SCRAP HEALTH CARE REFORM IF IT ADDS TO DEFICIT,

[GaryC 7]

Isn't this the sort of thing the other side complains about insurance companies about? It looks like we would be trading dealing with insurance companies for government bureaucrats.

Judgement day for cancer patient denied costly drug

Well, if NHS would pull the same ####### on the British population that the private insurance industry pulls on Americans - more than doubling contributions every decade or so - this debate wouldn't be had. The NHS would have superior funding. The private insurance industry rips Americans off year after year and still denies drugs (I've been denied drugs in the past right here in the US by my private insurance company), treatments and is on record of rescinding coverage whenever possible when the insured actually need the insurance they paid tons of money for. So, despite paying double or more what any other person in the developed world pays for health care, we still get shafted all the same. I'd rather pay less for getting shafted or pay the same and not get shafted anymore. The private insurance industry isn't the answer. They proved themselves incapable of offering a good value.

Psssst.........the dude got his Revlamid.

After being put through the ringer and at the last minute. If you think dealing with the insurance company is bad just think trying to deal with the government. A little hint, think USCIS. Can you imagine the same run around and inefficiency for your health care?

He was after an unapproved drug. And he wanted them to pay for it. Do you know an insurance company that would do that?

That is the point, that drug is approved here. The NHS decided that the cost wasn't worth his life. I don't want the government making that decision for my care.

The insurance companies do that already though...

So we would be trading one for another. Which do you think will be easier to deal with? Again, think USCIS or any other government agency.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I don't trust the government. I would rather trust my employer and insurance company that them. At least I can change jobs or insurance companies. You can't change governments, short of emigrating.

At this point, It'd be easier to emigrate, IMO.

Deliberately missing the point, are we? My doctor thought that I should take Celebrex but the pharmacy couldn't fill the order since the insurance company felt that I don't need it. So much for decisions being made by the doctor and the patient.

My point to both of you, once the government takes over THEY will be making these decisions about what you can have or not have. Once that happens you have no other recourse. Right now you do, change jobs to get other insurance or chose a different plan through your employer if offered. Don't tell me this isn't an option because I have changed jobs because of the insurance. The change turned out to be a very good move for me BTW.

I think it's pathetic that a person would have to change their employment to acquire health cover. And that you would think having made that choice somehow makes you Master of Your Fate.

It's a choice I made and in the end was a good choice. Once the government gets involved that option is taken away.

The "option" to give up a job you like so you'll have health insurance and won't go broke over an illness?

What kind of option is that?

How about having the option to get up out of bed in the morning and go to whatever place of employment you like without even thinking about your 'benefits'?

How about the ability of small promising firms to attract better talent because they won't be competing for employees because of 'benefits'?

One of the items on the table is requiring companies to offer health care or pay a fine. Wouldn't you think that would have the same effect?

No, it wouldn't. Small companies are in a weaker position to negotiate more favorable rates to cover their staff. Hence, to offer the same coverage at the same employee premium, the small firm will have to pay more per employee than the large players in the market. This puts small businesses at a disadvantage in attracting and retaining top talent. Equal access to insurance plans for all employers - if employer sponsored coverage is the model going forward - would level the playing field quite a bit for the small businesses. But the GOP hates small businesses and hence opposes any such move.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well we wouldn't be would we, because a healthcare system entirely funded, owned and operated by the Federal Government isn't what's being proposed.

Yet you wouldn't know that from reading these threads

Edited August 8, 2009 by Private Pike

[GaryC 7]

No, it wouldn't. Small companies are in a weaker position to negotiate more favorable rates to cover their staff. Hence, to offer the same coverage at the same employee premium, the small firm will have to pay more per employee than the large players in the market. This puts small businesses at a disadvantage in attracting and retaining top talent. Equal access to insurance plans for all employers - if employer sponsored coverage is the model going forward - would level the playing field quite a bit for the small businesses. But the GOP hates small businesses and hence opposes any such move.

Couldn't resist could you? Tell me, why would the dems want to tax the "rich" to pay for this mess? They tell us that those making 250K or more can afford it. Guess what? Small business makes up most of those making 250K or more. In effect they would pay for everyone else's health care AND pay a fine or offer health care to their employees. The dems hate small business.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I find it hard to believe sometimes that there is actually this much opposition. I work in Garden Grove, California- Orange County- and am in an Engineering department where 9 of us discussed this topic. Bear in mind that we all have insurance provided by our employer and none of us pays more than $280 a month. - We are bread and butter O.C Republicans and six of nine of us were for government ran health care.

I don't know anyone at my office in Culver City who would be opposed to it. Our monthly premiums for a family run close to $400 a month plus deductibles. I have no idea how much our company is contributing.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

No, it wouldn't. Small companies are in a weaker position to negotiate more favorable rates to cover their staff. Hence, to offer the same coverage at the same employee premium, the small firm will have to pay more per employee than the large players in the market. This puts small businesses at a disadvantage in attracting and retaining top talent. Equal access to insurance plans for all employers - if employer sponsored coverage is the model going forward - would level the playing field quite a bit for the small businesses. But the GOP hates small businesses and hence opposes any such move.

Couldn't resist could you? Tell me, why would the dems want to tax the "rich" to pay for this mess? They tell us that those making 250K or more can afford it. Guess what? Small business makes up most of those making 250K or more. In effect they would pay for everyone else's health care AND pay a fine or offer health care to their employees. The dems hate small business.

Gary, try and stay on the issue I raised - the competitive disadvantage for small businesses that this broken and fractured health insurance system is responsible for. There's no denying that this disadvantage exists and there's no getting around the fact that employer provided health care coverage with ever rising premiums is putting a significant strain on small businesses. I wish you could at least admit that. And no, I couldn't resist. Neither could you.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I find it hard to believe sometimes that there is actually this much opposition. I work in Garden Grove, California- Orange County- and am in an Engineering department where 9 of us discussed this topic. Bear in mind that we all have insurance provided by our employer and none of us pays more than $280 a month. - We are bread and butter O.C Republicans and six of nine of us were for government ran health care.

I don't know anyone at my office in Culver City who would be opposed to it. Our monthly premiums for a family run close to $400 a month plus deductibles. I have no idea how much our company is contributing.

Your employer is pitching in a bit more than twice that - the average split is 70/30. You do the math. And you think about what your salary could be if it wasn't for these insane insurance premiums. All of a sudden, a couple hundred bucks in taxes per month would seem easy to bear if this 12K+/year for health insurance would become real income. Bottom line, we could have what we have today for 1/3 less easily.

[dalegg 143]

I find it hard to believe sometimes that there is actually this much opposition. I work in Garden Grove, California- Orange County- and am in an Engineering department where 9 of us discussed this topic. Bear in mind that we all have insurance provided by our employer and none of us pays more than $280 a month. - We are bread and butter O.C Republicans and six of nine of us were for government ran health care.

I don't know anyone at my office in Culver City who would be opposed to it. Our monthly premiums for a family run close to $400 a month plus deductibles. I have no idea how much our company is contributing.

Your employer is pitching in a bit more than twice that - the average split is 70/30. You do the math. And you think about what your salary could be if it wasn't for these insane insurance premiums. All of a sudden, a couple hundred bucks in taxes per month would seem easy to bear if this 12K+/year for health insurance would become real income. Bottom line, we could have what we have today for 1/3 less easily.

I'm not convinced that we're all headed for instant salary increases if our company's healthcare costs go down, but I would think our stock would go up or we could do a little more investing in the product. That's good enough for me.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I find it hard to believe sometimes that there is actually this much opposition. I work in Garden Grove, California- Orange County- and am in an Engineering department where 9 of us discussed this topic. Bear in mind that we all have insurance provided by our employer and none of us pays more than $280 a month. - We are bread and butter O.C Republicans and six of nine of us were for government ran health care.

I don't know anyone at my office in Culver City who would be opposed to it. Our monthly premiums for a family run close to $400 a month plus deductibles. I have no idea how much our company is contributing.

Your employer is pitching in a bit more than twice that - the average split is 70/30. You do the math. And you think about what your salary could be if it wasn't for these insane insurance premiums. All of a sudden, a couple hundred bucks in taxes per month would seem easy to bear if this 12K+/year for health insurance would become real income. Bottom line, we could have what we have today for 1/3 less easily.

I'm not convinced that we're all headed for instant salary increases if our company's healthcare costs go down, but I would think our stock would go up or we could do a little more investing in the product. That's good enough for me.

Agreed, the positive effect on gross compensation would likely not be felt immediately but the cost of employment would drop notably which would ultimately boost compensation. My employer actually discloses the cost of my plan to me as part of my total compensation package. It would be an interesting discussion to have if my compensation would drop by 8-9K all of a sudden.

[dalegg 143]

I find it hard to believe sometimes that there is actually this much opposition. I work in Garden Grove, California- Orange County- and am in an Engineering department where 9 of us discussed this topic. Bear in mind that we all have insurance provided by our employer and none of us pays more than $280 a month. - We are bread and butter O.C Republicans and six of nine of us were for government ran health care.

I don't know anyone at my office in Culver City who would be opposed to it. Our monthly premiums for a family run close to $400 a month plus deductibles. I have no idea how much our company is contributing.

Your employer is pitching in a bit more than twice that - the average split is 70/30. You do the math. And you think about what your salary could be if it wasn't for these insane insurance premiums. All of a sudden, a couple hundred bucks in taxes per month would seem easy to bear if this 12K+/year for health insurance would become real income. Bottom line, we could have what we have today for 1/3 less easily.

I'm not convinced that we're all headed for instant salary increases if our company's healthcare costs go down, but I would think our stock would go up or we could do a little more investing in the product. That's good enough for me.

Agreed, the positive effect on gross compensation would likely not be felt immediately but the cost of employment would drop notably which would ultimately boost compensation. My employer actually discloses the cost of my plan to me as part of my total compensation package. It would be an interesting discussion to have if my compensation would drop by 8-9K all of a sudden.

Government gets to tax them more too since they don't have healthcare costs to write off.