Incompatible goals...

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by bcp

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.

If you are a socialist, that wouldn't just be possible, that would be the goal.

The critical thing that MUST be understood to grasp what we're really talking about here is the fundamental difference between government and free market. The government has ZERO requirement to earn business and all the efficiencies and innovations and shear effort that go into making a private enterprise go.

This segues into your judge and his concerns; monopoly.

[twinoaks207 (Premo)]

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.

My employer has already stated that this will happen when the Health Care bill public option takes place. This will impact about 10,000 workers.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by bcp

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.

The individual has ALL the power in the world to walk into Target or WalMart or the local shop or on line or what have you. And all the power in the world to walk right back out.

Now, imagine if there was ONLY WalMart or only Target or only the local shop or only ONE outlet on line; monopoly.

Insurance companies build a business and, as part of that business, get help within their state to limit and/or eliminate competition. That's what your judge was trying to figure out, why the consumer is so powerless.

We've already established why government insurance is not the solution.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by bcp

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.

I can only assume you haven't been paying attention. Anthony Weiner of NY has gone on record, publicly, that that is absolutely the goal, to eliminate private insurance.

[bcp (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

I can only assume you haven't been paying attention. Anthony Weiner of NY has gone on record, publicly, that that is absolutely the goal, to eliminate private insurance.

I've been paying attention, believe me.
The only thing I can say about Weiner is that he is at least honest about what he desires to see in the future of insurance.
Others however, like to pretend that this plan is nothing more than the government creating another insurance "company" that will have greater ability to negotiate payment due to its size.

I see a major failure.

And, most employers that provide insurance, consider the cost as part of the workers salary, or more accurately, the cost to employ a worker.
When that company drops is coverage for workers, do you think that the company is going to raise the pay of those workers, or is it going to pocket as much as it can to try and offset its new taxes?
This is going to leave the worker with the same pay, but a new extremely expensive payment each month to cover their own insurance.

you think the bad loans make over the last 20 years caused a financial crisis? just wait till you see the number of foreclosures as people have to decide on health care or mortgage payments.

Im already trying to figure out how I going to do it when all this hits. Only thing I can figure is that, if its as bad as I suspect it will be, my hope for retirement is gone, Ill need to use my retirement fund to supplement my living expenses.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by bcp

I've been paying attention, believe me.
The only thing I can say about Weiner is that he is at least honest about what he desires to see in the future of insurance.
Others however, like to pretend that this plan is nothing more than the government creating another insurance "company" that will have greater ability to negotiate payment due to its size.

Yup. I credit Weiner for being honest. However, 'others' can pretend all they like but, the long standing battle cry over health care ha been grounded on one simple idea; government provided health care for all.

Period.

The story of the last two years is part that, as the goal, and part the opposite, the GOP damn near failing, completely, to make that clear.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by bcp

I see a major failure.

And, most employers that provide insurance, consider the cost as part of the workers salary, or more accurately, the cost to employ a worker.
When that company drops is coverage for workers, do you think that the company is going to raise the pay of those workers, or is it going to pocket as much as it can to try and offset its new taxes?
This is going to leave the worker with the same pay, but a new extremely expensive payment each month to cover their own insurance.

I PROMISE you, just as soon as Obama care is available, I WILL drop coverage for my people. I don't wanna pay for their groceries. I don't wanna pay them for their beer or cloths or rent or insurance. I wanna pay them for the work they do and let them go d as they see fit with THEIR money.

The ONLY way a free market works is if you, me, my people, whomever, is in direct commerce with the seller of good and providers of services.

[bcp (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

I PROMISE you, just as soon as Obama care is available, I WILL drop coverage for my people. I don't wanna pay for their groceries. I don't wanna pay them for their beer or cloths or rent or insurance. I wanna pay them for the work they do and let them go d as they see fit with THEIR money.

The ONLY way a free market works is if you, me, my people, whomever, is in direct commerce with the seller of good and providers of services.

Having run a business, I cant blame you, I would do the same.
But, do you now consider the cost of their health care package as part of the equation when it comes to having that employee?

And I assume that I am correct in my guessing that their pay wont be going up to offset your savings. actually, you still might not realize any savings once the taxes hit you.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by bcp

Having run a business, I cant blame you, I would do the same.
But, do you now consider the cost of their health care package as part of the equation when it comes to having that employee? ABSOLUTELY. Along with FUI, SUI and my 'share' of their payroll taxes

And I assume that I am correct in my guessing that their pay wont be going up to offset your savings. actually, you still might not realize any savings once the taxes hit you.

I am good to my folks. I'll give them what I am paying now. In fact, I offer people more per hour if they opt out of me covering them. Thing is, I am small low turnover. The people that need to be being held up as THE WAY is Safeway and neither party wants to talk about them, at all.

They are doing it right.

[ImnoMensa]

Does anyone who works for the Government now and has their insurance subsidised , really believe that if that government has it's own insurance, that they will continue to subsidise your policy with a private company.

If you do you are crazy.

When the Government institutes their own policies, you as a government employee will be on that policy. you can bet your ass on that one.

The Government option will be the only option, count on it.