Tell Me Something

[scottw]

[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?

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

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

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by scottw

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!

Originally Posted by scottw

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!

[scottw]

[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....

[justplugit]

[QUOTE=scottw;714800]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

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.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by justplugit

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.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

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

[scottw]

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

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

[scottw]

ever think it might be YOU?

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.
It's idiotic that my company won't bother to sponsor 25 dollars a month for a gym membership
The question I pose is, for how much we spend, why aren't we more healthy?
You can have great health insurance, but not get prenatal care and as a result have a bad result.
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

[JohnnyD]

[QUOTE=scottw;714430]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

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?

[scottw]

[QUOTE=JohnnyD;714571]

Originally Posted by scottw

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

[JohnnyD]

[QUOTE=scottw;714594]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

that is hilarious

That's one way to accept being wrong.

[scottw]

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

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by scottw

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.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

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....

[scottw]

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.