Congress is trying to pass this healthcare bill. On the news the other day it was said that it will cost approximately 13% per person of your yearly income for this universal health. That could be very expensive for a family of four depending on a persons income. Also they do not say what your coverage would be. Do you start with a standard minimal policy and then buy add ons for amputations, joint replacements etc: for exsample?

What is included in a diabetic's coverage? Does it cover the office visit? Are meds paid for, or co-pay or do you pay for your own meds?

Orthopedic surgeon- Does the health care bill pay the bill or do you pay for the x-rays or MRI what portion comes out of pocket?

Do we the American public know what out of pocket monies that we will be paying?

You're thinking way too much. Don't worry about anything. The government will take care of everything for you. After all, they know what's best for us.:morons:

I already pay for healthcare, my own.

I already pay for healthcare, my own.

Your own and many other people's. Don't forget about your taxes that already go to cover people on government plans like RIte Care.

Jimmy, don't sell yourself short. You're very generous.:uhuh:

Congress is trying to pass this healthcare bill. On the news the other day it was said that it will cost approximately 13% per person of your yearly income for this universal health.

I believe that 13% number came from the Congressional Budget Office
and will affect people making $52, 000 or more. In addition,today they said the
the Bill, if passed, would need to cut into Medicare as well. Their own people are saying we can't afford it.

Obama saying HC will be paid for from the waste and fraud found in Medicare,
900 Billion over 10 years, is wishful thinking.

If he can start today and find 90 Billion by next September, then let's talk about HC.

Cut first...spend later. That won't work, the cut part is a complete lie.

Cut first...spend later. That won't work, the cut part is a complete lie.

For sure, Tell me somethin i don't know. :D
Sure get's quiet in here when it comes to how this is really going to be paid for.

Remember that promise from Obama, "Will not tax anyone making less then $250,000."

"Forget about it." You and I will be taxed to pay for it. :fury: That is why the IRS is going to be in charge of collecting thru our tax form and some of us will not be getting a tax return, it will go towards paying for health care.

it's only the beginning....

Staff in carbon footprint trial face £100 fines for high emissionsBen Webster, Environment Editor
Timesonline.UK Sept 14, 2009

People who emit more than their fair share of carbon emissions are having their pay docked in a trial that could lead to rationing being reintroduced via the workplace after an absence of half a century.

Britain’s first employee carbon rationing scheme is about to be extended, after the trial demonstrated the effectiveness of fining people for exceeding their personal emissions target. Unlike the energy-saving schemes adopted by thousands of companies, the rationing scheme monitors employees’ personal emissions, including home energy bills, petrol purchases and holiday flights.Workers who take a long-haul flight are likely to be fined for exceeding their annual ration unless they take drastic action in other areas, such as switching off the central heating or cutting out almost all car journeys. Employees are required to submit quarterly reports detailing their consumption. They are also set a target, which reduces each year, for the amount of carbon they can emit.

Those who exceed their ration pay a fine for every kilogram they emit over the limit. The money is deducted from their pay and the level of the fine is printed on payslips. Those who consume less than their ration are rewarded at the same rate per kilogram

There goes my paycheck. :wall:

Does that include passing gas(farting) Take Beano and you may get a rebate on your fine. OOPS!! just released some carbon, "Where's the Beano?" :rotf2: :jump1:

it's only the beginning....

Staff in carbon footprint trial face £100 fines for high emissionsBen Webster, Environment Editor
Timesonline.UK Sept 14, 2009

For all the copy/pasting you do, we still can't get you trained to actually post a link to the article.

For all the copy/pasting you do, we still can't get you trained to actually post a link to the article.

not that hard to find

Staff in carbon footprint trial face £100 fines for high emissions - Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6832964.ece)

Mr Symons stayed within his ration last year by giving up his Mazda RX8 sports car and buying a diesel Peugeot 207. He met this year’s target largely because his partner had a baby and he rarely left home except to go to work.

One employee, Dan Dowling, 29, switched the mode of transport for his honeymoon in Rome from plane to train. His colleague, Emma Bollan, stopped blow-drying her hair and cut down on roast dinners. She said: “The big incentive is not the prospect of earning £100 but in trying to ensure that you don’t have to pay out.”

Several WSP staff added that peer pressure played a part in persuading them to stay within their ration.

Mr McLachlan said: “There have been some interesting competitive dynamics in the company as a result of having this transparency.”

LIBERAL PROGRESSIVE STUPIDITY

hey, JD, now how about defining "healthy majority" for me...hmmmm???

hey, JD, now how about defining "healthy majority" for me...hmmmm???

hey, scott, how about selectively taking a phrase out of context and trying to apply it to a completely different topic.


Let's be clear for a moment:
First, this is a private company sponsored program.
Second, it is a voluntary, opt-in program for the employees.
Third, if they fall below their quota, they are rewarded up to 100 pounds.

If these people choose to voluntarily allow their company to dictate their carbon footprint, so be it. But don't copy/paste a story and try to represent it as a mandatory program that is taking place.

LIBERAL PROGRESSIVE STUPIDITY
How exactly is an opt-in program provided by a *private firm* that provides an incentive to decrease a person's carbon usage, and a penalty for not doing so "Liberal Progressive Stupidity".

hey, scott, how about selectively taking a phrase out of context and trying to apply it to a completely different topic. DID NOT, JUST LOOKING FOR YOUR WARPED DEFINITION


Let's be clear for a moment:
First, this is a private company sponsored program.
Second, it is a voluntary, opt-in program for the employees.
Third, if they fall below their quota, they are rewarded up to 100 pounds.

If these people choose to voluntarily allow their company to dictate their carbon footprint, so be it. But don't copy/paste a story and try to represent it as a mandatory program that is taking place.

I NEVER DID THIS, NEVER REPRESENTED IT AS A GOVERNMENT PROGRAM, JUST REPRESENTED IT AS THE STUPIDITY THAT IT IS...


How exactly is an opt-in program provided by a *private firm* that provides an incentive to decrease a person's carbon usage, and a penalty for not doing so "Liberal Progressive Stupidity".

STUPID LIBERAL PROGRESSIVES WILL WANT TO SHOVE THIS UP YOUR BUTT AS WELL, THAT'S HOW.....:uhuh:
"in a trial that could lead to rationing being reintroduced via the workplace "
Britain’s first employee carbon rationing scheme is about to be extended AND EXTENDED...AND EXTENDED AND EXTENDED

NOW...DEFINE "HEALTHY MAJORITY"...SPECIFICALLY THE ONE THAT THE REPUBLICANS ENJOYED DURING THE BUSH YEARS WHEN THEY RAN ALL OF THAT LEGISLATION THROUGH AND THE DEMS COULD ONLY HELPLESSLY WATCH:rotf2:


APPROPRIATELY CALLED A "SCHEME" BY THE WAY, OR BETTER, A SCAM

How will we know Pelosi has promised to send it to vote before the American Public even has a chance to read it.

Welcome to the USSA

NOW...DEFINE "HEALTHY MAJORITY"...SPECIFICALLY THE ONE THAT THE REPUBLICANS ENJOYED DURING THE BUSH YEARS WHEN THEY RAN ALL OF THAT LEGISLATION THROUGH AND THE DEMS COULD ONLY HELPLESSLY WATCH:rotf2:

Yes, Bush had a real opportunity there for a while - good thing for the dems he was idiot.

LIKE I SAID...

THE POLITICO

September 25, 2009
Categories: Senate

Ensign receives handwritten confirmation

This doesn't happen often enough.

Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) received a handwritten note Thursday from Joint Committee on Taxation Chief of Staff Tom Barthold confirming the penalty for failing to pay the up to $1,900 fee for not buying health insurance.

Violators could be charged with a misdemeanor and could face up to a year in jail or a $25,000 penalty, Barthold wrote on JCT letterhead. He signed it "Sincerely, Thomas A. Barthold."

The note was a follow-up to Ensign's questioning at the markup.

On the news the other day it was said that it will cost approximately 13% per person of your yearly income for this universal health. That could be very expensive for a family of four depending on a persons income.

Put this way you're making it sound like this would be a "new" 13% tax which is misleading. Most importantly the plans discussed so far would be progressive in nature.

Here's the big problem.

Today we spend over 15% of our GDP on health care which is dramatically higher than any other nation on the planet. The US rankings for life expectancy, infant mortality, overall health care performance etc... are all pathetically low. We are also the only industrialized nation to not provide coverage to all citizens.

The one thing we do excel in is responsiveness, but this is coming at a frightening cost.

With current rates of spending, there's plenty of money in the "system" to provide good care.

I can't believe some of the numbers of people who like their present health insurance. I've got what should be decent coverage through BCBS and my out of pocket expenses have gone through the roof the past two years. Easily over a grand on basic stuff this year alone for the family, not to mention the countless hours spent yelling at the insurance company as they seem to magically find ways to deny nearly every other claim.

-spence

The US rankings for life expectancy, infant mortality, overall health care performance etc... are all pathetically low.
-spence

THIS IS A LIE, AMERICANS DRIVE MORE AND WE HAVE A HIGH MURDER RATE, NEITHER HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH HEALTHCARE BUT BOTH DRASTICALLY REDUCE LIFE EXPECTANCY NUMBERS OVERALL COMPARED TO OTHER NATIONS, BACK THOSE NUMBERS OUT COMPARITIVELY AND SEE WHERE WE STAND...ALSO, INFANT MORTALITY IS DEFINED DIFFERENTLY IN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES, WE TRY TO SAVE CHILDREN AT MUCH EARLIER STAGES THAN OTHER COUNTRIES AND MANY EARLY DELIVERIES ARE NOT EVEN CONSIDERED IN THE MORTALITY RATES IN OTHER COUNTRIES..CHECK THE FACTS...ALL OF THOSE RANKINGS FOR THE US ARE ALL REMARKABLY HIGH WHEN FAIRLY COMPARED TO ELSEWHERE...MORE SPINCE BS...WHY DON'T YOU JUST MOVE TO CUBA WHERE YOU CAN ENJOY ALL THAT YOU DESIRE?????

Actually, rankings like these tend to factor in deaths preventable by treatment, life expectancy adjustments for those born with disabilities etc...

If you have data that contradicts the generally cited research, please share...otherwise you're just full of hot air.

Some people react to info like this as if it's anti-American or something which is beyond me. For some there is terrific health care in the US, that's the the point. The question is that considering how much more it costs us, are we any better off for it?

-spence

THIS IS A LIE, AMERICANS DRIVE MORE AND WE HAVE A HIGH MURDER RATE, NEITHER HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH HEALTHCARE BUT BOTH DRASTICALLY REDUCE LIFE EXPECTANCY NUMBERS OVERALL COMPARED TO OTHER NATIONS, BACK THOSE NUMBERS OUT COMPARITIVELY AND SEE WHERE WE STAND...ALSO, INFANT MORTALITY IS DEFINED DIFFERENTLY IN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES, WE TRY TO SAVE CHILDREN AT MUCH EARLIER STAGES THAN OTHER COUNTRIES AND MANY EARLY DELIVERIES ARE NOT EVEN CONSIDERED IN THE MORTALITY RATES IN OTHER COUNTRIES..CHECK THE FACTS...ALL OF THOSE RANKINGS FOR THE US ARE ALL REMARKABLY HIGH WHEN FAIRLY COMPARED TO ELSEWHERE...MORE SPINCE BS...WHY DON'T YOU JUST MOVE TO CUBA WHERE YOU CAN ENJOY ALL THAT YOU DESIRE?????

If you have quantitative proof, I'd be interested to see it. (But without the CAPS Lock key, as it's quite difficult to read)

If you have data that contradicts the generally cited research, please share...otherwise you're just full of hot air.

-spence

you are full of something far more offensive....you demand facts and accuracy from others and continually lie your ass off...must be a prerequisite for liberal progressives, you claim to "lean libertarian" and then start a sentence with " what should the government enforce":rotf2:....the only truth for you is the bs that furthers the agenda, your "generally cited research" is from the UN, the world's most corrupt organization....being disingenous is a game for you like Obama, Pelosi, Reid and the rest..all LIARS....lies through smarmy smirks to forward a radical agenda...


"The US rankings for life expectancy, infant mortality, overall health care performance etc... are all pathetically low"

THIS IS A LIE...a despicable lie.....meant to tear down our healthcare system in order to replace it with your socialist version....

For "some" there is terrific health care in the US....THIS IS AN INTENTIONALLY MISLEADING LIE...

HOW ABOUT CITING THE "GENERALLY CITED RESEARCH" SHOWING THE NUMBERS OF AMERICANS THAT ARE HAPPY WITH THEIR HEALTHCARE AND HEALTH INSURANCE ....DUMBASS




The Politico
September 25, 2009
Categories: Senate

Ensign receives handwritten confirmation

This doesn't happen often enough.

Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) received a handwritten note Thursday from Joint Committee on Taxation Chief of Staff Tom Barthold confirming the penalty for failing to pay the up to $1,900 fee for not buying health insurance.

Violators could be charged with a misdemeanor and could face up to a year in jail or a $25,000 penalty, Barthold wrote on JCT letterhead. He signed it "Sincerely, Thomas A. Barthold."

The note was a follow-up to Ensign's questioning at the markup

Wow, you were successful in both being an ass and not adding any value to the conversation.

Perhaps you just think two negatives always do make a positive? :humpty:

-spence

Wow, you were successful in both being an ass and not adding any value to the conversation.

Perhaps you just think two negatives always do make a positive? :humpty:

-spence

NO SENSE IN ARGUING WITH A COMPULSIVE LIAR:uhuh:

"We are also the only industrialized nation to not provide coverage to all citizens." SPENCE

ANOTHER TWISTED LIE....we provide care to all citizens and non- citizens.....there are a lot of countries where you have "coverage" and can't get "care".....I'll take care over coverage any time....

y
HOW ABOUT CITING THE "GENERALLY CITED RESEARCH" SHOWING THE NUMBERS OF AMERICANS THAT ARE HAPPY WITH THEIR HEALTHCARE AND HEALTH INSURANCE ....DUMBASS


List of countries by infant mortality rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate)
Life Expectancy for Countries — Infoplease.com (http://www.infoplease.com/world/statistics/life-expectancy-country-2009.html)
FOXNews.com - U.S. Trails Others in Health Care Satisfaction - Health News | Current Health News | Medical News (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136990,00.html) (GASP FOX NEWS DURING the BUSH years.....)

List of countries by infant mortality rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate)
Life Expectancy for Countries — Infoplease.com (http://www.infoplease.com/world/statistics/life-expectancy-country-2009.html)
FOXNews.com - U.S. Trails Others in Health Care Satisfaction - Health News | Current Health News | Medical News (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136990,00.html) (GASP FOX NEWS DURING the BUSH years.....)

"The US rankings for life expectancy, infant mortality, overall health care performance etc... are all pathetically low." SPENCE


world life expectancy average 66.6....US... 78.1 highest Macau 84.4

Fox reported a study by the Commonwealth Fund(a longtime Universal Heaalthcare Advocate) of 7000 people in 5 countries....

By Todd Zwillich, reviewed by Brunilda Nazario, MD

SOURCES: “The Commonwealth Fund 2004 International Health Policy Survey of Primary Care in Five Countries,” Commonwealth Fund, Oct. 28, 2004. Cathy Schoen, vice president, Commonwealth Fund. Carolyn M. Clancy, MD, director, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The Honorable John Hutton, MP.

you couldn't find anything more up to date than 2004????


the facts just don't match Spence's mindless rhetoric

"The US rankings for life expectancy, infant mortality, overall health care performance etc... are all pathetically low." SPENCE

No, I grabbed 2004 b/c it was Fox and during the Bush years. Where are the facts you mentioned to refute Spensinski then?

2009 estimated deaths per 1000 live births in the US is 6.26 putting us in the same league as Belarus and Poland, behind 44 other nations and pretty close to dead last among traditional First World countries.

Considering our health care spend (15% of GDP) is dramatically higher than any other nation, I'd say that's pretty pathetic.

-spence

2009 estimated deaths per 1000 live births in the US is 6.26 putting us in the same league as Belarus and Poland, behind 44 other nations and pretty close to dead last among traditional First World countries.

Considering our health care spend (15% of GDP) is dramatically higher than any other nation, I'd say that's pretty pathetic.

-spence

If what you are saying is true then that is a hard fact for proud Americans to swallow. I would wager that the diff. between the 44 nations is a very small percentage and I would also wager that the influx of "undocumented" immigrants is also a factor. Still, I would rather my children born here over any other place on earth

If what you are saying is true then that is a hard fact for proud Americans to swallow. I would wager that the diff. between the 44 nations is a very small percentage and I would also wager that the influx of "undocumented" immigrants is also a factor. Still, I would rather my children born here over any other place on earth

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html

It's about double the best countries. The percentage seems small but when you think about some 4 million born in the US every year, that translates roughly into 15,000 more deaths compared to the best.

Granted there are a lot of reasons for infant mortality, hence it's use as a general measurement.

-spence

[url].

Granted there are a lot of reasons for infant mortality, hence it's use as a general measurement.

-spence

which is why your statement was absurd....even...pathetic:uhuh:

which is why your statement was absurd....even...pathetic:uhuh:
No, many experts in the matter believe it's a reasonable measure when used properly. That's why they measure it.

You probably just think it's a statistic derived so that poor nations can suck the blood of the USA.

-spence

ugh

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html

It's about double the best countries. The percentage seems small but when you think about some 4 million born in the US every year, that translates roughly into 15,000 more deaths compared to the best.

Granted there are a lot of reasons for infant mortality, hence it's use as a general measurement.

-spence

The CIA infant mortality rate stats are interesting. 12 of the countries with lower IMF rates than U.S. have populations less than one million--some as low as 14 or 15 thousand which, as you say, is our total yearly infant death rate. They may not even have 1000 births per year which is the rate number used for IMR. Other than Japan, the other "better" countries have populations ranging in the low to double digit millions. We compare VERY, VERY favorably with populations over 100 million, with the exception of Japan which is an ethnically and culturally homogenous society lacking our demographic problems and blessed with a healthy life style and diet. The U.S. IMR stats seem to have gone down from the 7 per 1000 to 6.26/1000 and sit just above Cuba which is supposed to be a model of socialist health care.

As you say, there are a lot of reasons for infant mortality. The rates, however, can be skewed by how they are reported by individual countries. Many countries report relatively few infants as having died during the first 24 hours. This number is over one third of all infant deaths in the US, Australia, and Canada, but only about one fourth of totals in Japan and Sweden, it's less than one sixth of total in France, and only 1 twenty fifth of total in Hong Kong! Figures so low for some countries as to be suspect.

In Cuba and many European countries, births of less than 1000 grams are not counted toward mortality stats. In Switzerland, babies born less than 30 cm long are not counted as live births, and babies weighing less than 2.2 pounds and die after birth are counted as still births so do not affect the IMR. In Japan and Hong Kong babies born alive but die within the first 24 hours are reported as miscarriages so do not affect the IMR.

The Canadian Medical Assoc. Journal for Sept. 5, 2000 reports that "international comparisons of infant mortality are compromised by a lack of standardization with regard to birth registration practices. Studies have documented wide variation in the rate at which extemely small babies at the borderline of variability (e.g. 550g) are registered in different countries. As a potential solution the WHO has recommended that international comparisons of infant mortality be restricted to live births in which the newborn weighs 1000g or more. such a restriction would eliminate a substantial proportion of neonatal deaths from the infant mortality counts of most industrialized countries, however. This and other challenges inherent in birth-wieght-specific comparisons mean that international infant mortality rankings will continue to be based on crude rates and still favor industrialized countries which tend NOT TO REGISTER EXTREMELY SMALL LIVE BIRTHS"

Dr. Linda Halderman states that low birth weight infants (less than 1000g) are not counted against the "live birth" statistics for many countries reporting low IMR. When weight at birth is factored in, Norway has no better survival rates than the US. Survival rates for high risk low weight babies is higher in the US than in Norway and Japan because we do so much more to save them. In Belgium and France any baby born before 26 weeks gestation is not considered alive and doesn't count against the IMR.

Uniform reporting would move the U.S. up from the bottom third to about the middle of the OECD group. Our unique problems of life and health style, lack of homogenous cultural ethnicity, high crime rates, high teen pregnancy rates, racial diversity, massive illegal immigration problems, etc., would probably keep us from being the best, no matter what health care bill is passed. Maybe, if we swore off of red meat, ate tofu and rice, stayed close to home and all thought the same way, etc., we would be #1.

As you say, there are a lot of reasons for infant mortality. The rates, however, can be skewed by how they are reported by individual countries.
The thing to keep in mind is that the stat is used as a general measure of health, not a ranking of the quality of care.

You can have great health insurance, but not get prenatal care and as a result have a bad result. (As an example, I know someone who nearly had a tragic ending to a really stupid home birth.).

The question I pose is, for how much we spend, why aren't we more healthy?

-spence

As you say, there are a lot of reasons for infant mortality. The rates, however, can be skewed by how they are reported by individual countries.
I agree, the thing to keep in mind is that the stat is used as a general measure of health, not a ranking of the quality of care.

You can have great health insurance, but not get prenatal care and as a result have a bad result. (As an example, I know someone who nearly had a tragic ending to a really stupid home birth. The story is incredible...and stupid)

What I ask, is for how much we spend, why aren't we more healthy as a group?

-spence

I

What I ask, is for how much we spend, why aren't we more healthy as a group?

-spence

Candy, Chips, Cookies, over eating, Soda, Sugar, Smoking, Drugs, booze, computer games, etc:

Candy, Chips, Cookies, over eating, Soda, Sugar, Smoking, Drugs, booze, computer games, etc:

So why spend so much? It would seem like most of this is under our personal control.

-spence

It would seem like most of this is under our personal control.

-spence

And it should be, we are a free people and can make our own choices, good or bad.

I agree, the thing to keep in mind is that the stat is used as a general measure of health, not a ranking of the quality of care.

You can have great health insurance, but not get prenatal care and as a result have a bad result. (As an example, I know someone who nearly had a tragic ending to a really stupid home birth. The story is incredible...and stupid)

What I ask, is for how much we spend, why aren't we more healthy as a group?

-spence

Spence, I apologize for not being able to finish my post before you responded to it. One of those time glitches that I run into in writing lengthy stuff and the system cuts me off. I have gone back and "edited"--that is added the rest of what I wished to say, which may, in part, be a sketchy answer to your question.

So why spend so much? It would seem like most of this is under our personal control.

-spence

Personal control= a 5' 6" person weighs in at 250lbs. goes to one of them burger joints takes in 3,000 calories, farts and loses 500 calories. That is personal control.

So why spend so much? It would seem like most of this is under our personal control.

-spence

Exactly, personal responsibility rather than government prodding is the answer. Similar to "education" in this country. We spend more than anybody and get relatively little in return compared to other countries. Yet we keep saying that the results just indicate that we haven't "invested" enough. Those who are motivated to learn or to be healthy have a better shot at it than those who wait for help. Of course there are exceptions, but not so that we must redo our entire way of paying for health care. That's why we have funny little sayings such as "don't throw out the baby with the bathwater."

Exactly, personal responsibility rather than government prodding is the answer. Similar to "education" in this country. We spend more than anybody and get relatively little in return compared to other countries. Yet we keep saying that the results just indicate that we haven't "invested" enough. Those who are motivated to learn or to be healthy have a better shot at it than those who wait for help. Of course there are exceptions, but not so that we must redo our entire way of paying for health care. That's why we have funny little sayings such as "don't throw out the baby with the bathwater."

Personally I think it's because our lifestyle is so good people simply don't care.

I'm all for health based incentives by the way. It's idiotic that my company won't bother to sponsor 25 dollars a month for a gym membership but they'll contribute 12K towards a health plan that's really lacking in many ways.

The problem isn't investment...the entire system is dysfunctional.

-spence

You want your company to pay for you to go to the gym. Do you go to a gym now?

For the twelve grand that the company pays towards my health care I get more then my monies worth. I wish they would pick up my 20.00 dollar co-pay I could go get one of them juicy burgers.

You want your company to pay for you to go to the gym. Do you go to a gym now?

For the twelve grand that the company pays towards my health care I get more then my monies worth. I wish they would pick up my 20.00 dollar co-pay I could go get one of them juicy burgers.

I want my HMO to pay for my gym membership - with proof of activity. It's a dual incentive. I get healthier, feel better and save some money. The insurance company pays less because I'm healthier and at an extremely reduced risk due to activity.

I have always been an advocate that the morbidly obese, smokers, proven alcoholics with liver cirrhosis, heroin users with Hep or HIV similarly self-inflicted health issues should *not* be covered by insurance.

No different than being sent to the hospital for alcohol poisoning for drinking too much - which would not be covered by my insurance.

You just want to watch them young ladies sweat.

You just want to watch them young ladies sweat.

Half the reason I sometimes go to the gym "just to do some Cardio".



...alright, maybe more than half.

waaaa.....I want someone else to pay for my healthclub membership...are you kidding me? will this also be included in free universal healthcare?

"What I ask, is for how much we spend, why aren't we more healthy as a group?"
-spence

this is nonsensical....spending more on healthcare should make us more healthy as a group? noooooo....lifestyle choices, genetics and environment affect the overall healthiness of a group but not spending on healthcare...it's expensive because it is advanced and it is good and you can try but you can't nanny state legislate whether or not an individual is going to be a unhealthy or not....you can pay for the best health insurance/ healthcare in the world and he'll still be unhealthy, Ted Kennedy...what are you going to do tax him, force him into a government mandated exercise program, with a government mandated diet monitored by government fat agents? actually, it wouldn't surprise me....

It's idiotic that my company won't bother to sponsor 25 dollars a month for a gym membership

it's idiotic for you to expect someone else to pick up the tab...

waaaa.....I want someone else to pay for my healthclub membership...are you kidding me? will this also be included in free universal healthcare?

Actually, many company plans offer this as an incentive to change your lifestyle. If private companies are offering perks like that, then it must make some business sense......

Actually, many company plans offer this as an incentive to change your lifestyle. If private companies are offering perks like that, then it must make some business sense......

It's been proven that companies that promote health lifestyles have lower health care costs and higher productivity in the office.

With all the money companies hemorrhage on training, professional development and other programs that are often an excuse to get out of the office, what's $25 for the health of the employees? I pay more than that just for my guys to take lunch on a professional development day.

If or when they shove this joke of a health care plan down our throats
will every elected official have the same ins plan ??? :smash:

what's $25 out of your pocket to improve your own health? how about being responsible for yourself rather than looking of a gimme...

Spence asked...

"What I ask, is for how much we spend, why aren't we more healthy as a group?"-spence

healthy people/populations don't need and/or use the healthcare system as frequently and therefore spend LESS

the exception would be a population enjoying free government healthcare like Japan where they take full advantage of the entitlement to it's detrement

higher spending on healthcare does not translate keeping healthy people healthy....that's up to them, unless you plan to force everyone to live a healthy lifestyle.."for the good of the State"

Actually, many company plans offer this as an incentive to change your lifestyle.

this is fine Rock, it's optional but we now have statesattacking through taxation products and activities that they "the State" deem unhealthy, it's just the beginning to government telling you what you may and may not do regarding your health...especially if they are providing your healthcare services...

Obama stated that most of healthcare spending is near the end of life..this is certainly not spending on healthy people to keep people "healthy", it's spending for procedures necessary to keep them going as their bodies break down....in some cases due to some degree of unhealthy living but ...they're old....

"What I ask, is for how much we spend, why aren't "those old people" more healthy as a group?"

"What I ask, is for how much we spend on education, [B]why aren't we more educated as a group?"

"What I ask, is for how much we spend entitlements, ........

note that as soon as you guys start down this road to socialized healthcare to any degree you immediately start to dictate what others should be doing regarding lifestyle...really? a free gym membership is the solution to a healthier America? you can't be healthy and exercise unless someone gives you a free gym membership???? Are you going to wheel the unwilling into a gym and beat them till they exercise or just fine and jail them???

I think we are defining WE differently these days........

I'd note that even when you resort to putting words in my mouth, you're still completely incoherent.

-spence

[QUOTE=JohnnyD;714401]It's been proven that companies that promote health lifestyles have lower health care costs and higher productivity in the office.


really??? are the companies somehow paying for the healthcare?

they might negotiate lower health insurance premiums if they can prove that their employees are somehow healthier than the norm or the average...hmmm...that will require some monitoring...


The “employer’s share” of employees’ health-care costs comes out of those employees’ wages, not out of profits. Employers aren’t forcing their employees to pick up a larger share of the bill because they can’t. Workers are already paying the entire bill. Regardless...YOU are paying for your health insurance ultimately unless you are getting some kind of goverment entitlement....

where exactly is this proven again?

I'd note that even when you resort to putting words in my mouth, you're still completely incoherent.

-spence

I understand Spence..these are tough concepts for a Communist:uhuh:

The “employer’s share” of employees’ health-care costs comes out of those employees’ wages, not out of profits. Employers aren’t forcing their employees to pick up a larger share of the bill because they can’t. Workers are already paying the entire bill. Regardless...YOU are paying for your health insurance ultimately unless you are getting some kind of goverment entitlement....
This simply isn't true in a large number of cases. Most large companies underwright their employees insurance and simply pay the "insurance company" to administrate.

If employees are more healthy this will naturally reduce the number of claims which contributes directly to bottom line savings. If a company has less "loss" they can return more "profit" to the shareholders...

This may not be applicable to small businesses who buy insurance directly, but it impacts a large share of the insured regardless.

-spence

this is fine Rock, it's optional but we now have statesattacking through taxation products and activities that they "the State" deem unhealthy, it's just the beginning to government telling you what you may and may not do regarding your health...especially if they are providing your healthcare services...

Good.
tax cig's cigars etc 10.00 a pack. more revenue. the state doesn't deem something like that unsafe, the medical profession does.
tax fast food 1.00/order, less obesity maybe?
Maybe drop smokers from insurance? I know many Police and Fire departments are already doing that, and many companies are 'encouraging' people to quit, why? because then people are healthier and costs are LOWER to the companies.

What else does the state attack through taxation? Please be specific that you think is healthy and they think unhealthy.

This simply isn't true in a large number of cases. Most large companies underwright their employees insurance and simply pay the "insurance company" to administrate.

If employees are more healthy this will naturally reduce the number of claims which contributes directly to bottom line savings. If a company has less "loss" they can return more "profit" to the shareholders...

This may not be applicable to small businesses who buy insurance directly, but it impacts a large share of the insured regardless.

-spence

companies that promote health lifestyles have lower health care costs JD

companies do not pay for health care, they do not have health care costs...they forward your health insurance premium to a health insurance company who ultimately pays for your health care services less any deductibles...this is the problem, Obama uses health care and health insurance interchangeably just as he does principles and values....because he believes that they should be one in the same and dictated by and directed through the state....

What else does the state attack through taxation? Please be specific that you think is healthy and they think unhealthy.

it doesn't matter what I think is healthy and unhealthy...it's none of my business what someone else eats....read the news, in NY taxing soda, trans-fats anything that they may deem unhealthy...none of their f-ing business...nor yours....is this really the road that you want to go down Rock??? drop smokers from insurance and then maybe deny them treatment because they smoked??? what does "encouraging" mean.....it all just fine till someone decides that they don't like what "YOU" are doing and decide to tax it or "encourage" you to stop

This simply isn't true in a large number of cases. Most large companies underwright their employees insurance and simply pay the "insurance company" to administrate.

-spence

you are referring to a small # of ASO's...hardly the norm..

Typically, only large employers choose to self insure their employee health plans.

The employees of a self insured employer often do not understand that the employer has a self insured plan. The employees are issued an “insurance” card with the name of a health insurance company on it, such as “Blue Cross & Blue Shield” or “UnitedHealthcare”, but the insurance company is only acting as an administrator, not an insurer.

Avoidance of state insurance regulation is one reason for the increase in self insured plans. Since self insured plans does not involve a traditional insurance arrangement between an employer and an insurance company, self insured plans are exempted from many types of state insurance regulations by the federal ERISA statute. For example, state law coverage mandates (e.g., a state law that requires that certain health benefits be covered by insurance contracts, such as fertility treatments) do not apply to self insured plans. In addition, self insured plans can avoid other costs built into traditional health insurance premiums, such as state premium taxes, contributions to the state high-risk insurance pools (if any), and contributions to a health insurance company’s profits and reserves.

Employers that self insure, however, typically do no bear all the risk of a self insured plan. Instead, self insured employers usually buy traditional insurance to cover the risk of very high losses due to large or unexpected health claims by their employees. This insurance is called “stop loss insurance.” Although this insurance covers the health care claims of the employees, it is not considered health insurance because is does not cover health care claims directly. Instead, it protects the employer against large losses it might suffer as a result of being self insured.

you are referring to a small # of ASO's...hardly the norm..

Typically, only large employers choose to self insure their employee health plans.
Again, this simply isn't true. The ASO market is huge and has been rapidly spreading to small and medium size businesses.

The employees of a self insured employer often do not understand that the employer has a self insured plan. The employees are issued an “insurance” card with the name of a health insurance company on it, such as “Blue Cross & Blue Shield” or “UnitedHealthcare”, but the insurance company is only acting as an administrator, not an insurer.
Yes, because their employer has underwritten the insurance.

Avoidance of state insurance regulation is one reason for the increase in self insured plans. Since self insured plans does not involve a traditional insurance arrangement between an employer and an insurance company, self insured plans are exempted from many types of state insurance regulations by the federal ERISA statute. For example, state law coverage mandates (e.g., a state law that requires that certain health benefits be covered by insurance contracts, such as fertility treatments) do not apply to self insured plans. In addition, self insured plans can avoid other costs built into traditional health insurance premiums, such as state premium taxes, contributions to the state high-risk insurance pools (if any), and contributions to a health insurance company’s profits and reserves.
Huh?

Employers that self insure, however, typically do no bear all the risk of a self insured plan. Instead, self insured employers usually buy traditional insurance to cover the risk of very high losses due to large or unexpected health claims by their employees. This insurance is called “stop loss insurance.” Although this insurance covers the health care claims of the employees, it is not considered health insurance because is does not cover health care claims directly. Instead, it protects the employer against large losses it might suffer as a result of being self insured.
So? It's called risk management. Happens all the time.

You seem to be having a particularly incoherent day today, and considering how low the bar is usually set, this is disturbing.

-spence

the HUH? and SO?... the things that you questioned were directly from WIKIPEDIA....I guess they're "incoherent" too....

you don't get it because you are looking at this from...I don't even know where you are anymore...big government statist I suppose

if a large company desides to self-insure through an ASO/TPA they've calculated that they can create their own pool based on a large number of employees to cover incidental healthcare costs with existing premiums pooled and additionally carry a major medical coverage....the payments are made with pool money which is either direct employee contributions or deferred compensation....the employees are still paying for their healthcare....not the company...the company will compensate for overruns through higher employee contributons or higher consumer prices....any insurance or other perks provided to any employee is figured into the compensation package and not simply a lollipop thrown in by the company...and major medical is still run through an insurer....

this was my exact "fix" for healthcare, insure major medical and pay incidentals out of pocket.......although it should be done individually.....it's what I do presently...that would motivate individuals to be more healthy and use the health care system more wisely rather that thinking that their health insurance card is nothing more than a credit card with no pre-set limits....

again...from WIKI

Avoidance of state insurance regulation is one reason for the increase in self insured plans. Since self insured plans does not involve a traditional insurance arrangement between an employer and an insurance company, self insured plans are exempted from many types of state insurance regulations by the federal ERISA statute. For example, state law coverage mandates (e.g., a state law that requires that certain health benefits be covered by insurance contracts, such as fertility treatments) do not apply to self insured plans. In addition, self insured plans can avoid other costs built into traditional health insurance premiums, such as state premium taxes, contributions to the state high-risk insurance pools (if any), and contributions to a health insurance company’s profits and reserves.

Employers that self insure, however, typically do no bear all the risk of a self insured plan. Instead, self insured employers usually buy traditional insurance to cover the risk of very high losses due to large or unexpected health claims by their employees


amazing what you can accomplish when you get governement mandates the hell out of it

the HUH? and SO?... the things that you questioned were directly from WIKIPEDIA....I guess they're "incoherent" too....
No, just out of context. You obviously don't understand the question.

-spence

ever think it might be YOU?:uhuh:

out of context?

your question was stupid...like Obama without his teleprompter you are clueless and juvenile without your talking points...

Personally I think it's because our lifestyle is so good people simply don't care.:rotf2:
It's idiotic that my company won't bother to sponsor 25 dollars a month for a gym membership:rotf2:
The question I pose is, for how much we spend, why aren't we more healthy?:rotf2:
You can have great health insurance, but not get prenatal care and as a result have a bad result.:rotf2:
I agree, the thing to keep in mind is that the stat is used as a general measure of health, not a ranking of the quality of care. you mean the "infant mortality stat" ? yeah that's a good measure of health....you know...whether you are dead or not :rotf2::rotf2::rotf2:

Yawn, I'll just let your words speak for themselves.

-spence

gotcha! :uhuh:

[QUOTE=JohnnyD;714401]It's been proven that companies that promote health lifestyles have lower health care costs and higher productivity in the office.


really??? are the companies somehow paying for the healthcare?

they might negotiate lower health insurance premiums if they can prove that their employees are somehow healthier than the norm or the average...hmmm...that will require some monitoring...


The “employer’s share” of employees’ health-care costs comes out of those employees’ wages, not out of profits. Employers aren’t forcing their employees to pick up a larger share of the bill because they can’t. Workers are already paying the entire bill. Regardless...YOU are paying for your health insurance ultimately unless you are getting some kind of goverment entitlement....

where exactly is this proven again?

You're welcome to split hairs with regards to terms to try to prove a poorly supported point(how very Conservative of you).

I do know that companies like Yankee Candle that has a Health Center on the property, my previous ambulance employer and Covidien all receive discounts on their health *insurance* costs due to promoting healthy lifestyles and having fitness centers on their property.

Also, your supposed theory that employers forward their Health costs onto the employees is faulty, as companies that require a higher employee contribution don't pay higher wages than a company that requires a lower employee contribution.

Where exactly is your point proven?

[QUOTE=scottw;714430]

as companies that require a higher employee contribution don't pay higher wages than a company that requires a lower employee contribution.



that is hilarious :rotf2:

[QUOTE=JohnnyD;714571]

that is hilarious :rotf2:

That's one way to accept being wrong.

I just can't make any sense out of that statement...do you want to try again?

I just can't make any sense out of that statement...do you want to try again?

You argue that the employees are actually the ones paying for their Health Insurance, that companies pass the cost down.

Maybe in math?

Two companies, exactly the same except Company 1 requires employees pay more towards Health Insurance.

Company 1 + Higher Employee Contribution = Wage 1


Company 2 + Lower Employee Contribution = Wage 2

Wage 2 is not necessarily lower than Wage 1 because Company 2 pays more towards Health Insurance.


Concerning:Regardless...YOU are paying for your health insurance ultimately unless you are getting some kind of goverment entitlement....
I pay 100% of my health insurance because I own a business. On the other hand, my employees only pay *a portion* of their health insurance because *I* pay the other portion out of *my* (the business's) revenue.

You argue that the employees are actually the ones paying for their Health Insurance,yes that companies pass the cost down.yes

Maybe in math?

Two companies, exactly the same except Company 1 requires employees pay more towards Health Insurance.

Company 1 + Higher Employee Contribution = Wage 1


Company 2 + Lower Employee Contribution = Wage 2

Wage 2 is not necessarily lower than Wage 1 because Company 2 pays more towards Health Insurance.

what???

Concerning:
I pay 100% of my health insurance because I own a business. On the other hand, my employees only pay *a portion* of their health insurance because *I* pay the other portion out of *my* (the business's) revenue.no, everything is paid out of your business' revenue, wages and benfits overhead, however you slice it up, you have a cost to insure that employee that is factored into your cost to employ them which reflects their value and what they are entitled to in the form of compensation...they are receiving the full value of that health insurance premium as a form of compensation for their work regardless of how you claim to pay it




their value to you as an employer is determined by their wages plus all benefits...you keep(withhold) a portion of whatever their health insurance premium has been determined to be from their check most likely....the entire amount of what is forwarded to the insurance company is figured in to your actual cost to employ that person, it has to be if you run a business just as you need to know the cost to produce the product that you sell or the value of your service...what is the difference between you signing your employees check and you signing a check to the insurance company on the employees behalf?.....nothing...the value of their work created the revenue for you to be able to write the check, that employee is ultimately entitled to the entire amount of salary and benefs that you incur to employ them, that is their value...if you were to end all benefits tomorrow, that employee ought to get an increase in wages that reflects your entire cost to employ them because that is their determined value and they would then need to go out and seek those benefits on their own...otherwise you are a greedy bastard....

no, everything is paid out of your business' revenue, wages and benfits overhead, however you slice it up, you have a cost to insure that employee that is factored into your cost to employ them which reflects their value and what they are entitled to in the form of compensation...they are receiving the full value of that health insurance premium as a form of compensation for their work regardless of how you claim to pay it




their value to you as an employer is determined by their wages plus all benefits...you keep(withhold) a portion of whatever their health insurance premium has been determined to be from their check most likely....the entire amount of what is forwarded to the insurance company is figured in to your actual cost to employ that person, it has to be if you run a business just as you need to know the cost to produce the product that you sell or the value of your service...what is the difference between you signing your employees check and you signing a check to the insurance company on the employees behalf?.....nothing...the value of their work created the revenue for you to be able to write the check, that employee is ultimately entitled to the entire amount of salary and benefs that you incur to employ them, that is their value...if you were to end all benefits tomorrow, that employee ought to get an increase in wages that reflects your entire cost to employ them because that is their determined value and they would then need to go out and seek those benefits on their own...otherwise you are a greedy bastard....

By your crazy twisted philosophy, my employees also pay for my heat, electricity and to put fuel into the delivery vehicles.

Employees are entitled to the salary agreed upon before hiring and the option to take part in the health insurance plan. Should they choose not to take part in the plan, they aren't entitled to an increase of pay. The check to Tufts is merely another line item on the expense sheet.

Next you're going to argue that employees that choose not to take part in the 401k are entitled to have the employer's matching percentage added into their paycheck. What's the difference?

You're confusing wages with benefits.

By your crazy twisted philosophy

It's not a philosophy, he's just a troll.

-spence

By your crazy twisted philosophy, my employees also pay for my heat, electricity and to put fuel into the delivery vehicles.their labor "value" does

Employees are entitled to the salary and benefits package agreed upon before hiring and the option to take part in the health insurance plan is optional?. Should they choose not to take part in the plan, they aren't entitled to an increase of pay why not, what are you doing with the money?. The check to Tufts is merely another line item on the expense sheetas are wages, both of which happen to be dedicated to employees.

Next you're going to argue that employees that choose not to take part in the 401k are entitled to have the employer's matching percentage added into their paycheck. yes What's the difference?what IS the difference, why are you willing to pay it today if they opt in but not tomorrow if they opt out, are they less valuable to you if they chose the latter?

You're confusing wages with benefits.

not at all, they are all costs of doing business, if you eliminate all benefits tomorrow, you could afford to pay them more...correct? why wouldn't you then pay them more...the money was already dedicated to them or on their behalf to an insurance company or retirement plan...are they suddenly less valuable to you if you eliminate the benefits???? and yes, in many cases opting out of health insurance entitles employees to a cash benefit in the form of higher wage which is why there are so many 20 and 30 something "uninsureds"...wages and benefits are the same thing essentially, combined they determine the value that you place on your employee...they are all paid out of your revenues(your compensation for their labor), just depends on how you slice it up...

not at all, they are all costs of doing business, if you eliminate all benefits tomorrow, you could afford to pay them more...correct? why wouldn't you then pay them more...the money was already dedicated to them or on their behalf to an insurance company or retirement plan...are they suddenly less valuable to you if you eliminate the benefits???? and yes, in many cases opting out of health insurance entitles employees to a cash benefit in the form of higher wage which is why there are so many 20 and 30 something "uninsureds"...wages and benefits are the same thing essentially, combined they determine the value that you place on your employee...they are all paid out of your revenues(your compensation for their labor), just depends on how you slice it up...

As usual, you're mostly wrong.

Benefits have a notional value that typically far exceeds the cash equivelent through tax exemptions, consolidated buying power or upside in the case of equities.

Rarely would you see an employeer give the employee full credit for not taking a benefit. That's exactly the point, by not giving cash the employee can see more value...they are not equal.

-spence

Rarely would you see an employeer give the employee full credit for not taking a benefit.
-spence

another weak Spencism....sneaky...it would be nice if you could just be honest once in a while rather than constantly engaging in word games....

Concerning:
I pay 100% of my health insurance because I own a business. On the other hand, my employees only pay *a portion* of their health insurance because *I* pay the other portion out of *my* (the business's) revenue.


JD, whay do you make them pay anything? Why not just pay the entire portion out of your "business revenue" if it has nothing to do with their predetermined wages?

another weak Spencism....sneaky...it would be nice if you could just be honest once in a while rather than constantly engaging in word games....
This isn't a word game. An insurance plan at a mid to large size company could have a notional value of 100K, a benefit value of 10K and an opt out cash value of 2K.

Obviously the larger the company the better ability to leverage economies of scale.

-spence

This is for Spence and JohnnyD. If an employee is smart enough, they should ask their employer for a higher pay rate if they decline the companies health plan. Many people don't realize this, but it is done in a lot of cases. A company pays a minimum of 60% of a health plans total premium and some pay much more. If a family plan costs an employer $600 per month and the employee declines coverage, the company saves that money. In some cases, the savings may not actually be $600 because depending on the total # of emplyees with the plan, mods are adjusted up or down. But, the savings will be pretty close to the $600 figure. If employers can save that money, it goes to the bottom line. JohnnyD should especially know this, as a business owner.

If an employee is smart and knows how to negotiate, they should ask for a higher salary in lieu of the medical benefits. In my wifes previous job, she negotiated a higher salary because she was on my medical insurance and didn't need it from her company. Because she was informed, she spoke to the HR person and was able to get almost the full cost of the insurance added to her pay.

Companies would rather people decline coverage because it's a big saving for them. The cost of medical and dental insurance, holiday pay, 401K contributions, etc... are huge for a company.

This is for Spence and JohnnyD. If an employee is smart enough, they should ask their employer for a higher pay rate if they decline the companies health plan.
This isn't news, it's exactly what we did at my wife's work when we moved onto my insurance.

-spence

This isn't news, it's exactly what we did at my wife's work when we moved onto my insurance.

-spence


But you were telling ScottW that he was wrong when he said that a company can afford to pay employees more if they didn't have to pay for health benefits. Yet, your wife was ablr to get more money in lieu of medical benefits?

he just likes telling me I'm wrong:)

This isn't news, it's exactly what we did at my wife's work when we moved onto my insurance.

-spence

your $12,000 a year inadequate insurance:uhuh:

he just likes telling me I'm wrong:)


You know he's frustrated when he starts with the petty insults. In his defense, it must get hard trying to play devil's advocate all day.

But you were telling ScottW that he was wrong when he said that a company can afford to pay employees more if they didn't have to pay for health benefits. Yet, your wife was ablr to get more money in lieu of medical benefits?

No, what I said was that the value attributed to the benefits wasn't equivalent to cash.

i.e. if I have a 12K health insurance plan, and my company says they "contribute" 9K, they're not going to give me the option to take a 9K raise if I opt out.

Also, the rules on this might be different for a larger or smaller company. Read my freaking posts will ya...

-spence

No, what I said was that the value attributed to the benefits wasn't equivalent to cash.

i.e. if I have a 12K health insurance plan, and my company says they "contribute" 9K, they're not going to give me the option to take a 9K raise if I opt out.

Also, the rules on this might be different for a larger or smaller company. Read my freaking posts will ya...

-spence

The value of the insurance benefit is equivalent to cash when you factor a person's total compensation. If I choose not to get my company health plan, I can get the equivalent cash value added to my salary. It won't be the exact same amount because the insurance deduction is pre-tax. Some companies do this, while others may give a percentage back to the employee. One company I used to work for wouldn't give anything back in the form of salary adjustment for not taking medical benefits. It's all up to the employer as to what they want to do. In my company, if I choose not to take my company vehicle, I can actually make out. They base my vehicle allowance on a pretty nice car. If I were to opt out, I could downgrade the car and put extra cash in my pocket every week. Benefits do have a real cash value.

As for reading your posts, I read some of them every day. Since their all basically the same, I don't see the need to waste my time on all of them. I was keeping track of how often you were using the word "neocon", but it got out of control. I figured you'd have turned the page on your "Political Talking Points Word of the Day Calendar" by now.:smash:

The value of the insurance benefit is equivalent to cash when you factor a person's total compensation. If I choose not to get my company health plan, I can get the equivalent cash value added to my salary. It won't be the exact same amount because the insurance deduction is pre-tax. Some companies do this, while others may give a percentage back to the employee. One company I used to work for wouldn't give anything back in the form of salary adjustment for not taking medical benefits. It's all up to the employer as to what they want to do. In my company, if I choose not to take my company vehicle, I can actually make out. They base my vehicle allowance on a pretty nice car. If I were to opt out, I could downgrade the car and put extra cash in my pocket every week. Benefits do have a real cash value.

As for reading your posts, I read some of them every day. Since their all basically the same, I don't see the need to waste my time on all of them. I was keeping track of how often you were using the word "neocon", but it got out of control. I figured you'd have turned the page on your "Political Talking Points Word of the Day Calendar" by now.:smash:
Read the thread again, you're still not up to speed.

-spence

Read the thread again, you're still not up to speed.

-spence

No, I'm up to speed just fine. The thread started out about what the cost of govt. health care is going to be for people. Then you and Scott got into a little bitchfest about infant mortality rates, and you got frustrated and used insults and talked down to him. Then there were some comments about what individuals could do to be healthier and what companies should do for their employees. Then, JohnnyD and you started to argue with Scott about what the real cost of health insurance is for a company and whether or not someone's wage should be adjusted if they decide to decline their company plan. Then, I pointed out some facts to you which you clearly didn't like. Because you couldn't come up with anything better, you tried to insult me by saying that I wasn't keeping up with the thread. This is a thread that's gone off on 3 or 4 different tangents thus far, and you yourself have been invloved in most of it. I chose just to respond to posts that I could give an informed opinion and some real facts on.

just for the record, Wikipedia is not a definitive source for anything. Its a reference point for terms and definitions, often giving vague and sometimes wrong answers. Should be used as a starting off point for research, not as a reliable source of info.

Had to read back a few pages to get caught up to par .

Spence you stated a few pages back that your 12,000 plan sucked. And I mentioned my plan was very good.

If your plan is so terrible why would you switch your wife to your plan? Is hers worse or do you feel that they owe you more such as free gym?

For my family plan of 12,000 dollar plan which my employer pays fully We do have to pay the first 1,000 of doctor,medical bills that acumulate for the year. Nothing is taken out of my pay check to pay towards the premium. I'm futher ahead of the game then having to pay 30 - 40% of the premium

There are employers that will negotiate some of the difference if the employee chooses not to use the companies plan.

My wife and I always negotiate a medical plan when we work for a different company. Very few people in our line of work have company insurance.

You know he's frustrated when he starts with the petty insults. In his defense, it must get hard trying to play devil's advocate all day.
I think this is the root of your problem, you're just making too many assumptions.

-spence

just for the record, Wikipedia is not a definitive source for anything. Its a reference point for terms and definitions, often giving vague and sometimes wrong answers. Should be used as a starting off point for research, not as a reliable source of info.

you forgot editorialized and/or opinionated answers...which seems odd

I only use it because it 's one of the lib's favorite sources for the "last word" on topics and definitions...gotta use NY Times, MSNBC. CNN and WIKI for sources around here or you are attacked for using right wing propoganda :uhuh:

If your plan is so terrible why would you switch your wife to your plan?
We've been on my plan for some time now. My frustration with our current plan is that out of pocket expenses have skyrocketed the past few years. My assumption is that this has happened to most people.

We have thought about comparing our present situation with what her company could offer and see if there's a net benefit.

Is hers worse or do you feel that they owe you more such as free gym?
We used to have a gym reimbursement which was taken away some time ago. I found this to be silly...

For my family plan of 12,000 dollar plan which my employer pays fully We do have to pay the first 1,000 of doctor,medical bills that acumulate for the year. Nothing is taken out of my pay check to pay towards the premium. I'm futher ahead of the game then having to pay 30 - 40% of the premium.
I'd like that better than what we have. I pay several hundred each month for my family plan w/some deductibles.

There are employers that will negotiate some of the difference if the employee chooses not to use the companies plan.
And (for the millionth friggin time) I never said there wasn't!

-spence

You know he's frustrated when he starts with the petty insults. In his defense, it must get hard trying to play devil's advocate all day.

just look at his picture, it's wearing him down, he looks like Karl Marx in drag...

And (for the millionth friggin time) I never said there wasn't!

-spence

you inferred it...

your insurance company must LOVE getting phone calls from you :rotf2:

I think this is the root of your problem, you're just making too many assumptions.

-spence

No, no problem here. You seem to be the one making assumptions about me having a problem with something. I try not to assume anything because you know what that does. And we both know that you like to play devil's advocate.:devil2: Were you on the debate team at your HS?


Edit: I just remembered that I do sometimes make assumptions. I often assume that I'm getting hits from large fish when in reality, my eel is just bouncing off some rocks on the bottom.

it doesn't matter what I think is healthy and unhealthy...it's none of my business what someone else eats.... Fine, I understand the slippery slope of food, but something like smoking, a known carcinogen with a direct link to lung cancer, and has deleterious effects on others around you? Absolutely, make it undesirable, and if you still want to smoke, then lets raise some revenue on it!


drop smokers from insurance and then maybe deny them treatment because they smoked??? what does "encouraging" mean.....it all just fine till someone decides that they don't like what "YOU" are doing and decide to tax it or "encourage" you to stop

Yup, absolutely. Offer options for addiction treatment etc to ween off but, basically yeah. If someone chose to eat asbestos for breakfast everyday, you can drop them too!

Were you on the debate team at your HS?
Nope...

Edit: I just remembered that I do sometimes make assumptions. I often assume that I'm getting hits from large fish when in reality, my eel is just bouncing off some rocks on the bottom.
Lighten up Francis.

-spence

you inferred it...

your insurance company must LOVE getting phone calls from you :rotf2:
Nope, been arguing the opposite the entire time. You just want to bottom feed.

-spence

Originally Posted by fishbones
Were you on the debate team at your HS?

Spence spent most of high school stuffed into a locker which is why he's such a nasty little man today :uhuh:

[QUOTE=RIROCKHOUND;714734]Fine, I understand the slippery slope of food, but something like smoking, a known carcinogen with a direct link to lung cancer, and has deleterious effects on others around you? Absolutely, make it undesirable, and if you still want to smoke, then lets raise some revenue on it!




no, if it's so bad...ban it...


big congrats buddy....babies are great! enjoy the hell out of it, I really miss my kids being little...had twins though....lotsa diapers....

This is for Spence and JohnnyD. If an employee is smart enough, they should ask their employer for a higher pay rate if they decline the companies health plan. Many people don't realize this, but it is done in a lot of cases. A company pays a minimum of 60% of a health plans total premium and some pay much more. If a family plan costs an employer $600 per month and the employee declines coverage, the company saves that money. In some cases, the savings may not actually be $600 because depending on the total # of emplyees with the plan, mods are adjusted up or down. But, the savings will be pretty close to the $600 figure. If employers can save that money, it goes to the bottom line. JohnnyD should especially know this, as a business owner.

If an employee is smart and knows how to negotiate, they should ask for a higher salary in lieu of the medical benefits. In my wifes previous job, she negotiated a higher salary because she was on my medical insurance and didn't need it from her company. Because she was informed, she spoke to the HR person and was able to get almost the full cost of the insurance added to her pay.

Companies would rather people decline coverage because it's a big saving for them. The cost of medical and dental insurance, holiday pay, 401K contributions, etc... are huge for a company.

All of this I am aware of.

However, in MA, I didn't think you could negotiate increased pay to an employee if they chose not to take the insurance. I thought health insurance had to be offered, under the same terms, to all employees in a similar position. All my employees are long-time employees that get health insurance from their spouses, so I haven't really had to look into the details of it.

[QUOTE=RIROCKHOUND;714734] but something like smoking, a known carcinogen with a direct link to lung cancer, and has deleterious effects on others around you? Absolutely, make it undesirable, and if you still want to smoke, then lets raise some revenue on it!




, if it's so bad...ban it...



Never happen, too many govt. taxes would be lost.

Never happen, too many govt. taxes would be lost.

I'd be willing to bet that over the long term, the government pays out more on health care for smokers than they collect in taxes.

All of this I am aware of.

However, in MA, I didn't think you could negotiate increased pay to an employee if they chose not to take the insurance. I thought health insurance had to be offered, under the same terms, to all employees in a similar position. All my employees are long-time employees that get health insurance from their spouses, so I haven't really had to look into the details of it.


You're right in that you have to offer insurance to all people in a particular class if you offer it to one person in that class(ie. all salaried employees), but you can discriminate based on classes (hourly v. salary, full time v. part-time). You also can negotiate anything as far as compensation. No one can decide what a private company can pay their employees. Consider that women still lag behind men with the same experience and qualifications in pay rates for similar positions.

You're right in that you have to offer insurance to all people in a particular class if you offer it to one person in that class(ie. all salaried employees), but you can discriminate based on classes (hourly v. salary, full time v. part-time). You also can negotiate anything as far as compensation. No one can decide what a private company can pay their employees. Consider that women still lag behind men with the same experience and qualifications in pay rates for similar positions.

That's what I thought. As such, in MA, you can't really negotiate to agree not to take health insurance for higher pay if you have anyone in the same class as you.

As such, scott's argument is invalid - like I said from the beginning.

I don't think that's what he said JD...

which of these is actually true???

JohnnyD;714628]

Concerning:
I pay 100% of my health insurance because I own a business. On the other hand, my employees only pay *a portion* of their health insurance because *I* pay the other portion out of *my* (the business's) revenue

All my employees are long-time employees that get health insurance from their spouses, so I haven't really had to look into the details of it.

That's what I thought. As such, in MA, you can't really negotiate to agree not to take health insurance for higher pay if you have anyone in the same class as you.

As such, scott's argument is invalid - like I said from the beginning.

Where is there something saying that an employee in MA can't negotiate a higher salary in lieu of health benefits? I'm confused about this because I know of several people who have negotiated higher salaries because they didn't need to enroll in their company sponsored health plan. The class argument is only that it has to be offered to all employees of the same class. Some may take the insurance, and some may pass on it. If someone passes on it because they have a plan through their spouse, they save the company money. If they are smart, they tell the boss that they'd like a higher salary because they are saving the company X amount of dollars.

So from what I read above, Scott's argument is perfectly valid.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fishbones
You're right

he only read this much of your post then stopped :)

I don't think that's what he said JD...

which of these is actually true???

JohnnyD;714628]

Concerning:
I pay 100% of my health insurance because I own a business. On the other hand, my employees only pay *a portion* of their health insurance because *I* pay the other portion out of *my* (the business's) revenue

All my employees are long-time employees that get health insurance from their spouses, so I haven't really had to look into the details of it.


Both:rotf2:

I don't think that's what he said JD...

which of these is actually true???

JohnnyD;714628]

Concerning:
I pay 100% of my health insurance because I own a business. On the other hand, my employees only pay *a portion* of their health insurance because *I* pay the other portion out of *my* (the business's) revenue

All my employees are long-time employees that get health insurance from their spouses, so I haven't really had to look into the details of it.

The second is what is currently true. But we have been in business for 11 years. Most of which was before the MA law. Doesn't change how the expense is treated. Nice try though.

I'll try and find a reference to what I mentioned above regarding negotiating pay.

Scenario
company has 30-40 employees on assembly line making 20 bucks an hour, paid vacation, sick days, health plan and union. One employees wife has better health plan. In this scenario the assembly worker most likely will not be able to negotiate a higher wage.

machinist, carpenter, plumber in a non union shop of X number of employees, hourly or piece work, excellent at his job, paid vaction, sick days, health plan. Wife has better health plan. This person may be able to negotiate a higher wage if he goes on wives health plan. Depends on the value of worker.

Salesman is a top producer, may negotiate with employer for higher % split if wife has better health care.

The second is what is currently true can't be based on the first .But we have been in business for 11 years. Most of which was before the MA lawwhich one?. Doesn't change how the expense is treated. Nice try though.

I'll try and find a reference to what I mentioned above regarding negotiating pay.

why did your credability hole any deeper?

Scenario
company has 30-40 employees on assembly line making 20 bucks an hour, paid vacation, sick days, health plan and union. One employees wife has better health plan. In this scenario the assembly worker most likely will not be able to negotiate a higher wage.

machinist, carpenter, plumber in a non union shop of X number of employees, hourly or piece work, excellent at his job, paid vaction, sick days, health plan. Wife has better health plan. This person may be able to negotiate a higher wage if he goes on wives health plan. Depends on the value of worker.

Salesman is a top producer, may negotiate with employer for higher % split if wife has better health care.
A lot of this will depend on if an employee is exempt vs non-exempt...but you really can't compare a top sales person with a factory worker, it's a completely different world.

-spence

Just an update.
They will cut $500 Billion from Medicare to help pay for Obamacare and the Feds say
Medicare premiums will go up another 15% next year.

Social security going broke, Medicare on the way.
Don't get old guys. :doh:

I know, I know, a lot of young guys on here, but trust me, now your running, soon you'll be walking.

Work hard, save, accumulate assets, play by the rules - you'll end up in nursing home next to an ex-con who never paid into anything, getting your ass roughly wiped by somebody who does not like your skin color.
The only difference is the government will make sure that the person who worked is good and broke before they let them in.

Work hard, save, accumulate assets, play by the rules - you'll end up in nursing home next to an ex-con who never paid into anything, getting your ass roughly wiped by somebody who does not like your skin color.
The only difference is the government will make sure that the person who worked is good and broke before they let them in.

Sad but true, Joe. :(

Seeing all these years paying into Soc Sec and nothing will be left , yet there are people who think Obamacare will work. :huh:

Hi to all.
Your own and many other people's.
Don't forget about your taxes that already go to cover
people on government plans like RIte Care.