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.

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.

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.

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...

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

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

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.

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

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.

Again, this simply isn't true. The ASO market is huge and has been rapidly spreading to small and medium size businesses.

Yes, because their employer has underwritten the insurance.

Huh?

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

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=scottw;714430]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=JohnnyD;714571]that is hilarious :rotf2:

[QUOTE=scottw;714594]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?

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: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....

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.

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

-spence

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

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?

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 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?