So when Obama says I can keep my doctor.....

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: eskimospy
There are heavy penalties for employers dumping people out of their health coverage so that they will be picked up by the government plan.

Such as?

We know about the 8% payroll fine and a loss of whatever annual tax deduction companies currently receive for providing coverage; however, neither of those is "heavy" as compared to the high costs some companies are paying for coverage right now. In fact, many financial gurus have calculated that companies would choose to pay for the fines rather than continued coverage.

So, other than those two items, exactly which "penalties" are you referring to? Please be specific.

then why aren't they dropping coverage already?

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: senseamp

He can do same thing under Obama's plan. Which is why it's called public OPTION.

Obama has publically stated as well as Pelosi that their goal is to eliminate private insurance.

That is what they want. So no, under the government take over you won't be able to choose your doctor or get private insurance.

And I want a Ferrari 458.
We are talking about what's in the bill on the table. What politicians personally want is irrelevant.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
We all know many employers will dump private plans and shoe their employees to public. Anybody who doesn't think this will happen en masse is either retarded or dishonest.

Sure, if they don't want to keep their employees.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Skoorb
We all know many employers will dump private plans and shoe their employees to public. Anybody who doesn't think this will happen en masse is either retarded or dishonest.

Sure, if they don't want to keep their employees.

Many employers will dump private plans anyways, and then their employees will be fvcked if we don't have a public option in place for those who can't obtain private coverage.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Skoorb
We all know many employers will dump private plans and shoe their employees to public. Anybody who doesn't think this will happen en masse is either retarded or dishonest.

Sure, if they don't want to keep their employees.

Many employers will dump private plans anyways, and then their employees will be fvcked if we don't have a public option in place for those who can't obtain private coverage.

And if they aren't dumping them, they are raising the rates so damn fast that you can't keep up.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
"Why are we spending 17% of our nation's GDP on health care while tens of millions of Americans go uninsured or under-insured when other nations spend a much smaller percentage of their GDP on health care while insuring everyone and providing a better overall level of health care?" Are the people and governments in those nations really smarter than we are? If we can become the first nation to put a man on the Moon, then why can't we figure out how to do a better job or as good of a job at providing health care for our populace as other first world industrialized nations?

Maybe because countries like Canada have 2.6 MRI scanners per million people while the USA has 19.5 MRI scanners per million people.

I can walk into Kaiser and get an MRI this afternoon while the media wait time for an MRI scanner in Canada is 4 weeks.

But then again you get what you pay for.....

Not to mention price points for pharmas and equipment is a lot less in foreign countries, which effectively means we are subsidizing the costs for foreign countries.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Skoorb
We all know many employers will dump private plans and shoe their employees to public. Anybody who doesn't think this will happen en masse is either retarded or dishonest.

Sure, if they don't want to keep their employees.

Many employers will dump private plans anyways, and then their employees will be fvcked if we don't have a public option in place for those who can't obtain private coverage.

And if they aren't dumping them, they are raising the rates so damn fast that you can't keep up.

Yep, it's positive feedback on costs:

More companies drop coverage -> more uninsured -> more unpaid bills at hospitals -> more burden passed on to paying customers -> higher prices to employers -> More companies drop coverage

That's creative destruction for you

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: senseamp

He can do same thing under Obama's plan. Which is why it's called public OPTION.

Obama has publically stated as well as Pelosi that their goal is to eliminate private insurance.

That is what they want. So no, under the government take over you won't be able to choose your doctor or get private insurance.

you have no proof of that....

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: senseamp

He can do same thing under Obama's plan. Which is why it's called public OPTION.

Obama has publically stated as well as Pelosi that their goal is to eliminate private insurance.

That is what they want. So no, under the government take over you won't be able to choose your doctor or get private insurance.

Not in the bill(s), or as you call it "government take over". Find new boogeyman ....

 

[QuantumPion]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: senseamp

He can do same thing under Obama's plan. Which is why it's called public OPTION.

Obama has publically stated as well as Pelosi that their goal is to eliminate private insurance.

That is what they want. So no, under the government take over you won't be able to choose your doctor or get private insurance.

you have no proof of that....

What? It's all over youtube, from their own mouths.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: eskimospy
There are heavy penalties for employers dumping people out of their health coverage so that they will be picked up by the government plan.

Such as?

We know about the 8% payroll fine and a loss of whatever annual tax deduction companies currently receive for providing coverage; however, neither of those is "heavy" as compared to the high costs some companies are paying for coverage right now. In fact, many financial gurus have calculated that companies would choose to pay for the fines rather than continued coverage.

So, other than those two items, exactly which "penalties" are you referring to? Please be specific.

then why aren't they dropping coverage already?

Right now there's no safety net.

Today, companies can't afford to let their entire workforce become uninsured. They have ethical and fiscal reasons to maintain a healthy workforce.

If/when the government implements a "public option" safety net, the companies will be freed of that burden, so the only remaining factor for them to consider will be the effect coverage costs have on their bottom lines.

IOW, if the "penalties" end up being cheaper than the costs of providing coverage, they will drop their employer-based offerings immediately.

The only way such penalties can be effective is if they are raised to the point where paying them would be more expensive than continuing to offer employer-based coverage. As the bill is currently written, that is simply not the case.

On the flipside of this "penalties" issue, they are likely to cause a 2% to 8% reduction-in-force (RIF) at small companies that do not currently offer coverage; which some say will equate to millions of lost jobs in the small business sector.

These are two of the main reasons I strongly oppose the current version of the House bill.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: senseamp

He can do same thing under Obama's plan. Which is why it's called public OPTION.

Obama has publically stated as well as Pelosi that their goal is to eliminate private insurance.

That is what they want. So no, under the government take over you won't be able to choose your doctor or get private insurance.

you have no proof of that....

What? It's all over youtube, from their own mouths.

It is? It's on youtube that the current government legislation being considered is going to take completely over private insurance and eliminate your choice of doctor? Really?

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: senseamp

He can do same thing under Obama's plan. Which is why it's called public OPTION.

Obama has publically stated as well as Pelosi that their goal is to eliminate private insurance.

That is what they want. So no, under the government take over you won't be able to choose your doctor or get private insurance.

you have no proof of that....

What? It's all over youtube, from their own mouths.

It is? It's on youtube that the current government legislation being considered is going to take completely over private insurance and eliminate your choice of doctor? Really?

Fact Check: Obama Consistent in His Position on Single Payer Health Care

Barack Obama, 5/7/2007:

If you're starting from scratch, then a single-payer system would probably make sense.

"But we've got all these legacy systems in place, and managing the transition, as well as adjusting the culture to a different system, would be difficult to pull off. So we may need a system that's not so disruptive that people feel like suddenly what they've known for most of their lives is thrown by the wayside.

Somehow "single-payer" has turned into "private insurance is outlawed", which is idiotic because no nation in the world thinks that's a good idea. This is willful ignorance.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Patranus
So when Obama claims that I can keep my doctor with his government option...

...what happens if it is cheaper for my employer to dump the current health care plan and take whatever hit the government outs in place for employers who do not provide health coverage?

Will I be able to go to my same doctor in that case? Even it they work for Kaiser Permanent or other health group that provides insurance and services?

There are heavy penalties for employers dumping people out of their health coverage so that they will be picked up by the government plan.

Your trolls are getting more obvious, by the way.

Have you seen the costs that most large companies pick up for healthcare. Unless the penalties are going to be in the hundreds of millions of dollars, then it won't matter, they will dump them.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: eskimospy
There are heavy penalties for employers dumping people out of their health coverage so that they will be picked up by the government plan.

Such as?

We know about the 8% payroll fine and a loss of whatever annual tax deduction companies currently receive for providing coverage; however, neither of those is "heavy" as compared to the high costs some companies are paying for coverage right now. In fact, many financial gurus have calculated that companies would choose to pay for the fines rather than continued coverage.

So, other than those two items, exactly which "penalties" are you referring to? Please be specific.

then why aren't they dropping coverage already?

Right now there's no safety net.

Today, companies can't afford to let their entire workforce become uninsured. They have ethical and fiscal reasons to maintain a healthy workforce.

If/when the government implements a "public option" safety net, the companies will be freed of that burden, so the only remaining factor for them to consider will be the effect coverage costs have on their bottom lines.

IOW, if the "penalties" end up being cheaper than the costs of providing coverage, they will drop their employer-based offerings immediately.

The only way such penalties can be effective is if they are raised to the point where paying them would be more expensive than continuing to offer employer-based coverage. As the bill is currently written, that is simply not the case.

On the flipside of this "penalties" issue, they are likely to cause a 2% to 8% reduction-in-force (RIF) at small companies that do not currently offer coverage; which some say will equate to millions of lost jobs in the small business sector.

These are two of the main reasons I strongly oppose the current version of the House bill.

So if "companies can't afford to let their entire workforce become uninsured" why are there "companies that do not currently offer coverage?"

 

[Pens1566]

His whole thing against UHC is based on a slippery slope argument that if it passes there will be mass incidents of companies dropping coverage everywhere. Its his supposition.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Pens1566
His whole thing against UHC is based on a slippery slope argument that if it passes there will be mass incidents of companies dropping coverage everywhere. Its his supposition.

It's also basic common sense as has been pointed out and described. It doesn't have to be in the bill to understand the effect on private insurance - it will no longer exist, it can't.

 

[Pens1566]

Does your crystal ball have this weeks powerball numbers too?

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: eskimospy
There are heavy penalties for employers dumping people out of their health coverage so that they will be picked up by the government plan.

Such as?

We know about the 8% payroll fine and a loss of whatever annual tax deduction companies currently receive for providing coverage; however, neither of those is "heavy" as compared to the high costs some companies are paying for coverage right now. In fact, many financial gurus have calculated that companies would choose to pay for the fines rather than continued coverage.

So, other than those two items, exactly which "penalties" are you referring to? Please be specific.

then why aren't they dropping coverage already?

Right now there's no safety net.

Today, companies can't afford to let their entire workforce become uninsured. They have ethical and fiscal reasons to maintain a healthy workforce.

If/when the government implements a "public option" safety net, the companies will be freed of that burden, so the only remaining factor for them to consider will be the effect coverage costs have on their bottom lines.

IOW, if the "penalties" end up being cheaper than the costs of providing coverage, they will drop their employer-based offerings immediately.

The only way such penalties can be effective is if they are raised to the point where paying them would be more expensive than continuing to offer employer-based coverage. As the bill is currently written, that is simply not the case.

On the flipside of this "penalties" issue, they are likely to cause a 2% to 8% reduction-in-force (RIF) at small companies that do not currently offer coverage; which some say will equate to millions of lost jobs in the small business sector.

These are two of the main reasons I strongly oppose the current version of the House bill.

So if "companies can't afford to let their entire workforce become uninsured" why are there "companies that do not currently offer coverage?"

Small companies simply can't afford to cover it.

Which is one reason that we DO need some type of limited reform or regulation -- just not the current pile of steaming shit that is making its way through Congress.

There's a solution out there, but the current bill ain't it.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Pens1566
His whole thing against UHC is based on a slippery slope argument that if it passes there will be mass incidents of companies dropping coverage everywhere. Its his supposition.

It's also basic common sense as has been pointed out and described. It doesn't have to be in the bill to understand the effect on private insurance - it will no longer exist, it can't.

I am guessing you have nothing to back that up?

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: eskimospy
There are heavy penalties for employers dumping people out of their health coverage so that they will be picked up by the government plan.

Such as?

We know about the 8% payroll fine and a loss of whatever annual tax deduction companies currently receive for providing coverage; however, neither of those is "heavy" as compared to the high costs some companies are paying for coverage right now. In fact, many financial gurus have calculated that companies would choose to pay for the fines rather than continued coverage.

So, other than those two items, exactly which "penalties" are you referring to? Please be specific.

then why aren't they dropping coverage already?

Right now there's no safety net.

Today, companies can't afford to let their entire workforce become uninsured. They have ethical and fiscal reasons to maintain a healthy workforce.

If/when the government implements a "public option" safety net, the companies will be freed of that burden, so the only remaining factor for them to consider will be the effect coverage costs have on their bottom lines.

IOW, if the "penalties" end up being cheaper than the costs of providing coverage, they will drop their employer-based offerings immediately.

The only way such penalties can be effective is if they are raised to the point where paying them would be more expensive than continuing to offer employer-based coverage. As the bill is currently written, that is simply not the case.

On the flipside of this "penalties" issue, they are likely to cause a 2% to 8% reduction-in-force (RIF) at small companies that do not currently offer coverage; which some say will equate to millions of lost jobs in the small business sector.

These are two of the main reasons I strongly oppose the current version of the House bill.

So if "companies can't afford to let their entire workforce become uninsured" why are there "companies that do not currently offer coverage?"

Small companies and those that are losing money simply can't afford to cover it.

Which is one reason (high coverage costs) that we DO need some type of limited reform or regulation -- just not the current pile of steaming shit that is making its way through Congress as we speak.

So some companies obviously could afford to let their entire workforce become uninsured, so there goes your entire argument.

 

[Athena]

Originally posted by: spidey07
It's also basic common sense as has been pointed out and described. It doesn't have to be in the bill to understand the effect on private insurance - it will no longer exist, it can't.

That's not true. Most countries with single-payer systems include an element of private insurance.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
Small companies and those that are losing money simply can't afford to cover it.

Which is one reason (high coverage costs) that we DO need some type of limited reform or regulation -- just not the current pile of steaming shit that is making its way through Congress as we speak.

So some companies obviously could afford to let their entire workforce become uninsured, so there goes your entire argument.

Actually, that fact does nothing to dispel my argument. Small companies are a very important part of our economy, but they do not drive it. More companies DO offer coverage than not, and many of those that do will drop said coverage if/when it becomes cheaper to just pay the fines.

On the other hand, the fines themselves will take a severe toll on small business jobs.

The fact of the matter is that the current bill threatens to severely damage both large and small companies, and their employees, just in different ways.

 

[Pens1566]

"many of those will drop their coverage if/when it becomes cheaper to pay the fines. "

Your opinion. Someone that can't grasp how income taxes work .... yeah, forgive me if I don't rally behind that prediction.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
Small companies and those that are losing money simply can't afford to cover it.

Which is one reason (high coverage costs) that we DO need some type of limited reform or regulation -- just not the current pile of steaming shit that is making its way through Congress as we speak.

So some companies obviously could afford to let their entire workforce become uninsured, so there goes your entire argument.

Actually, that fact does nothing to dispel my argument. Small companies are a very important part of our economy, but they do not drive it. More companies DO offer coverage than not, and many of those that do will drop said coverage if/when it becomes cheaper to just pay the fines.

And with status quo they can drop coverage without paying fines. Now which is more likely to result in companies dropping coverage, them being fined or them not being fined for it?

On the other hand, the fines themselves will take a severe toll on small business jobs.

The fact of the matter is that the current bill threatens to severely damage both large and small companies, and their employees, just in different ways.

Except of course the current bill exempts small businesses from fines, so they are way ahead of you.