Page 7 of 21 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 203

Thread: Health care law may mean less hiring in 2013

  1. #61
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 03:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,272

    Re: Health care law may mean less hiring in 2013

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    There would what would amount to government insurance, removing it from employment. It would operate like any insurance. Doctors don't work for the government. However, those who can pay more can buy more, both in terms of care and insurance. So not running anything, but making sure everyone has coverage.
    Ok, this is what is confusing me about what you are laying out here, and I apologize if I am asking that you get just a little more remedial in order for me to understand what you are saying here. But, if you have "Government Insurance", operating in a standard 80/20 fashion, as insurance does today, and they are responsible for paying Doc's, and taking that out of the equation for businesses to offer in terms of compensation benefits, then how in the world can you say that Doc's don't in essence work for the government, or that things would be more efficient than they are now?

    Or that people could even afford to purchase more coverage than what is offered? I think it would be pretty standard for business to just do away with the benefit, and not pass along that contribution they make on behalf of the employee that is not seen, and in many cases not known now?

    The public option merely allows people to that that option, paying a premium. It too is an insurance and in av running, but isn't mandated.
    Isn't that what we have now in Obamacare? Especially in my state of SC, where the Governor is not going to set up the exchange and force the federal government to bear the cost of that?
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  2. #62
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Health care law may mean less hiring in 2013

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Ok, this is what is confusing me about what you are laying out here, and I apologize if I am asking that you get just a little more remedial in order for me to understand what you are saying here. But, if you have "Government Insurance", operating in a standard 80/20 fashion, as insurance does today, and they are responsible for paying Doc's, and taking that out of the equation for businesses to offer in terms of compensation benefits, then how in the world can you say that Doc's don't in essence work for the government, or that things would be more efficient than they are now?

    Or that people could even afford to purchase more coverage than what is offered? I think it would be pretty standard for business to just do away with the benefit, and not pass along that contribution they make on behalf of the employee that is not s
    een, and in many cases not known now?



    Isn't that what we have now in Obamacare? Especially in my state of SC, where the Governor is not going to set up the exchange and force the federal government to bear the cost of that?

    Nearly all doctors work for insurance companies now if we use your logic. But, they really don't. Insurance companies limit payments to valid treatments, don't pay for treatments that have no history if success, and limit what they will pay. Most people today have insurance. So, 20% will be the burden of the patient. However, even with those restrictions, no one tells the doctor which treatments to use. As long as he's not a quack, he will follow rather traditional treatments any way. Like today, where he negotiates with your insurance company, and they do this, he will continue to do just that. Only now he insurance won't be linked to business, burdening them, and everyone will have insurance.


    No. Today, with current reform, you have to go through a middleman, another insurance company, adding more paper work and steps.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  3. #63
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 03:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,272

    Re: Health care law may mean less hiring in 2013

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Nearly all doctors work for insurance companies now if we use your logic. But, they really don't. Insurance companies limit payments to valid treatments, don't pay for treatments that have no history if success, and limit what they will pay. Most people today have insurance. So, 20% will be the burden of the patient. However, even with those restrictions, no one tells the doctor which treatments to use. As long as he's not a quack, he will follow rather traditional treatments any way. Like today, where he negotiates with your insurance company, and they do this, he will continue to do just that. Only now he insurance won't be linked to business, burdening them, and everyone will have insurance.

    Ok, we now have nearly half the population not paying into the federal system due to credits, loopholes, and income levels that allow things like the earned income credit to afford those who didn't pay anything to get a rebate from filing....Who's going to pay for that? Me? Because I gotta tell ya, I am getting awfully tired of paying for my neighbors mortgage, foodstamps, and everything else. I work damned hard for my money, and have done the right things in order to achieve my standard of living, why should I pay for others that won't do the right thing? And even more so, why should I continue to bust my ass, if I can just get it for free off of your dime?

    No. Today, with current reform, you have to go through a middleman, another insurance company, adding more paper work and steps.
    That was only the mechanism put in to break the current system while fleecing middle America with hidden tax. It was designed to fail.
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  4. #64
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Health care law may mean less hiring in 2013

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Ok, we now have nearly half the population not paying into the federal system due to credits, loopholes, and income levels that allow things like the earned income credit to afford those who didn't pay anything to get a rebate from filing....Who's going to pay for that? Me? Because I gotta tell ya, I am getting awfully tired of paying for my neighbors mortgage, foodstamps, and everything else. I work damned hard for my money, and have done the right things in order to achieve my standard of living, why should I pay for others that won't do the right thing? And even more so, why should I continue to bust my ass, if I can just get it for free off of your dime?



    That was only the mechanism put in to break the current system while fleecing middle America with hidden tax. It was designed to fail.
    First, you overstate a bit what you're paying for. But even if it were completely true, your still paying more now than you would be in your insurance premium, at he hospital and doctors office, and in what your employer has to pay. Much of your cost is hidden now. Not easily seen. Doctors and hospitals pass along their costs. Insurance companies pass it along. Your employer picks up a huge chunk. It s really next to impossible o pay more than you are now.

    And no, we could have had a public option.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  5. #65
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 03:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,272

    Re: Health care law may mean less hiring in 2013

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    First, you overstate a bit what you're paying for. But even if it were completely true, your still paying more now than you would be in your insurance premium, at he hospital and doctors office, and in what your employer has to pay. Much of your cost is hidden now. Not easily seen. Doctors and hospitals pass along their costs. Insurance companies pass it along. Your employer picks up a huge chunk. It s really next to impossible o pay more than you are now.

    And no, we could have had a public option.
    Ok, and what of that case where for example I pay about $40 per week now, and the employer picks up the rest of that premium which if I am not mistaken is about another $400 per month. Now, what happens in your UHC utopia when the employer drops the coverage I get through them, and doesn't adjust my pay to cover the $400 I lose that they contribute, and the government still wants $440 per month for their crappy plan?

    As for the public option, makes no difference, it is all a cynical sham to move toward government control of health insurance anyway....
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  6. #66
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Health care law may mean less hiring in 2013

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Ok, and what of that case where for example I pay about $40 per week now, and the employer picks up the rest of that premium which if I am not mistaken is about another $400 per month. Now, what happens in your UHC utopia when the employer drops the coverage I get through them, and doesn't adjust my pay to cover the $400 I lose that they
    contribute, and the government still wants $440 per month for their crappy plan?

    As for the public option, makes no difference, it is all a cynical sham to move toward government control of health insurance anyway....
    No. Numbers keep premiums down. Your company is less for you and the company than if you bought it on your own. Sharing he risk reduces the premium. No matter how large the company, the country s larger. Btw, this argument has been made by insurance companies who know under the present system they are encouraged not to have ill people. Money comes from collecting from well people and not paying for I'll people. But if everyone is in the system, that problem is moot.

    And anyone can call anything a sham. The fact remains as written it was just another insurance company.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  7. #67
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 03:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,272

    Re: Health care law may mean less hiring in 2013

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    No. Numbers keep premiums down. Your company is less for you and the company than if you bought it on your own. Sharing he risk reduces the premium. No matter how large the company, the country s larger. Btw, this argument has been made by insurance companies who know under the present system they are encouraged not to have ill people. Money comes from collecting from well people and not paying for I'll people. But if everyone is in the system, that problem is moot.

    And anyone can call anything a sham. The fact remains as written it was just another insurance company.

    More people in means more people to cover. We have half of America right now not contributing to federal tax revenue. To me then more people in means more people I have to cover.
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  8. #68
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Health care law may mean less hiring in 2013

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    More people in means more people to cover. We have half of America right now not contributing to federal tax revenue. To me then more people in means more people I have to cover.
    Like I said, you already are covering them, in the most expensive way possible. Through in insurance premiums, price of co-pays which are elevated to pay for those who don't pay, let's pick a number, say two hundred a month. You'd rather pay that then forty more a month in taxes. And let's not mention that since insurance would be removed from business, they should be able to at least add half that four hundred dollar premium they were paying to you salary. The point is, you could well be paying less.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  9. #69
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 03:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,272

    Re: Health care law may mean less hiring in 2013

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Like I said, you already are covering them, in the most expensive way possible. Through in insurance premiums, price of co-pays which are elevated to pay for those who don't pay, let's pick a number, say two hundred a month. You'd rather pay that then forty more a month in taxes.
    IF you could ensure that would be the case, then sure I'd take that...But you can't and nothing concerning UHC that we can look at would suggest anything of the sort....

    And let's not mention that since insurance would be removed from business, they should be able to at least add half that four hundred dollar premium they were paying to you salary. The point is, you could well be paying less.

    Pfft, oh yeah....What world do you live in? Most employers would suck that extra money saved from not having to contribute to your insurance and put it somewhere else in the business....I wouldn't see a dime of it....And until you can empirically prove that I'd be paying less for the same or better coverage, then all you are doing is guessing on hope.
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  10. #70
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Health care law may mean less hiring in 2013

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    IF you could ensure that would be the case, then sure I'd take that...But you can't and nothing concerning UHC that we can look at would suggest anything of the sort....




    Pfft, oh yeah....What world do you live in? Most employers would suck that extra money saved from not having to contribute to your insurance and put it somewhere else in the business....I wouldn't see a dime of it....And until you can empirically prove that I'd be paying less for the same or better coverage, then all you are doing is guessing on hope.
    So now you're demonizing business?

    As for a assurances, here's what we know: we spent more for less access than anyone in the world. While I would take a good number of those systems, they still pay less and cover more people. And w have the ability to improve on or invent once we commit to an idea.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

Page 7 of 21 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •