Something I haven't seen discussed much with UHC.

[fisheerman]

I was discussing UHC with my father in law and we were talking about a number of his workers who are just working to afford healthcare. Most of them are older on fixed incomes who were forced back into jobs to offset the skyrocketing health care costs.

I'd never paid much attention to it but was wondering has anyone seen any statistics on what impact to the workforce that UHC may have in regards to the turnover of older workers who are basically working just to pay healthcare cost?

Could UHC possible free up jobs to the current unemployeed?

I'm still on the fence with UHC although I realize something has to be done.

-fish

 

[desy]

Sometimes in Canada people keep working longer if they have a spouse who needs expensive drug treatments as they are typically not covered fully by UHC, but recently some provinces have set maximums that seniors pay regardless of how much they use.

My dad is on a slew of pills and I think most he pays is 150 a month


Under the new Seniors? Drug Plan, eligible seniors 65 years and older will pay only $15 per prescription for drugs listed on the Saskatchewan Formulary and those approved under Exception Drug Status.

Ask your physician or pharmacist if any of your medications may qualify for Exception Drug Status. Maximum Allowable Cost and Low Cost Alternative policies continue to apply.


Seniors' Drug Plan until June 30, 2008


Eligibility
Program eligibility is determined by age and the income reported on your income tax return filed with the Canada Revenue Agency. You must:

Be a Saskatchewan resident 65 years of age or older with a valid Saskatchewan Health card.
Be eligible for the federal age credit, which is based on the annual net income you reported on Line 236 of your income tax form in the previous year.
Seniors who are covered under federal government programs, such as the federal Non-Insured Health Benefits Program or Veterans Affairs are not eligible for the Seniors? Drug Plan.

If you already pay less than $15 per prescription ?
You will continue to do so. For example, if your medication is $15.00 per prescription under the Seniors? Drug Plan, but $11 under the Special Support program, you will continue to pay $11.00 for that prescription.

There will be no change in coverage for those Seniors who have:

Saskatchewan Aids to Independent Living (SAIL) ? Chronic Renal, Cystic Fibrosis, Para
Palliative care programs

 

[StageLeft]

Free up jobs for unemployed? That or reduce the GDP further by no longer bothering to work.

 

[fisheerman]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Free up jobs for unemployed? That or reduce the GDP further by no longer bothering to work.

I was making the assumption that these jobs would need to be filled and wouldn't just vanish.

I've got no problem with social programs that support the elderly.

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: fisheerman
I was discussing UHC with my father in law and we were talking about a number of his workers who are just working to afford healthcare. Most of them are older on fixed incomes who were forced back into jobs to offset the skyrocketing health care costs.

I'd never paid much attention to it but was wondering has anyone seen any statistics on what impact to the workforce that UHC may have in regards to the turnover of older workers who are basically working just to pay healthcare cost?

Could UHC possible free up jobs to the current unemployeed?

I'm still on the fence with UHC although I realize something has to be done.

-fish

That's a big reason why my parents are still working at age 62 and age 64. They're self-employed and need to pay their $1000/month for an insurance plan with a $10k deductible and no preexisting conditions allowed.

If they could get on Medicare or some other affordable option, they'd retire quickly.

I also worry about age discrimination and discrimination against people who might be seen as a health risk. If you're applying at a small business and you don't look to be in perfect health (weight, etc.), what's to keep them from choosing a someone else?

 

[cubeless]

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: fisheerman
I was discussing UHC with my father in law and we were talking about a number of his workers who are just working to afford healthcare. Most of them are older on fixed incomes who were forced back into jobs to offset the skyrocketing health care costs.

I'd never paid much attention to it but was wondering has anyone seen any statistics on what impact to the workforce that UHC may have in regards to the turnover of older workers who are basically working just to pay healthcare cost?

Could UHC possible free up jobs to the current unemployeed?

I'm still on the fence with UHC although I realize something has to be done.

-fish

That's a big reason why my parents are still working at age 62 and age 64. They're self-employed and need to pay their $1000/month for an insurance plan with a $10k deductible and no preexisting conditions allowed.

If they could get on Medicare or some other affordable option, they'd retire quickly.

I also worry about age discrimination and discrimination against people who might be seen as a health risk. If you're applying at a small business and you don't look to be in perfect health (weight, etc.), what's to keep them from choosing a someone else?

that will be either the 'public plan' or the regulations placed on private insurers to take everyone... that's one of the things about the 'public plan', most small employers (and large, low wage employers) will opt their employees into it... pretty much the mass of high cost folks will end up in the 'public plan'...

 

[fisheerman]

So my thought was:

Would the reduction in unemployment benefits for workers able to obtain jobs currently held by older workers who would retire if we enacted UHC offset some of the cost?

Would be hard to put numbers to that?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: SammyJr
[ ... ]
I also worry about age discrimination and discrimination against people who might be seen as a health risk. If you're applying at a small business and you don't look to be in perfect health (weight, etc.), what's to keep them from choosing a someone else?

That is already happening, and it's not limited to small businesses. Given the spiraling costs of health care, employers of all sizes are increasingly wary of hiring (and keeping) people they see with potential health issues. They have to be discrete about it so they don't get hit with ADA complaints, but it is often a factor. Even something like smelling of cigarette smoke can be a red flag. UHC might help.

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: SammyJr
[ ... ]
I also worry about age discrimination and discrimination against people who might be seen as a health risk. If you're applying at a small business and you don't look to be in perfect health (weight, etc.), what's to keep them from choosing a someone else?

That is already happening, and it's not limited to small businesses. Given the spiraling costs of health care, employers of all sizes are increasingly wary of hiring (and keeping) people they see with potential health issues. They have to be discrete about it so they don't get hit with ADA complaints, but it is often a factor. Even something like smelling of cigarette smoke can be a red flag. UHC might help.

I think UHC would help tremendously because employees' health would be a much smaller factor into their employer's bottom line. It would enable employers to hire the best candidate for the job regardless of weight, age, or personal habits that affect health.

 

[cubeless]

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: SammyJr
[ ... ]
I also worry about age discrimination and discrimination against people who might be seen as a health risk. If you're applying at a small business and you don't look to be in perfect health (weight, etc.), what's to keep them from choosing a someone else?

That is already happening, and it's not limited to small businesses. Given the spiraling costs of health care, employers of all sizes are increasingly wary of hiring (and keeping) people they see with potential health issues. They have to be discrete about it so they don't get hit with ADA complaints, but it is often a factor. Even something like smelling of cigarette smoke can be a red flag. UHC might help.

I think UHC would help tremendously because employees' health would be a much smaller factor into their employer's bottom line. It would enable employers to hire the best candidate for the job regardless of weight, age, or personal habits that affect health.

yeah, i'm gonna hire fat, old smokers because i'm at least not having to pay healthcare? the bogey then shifts to productivity... the gov docs will be happy to give out disability while my fos is serially recovering from his treatments... i need productive minions...

us evil bastards will just find other ways to screw the workers!!! buwahahaha!!!

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: cubeless

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: SammyJr
[ ... ]
I also worry about age discrimination and discrimination against people who might be seen as a health risk. If you're applying at a small business and you don't look to be in perfect health (weight, etc.), what's to keep them from choosing a someone else?

That is already happening, and it's not limited to small businesses. Given the spiraling costs of health care, employers of all sizes are increasingly wary of hiring (and keeping) people they see with potential health issues. They have to be discrete about it so they don't get hit with ADA complaints, but it is often a factor. Even something like smelling of cigarette smoke can be a red flag. UHC might help.

I think UHC would help tremendously because employees' health would be a much smaller factor into their employer's bottom line. It would enable employers to hire the best candidate for the job regardless of weight, age, or personal habits that affect health.

yeah, i'm gonna hire fat, old smokers because i'm at least not having to pay healthcare? the bogey then shifts to productivity... the gov docs will be happy to give out disability while my fos is serially recovering from his treatments... i need productive minions...

us evil bastards will just find other ways to screw the workers!!! buwahahaha!!!

If he's that bad off, he'll just end up on SSDI. I'm talking about people who are moderately overweight and might be a diabetes risk or something like that.

 

[piasabird]

UHC will never work. Even if it could get up to speed it would take a lot of time to implement. Not to mention we dont have any extra money in the USA. There are absolutely no specifics available about UHC and no one has even worked out the details. If you think O'Bamma knows anything about health care, you are in for a big shock.

 

[theeedude]

I am sure the Republicans will try their hardest to make sure UHC doesn't work. That's their M.O.: screw up governing, then blame "big government" for their own screw ups. That is why Obama should not be trying to pass a bipartisan bill, the less input Republicans have in it, the more likely it is to work.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: SammyJr
[ ... ]
I also worry about age discrimination and discrimination against people who might be seen as a health risk. If you're applying at a small business and you don't look to be in perfect health (weight, etc.), what's to keep them from choosing a someone else?

That is already happening, and it's not limited to small businesses. Given the spiraling costs of health care, employers of all sizes are increasingly wary of hiring (and keeping) people they see with potential health issues. They have to be discrete about it so they don't get hit with ADA complaints, but it is often a factor. Even something like smelling of cigarette smoke can be a red flag. UHC might help.

I think UHC would help tremendously because employees' health would be a much smaller factor into their employer's bottom line. It would enable employers to hire the best candidate for the job regardless of weight, age, or personal habits that affect health.

It would, although an unhealthy employee is still a bad one; more likely to spend time at the doctor, sick days, etc. so it's always a very valid concern, and despite laws against discrimination, the savvy business person would be simply foolish to ignore it as a variable, even though it may end up as less of one.

Not to mention we dont have any extra money in the USA.

Where have you been. The US just passed the biggest budget, by far, in its history. There's plenty of money to go around!

 

[fisheerman]

Originally posted by: piasabird
UHC will never work. Even if it could get up to speed it would take a lot of time to implement. Not to mention we dont have any extra money in the USA. There are absolutely no specifics available about UHC and no one has even worked out the details. If you think O'Bamma knows anything about health care, you are in for a big shock.

Do you have any other alternatives than the current system?

I'm about as less government as anyone yet I realize that the current system is f'up big time. If you are working or own your own business you are seeing huge increases in the cost of healthcare that are unsustainable.

The Obama plan may not be the answer but the more and more you hear about it it sounds like exactly what John Mccain was pushing in his presidential bid as a health reform bill.

just wondering

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: fisheerman
I was discussing UHC with my father in law and we were talking about a number of his workers who are just working to afford healthcare. Most of them are older on fixed incomes who were forced back into jobs to offset the skyrocketing health care costs.

I'd never paid much attention to it but was wondering has anyone seen any statistics on what impact to the workforce that UHC may have in regards to the turnover of older workers who are basically working just to pay healthcare cost?

Could UHC possible free up jobs to the current unemployeed?

I'm still on the fence with UHC although I realize something has to be done.

-fish

My sister is in the same situation as your dad. She had enough money to retire, and then some.
Even with the markets losses she could have stayed retired if it weren't for the incredible increases in health insurance costs. So she is back working part time to pay for her health insurance.

UHC is not free health insurance. The hope for her, and your dad, is Obama gets his government option. Since health insurance companies charge huge amounts of overhead for insurance, a government plan will save, probably, on average, about 25 percent of the cost of health insurance.

btw that's why the health insurance companies and their Republican stooges are so against the plan. It would show up the huge amounts of money that the health insurance companies take for themselves. It's not just profit its unconscienable profit.