] 0 points by Galt01 (55) 2 years ago

well relatively speaking I should add

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

All things are relative, aren't they.

So then, relatively speaking, what is your simplest definition of a "free market"?

[-] -1 points by Galt01 (55) 2 years ago

as little government intervention as necessary. Enforce the rules as referee not as one of the players on the field.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

It's a game the corporations have been writing their own rules for, that got us in this mess..

You want to let them write even more of their own rules???

I'm sorry, I gotta say NO to that.

[-] 0 points by Galt01 (55) 2 years ago

what's the $400.00 for ?

[-] -1 points by Galt01 (55) 2 years ago

go lobby your congressman

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

It was $400,000, and it was for lobbing loud enough to have a chance to be heard.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Sure.

Loan me around $400,000, for a start.

[-] -2 points by Galt01 (55) 2 years ago

thanks for losing the argument. When you resort to name calling you admit defeat.

[-] 2 points by flip (6369) 2 years ago

still waiting for a response - so when you do not counter an argument you win it in your book? - still waiting - moron - DR. STEFFIE WOOLHANDLER: I’ll get to Bush and Kerry in a minute, but I cannot let the falsehoods about Canada stand. When people look scientifically at waits in Canada the average wait for urgent heart surgery is one day. The average wait for non-urgent heart surgery is 17 days. So, Sally’s numbers come from a crackpot research organization that has no credibility, and her organization has been spreading those numbers around and they’re not true. The truth is Canadians have complete free choice of doctor or hospital. They live two to three years longer than Americans, and they’re spending about half of what we do on health care. The reason is that they have so much administrative efficiency by getting rid of the insurance companies and their paperwork, they can afford universal care. Now, our group, Physicians for a National Health Program, which is a leading advocate of single payer health care, does not advocate the Canadian system. We advocate Canada Deluxe. .............i will get you the rest of the debate shortly - you want to defend this system fine - 46 million uninsured and double the cost of most better systems -

[-] 2 points by flip (6369) 2 years ago

read the post following the bitch slapping to get the rest of the interivew

[-] 2 points by flip (6369) 2 years ago

sorry i don't have time to read the shit you do - read this smack down and let me know what you think - DR. STEFFIE WOOLHANDLER: I’ll get to Bush and Kerry in a minute, but I cannot let the falsehoods about Canada stand. When people look scientifically at waits in Canada the average wait for urgent heart surgery is one day. The average wait for non-urgent heart surgery is 17 days. So, Sally’s numbers come from a crackpot research organization that has no credibility, and her organization has been spreading those numbers around and they’re not true. The truth is Canadians have complete free choice of doctor or hospital. They live two to three years longer than Americans, and they’re spending about half of what we do on health care. The reason is that they have so much administrative efficiency by getting rid of the insurance companies and their paperwork, they can afford universal care. Now, our group, Physicians for a National Health Program, which is a leading advocate of single payer health care, does not advocate the Canadian system. We advocate Canada Deluxe. .............i will get you the rest of the debate shortly - you want to defend this system fine - 46 million uninsured and double the cost of most better systems - you got all the money in the world then you are fine other wise we have a shit system - you must be a doctor - an old one since the young ones know better - here is sally being bitch slapped - AMY GOODMAN: We’re joined by Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, association professor of Medicine at Harvard University, co-director of the Harvard Medical School General Internal Medicine Fellowship program. Also, Sally Pipes, president of the San Francisco based Pacific Research Institute, author of the new book, Miracle Cure: How to Solve America’s Health Care Crisis and Why Canada Isn’t the Answer. Sally Pipes, let’s begin with you. You’re assessment of what President Bush has proposed as well as John Kerry?

SALLY PIPES: Yes. Good morning, Amy. I grew up in Canada under Canadian health care, and now the average wait in Canada from seeing a GP to a specialist has gone from in 1993 from nine weeks to 17.9 weeks. So, we have two different plans here. President Bush’s plan is talking about, you know, giving patients and doctors control over the health care rather than government bureaucrats. He’s looking at expanding health savings accounts to provide affordable coverage to individuals and businesses. He’s talking about making changes in tort reform to reduce malpractice awards. He is setting up association health plans so small businesses can band together and provide coverage for workers. Plus refundable tax credits for low income American individuals and families. On the other hand, presidential candidate, Kerry, his plan in my estimate and those of others, economists that I work with, is trillion dollars over ten years. He is saying that he will get this money through rescinding the Bush tax cuts. That would really only cover one-third of the cost. But the real issue in the Kerry plan is he would move the American people more to a Canadian single payer style system. This is just one step. It’s really talking about putting millions of middle income Americans into Medicaid, the federal state health plan for the poor, and putting millions of more Americans into a system of managed competition, which is similar to what Hillary Clinton proposed more than a decade ago. I’ll just make one point on that and you know, when you look at president Clinton and his terrible heart problem, he went in to the doctor on a Thursday, and he had an angiogram Friday, on Monday, he had quadruple bypass. If he lived in Canada, or if Hillary Clinton’s plan had passed, he would be looking at an average wait of 3.4 weeks from seeing a GP to seeing a cardiologist, another 2.1 weeks for having urgent bypass. If it wasn’t that urgent, it would be 10.7 weeks. His plan really is putting more and more government into our lives. The Bush plan is really talking about letting consumers be empowered to take control over their health care and I think that in my opinion, having grown up under Canadian health care, this is the option that Americans will like. You cannot take the American people into that program. It’s just a government program. It’s just not going to work. .....................more to follow!

[-] 2 points by flip (6369) 2 years ago

JUAN GONZALEZ: Sally Pipes, your response, especially on the whole issue of the administrative cost savings as a result of the plans of Senator Kerry; and doesn’t a bigger, more organized system with one buyer have power to control prices better and to prevent health care costs from spiraling?

SALLY PIPES: The Canadian system is expensive. First of all, you’re comparing apples with oranges. Canada doesn’t include the capital costs of hospitals in their numbers. Canada —

DR. STEFFIE WOOLHANDLER: That isn’t true.

SALLY PIPES: Excuse me. Canada has the third most expensive health care system in the world after the United States and Switzerland. Canadians, if you look on websites, you will see the stories of Canadians who are having to wait, who cannot get doctors and are leaving Canada to come to the United States. There’s a woman in Quebec, who is suing the Quebec government in a malpractice suit for $37 million. She’s suing on behalf of 10,000 Quebec breast cancer patients who had to wait over the limit of eight weeks to get radiation oncology. The Canadian Medical Association came out with a report two weeks ago saying that over 50% of Canadians are incredibly dissatisfied with the health care that they are getting, just look on websites and see the number of Canadians who are upset. And Canadians use America as a safety valve. Look at the border towns. Senator Ed Lawson, who was head of the Teamsters union, and became national senator, when he was diagnosed two years ago with heart situations similar to president Clintons, they told him to wait, even a person of such importance as himself, left and came to — went to Seattle, Washington, because he didn’t want to wait two weeks to get an angiogram. So, you know, I’m not a crackpot institute. That was very insulting. I have done a lot of work. I have worked in Canada on this issue. There is tremendous work done by the Frasier Institute in Canada on hospital waiting lists. It’s all scientifically done. The administrative costs in Canada, you’re not comparing apples with apples it is the third most expensive system in the world. In the United States today, 45% of our health care dollars are actually in the government system between Medicaid, Medicare, the State Children’s Health Insurance Program and things like that.

DR. STEFFIE WOOLHANDLER: I’m not calling Sally a crackpot. I’m calling Frasier Institute that she quotes extensively crackpot. This is the group that thinks we ought to privatize the whales. This is a group that thinks that we should abolish medical licenses.

SALLY PIPES: This is a group that thinks there should be private options in Canada. I think a lot of people in the United States think that Canada —

DR. STEFFIE WOOLHANDLER: Sally, I let you talk, okay. Now it’s my turn. The reality is Canada spends half of what we do. I happen to have published a definitive article on the administrative costs in the New England Journal of Medicine. I know what the Canadian hospital cost reports look like. I know what Canadian cost reports look like. Canada spends half of what we do. That’s what the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the UN say. And that’s the reason why they do have some waits for elective services in Canada. Elective services. Do think that’s a good thing? No. I don’t think we should have to wait for things. But if we have a Canadian style system, and spend twice as much money, then there’s no reason to have any waits. That’s not just my opinion, that’s also the opinion of the US General Accounting Office and the US Congressional Budget Office.

AMY GOODMAN: I’d like to ask Sally Pipes, what do you think is good about John Kerry’s proposal?

SALLY PIPES: Well, I don’t think that there are good things about it. I think the numbers came out from the Census Bureau saying that 45 million Americans do not have insurance. You have to look and analyze who are the 45 million Americans. Because 16% of them are people who are earning over $75,000. 33% are people who are earning over $50,000. Just because you don’t have health insurance does not mean that you don’t get health care. There’s a lot of money spent by individuals who don’t have health insurance who go out and buy their own. They pay out of pocket for their health care. Really, 8 million Americans are people who are chronically uninsured, and low income. Those are the people that I think that the government needs to take care of. And I definitely believe that there are — you know, children and low income families that do need care. I think for the rest of people, we need to open up system to empower consumers to get the best health care they can. People, when you look at any government program, most people do not like the DMV. The post office became more competitive when it opened up to competition from fed ex and UPS and a variety of things. Competition is what makes the world go around. Canadians do not have any form of competition. Any private coverage in Canada is outlawed under the Canada Health Act.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Let me ask you, Sally Pipes, drugs, the cost of prescription drugs have become a huge part of health care costs in this country, and if our system, as it is now structured, is doing so well, why are so many Americans trying to get to Canada, or to Mexico to buy prescription drugs?

SALLY PIPES: Today in America, Americans spend 1% of their income on prescription drugs. In the 1960’s Americans spent 1% of their income on prescription drugs. There are a number of drugs that are available in Canada — in the United States that allow us to — many — the drugs today allow us to live longer and healthier lives. From 1997 to 1999, out of 100 new drugs that became available in the United States, only 43 of them made it onto the formulary in Canada. A lot of the top drugs in the United States that are used in Canada are generically available in the United States, and are cheaper, but the real issue here about prescription drugs, Americans want lower prices for prescription drugs. The reason they’re — the drugs are lower in Europe and Canada is because of price controls. So, what people really want in America is price controls on drugs, which is going to have a negative impact on research and development in this country, and innovation. New drugs have reduced costs for hospital stays because people can use drugs now for ulcers, for — instead of having gall bladder surgery. We’re reducing costs by allowing Americans to have access to the greatest drugs and innovation in the world.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, I’d like you to respond to the issue of drugs and the differences between Canada and the United States.

DR. STEFFIE WOOLHANDLER: I want to remind that you, Canadians do live two to three years longer than Americans. That was not true before they went with National Health Insurance. That’s because the National Health Insurance program has allowed them good access to all types of care, including drugs. Canadians, about half of Canadians do get their drugs through their insurance. But all Canadians benefit from a system whereby the government negotiates with drug companies for lower prices. So, Canadians are paying about 60 cents on the dollar that Americans pay, and they’re paying only 60% of what we pay for drugs, and they really are the same drugs. Sally’s idea that you cannot get drugs in Canada is simply not true.

SALLY PIPES: I’m not saying you can’t get drugs.

DR. STEFFIE WOOLHANDLER: They have access to the same drugs that we do, they can just afford them. And similarly, Sally’s contention that uninsured people get all of the health care they need, doesn’t make common sense, but is also belied by a huge body of literature. Most recently, Ayanian colleagues published a study looking at people aged 55 to 65 who have no health insurance, and 10% of the people died over an eight-year period. They died at 33% higher rate than people who had insurance. It’s just common sense that if you don’t have a way to pay for care, you are going to get less of it, and it’s going to impact your health and maybe make your die younger.

AMY GOODMAN: Who benefits under Bush’s plan?

DR. STEFFIE WOOLHANDLER: Well, there’s a big benefit to some middle income taxpayers who end up taking a tax credit where they already had insurance. Now, they can get a tax credit that helps them pay for it. So, there’s some benefit to that. He’s very big, in general, Bush’s policies are very big with the insurance industry and drug industries. Because he has a very hands-off approach, where all of the government taxpayers do is just send more money into the system. There’s no attempt by the government to regulate things or make them more fair.

[-] -2 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

I have talked with a few of those people. If you like to be TAXED OUT THE BUTT,,,, then their social medicine is good. If you are sick a lot,, then paying higher taxes works great for you. If you healthy then you are paying for the sick guy in much higher taxes than you are paying now. Doesnt seem like a fair system to me.

[-] 3 points by flip (6369) 2 years ago

then you have not thought it through - that is how insurance works - if your house never burns down or you are never mugged then you are paying for fire and police depts that you never use - do you have ins on your house? we pay almost twice what other "advanced" countries pay with 46 million uninsured (you are paying for those people one way or another) and less good outcomes - so how do you justify that - they pay more in tax but have more left over for vacations,retirement etc - do you know how that happens?? you need to look at this clearly if you want a serious discussion - if you just want to throw free market propaganda like some here than do it with someone else - thanks

[-] 0 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

these occutard dumbasses dont have a clue about anything and just spew rhetoric all day. They dont understand money, fractional reserve banking, interest rates, risk free rates, repo and reverse repo, exchange rates, insurance etc..the list goes on. It is impossible to have an intelligent discussion with them

[-] 2 points by flip (6369) 2 years ago

not surprised by your nonsensical answer - i understand more than you about fractional reserve lending and your ayn rand free market shit (a ron paul fan are you?) - risk free rates -read too many mainstream econ textbooks or just google some econ techie phrases to sound smart since it is clear you are not. all of those things apply to sweden and australia but they live better than we do - i can answer why if you need help - tax structure - wage structure and military spending - i could go on but you are so sad it seems pointless - do they pay you to do this because they should pay me - i could argue your side of the street better than you do!

[-] 0 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

For one I wasn't referring to you as a 'occutard dumbass' but since you apparently consider yourself one, I am obliged to reply.

I highly doubt if you understand more economics than me. If you did, you would be doing my job. But you aren't.

And no I am not a Ron Paul fan dickhead, I am not a GOP supporter either. Not that I love democrats but they are usually the lesser evil (though I am not going to vote Obama again).

And all of 'which' things apply to Sweden, Australia? Could you elaborate pls?

[-] 2 points by flip (6369) 2 years ago

this is what started the line - [-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion1 (52) 18 hours ago

I dont want the government taking care of my healthcare. - you jumped in so seems to me that you were responding to my answer - if not no problem but then what were you ranting about? doubt all you want but since it is properly called political economy i probably do understand the system better than you but we don't need to work that issue. the debate was about health care and how others countries (less rich than us) do it better - and that if we had swedens system we would be running a surplus! i imagine you can explain how that works - i would like to hear the explanation - you might want to look to dean baker for some help here - or maybe you don't need any.

[-] -1 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

I am not an expert on healthcare, nevertheless my 2 cents on the issue. Yes our health care costs are atrociously high, in most cases its much cheaper to travel to India and back and get the treatment done.

Why? Calling it a government conspiracy or greed or whatever doesn't solve the problem. The doctor to population ratio is better etc. They arent as dependent of hospital visits and most visits happen at the community level. That's what comes to my mind at the top of my head. But they too have high waiting times, 6 months or more. There is also abuse of the system with people making visits for non issues.

Just plugging in Sweden's per capita health care cost wont help unless we take care of the structural problems that lead to the higher cost. I would need a better grasp of those factors before I comment anything

[-] 2 points by flip (6369) 2 years ago

did anyone say gov't conspiracy? medicare for all is a very simple solution!

[-] -2 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

OK,, I give up. YOU really like the current way American health insurance works. You go ahead and let THE MAN buy your insurance and decide what is best for YOU. Enough said about YOUR great system.

[-] 3 points by commonsense11 (195) 2 years ago

You should really drop "THE MAN" from your vocabulary. It makes you sound like a punk.

[-] -2 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

A punk? You are pretty selective on what words really make a point with you and get under your skin. Your sided uses it often and will raise YOUR fist against THE MAN. But when WE make fun of you with it,,, I'm the punk. Interesting. Maybe you should drop Common Sense since you dont have any.....????

[-] 2 points by flip (6369) 2 years ago

you answering me - doesn't make much sense - have you ever dealt with an insurance company?

[-] -1 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

Yes,,, just did. The company I work with, 16 years, has a good insurance plan. I get other benefits so my posts are not really about me but trying to help solve the bigger problems. Recently my wife decided to not work. I was going to put her on my company insurance plan. To add her would cost ME, about $900 a month, ( we have a good plan) so I decided to take the time to search around. I discovered several insurance companies with much lower premiums. The one I selected was $280 a month with a $3,500 deductible. (280 X 12 = $3,360/year opposed to $900 X 12 = $10,800 with $500 deductible) Two years we paid $3,360 total because she had no problems. This year she had gall bladder surgery and it cost me a total of $3,500!!! Add the premium and it was $6,860 for the year compared with $10,800. I saved $4,000. Next year if she is healthy my total would be only $3,360 a saving of $7,440. You can do your own math. Rates will be different but several were within $1,000 a year. The best,,, if she does decide to go back to work,, which she can decide and has had offers,,, she owns her insurance and would not have to wait 3 months for her new employers insurance to kick in. So, YES, I have dealt with an insurance company,,, just 3 months ago and loved it. But if YOU like THE MAN deciding your insurance

[-] 3 points by flip (6369) 2 years ago

well that is your experience - i can tell you mine - and that of too many others. insurance companies make money by not paying claims - ask any doctor. my sister had cancer - her doc ordered a test - the ins would not pay for it - should i go on. this is all too common and does not happen with medicare - ask any 65 yr old if they are unhappy with the man - don't be stupid - we have enough trouble trying to figure out how to make things better without deliberate stupidity!

[-] -1 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

First, I am truly sorry about your sister and her cancer. I hope she is better. Now, I didnt say anything about how great insurance companies as a whole are. We had a lady with cancer where I worked and had the same types of problems as your sister. My rant is about people OWNING their own insurance where you can FIRE the bad insurance companies. If the public had more control, word of mouth, over insurance rather than our employers, you would see people LEAVING the bad ones for those that want and want to KEEP their policy holders. I would also suggest your ask any of the 65 yr old people you talk about if they are happy with medicare or they are happy with the supplemental insurance they purchase from insurance companies??????? Just ask.

[-] 3 points by flip (6369) 2 years ago

i understand the idea of firing ins companies but try it in the middle of treatment! we have the worst health care system in the developed world. we can disagree on that but i think the numbers are on my side - too many people are still working at an older age because of health care and yes 65 yr olds are happy that they can pay a small fee and get supplemental because the bulk is covered by the gov't ins. go to other countries and see how they do it - nothing is perfect but our system is at the bottom.

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

I dont agree that we are on the bottom. You cant understand what most of the doctors in the ER say because they ALL come here from other countries to get educated and learn medicine. I dont agree with the liberal based reports that are structured to show us on the bottom. If were were, all those doctors would not come here. Your in the middle treatment statement,,, is ligitimate. New laws are created every year. There are grace periods that can be addressed. There can be portions of the law addressing those issues. Dont give up just because it may take time to change over. And, you state we have the WORSE healthcare system in the world,,, and in a prior statement you said every 65 yr old LOVES the system. Make up your mind. You dont make great points here.

[-] 2 points by flip (6369) 2 years ago

no - they come here to make money - they are educated in india etc - check your facts - we do not put out enough doctors! no contradiction - we have the worst out comes of the industrialized nations at the greatest cost - the fact that seniors like the idea that they have earned the right to gov't paid health care is a different topic!

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

I guess all the RICH dictators from around the world try to get American healthcare, even rich from Canada. And, if,,, as you say,, they are educated in India,,,, but they come here to make money,,,, then WHO do YOU suggest is back in India giving that GREAT CARE? You gotta pick your best lie.

[-] 2 points by flip (6369) 2 years ago

are you stupid or just pretending to be - did someone say india had a great health care system - not me. yes the rich come here from many countries to get great health care - like many things in this country, if you have money we have the best the world can offer. if you have no money then crawl under a bridge and die. the saudi sheiks send their children to harvard but not newark public schools. what is your gig here - are you defending a system that has 46 million uninsured - one where people can work 70 hour weeks and not be able to afford proper health care - travel - see how others do it or don't - stay home and watch fox and tell everyone that this is the greatest country in the world and do not bother me with the facts! we have the dumbest population on the planet and you are right up there with them!

[-] 1 points by IndianGuy (5) 2 years ago

Nice question. In India health care is cheap but only for Americans. For the average Indian it is still costly, not as costly as American health care is to the average American but still costly. Besides, Indian health care remain pretty much out of reach for the poor. They are government hospitals which tend to the poor but those are dirty and always over capacity, the care by the nurses and poor and doctors, though highly qualified, don't may much individual attention. Sure they are not necessarily guilty of negligence but the compassion is missing, because most doctors are in government hospital as part of their study or as a requirement mandated by the government and therefore don't get paid enough. They prefer private practice where are charges are 3-5 time more. And yet, Indian doctors do go to the US, clear the necessary exams to qualify as doctor and serve their because it's simply more lucrative.

[-] -2 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

Hey dumbass, you need a class in basic probability theory. That is how insurance is supposed to work. While everyone in my office pays the same insurance premium, I don't smoke but a lot of others do and therefore I am effectively subsidizing them. The people who eat healthy are subsidizing the ones who eat junk food all day. That distributes the cost and everyone pays less than they might have without without insurance. You occutards really dont have a clue about anything and therefore you think everything is a conspiracy. What an idiot.

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

Fine. YOU must really "love" THE MAN. Let HIM decide your insurance. Let HIM decide your doctor. Let HIM decide your hospital. Let HIM delete all of your coverage if you decide to change jobs every few months because YOU wont own your own insurance. I have posted examples this morning. If you are interested, you can read those. If YOU like to KISS THE MAN's butt then that is your basic probability factor of 100%. IDIOT.

[-] -1 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

Yeah if you are changing your job every few months then you obviously should avoid an insurance scheme from you employer (if applicable) and that is what most 20+ years olds do. But for people who are 30 or 35+, they aren't job hopping all that much and the employer provided insurance makes sense. In fact most employers even advertize it. Take Starbucks, it health insurance is one of the jobs reasons for the baristas sticking to it.

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

Under my plan, Starbucks could not provide healthcare plan to employees, period. However, Starbucks could say,, "We will pay you MORE to come to work for us and we will give you more money to buy BETTER insurance YOU own. We believe you know better the doctor YOU want to go to, the hospital YOU want to go to. We cut back on our HR department people that spend mega hours on employee healthcare so we can now pass our saving on to YOU" Simple. You MUST have a problem with this,, right?

[-] 0 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

It hardly matters whether I have a problem or not. Starbucks employees are happy and that what matters. If Starbucks wasn't providing health insurance, the cost of availing the same would be far higher if done individually (which is what I am unable to drive into you). End of discussion. Not interested in arguing on a non issue

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

I bet your not interested. You are lost.

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 2 years ago

I'm Australian. The tax to cover our free health care system is currently 1.25% of income that is over the tax-free threshold of ten thousand dollars.

On the two occasions in the last ten years when I've needed emergency treatment and a hospital bed, I can say that the system works extremely well, and is value for money.

If, on the other hand, you need elective surgery, like for an operation to remove a whopping great wart from your nose, or a cataract operation on your eye, and you might be waiting forever.

Not a perfect system, by any means, but if you are genuinely needing emergency care, you will get it.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

In the US, anyone that needs emergency medical care also gets it.

[-] 2 points by Builder (4202) 2 years ago

Is that in every state? I've heard plenty of stories about people on ambulance geurneys getting turned away because they have no insurance.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

Hospitals are bound by law to see people in emergency rooms regardless of their ability to pay. When I did my residency about half of the patients I saw actually ended up paying anything at all.

[-] 1 points by Durandus (181) 2 years ago

They are legally required to treat you, if you don't have an ability to pay...but you will still get a bill, followed by collection activities...this is true in Minnesota where we are reputed to have humane laws on the issue of healthcare access.

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 2 years ago

well that's good to know. When I used to watch television I'd see shows where people were turned away because they had no insurance.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

Yeah it makes for good tv, that is about it.

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 2 years ago

Yep. Fair call.

If you just rock up to emergency with a cut that needs stitches, and you have no insurance, what happens then?

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

You would get billed for it. If you can't pay it the hospital will just use it as a tax write off. The one I did my residency at classified it as "charity care." Normally they had patients submit some kind of documentation, usually a copy of one's income tax statement, showing that they were indeed low-income.

[-] 1 points by freakyfriday (179) 2 years ago

Not exactly a TAX WRITE OFF. That's why medical costs are so high. Those who can pay are covering those who can't. Just like stores add "shrinkage" (shoplifting) into their pricing.

[-] 1 points by nucleus (3291) 2 years ago

Private insurance is the primary reason health care costs are so high. They only pay a small fraction of the charges, they take months or more to pay, and the medical billing procedures are different for each company and type of program. Doctors spends tens of billions every year just shuffling papers for the insurance companies.

Don't forget that nearly 1/3 of your insurance premium goes to profit and overhead, and that profits are secured by denying care - these are corporate death panels. Medical bills cause 62% of all bankruptcies, and 3/4 of those people had private health insurance.

Medical bills prompt more than 60 percent of U.S. bankruptcies

Medical Bills Cause Most Bankruptcies

Medical bankruptcies a continuing problem, study finds

And yes, there are other problems that need to be fixed in health care, but insurance is #1.

[-] 0 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

I am pretty sure when the patients got classified under charity care it was a write off. Around tax time every year they would let us do elective procedures on patients for free so we could get the experience, the patient would get the procedure they wanted, and the hospital would make their reported income for the year shrink.

[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Two thirds of al bankruptcies in the USA are medical. 45,000 people per year die in the USA due to not having insurance. The USA ranks dead last for avoiding deaths due to preventable illness in a pool of 23 developed countries.

Yeah, great system.

[-] 1 points by freakyfriday (179) 2 years ago

Well then. A combination of both. Many, many people end up filing bankruptcy over medical bills and a not-for-profit (most Catholic hospitals) can only use so much of a write off. They still have bills to pay.

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 2 years ago

Hmmm, we have private doctors, and local-area medical centres that do this "bulk-billing" thing, where you don't pay for the service. You still pay for the drugs if you get a prescription. Some private doctors charge you, and then you take your bill to a medicare office for a refund. Most of it, not all.

Not to be sounding classist, but the waiting rooms at the outpatients section of hospitals are reknowned for being an ideal spot to pick up the latest virus that's getting around.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

ER's are indeed nasty. Hospitals in general really though I am usually more considered with bacteria there than viruses. I am not sure how prevalent MRSA is in Australia but it is a real problem some places here.

I have my own private practice now and don't participate with Medicaid, though I do treat Medicaid patients at a community health center one or two days a month.

I am a dentist and Medicaid reimbursements for our procedures are so outdated that, at best, I would break even by treating Medicaid patients. In reality though, I would loose money because Medicaid patients have notoriously high no-show rates (around 35% in my area) so you break even if they show up, loose the money you are paying your staff when they don't.

I actually don't really participate with many insurance companies anymore because they are such a pain in the ass to deal with. Often the patient will just pay up front for the procedure and then deal with the insurance themselves for reimbursement. I actually give a 10% discount for those who pay with cash, and 5% for those who use a credit card just to minimize the amount of insurance dealings I have.

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 2 years ago

Sounds like you're working the system well. Congrats.

Our health departments are fraught with wannabe criminals. My sister has a fulltime job checking out doctors who might be rorting the medicare system.

I guess when there's money trees to be picked, many people think they can be the best pickers in history.

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

A couple of comments. Many liberals claim, 'Government run insurance is great, however, you claim the Medicaid process is outdated and very slow.' If the government cant do Medicaid on a timely basis, how will they be better as a full-blown insurance agency? Medicaid patients have a high rate of no-shows, you claim, why would people that have FREE healthcare not use it? Is free healthcare a big deal as claimed by those pointing toward a European style of healthcare? Healthcare is too expensive. Insurance companies get a bad rap. If an insurance company agrees to pay for a procedure the procedure costs then go up because they know the insurance company will pay it. A stair-stepping.

[-] 0 points by Galt01 (55) 2 years ago

the problem is - the people who like socialized medicine are not the ones who will be taxed out the butt. They love it because it takes from other people to pay for their medical insurance.

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

Correct.

[-] 0 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

Oh its fair. Sure, if you arent a smoker and you exercise regularly you are paying more than you would have without insurance, but in the eventuality that you meet with an accident then it comes to you aid.

[-] 1 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

The reality is that the government who is bought and paid for by Big Pharma, the AMA and Big Insurance is already controlling your healthcare!! It's just that they do it behind closed doors, always negotiating big profits for the health industry while they are lowering the level of care and positive health outcomes for you and I. The way I see it is that I don't want to pay a penny for the current healthcare system that kills more than a million Americans each year. It should be mostly free. I don't have health insurance by choice and I receive much better quality care than those who are insured. I sincerely mean that. I had to go to a hospital once and I immediately got a room while literally more than a hundred people who had insurance had to wait in the hall for approval. I saw one woman have a miscarriage while sitting on the floor, waiting. None of us should be paying for this crapshot for-profit medical system. The ONLY reason that we have not instituted socialized medicine in this country is because big insurance and big pharma have appealed to our lawmakers to protect their current profits.

[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Pure 100% astro turfing.

For some honesty on what we've come to call "health care", read Deadly Spin.

The death panels are the providence of the corporations.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (19197) 2 years ago

I don't know about everything you say, but I do think health insurance should be separate from employment.

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

(( I posted before )) One more time....... There would be NO group insurance available. UNDERSTAND? Stop saying that. Under my plan there would be no risk spreading because they cant sell it to companies. Example: One insurance agent sits on their butt knowing company X will be calling and renewing the insurance for 100 employees. The agent tells them this is the new rate, take it or leave it knowing the company MUST provide the insuracne to employees. Under my plan the insurance company would have far more competition because they would know they dont have the 100. How many TV ads do you see now where car insurance companies show how much lower their rates are than their competitors? "Switch to G*** and you can save $300 on your car insurance." How many health insurance ads have YOU seen on TV where you can save $300??????? NONE! Your company does not purchase 100 car insurance policies for their employees!!!!!! You purchase it YOURSELF!!!!!! Insurance companies know they have to compete for your car insurance. And, if I leave my current employer, I own the policy,, it belongs to ME and I dont have to wait 90 for my new employers insurance to kick in. THERE YOU GO.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

I think you need to agree with SmartCapitalist's assertion that you are wrong, and I too have to ask about your knowledge of basic probability theory. Think bulk and imagine if an insurance company would give you the same rate that he/she/it gives to employers. Insurance is the same process as the lottery but backwards. Also when you factor in that an insurance provider pays for the smokers, junk food junkies, meth heads and others who don't take care of themselves, you are paying for them individually. Also, you are still going to pay for the unemployed and the under employed.

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

I dont agree. I have posted more details of why in other posts. If you are interested, read those. If not, continue to let THE MAN decide your insurance company, your doctor and your hospital,, and you cant take your current policy with you if you change jobs during the year. Read if interested or whine about THE MAN.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (19197) 2 years ago

So we agree?

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

We agree???? I never saw your post with details that I could say we agree or not.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (19197) 2 years ago

I find your post difficult to understand. It's like a rant. I said I think health insurance should be separate from employment. You seem to be saying that, but if not, fine.

[-] -1 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

I am saying that. I do rant. I wish more people would rant. Simple english that even a truck driver from Alabama can understand.

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

"...even a truck driver from Alabama can understand."

Stereotype much?

[-] -1 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

No more than your 1% stereotyping.

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

My stereotyping? I avoid that as much as humanly possible. I believe you have me confused with someone else.

[-] -1 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

So you dont believe there is a 1% that we should hate because they ALLLLLLLLLL dont pay (stereotyping) taxes. I'm not confused

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

There is a 1%, but there is a 1% of everything, so that's a simple fact and has nothing to do with my views on the OWS or this forum.

I don't even hate taxes, the founders included a provision for such to be paid by the populace with it left open as to what form and amounts that should be paid.

I am, however, not so fond of people who take a general statement and find ways to exploit it for the sake of argument, inserting rhetoric which has little or nothing to do with the issues at hand.

We all realize that our system has some huge cracks in it. I don't agree that because of those cracks we need to overthrow the whole system, nor do I agree that we need to 'roll back' the system to previous levels. I do believe that there is a moderate level at which we can make things work for the benefit of all.

[-] -1 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

Your first sentences,,,, "has nothing to do with view of the OWS???""" Did I read what you posted correctly? OWS hates 1%. What part of that is not a stereotype?

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

You make an extreme generalization, assuming and proclaiming that OWS hates the 1%...I have not witnessed this in any writings I have read, I have witnessed select groups within larger groups who indicate they have issue with those who have extreme wealth, yet see no need to attribute this issue to the entirety of OWS.

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

Oh MY GOD... You cant be serious. OWS pits the 1% RICH as the group 99% should hate. If you have not read that over and over and over again,,, I have no idea what you are possibly reading on here.

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

This forum isn't the only source of information.

[-] -2 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

another of those instances where you think you are right but you just aren't. Actually you sound like a 16 year old? Are you? In that case I can understand you being wrong on so many things.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (19197) 2 years ago

Ah. There's the nasty right wing rhetoric, again. No, you don't want to debate. You just want to hurl insults.

Where exactly in that post did I claim I was right about anything, smartcapitalist? Hm? Where? I said "I think."

[-] -3 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

Exactly what is said, you 'think' you are right. And for future reference, I am not a right winger, nasty yes, right wing no. I voted for Obama and hoped he would be effective but I was wrong. This time though I have my eyes set on Romney (though I think Mormons are crazier than most religious people), hope he makes it. Else I will vote Democrats again.

You know I am usually not such a rude person, sarcastic yes, rude no. But when I come here, I just get outta control.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (19197) 2 years ago

That's fine, but please try to be civil. When I say "I think" I mean "I think." One thing I have learned in life, and I am much older than you think, is that the more I know, the more I know I don't know.

By the way, Mitt Romney is nuts, too. Have you heard about his dog, Seamus, that he put in a cage on the roof of his car during a 12 hour trip for Boston to Ontario? Nutcase.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPpaJrJecjA

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

that fuker should have been charged with animal cruelty

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (19197) 2 years ago

I know. I can't believe that he actually was the governor of Massachusetts and that he could (well he won't be, of course) be President. It's unreal. What the hell is the matter with people?

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

rampant repelicanism?

It may be highly contagious . . .

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (19197) 2 years ago

LOL!

[-] -1 points by uncensored (104) 2 years ago

ZenHog is DONE!

[-] -1 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

Well I am really not looking for the 'perfect' candidate. Besides, his treatment of pets (and I dont like pets) I disagree with him on so many other issues like abortion etc. And yet, he is lesser of all evils. Of course if Newt Gingrich ever becomes the President, I would take a job in some other country ;-)

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (19197) 2 years ago

You don't like pets! Boo Rah! But, okay, at least you don't like Newt. I'd be right behind you, by the way, to another country.

[-] -1 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

Sure.

[-] 1 points by UncomonSense (386) 2 years ago

"occutards"

Sounds like a nasty wingnut to me.

[-] 0 points by uncensored (104) 2 years ago

Wait a minute... You realized you were wrong the first time but are willing to make the same mistake again? WTF?

[-] 2 points by pinapple (7) 2 years ago

so, what do you do if you are the employee that has some issue where you get something that will cost you 10s of thousands of dollars to get medical care for? you'll have even less money than what your job is giving you

[-] -1 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

Where do you get tens of thousands?? You have a deductible, typically between $500 and $5,000, depending on the policy. Your employer pays YOU the money to buy your own policy. Your employer actually saves money because they dont have to spend huge amounts of money doing what you could on your own,, if you are an adult. The money spent on insurance will equal. Nothing will be lost and YOU will OWN your policy so you can take it with you. What part of this is everyone wanting to make difficult?

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

Health care should be a free public service

[-] -2 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

FREE? What do you mean FREE? Who will pay the doctors, the utility bills for the hospitals, the equipment, etc and etc???? What I bet you are saying is that it is NOT FREE. It cant be FREE. Here is how your plan works. RAISE TAXES,,, which means it is NOT FREE. You are STILL paying for health care.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

the farmer will provide food for the hospital workers

the electric company will provide the electricity

laboratories and gardens the pharmaceuticals

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

LOL

[-] 1 points by geo2seeit2 (39) 2 years ago

how about a way for the poor to payback the ENTITLED debt?

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

I would love a system like that. Imagine for a moment. You are on welfare for many years. I know many that are buying houses, not great houses, but they are buying it. What they dont understand is that maybe after several years of health related bills, they have run up an expense of hundreds of thousands of dollars over the years. When they die, the house can not be passed on to their children. The government will take all the property they own. "The Government" not a corporation will take their property. A system to pay back their debt would be great. If this is what you were talking about.

[-] 1 points by geo2seeit2 (39) 2 years ago

Ok, here is an example: TRUE story. My wife needed an eye doctor, i went to the doctor and ask him if i could install an alarm system and cameras for the front desk. i gave him my price and he was blown away, he said ok. This is what im talking about. no government, no insurance co. just good old fashion bartering system. my cost vrs. what he charges straight up im the victor and he loves his new system.

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

That is the American Way. It is not perfect but far better than every house on the block being gray.Your example would not work for everyone but I know people that do it every day. I have a true story. Yesterday I was helping one of my clients deciding on a security camera system. My client, writes software for the military, was bidding on a new contract that required security cameras that covered three doors. They needed 24/7 recording with motion sensors to activate the recording. The cameras and server would be on premises without any network requirements. I hope to get the bid Monday. The security company is a husband and wife team with a couple of employees. I try to send them a lot of referals because of the work they do and the pricing.

[-] 1 points by geo2seeit2 (39) 2 years ago

BARTERING SERVICES AND GOODS WILL BE THE FUTURE. They should try (as i do ) to go to doctors offices or anybody thats not wanting to BUY Point for Point, but say, They need a new truck. Get on the phone and call car lots. the trick to this is for you to believe that it will work, if you contact the right person, you know someone that sells trucks needs your services. you discount, they discount even trade..no finance co.

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

What you are doing is nothing new. It works every day. You have a system that others on here should learn from. I love the statement, "If it was easy,,,, everyone would could do it." That is the new way of life in America. Welfare is easy and everyone can do it.

[-] 2 points by ConstitutionalVoter (8) from Monroe Township, NJ 2 years ago

According to legislation during the Carter administration the mandating of HMOs and managed care was to save money and provide better care. it worked... At first.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Individual insurance is FAR more expensive than group plans. Group plans can't, by law, discriminate against an individual for preexisting conditions. Individual plans are subject to exclusion on that basis.

Health insurance is not like shopping for a toaster. Competition between providers don't compete for everybody's business. They compete for profit, and that means excluding everyone who's not healthy, so they don't have to pay.

[-] -2 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

Individual, currently, is much more expensive because the insurance company wants you to be in a big plan with others. If there WAS no group plans then insurance companies would fight to get YOU to buy their insurance. As it is now, they know every company must buy insurance for all of their staff so they just sit back and wait. My idea would lower the cost because there would be more competition.

[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Horseshit. They would fight to stay profitable, and that means rejecting anyone with a pre-existing condition. Group plans are less expensive than individual ones because they spread risk and because they know they have individuals over a barrel and can extort virtually whatever they want.

[-] -1 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

One more time....... There would be NO group insurance available. UNDERSTAND? Stop saying that. Under my plan there would be no risk spreading because they cant sell it to companies. Example: One insurance agent sits on their butt knowing company X will be calling and renewing the insurance for 100 employees. The agent tells them this is the new rate, take it or leave it knowing the company MUST provide the insuracne to employees. Under my plan the insurance company would have far more competition because they would know they dont have the 100. How many TV ads do you see now where car insurance companies show how much lower their rates are than their competitors? "Switch to G*** and you can save $300 on your car insurance." How many health insurance ads have YOU seen on TV where you can save $300??????? NONE! Your company does not purchase 100 car insurance policies for their employees!!!!!! You purchase it YOURSELF!!!!!! Insurance companies know they have to compete for your car insurance. And, if I leave my current employer, I own the policy,, it belongs to ME and I dont have to wait 90 for my new employers insurance to kick in. THERE YOU GO.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Health insurance is NOT car insurance. It is not a consumer product. Profitability depends on reducing COSTS TO THEM. If there is no group to spread risks, the price INCREASES. If there is a pre-existing condition, they won't "compete" for you, since you would be COSTING THEM MONEY.

[-] 1 points by RoughKarma (122) 2 years ago

There is a "group" to spread the risks. It just isn't as definable as having it tied to a specific company. I recently got laid off. I no longer qualify for the special rate my company got. Why is that exactly? Working for the company or not, it's still me with the same amount of risk for them but they won't just lump me in with rest. The number of people in the "group" just went down, so how is that good for them? Insurance does not offer group discounts because there is a group, they offer it to get the group. Their profitability lies in the total number of insureds they have, regardless of how they get them. Furthermore, insurance companies price for their consumer and right now their consumer is the company. So price decreases or increases are only relative to the company, not the employee. That's why companies switch insurers so often. They get a better deal on their end and the employees get higher premiums and less coverage.

[-] -1 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

Stop.... Your killing me. Forget the pre-existing condition. New law. "Today there is a new law. No company will be allowed to provide health insurance to employees. Companies that currently do that must remove insurance payments to an insurance company and SLIDE the payments they are making directly over to their employees on a monthly basis. We have frozen all insurance rates for the next 30 days. Employees will now have 30 days to select an insurance company of their choice, OR, may keep the current insurance policy they have if they have a pre-existing condition issue. Then after 30 days insurance rates will be open and insurance companies to compete to get you to switch to them,,,, if you want to. You will own your insurance and you can fire your insurance company or take it with you during employment changes."

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

And then they can charge you a million dollars a year.

This is a ridiculous idea.

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

And how long would insurance companies stay in business?

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Forever. If they don't have to insure you, they won't. They are in the business of making money. If a potential client is ill, it will LOSE them money to sign him up. So they won't.

That's EXACTLY the way it works NOW. That's exactly WHY the health care legislation had to be passed. Nearly 50 MILLION PEOPE CAN'T GET INSURANCE: If it isn't offered on the job it is unaffordable or unavailable. Individuals with preexisting conditions can't get covered at all. Without being part of a group plan, most people CAN NOT get coverage. And guess what? Those insurance companies were PROFITABLE that way. By the hundreds of billions every year.

[-] 1 points by commonsense11 (195) 2 years ago

Talk about living in a fog. What would happen with your plan is there would be quite a large number of individuals that would not take the money given to them by their employers and purchase that $900 a month insurance for their families. You would then have a large number of uninsured individuals with no health insurance and a huge drain on the medical field. You can try to refute this if you want but if you do that simply tells me you know nothing about people and their spending habits.

[-] -1 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

The amount would be reported on your w-2. If you were paid for medical insurance you would be required to purchase it. Do purchase, not tax refund. Also, in our state you are required by law to pay property taxes on your home and cars. Before your license plates are issued for your car you must show you paid your property taxes and your have car insurance. There are a lot of ways to force people to purchase it. It could also be tied to any welfare or benefits. The bigger issue is that you know your type are not adult enough to do what was right.

[-] 1 points by commonsense11 (195) 2 years ago

Interesting. We could double the size of the IRS to act as police in your plan and waste even more tax dollars. You know everything always looks so good on paper doesn't it? No one idea is ever the answer. I also doubt that insurance companies would lower their prices. The chance of that happening is about the same as gas stations lowering the price of gas back to $2.50 a gallon.

That doesn't mean I don't applaud you for at least thinking about how we might lower costs of insurance. Too many people are to apathetic to even do that. Just realize that your ideas, my ideas, need to be put out there for others to critique and help refine.

[-] -1 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

There is ONE person in our county, which is an MSA, that can verify whether you have paid your county property taxes. There is already several blank spaces on your w-2 that the employer simply inserts the amount they have contributed to your personal insurance plan. Every payperiod you get your typical check statement. You take that statement with you to the insurance agent of YOUR choice. The insurance company validates that amount and you purchase the insurance. How difficult do YOU want to make this? You must do it for license tags,,,, dont YOU? And, YOU own your own insurance that you can take with you if you change jobs every month. Watch TV ads and when the other insurance company promotes lower prices than the other insurance company,,, fire your current one,,, WOW,,,, what power you would have,,,, if you like having your OWN POWER. Finally, HR departments spend HUGE amounts of time finding an insurance plan they like and they feel like they can afford to pay. This is one major expense that would be gone. Maybe the amount they spend on staff doing this could be diverted to the employees for more money,,,, just maybe. Gasoline. You seem to like $2.50 a gallon. You are probably a liberal democrat and LOVE the European economy and health plans. I would suggest if you like it so much, check out the prices of gasoline in Europe. Go ahead. Love lib?

[-] 1 points by commonsense11 (195) 2 years ago

And now I'm just going to have to tell you that you are wrong on most every one of your points. I lived in Europe for 3 years so I know exactly how much more gas is there. I am far from a democrat. I am registered as a Republican but wouldn't cast my vote for any of the current candidates and would much rather vote for a 3rd party. I pay $1700 a month for health insurance for my family and despise the fact that I do but it is also a necessity.

Insurance companies are businesses and can't simply drop the prices in order to get you to sign up with them. At the end of the day they still have to have the assets to pay the medical bills of their customers and make a profit. If you are required to purchase health insurance they would in fact have no reason to lower their prices. Just like we are forced to pay what ever the oil companies force on us regardless of how much profit they make we would also be forced to pay what ever the insurance companies forced us to pay because we would have no choice. You see supply and demand can drive prices up and the ultimate goal for a company is to make money! End of discussion. Sorry even though it may look good on paper to you, your plan is based on a few assumptions that just aren't reality.

[-] -1 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

Like I said, if YOU like THE MAN picking your insurance, picking your hospital, your doctor and YOU dont own your insurance to take with you to the next job,,,,,, FINE... I picked a different route and a recent post this morning explained it.

Gas prices. Guess what? I dont care if you lived in Europe. With the internet we dont need to live somewhere to find out the prices of things. Below is a news story from one of your favorite LIBERAL media sites, CNN. You cant tell them they are wrong,, not me.

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) – Gasoline prices in the United States, which have recently hit record highs, are actually much lower than in many countries. Drivers in some European cities, like Amsterdam and Oslo, are paying nearly 3 times more than those in the U.S.

[-] 0 points by commonsense11 (195) 2 years ago

I'm a Fox news kind of person. "The Man" is a disrespectful derogatory term used by punks like my 24 year old step son I threw out of our house because he refused to conform to the idea that we all have to work and pull our fair share.

It's fantastic to be able to purchase our own insurance if it makes sense in our situation. If individuals were forced to purchase their own insurance and it was not legal for companies to offer them like you would like, you would find your current premiums would skyrocket! You would have no choice but to pay it because it would be your only option. You obvious lack understanding of basic principles that make companies and people tick.

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

It would not skyrocket. Read my other posts. If nobody bought insurance because of prices skyrocketing,,,, insurance companies would go out of business,,, it aint going to happen. They would NEED the masses to stay in business. No customers, no company. Simple. I do know how companies work.

[-] 1 points by commonsense11 (195) 2 years ago

Sure same principle that governs those trillion dollar oil companies. Just because you say they won't raise prices doesn't make it so. It looks good on paper to you but I just don't think the insurance companies are taking their orders from you. You have to have insurance they will set the rates based upon

  1. the fact that you have no choice.

  2. they will need a minimum amount of money to pay the medical bills of their customers.

  3. they are a business and need to make a profit.

When you have facts to support your statements and not just wishful thinking that you are trying to pass off as facts please post them for us to think about. I'll look forward to reading them.

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

Continue with the system you like.

[-] 0 points by commonsense11 (195) 2 years ago

That's the point. The choice should be there for all people to make. Companies can provide insurance as a benefit to their employees. Employees can refuse and purchase their own if they like.

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

Fine, use your system. No problem.

[-] 1 points by commonsense11 (195) 2 years ago

But you see you are advocating making it illegal for companies to offer insurance as a benefit which means you really don't mean what you say. Now perhaps had you said that companies should be required to give the option to employees to take the insurance they are offering or offer the cost of the premiums to the employee if they opt out then we would have a discussion.

You would still have to create a huge organization to verify people have purchased said insurance in this instance which does in fact increase our taxes.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

always are harder market when one has no choice but to see a doctor

[-] 1 points by darrenlobo (204) 2 years ago

A better solution would be to do 2 things. First, end the income tax. Since health insurance isn't taxed it is cheaper to offer it than a raise. Let's take away that incentive. Second, end the govt's regulation, licensing, & subsidizing of the medical, pharma, & insurance industries. These are what limit competition, lower quality & stifle innovation, drive up demand, &, therefore, raise the cost of health care. Doing these 2 things will end the health care crisis.

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

I think the new health care law requires most businesses to provide a health plan or face penalties, so it looks like your out of luck. Besides two equal plans one sold to the individual, the other sold for a couple hundred employees, the group buying more units gets the better price.

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

You have not read my posts. If you like the current system then stop whining about it.

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

I read it. Your post makes little sense in today's environment. The nation just put into place a law that goes in the opposite direction of what you propose. Besides that you are asking government to ban low priced group insurance in favor of higher priced policies for individuals. I'm not in favor of the new health care law though, it's just an unfortunate reality.

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

The nation did not, democrats behind closed doors did,,, not the nation. It can be changed back and it will. Again, you didnt read my posts. The rates will go down. Imagine this,,,, as other posted,,,, rates go up by 5. The people will NOT pay that. The insurance companies have no revenue. What would YOU do,,,,, RAISE the rates or lower them,,, or go out of business? I bet the rates go down if nobody is buying insurance. The current plan says insurance companies just SIT BACK knowing every company will be required to buy insurance. If businesses were banned buying the insurance the insurance company will be more pro-active to try to get your business. If clients go down, as business suggests, you either lower your rates or go out of business. Do YOU really think insurance companies will go out of business? Prices will go down as competition increases that meets the needs of PEOPLE not companies that are REQUIRED to buy it.

[-] 2 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

We're all guessing when it comes to predicting what will or could happen. I've been without insurance since 2002, and if the Supreme Court finds the mandate constitutional, I'll pay the fine until it's more then insurance. I've seen premiums rise though as more regulations are put into place with the new health care law.

Personally I'm against it, but we live under a representative republic, so wether we like it or not the nation as represented by the democratic congress and senate put that law into effect. You may get what you want though, parts of the new law could make it attractive for companies to get out of offering health care, throwing people into these exchanges.

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

Why have you not had insurance since 2002? Just wondering.

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

I've enjoyed good health all my life so when it came time to either pay for it myself or go without I chose to go without. The least expensive policy I could find was around $5k with a $10k deductible. Any doctor visits or medications I just pay for. I've actually put away the money I would have spent on premiums so now I've not got a decent amount of savings in the event of an emergence.

Both my wife and I have had friends or relatives die from cancer, we've seen the treatments as worse then the disease. Who knows what would happen if we actually develop a cancer, but we've both decided to let nature take it's course. What it comes down to is taking the same risk the insurance companies do, insurance isn't free care, it's most people not needing it to provide for the few that do. I'm taking a gamble on being in the majority.

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

www.goldenrule.com/. Very reasonable policy with $3,500 deductible. They pay very fast and the amount difference in what the hospital billed and their reduction goes toward deductble.

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

There are two of us, so that increases costs, but it's worked out well, I've saved close to $50k this way and plan on doing it until Medicare kicks in. I'll pay that foolish penalty in Obama care until it's higher then a premium. I know it's a risk, but I've decided to take it.

[-] -1 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

I would still suggest insurance, even at a much higher deductible. One accident could wipe out your $50K. It is even more important if you have any property that you own and plan on leaving to children.

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

You're right but in my mind the money is there for health care so if I need it I'll spend it without regrets. I've only got a few years until I hit Medicare age so I'll most likely stay more or less self insuring.

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

You may want to consider an annuity. I bought a Metlife one for $37,000. Money is liquid is you need to get rid of it and it provides retirement income. http://www.metlife.com/individual/investment-products/annuities/index.html#types

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

Thank you for the suggestion, my wife is the financial planner, I'll talk it over with her. We have a range of savings plans and we each have our own retirements. Money really isn't an issue. Amazing how much you can save once the kids go out on their own.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

Do you believe that if a company was to "funnel the exact amount of money they were paying for employee healthcare and give that money to the employee that A> everyone would buy insurance, and B. that the employee would get the same price as the employer received when he/she/it bought in bulk? If I was negotiating a contract with an insurance provider and I knew I had five hundred applicants to enroll, I'd ask for a premium price.

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

Yes they would have to purchase it. It would show up on your IRS w-2's When you file your taxes and indicated you didnt purchase the insurance paid by your company, you would not get any tax refunds and your tax burden would go up. You would pay more in tax to offset you didnt spend in insurance. Simple. You need to read my other posts for the examples on why prices would go down. Read those if you are interested.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

So basically what you're saying is:

"I want individuals to have their own insurance. That means the insurance company will have an incentive to keep you healthy. It also means if you don't like what they do, you can fire them. I like being able to fire people who provide services to me. If, if, you know if someone doesn't give me a good service that I need, I want to say I'm going to go get someone else to provide that service to me."

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

You are pretty much right with me. Also, if I leave my current job, I dont own my health insurance and must wait 90 days before my new employers insurance kicks in. And, what if my new employer uses a hospital I dont like? At the end of the day, the employer is still paying his portion for your health care. But now YOU have control over your insurance. Insurance companies today basically sit on their butt knowing every company must provide insurance. My plan, they will have competition for my money. The rates will go down if one insurance company promotes lower rates. There are several car insurance ads on TV now that shows how much you would save if you switched over to them. You sure dont see that with health insurance companies because your employer has already done the deal at a higher price.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

i dont see why you cannot get your own insurance at this very moment? there is no law that says you have to take what the company gives is there?

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

I already posted on here all about my insurance and my wifes insurance. I PURCHASED her insurance so I know how it works. I posted on here what my company is currently paying and what I am paying. If you actually read it you would see I am saving about $7,000 on her insurance compared to what the company I work for is paying. So I DOOOOOooooooo have direct knowledge that you apparently dont have. Read before you post.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

That was the Mitt Romney quote that so many people tried to crucify him with, FYI.

"I like being able to fire people."

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

it would mean that the insurance companies profits would increase by 5 times cause each person would pay 5 times what they pay thru the company.

[-] -1 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

Wrong. Insurance companies have a nearly 100% assurance that companies will purchase insurance for their employees, year after year after year. There is no assurance that individuals will buy from them. Here is probably the one major point. If individuals have to pay more for insurance than the company has historically paid, they wont buy it. If nobody buys insurance, the insurance company goes broke and will shut down. That will not happen. Competition will encourage lower rates so insurance companies will sell the policy because they dont want to go broke. If prices go up 5 times nobody will buy it and they will go out of business. Simple.

[-] 2 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

i dont think so.. i think it would work like car insurance, and also the companies often pay a large portion of the premium that alone would double what anyone pays.. as for a teacher for example, even through the employer insurance cost around 400 a month.. with out the employer that would mean at least 600 a month and it would increase another few hundred because of being individual and this would be be with 2k deductible which makes it ridiculous for a young person or a family to buy insurance at all since thats probably more than they would use in year in healthcare. and companies would not go outa business, the corporations would make that requirement of employment just like drug testing. so anyone with a job would be forced into paying what ever the insurance company offers just the same as now only the price to the employee would go up 5 times.

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

Fine, fine, fine. Keep your most loved insurance plan and dont complain about what you are paying. What every will get you people to shut up is fine with me. Do it the same way you have enjoyed it where the lady in HR picks the insurance company, the doctor and the hospital you go to. GO FOR IT and enjoy.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

I would rather have Universal health care. But that is just me. I believe i should be my brother's keeper. It is one of those religious tenets that I have always thought to be admirable.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

i forgot to mention that the doctor also can refuse to accept the cheap plan. you think your choice of doctor will accept the cut rate plan? or the expensive one he knows will cover more and pay him more?

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

You dont need to reply,,, you got a GREAT health insurance plan selected by the fat lady in HR and you love it. I am so happy for you.

[-] -3 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

I know that. You know that. But it's too tough for occutards to comprehend. They see a conspiracy everywhere.

[-] 0 points by YouDontRepresentThe99Percent (-10) 2 years ago

The Truth

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

There are some real idiots on here. epa1nter, is one example. "Hey, epa1nter, dont put your finger in the electric socket or you will get shocked." epa1nter would probably reply, "But you dont undertand, when I put my finger in the socket I get shocked." "HEY,, IDIOT,, how many time do we have to tell you not to do that?" "But I put my finger in the socket and I got shocked." "IDIOT" I have explained over and over again about the insurance issue and he goes back to zero. He doesnt get it.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (19197) 2 years ago

Nice. You can't come up with a decent argument, so you make an ad hominem attack. We laugh at you guys, too. We think it's hilarious how you defend the interests of the wealthy and the corporations when your own interests are probably no where near the same as theirs.

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

My original post,, IF you had read it,, was actually an attempt to give people, just like YOU, the opportunity to OWN YOUR OWN INSURANCE, that would NOT be owned by the corporation you work for. What part of that is in the interest of the wealthy? Please tell me how you owning your insurance, at the expense of a corporation, is defending the wealthy? I dont undertand you people.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (19197) 2 years ago

Sorry, I realize I mixed you up with some other "Youdontrepresentthe99percent" or something. My apologies.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (19197) 2 years ago

I argued that same thing if you remember. I think health insurance should be separate from employment and that we should have universal healthcare at the catastrophic level only. But, epa is not wrong about all of the things he/she says about the current system.

That aside. I saw your other post about how funny and unqualified we all are to discuss economics. It pissed me off. It's not true. You don't know what our backgrounds are. And, I don't like football.

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

I dont understand why ANYONE would not support; 1) You buy your own insurance paid by your employer. 2) You OWN your own insurance policy. 3) You can pick the insurance company that give you the best service. 4) You can change insurance companies if you dont like the service 5) You pick the insurance company with the doctor and hospital you want, not what the lady in HR decided for you. 6) If you change employers you simply take your favorite insurance policy with you. 7) If you change jobs, since you own your own insurance, you dont have to wait the 30-90 days for the new plan to go in without high COBRA costs. 8) There is a preexisting condition law that says all insurance companies for the next 30-60 days must be required to take preexisting people. 9) Insurance companies will compete for your policy because if they dont give YOU the service you want, they know you may go to one with better service. Today, they KNOW you have no power because you are lumped in with all the other employees and dont care what YOU think. 10) IT BELONGS TO YOU!!!!! 11) Government is not running it and cant mess it up like they have all the other programs they control.

What part of that could anyone possibly think was bad? If no company was allowed by law to purchase insurance for employees insurance companies would bend over backwards for your policy, If they dont, nobody will buy their insurance and they will go out of business. Consumers will rule if rates are too high or poor service.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (19197) 2 years ago

I think a lot of what you say makes sense. I think for your plan to work, though, health insurance would have to be universal and in one large pool, kind of the way cars are. Individual plans are very, very expensive. As epa1nter was saying, group plans always have much lower premiums when comparing similar plans. This is where it gets hairy. So, my idea is that we have a basic universal health plan where everyone is covered by the government at a very catastrophic level only. This removes a huge amount of risk from everyone, no more going bankrupt if you get cancer or a brain tumor and don't have insurance, and it allows people to make affordable choices about whether or not they want insurance for smaller items like doctor visits, medical equipment, etc.

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

YOU ARE KILLING ME... REALLY!!!! Please,, oh,,,, please,,, stop THINKING the traditional way. The very second you typed "individual plans are very expensive" it is VERY apparent you are still not reading what my point is. STOP thinking about the way it IS but what it COULD be. One more time, under my plan there would be NOOOOOOOOOOO group plans, only individuals. Here is another way of looking at it.,,, just for a moment,,, think this way,,, lets say there are 50 people in a group plan. You will me so far? 50 people and those 50 are in the group which spreads the covered. You saw those 50 people in a room. Close your eyes. I take those 50 people out of the room and replace them with 50 people that have individual insurance policy and you open your eyes. There were 10 people sick in the group plan and by chance 10 people sick in the individual plan,,, where do YOU see the difference? It is still 50 people insurance and 10 people were sick. The fact is,, I know because my wife is unemployed, we bought her a policy and it was cheaper than the group plan I am on at work. CHEAPER with the same deductible. There is no difference between it. If there was NO group plans,,,, BY LAW,,, the insurance companies would be FORCED to lower their premiums because individuals would SEEK the lower rate insurance companies. 50 people are 50 people. I dont know how to make that any clearer. If you reply that epa1nter is still correct,,, please dont reply.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (19197) 2 years ago

By eliminating group plans with universal coverage you effectively have the same thing you are saying. That is why I said you must have universal coverage (no group plans) to make it work. I don't know why you are so angry.

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

OMG. You STILL dont get it. I'm getting tired,, so tired. It is NOT universal coverage (I included a wiki on the definition of UC). I'm NOT pushing for universal coverage. (Please GOD,,, give me strength with these people). Forget group plan, forget universal coverage. This has nothing to do with government coverage. I'm going to need drugs after taking with you people. My car and home insurance is not on a group policy. My car and home insurance is not on a universal policy. I own and paid for that out of my pocket. The lady in HR is not selecting my car insurance or my home insurance. My plan is the same for health insurance. But one big difference. While I pay for my car and home insurance, under my plan, my company gives ME an increase in my salary with a w-2 saying that the money they gave me for health insurance MUST go toward purchasing my health insurance. If I dont buy insurance then my Income Tax report will show I own more in taxes.

(((((((wiki ----- Universal coverage, also known as universal healthcare, refers to a healthcare system that provides coverage to all individuals. Most industrialized nations offer universal coverage to all residents. The United States, however, has a piecemeal system of coverage that leaves approximately 46 million residents uninsured at any given time. Healthcare reform efforts with the goal of achieving universal coverage are currently underway.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (19197) 2 years ago

LOL! You crack me up. Okay. You explained yourself better this time. It will be tough to do this at affordable rates if everyone is not covered. Unhealthy people will have a tough time. People who start healthy but get sick will have a tough time because their rate will go up after they get sick. Healthcare coverage is far more complicated that auto and home.

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

Go ahead and laugh while I'm having a nervous breakdown. Anyway, the overall price will go down. One more reason why. Healthcare providers (hospitals) continue to raise the cost of procedures because THEY know that the insurnace companies will PAY the increase. Why? Because they know employers will pay the premium increase. Why? Because it is expected of them. By taking all the middlemen out and going straight to the consumer the insurance companies will not pay the increases. Hospitals will need to stop the increase. YOU will receive from your employer the same money they were paying directly to the insurance company. Here is the biggest plus. You get an increase in your paycheck. That increase is what your employer was paying for your insurance. But now YOU get it. You can decide whether you are going to buy insurance or not. Insurance companies will know this. They will know YOU are the one deciding not the lady in HR. You buy from the insurance company you want and they will all compete for YOUR money. If you decide NOT to buy insurance you will be pentalized at the end of the year for not having it. You will get hit with a big tax burden which really forces you to spend that money on insurance. I need a nap.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (19197) 2 years ago

It's an idea. I don't want you to have a heart attack or anything. I think it is really good that you are making proposals on this issue. We need someone to figure this out. I will think about it some more. You may be right.

[-] 0 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

I thought pools of people applying for insurance would have more leverage and hence get better prices. What about people with preexisting conditions?

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

I dont agree. Insurance Company (IC) A sells insurance for X amount. If IC-B wanted to increase the number of people using their IC, what would you do? And if IC-C wanted to steal away customers from IC-A,B, what would they do? They would be on TV with ads just like the Gieko or Allstate, etc and etc tell you to pick THEM. WHY? They want your business. You dont see health insurance ads on TV. WHY???????? They dont have to over lower prices. WHY? Because they know they can get 500 or 2,000 employees on their insurnace plan with one agent knocking on the door. Competition will lower the price. But better,,, even better,,, YOU OWN your own insurance. If you change jobs every other month,,, you own it. You pick the plan, you pick the hospital or doctor group, not the 300 pound lady in your HR department.

[-] 1 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

OK, but what about older people, or people with preexisting health conditions? What insurance company would be clamoring to take them on as customers?

[-] -1 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

I have posted on that in this post.

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

It's not the companies nor the insurance companies that are the reason for "high healthcare costs". It's the insurance providers.

Now if I have to go into detail as to why this is the reason then it's apparent that those of you whom disagree haven't researched this side of the "expenses" associated with "healthcare".

So have at it and lets see what you come up with. However should you disagree with me you had better have facts to back it up.

And don't go into this "insurance companies are making "hugh profits" business because the average insurance profit rate is around 8 - 12 percent so that isn't going to cut it

And don't go into how many of millions of dollars they are making because that isn't going to cut it either. I want "facts" to prove me wrong, not "wealth envy".

[-] -2 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

Catch-22 Plus. Insurance is high because healthcare is high, pretty simple statement. Healthcare is high because of several factors. 1) In software code it is called, "if-then" statement. IF insurance will pay for a procedure, the hospital will raise the cost of the procedure, IF the insurance company agrees with the cost, THEN the healthcare raised the cost of the procedure. 2) The number of people that simply dont pay for the procedures and the hospital writes off the costs, THEN, the hospital must improve the size of the facilities to accomodate the increase in traffic and services needed for those not paying a penny. 3) The number of illegals using our facilities and those costs are passed on to you and I. 4) Legal and regulations that must be met. For any given hospital there are probably as many people reading and filing reports associated with federal regs to fight off the law suits filed as there are healthcare workers. 5) Many unknowns including the printing costs with tell YOU your rights under HIPAA. Today,,,, which really pisses me off, they print in English and Spanish to accomodate those illegal folks costing me money.

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

There you go , you as well as I agree that the "health care provider" is the problem and it may not be because they want to be but because they "have to be because of "government regulations"".

[-] 0 points by ChemLady (576) 2 years ago

Ironic you want the government to stop companies from offering insurance, the reason companies got into offering health insurance was government regulations in the first place. Companies were prevented, by the government (1942 Stabilization Act) from offering higher pay to employees during WWII, they started using benefits to attract employees.

Your reasoning about costs is flawed though. Bigger organizations always get a price deal, large numbers of people work to the advantage of the insurance company. Insurance isn't some magic spell to get us free health care, it depends on a lot of people paying in but never needing it. Statistically speaking you should go without.

[-] -1 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

There would be no price DEAL under my plan. Insurance companies would have competition to try to get your business. As it is now they just sit back knowing the companies must find insurance. And, if I dont like the insurance my company offers I will own my own policy that I can take with me if I change jobs. No 90 wait for insurance to kick in if I change jobs. Sounds pretty darn good to me. No group insurance means more competition.

[-] 2 points by ChemLady (576) 2 years ago

Wave your magic wand then and make it happen, I don't see how prices will go down, but it doesn't matter, the government is not going to shut down all those union benefits any time soon.

[-] -1 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

Competition will drive down the price. The biggest issue is that YOU OWN your insurance and it is not depended on the corporations YOU SEEM to hate so much. I would think you would jump all over allowing individuals to get out from under THE MAN. Guess you really like corporations and the hold on people because of health insurance.

[-] 2 points by ChemLady (576) 2 years ago

I don't think you have a grasp on how health insurance works. I can't get individual coverage for the low cost my employer gets it for. It's safer for insurance companies to sell to a large group of people then it is to sell to one person.

You can pass any law you like to change things. Right now the bigger the group you bring in the lower the premiums for each member of that group. Make it illegal for the employer to provide insurance and the price per person is likely to go up.

[-] -1 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

You are one of those that always post, "I dont think you have a grasp on how something works", as if YOU are the professional of all the world. Give me a break. Now, I have posted on here Today my experience with purchasing private insurance for my wife. Yes, it appears like I DO know how insurance works,,,, we all have it,, not just YOU. I have also post why it will go down in price and why I would want to own my own insurance. If you want the fat lady in HR to decide your doctor and your hospital,,, GO FOR IT. I want to decide. If you like it your way,,, fine. I want to control my rights.

[-] 1 points by ChemLady (576) 2 years ago

No one is stopping you from buying your own insurance. You just can't get it as cheaply as a large group can get it. You're plan asks the government to eliminate lower priced insurance in the mistaken belief that insurance companies will compete for the individual purchaser. They compete much more for the larger groups. Any company selling anything will give a discount to the group purchasing several hundred plans over the individual purchasing one.

Something else too, if a company gives back money it spends on premiums, they loose a tax benefit, so it would cost them money to do that. Besides the government has already moved in the opposite direction, the new health care law requires employers to provide a plan or face penalties.

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

My God people,,, dont you read the posts before you comment??????? MY NEW LAW DOES NOT ALLOW group insurance,, that was the point. I dont know how many times I must repost this until you actually read what I wrote. Know wonder you people are in a fog.

[-] 1 points by ChemLady (576) 2 years ago

Yes I know that, your new law will force me to buy insurance at a higher price then what it costs now and we have to hope that prices will come down. Great plan, you cost the employer more when he loses his deduction, and cost the employee more when he has to go shopping for insurance as an individual. Who does this benefit other then the insurance company?

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

There you go again.... I have posted and you have NOT read. You dont want to read it because you dont care about fixing. YOU GO and let the fat lady in HR decide your doctor and your hospital. Either read what I posted about why the rates will go down or dont post back. You have not because I explained over and over what you just posted. MOVE ON and be happy with your current insurance plan.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

You live in a fantasy land if you believe, for one instant, that rates would go down under your half-baked plan. You have been shown why. You do not, by virtue of your Libertardism, even try to comprehend it. For you ideology trumps reality.

Your "plan" could only work under three conditions. No insurance company would be permitted to turn anyone down on the basis of preexisting conditions. Profits would have to be tightly regulated. And finally, in order for the insurance companies to remain viable by spreading risk sufficiently, everyone would be mandated to buy insurance. And that, essentially is what the health care bill did.

Of course, universal, single payer health care would be far more efficient and far less costly, with better outcomes, but you libertards would scream "socialism" and get a tea party together.

[-] -2 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

Please report to the fat lady in HR for your new insurance card. Hope you like the doctor and hospital SHE has pick for you since you dont seem to want to be adult enough to pick your own. BTW, the fat lady in HR is on the rag.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Please report to your agent for the psychiatric help you need.

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

You really are a momma's boy, (Mother Government)

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

Your post (((([-]1 points by epa1nter (1208) from Rutherford, NJ 16 hours ago Without a plan provided for me by an employer, I would have no access at all to health care if I had a preexisting condition. Without the discounts an employer gets, health insurance would be unaffordable for most people. So keep dreaming your Libertard dreams. I rest easy in the knowledge that yours is a system that no one would ever implement, given the IQs of most people are above 2.))) Once again,,, you didnt read any of the posts. You are in lala land. Can you once and for all,, try to put it through your think skull,,,, THERE WOULD BE NO EMPLOYER purchased insurance. There would be no employer discounts. There would be preexisting condition issues for the first month,,, by law. If you think insurance companies are giving discounts to employers,,, you have no idea what you are talking about. Right now,,,, YOU,,, can purchase a personal insurance policy at the same rate or below what your company is paying. I KNOW,, because I did it. I know a lot of people that have purchased their own insurance. Here is YOUR problem. You cant think through the process that under my plan,, YOUR employer will pay YOU,, yes YOU,, the same amount they would pay for YOUR insurance. You still get the money to purchase it. Then YOU purchase from any insurance company YOU like that provides the doctors and hospitals YOU like to go to. Rates will go down because insurance companies will compete for YOUR business. Finally,, ONE LAST THING. I know what the problem is with YOU. YOU like big government. YOU like someone taking care of YOU. YOU like to let others decide what is best for YOU. YOU are a liberal that loves Mother Government taking care of you. MY plan scares the hell out of you because it would allow YOU to make decisions for yourself. I like to make my own decision. I dont like the CORPORATE lady, (which you seem to hate corporations) the corporate lady deciding what is best for me. So go ahead and let momma dress you. You need not reply. (while being bottle fed)

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Individual plans are ALWAYS more expensive than group plans. If your employer gave you the money it costs for you coverage in a group plan, it would FALL FAR SHORT of what you individual plan would cost. Group plans are cheaper because risk in that group is spread. The very same plan by the very same insurance company costs, in my state over $10,000 per year for an individual, when it costs $5000 dollars from my employer. And HE pays for more than half of it.

What's more, I COULD NOY GET insurance without an employer under current law, which allows insurance companies to refuse to cover me under an individual plan. I have a preexisting condition. No insurance company would touch me. And I would die. And what you still can't get through that stone skull of yours is that insurance companies DON'T compete for individuals; they compete for PROFITABLE ONES ALONE. If there is any chance they won't make a profit on your carcass, they won't accept you as a client. And that is precisely why 45 to 50 MILLION people CAN'T get insurance.

So, fuck your plan. I won't spend another second debating about it, because it is so transparently stupid it has no chance of ever becoming law.

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

So the lady in HR isnt allowed to pick the insurance company,, that has picked your doctor,,, that hasnt picked your hospital,,, that hasnt picked your deductible???? I thought all along that HR reviewed all the insurance companies and picked the best one the CORPORATION wanted to pay for. My tiny libertard brain thought the HR department selected the company. YOU ARE SO SMART

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Without a plan provided for me by an employer, I would have no access at all to health care if I had a preexisting condition. Without the discounts an employer gets, health insurance would be unaffordable for most people. So keep dreaming your Libertard dreams. I rest easy in the knowledge that yours is a system that no one would ever implement, given the IQs of most people are above 2.

[-] -1 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

Which I could do. You would have to ASK the fat lady in HR if she was in the MOOD to include psychiatric coverage in the insurance SHE bought FOR YOU.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

HR isn't in charge. The insurance companies are. In every way. And that's what your teensy tiny libertard brain can comprehend.

[-] -1 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

Unfortunately, despite anything we say, it just does not seem to penetrate the thick skull of this dumbass FreeDiscussion1

[-] 0 points by TheGreedyCapitalist (47) from Long Beach, CA 2 years ago

You can already do this with most companies. I will use McDonalds for example. You don't have to give them money out of your paycheck for insurance. However if you wish, you can choose from a wide selection of options and pay for it.

I do understand some companies use the same insurance provider to save money for their employees, and you do not have a selection. That is why I said most.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

There will be NO deal for group insurance if there was a law preventing companies from purchasing group insurance. And, the insurance will BELONG to ME. If I change jobs I dont have to wait 90 for my new company to have my new insurance to kick in. And, I have selected the insurance company I like that supports the hospital I like. if I change jobs I can keep the same doctor or hospital because the policy is MINE.

[-] -2 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

Yeah you are stupid. When a company as a whole provides health insurance, it can usually get a better deal from the company. That's exactly what my firm provides. Now keep quiet.

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

You are "special." You must be proud. So, you decide to leave that great firm that provides you insurance. You go to the next firm. You must wait 30 to 90 days for your NEW insurance to keep. Now, I leave my firm and I take my own insurance and I'm covered for those 30 to 90 days. I'm covered and your not. And you only get the best if you go with that companies selected hospital. I picked insurance that allowed me to go to the hospital I PICKED. You must be proud. Now keep quiet.