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?

he just likes telling me I'm wrong:)

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

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.

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:

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.

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

-spence