So Where’s The Health Care Plan Already?
July 10th, 2009, 3:45 PM EDT
Conservative Democrats are holding up the works. Just as House Democrats were due to release a plan, they came forth with a list of demands.
The group’s concerns were the need for more cost containment measures, protections for small businesses and a focus on rural health care.
“We cannot support a final product that fails to” address these issues, members of the group wrote to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer. Opposition from the 52-member group could imperil House passage of a bill.
The blue dogs don’t want businesses to be required to provide health care or risk penalties. Much still has to be worked out. But why did this one block of Democrats wait until the last minute to get in the way?
Dang those DINOs!
July 10th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Because, unlike liberal democrats, they still believe in the marketplace and the fact that business is taxed enough and should not have the all powerful government inflict penalties on them if they don’t run their business as the all powerful government wants them to.
Since when does the government know how to run a business?
blissfulconservative Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
The government DOESN’T know how to run a business. That’s why their business, the federal government is constantly borrowing money to fund a business plan that doesn’t work.
Rocky the Liberal Rottweiler Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
Corporations are full of morons who couldn’t business plan their way out of a gay bathhouse–and their only skill is in demanding that the peasants bend over and take it up the backhoe yet again.
And the reason government is constantly running at a loss is republikkkans can’t spent fast enough on killing and war, and meanwhile the rest of the country is paying for the bottomless black pit known as the rural South.
blissfulconservative Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
You mean some of the poorest of the poor that you claim Republicans don’t care about but democrats do?
Rocky the Liberal Rottweiler Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
I mean Louisiana and West Virginia and Alabama and the Carolinas and how they suck money out of the federal treasury like the bloodsuckers they are.
Um Cara Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
You mean some of the poorest of the poor that you claim Republicans don’t care about but democrats do?
In fairness, Rocky has never claimed to care about anyone but herself.
RDM Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
Democrats brains swell as they get older, and the pressure of the brain against the skull causes Democrats to snap.
I thought this was just Urban Legend, guess not.
Um Cara Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
Democrats brains swell as they get older, and the pressure of the brain against the skull causes Democrats to snap.
So you are suggesting that Republican’s skulls have more empty space in them than Democrats?
RDM Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
Um…
Nope, but I do wonder; Can an atheist get insurance against acts of god?
EricG Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
“The government DOESN’T know how to run a business. That’s why their business, the federal government is constantly borrowing money to fund a business plan that doesn’t work”
A plan that doesn’t work like the Iraq War and the Afghan War. Those plans?
Funny how all conservatives hate the government running anything, until we start talking about the military. As if the military is run by some seperate agent from the government.
If you love the troops, you love your Congress. I know it burns, but the truth often does.
RDM Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Sadly the troops fear our Congress more than the enemy.
Kregg Reply:
July 11th, 2009 at 10:10 am
The Eric said: Funny how all conservatives hate the government running anything, until we start talking about the military.
K: Funny how running the military is one of the few constitutionally mandated jobs of the govt…
EricG Reply:
July 11th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
RDM – “Sadly the troops fear our Congress more than the enemy.”
You just called the troops cowards who are afraid of a bunch of suits. Real cool, man.
Kregg – “Funny how running the military is one of the few constitutionally mandated jobs of the govt…”
Doesn’t change a damn thing about my point that if the streets don’t run red with the blood of the latest ‘enemy’ then cons are not interested and if we actually help Americans and help the families of this nation with our government … the cons want to stop that right away.
Basically, what I gather is that conservatives want to kill people with the govt and let our country burn down in the process.
Lee Reply:
July 11th, 2009 at 8:53 am
Providing Healthcare should not be a ‘business’. It should be a ’service’ just like the post office which is as mentioned something ran very well by the government.
I truly believe that many years from now, people will look back on the selfish resistance to universal healthcare by predominantly conservatives, and liken them to the dinosaurs who opposed women’s suffrage or the civil rights movement.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
July 11th, 2009 at 9:16 am
I predict that when the boomers start getting into their 80’s everyone under the age of 50 will start bemoaning the idiots who thought that a single payer system or govt. insurance plan would be so great…I mean they had to know that eventually it would be insolvent and health care would regress….they had to of known right???? right???
Lee, I think some aspects of health care can be considered a service…like emergency and ambulance service (and I’m not opposed to government providing services like these)…but a huge section of “healthcare” in the United states consists of lifestyle pharmaceuticals, unneccesary non-critical surgery, etc…that should not be served by the average taxpayer.
If the US govt. decided to pay for one regular check up per year for every single person in the country it would cost 30 billion dollars a year.
Just to provide the yearly demand of ED drugs it would cost the US taxpayer about a billion dollars a year and that number will only grow as the boomer population gets older and more impotent.
All of these are market based and should be served by the market.
If we want better healthcare, we need to figure out a way for our hospitals and clinics to stop operating like factories, and that will only get worse as we socialize medicine.
Lee Reply:
July 11th, 2009 at 9:32 am
Guido,
UH systems are proven to be much more cost-effective and have been running successfully for over 50 years..
“If the US govt. decided to pay for one regular check up per year for every single person in the country it would cost 30 billion dollars a year.”
This kind of statement which is popular by the UH opponents is really quite absurd. You hear stuff like this and statements like ‘we don’t have enough doctors/nurses to go around’ and it really exhibits the unfounded fear, selfishness and myopic thinking of those against UH.
Firstly, for goodness sake, take a look at the current cost model of our system and compare it to just about any other western healthcare model. Our cost model sucks big time and if you want to refer to it as a ‘business’, we the healthcare consumer get a very poor return for what we pay.
Then there is the cost of the uninsured that we pay for anyway when they goto expensive ER’s because they don’t have the insurance to goto a regular clinic. Be aware that its a double whammy as when you are insured, healthcare providers actually charge a negotiated rate whereas the uninsured are charged the ‘full rate’.
Again, this argument that we don’t have enough healthcare resources to basically allow the poor to access as well is just beyond selfish.
The reality is that the majority of those insured would have to wait a little longer, particular for non-essential procedures. If you are rich, you would still be able to pay to skip the line. But at least everyone would now be able to join that line and maybe just maybe we could bring our citizens overall health and average lifespan up to where it should be.
Kregg Reply:
July 11th, 2009 at 9:44 am
Guido opines: “If the US govt. decided to pay for one regular check up per year for every single person in the country it would cost 30 billion dollars a year.”
Lee says: This kind of statement which is popular by the UH opponents is really quite absurd. You hear stuff like this and statements like ‘we don’t have enough doctors/nurses to go around’ and it really exhibits the unfounded fear, selfishness and myopic thinking of those against UH.
K: Lee, are you refuting Guido’s assertion that an annual govt paid check-up for everyone would cost $30,000,000,000? You didn’t address his comment.
Lee Reply:
July 11th, 2009 at 9:52 am
Kregg,
“K: Lee, are you refuting Guido’s assertion that an annual govt paid check-up for everyone would cost $30,000,000,000? You didn’t address his comment.”
No, although I’m skeptical of where that number comes from, it isn’t really relevant. The point is that for people like me this is a basic human need like water or air whereas people like you, Guido and other conservatives believe it’s not a right/basic need etc and should be paid/for distributed akin to Cable TV or a phone service etc
Kregg Reply:
July 11th, 2009 at 9:58 am
Lee said: No, although I’m skeptical of where that number comes from, it isn’t really relevant. The point is that for people like me this is a basic human need like water or air whereas people like you, Guido and other conservatives believe it’s not a right/basic need etc and should be paid/for distributed akin to Cable TV or a phone service etc
K: From what authority do you derive the belief that someone else paying for your healthcare is a right?
Lee Reply:
July 11th, 2009 at 10:42 am
“K: From what authority do you derive the belief that someone else paying for your healthcare is a right?”
Kregg, this is one of those pointless debates where you will opine that the ‘constitution’ and the bill of rights makes no such claim , blah blah blah..
The counter argument is that its part of the ‘welfare clause’ not to mention countless other treaties that we’ve signed that per the constitution have equal legal weight with those rights enshrined in the constitution.
However, that aside (and I’m not enthused to get into another round of that debate). I think it comes down to a more fundamental question of what we should consider ‘human rights’ and how in this country we treat/look after our fellow man.
I think this is a personal question that is answered by how you as an individual look at the world around you. As such, its very difficult to prove ‘who is right’.
Kregg Reply:
July 11th, 2009 at 10:53 am
Lee said: Kregg, this is one of those pointless debates where you will opine that the ‘constitution’ and the bill of rights makes no such claim , blah blah blah..
K: Lee, I have no such interest in invoking the constitution. I am simply curious about how you come to the conclusion that it is ‘right’ to take MY money to pay for YOUR healthcare.
L: However, that aside (and I’m not enthused to get into another round of that debate). I think it comes down to a more fundamental question of what we should consider ‘human rights’ and how in this country we treat/look after our fellow man.
K: I am coming to the conclusion that most of the folks on this board that support universal healthcare are those who will benefit from it and will not suffer the cost of receiving it. Its a great deal for those who will add to their benefits at the expense of another’s hard work but, IMO, extremely selfish.
L: I think this is a personal question that is answered by how you as an individual look at the world around you. As such, its very difficult to prove ‘who is right’.
K: Would you still support universal healthcare if you were an employer and were faced with bankrupting increases in your operations cost to pay for your employee’s health insurance?
Lee Reply:
July 11th, 2009 at 11:09 am
Kregg,
“K: I am coming to the conclusion that most of the folks on this board that support universal healthcare are those who will benefit from it and will not suffer the cost of receiving it. Its a great deal for those who will add to their benefits at the expense of another’s hard work but, IMO, extremely selfish.”
For what its worth, if I supported policies purely on the basis of whats good for ‘me’ and ‘my’ family. I’d be a staunch Republican since I have very good health insurance and will be significantly hit by income tax increases.. So you swung and miss there..
I have a social conscience which is a large part in forming my political positions versus ‘whats in it for me’.
“K: Would you still support universal healthcare if you were an employer and were faced with bankrupting increases in your operations cost to pay for your employee’s health insurance?”
Thats a silly hypothetical. Employer’s shouldn’t be burdened with employee healthcare, period. It’s a very backward, inefficient, uncompetitive and broken method of funding healthcare.
However, often to obtain a long-term goal, there are short-term sacrifices that need to be made, but its an impossible question to answer without a real versus contrived scenario.
Kregg Reply:
July 11th, 2009 at 11:21 am
Lee said: For what its worth, if I supported policies purely on the basis of whats good for ‘me’ and ‘my’ family. I’d be a staunch Republican since I have very good health insurance and will be significantly hit by income tax increases.. So you swung and miss there..
K: I wasn’t swinging at you. It was a statement of my conclusions after watching this board on this subject.
L: I have a social conscience which is a large part in forming my political positions versus ‘whats in it for me’.
K: What principle of social conscience enables you to advocate taking away that which is earned by one and giving it to another who has not earned it?
“K: Would you still support universal healthcare if you were an employer and were faced with bankrupting increases in your operations cost to pay for your employee’s health insurance?”
L: Thats a silly hypothetical. Employer’s shouldn’t be burdened with employee healthcare, period. It’s a very backward, inefficient, uncompetitive and broken method of funding healthcare.
K: Its not silly and its not hypothetical. If I”m required to cover the cost of my employees’ health insurance I’ll go bankrupt. If I am required to pay into some insurance pool for universal govt coverage I will go bankrupt.
L: However, often to obtain a long-term goal, there are short-term sacrifices that need to be made, but its an impossible question to answer without a real versus contrived scenario.
K: You are essentially admitting your indifference toward the thousands of small businesses in this country that will go bankrupt so you can gain your ‘long-term goal’. What moral right do you fee you have to inflict ruin on all of those people so you can assuage your ’social conscience’?
Lee Reply:
July 11th, 2009 at 11:41 am
“K: What principle of social conscience enables you to advocate taking away that which is earned by one and giving it to another who has not earned it?”
Sometimes, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
“K: Its not silly and its not hypothetical. If I”m required to cover the cost of my employees’ health insurance I’ll go bankrupt. If I am required to pay into some insurance pool for universal govt coverage I will go bankrupt.”
I have no idea if you’re a business owner or what type of business, what your margins are etc. Since I’m sure you haven’t been even asked to cover your employees costs yet (and therefore don’t know what they would be), I’m not prepared to take ‘your word’ that you would be bankrupt, although thats not meant to be an insult btw.
“K: You are essentially admitting your indifference toward the thousands of small businesses in this country that will go bankrupt so you can gain your ‘long-term goal’. What moral right do you fee you have to inflict ruin on all of those people so you can assuage your ’social conscience’?”
No, I’m not admitting indifference at all. Firstly, I don’t accept your baseless, fearmongering conclusion about all these so-called bankruptcies anyway. What I was trying to point out though is that if by some chance you were right (and I don’t believe you are) then we need to weigh up the loss versus the medium-long term gain for the nation to see if its worth it.
Again, sometimes you have to consider whats good for the state, nation (and even world) versus simply whats good for you. It’s also known as looking at the ‘big picture’.
EricG Reply:
July 11th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
“I truly believe that many years from now, people will look back on the selfish resistance to universal healthcare by predominantly conservatives, and liken them to the dinosaurs who opposed women’s suffrage or the civil rights movement.”
Well said, Lee. I tend the think the same of just about all these modern political issues that conservatives whine about.
Gay-marriage, health care, detainee policy, and media bias / slander.
The whole bag.
TDro319 Reply:
July 11th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
K: “am coming to the conclusion that most of the folks on this board that support universal healthcare are those who will benefit from it”
TD: That’s quite an assumption on your part, Kregg. I have very good healthcare coverage and don’t need your money.
Perhaps it’s because good people realize that there are many others who desperately need, but can’t afford good healthcare coverage and feel they should be entitled to the same great care regardless of whether they can afford it or not.
Lucky for us, slefish misers are in the minority these days
Kregg Reply:
July 11th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
“K prv: What principle of social conscience enables you to advocate taking away that which is earned by one and giving it to another who has not earned it?”
L: Sometimes, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
K: In reality, there are about 9,000,000 that are UNABLE or UNQUALIFIED to be insured – a much smaller number than being bandied about. To completely upset a health care system that is still the best in the world for such a small number of people is ridiculous. This is a case of the ‘needs’ of the few being given precedence over the good of the many.
L: I have no idea if you’re a business owner or what type of business, what your margins are etc. Since I’m sure you haven’t been even asked to cover your employees costs yet (and therefore don’t know what they would be), I’m not prepared to take ‘your word’ that you would be bankrupt, although thats not meant to be an insult btw.
K: Lee, you’re not important enough to me to lie to. I have stated a truth on all parts based on currently known insurance costs. We know these will rise. They will bankrupt me – and thousands of other small companies that work on small profit margins.
“K prv:: You are essentially admitting your indifference toward the thousands of small businesses in this country that will go bankrupt so you can gain your ‘long-term goal’. What moral right do you fee you have to inflict ruin on all of those people so you can assuage your ’social conscience’?”
L: No, I’m not admitting indifference at all. Firstly, I don’t accept your baseless, fearmongering conclusion about all these so-called bankruptcies anyway. What I was trying to point out though is that if by some chance you were right (and I don’t believe you are) then we need to weigh up the loss versus the medium-long term gain for the nation to see if its worth it.
K: In short, if you are willing to support an upheaval of the health care system with a giant transfer of cost to employers just so you can get a few people covered you do so with indifference to the continued viability of small business who, with a few calculator strokes, can show you how they’d go bankrupt.
L: Again, sometimes you have to consider whats good for the state, nation (and even world) versus simply whats good for you. It’s also known as looking at the ‘big picture’.
K: Its not just me, Lee. Small business drives this nation’s economy. You put small business at risk by such a socialist move, and by so doing you risk the continued success of this nation.
Kregg Reply:
July 11th, 2009 at 7:58 pm
TD said: Perhaps it’s because good people realize that there are many others who desperately need, but can’t afford good healthcare coverage and feel they should be entitled to the same great care regardless of whether they can afford it or not.
K: There are other ways to cover the approximately 9 million people who REALLY need access to health insurance than to bankrupt small business.
T: Lucky for us, slefish misers are in the minority these days
K: Interesting that you – who will risk nothing in this transaction – are making value judgments that I am ’selfish’ simply because I don’t want to be paying for you and your crony’s free health insurance because doing so could easily cost me my business and all I”ve worked for for 26 years.
Kregg Reply:
July 11th, 2009 at 8:06 pm
Eric said: “I truly believe that many years from now, people will look back on the selfish resistance to universal healthcare by predominantly conservatives, and liken them to the dinosaurs who opposed women’s suffrage or the civil rights movement.”
K: Eric, put your money where your very large mouth is and go borrow every dollar you can to start your own business. Work at that business day and night and day and night and day and night until you finally start to make a profit providing a valued product or service to your community and then let people like Lee and TD tell you that for the good of some people who need insurance that YOUR profit and earnings will be taken from you by govt fiat and given to them to pay for insurance. (Note: It won’t be Lee’s money and it won’t be TD’s money because they aren’t at risk for paying the tab like you will be.)
K: When you’ve actually done something with your life other than take up space on a blog while eating someone else’s food and living in someone else’s house, and attending school on the public nickel, you come back to me and we’ll discuss life and the reality of the govt taking your hard earned wealth and giving it to someone else who has done nothing in their life to deserve it. I’ll wait…
Um Cara Reply:
July 11th, 2009 at 8:16 pm
They will bankrupt me – and thousands of other small companies that work on small profit margins.
Your competitors would be operating under the same rules as you, you and your competitors will have to either raise costs, or increase efficiency.
If your business is not sufficiently efficient to survive, it should fail, right? Isn’t that what you have been arguing w/ regards to the banks and car companies getting bailouts?
Um Cara Reply:
July 11th, 2009 at 8:18 pm
Note: It won’t be Lee’s money and it won’t be TD’s money because they aren’t at risk for paying the tab like you will be.
Lee and TD don’t consume goods and services? Of course they would be paying the tab, unless they are living off the land or something.
Lee Reply:
July 11th, 2009 at 9:00 pm
“K: In reality, there are about 9,000,000 that are UNABLE or UNQUALIFIED to be insured – a much smaller number than being bandied about. To completely upset a health care system that is still the best in the world for such a small number of people is ridiculous. This is a case of the ‘needs’ of the few being given precedence over the good of the many.”
Kregg, firstly while 46 million does indeed include people like illegal aliens, folks who should be on schip etc, the real figure isn’t 9 million either and its disingenuous to imply the ones you’ve dismissed are ‘fully insured’. In short, this is not fact but ’spin’.
Then referring to our system ‘that is still the best in the world’ is more patriotic than realistic. Look at lifespans.. Look at cost efficiency, Look at bureaucracy in getting the care you need (and please don’t let this degenerate into the cancer survivability debate).
We actually have one of the worst systems in the Western world because of the way we let profit get in the way of delivering what people need.
Also, the problem with our healthcare system is not just the uninsured but the bigger problem is the way the supposedly ‘insured’ get played by our system. In summary our system gives most of the power to the insurance company/healthcare providers and virtually no power to the patient.
That’s ‘the best system in the world’.
In truth, it needs serious reform..
“K: Lee, you’re not important enough to me to lie to. I have stated a truth on all parts based on currently known insurance costs. We know these will rise. They will bankrupt me – and thousands of other small companies that work on small profit margins”
I don’t mean to be crass but if your business cannot cope with an unexpected rise in costs then maybe you need to revisit the business model and cut costs elsewhere or maybe raise consumer prices as your competition will be equally affected.
Anyway, my point is although I’m not accusing you of ‘lying’, I am skeptical that you have been open-minded about the ramifications.
All that stated, if the plan _really_ would ‘bankrupt’ small businesses on the scale you imply, then it indeed needs to go back to the drawing board since it would be self-defeating. I don’t think any rational person would argue otherwise.
However, I don’t believe everyone on Capitol Hill and in the WH is an idiot. So if the eventual healthcare bill does pass, my belief is your doomsday small business scenario is simply false and vastly exagerrated.
Kregg Reply:
July 12th, 2009 at 2:42 am
Um said: Your competitors would be operating under the same rules as you, you and your competitors will have to either raise costs, or increase efficiency.
K: There are at least two fallacies to that argument, Um. 1. Those of us who sell services to the government do not set our price – the govt does. In 25 years of operation the govt has NEVER met even the actual cost of living increases each year let alone the years that the minimum wage goes up. 2. In a mature business such as mine (25 years running) there are no additional ‘efficiencies’ to bring about. Labor has costs, food has costs, etc., that do not change because of some new ‘efficiency’. So, again, when I tell you that an employer paid health insurance is mandated I will absorb the costs of such a program – and doing so will bankrupt me. The only cost efficiency I can effect is to lay off an employee. I just hope it is one that was stupid enough to vote for universal health coverage…
U: If your business is not sufficiently efficient to survive, it should fail, right?
K: In an open and free market economy it IS efficient enough to survive. When that economy is devastated by social engineering in the form of mandated employer paid health insurance all bets are off.
U: Isn’t that what you have been arguing w/ regards to the banks and car companies getting bailouts?
K: If I fail on my own – so be it. If I fail because of govt mandated employer paid insurance its NOT what I’ve been arguing. If I DO go bankrupt I will lay off 27 employees and take $500,000 in annual payroll out of the system and you guys can pay them welfare…
Kregg Reply:
July 12th, 2009 at 3:15 am
“K prv: In reality, there are about 9,000,000 that are UNABLE or UNQUALIFIED to be insured – a much smaller number than being bandied about. To completely upset a health care system that is still the best in the world for such a small number of people is ridiculous. This is a case of the ‘needs’ of the few being given precedence over the good of the many.”
Lee said: Kregg, firstly while 46 million does indeed include people like illegal aliens, folks who should be on schip etc, the real figure isn’t 9 million either and its disingenuous to imply the ones you’ve dismissed are ‘fully insured’. In short, this is not fact but ’spin’.
K: Lee, I didn’t say that they are ‘fully insured’. But it IS fact that they have access to insurance but have opted NOT to take it. your 46 mill figure IS spin. 2007 Census bureau figures state that 9.7 million of the ‘uninsured’ are not citizens of the US and we don’t owe them insurance. A 2003 study by BlueCross Blueshield Association found that about 14 million of the uninsured were eligible for Medicaid and SCHIP. In 2007 17.6 million uninsured individuals had annual incomes of more than $50,000 and 9.1 million earned more than $75,000. The 2003 BlueCross Blueshield study determined that 8.2 million people are actually without longterm coverage because they are too poor to purchase it but earn too much to qualify for govt assistance. So, I will restate my fact – 9 million or fewer people are ACTUALLY unable to get health insurance.
L: Then referring to our system ‘that is still the best in the world’ is more patriotic than realistic. Look at lifespans..
K: Look at lifestyles, Lee. Surely you don’t believe our shortened lifespan is do to poor medical care. Tell me you’re better informed than that.
L: Look at cost efficiency, Look at bureaucracy in getting the care you need (and please don’t let this degenerate into the cancer survivability debate).
K: One only need look at the BILLIONS in annual Medicare and Medicaid waste and outright fraud to debunk any notion that govt can operate more efficiently than private enterprise in the insurance field.
L: We actually have one of the worst systems in the Western world because of the way we let profit get in the way of delivering what people need.
K: Sure. Thats why so many Canadians and Europeans come HERE for health care. Uh huh…
L: Also, the problem with our healthcare system is not just the uninsured but the bigger problem is the way the supposedly ‘insured’ get played by our system. In summary our system gives most of the power to the insurance company/healthcare providers and virtually no power to the patient.
K: Then fix whats broken – and ONLY whats broken. There is no flippin’ reason to place 1/8th of our entire economy under govt control for the few problems that we can fix by legislation and/or regulation.
K prv: That’s ‘the best system in the world’.
L: In truth, it needs serious reform..
K: Strongly disagree. For the few that need help we need NOT ’seriously reform’ a system that works.
“K prv: Lee, you’re not important enough to me to lie to. I have stated a truth on all parts based on currently known insurance costs. We know these will rise. They will bankrupt me – and thousands of other small companies that work on small profit margins”
L: I don’t mean to be crass but if your business cannot cope with an unexpected rise in costs then maybe you need to revisit the business model and cut costs elsewhere or maybe raise consumer prices as your competition will be equally affected.
K: You may not be crass but you are colossally ignorant on the subject. Products that are priced out of the market disappear. Prices that are set by govt do NOT cover the costs of doing business. I can revisit the business model each and every day and the facts will remain the same – govt mandated employer paid insurance will drive costs up beyond what can be recovered by price increases in the market. I’ll not bore you with the details because its obvious you don’t have the basics down pat on this one. The only place I can cut costs is to lay off employees. I only hope one of them is your family member so you can explain to them how its ‘for the larger good’. ;-)
L: Anyway, my point is although I’m not accusing you of ‘lying’, I am skeptical that you have been open-minded about the ramifications.
All that stated, if the plan _really_ would ‘bankrupt’ small businesses on the scale you imply, then it indeed needs to go back to the drawing board since it would be self-defeating. I don’t think any rational person would argue otherwise.
K: You’d better start carting it back, then. Because the idiot in the oval office hasn’t thought it through yet but wants to pass the bill anyway. In my own example I’ll give you a couple of figures to chew on – I hope you choke… ;-) 30 employees x $500/month x 12 months = $180,000 per year providing free medical insurance to my employees. I don’t make $180,000 per year. Get it? Can I make it plainer?
L: However, I don’t believe everyone on Capitol Hill and in the WH is an idiot. So if the eventual healthcare bill does pass, my belief is your doomsday small business scenario is simply false and vastly exagerrated.
K: See above.
Kregg Reply:
July 12th, 2009 at 3:25 am
Um said: Your competitors would be operating under the same rules as you, you and your competitors will have to either raise costs, or increase efficiency.
K: Your statement presumes a price-inelastic market. Such is not the reality. When you work in a low profit margin industry you’ve ALREADY ‘increased efficiency’ as much as can be done. In my particular company I’d have to lay people off in an attempt to recover the approximately $180,000/year mandated insurance costs. I couldn’t lay off enough people to negate the additional cost so I’d go bankrupt.
Um Cara Reply:
July 12th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Your statement presumes a price-inelastic market. Such is not the reality. When you work in a low profit margin industry you’ve ALREADY ‘increased efficiency’ as much as can be done.
I thought you were an American, you sound like an American’t.
I couldn’t lay off enough people to negate the additional cost so I’d go bankrupt.
Assuming you have a product or service which is in demand, the price would have to go up prior to all the businesses that provide it going bankrupt. Those businesses which are least efficient would fail, those that are most efficient would thrive and gain marketshare.
Sounds like an opportunity for an American!
Lee Reply:
July 12th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Kregg,
” But it IS fact that they have access to insurance but have opted NOT to take it. your 46 mill figure IS spin.”
No, that figure although inaccurate was achieved by statistical extrapolation by the government. It wasn’t plucked out of the air by making ‘assumptions’ as in your case, to suit a political position. That’s why your figure is spin and the 46 million isn’t (but the real figure is less).
“K: Look at lifestyles, Lee. Surely you don’t believe our shortened lifespan is do to poor medical care. Tell me you’re better informed than that.”
Who is being naive here? Do really think that other Western nations don’t have junk food etc? This argument is a common myth and the reality is that healthcare access is a major factor in our shorter lifespans.
“K: One only need look at the BILLIONS in annual Medicare and Medicaid waste and outright fraud to debunk any notion that govt can operate more efficiently than private enterprise in the insurance field.”
When government is beholden to your wonderful ‘businesses’ as in insurance companies, drug companies that insist on pieces of the pie then yes the costs are bloated. Solution.. cut them out or at least regulate better like almost every other question. The notion that government run healthcare has to be costly is patently absurd when every other western nation with a government system is considerably cheaper than our ‘free market’ version!
“K: Sure. Thats why so many Canadians and Europeans come HERE for health care. Uh huh…”
For non-essential operations sure.. And they also goto other European countries too (like France) to get quicker access. Why is that? Oh yeah because unlike them we don’t give everyone access..
“You may not be crass but you are colossally ignorant on the subject.”
Ok.. I work with federal clients all the time and if you need to change the price, you renegotiate the contract just like anyone else.
Personally, I’m against employer based funding but expansion maybe needed on the path to UH in this country. As I stated though, the impact should be accurately quantified, if as many small businesses were going to go bankrupt as you claim, it would be a non-starter and would need at least some kind of provision or business tax credits etc. Since the bill hasn’t even been finished yet, its not possible to draw any absolute conclusions as you have.
Um Cara Reply:
July 12th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
Do really think that other Western nations don’t have junk food etc?
I have spent time in at least 25 different countries, including pretty much all of Northern Europe/Scandinavia. I have never been to a country that even came close to having the amount of fast food that the United States has.
I don’t disagree with most of your post, but that kind of jumped out at me – as every time I return to the US, I become surprised anew at the amount of fast food we have. (Though I usually arrive in the US early in the morning, and my first stop after grabbing my rental car is a McDonald’s drive through, for a tasty breakfast puck, fried hashbrowns, and terrible orange juice and ‘coffee’.)
Um Cara Reply:
July 12th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
*’Northern Europe/Scandinavia’ should be ‘Western Europe and Scandinavia’
Kregg Reply:
July 12th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
” But it IS fact that they have access to insurance but have opted NOT to take it. your 46 mill figure IS spin.”
Lee said: No, that figure although inaccurate was achieved by statistical extrapolation by the government. It wasn’t plucked out of the air by making ‘assumptions’ as in your case, to suit a political position. That’s why your figure is spin and the 46 million isn’t (but the real figure is less).
K: Argue with the census bureau, Lee. Its their figures. Sorry they don’t feed your delusion on this topic. ;-)
“K prv: Look at lifestyles, Lee. Surely you don’t believe our shortened lifespan is do to poor medical care. Tell me you’re better informed than that.”
L: Who is being naive here? Do really think that other Western nations don’t have junk food etc? This argument is a common myth and the reality is that healthcare access is a major factor in our shorter lifespans.
K: Our life span issues are directly related to our lifeSTYLE issues. Every year over 300,000 die from heart disease due to unhealthy lifestyles. To use your ridiculous reasoning you’d have us believe the Hunzas, who routinely live past 100 years in northern Pakistan, do so because of their excellent health care delivery system. Lee, I’ve never seen you make a more ill-informed statement on this board… ;-)
“K prv: One only need look at the BILLIONS in annual Medicare and Medicaid waste and outright fraud to debunk any notion that govt can operate more efficiently than private enterprise in the insurance field.”
L: When government is beholden to your wonderful ‘businesses’ as in insurance companies, drug companies that insist on pieces of the pie then yes the costs are bloated. Solution.. cut them out or at least regulate better like almost every other question. The notion that government run healthcare has to be costly is patently absurd when every other western nation with a government system is considerably cheaper than our ‘free market’ version!
K: What a laughable statement! Business is what INVENTED insurance, drugs, medical care, etc… Yes, business IS wonderful. Let me ask you this simple question: If a pharmaceutical stands no opportunity to make a profit by inventing and bringing to market a successful drug – why would they do so? Another question: How many of those govt run health care systems are producing new techniques, procedures, medications, etc. that are saving lives?
“K prv: Sure. Thats why so many Canadians and Europeans come HERE for health care. Uh huh…”
L: For non-essential operations sure.. And they also goto other European countries too (like France) to get quicker access. Why is that? Oh yeah because unlike them we don’t give everyone access..
K: ROFLMAO!! “Non-essential’ as determined by govt crony. Ooh, ah, ooh, ooh, ah!
K prv: “You may not be crass but you are colossally ignorant on the subject.”
L: Ok.. I work with federal clients all the time and if you need to change the price, you renegotiate the contract just like anyone else.
K: Once again you display colossal ignorance on this topic. Residential care rates are SET by the Federal Govt, added to – or reduced- by state level rate setters, and the service provider takes it or leaves it. There IS no ‘renegotiate the contract’ Lee. SSI/SSP rate setters have REDUCED rates in years when the minimum wage rate went UP. You really need to study this issue before making the wild*ss assumptions you’ve made so far so as to support your position.
L: Personally, I’m against employer based funding but expansion maybe needed on the path to UH in this country. As I stated though, the impact should be accurately quantified, if as many small businesses were going to go bankrupt as you claim, it would be a non-starter and would need at least some kind of provision or business tax credits etc. Since the bill hasn’t even been finished yet, its not possible to draw any absolute conclusions as you have.
K: LEE, LEE, LEE!!!! The program IS going forward and it WILL bankrupt small businesses!!!! Your beloved govt, run by the Master Changer, is going to KILL many small businesses yet he and Reid and Pelosi continue to press this program! In regards to ‘business tax credits’ don’t be foolish! If you don’t make a profit you don’t PAY a tax TO GET A CREDIT FROM!!!!!!!
Kregg Reply:
July 12th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
K prv: Your statement presumes a price-inelastic market. Such is not the reality. When you work in a low profit margin industry you’ve ALREADY ‘increased efficiency’ as much as can be done.
UM said: I thought you were an American, you sound like an American’t.
K: Don’t be foolish. Philosophical euphemisms do not replace reality except for those who wish to continue an unrealistic proposition when faced with the facts.
K prv: I couldn’t lay off enough people to negate the additional cost so I’d go bankrupt.
U: Assuming you have a product or service which is in demand, the price would have to go up prior to all the businesses that provide it going bankrupt. Those businesses which are least efficient would fail, those that are most efficient would thrive and gain marketshare.
K: You need to read the other chapters of your Econ 101 book.
1. ALL products and services (p/s) have a price point at which they are no longer viable. And instant increase in costs by employer paid insurance would drive everyone from the market within months.
2. A residential care building that is full cannot ‘gain market share’ unless you put two to a bed. (illegal) ;-)
3. What will happen is a bloodbath of bankruptcies will happen amongst those facilities that serve the govt pay market which will leave thousands of residents on the street. Those facilities that choose to refuse admission to govt paid residents will have to raise private pay rates to maintain their existence which, in itself, will price middle income private pay residents out of the market.
U: Sounds like an opportunity for an American!
K: Your ignorance of the topic is showing on this one, Um.
Kregg Reply:
July 12th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
K prv: Note: It won’t be Lee’s money and it won’t be TD’s money because they aren’t at risk for paying the tab like you will be.
Um said: Lee and TD don’t consume goods and services? Of course they would be paying the tab, unless they are living off the land or something.
K: They can consume all the goods and services they want but if they do not purchase private-pay residential care services from me they will NOT pay the tab for my having to pay my employees’ health care insurance. In my case with Eric, they wouldn’t pay unless they bought from HIM and paid through a price increase he passes along to them.
Lee Reply:
July 12th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
“K: Argue with the census bureau, Lee. Its their figures. Sorry they don’t feed your delusion on this topic. ;-)”
I’m not deluded.. I just researched where your reduced figure comes from and it isnt the census bureau. Its assumptions like people earning a certain income ’should’ be able to buy insurance etc.. But its a moot issue, its still millions of Americans that we should be ashamed about, not to mention the countless million others that get denied the healthcare they need due to frivolous denials by the for profit system.
“K: What a laughable statement”
No, _your_ ‘colossal ignorance’ is laughable here. Firstly, we are meant to be a democracy where the government is beholden to the voters, not businesses! Secondly, yes, government funded research has produced many medical advances and continues to do so in not just our country but many others. Thirdly, the drug model has become that you research your drug, charge Americans an exorbitant amount due to our business-favorable cost model and then use the profits from Americans to subsidize all the other countries which actually force you to regulate your costs. There are many successful drug companies..
“K: Our life span issues are directly related to our lifeSTYLE issues. ”
*sigh* This is nonsense.. as is your Asian analogy. To ignore the fact that many American’s avoid seeking healthcare (due to cost) until its too late is just being in denial of reality.
“K: ROFLMAO!! “Non-essential’ as determined by govt crony. Ooh, ah, ooh, ooh, ah!”
No.. It actually has a specific meaning, like non-life-saving or cosmetic. If you want a real guffaw, I suggest you one day visit these other inferior countries, sample their healthcare system and then laugh when you realize what a raw deal you are being given in your home country.
“K: Once again you display colossal ignorance on this topic. Residential care rates are SET by the Federal Govt, added to – or reduced- by state level rate setters, and the service provider takes it or leaves it.”
Ok, so in this case, since all the other providers are similarly affected, the state/government either has to set different rates and somehow subsidize or otherwise allow such ‘businesses’ to disappear. As Um pointed out, there is usually a way to work things out if you have a reasonable business model and a product that is demanded by the public. Right now, you seem to just have your head buried in the sand with a completely defeatist doom and gloom attitude that no matter what happens, if the healthcare bill passes, you are ‘bankrupt’ as nothing else will change.
“K: LEE, LEE, LEE!!!! The program IS going forward and it WILL bankrupt small businesses!!!! ”
The bill hasn’t been finalized yet. It has not even passed the house yet alone the senate. So forgive me if I don’t buy these Chicken Little claims yet, and have a little more faith in the intelligence of our government to put forward a final bill that helps the uninsured without widespread business devastation.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
July 13th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
I’ll admit…I pretty much just made up the 30 billion dollar number..
it was based on $100 a visit x 300 million americans.
of course if they were paying out $150/per visit it would 45 billion dollars.
but the exact number wasn’t the point…the point is that it’s crazy expensive for the govt. to try and pay for everything…and of course they won’t…and services will be denied…
July 10th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
“But why did this one block of Democrats wait until the last minute to get in the way?”
Same thing it always is, I assume: they are cowards.
Waiting for the wind to blow before making themselves known and triple checking their numbers before they make a speech so they won’t lose a single point in their districts. Politics and the playing of it…
blissfulconservative Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
OR MAYBE they realize the plan isn’t what it should be and they don’t want to pass another crappy bill like the omnibus plan that hasn’t done JACK that the current adminstration said it would do. OTHER than put us further into debt.
TDro319 Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
Nope. I agree with Eric. They are cowards waiting for the popular vote. Much like the spineless democrats who voted for the Iraq war. Just in case the war turned out in Bush’s favor they can say “See? I voted for that!”. I think they’re either spineless or they’re on the take.
average james Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
Spineless is my guess.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
July 11th, 2009 at 1:59 am
I’m gonna guess they were working for these things behind the scenes and when the bill came out and they weren’t pleased with it, they decided to let everyone know they weren’t going to vote for it.
but some days I’m an optomist.
EricG Reply:
July 11th, 2009 at 6:28 pm
Being an optomist in terms of politics is usually a losing game. Being an optomist in your everyday life is a winning game (I think).
The fact is that most people in power, from any party, are more often than not concerned first with mantaining that power and second with doing the job they were elected to do.
“they realize the plan isn’t what it should be and they don’t want to pass another crappy bill like the omnibus plan”
That’s possible but I doubt it. There has been a cry for some sort of health care reform in this country for decades, it’s not going away any time soon.
It’s only the conservatives who ultimately end up saying ‘no’ to everything.
But in this case I’d think the Blue-Dogs are feet dragging because of ciwardise or possibly bribe money, if I really wanted to jump out on a limb.
Unlike yourself, I don’t doubt everything this country into failure before we even start trying to provide health care for more Americans.
July 10th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
Can you say “bought off by campaign contributions”?
average james Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 5:53 pm
Quite possible, but I still think spineless.
July 10th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
Hmmm Government run health care. Maybe they will be just as efficient and error-free as the post office or the Department of Motor Vehicles, or the US Army procurement system? Actually, I am in favor of nationalizing health care for a few reasons: 1. It will bankrupt the government faster. 2. It will finally teach the big government lovers that government is a curse and not a blessing. 3.We might finally get rid of the war making, counterfeiting lying, degenerate monstrosity that is government.
Under a gov’t run health care system, the average guy will get crappy government run service, while the rich will still get decent health care from private providers, from off-shore practices, and from the black market–just like they did in the USSR, and in every other country that tried government run health care.
michael Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
hooray anarachy!!!!!!!
/sarcasm
average james Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
Paul,
At least you’ve got the balls to just come right out and admit that you want failure and misery.
You are wrong and so are those who think like you.
“,and in every other country that tried government run health care.”–Paul.
Tried as in past tense ? Who has given it up ?
Has it failed somewhere ?
Hot air Paul, seems people like Alex Jones and Rush have taken you for a ride.
EricG Reply:
July 11th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
Paul,
You go and tell little sick children that your precious ideology tells them that they must die!
“1. It will bankrupt the government faster”
How much to do hate America? A lot? You must.
“2. It will finally teach the big government lovers that government is a curse and not a blessing.”
So you were complaining when Bush expanded federalism ndwhen he created a new intel agency and broke the War Powers Resolution Act?
Oh, wait. I forgot. Conservatives only care limited govt when we talking about helping people, not hurting them. You want to govt to expand into Secret Police, but not to help people living in pain.
“3.We might finally get rid of the war making, counterfeiting lying, degenerate monstrosity that is government.”
Go live on a island all by yourself with your anti-govt ideals –
July 10th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
Could it be it’s just another piece of ridiculous UNREAD BS.
July 10th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
Oh, I see……….
Now they’re being labeled as “conservative Democrats” by those who wish to yoke them to an unpopular bunch of “conservative Republicans” and pressure them into doing what they (”conservative” Democrats) cannot otherwise do in good conscience.
It’s like a bunch of kids trying to exercise control over their parents by calling the parents “unloving parents” in an effort to get them (the parents) to spend their every last dime building a six flags styled inverted loop roller coaster ride in the backyard.
Sorry Gang, while a massive backyard rollercoaster ride would be really popular with the kids, I’m sorry but it just isn’t practical. Mom and dad just can’t afford it right now, mmmmmmkaayyyy???
Um Cara Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 6:57 pm
Trees,
Now they’re being labeled as “conservative Democrats” by those who wish to yoke them to an unpopular bunch of “conservative Republicans” and pressure them into doing what they (”conservative” Democrats) cannot otherwise do in good conscience.
They call themselves conservative democrats. It isn’t an insult, it is an accurate label.
trees are people too Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 7:08 pm
My point is how often do we see the label “conservative” affixed to the term democrat?
Anytime a Republican is addressed in the media, there is always a “conservative Republican” label enjoined to the person’s name.
And a good deal of the time there is no party affiliation applied to a democrat who is mentioned within a news article.
It’s simply mentioned as Senator so and so, or congressman whoever he is.
Now we are seeing those who oppose the left wing media’s position’s being affixed with the “conservative label”……
It’s a subtle manipulation, but it isn’t purely imaginative.
Why don’t we ever see the label “liberal democrat whosoever said today, yada yada yada” being used by the mainstream media?
Um Cara Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 7:17 pm
You do hear the term ‘liberal democrat’ – Kennedy is often referred to in that way, for example.
You don’t hear much about ‘liberal republicans’ because they are barely tolerated in their party, but you do occasionally hear it – though ‘Rockefeller Republican’ is more common.
It’s like when you throw a rock at a group of Republicans, if you hit the liberal one, he will yelp. But if you hit the conservative one, he will yelp too.
(How am I doing on my weird analogies, am I ready to preach yet?)
Kregg Reply:
July 11th, 2009 at 2:08 am
Um said: It’s like when you throw a rock at a group of Republicans, if you hit the liberal one, he will yelp. But if you hit the conservative one, he will yelp too.
K: Got it wrong, Um. Hit the lib repub with a rock and he’ll yelp. Hit a con with a rock and he’ll invite the entire crowd around him to come have a talk with you but if the crowd exists basically of lib repubs too scared to move the Con will gladly walk over on his own and deal with the situation… ;-)
Lee Reply:
July 11th, 2009 at 8:48 am
Ok..
A Republican who would not be labelled ‘Conservative’ is someone like Rudy Giuliani.
Similarly non-liberal democrats would be the aforementioned ‘blue-dogs’.
July 10th, 2009 at 6:49 pm
Alan said: But why did this one block of Democrats wait until the last minute to get in the way?
K: Because they woke up in time to the fraud BO is pulling in regards to healthcare and they still feel a sense of responsibility to not let him get away with it?
OldLefty Reply:
July 11th, 2009 at 9:01 am
Or that 1.4 million per day that the industry is paying out is kicking in.
I know my rep is heavily financed by and a former employee of the biggest provider in town.
Kregg Reply:
July 11th, 2009 at 9:11 am
Maybe. I didn’t think your Dem’s were subject to bribery… ;-)
OldLefty Reply:
July 11th, 2009 at 10:02 am
Who ever said that??
Look at some of the liberal websites and radio shows.
They will tell you how much each gets from the industry, and with the Democrats in the majority they will get more.
Most liberal websites or publication that I frequent have been saying that if they don’t do the public option in spite of the majority, and the will of the people, it is because their loyalty is with their big donors.
Most have been extremely hard on the Democrats when they were the minority, harder still when they had a slight majority, and most critical now.
July 11th, 2009 at 2:05 am
Healthcare; wow… How many people need this and cannot afford to pay 12,000 dollars a year, um not the poor. COBRA is just as expensive to obtain.
Go to the Emergencey Room and wait for eight hours, or better. If you are bleeding they just put on a bandaid and tell you to wait until you can be seen. If you have an asthma attack, they give you oxygen and a breathing treatment and send you back out into the waiting room. After you wait there, people keep coming in. They tell you to contact your Primary healthcare giver, guess what you have none, because you cannot afford one.
My husband who had an appointment to see his doctor and his insurance had to pay 150.00 to his Primary health care. This is highway robbery in my book, and they are with you for about 10 minutes and they leave, that is that, nothing more because Doctors just don’t have anytime for you, they need to see the next patient.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
July 11th, 2009 at 9:19 am
but here’s the deal celticwitch…if the govt. wouldn’t subsidize doctors visits they would have to pander to the free market and the cost of a visit would go down…why is it $150….that is what most insurance and most importantly medicare/medicaid is willing to pay.
Cut the subsidy out and the dollars chasing visits goes down and to meet profit goals clinics and hospitals reduce rates to the point of affordability.
Celticwitch Reply:
July 11th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
I remember when Insurances never paid for Doctor visits, and the most you paid is twenty-five dollars. I remembered when eye and dental were not part of any insurances. Insurance Companies came along way. I understand about that Doctors needs to be paid as well as his or her staff, but damn some Doctors should take time out and help the poor. Most poor people who don’t have insurance cannot get good help.
My husband has good insurance through his work, Teamsters, but not everyone has that. It is sad, but true. My daughter who is on disability, ask her about fighting to find out what type of insurance she is getting. Each year she has to get a new insurance and she goes to a clinic for care.
I have talked to alot of Doctors and they all said the same thing healthcare needs an overhall, plus my mother who before she died eleven years ago complained about the Healthcare system, she is old school Registered Nurse, graduating in 1950 and that is old school.
July 11th, 2009 at 9:16 am
People opposed to UH appear to me to be just plain selfish. If you are healthy fine but if your neighbor gets cancer or heart disease or some other catastrophic health issue should they suffer physically or financially ? What ever happened to helping each other? And the supposedly correct answer to that ethical question: Am I my brothers keeper? is suppose to be YES!
TDro319 Reply:
July 11th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
What really bothers me is the republicans in congress who are vehemently opposed to socialized healtcare, are receiving socialized healthcare themselves. Of course the hefty payoffs from the insurance companies sure help their cause.
July 11th, 2009 at 11:53 am
It’s coming. And Obama will shove it down the GOP’s throat, just like Bush did with his tax cut/ Iraq war.
Obama should ignore the GOPs since they are banking on
America to fail.
Ignore “the PARTY OF NO”!!
Obama should use 51 votes to pass his agenda.NO more illusion of bipartisan S$it.
July 11th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
Has anyone considered just how many people will flood the health care provider system and overwhelm the capacity of the industry to provide treatment if everyone and everybody can see a doctor for any reason and at anytime?
Now please don’t misunderstand this and try to mischaracterize me as saying not everyone should be able to see a doctor or be treated for an illness.
That’s not what I’m saying at all.
It’s just that I don’t think we have completely thought through the situation and understand the tremendous costs and burdens that will be placed upon it (the system) by people who feel entitled to seek medical attention for every perceived ache and ailment.
Should everyone under this new government provided system be entitled to a full body MRI to search for currently unknown problems or conditions?
Now, in a perfect world we would say yes, and I would agree, however, let’s say 20% (and I’m just throwing that number out there) of the population was then discovered to have cancerous lesions of one kind or another growing or some other formerly undiagnosed condition, could the supply keep up with the demand?
Wouldn’t a better solution be a government subsidized tax incentive program designed to allow the private sector a way to provide benefits for those who don’t currently have them?
And over time as the health care network grows larger and more able to handle the additional demands of providing for greater coverage or care for a larger population of people we could then revisit this idea of universal coverage?
We need to carefully weigh and consider the possible consequences of our policies and actions to ensure the decision we reach is a wise one and the best one.
Um Cara Reply:
July 11th, 2009 at 8:38 pm
We need to carefully weigh and consider the possible consequences of our policies and actions to ensure the decision we reach is a wise one and the best one.
We have been weighing and considering at least for over fifteen years (going back to the Clinton health care plan).
It’s time for action.
trees are people too Reply:
July 11th, 2009 at 8:55 pm
Well, it would seem to me that this new administration is intent on doing things that are going to have serious consequences for decades……
Maybe we can coin a new word or term for this…..
Somehow combining the ideas of liberalism and the chronological duration of radioactive fallout?
Let’s see who can come up with the best new descriptive term that hybridizes this idea….
Um Cara Reply:
July 11th, 2009 at 8:59 pm
Well, it would seem to me that this new administration is intent on doing things that are going to have serious consequences for decades……
What administration did not have such ambitions?
Somehow combining the ideas of liberalism and the chronological duration of radioactive fallout?
He really isn’t very liberal. The United States is way too conservative to elect a liberal, we haven’t yet.
trees are people too Reply:
July 11th, 2009 at 9:13 pm
I dunno Um, it seems at face value to be something that would tremendously benefit our country, but I have strong reservations concerning it’s feasibility and practicality.
Welfare seemed like a good idea at the time too.
The problem of the government administrating such a massive undertaking is the potential for fraud and abuse is of titanic proportions.
When has the government ever accomplished anything on time and within a budget?
Government inefficiency and waste is legendary.
This is a catastrophe waiting to happen.
Um Cara Reply:
July 11th, 2009 at 9:24 pm
I dunno Um, it seems at face value to be something that would tremendously benefit our country, but I have strong reservations concerning it’s feasibility and practicality.
Well, the vast majority of your fellow Americans agree that it seems to be something that would be of a tremendous benefit to our country, and we have been talking and thinking about it for a mighty long time, so let’s get moving on it!
This is a catastrophe waiting to happen.
Bah. Practically every other developed economy can manage it, we’ll be OK. In fact, we will be better than we are today.
trees are people too Reply:
July 11th, 2009 at 9:38 pm
Everyone aboard the H.M.S. Titanic thought that getting on that ship was a great idea as well………
They couldn’t have been more wrong.
The Titanic sunk because those in charge of sailing it were proceeding at full speed into dangerous waters too………..
We need to proceed cautiously on a careful course.
Um Cara Reply:
July 11th, 2009 at 9:43 pm
We need to proceed cautiously on a careful course.
Like I said, we’ve been discussing it seriously over fifteen years, that’s cautious in my book.
If you throw a rock at a group of people without health care, the one you hit yelps (and might need a band-aid).
I think you understand the analogy.
trees are people too Reply:
July 11th, 2009 at 9:56 pm
And that should tell you something.
It is quite possibly the riskiest endeavor ever contemplated…..
And after fifteen years we’re no closer than we were before.
Maybe that’s because it’s just a bad idea wrapped inside a really good looking wrapper?
If you drop a very large and heavy rock on your own foot you are going to yelp.
Do you understand this analogy?
Um Cara Reply:
July 11th, 2009 at 10:03 pm
And after fifteen years we’re no closer than we were before.
Don’t kid yourself, we are very close. The discussion really isn’t about whether we are going to do it, but what exactly we will do.
If you go to a stadium filled with people, and a rock band is playing, you are going to rock out.
Know what I’m saying?
trees are people too Reply:
July 11th, 2009 at 10:15 pm
Depends on who’s playing.
I came to the conclusion the other day that I had finally gotten old when I realized that I had absolutely no clue who any of the current bands are……………..
trees are people too Reply:
July 11th, 2009 at 11:11 pm
Have a good night Um, I’ll c-ya L8er, trees
Um Cara Reply:
July 11th, 2009 at 11:30 pm
You too, ‘night.
July 11th, 2009 at 8:32 pm
I’m not optimistic we’ll kick our way out of this bag we call “the world’s best healthcare system”. By any measure, it is not. Not my measurable outcome! Not by access. Not by favorable cost.Not by innovation and new ideas. Only by conspicuous consumption, terrible incentives for expensive unnecessary care, no incentives for wellness and chronic disease control. Unlike our world competition we saddle our business with the cost of healthcare. They don’t…and their goods and services are cheaper. And their systems have much to favor them.
We are so diverse, rich vs poor, rural vs suburban, educated vs uneducated that any single system will have to strain to get it right. Only some blindfolded republicans really believe what we have is best. Physicans aren’t happy and neither are the majority of consumers.
We must totally revise. Physicians should be paid a satisfactory wage and benefits that allow time off for family and CME and rest…but not exhorbitant fee for service which demands excess. Single payor would likely be contracted like Medicare so insurance would still be involved, but the rules would change from maximum profits for shareholders and multimillion dollar salaries for execs and a goal of maximum holistic good health. Records systems which are carried by the patient with readers in each provider’s office would eliminate millions in duplicative care. Statistics on what works…so called evidence base would drive decisions of what we can afford…and the public would vote what % gnp we can spend on health care. With business freed up from providing healthcare, and a single form if any to fill out, billions in administrative expenses would be saved and American small business could compete . A healthier work force would allow us to compete better as a nation.
Doc’s children would see their dads again. No fault maloccurrence decisions would fairly compensate persons hurt by adverse events, but mandatory study to prevent such future events, and mandatory reporting would keep them fewer with pride in great safe performance.
The Mayo’s of the world achieve lowest cost measurable quality best care…why not take the best of that and similar systems.
Allow private purchase of care for those excess demanders or impatient folks. Prioritize primary care training and guard over incentives for specialty training. Demand that patient directives for end of life care be followed so people are not bankrupted by care they never wanted which was foisted on them at great expense. Negotiate with pharmas for competitive prices.
It’ll take wise men not enriched by lobby money to take us to a good system for our nation. Demand it of your MC and Senators and replace them if they don’t deliver!
July 11th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
K: “Interesting that you – who will risk nothing in this transaction – are making value judgments…”
TD: Really? Only your taxes will increase? Not mine? Wow. this is sounding better every day.
K: “that I am ’selfish’ simply because I don’t want to be paying for you and your crony’s free health insurance…”
TD: You refuse to part with your money to help those less fortunate. That’s selfishness in my book.
K: “…because doing so could easily cost me my business and all I”ve worked for for 26 years.”
TD: First of all there are very few small businesses left in this country. They’ve been bought out by big corporations. So you may be out of business sooner than you think and will require affordable healthcare for your family. But I guess you’d prefer losing your life savings and your house to pay for a life saving operation you may need in the future.
And besides, how do you know the insurance company you have now will cover you if you need an expensive operation? They may find something in your past, a “pre-existing condistion”, if you will that you failed to mention when applying for said insurance, that disqualifies you for coverage.
BTW. I suggest you call your local repbulican congressmen and women who are so opposed to socialized healthcare, and tell them to refuse the socialized healthare coverage they’re receiving now. And let me knwo how that turns out.
Kregg Reply:
July 12th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
TD said: First of all there are very few small businesses left in this country. They’ve been bought out by big corporations. So you may be out of business sooner than you think and will require affordable healthcare for your family. But I guess you’d prefer losing your life savings and your house to pay for a life saving operation you may need in the future.
K: How colossally ignorant you are. Small business is the backbone of the American economy. Good grief…
T: And besides, how do you know the insurance company you have now will cover you if you need an expensive operation? They may find something in your past, a “pre-existing condistion”, if you will that you failed to mention when applying for said insurance, that disqualifies you for coverage.
K: Read the fine print, TD. And, tell the truth. Both of these tactics may be new to you but you must exhibit some intelligence in buying your insurance, TD. Buying your policy on late night television is NOT the preferred method.
T: BTW. I suggest you call your local repbulican congressmen and women who are so opposed to socialized healthcare, and tell them to refuse the socialized healthare coverage they’re receiving now. And let me knwo how that turns out.
K: All of my congressmen and women belong to the Democrat party. And, they do not receive socialized medicine, TD. The govt pays for their policy but does not own the means of production.
July 12th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
K: “…people like Lee and TD tell you that for the good of some people who need insurance that YOUR profit and earnings will be taken from you by govt fiat and given to them to pay for insurance. (Note: It won’t be Lee’s money and it won’t be TD’s money because they aren’t at risk for paying the tab like you will be.)”
TD: You are one selfish b**tard. Thank God cheap miserly people like you with their “I have mine so f**k you” attitudes are a dying breed.
Kregg Reply:
July 12th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
TD said: You are one selfish b**tard. Thank God cheap miserly people like you with their “I have mine so f**k you” attitudes are a dying breed.
K: It has nothing to do with ‘cheap’ and miserly you idiot. Nor does it have to do with selfishness. It has to do with bankrupting thousands of businesses who operate on a profit margin than could not absorb the crushing burden of employer paid health insurance. If you want to talk selfish it is you, who demand I pay for YOUR insurance at no cost to you. Now THATS selfish.
K: Unlike you, TD, I have no cushy little safety net where I am taken care of from cradle to grave, like you. I”m one of the people who risk everything I own to build a business that provides jobs for selfish ingrates like you who demand their own comfort at my expense. Pay your own way, TD.
Um Cara Reply:
July 12th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
I”m one of the people who risk everything I own to build a business that provides jobs for selfish ingrates like you who demand their own comfort at my expense. Pay your own way, TD.
But you are the one who is making the rest of the public pay for the health care of your employees. They go to emergency centers and what ever other limited public health care services are offered, absent a health care plan.
Pay your own way, Kregg! Quit relying upon the rest of us to pay for your employee’s medical care!
I’m only teasing. In fairness, I understand why you rely on the public to subsidize health care for your employees. Other similar businesses likely do not pay for their employees health care. If the playing field were level, and all similar businesses had to provide it, it wouldn’t put you at a competitive disadvantage to provide health care to all your employees.
Kregg Reply:
July 12th, 2009 at 8:03 pm
Um said: But you are the one who is making the rest of the public pay for the health care of your employees. They go to emergency centers and what ever other limited public health care services are offered, absent a health care plan.
K: If the public wants UHC, let them pay for it – not me.
U: Pay your own way, Kregg! Quit relying upon the rest of us to pay for your employee’s medical care!
K: I don’t owe my employees’ medical care any more than you do.
U: I’m only teasing. In fairness, I understand why you rely on the public to subsidize health care for your employees. Other similar businesses likely do not pay for their employees health care. If the playing field were level, and all similar businesses had to provide it, it wouldn’t put you at a competitive disadvantage to provide health care to all your employees.
K: Um, its not a ‘competitive disadvantage’ issue. It is a survival issue. Res Care facilities don’t pay health insurance because they CAN’T because they don’t take in enough revenue to do so while paying for the other costs of operation.
July 12th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
I did pretty well in Econ 101, actually. Hated it, unbelievably boring stuff – but very easy to grasp.
Prior to every residential care business shutting down, the rates would be increased. More generally, all businesses whose employees health care plans are currently being supplemented by emergency centers, medicaid, etc.. would increase costs to pay for the health care they are currently not providing for their employees.
There you go with that ‘can’t do’ attitude again! You could build another building, purchase a competitor, offer additional services, etc..
Again, I think it unlikely that the rate schedule would not be increased prior to all the residential care businesses going bankrupt, the most inefficient might. Buy them after they go bankrupt, introduce the optimum efficiencies that you claim to have achieved, and increase your market share.
Where there is a market niche, businesses spring up to serve them. Have more faith in capitalism! Those middle income private pay residents will be a ripe market for an American with vision and skills.
Bah. My father has run a number of businesses, I have worked with a couple friends over the years in in a limited role on some ventures, I ran my own computer consulting operation right out of college, and I’m looking at a couple of start ups I’m considering helping to finance (amazing how many start ups all these layoffs are triggering). I’ve worked in various senior corporate roles for close to a decade.
I know me some bidness stuff.
Vision, dude – you’ve gotten to complacent with how things have been, with change there is huge opportunity!
Yes you can!
Kregg Reply:
July 12th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
Um said: I did pretty well in Econ 101, actually. Hated it, unbelievably boring stuff – but very easy to grasp.
K: It certainly CAN be but there are gems of wisdom pertinent to every business operator in it.
U: Prior to every residential care business shutting down, the rates would be increased. More generally, all businesses whose employees health care plans are currently being supplemented by emergency centers, medicaid, etc.. would increase costs to pay for the health care they are currently not providing for their employees.
K: No residential care facility in my area pays health insurance for their employees. Such a cost would be mandated by a date specific. On that date all facilities would incur business ending costs of insurance. My employee insurance bill would be $493 PER DAY, or $14,794 per month. I’d burn through my reserves VERY quickly and I’d have to declare bankruptcy VERY soon as would everyone else.
2. A residential care building that is full cannot ‘gain market share’ unless you put two to a bed. (illegal) ;-)
U: There you go with that ‘can’t do’ attitude again! You could build another building, purchase a competitor, offer additional services, etc..
K: And, incur the same doggone employer paid insurance costs per day as in an existing building, Um. We’re talking a 30% increase employee costs. The only way you could become ‘more efficient’ is to assign more residents to each employee.
U: Again, I think it unlikely that the rate schedule would not be increased prior to all the residential care businesses going bankrupt, the most inefficient might. Buy them after they go bankrupt, introduce the optimum efficiencies that you claim to have achieved, and increase your market share.
K: What you think and what has happened are two different things. I’ve been through at least 3 minimum wage increases for which I received NO increase at all in my govt supplied SSI/SSP payments. Both the minimum wage AND the ability to raise my rates are under control of the Feds. They raised only one…
K: You are not understanding that the increase in cost is directly attached to the care component, Um. More resident means more staff. Each staff member costs more to employ regardless of whether I buy a ‘less efficient’ competitor or not!
U: Where there is a market niche, businesses spring up to serve them. Have more faith in capitalism! Those middle income private pay residents will be a ripe market for an American with vision and skills.
K: There will be no facilities available to serve them, having all gone bankrupt under BO’s health insurance ‘change’. What do you propose for taking care of the thousands of govt supported residents who will have no home, Um?
Um said: Bah. My father has run a number of businesses, I have worked with a couple friends over the years in in a limited role on some ventures, I ran my own computer consulting operation right out of college, and I’m looking at a couple of start ups I’m considering helping to finance (amazing how many start ups all these layoffs are triggering). I’ve worked in various senior corporate roles for close to a decade.
K: You are still ignorant of the realities on the ground in residential care. All of your ventures are free-market – res care is not.
U: I know me some bidness stuff.
K: But the wrong kind. ;-)
U: Vision, dude – you’ve gotten to complacent with how things have been, with change there is huge opportunity! Yes you can!
K: Lots of rah-rah and no solutions. The solution is to finance this wonderful universal healthcare by some other mechanism than employer pays, which is absurd on it’s face when you look at it. People should pay for their own insurance, with those who CANNOT offered some govt supplied policy.
Um Cara Reply:
July 12th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
No residential care facility in my area pays health insurance for their employees
Which is why you cannot, I understand that. That is why it needs to be mandated. The cost of your labor, and the cost of the services you provide, is artificially low.
The cost of your service will go up. If the government is purchasing a needed service, they will pay more for that service prior to every business that provides it going out of business.
You have mentioned the minimum wage issue, what percentage of your employees are only paid minimum wage? A small rise in minimum wage, which only affects a fairly small percentage of your payroll (At least I hope many of the people working for you are paid more than minimum) would not necessarily see an increase in the rate schedule. An across the board expense that affects every employee you pay significantly would have to see an increase in the rate schedule.
Kregg Reply:
July 12th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
Um said: Which is why you cannot, I understand that. That is why it needs to be mandated. The cost of your labor, and the cost of the services you provide, is artificially low.
K: No, the cost of my labor is at market. It is not ‘artificially low’ at all. Introducing a new mandated employment expense will artificially raise my labor costs.
U: The cost of your service will go up. If the government is purchasing a needed service, they will pay more for that service prior to every business that provides it going out of business.
K: Historically they have not paid the actual cost of care, Um. What makes you think they will do so now? Govt moves too slowly to prevent empty res care buildings. I”m still bankrupt any way you try to work around the reality.
U: You have mentioned the minimum wage issue, what percentage of your employees are only paid minimum wage? A small rise in minimum wage, which only affects a fairly small percentage of your payroll (At least I hope many of the people working for you are paid more than minimum) would not necessarily see an increase in the rate schedule. An across the board expense that affects every employee you pay significantly would have to see an increase in the rate schedule.
K: Um, you’re dying here. Minimum wage increase permeate the entire pay structure. If I hire you at $8.50 min wage, and you work for a year I give you a raise to $8.50+. With a minimum wage increase to 8.50+ you, as a second year employee, are again working for minimum wage. So, as an employer I have to raise your $8.50+ to $8.50++ to recognize your years of service. The min rate increase ripples across the entire workforce. Next question? ;-)
Um Cara Reply:
July 12th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
No, the cost of my labor is at market. It is not ‘artificially low’ at all.
It is, because the health care cost of your employees is being born in large part by health care infrastructure designed to deal with emergency care, which is pricey, and that cost is not built into your service – it is spread out to the general taxpayer, rather than the consumers of your service.
. With a minimum wage increase to 8.50+ you, as a second year employee, are again working for minimum wage. So, as an employer I have to raise your $8.50+ to $8.50++ to recognize your years of service. The min rate increase ripples across the entire workforce.
In other words, you go beyond what is mandated.
Next question?
Just the same one – rough percentages, what percentage of your payroll is minimum wage employees?
Kregg Reply:
July 12th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
No, the cost of my labor is at market. It is not ‘artificially low’ at all.
Um said: It is, because the health care cost of your employees is being born in large part by health care infrastructure designed to deal with emergency care, which is pricey, and that cost is not built into your service – it is spread out to the general taxpayer, rather than the consumers of your service.
K: Nope. Almost every one of my employees is covered by their spouse’s insurance or by medicaid and so, their costs are already covered by some part of society, but will be charged on my account if this bill passes.
K: Um, healthcare insurance costs are no more an issue of employment than are mortgage insurance costs. Would you also have me pay my employee’s mortgage insurance as a cost of their employment? Its the same thing.
Kregg Reply:
July 12th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Um said: In other words, you go beyond what is mandated.
K: I go beyond what is mandated but not what is required to keep staff.
U: Just the same one – rough percentages, what percentage of your payroll is minimum wage employees?
K: I move my employees off minimum as soon as I can. But, more pertinent to the conversation is how many are entry level workers. My answer to that is that most of the 30 are entry level OJTs. I have long time entry level workers making $11/hour but most are below that. The point remains the same; 30 employees x $500/mo= $180,000/year in increased direct costs. I cannot afford that.
Um Cara Reply:
July 12th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
Nope. Almost every one of my employees is covered by their spouse’s insurance or by medicaid
The labor of those who are covered by their spouse’s insurance are being subsidized by the consumers of the products and services where their spouses work. The labor of those who receive medicaid, the general taxpayer.
healthcare insurance costs are no more an issue of employment than are mortgage insurance costs.
Almost every (perhaps every?) other developed economy disagrees with that notion, as do the majority of your fellow countrymen.
Would you also have me pay my employee’s mortgage insurance as a cost of their employment? Its the same thing.
It’s the same thing… hmm… Ah, I see what you are saying, since mortgage insurance is mandated for those who need a mortgage – so should be health insurance be mandated for those who need health. I agree!
And maybe employer provided is NOT the way to go, I could probably be sold on a single payer plan. But that doesn’t seem likely to be the proposed plan. I’m sure we will have much more to discuss once something is actually proposed.
Um Cara Reply:
July 12th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
The point remains the same; 30 employees x $500/mo= $180,000/year in increased direct costs. I cannot afford that.
Well, I didn’t make it clear why I was asking. There was a mandated cost increase to you, with no increase to the rate paid by the government, and you are assuming the same thing will happen w/ the health care.
I was just curious how big a hit the previous unfunded mandate was, my guess is that it must have been tiny compared to mandatory health care for all – so it is a pretty big assumption that they would just let all similar businesses go bankrupt due to large cost increases, based on the fact that a small increase in cost was not addressed previously.
Kregg Reply:
July 12th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
Um said: The labor of those who are covered by their spouse’s insurance are being subsidized by the consumers of the products and services where their spouses work. The labor of those who receive medicaid, the general taxpayer.
K: True. But so what? If those spouses work in higher paying jobs at businesses who can raise their prices to cover insurance without losing sales then so be it. In my industry we cannot simply raise prices to survive and experience has shown us we cannot rely on the govt to cover the actual cost of it’s mandates…
U: Almost every (perhaps every?) other developed economy disagrees with that notion, as do the majority of your fellow countrymen.
K: So, that doesn’t change the facts at all, Um. If your logic for UHC is ‘because everyone else is doing it’ its pretty poor logic.
Would you also have me pay my employee’s mortgage insurance as a cost of their employment? Its the same thing.
U: It’s the same thing… hmm… Ah, I see what you are saying, since mortgage insurance is mandated for those who need a mortgage – so should be health insurance be mandated for those who need health. I agree!
K; Funny by half for your argument. ;-) Health insurance is not an employer’s responsibility. Period. Quit trying to make it such. If you want to pay for everyone’s UHC, take it away from all employers, tax the general public for the cost of the service to the general public and get on with life.
U: And maybe employer provided is NOT the way to go, I could probably be sold on a single payer plan. But that doesn’t seem likely to be the proposed plan. I’m sure we will have much more to discuss once something is actually proposed.
K: It certainly is not the way. BO has simply found a way to foist social engineering off on the private sector. Bad BO, Bad BO…
Um Cara Reply:
July 12th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
True. But so what? If those spouses work in higher paying jobs at businesses who can raise their prices to cover insurance without losing sales then so be it.
So what? You are taking money out of my pocket! I am a single guy, with no kids. I make the same amount of money as a married guy working the same job, with the same seniority. If his wife is getting health insurance from my company, some of the margin of my companies product is going to pay for his wife’s health insurance, and she has a job working for you! Your customers should be paying for her health insurance costs as a part of her labor, not MY customers! I want that margin going back into my company so my stinking stock options can get above water!
So, that doesn’t change the facts at all, Um. If your logic for UHC is ‘because everyone else is doing it’ its pretty poor logic.
No, I was saying that the idea that health care is not a basic service every citizen should have is not a common idea amongst developed nations.
My argument for UHC is that I want my stock options to go above water, and I can’t do that as long as my companies customers are paying for YOUR employees health care! ;^)
BO has simply found a way to foist social engineering off on the private sector. Bad BO, Bad BO…
Let’s see – neither of us has SEEN his plan.
Um Cara Reply:
July 12th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
Kregg,
I am coming to the conclusion that most of the folks on this board that support universal healthcare are those who will benefit from it and will not suffer the cost of receiving it.
Nah, I’ve got crazy good health insurance. I actually have two company provided plans. One of them pays 100%, and I get to go to whatever doctor I want. I have to pay up front, but then I just fill out a couple forms, paste the receipt onto it, send it in and wait about 3 weeks for it to be deposited into my account. I pay no co pays, and have nothing deducted from my paycheck for this service.
I also had the option of continuing my normal PPO that I had prior to going expat. I kept it (and continue to pay the 30 bucks a month employee portion) because I when I am in the US I use it and just have the doctors bill the providers directly. Just more convenient.
There are probably few people on the planet with better health care insurance than me, but I am wildly in favor of UHC.
Kregg Reply:
July 12th, 2009 at 7:35 pm
Um said: There are probably few people on the planet with better health care insurance than me, but I am wildly in favor of UHC.
K: As well you might be, as a lib with a big heart and MY pocket book. If YOU were paying for other peoples UHC out of your own pocket you might think differently. Remember, MY contribution will be $180,000. How much of YOUR pay check are you willing to donate?
Um Cara Reply:
July 12th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
As well you might be, as a lib with a big heart and MY pocket book. If YOU were paying for other peoples UHC out of your own pocket you might think differently. Remember, MY contribution will be $180,000. How much of YOUR pay check are you willing to donate?
Well, I don’t currently use the types of services that your company provides, but if and when I do – I will indeed be paying for the health insurance for the employees who provide that service as a part of my monthly bill.
You, as a con w/ a big heart, are willing for my company to pay for YOUR employees health insurance instead of being able to reinvest that money and get my stock options above water.
Come on, dude – stop sponging off my stock options already! Let your customers pay for the full cost of the service they receive, my pocketbook can’t handle footing the bill for them anymore! I need that Camero SS, remember?
Kregg Reply:
July 12th, 2009 at 7:45 pm
Um said: So what? You are taking money out of my pocket! I am a single guy, with no kids. I make the same amount of money as a married guy working the same job, with the same seniority. If his wife is getting health insurance from my company, some of the margin of my companies product is going to pay for his wife’s health insurance, and she has a job working for you! Your customers should be paying for her health insurance costs as a part of her labor, not MY customers! I want that margin going back into my company so my stinking stock options can get above water!
K: No, you should pay your own insurance – and so should your co-worker AND the wife wh who works for me. As to the ‘margin’ of your company’s product paying for her insurance that is no skin off your nose because unless you are an OWNER to whom company profits accrue it matters not what margin of your product pays for ANYTHING. You are paid for your service. You should pay for housing, feeding, clothing, and insuring yourself in such a way that you can provide that service for which you are contracted.
K prv: So, that doesn’t change the facts at all, Um. If your logic for UHC is ‘because everyone else is doing it’ its pretty poor logic.
U: No, I was saying that the idea that health care is not a basic service every citizen should have is not a common idea amongst developed nations.
K: Again, so what? I don’t shape my opinions upon what other nations might do. America is unique and has unique issues. If other countries want to go socialist so be it. That does not mean that the US ought to.
U: My argument for UHC is that I want my stock options to go above water, and I can’t do that as long as my companies customers are paying for YOUR employees health care! ;^)
K: You wish. Do you know how much your stock options would rise on the increased profitability if your fellow workers simply paid their own health insurance? Besides, your customers aren’t paying for my employee’s insurance – your owner is. Your customers would still pay the same price for your product but your company would be more profitable. ;-)
K prv: BO has simply found a way to foist social engineering off on the private sector. Bad BO, Bad BO…
U: Let’s see – neither of us has SEEN his plan.
K: Want to lay a bet?
Kregg Reply:
July 12th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
Um said: Well, I didn’t make it clear why I was asking. There was a mandated cost increase to you, with no increase to the rate paid by the government, and you are assuming the same thing will happen w/ the health care.
K: I have 26 years experience that says the govt will NOT fund the mandate.
U: I was just curious how big a hit the previous unfunded mandate was, my guess is that it must have been tiny compared to mandatory health care for all – so it is a pretty big assumption that they would just let all similar businesses go bankrupt due to large cost increases, based on the fact that a small increase in cost was not addressed previously.
K: Each unfunded minimum wage increase typically costs me in the neighborhood of $40,000 in the first year.
Kregg Reply:
July 12th, 2009 at 7:52 pm
Um said: I was just curious how big a hit the previous unfunded mandate was, my guess is that it must have been tiny compared to mandatory health care for all – so it is a pretty big assumption that they would just let all similar businesses go bankrupt due to large cost increases, based on the fact that a small increase in cost was not addressed previously.
K: Let me finish the point. At $500/employee/month my annual hit would be $180,000. And, I don’t think it a ‘big assumption’ at all that they wouldn’t fund the shortfall. It will happen before they even know about it. In the FIRST MONTH I will fall $15,000 behind. I cannot sustain that monthly loss. I will be in bankruptcy court before BO even knows the results of his actions.
Kregg Reply:
July 12th, 2009 at 7:58 pm
Um said: Well, I don’t currently use the types of services that your company provides, but if and when I do – I will indeed be paying for the health insurance for the employees who provide that service as a part of my monthly bill.
K: Its not likely you’ll ever use my service. You make enough money to be taken care of at home. So you’ll skate even on that… ;-)
U: You, as a con w/ a big heart, are willing for my company to pay for YOUR employees health insurance instead of being able to reinvest that money and get my stock options above water.
K: Nope. My employee ought to pay for her own damn insurance. That would do wonders for your stock options…
U: Come on, dude – stop sponging off my stock options already! Let your customers pay for the full cost of the service they receive, my pocketbook can’t handle footing the bill for them anymore! I need that Camero SS, remember?
K: My customers DO pay for the full cost of the service they receive. I don’t pay health insurance, remember. However, your stock options will eventually be taxed to pay for UHC so maybe you need to re-think your position.
K: Regarding Cameros, I saw one totalled a couple of weeks ago on the freeway. Some guy plowed into the back of a rapidly slowing SS. The lady was REALLY pissed that she’d waited a year for the car and had had it less than a week. I’ll bet you could get it cheap…
Um Cara Reply:
July 12th, 2009 at 7:59 pm
No, you should pay your own insurance – and so should your co-worker AND the wife wh who works for me. As to the ‘margin’ of your company’s product paying for her insurance that is no skin off your nose because unless you are an OWNER to whom company profits accrue it matters not what margin of your product pays for ANYTHING
I am indeed an owner, I own a fair amount of common stock of the company I work for.
You wish. Do you know how much your stock options would rise on the increased profitability if your fellow workers simply paid their own health insurance?
I guess the best people would leave for companies that did pay, and the employees are our biggest asset. So I’m not sure how losing our best asset would improve stock price.
Besides, your customers aren’t paying for my employee’s insurance – your owner is. Your customers would still pay the same price for your product but your company would be more profitable. ;-)
All the money that flows into the company comes from the customers, and my margin is being harmed by your industries unwillingness to pay for it’s employees health care. If your industry would step up to the plate, the cost of insuring your employees would either go to margin, or, because we are in fact the most efficient player in our industry – we could lower the price of our product and grab marketshare. My options could go up, and I could buy that Camero.
Let’s face it, it’s all about my Camero SS. That is what is important to America right now.
Um Cara Reply:
July 12th, 2009 at 8:05 pm
Its not likely you’ll ever use my service. You make enough money to be taken care of at home. So you’ll skate even on that.
All kidding aside, I’m an ‘evolutionary dead end’ ;^)
If I live long enough, I very likely will end up in some type of assisted living.
However, your stock options will eventually be taxed to pay for UHC so maybe you need to re-think your position.
We switched over to performance shares a while back, I already get taxed on those. I don’t LOVE paying taxes, but I believe it my responsibility to do so, and don’t really MIND paying taxes. If I wasn’t making any money, I wouldn’t be paying any taxes – so it’s a good thing that I pay so much tax. Though the current situation of paying it in two countries is a bit much to take sometimes, I’ll admit.
Regarding Cameros, I saw one totalled a couple of weeks ago on the freeway. Some guy plowed into the back of a rapidly slowing SS. The lady was REALLY pissed that she’d waited a year for the car and had had it less than a week. I’ll bet you could get it cheap…
Hah, you have no idea how many junkers I have owned in my life – other than the company cars I’ve had in Brazil, I’ve never owned a new car in my life.
I’m buying a new one! (But I seriously doubt it will be a Camero SS, I’m pretty frugal – I’ll probably get a Ford Ranger or something. But I can dream!)
Kregg Reply:
July 12th, 2009 at 8:17 pm
Um said: All kidding aside, I’m an ‘evolutionary dead end’ ;^)
K: With BO’s ‘change you can believe in’ that may be a good thing.
U: If I live long enough, I very likely will end up in some type of assisted living.
K: Only if you waste your retirement on the chiquitas. There is no reason to enter a residential care facility when you have enough money to maintain yourself in your own home with outside help.
U: We switched over to performance shares a while back, I already get taxed on those. I don’t LOVE paying taxes, but I believe it my responsibility to do so, and don’t really MIND paying taxes. If I wasn’t making any money, I wouldn’t be paying any taxes – so it’s a good thing that I pay so much tax. Though the current situation of paying it in two countries is a bit much to take sometimes, I’ll admit.
K: Yeah, thats got to suck. I don’t mind paying fair taxes but an insurance requirement will kill me – AND my retirement because my building won’t be worth much if it can’t make a profit.
U: Hah, you have no idea how many junkers I have owned in my life – other than the company cars I’ve had in Brazil, I’ve never owned a new car in my life.
K: Same here. I’m a bimmerphile and have a yard full of them. I’d drive newer right now but I’ve been putting three kids through private college.
U: I’m buying a new one! (But I seriously doubt it will be a Camero SS, I’m pretty frugal – I’ll probably get a Ford Ranger or something. But I can dream!)
K: Import an SS down there. Sell it, and retire on the profit. They’re good looking cars…
July 12th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
K: “It has nothing to do with ‘cheap’ and miserly you idiot.”
TD: First of all, namecalling is childish and uncalled for. And second of all I am NOT demanding you pay for my insurance. I already told you I have my own coverage (and before you call someone else an “idiot” I suggest you look in the mirror).
K: “K: Unlike you, TD, I have no cushy little safety net where I am taken care of from cradle to grave, like you.”
TD: You;’re great at making assumptions. Too bad you fall short on facts. If it is true that you own your own business, you really shouldn’t refer to your employees as “selfish ingrates”. Unless of course you run a sweatshop. Many respectable employers appreciate their employees’ help in establishing their business.
K: “If you want to talk selfish it is you, who demand I pay for YOUR insurance at no cost to you. Now THATS selfish.”
TD: Oh poor, poor Kregg. He’s so afraid he may be forced to part with some of his pennies in order to help the needy.
K: “Pay your own way, TD.”
TD: Don’t worry, I’m not expecting any help or compassion from you. You are heartless, unconscionable and care for nobody but yourself. I hope you have enough money saved up to buy your way into heaven.
And one more thing. Again, you may want to tell your republican cogressmen and women dead set against a public healthcare system, to refuse their own socialized healthcare plan.
Kregg Reply:
July 12th, 2009 at 7:30 pm
K prv: “It has nothing to do with ‘cheap’ and miserly you idiot.”
TD said: First of all, namecalling is childish and uncalled for.
K: So, why did you call me a ‘cheap bastard’? Huh?
T: And second of all I am NOT demanding you pay for my insurance. I already told you I have my own coverage.
K: If its still not clear to you, let me know and I’ll type more slowly so you understand my point. There is no logical reason for your employer to be required to pay your health insurance. The only reason it has been done has been because of a jiggering of the tax code 60 or so years ago that made it attractive to offer as a job benefit tax free. You should pay your own insurance at the level which you choose to insure yourself out of your own earnings.
K: Who IS paying for that insurance, TD? Your employer? If so, he and I are in the same boat and the point I’m making is the same for him. Pay your own way, TD.
T: (and before you call someone else an “idiot” I suggest you look in the mirror).
K: Instead of the mirror, I looked in the dictionary. Your picture is there right by the word. You buzz around criticizing points made without even comprehending your ignorance in relation to the topic. I don’t know why you are ignorant on the topic – I presumed your mental state. You are free to enlighten me.
K prv: “K: Unlike you, TD, I have no cushy little safety net where I am taken care of from cradle to grave, like you.”
T: You;’re great at making assumptions. Too bad you fall short on facts.
K: So, enlighten me…
T: If it is true that you own your own business, you really shouldn’t refer to your employees as “selfish ingrates”.
K: My employees aren’t selfish and they aren’t ingrates. But, then, they don’t demand that I pay their health insurance, either. Maybe theres’ a corrolation…
T: Unless of course you run a sweatshop. Many respectable employers appreciate their employees’ help in establishing their business.
K: My employee longevity stats indicate that I appreciate my employee’s help in running my business. I established it. Its not me and my employees that have an ingrate problem.
K prv: “If you want to talk selfish it is you, who demand I pay for YOUR insurance at no cost to you. Now THATS selfish.”
T: Oh poor, poor Kregg. He’s so afraid he may be forced to part with some of his pennies in order to help the needy.
K: I’ve got an idea. Lets take YOUR pennies and fund health insurance. Step up and be counted, TD. How much you willing to have taken out of your paycheck to pay for UHC?
K: “Pay your own way, TD.”
T: Don’t worry, I’m not expecting any help or compassion from you. You are heartless, unconscionable and care for nobody but yourself. I hope you have enough money saved up to buy your way into heaven.
K: And you are ignorant beyond belief on both this topic and who and what I am. What bothers me is that you show no interest in being anything else.
T: And one more thing. Again, you may want to tell your republican cogressmen and women dead set against a public healthcare system, to refuse their own socialized healthcare plan.
K: You already tried this one on me. It didn’t work last time either…
TDro319 Reply:
July 13th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
K: “If its still not clear to you, let me know and I’ll type more slowly so you understand my point. There is no logical reason for your employer to be required to pay your health insurance.”
TD: Who said my employer pays my insurance? You?
K: “Instead of the mirror, I looked in the dictionary. Your picture is there right by the word.”
TD: Funny, that YOUR picture.
K: “You buzz around criticizing points made without even comprehending your ignorance in relation to the topic.”
TD: Wow. Look who’s talking about ignorance.
K: “I don’t know why you are ignorant on the topic…”
TD: I could say the same thing about you
K “– I presumed your mental state. You are free to enlighten me.”
TD: There ya go again. Thinking that just because YOU have mental problems, everybody else has. Tsk, tsk.
K: “K: My employees aren’t selfish and they aren’t ingrates”
TD: “So why did you call them that?
K: “K: I’ve got an idea. Lets take YOUR pennies and fund health insurance. Step up and be counted, TD. How much you willing to have taken out of your paycheck to pay for UHC?”
TD: I’ve said all along I would be willing to have my taxes raised to cover insurance for everyone.
K: “And you are ignorant beyond belief on both this topic and who and what I am. What bothers me is that you show no interest in being anything else.”
TD: Tell me about my faults, oh all-knowing one.
K: “K: You already tried this one on me. It didn’t work last time either…”
TD: So then I’m to assume that you agree republicans who abore socialized healthcare should have socialized healthcare. And you call me an idiot? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
July 12th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
Let’s reemphasize that we need not place the cost of healthcare on business…we only choose to do it because those businesses which supply high cost and benefit coverage to their upper echelon employees have happy employees (mostly) who avoid paying taxes on this benefit.
For the average business, insurance of any real value has long since passed its cost/benefit point…and will bankrupt those businesses if the trend continues.
We are not facing the issue. For profit sickness care is too expensive and too inefficient to be afforded. We need single payer Mayo (or Kaiser) model systems which pay for wellness, measured good outcomes, and not fee for service piece meal which encourages mass over utilization.
No American should be without necessary healthcare. All should contribute towards its cost. A healthy workforce is in our nation’s best interest. Only lobbies for the status quo…the rich get richer…favor keeping the mess we have. And they try to frighten us into believing that government bureaucrats are less a threat than insurance company bureaucrats!
Kregg Reply:
July 12th, 2009 at 7:32 pm
Doc said: Mayo (or Kaiser) model systems which pay for wellness, measured good outcomes, and not fee for service piece meal which encourages mass over utilization.
K: I haven’t talked to a single Kaiser patient who is satisfied with their Kaiser insurance. All have complained it is impersonal, long waits, little personal input to their care, and rigid.
average james Reply:
July 13th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
That’s funny Kregg,
I had Kaiser for four years. It is the only health coverage that I can find nothing to complain about.
placefield Reply:
July 13th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
I’m on Kaiser right now and it is OK, no serious complaints. Sure I did prefer the more personal care I got prior to Kaiser but even if I did have that insurance plan still I would not have the same doctor as my old one has closed her practice due to frustrations dealing with the insurance companies. Actually my second choice (my wife’s doctor) closed his practice as well to go work for Kaiser over the same frustrations.
average james Reply:
July 13th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Dickorydoc,
For profit health care is a moral blight on our society, not to mention the healthy workforce aspect.
I am glad that you did mention it, as it has potential to sway a few ‘money is the bottom line’ types. Perhaps conservatives could be persuaded if there was an overall financial gain involved. Many do not seem interested in doing good for others if there is no material reward.
Just callin’ em as I see em gang.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
July 13th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
good works are good works…however I trust the govt with my money equal to or less than the distance I could throw it. (the govt…. not my money)
average james Reply:
July 13th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Maybe you’re not one of the many Guido.
Do you trust the government at all ?
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
July 13th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
yes…I trust them to do certain things…I don’t trust them to do those things with any semblance of monetary discretion however.
July 12th, 2009 at 7:22 pm