Will you be a 'socialist' on the day that 'earning' your health insurance is not enough?

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

I just saw this from CTJ Citizens for Tax Justice:

Last week, HCAN partnered with Citizens for Tax Justice to release a set (pdf) of "progressive" options for health care revenue (taxing the employer exclusion, incidentally, is also, indisputably, progressive). Here's what they came up with:

The ideas aren't bad. But they have no support. AARP, for instance, will howl when faced with the Medicare change. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) opposes the capital gains change. And so forth. The unions haven't spent the last few months laying the groundwork for these revenue options. And it's rather late in the game -- the finance committee wants a bill in June, and their set of revenue options was released a week ago -- to slap a random set of new taxes on the table.

And all this elides a simple fact: Capping the employer health care exclusion is good policy. Eliminating it entirely would be better policy. It's true that some unions, like AFSCME, would see the value of their employer benefits degrade slightly. (Some unions, like Service Employees International Union, would scarcely be affected at all. Janitors are not, as a rule, given generous employer health benefits.) But the labor movement, as a whole, is much worse off in a world where the employer exclusion is capped but we have health reform than in a world where we don't have health care reform and can't control premium costs.

In that world, employers who offer health benefits will be ever less competitive against their stingier competitors. Union shops will close as the associated labor costs become unsustainable. Employers will fight ever harder against unionization because they'll be terrified of being trapped into health coverage arrangements that they can't control.

It's hard to fault AFSCME and friends for some early positioning. This is the game, as they say. And as we near legislation, it's going to get more fierce. But I hope they're keeping a clear head here. I doubt they have time to build support for a raft of new taxes. And health care reform with a cap on the tax exclusion is better -- even for the unions -- than no health care reform at all.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klei...lth_care_r.html

[rebeccajo 14]

Terminating coverage: If health-care costs were to rise 10 percent above current levels, 14 percent of firms said they would drop health coverage. If costs rose 15 percent higher, 27 percent would do so. If costs rose 25 percent, four in 10 employers said they would stop providing coverage.

this is exactly what my previous employer did to my UK co-workers. their private coverage was terminated ...

So what makes you think your previous employer might not eventually do the same to its US workers?

if they could save a buck and dump people onto another system like the UK folks ...

What if there is no other system? What if the 'system' is purchasing health insurance on the marketplace as it is presently in operation?

this was an intentional cost saving .... the company was paying for two health cares ... one went bye-bye ....

Are you saying you 'mis-stated'?

[natty bumppo 297]

Terminating coverage: If health-care costs were to rise 10 percent above current levels, 14 percent of firms said they would drop health coverage. If costs rose 15 percent higher, 27 percent would do so. If costs rose 25 percent, four in 10 employers said they would stop providing coverage.

this is exactly what my previous employer did to my UK co-workers. their private coverage was terminated ...

So what makes you think your previous employer might not eventually do the same to its US workers?

if they could save a buck and dump people onto another system like the UK folks ...

What if there is no other system? What if the 'system' is purchasing health insurance on the marketplace as it is presently in operation?

this was an intentional cost saving .... the company was paying for two health cares ... one went bye-bye ....

Are you saying you 'mis-stated'?

typing during the breaks of playing lions with my youngest ... anything is possible

I think you got what I was trying to say. the company essentially dumped the co-workers onto another system. from what I understood in conversations with my co-workers, the NHC was not as efficient or personal as the private insurance. can you shed some light on this?

btw: if kevin walks backwards towards me ... he thinks he's invisible

[rebeccajo 14]

typing during the breaks of playing lions with my youngest ... anything is possible

I think you got what I was trying to say. the company essentially dumped the co-workers onto another system. from what I understood in conversations with my co-workers, the NHC was not as efficient or personal as the private insurance. can you shed some light on this?

btw: if kevin walks backwards towards me ... he thinks he's invisible

Additional private coverage for workers in the UK is being offered more often in much the same way it was traditionally in the US - to attract better talent. According to my husband, you'll find private facilities next door (in some cases) to the nationally run facilities across the pond. Private facilities usually offer a private room and more 'attention to comfort' than NHS hospitals - nicer meals and all that. And yes in some cases you can receive faster treatment (an unfortunate regional downfall of the care in the UK). But also according to the husband, the claim of 'better care' is a dubious one, since the doctors at the private facility are usually moonlighting from their NHS job.

PS - as you will note, it's "NHS" (National Health Service") and not NHC.

Edited August 18, 2009 by rebeccajo

[natty bumppo 297]

typing during the breaks of playing lions with my youngest ... anything is possible

I think you got what I was trying to say. the company essentially dumped the co-workers onto another system. from what I understood in conversations with my co-workers, the NHC was not as efficient or personal as the private insurance. can you shed some light on this?

btw: if kevin walks backwards towards me ... he thinks he's invisible

Additional private coverage for workers in the UK is being offered more often in much the same way it was traditionally in the US - to attract better talent. According to my husband, you'll find private facilities next door (in some cases) to the nationally run facilities across the pond. Private facilities usually offer a private room and more 'attention to comfort' than NHS hospitals - nicer meals and all that. But also according to the husband, the claim of 'better care' is a dubious one, since the doctors at the private facility are usually moonlighting from their NHS job.

PS - as you will note, it's "NHS" (National Health Service") and not NHC.

thanks.

as for the S ... I knew this ... just for some reason I wanna type C ... sorry (happens sometimes )

[dalegg 143]

Screw Socialism. I'm planning on being a Communist.

[rebeccajo 14]

Screw Socialism. I'm planning on being a Communist.

So in the upcoming era where employers end the subsidization of health care to their employees, you will call yourself a Communist?

http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshots/entr...shots_20060816/

Fewer employees receive health insurance through their employers now than in the past, as coverage has declined from 61.5% in 1989 to 58.9% in 2000 and down to 55.9% in 2004 (the latest data available). Less well known is the fact that those who still receive employer-provided coverage are now paying a larger share of those insurance costs.

How much more employees pay now than in the past for health insurance premiums is answered in Figure B, which details the employee share of health premiums for all (both individual and family) coverage in 1992 and 2005. The employee share rose from 14.0% in 1992 to 22.1% in 2005. We estimate that this shift in cost-sharing caused employees to pay for half of the growth of employer-provided health insurance premiums over the 1992 to 2005 period. This shift onto employees for basic premium costs does not include any of the higher deductibles or co-pays paid by employees that also have occurred over this same time period.

Edited August 18, 2009 by rebeccajo

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Screw Socialism. I'm planning on being a Communist.

So in the upcoming era where employers end the subsidization of health care to their employees, you will call yourself a Communist?

http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshots/entr...shots_20060816/

Fewer employees receive health insurance through their employers now than in the past, as coverage has declined from 61.5% in 1989 to 58.9% in 2000 and down to 55.9% in 2004 (the latest data available). Less well known is the fact that those who still receive employer-provided coverage are now paying a larger share of those insurance costs.

How much more employees pay now than in the past for health insurance premiums is answered in Figure B, which details the employee share of health premiums for all (both individual and family) coverage in 1992 and 2005. The employee share rose from 14.0% in 1992 to 22.1% in 2005. We estimate that this shift in cost-sharing caused employees to pay for half of the growth of employer-provided health insurance premiums over the 1992 to 2005 period. This shift onto employees for basic premium costs does not include any of the higher deductibles or co-pays paid by employees that also have occurred over this same time period.

If nothing is done to change this eventually the system will crash right? Eventually less and less ppl will pay into the system but need it in emergency situations and be unable to pay. Either way the government will get involved....either now with reform or in the future with a bailout...I wonder which will be more efficient (sarcasm insert here)

From what I remember owners and upper managers still had private insurance in the UK, everyone else was on the NHS. The NHS is sort of like our school systems in the US. Where you live reflects your level of care and crowding. I lived in a north suburb of Bristol and definitely received superior care to the US. I moved to cardiff city centre and received inferior care. My wife (who grew up in a northern Cardiff suburb) retained her surgery somehow despite living in the centre and also received good care (probably on par with here.)

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

Sometimes things have to get really bad before people realize just what they are up against. It's hard to be a free market advocate when you are standing in a soup line.

[mawilson 2,133]

Terminating coverage: If health-care costs were to rise 10 percent above current levels, 14 percent of firms said they would drop health coverage. If costs rose 15 percent higher, 27 percent would do so. If costs rose 25 percent, four in 10 employers said they would stop providing coverage.

If, if, if. Health insurance companies have access to the same data and they simply won't let that happen.

They don't want to lose you as a customer any more than you want to keep your coverage.

Think about it: if 27 percent of firms drop health coverage, that's a 27% loss for the insurance industry.

Would they raise costs 15% for a 27% loss? I don't think so.

[Ban Hammer 13,886]

just got this one in on email:

I think we have found the solution. I am sure you have heard the ideas that if you're a senior you need to suck it up and give up the idea that you need any health care. A new hip? Unheard of. We simply can't afford to take care of you anymore. You don't need any medications for your high blood pressure, diabetes, heart problems, etc. Let's take care of the young people. After all, they will be ruling the world very soon.

So here is the solution. When you turn 70, you get a gun and 4 bullets. You are allowed to shoot 2 senators and 2 representatives.

Of course, you will be sent to prison where you will get 3 meals a day, a roof over your head and all the health care you need!!!

New teeth, great!!! Need glasses, no problem. New hip, knee, kidney, lung, heart? Well bring it on. And who will be paying for all of this. The same government that just told you that you are too old for health care. And, since you are a prisoner, you don't have to pay any income tax.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Terminating coverage: If health-care costs were to rise 10 percent above current levels, 14 percent of firms said they would drop health coverage. If costs rose 15 percent higher, 27 percent would do so. If costs rose 25 percent, four in 10 employers said they would stop providing coverage.

If, if, if. Health insurance companies have access to the same data and they simply won't let that happen. They don't want to lose you as a customer any more than you want to keep your coverage.

Think about it: if 27 percent of firms drop health coverage, that's a 27% loss for the insurance industry. Would they raise costs 15% for a 27% loss? I don't think so.

Probably not but they'll be pushing that pain point as far as possible. Looking at the past decade, the outlook isn't too great for working people in America.

Milliman Inc., an employee benefits consulting firm, publishes annually its Milliman Medical Index on the total health spending by or for a typical American family of four with private health insurance. The index totals the family's out-of-pocket spending for health care plus the contribution employers and employees make to that family's job-related health insurance coverage.

The Milliman Medical Index stood at $8,414 in 2001. It had risen to $16,700 by 2009. It is likely to rise to $18,000 by next year. That is more than a doubling of costs in the span of a decade!

Since 2005, the index has grown at an average annual compound rate of 8.4 percent. Suppose we make it 8 percent for the coming decade. Then today's $16,700 will have grown to slightly over $36,000 by 2019.

Economists are convinced that this $36,000 would come virtually all out of the financial hides of employees, even if the employer pretended to be paying, say, 80 percent of the employment-based health insurance premiums.

...

Unfortunately, very few rank-and-file workers appreciate this fact. Aside from their still modest out-of-pocket payments and contributions to employment-based insurance premiums, most employees seem sincerely to believe that the bulk of their family's health care is basically paid for by "the company," which is why so few members of the middle class have ever been much interested in controlling health spending in this country.

The price for that indifference will be high. If efforts at better cost containment fail once again, and health care costs rise to $36,000 on average for a typical American family of four under age 65 -- as almost surely it would -- that $36,000 will be borne entirely by the family. That family's disposable income would be much higher if the growth of future health spending was better controlled. And, as noted, many smaller firms will stop altogether providing job-based health insurance.

It would be a major problem for families with an income of less than $100,000 a year. In 2007, only about 25 percent of American families had a money income of $100,000 or more. Close to 60 percent had family incomes of less than $75,000.

Here it must be remembered that the wages and salaries of the solid American middle class have been relatively stagnant in recent years and are likely to remain so for the next decade. Unemployment is not likely to fall significantly soon, regardless of what stock prices do on Wall Street. Indeed, often stock prices rise as firms lay off workers to drive up profits through leaner payrolls.

This prospect -- relatively stagnant family incomes combined with family health-care costs that double every decade -- is what America's middle class should contemplate as it thinks about the imperative of health reform.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Terminating coverage: If health-care costs were to rise 10 percent above current levels, 14 percent of firms said they would drop health coverage. If costs rose 15 percent higher, 27 percent would do so. If costs rose 25 percent, four in 10 employers said they would stop providing coverage.

If, if, if. Health insurance companies have access to the same data and they simply won't let that happen.

They don't want to lose you as a customer any more than you want to keep your coverage.

Think about it: if 27 percent of firms drop health coverage, that's a 27% loss for the insurance industry.

Would they raise costs 15% for a 27% loss? I don't think so.

But its occurring already before our very eyes.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Terminating coverage: If health-care costs were to rise 10 percent above current levels, 14 percent of firms said they would drop health coverage. If costs rose 15 percent higher, 27 percent would do so. If costs rose 25 percent, four in 10 employers said they would stop providing coverage.

If, if, if. Health insurance companies have access to the same data and they simply won't let that happen.

They don't want to lose you as a customer any more than you want to keep your coverage.

Think about it: if 27 percent of firms drop health coverage, that's a 27% loss for the insurance industry.

Would they raise costs 15% for a 27% loss? I don't think so.

But its occurring already before our very eyes.

No, it's not. Stop lying.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

lol not again