Please Vote!

[Vast LWC]

you are MISSING the point toomuchtime! I said there would be NO GVT assistance or involvement in healthcare, and THAT MEANS that your business WOULD NOT be getting the tax write off that they get for paying a portion of your insurance plan...

AND if they did NOT get this tax write off, my BET is that they WOULD NOT cover or pay for your health insurance as they are today.

Soooooo, your employer WOULD NOT have any incentive to pay for the portion he is paying for now and would MORE THAN LIKELY drop this benefit and YOU are ALL on your own....

Repubs SAY they want NO involvement of our gvt with health care...THAT MEANS NO tax deduction for the companies either...

maybe i was not clear enough before, but that is what I meant tmt!

care

I understood what you were saying. If employers stopped paying for any part of health insurance, most consumers would start shopping for the least expensive health insurance they could find, and that would be catastrophic coverage in most cases. As the market for individual health insurance grew, insurers would compete with each other to provide the best inexpensive health insurance they could, so the cost of insurance to the individual would be much less than $12,000. Since choosing catastrophic insurance coverage only means consumers will have to pay out of pocket for routine medical expenses, they will shop around for the least expensive providers they have confidence in, forcing down the cost of health care in general. In this way, choice and competition would be restored to the health insurance market and health insurance costs as well as health care costs in general would be lowered.

Your presumption seems to be that if employers had to pay taxes on their contributions to health insurance plans, they would not only stop making those contributions but they would also refuse to give the contribution to the employee as a pay increase to buy his/her own health insurance. In a normal economy when companies compete for employees, I think this is unlikely. By giving employees an increase in pay commensurate with the contribution to the health plan, they amount would remain tax deductible, the employees would shop for less expensive catastrophic coverage and less expensive providers and end up with more money left over in their pockets.

on your last part tmt-

some employers will give their execs the money they were spending in order to keep a strong management team, IF they are in a competitive field or market area....and not give the money they were spending on their pencil pushers to them in their salary, IF they were a dime a dozen....it all depends on the company itself and the competitiveness of the region and industry they are in...in rural areas where jobs are always hard to come by, insurance for employees would be dropped by employers without the tax deduction....

let's put it this way, there would be a lot less people with insurance coverage, imho.

to keep gvt out altogether though, means even individual plans would not be tax deductible.

I think, that ''all of a sudden'' we have a DROP in the demand for health insurance, making the supply of insurance policies available to be bought rise...the companies have the overhead and staff to handle the policies of a lot more people than they would be getting...they can do 2 things....go on the defense and sell off property that is housing employees that have nothing to do, pink slip those idle employees, plan business down OR they can go on the offense and reduce prices IMMEDIATELY, to be able to sustain a similar customer base to support their overhead and sales plan, and ceo salaries....and FIGURE out a way to tighten their strings some, to pay for the lost markup/or earned profit with the lower retail.

in a pure capitalistic situation, this is suppose to be how it works, at least i thought?

care

But you can't judge this particular subject in a purely capitalistic sense in any case, due to one overriding factor.

Everyone NEEDS healthcare. They can't just "Do without it".

When a parent has a sick child, they are going to get health care, no matter what.

Which means that people aren't going to be forcing the market to lower their prices by canceling their insurance, because they can't.

After all, you said NO government interference, and that would include those emergency room freebies for people without insurance, wouldn't it?

And most markets have very limited choices as far as health insurance goes, stopping price competition dead in it's tracks.

 

[Vast LWC]

In addition, again working on your "No Government Interference" theme...

We'd have to get rid of Medicare and Medicaid, selling Medicare to private insurers.

This would mean the private insurers would then be responsible for the most sick among us, which would drive insurance rates UP, not down.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I understood what you were saying. If employers stopped paying for any part of health insurance, most consumers would start shopping for the least expensive health insurance they could find, and that would be catastrophic coverage in most cases. As the market for individual health insurance grew, insurers would compete with each other to provide the best inexpensive health insurance they could, so the cost of insurance to the individual would be much less than $12,000. Since choosing catastrophic insurance coverage only means consumers will have to pay out of pocket for routine medical expenses, they will shop around for the least expensive providers they have confidence in, forcing down the cost of health care in general. In this way, choice and competition would be restored to the health insurance market and health insurance costs as well as health care costs in general would be lowered.

Your presumption seems to be that if employers had to pay taxes on their contributions to health insurance plans, they would not only stop making those contributions but they would also refuse to give the contribution to the employee as a pay increase to buy his/her own health insurance. In a normal economy when companies compete for employees, I think this is unlikely. By giving employees an increase in pay commensurate with the contribution to the health plan, they amount would remain tax deductible, the employees would shop for less expensive catastrophic coverage and less expensive providers and end up with more money left over in their pockets.

on your last part tmt-

some employers will give their execs the money they were spending in order to keep a strong management team, IF they are in a competitive field or market area....and not give the money they were spending on their pencil pushers to them in their salary, IF they were a dime a dozen....it all depends on the company itself and the competitiveness of the region and industry they are in...in rural areas where jobs are always hard to come by, insurance for employees would be dropped by employers without the tax deduction....

let's put it this way, there would be a lot less people with insurance coverage, imho.

to keep gvt out altogether though, means even individual plans would not be tax deductible.

I think, that ''all of a sudden'' we have a DROP in the demand for health insurance, making the supply of insurance policies available to be bought rise...the companies have the overhead and staff to handle the policies of a lot more people than they would be getting...they can do 2 things....go on the defense and sell off property that is housing employees that have nothing to do, pink slip those idle employees, plan business down OR they can go on the offense and reduce prices IMMEDIATELY, to be able to sustain a similar customer base to support their overhead and sales plan, and ceo salaries....and FIGURE out a way to tighten their strings some, to pay for the lost markup/or earned profit with the lower retail.

in a pure capitalistic situation, this is suppose to be how it works, at least i thought?

care

But you can't judge this particular subject in a purely capitalistic sense in any case, due to one overriding factor.

Everyone NEEDS healthcare. They can't just "Do without it".

When a parent has a sick child, they are going to get health care, no matter what.

Which means that people aren't going to be forcing the market to lower their prices by canceling their insurance, because they can't.

After all, you said NO government interference, and that would include those emergency room freebies for people without insurance, wouldn't it?

And most markets have very limited choices as far as health insurance goes, stopping price competition dead in it's tracks.

How many chilrden have you raised?

 

[Joel]

This is my 1st time ever to post anything anywhere. It was recommended I use the introduction forum but after looking at a lot of what was posted there I decided that I would only write on particular subjects.
First of all I am a Christian and an Independent that has never declared loyalty to either party. If you’re not a Christian, keep in mind that this country was founded on Christian values. All of my points of view have been self scrutinized by the question; what would Jesus Christ say or do about a particular subject. I am not a fanatic, but I do believe God has given us guidelines to live by. He also gave us free will and a logical mind (well, maybe not everybody got the logic part). He has instructed us how to live but gives us a choice to live that way or not. All Christians do not agree what these guidelines are, but my point of view will be based on what I believe He wants for me.
Having said all of that, are you aware that most people have forgotten that insurance started out as a non profit co-op where groups of people put money into a common fund so that the healthy could help take care of the ill, just like God would want it? It was not too long ago that Blue Cross/ Blue Shield was a non-profit organization! Why do you think they made the word cross as part of their logo?
Instead of all the hateful ad campaigns and the shouting down of people who wish to offer an opinion on health care, here is what I believe America needs in this particular matter.
We do need health care reform – approximately 50 million people in the richest country in the world have no coverage. What do you think Jesus Christ would say about that? One of the largest providers in the US announced last quarter that they made more than 100% of all of last years profit in that quarter! The only way for them to make this kind of profit is to deny coverage to many people who are paying their premiums. These companies are the people that are telling you what to do for your illness - not your doctors. Rush Limbaugh complains of non medical government employees dictating treatment to us. Does he truly think that is any worse than a non medical insurance adjuster doing it?
A public option should just be one of the CHOICES you can make because, like Medicare, which is a public option, it will keep the other insurance companies competitive and you do not have to choose it.
You said a lot about what incentives would companies have to continue giving insurance but failed to mention that most of us considered it a part of our compensation package. If the health care were reformed I believe that companies would still offer us this tax free portion of our compensation.
At the risk of getting long winded, I would offer a personal example of where health care is going. I worked as a salaried employee for a fairly large company for 40 years and was able to retire early. I made that Company a lot of money and they paid me well. When I retired 9 years ago my health care costs for my wife and I were $0. I have just gone on Medicare but my healthcare costs had risen to 1/3 of my 40 year pension because, just after I retired, the company felt forced to put a cap on what they would pay. I being on salary had nothing that I could do about it because I had no contract like the union people did. My companied subsidized health care went up over 30% between 2007 and 2008. I do not know what I would be paying if I was not able to get Medicare advantage, which by the way only costs me about 1/3 of what I was paying, with much lower out of pocket deductibles and co-pays.
I know this is anecdotal evidence, but I believe it to be indicative to other large companies as well.

 

[toomuchtime_]

you are MISSING the point toomuchtime! I said there would be NO GVT assistance or involvement in healthcare, and THAT MEANS that your business WOULD NOT be getting the tax write off that they get for paying a portion of your insurance plan...

AND if they did NOT get this tax write off, my BET is that they WOULD NOT cover or pay for your health insurance as they are today.

Soooooo, your employer WOULD NOT have any incentive to pay for the portion he is paying for now and would MORE THAN LIKELY drop this benefit and YOU are ALL on your own....

Repubs SAY they want NO involvement of our gvt with health care...THAT MEANS NO tax deduction for the companies either...

maybe i was not clear enough before, but that is what I meant tmt!

care

I understood what you were saying. If employers stopped paying for any part of health insurance, most consumers would start shopping for the least expensive health insurance they could find, and that would be catastrophic coverage in most cases. As the market for individual health insurance grew, insurers would compete with each other to provide the best inexpensive health insurance they could, so the cost of insurance to the individual would be much less than $12,000. Since choosing catastrophic insurance coverage only means consumers will have to pay out of pocket for routine medical expenses, they will shop around for the least expensive providers they have confidence in, forcing down the cost of health care in general. In this way, choice and competition would be restored to the health insurance market and health insurance costs as well as health care costs in general would be lowered.

Your presumption seems to be that if employers had to pay taxes on their contributions to health insurance plans, they would not only stop making those contributions but they would also refuse to give the contribution to the employee as a pay increase to buy his/her own health insurance. In a normal economy when companies compete for employees, I think this is unlikely. By giving employees an increase in pay commensurate with the contribution to the health plan, they amount would remain tax deductible, the employees would shop for less expensive catastrophic coverage and less expensive providers and end up with more money left over in their pockets.

on your last part tmt-

some employers will give their execs the money they were spending in order to keep a strong management team, IF they are in a competitive field or market area....and not give the money they were spending on their pencil pushers to them in their salary, IF they were a dime a dozen....it all depends on the company itself and the competitiveness of the region and industry they are in...in rural areas where jobs are always hard to come by, insurance for employees would be dropped by employers without the tax deduction....

let's put it this way, there would be a lot less people with insurance coverage, imho.

to keep gvt out altogether though, means even individual plans would not be tax deductible.

I think, that ''all of a sudden'' we have a DROP in the demand for health insurance, making the supply of insurance policies available to be bought rise...the companies have the overhead and staff to handle the policies of a lot more people than they would be getting...they can do 2 things....go on the defense and sell off property that is housing employees that have nothing to do, pink slip those idle employees, plan business down OR they can go on the offense and reduce prices IMMEDIATELY, to be able to sustain a similar customer base to support their overhead and sales plan, and ceo salaries....and FIGURE out a way to tighten their strings some, to pay for the lost markup/or earned profit with the lower retail.

in a pure capitalistic situation, this is suppose to be how it works, at least i thought?

care

It is a fair presumption that companies that provide health insurance now do so because they believe they have to in order to compete successfully for qualified employees, so there is no reason to believe these companies will fail to compete for employees by giving their employees increases in salary/wages commensurate with the present company contribution to buy health insurance if the company contribution lost its tax exemption. The increase in salary/wages would be tax exempt so the motivation for providing this benefit would remain the same and only the means would change.

While shifting from a group insurance environment to an individual insurance environment may mean some downsizing for some insurers, there is no reason to believe it would be a crisis. Insurers would simply have to adjust to selling more policies with high deductibles, but there would be an upside too. Higher deductibles would mean there would be fewer claims to review, hence fewer employees to do this, so while revenues would be down because of high deductibles and market pressures, administrative costs would also be down, so profit margins might be stable. Another bonus for insurers would be that individuals would change insurance less often because they could carry the same policy with them from job to job, and if the federal and state governments back out even further, a policy you bought in Boston would still be good if you relocated to LA. The less often consumers change insurers, the lower administrative costs will be, another bonus for insurers and consumers.

To summarize: companies that now have to compete for employees by offering health care plans will still have to compete for employees by offering the company contribution in higher salaries/wages so employees can purchase their own health insurance; most consumers will shop for the least expensive high deductible policies they can find and for the least expensive health care providers they have confidence in and will probably be left with more money in their pockets than they have now after paying for their insurance and out of pocket expenses; insurers will adjust to selling more high deductible individual policies that will mean lower gross revenues and lower administrative expenses, so some downsizing of their workforce but no real crisis for the companies; since employees would own their own health insurance policies they would be free to move from job to job looking for the highest pay, the greatest opportunities, the best working conditions, the most satisfying work without fear of losing their health insurance for themselves or their families; when labor can move freely to its most highly valued use, it increases efficiency in the economy which raises productivity and that tends to lower costs and raise GDP which increases tax revenues so that the government can try to find something useful to do with this extra money such as encouraging people to eat better and exercise more instead of interfering in the health insurance market in ways that tend to keep health insurance and health care costs higher than they might otherwise be.

 

[auditor0007]

I get my medical needs met through the VA. I love the VA. I broke my ankle in a climbing accident and had to have reconstructive surgery if I wanted to walk again. Anywhere else it would've cost $30k. It only cost me four years of my youth, potentially being killed in the desert by an AK-47, a SCUD or an IED, and A LOT of sweat. That's just the surgery and hospital stay, and doesn't include the post-op visits, the physical therapy, the pharms, or having one of the screws removed about 6 months later. I've also had a wisdom tooth removed, a shot of demoral, a toe nail removed (my girlfriend opened the bathroom door on my big toe a couple weeks ago!), numerous PCP visits, a prescription of sertraline, stitches above my eye (long story, all you need to know is whiskey was a contributing factor), carpal tunnel from posting on USMB too much, and numerous other things.

Without the VA, I couldn't afford health insurance. My 23 year-old girlfriend (ow! robbin' the cradle...yeah!) doesn't have health insurance because we can't afford it. She's young and healthy, but with her lifestyle (i.e. rock climber, river rafter, sea kayaker, mountaineer, wilderness traveler) health insurance for her is really expensive and yet an accident is likely bound to happen because she takes risks living the way we do. If she gets hurt, we're going bankrupt. PERIOD. So, in a way, tax payers will be paying her medical bills.

But, if there were a public option that was cheaper, we could cover her. Either way the tax payer pays, only one is cheaper than the other. Guess which?

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Seems to me, health care should be a right, not a privelege only for those who can afford it.

I think our society has an obligation to provide good medical care to everyone. At the same time, the way we are trying to go about it is wrong. Going the route of having insurance companies provide full umbrella packages is driving up costs drastically because it is reducing competetion. At the same time, these same companies will try to deny anyone who becomes sick if they can.

There is a role for government in our healthcare. However, having them run the entire system is not likely the answer to reducing costs, just as allowing things to remain as they are is not the answer either. Basic care should be paid for out of pocket. The only ones who cannot afford basic care are the truly poor, and there are plenty of programs for them. What kills so many of the rest of us is major medical. When someone really gets sick and the costs skyrocket, those who cannot get insurance get the shaft. No one should be denied major medical coverage. But again, everyone must contribute also. Even the working poor should contribute a certain percentage of their income to their own needs.

Healthcare is not free, and everyone should contribute. Those who need assistance should receive some assistance. But the bottom line is that we must find a way to create more competition in order to reduce overall costs so that we can treat more people. And the most effective way to do that is by removing insurance companies from the picture when it comes to basic care.