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

[fskimospy]

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.

Those are the penalties that I am referring to. You're not thinking this through.

Why do companies offer health benefits to people currently? Because due to tax incentives they are a cost effective way to attract quality employees. A company can most certainly choose not to offer benefits anymore, but they will be less attractive to employees and be paying extra cash in penalties for the privilege.

Employers don't offer benefits for their health (har) you know.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: eskimospy


Those are the penalties that I am referring to. You're not thinking this through.

Why do companies offer health benefits to people currently? Because due to tax incentives they are a cost effective way to attract quality employees. A company can most certainly choose not to offer benefits anymore, but they will be less attractive to employees and be paying extra cash in penalties for the privilege.

Employers don't offer benefits for their health (har) you know.

Actually in the manufacturing sector they do. It's absolutely in their best interest to keep an employee healthy and receive prompt care. That's why the larger manufacturing companies have some of the best plans there are.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: eskimospy


Those are the penalties that I am referring to. You're not thinking this through.

Why do companies offer health benefits to people currently? Because due to tax incentives they are a cost effective way to attract quality employees. A company can most certainly choose not to offer benefits anymore, but they will be less attractive to employees and be paying extra cash in penalties for the privilege.

Employers don't offer benefits for their health (har) you know.

Actually in the manufacturing sector they do. It's absolutely in their best interest to keep an employee healthy and receive prompt care. That's why the larger manufacturing companies have some of the best plans there are.

What are you basing this on?

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: eskimospy


Those are the penalties that I am referring to. You're not thinking this through.

Why do companies offer health benefits to people currently? Because due to tax incentives they are a cost effective way to attract quality employees. A company can most certainly choose not to offer benefits anymore, but they will be less attractive to employees and be paying extra cash in penalties for the privilege.

Employers don't offer benefits for their health (har) you know.

Actually in the manufacturing sector they do. It's absolutely in their best interest to keep an employee healthy and receive prompt care. That's why the larger manufacturing companies have some of the best plans there are.

What are you basing this on?

Personal experience. As a consultant I get to be inside a lot of different organizations especially large ones, which would be a lot in the manufacturing industry. This also exposes me to many different departments so I get to interact and see the motivations for how they do business, I have to.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

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.

Those are the penalties that I am referring to. You're not thinking this through.

Why do companies offer health benefits to people currently? Because due to tax incentives they are a cost effective way to attract quality employees. A company can most certainly choose not to offer benefits anymore, but they will be less attractive to employees and be paying extra cash in penalties for the privilege.

Employers don't offer benefits for their health (har) you know.

So we should completely ignore the CBO and other financial gurus who have actually done the math and determined that it will be much more cost effective for many companies to pay the penalties and lose the tax breaks than to continue to offer and pay for employer-based coverage...?!

Interesting logic there...

I don't think that I'm the one here who is failing to "think this through."

EDIT: The companies will go with the cheaper option, period -- especially given the "public option" safety net that is being set up to catch all of their employees. They will be alleviated of any/all pressures to keep their employees insured themselves, and they'll save/make more money in the process.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: eskimospy


Those are the penalties that I am referring to. You're not thinking this through.

Why do companies offer health benefits to people currently? Because due to tax incentives they are a cost effective way to attract quality employees. A company can most certainly choose not to offer benefits anymore, but they will be less attractive to employees and be paying extra cash in penalties for the privilege.

Employers don't offer benefits for their health (har) you know.

Actually in the manufacturing sector they do. It's absolutely in their best interest to keep an employee healthy and receive prompt care. That's why the larger manufacturing companies have some of the best plans there are.

What are you basing this on?

Personal experience. As a consultant I get to be inside a lot of different organizations especially large ones, which would be a lot in the manufacturing industry. This also exposes me to many different departments so I get to interact and see the motivations for how they do business, I have to.

I would have to see some data to back that up, and even then your reasoning would be suspect due to all sorts of confounds. Manufacturing jobs are significantly more likely to be unionized than other jobs, and unionized jobs are far far more likely to have health care. (among other things.)

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: eskimospy

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.

Those are the penalties that I am referring to. You're not thinking this through.

Why do companies offer health benefits to people currently? Because due to tax incentives they are a cost effective way to attract quality employees. A company can most certainly choose not to offer benefits anymore, but they will be less attractive to employees and be paying extra cash in penalties for the privilege.

Employers don't offer benefits for their health (har) you know.

So we should completely ignore the CBO and other financial gurus who have actually done the math and determined that it will be much more cost effective for many companies to pay the penalties and lose the tax breaks than to continue to offer and pay for employer-based coverage...?!

Interesting logic there...

I don't think that I'm the one here who is failing to "think this through."

No, you're (once again) inventing arguments to fight against. I never said that no companies would switch. I'm certain some would. Compensated health care would remain a powerful recruiting tool however, and many companies would choose to use it.

The CBO most certainly did NOT determine that it will be 'much more cost effective' for many companies to pay the penalties. They determined that it would be the case for some employers. Regardless, the CBO also determined that this public plan would result in savings of around $150 billion overall. You don't dispute their numbers on that, do you?

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
So we should completely ignore the CBO and other financial gurus who have actually done the math and determined that it will be much more cost effective for many companies to pay the penalties and lose the tax breaks than to continue to offer and pay for employer-based coverage...?!

Interesting logic there...

I don't think that I'm the one here who is failing to "think this through."

No, you're (once again) inventing arguments to fight against. I never said that no companies would switch. I'm certain some would. Compensated health care would remain a powerful recruiting tool however, and many companies would choose to use it.

For most companies, the bottom line trumps all else. Please see my edited post above and pay particular attention to the "safety net" portion of the argument for the rest...

The CBO most certainly did NOT determine that it will be 'much more cost effective' for many companies to pay the penalties. They determined that it would be the case for some employers.

Seriously? Semantics FTL.

Regardless, the CBO also determined that this public plan would result in savings of around $150 billion overall. You don't dispute their numbers on that, do you?

So we're to spend trillions with our left hand for a few tens of billions in "possible" savings in our right?

Swell.

That reminds me of the age-old "But the $1000 shoes were on sale!" argument. It doesn't work for my wife, and it won't work for you or Uncle Sam.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: eskimospy


Those are the penalties that I am referring to. You're not thinking this through.

Why do companies offer health benefits to people currently? Because due to tax incentives they are a cost effective way to attract quality employees. A company can most certainly choose not to offer benefits anymore, but they will be less attractive to employees and be paying extra cash in penalties for the privilege.

Employers don't offer benefits for their health (har) you know.

Actually in the manufacturing sector they do.

It's absolutely in their best interest to keep an employee healthy and receive prompt care.


That's why the larger manufacturing companies have some of the best plans there are.

What are you basing this on?

Personal experience. As a consultant I get to be inside a lot of different organizations especially large ones, which would be a lot in the manufacturing industry. This also exposes me to many different departments so I get to interact and see the motivations for how they do business, I have to.

I don't believe you

For starters we don't have much manufacturing left and more is leaving everyday.

Especially the "larger" ones.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

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?

Two other questions you should be asking, are:

"If I lose my job, will I be able to afford to see my own doctor and will I be able to afford health insurance?"

"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?

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

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?

Two other questions you should be asking, are:

"If I lose my job, will I be able to afford to see my own doctor and will I be able to afford health insurance?"

"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?

:thumbsup:

 

[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.....

 

[Engineer]

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.....

Canada has 4 doctors per 1,000 people vs 3 per 1,000 people in the US. I guess you get what you pay for there also. Do you have any proof that it takes 4 weeks in Canada to get an MRI, especially in an emergency situation? I just spent a week in Canada and they laugh at the US health care system and the "stretched" (or outright lies) that the American population spreads about their health care system.

By the way, when my daughter had a broken bone in her arm (last year), I had to wait 6 days to get into an Orthopedic Surgeon to have it set Was told to keep it in a sling and not move it while waiting. They were all too busy to get her in earlier.

 

[yllus]

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.....

Canadian and American health care systems compared

In 2006, per-capita spending for health care in the U.S. was US$6,714; in Canada, US$3,678. The U.S. spent 15.3% of GDP on health care in that year; Canada spent 10.0%.

United States ? GDP: 13.84 Trillion
Canada ? GDP: $1.271 trillion

You don't think that with a revised system, you could both have your choice of doctors like Canadians do, and manage to keep at least the same number of MRI machines as you do now? Americans spend a hell of a lot more money on healthcare than Canadians do - having greater availability of MRI machines isn't exactly something you can chalk up to the difference in payment systems.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: eskimospy


Those are the penalties that I am referring to. You're not thinking this through.

Why do companies offer health benefits to people currently? Because due to tax incentives they are a cost effective way to attract quality employees. A company can most certainly choose not to offer benefits anymore, but they will be less attractive to employees and be paying extra cash in penalties for the privilege.

Employers don't offer benefits for their health (har) you know.

Actually in the manufacturing sector they do.

It's absolutely in their best interest to keep an employee healthy and receive prompt care.


That's why the larger manufacturing companies have some of the best plans there are.

What are you basing this on?

Personal experience. As a consultant I get to be inside a lot of different organizations especially large ones, which would be a lot in the manufacturing industry. This also exposes me to many different departments so I get to interact and see the motivations for how they do business, I have to.

I don't believe you

For starters we don't have much manufacturing left and more is leaving everyday.

Especially the "larger" ones.

What real big ones are leaving?

There is some outsourcing, but heavy manufacturing is still done here that pays people.

Boeing
GD
Lockheed
GM/Ford/Chrysler
Speciality Steel

Pharamcutials
Medical Equipment

Appliances

Mining

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: yllus

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.....

Canadian and American health care systems compared

In 2006, per-capita spending for health care in the U.S. was US$6,714; in Canada, US$3,678. The U.S. spent 15.3% of GDP on health care in that year; Canada spent 10.0%.

United States ? GDP: 13.84 Trillion
Canada ? GDP: $1.271 trillion

You don't think that with a revised system, you could both have your choice of doctors like Canadians do, and manage to keep at least the same number of MRI machines as you do now? Americans spend a hell of a lot more money on healthcare than Canadians do - you would think that greater availability of MRI machines would be obvious.

And countries like Denmark spend even less of their GDP and yet have even more doctors per capita than the US or Canada while having a higher rated health care system then either. They also have nearly twice as many doctors per capita than does the US (of course, their doctors are protected from many of the lawsuits because they work for the goverment, lol).

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
What real big ones are leaving?

Mining

Bahahahahaha Yea let's see someone mine from India
Bahahahahaha

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: eskimospy


Those are the penalties that I am referring to. You're not thinking this through.

Why do companies offer health benefits to people currently? Because due to tax incentives they are a cost effective way to attract quality employees. A company can most certainly choose not to offer benefits anymore, but they will be less attractive to employees and be paying extra cash in penalties for the privilege.

Employers don't offer benefits for their health (har) you know.

Actually in the manufacturing sector they do.

It's absolutely in their best interest to keep an employee healthy and receive prompt care.


That's why the larger manufacturing companies have some of the best plans there are.

What are you basing this on?

Personal experience. As a consultant I get to be inside a lot of different organizations especially large ones, which would be a lot in the manufacturing industry. This also exposes me to many different departments so I get to interact and see the motivations for how they do business, I have to.

I don't believe you

For starters we don't have much manufacturing left and more is leaving everyday.

Especially the "larger" ones.

What real big ones are leaving?

There is some outsourcing, but heavy manufacturing is still done here that pays people.

Boeing
GD
Lockheed
GM/Ford/Chrysler
Speciality Steel

Pharamcutials
Medical Equipment

Appliances

Mining

Ford/GM/Chrysler - moving quite a bit of manufacturing to Mexico as well as looking at importing from China.

Boeing: Getting more and more sub-assemblies shipped in from outside for final assembly.

Appliances: Again, moving as quick as possible to Mexico. Look inside many of your current appliances in Lowes or Home Depot and you'll see the ole "Made in Mexico" label.

Don't forget refinning. India is building the worlds largest oil refinery so that they can ship refined products to the US. The US is already running at 75-80% capacity with the current refineries. I'm sure that the India refinery, with it's super cheap wages, will be preferred to any US refinnery.

If the Mexican's get their way with allowing Mexican trucks into the country (Obama said that he would work on that....*ARGH*), we will be screwed even more as it will be that much cheaper to make the crap down there and truck it back to the US using cheap Mexican truckers.

 

[umbrella39]

I have great insurance at my hospital for which I pay a pretty penny. It had to wait 5 weeks to have an endoscopy done just 2 months ago. I could have gone over the bridge to Canada and had it done in 2 weeks.

 

[theeedude]

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?

What happens if your employer dumps your current health care plan now? Will you be able to go to your same doctor?

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: senseamp

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?

What happens if your employer dumps your current health care plan now? Will you be able to go to your same doctor?

Absolutely he can. Just get your own insurance.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: senseamp

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?

What happens if your employer dumps your current health care plan now? Will you be able to go to your same doctor?

Absolutely he can. Just get your own insurance.

And get just as good as insurance as you had with your employer for the same (or lower) prices (Family plan)? Not going to happen. Most employer plans are subsidized by the employer at a rate of at least 5 to 1 (they contribute an additional $5 for each $1 you pay in premiums).

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: senseamp

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?

What happens if your employer dumps your current health care plan now? Will you be able to go to your same doctor?

Absolutely he can. Just get your own insurance.

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

 

[fskimospy]

No skins fan, i'm not sure if you are misunderstanding it on purpose? The public option and associated penaltiesbsave money, period. There are other subsidies in the bill that cost money, and you can argue against it on ideological grounds, mut the very people whose estimates you trotted out earlier say that our goal of universal coverage (which is why we are spending this $100 billion a year) will be made roughly $15 billion a year less expensive with a public option.

You either believe the cbo or you don't. No cherry picking the data you like.

 

[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.