Incompatible goals...

[chernmax (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

Has anyone asked this of a lefty, yet?

"If you get the 'public option' and start to cut into the profits of insurance companies, what happens to the people they fire when they start to cut costs to deal with the loss of income?"

I mean, the issue to independents, to most people, actually, is jobs, jobs, jobs. Socialized medicine designed to cut costs WILL cost jobs. It just will.

They'll be rehired by big government to help remove the rails before the Government healthcare train goes over the mountain!

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by chernmax

They'll be rehired by big government to help remove the rails before the Government healthcare train goes over the mountain!

I would like to at least get them on record as having said that.

[Alexa]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

Has anyone asked this of a lefty, yet?

"If you get the 'public option' and start to cut into the profits of insurance companies, what happens to the people they fire when they start to cut costs to deal with the loss of income?"

I mean, the issue to independents, to most people, actually, is jobs, jobs, jobs. Socialized medicine designed to cut costs WILL cost jobs. It just will.

I would counter with why it is your so sure that the insurance companies would go under. Other countries have a public and private options also. The insurance companies are doing fine. I would point you to the German model as a case study. If the model is followed, then insurance companies will be just fine.

As to jobs, it weighs on everyone's mind no matter what party affiliation. The scrutiny needs to be put to overall industries that have outsourced American jobs to other countries. Innovation, something this country use to be great at, is something we need to move back to.

Change is something that is inevitable and jobs will be lost. we can't hold ourselves back from progress. We just need to be conscious of it and work to ensure that our country men are covered, be it training for a new line of work or another job in which skills can be put to good use.

I liked the idea and it made sense when we were told that green technology would bring many unemployed back to the work force. Factories were going to be converted for the projects. Rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure seems to have gone out to the wayside also. I am very dismayed that it hasn't happened yet. The sense of urgency seems to be missing from government overall when it comes to main street America. The stimulus would be great for that. The money will have to be spent anyway if we are to keep our infrastructure going and updated.

[Alexa]

Originally Posted by kwillia

On a side note, I received an EOB from my insurance company for routine lab work done during a physical. The lab charged $205.00 total. The insurance company paid the "agreed to" amount for each line item which ended up totaling $48 and some odd change. The EOB said "patient was not responsible to cover the difference".

Now here's the deal... if I didn't have insurance, I'd be completely responsible for paying the full $205. If the lab can afford to do it for "$48" as they agreed they could with the insurance company, then why the hell are they charging uninsured Joe-Schmo $205 for the same work?

It is the same reason you spend ten dollars on one Tylenol in a hospital that you can buy at the corner drug store cents. It's ridiculous.

[PsyOps]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

Has anyone asked this of a lefty, yet?

"If you get the 'public option' and start to cut into the profits of insurance companies, what happens to the people they fire when they start to cut costs to deal with the loss of income?"

I mean, the issue to independents, to most people, actually, is jobs, jobs, jobs. Socialized medicine designed to cut costs WILL cost jobs. It just will.

Where did you ever get the idea they care about jobs? The only way they can make their agenda work is for people to be out of work, desperate, and have no choice but to look to the government to fix their problem.

Remember: "Never let a crisis go to waste".

But first they must create a crisis.

[PsyOps]

Originally Posted by Alexa

I would counter with why it is your so sure that the insurance companies would go under. Other countries have a public and private options also. The insurance companies are doing fine. I would point you to the German model as a case study. If the model is followed, then insurance companies will be just fine.

Okay. So you’re an employer. Your employees are paying $200 per month and you are matching that at $200 per employee for health insurance. You have 50 employees. Suddenly the government comes along and says “Hey Alexa, you can stop paying that supplement we are able to cover it now. Besides, as a business owner your taxes are going up by 10% to cover the 'Public Option', so it would be destroy your profit margin to have to keep paying that premium as well as have to take on a higher tax rate.” So, you (the employer), in an effort to save $120,000 per year, on the next round of benefits renewals, announce to your employees that you are no longer providing healthcare insurance and that your employees will have to pay out-of-pocket or go on the “Public Option”. In the mean time, the 10% hike in taxes is far more than you can afford to keep 50 employees so you have to lay off 10 of your employees.

Couple this with workers whose company keeps their insurance benefits, but most of those employees realize they can better afford the "Public Option" than pay $200 per month, so they jump off the private insurance to save money.

Now tell me what employer wouldn’t do this? Are you telling me this wont result in insurance companies going out of business? Loss of jobs? Plus the jobs lost due to small businesses having their taxes hiked due to the "Public Option". I mean the math is pretty simple if you ask me.

[cwo_ghwebb]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

Okay. So you’re an employer. Your employees are paying $200 per month and you are matching that at $200 per employee for health insurance. You have 50 employees. Suddenly the government comes along and says “Hey Alexa, you can stop paying that supplement we are able to cover it now. Besides, as a business owner your taxes are going up by 10% to cover the 'Public Option', so it would be destroy your profit margin to have to keep paying that premium as well as have to take on a higher tax rate.” So, you (the employer), in an effort to save $120,000 per year, on the next round of benefits renewals, announce to your employees that you are no longer providing healthcare insurance and that your employees will have to pay out-of-pocket or go on the “Public Option”. In the mean time, the 10% hike in taxes is far more than you can afford to keep 50 employees so you have to lay off 10 of your employees.

Couple this with workers whose company keeps their insurance benefits, but most of those employees realize they can better afford the "Public Option" than pay $200 per month, so they jump off the private insurance to save money.

Now tell me what employer wouldn’t do this? Are you telling me this wont result in insurance companies going out of business? Loss of jobs? Plus the jobs lost due to small businesses having their taxes hiked due to the "Public Option". I mean the math is pretty simple if you ask me.

Good post. Most here already understood those facts, having actually worked and paid into various systems. I wouldn't have taken the time to lead the ignorant around by the nose. It seems to be needed lately for those blindly trying to defend the indefensible.

I can't remember whose signature this was, but it's so true now: "Common sense isn't so common".

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

Where did you ever get the idea they care about jobs? The only way they can make their agenda work is for people to be out of work, desperate, and have no choice but to look to the government to fix their problem.

Remember: "Never let a crisis go to waste".

But first they must create a crisis.

There is no requirement to be a mind reader to point out the flaws in someones argument. On the contrary, I don't have to do any thinking for Obama or Nancy, at all. I don't have to look into their hearts, analyze their friends, examine their DNA or read their diaries.

All I have to do is look at what they argue for and debate on those merits. All they have to do is argue back with me on the same grounds; common sense and logic.

What you say may be 100% true but, it is not as provable or knowable as debating the ideas themselves. We do far too much worrying about peoples true, deep motives, what's in their heart, looking into their eyes, and far too little arguing of the merits themselves and that is why, I think, our politics have become so acrimonious, angry and frustrating; we make it personal, we don't debate the merits enough.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Alexa

I would counter with why it is your so sure that the insurance companies would go under.

Why would I argue that the goal of the left, their stated goal, of getting rid of private insurance, would work via their policies? Is that what you are asking me?

Well, you got me there.

[bcp (Premo)]

Couple thoughts here.
1)
is it possible that as the socialist plan grows, those numbers that are lost from the current insurance payrolls will be needed to fill positions created by the new plan? Maybe they figure that the loss in jobs in one industry, will be offset by government jobs.
If so, we are trading private run jobs for government dependency, and its also very possible that this could create a shift in the demographics of the work force in that industry.
Trading jobs if you will.

2)
In response to Kwillas question about the cost of care. Although, I do not have an answer to the question as to why you pay 10 bucks for that aspirin, I did have the opportunity to speak with someone a while back that was very adamant about this issue.
He was a landscaping customer of mine when I had the business, He was a federal judge that had been appointed by Clinton in the early days. His concern, or more like ire over the subject was that the insurance companies were able to negotiate the payments, but the single individual paying on their own did not have that power to do so. I do know that at the time he was very interested in why, and what could be done to fix the issue. Not really enough room here to go into the whole conversation, but in short, it has to do with the insurance companies size and ability to force the hospitals/doctors to be more realistic.
The over charging is in part due to the number of unpaid patients that go through the system.
If that is true, then it is possible that by having everyone insured, there will be no shifting of cost to others to cover the uninsured.

3)
why do we think the insurance companies will go under?
Why did GM go under? Toyota's advertising lead people to believe that the cars they were building were far superior to the American counter parts, (I've owned both and honestly cant say that one is better than the other)
While GM tried to play by the rules and keep as many jobs as the could in the states, companies like Ford moved more and more into Mexico where they could avoid the union pay scale. Toyota and the rest used pre made parts from their own countries, they avoided union pay in the production of the components.

If the same basic principal holds for the insurance companies, then it is likely that they will fail when they can not compete with the governments plan to run the issue without profit.
Even with an option, people are NOT going to be able to afford to pay the new taxes/fees that will be mandatory deductions from their pay, and still pay for their own insurance, so the idea that you have a choice is going to end up only for the rich.
Insurance companies will see profits drop sharply as the government encroaches on their business.

of course when they fail, it will be due to poor management, will have nothing to do with the governments monopoly of the industry.