Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
They just don't. That's become the standard, in large part due to government regulation and tax policy, but there's no good reason employers should be responsible for their employees health care.So, the insurance companies coverages, territory and prices are "freedom"?
Not in my book.
Employees do, for the most part .
Again, Most have to.
Are you being deliberately specious? People still have to keep paying for the government sponsored health care regardless of whether they use it. That's like saying you can quit your employer - reject the paycheck and benefits - but you still have to go in and work for them.People can opt for private insurance, in any country that has government sponsored healthcare.
They work as intended.They don't work.
Per the NYT article today.
NOT.............. NYT, an opinion article, but just as long as one person agrees with opinion, that makes it "fact" for republicans.Wow, you're sticking by masks even when the NYT flees....heh
Then why do they?They just don't.
WTF?That's become the standard, in large part due to government regulation and tax policy,
There is for employers.but there's no good reason employers should be responsible for their employees health care.
So............the same as paying for private insurance.Are you being deliberately specious? People still have to keep paying for the government sponsored health care regardless of whether they use it.
That's like saying you can quit your employer - reject the paycheck and benefits - but you still have to go in and work for them.
People could opt for private insurance to cover unnecessary, cosmetic health care only. There would no longer be any insurance for common health care needs. The government would pay for all of that directly, just as they do for eligible veterans and as they did for the elderly through Medicare until very recently. Private, impersonal insurance for common needs is simply government sanctioned highway robbery. It serves no useful purpose for your average Joe Blow, regardless how hard one may wish they were more "independent" as a result.People can opt for private insurance, in any country that has government sponsored healthcare.
Not entirely true.Given REAL single payer (i.e. Medicare4All)
People could opt for private insurance to cover unnecessary, cosmetic health care only. There would no longer be any insurance for common health care needs. The government would pay for all of that directly, just as they do for eligible veterans and as they did for the elderly through Medicare until very recently. Private, impersonal insurance for common needs is simply government sanctioned highway robbery. It serves no useful purpose for your average Joe Blow, regardless how hard one may wish they were more "independent" as a result.
.
It's not denied to others ... You can purchase healthcare insurance from the same company for the same base premiums.
They are not exclusive to school boards or government institutions ... It's like any other employer provided healthcare options and benefits.
Premiums may vary depending on the number of people in the Group ...
But that varies the same between each Group and each Employer.
.
So, so far, entirely true then. A service supply issue that gradually gets addressed through public pressure from below, exactly as it should. Meanwhile, most Canadians remain satisfied, unlike Americans.Not entirely true.
In Canada, private medical insurance does not exist. Our health care system does not allow paying with private health insurance for any hospital services that are “medically necessary.” It’s illegal for patients to pay out of pocket to skip a long waitlist for a surgery and physicians cannot accept payment from patients who want to see them sooner.
Allowing that would obviously destroy the whole thing. You be right back to our shitty system in no time.To be clear, we’re not talking about the private insurance that covers dental care, vision, or prescription drugs. Private medical insurance in Canada would aim to provide an alternative option to waitlists and providing faster and better options for currently covered elective procedures.
You're paying little to no attention to the premise. To any extent one can pay for private alternatives (as opposed to stuff neither supplied nor funded), that is not analogous to Medicare4All. It's a failure to fight back against the crazed greedy, I-must-have-it-all-instantly! minority. If the fucking rich people can't wait in line (at all!) like us reasonable people do every damned day, then fuck 'em! They can fly to wherever and get their precious hip replaced faster and without warranty to boot!In England, 10.5 percent of the population have private medical insurance while 44 percent of the population in Australia have purchased complementary coverage on top of their public system.
Private health insurance also known as private medical insurance (PMI), is a type of insurance designed to provide speedy access to high-quality healthcare.
Policies can provide cover for individuals, whole families or employees of a business and are typically paid for on a monthly or yearly subscription which is referred to as your premium.
In the UK, private medical insurance is provided by both large, international insurers together with more specialist providers that focus purely on servicing the needs of the UK population. Each insurer may have a selection of different policies delivering various level of cover and member benefits.
In general
Sure, they can pay for alternatives, the way most are set up, they still have to pay into the public healthcare system, regardless.So, so far, entirely true then. A service supply issue that gradually gets addressed through public pressure from below, exactly as it should. Meanwhile, most Canadians remain satisfied, unlike Americans.
Allowing that would obviously destroy the whole thing. You be right back to our shitty system in no time.
You're paying little to no attention to the premise. To any extent one can pay for private alternatives (as opposed to stuff neither supplied nor funded), that is not analogous to Medicare4All.
AND..............They will, just like they always have done.It's a failure to fight back against the crazed greedy, I-must-have-it-all-instantly! minority. If the fucking rich people can't wait in line (at all!) like us reasonable people do every damned day, then fuck 'em! They can fly to wherever and get their precious hip replaced faster and without warranty to boot!
Nope. This is why I insist upon talking exclusively about real Medicare4All here. So few genuinely understand the critical distinctions.Sure, they can pay for alternatives, the way most are set up, they still have to pay into the public healthcare system, regardless.
Unless, like in the US , they avoid taxes.
No duplication. None. Vamoose! Mach schnell! (Not you. Private, for-profit insurance!)Sec. 801. Prohibition of employee benefits duplicative of benefits under the Medicare for All Program;
So, how will "real medicare" for all force the rich to use it, $$$ talks?"They will," -- Fine. Not a problem.
Nope. This is why I insist upon talking exclusively about real Medicare4All here. So few genuinely understand the critical distinctions.
Hope you're right, healthcare in the US would be fixed so fast, it would make people's heads spin, AND everyone would be covered for "headspins".No duplication. None. Vamoose! Mach schnell! (Not you. Private, for-profit insurance!)
SEC. 107. PROHIBITION AGAINST DUPLICATING COVERAGE.
4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Beginning on the effective date described in section 106(a), it shall be unlawful for a private health insurer to sell health insurance coverage that duplicates the benefits provided 8 under this Act; or 9 (2) an employer to provide benefits for an employee, former employee, or the dependents of an employee or former employee that duplicate the benefits provided under this Act.
You better do a little more research because there certainly are private health plans offered in Canada, expensive but they are offered.Not entirely true.
In Canada, private medical insurance does not exist. Our health care system does not allow paying with private health insurance for any hospital services that are “medically necessary.” It’s illegal for patients to pay out of pocket to skip a long waitlist for a surgery and physicians cannot accept payment from patients who want to see them sooner.
To be clear, we’re not talking about the private insurance that covers dental care, vision, or prescription drugs. Private medical insurance in Canada would aim to provide an alternative option to waitlists and providing faster and better options for currently covered elective procedures.
In England, 10.5 percent of the population have private medical insurance while 44 percent of the population in Australia have purchased complementary coverage on top of their public system.
Private health insurance also known as private medical insurance (PMI), is a type of insurance designed to provide speedy access to high-quality healthcare.
Policies can provide cover for individuals, whole families or employees of a business and are typically paid for on a monthly or yearly subscription which is referred to as your premium.
In the UK, private medical insurance is provided by both large, international insurers together with more specialist providers that focus purely on servicing the needs of the UK population. Each insurer may have a selection of different policies delivering various level of cover and member benefits.
In general, policies are designed to cover the cost of obtaining non-emergency treatment from private health care facilities that are associated with providing a high level of care.
Health insurance does not exclude insured individuals from accessing the free coverage provided by the NHS. In the event of a medical emergency call 999.
The rich can do as they please. Always have. Always will. The rest of us is all I care about.So, how will "real medicare" for all force the rich to use it, $$$ talks?
Then why do they?
WTF?
"Government regulation" forces companies to offer insurance?
... there's no good reason employers should be responsible for their employees health care.
There is for employers.
Employee retention, just like $$$.
Not at all. I you reject private insurance, you don't have to pay for.So............the same as paying for private insurance.People still have to keep paying for the government sponsored health care regardless of whether they use it.
Yeah. Socialism blows. Fix it. Don't use it as an excuse for ubiquitous government.BUT when you refuse insurance, and something happens, where you need medical care, you will be taken care of..............depending.
So, everyone else is subsidizing YOUR healthcare, which is why it's so expensive.
HOW?Yep. Where have you been?
They also promote the practice with tax breaks.
WTF?Exactly. Like I said, the dependency means they have you by the balls. But that's not a good thing.
Not at all. I you reject private insurance, you don't have to pay for.
I think we've reached that point where you just ropey-dope with feigned ignorance, so you don't actually have to address the points being made.
THAT would be the for-profit, capitalistic system.Yeah. Socialism blows. Fix it. Don't use it as an excuse for ubiquitous government.
He means employers get to deduct employee insurance costs as a business expense. Employees normally can't (deduct them) here. Unless they stuff some into stupid healthcare savings accounts, which just amount to some potential savings in any case.HOW?
Yeah. You're just trolling now. Seeyabye!HOW?
WTF?
You're the one with ignorance "feigned" or any other kind.
What points?
You're "points"?
You haven't made any.
THAT would be the for-profit, capitalistic system.
Hence..........PROFIT.
They work as intended.
ONE persons opinion.
Republicans keep claiming that masks prevent COVID, they don't.
Just like this ill-informed writer claims.
www.nytimes.com › do-mask-mandates-workThe Mask Mandates Did Nothing. Will Any Lessons Be Learned?
16 hours ago · By Bret Stephens. Opinion Columnist. The most rigorous and comprehensive analysis of scientific studies conducted on the efficacy of masks for reducing the spread of respiratory illnesses ...
NOT.............. NYT, an opinion article, but just as long as one person agrees with opinion, that makes it "fact" for republicans.
Yes, mask disperse exhaled particles, making them smaller and traveling less than a normal distance.
Thereby reducing risk to anyone nearby.
Does a flu shot prevent the flu?
Then, why does everyone still get the flu?
So.......................would you rather have someone cough in your direction without, at least holding their hand over their mouth?Didja ever think that masks dispersing particles and making them smaller makes them MORE LIKELY TO HANG IN THE AIR like Covid particles, and also, to get lodged in lungs?
So yeah, sick person breathes out of mask, droplets are aerosolized.
Great idea!!
So.......................would you rather have someone cough in your direction without, at least holding their hand over their mouth?
OR........NOT holding their hand over their mouth, and letting it fly in your direction?
