Please Vote!

[Care4all]

How many of you can afford to pay, and would pay for their health insurance without their company contributing towards a portion of it, and without a tax deduction for it?

Remember, your companies pay for a good portion of your insurance cost BECAUSE the gvt has intervened and given your company a tax deduction for it...

if gvt got out of health care as some republicans and libertarians are touting, that means YOU and YOU alone will be funding your FULL health care insurance costs without the help of a company contributed, group insurance plan....because without the gvt's tax incentive given to them for this, you can bet your bottom dollar that companies would no longer offer this as a benefit.

REMEMBER! The average cost of a family health insurance plan is over $12,000 a year!

WAIT FOR ME TO POST THE POLL!

I am slow at this!

care

 

[Care4all]

come on guys....let's see if you can take care of yourselves without the benefit of your employer or a tax write off!

 

[Care4all]

on the 'other' i was thinking, there are people who could afford to buy it, but just won't....or those who get military benefits maybe?

 

[Coloradomtnman]

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.

 

[Immanuel]

I could not afford to pay for family coverage. I could possibly afford my wife and myself.

That does not mean I support the current plans going through Congress. Health Care Reform IS needed. I don't question that one bit, but I simply do not believe the current proposals are good for Americans. Me included.

Immie

 

[auditor0007]

I paid for my own insurance for many years. Now that I moved, I can no longer get insurance at an affordable rate. Even with my limited income, I can afford around $7500 per year, which is about 15% of my gross income. Most middle income families could afford family coverage, if their employers increased their pay according to their savings by not having to pay for healthcare, and if those individuals were healthy.

Of course, if purchasing insurance was mandatory, and everyone was pooled together, it would make rates more reasonable. It would also change the type of policies insurance companies sold as many would choose high deductible plans with lower costs. And that would create more competition in healthcare as people actually shopped for their routine healthcare needs.

As I have found out recently, and have posted in some other threads, I am now paying cash for my healthcare, and I'm only paying about a third of what my insurance company used to pay for the same services. Examples: My insurance company was paying the hospital nearly $400 for a phlebotomy. I am now paying my doctor who has a nurse do it in his office for $75. I just had lab tests done. I prepaid for them instead of having insurance cover them. I paid $150. In the past, my insurance would pay over $600 for the same tests.

When I look at these savings, it becomes obvious to me that we need to get insurance companies away from providing these full-service plans. When you buy auto insurance, it doesn't cover oil changes and regular maintenance; it covers you if you get into an accident. Health insurance is no different. The basics should be paid out of pocket, and if they were, we would see much more competition and much lower prices.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I could and would pay for it on my own.

But i'm in MA so i can get a cheap taxpayer subsidized private plan if I want.

 

[American Horse]

I paid for my own insurance for many years. Now that I moved, I can no longer get insurance at an affordable rate. Even with my limited income, I can afford around $7500 per year, which is about 15% of my gross income. Most middle income families could afford family coverage, if their employers increased their pay according to their savings by not having to pay for healthcare, and if those individuals were healthy.

Of course, if purchasing insurance was mandatory, and everyone was pooled together, it would make rates more reasonable. It would also change the type of policies insurance companies sold as many would choose high deductible plans with lower costs. And that would create more competition in healthcare as people actually shopped for their routine healthcare needs.

As I have found out recently, and have posted in some other threads, I am now paying cash for my healthcare, and I'm only paying about a third of what my insurance company used to pay for the same services. Examples: My insurance company was paying the hospital nearly $400 for a phlebotomy. I am now paying my doctor who has a nurse do it in his office for $75. I just had lab tests done. I prepaid for them instead of having insurance cover them. I paid $150. In the past, my insurance would pay over $600 for the same tests.

When I look at these savings, it becomes obvious to me that we need to get insurance companies away from providing these full-service plans. When you buy auto insurance, it doesn't cover oil changes and regular maintenance; it covers you if you get into an accident. Health insurance is no different. The basics should be paid out of pocket, and if they were, we would see much more competition and much lower prices.

Excellent, excellent post Auditor. You are actually doing your part to help make the system competitive. It's just too bad that your situtation forces you to. No one is babying you.

Except for some very new cutting edge treatments, medical services actually do readily respond to competitive forces. You are doing more than just complaining - It appears the state you live in has contributed to un-affordabilaity for health insurance, because my own state has decent affordable rates for health insurance. Unfortunately our government has done almost everything possible to remove it from market forces. An example is what is proposed for Medicare Advantage for the elderly.

It works, BUT ObamaCare proposes to cut "funding" for it by 20-percent. The "funding" for it comes from the moneys the individual is entitled to as their share of the Medicare program but goes in part to pay for private insurance which the "customer" shops for competively but privately. But to cut the government's reimbursement by 20-percent will force companies to leave the market. These companies make just pennies on the dollar - nothing near the twenty percent cut planned, so that the individual who wants Medicare Advantage will have to make up the difference to keep it; it will to away.

I've been able to pay for my own and my families insurance since leaving corporate employment in 1972. I had only one bad experience with a company, and I have to take my share of the blame for "being too busy" to practice due dilligence at time of purchase, and following the requirements clearly written - not in fine print - in the policy.

Edit: There are presently approximately 10-million enrollees in Medicare Advantage Plans. This is a large demographic for politicians to take into account. These people are also EDUCATED about their prospects and their situation. Too bad more of us aren't!

 

[DiamondDave]

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.

Healthcare is not life... healthcare is even further down on the list/rank of needs below things such as food and shelter.... do you have the right to those at someone else's expense too??

You have the freedom in this country to purchase anything else that anyone else can purchase... all you have to do is earn enough to pay for what you 'need' or want.... and that earning ability/achievement is part of your personal freedom... not some communal asset

 

[Care4all]

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.

Healthcare is not life... healthcare is even further down on the list/rank of needs below things such as food and shelter.... do you have the right to those at someone else's expense too??

You have the freedom in this country to purchase anything else that anyone else can purchase... all you have to do is earn enough to pay for what you 'need' or want.... and that earning ability/achievement is part of your personal freedom... not some communal asset

Our country has spent trillions the past CENTURY on foreign policy and domestic policy, including wars, that would make oil cheaper for us Americans and our industries...

WHY, is our gvt doing the SAME in making our health care cheaper... not a reasonable request or expectation of our government who is suppose to represent every single one of us?

i am not saying anything about supporting the reform plan out there....set that aside, but the question itself, standing alone...dave?

care

 

[Care4all]

I could and would pay for it on my own.

But i'm in MA so i can get a cheap taxpayer subsidized private plan if I want.

but Plymouth...pretend even the State governments did not get involved in health care and there would be no cheaper plan for you to buy....could you buy it at the $12,000 k for a family plan...it would probably be higher than that in massachusetts for a private family plan, but let's just use the $12k...could you or would you want to dish that out?

Care

 

[toomuchtime_]

I could and would pay for it on my own.

But i'm in MA so i can get a cheap taxpayer subsidized private plan if I want.

but Plymouth...pretend even the State governments did not get involved in health care and there would be no cheaper plan for you to buy....could you buy it at the $12,000 k for a family plan...it would probably be higher than that in massachusetts for a private family plan, but let's just use the $12k...could you or would you want to dish that out?

Care

It wouldn't be $12,000 a year. Company plans cover 80% to 90% of health care costs, and if people were shopping for their own plans instead of being forced to accept the company's plan, they would probably opt for catastrophic coverage only and pay routine costs out of pocket, and like auditor does now, they would shop around for low cost providers for routine services. If everyone bought their own health insurance in the individual market, insurance companies would be under market pressures to provide less expensive coverage and providers would be under market pressures to provide less expensive services. Company plans limit consumer choices and price competition, keeping health care costs higher than they would otherwise be.

 

[Care4all]

Here's another question for ya'll...and libs are gonna get mad at me, but I can't help buy analyze things from ALL angles, it is in my nature, so here goes....

Perhaps, health insurance plans, if the government were not involved, at all, in any, way shape or form....no deductions to your employer or you in any manner, no R & D help, no nuthin' from the gvt, Hospital and Doctor charges would not be so high and health insurance prices would not be the $12k a year per family because most people would not be able to or choose to pay that price out of their own pockets individually for it?

this seems logical, no?

The Market would and should adjust...how they do that is by lowering their price for the product as step one, (which I would have done for my business to grow or to meet sales plan), which would increase the demand audience, then step 2 would be figuring out how to get my cost of goods and overhead expenses and freight costs down, so I could achieve higher profit down the road....(You can't let the business die for the sake of being more profitable on what little you do sell, not if you know you have a sound business that just has a hiccup or two, like figuring out what price it is, that a lot of customers will pay)

So, is it possible, that doctors get paid more here, and nurses and med techs and therapists and Pharmacists, and hospitals and drug manufacturers because our government has been funding a great deal of the health care costs we have had, making it easier for the health care industry to have a maintained bubble in prices....due to not letting true market forces, (the customer and customer alone) determine the price?

I say all of this with great reservation, because it would be so complicated to get back to a free and uninvolved gvt health care system at this point, without a great deal of pain and perhaps many pawns who had no part in this mess in the first place, lives lost from such an action...

There are other factors as well...like the deregulation that allowed there to be monopolies of insurance companies in the 4 corners and middle of America...each one being dominant in each area of their own...

And if the market will not be allowed to work without gvt subsidies and tax incentives, which is supporting the prices to rise astronomically are we really certain the best involvement would be a single payer plan that we all can just buy from our gvt that cuts out all middle men costs and the fluff?

I dunno I dunno I dunno?

What got me thinking about this is that I have been arguing that the Cars for clunker gvt STIMULUS was successful in its goal.... this means there obviously is a cause and effect to what the gvt uses money for, right?

So in all that the gvt does with our tax moneys has to have some kind of cause and effect, no?

care

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I could and would pay for it on my own.

But i'm in MA so i can get a cheap taxpayer subsidized private plan if I want.

but Plymouth...pretend even the State governments did not get involved in health care and there would be no cheaper plan for you to buy....could you buy it at the $12,000 k for a family plan...it would probably be higher than that in massachusetts for a private family plan, but let's just use the $12k...could you or would you want to dish that out?

Care

I could possibly afford that but it would be very very tight. I wouldn't be able to do ANYTHING but pay my bills and buy food.

This is why i dont like HR3200, it supposes that by adding another insurer (public option) that the competition will drive down prices. In effect it will actually drive out private insurance and only leave me with one, potentially crappy, option.

THe only way i'd be for it is if the legislators write and pass a law requiring them and their families to be on the same public plan they offer to those who can't afford private insurance. Only then will I have faith that they would make it a decent plan.


EDIT: I forgot it is the Kennedy Health Care Bill now

 

[Care4all]

I could and would pay for it on my own.

But i'm in MA so i can get a cheap taxpayer subsidized private plan if I want.

but Plymouth...pretend even the State governments did not get involved in health care and there would be no cheaper plan for you to buy....could you buy it at the $12,000 k for a family plan...it would probably be higher than that in massachusetts for a private family plan, but let's just use the $12k...could you or would you want to dish that out?

Care

It wouldn't be $12,000 a year. Company plans cover 80% to 90% of health care costs, and if people were shopping for their own plans instead of being forced to accept the company's plan, they would probably opt for catastrophic coverage only and pay routine costs out of pocket, and like auditor does now, they would shop around for low cost providers for routine services. If everyone bought their own health insurance in the individual market, insurance companies would be under market pressures to provide less expensive coverage and providers would be under market pressures to provide less expensive services. Company plans limit consumer choices and price competition, keeping health care costs higher than they would otherwise be.

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

 

[toomuchtime_]

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.

Healthcare is not life... healthcare is even further down on the list/rank of needs below things such as food and shelter.... do you have the right to those at someone else's expense too??

You have the freedom in this country to purchase anything else that anyone else can purchase... all you have to do is earn enough to pay for what you 'need' or want.... and that earning ability/achievement is part of your personal freedom... not some communal asset

Our country has spent trillions the past CENTURY on foreign policy and domestic policy, including wars, that would make oil cheaper for us Americans and our industries...

WHY, is our gvt doing the SAME in making our health care cheaper... not a reasonable request or expectation of our government who is suppose to represent every single one of us?

i am not saying anything about supporting the reform plan out there....set that aside, but the question itself, standing alone...dave?

care

Our government, for the most part, is a collection of politicians who weigh each decision in terms of the possible political payoff it will bring to him/herself or to the Party, and these payoffs come almost exclusively, and certainly most reliably, from special interest groups. While nearly everyone would like to see health care costs go down, there is no special interest group that will reward a Congressperson or President for the slow, unglamorous work of encouraging research into how to get Americans to eat better and exercise more and then slogging his/her way through the minutiae of putting together programs and funding to implement these plans with campaign contributions and campaign workers, but there are special interest groups who will seek to punish a Congressperson who dares meddle in our eating habits.

There is good research that shows losing 7% of your body weight and exercising 150 minutes a week is nearly twice as effective as the best medications in preventing diabetes among pre diabetics and that regular exercise is as good or better at controlling moderate depression as anti depressants. When you consider all the billions of dollars that are spent on medications for diabetes and depression as well as the costs of all those doctor's visits and lab tests, it is staggering to realize that our government has not taken aggressive actions to get Americans to adopt better eating and exercise habits, but if you have not organized to show your Congresspersons or state representatives that you have the numbers and will to reward or punish him/her on behalf of issues like these, your opinions will be no more than background noise in any discussion of health care.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I'e been paying for my families health care needs for over 27 years and I've never had nor want health insurance.

 

[DiamondDave]

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.

Healthcare is not life... healthcare is even further down on the list/rank of needs below things such as food and shelter.... do you have the right to those at someone else's expense too??

You have the freedom in this country to purchase anything else that anyone else can purchase... all you have to do is earn enough to pay for what you 'need' or want.... and that earning ability/achievement is part of your personal freedom... not some communal asset

Our country has spent trillions the past CENTURY on foreign policy and domestic policy, including wars, that would make oil cheaper for us Americans and our industries...

WHY, is our gvt doing the SAME in making our health care cheaper... not a reasonable request or expectation of our government who is suppose to represent every single one of us?

i am not saying anything about supporting the reform plan out there....set that aside, but the question itself, standing alone...dave?

care

1) Our personal care is our personal responsibility
2) National defense is an actual charge of the federal government
3) Representing does not mean cradle to grave care
4) I do disagree with many things that the fed spends money on that is not a responsibility of the federal government, including handing out tons of $$ in foreign policy 'gifts'

 

[toomuchtime_]

but Plymouth...pretend even the State governments did not get involved in health care and there would be no cheaper plan for you to buy....could you buy it at the $12,000 k for a family plan...it would probably be higher than that in massachusetts for a private family plan, but let's just use the $12k...could you or would you want to dish that out?

Care

It wouldn't be $12,000 a year. Company plans cover 80% to 90% of health care costs, and if people were shopping for their own plans instead of being forced to accept the company's plan, they would probably opt for catastrophic coverage only and pay routine costs out of pocket, and like auditor does now, they would shop around for low cost providers for routine services. If everyone bought their own health insurance in the individual market, insurance companies would be under market pressures to provide less expensive coverage and providers would be under market pressures to provide less expensive services. Company plans limit consumer choices and price competition, keeping health care costs higher than they would otherwise be.

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.

 

[Care4all]

It wouldn't be $12,000 a year. Company plans cover 80% to 90% of health care costs, and if people were shopping for their own plans instead of being forced to accept the company's plan, they would probably opt for catastrophic coverage only and pay routine costs out of pocket, and like auditor does now, they would shop around for low cost providers for routine services. If everyone bought their own health insurance in the individual market, insurance companies would be under market pressures to provide less expensive coverage and providers would be under market pressures to provide less expensive services. Company plans limit consumer choices and price competition, keeping health care costs higher than they would otherwise be.

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