87% of Employers Will Reduce Benefits if Obama's BullShit Healthcare Bill Passes

[barman]

My wife and I love our current health care options.



Until the day she leaves her current employer, at which time our monthly premiums will rise to about $550 a month, with no protection against further increases.

Not to mention that being diabetic, she'll be virtually uninsurable with any other major health care insurer. So we would then be confronted with any significant stay in the hospital putting us tens of thousands of dollars in debt.

Yeah, we love all the options we have.

Yeah

 

[TomGshotput]

punter,
Medicare and Medicaid is socialized medicine. Though they are strange programs that seem like they should not exist and that no one supports. It seems everyone either you want the government to stop helping people who can't help themselves or you want universal care

I don't care which way it goes, I'm stuck in the middle, paying a few too many thousands in taxes to help myself as much as I would like. So long as we go one way or the other, either the free-market route or the socialism route I would be cool. Instead we end up stuck with the worst of both and with politicians and citizens who care more about soundbites than good policy

 

[nimue77]

Except that single payer healthcare could result in increased taxes on businesses and/or joe taxpayer.

Bingo. Would take a huge burden off of employers and would free them up to hire more employees at lower cost. A real boon for business.

This health care bill now is so watered down and weak as to be incrementally meaningless. We need a complete overhaul with single payer.

 

[barman]

Except that single payer healthcare could result in increased taxes on businesses and/or joe taxpayer.

Not a problem for those of us who are very willing to pay increased taxes in order to facilitate better access to affordable health care for all Americans.

 

[Spytheweb]

it's very difficult to say exactly how much of what is going to occur, with "accepting reduced profits" being the low man on the totem poll.

there will be widespread cut back in benefits, cuts in compensation, pink slips and price increases to customers. Some combination of these events cannot be avoided.

it's not really rocket science, it's just business sense.

Not if you go to single payer. Single payer saves the country 400 billion a year and covers every US citizen. Employers will have every employee cover for less than half they pay now and will be able to hire more people and give raises. Single payer HR 676 medicare for all.

What is Single Payer?


Single-payer is a term used to describe a type of financing system. It refers to one entity acting as administrator, or “payer.” In the case of health care, a single-payer system would be setup such that one entity—a government run organization—would collect all health care fees, and pay out all health care costs. In the current US system, there are literally tens of thousands of different health care organizations—HMOs, billing agencies, etc. By having so many different payers of health care fees, there is an enormous amount of administrative waste generated in the system. (Just imagine how complex billing must be in a doctor’s office, when each insurance company requires a different form to be completed, has a different billing system, different billing contacts and phone numbers—it’s very confusing.) In a single-payer system, all hospitals, doctors, and other health care providers would bill one entity for their services. This alone reduces administrative waste greatly, and saves money, which can be used to provide care and insurance to those who currently don’t have it.


http://www.pnhp.org/facts/what_is_single_payer.php<!--/sphider_noindex-->

 

[Spytheweb]

Single-payer system could remove burden from employers

Posted on July 06, 2009 6:22 AM

• By Jack Lohman
  
  
  
  Jack Lohman is a retired business owner who lives in Colgate and is a member of The Coalition...
  View full bio

Think about it. They now have a filibuster-proof congress, and if health care fails in 2009, it’s the Democrats’ fault. They can’t even blame the Republicans for their normal obstruction, as they no longer need a bipartisan bill.
President Barack Obama didn’t count on that when he was making all those campaign promises, but now it’s 100-percent his baby. He supported a single-payer plan, though he left some wiggle room in case Congress split. But it didn’t. The Dems now have total control and they don’t want it!
Single-payer is the most cost efficient system for our nation and is the most humane. You get sick, you get care and the caregiver gets paid. Nothing could be simpler. And though Medicare is not perfect it is indeed the least costly system of all with full physician choice, no wait times and no rationing.
But our politicians have a problem. Both Democrats and Republicans have shared in the $46 million in campaign contributions from the insurance industry. Needless to say, what is in the best interest of the nation is exactly opposite to the best interest of the for-profit insurers. The 22-percent saved comes right out of their pocket.
The question is how do we pay for it as a universal program? But first let’s understand who’s paying for it now.
Everybody is. We pay in cost-shifting, bankruptcy costs, and lastly, when businesses add their employee health costs to their product price and we reimburse them at the cash register.
In the process we make our businesses highly uncompetitive with foreign products, which often forces employers to build their products in countries that do not burden them with health care. We make more cars in Canada than in Michigan because their health care costs are $800 per employee per year and ours is $6500. That adds $1,500 per car.
Flat out, businesses should not be involved in providing employee health care at all, but that leaves either individual insurance or a public pool. Our politicians should create a single-payer Medicare-for-all system that is funded by our national infrastructure instead of the mish-mash of payments and non-payments. That’s what most advanced nations have done, and it works.
Over 31 percent of health care costs are consumed by the make-work insurance bureaucracy; as compared with the 9 percent needed for a single-payer. A huge savings to the public could be had.
With a single-payer system you see your same doctor and go to the same hospital as before. The only thing that changes is where they send the bill, and most people could care less about whose logo is on the invoice.
The beauty of Medicare is its simplicity. Everybody gets care, everybody pays into it through progressive taxation, companies are freed of the expense, jobs are increased, 100% of the public is covered, and consumers save $400 billion per year in reduced overhead.
The current for-profit system includes extra premiums to offset high CEO salaries and bonuses, broker sales commissions, shareholder profits, actuarial and gatekeeper costs, and even their lobbying and campaign contributions which are passed on to the patient.
Isn’t it nice to know that your politician is getting a piece of your private health care dollar? That’s why politicians always prefer private companies over government entities; one can give campaign cash and the other can’t. That’s why they choose to leave insurers in the loop.
Bottom line; most people would rather spend $500 per month in taxes to pay for an all-inclusive system than $700 per month for an exclusive system that doesn’t give better care and drives jobs out of the U.S.|
And all doctors and hospitals will be privately run and you’ll have 100-percent choice. What’s not to like about that?
But get this: our problem today is not health care, it’s political. Your politicians need to hear from you, and your voice must be loud if it is to drown out the moneyed interests. Your politicians work for you, not them.
Jack Lohman is a retired business owner from Wisconsin and publishes http://MoneyedPoliticians.net. He authored "Politicians - Owned and Operated by Corporate America."

 

[Spytheweb]

D2bets Quote:
<table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;"> Originally Posted by Willie99
if we like the current system, why would we support Obama's plans to change it?

I'm all about my fundamental beliefs, and nothing about what party somebody belongs to. Most republicans tend to be closer to my political views than democrats are. I've yet to meet the perfect politician.

Newt is one politician that came closest. I'd take Newt's fiscal conservatism and no nonsense approach, Rudy on law enforcement / national security and Huckabee's personality and baddabing, that be Willie's boy.

BTW: I wouldn't mind Obi Wan Paul slashing wasteful spending, that would be mostly fun to watch.
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
You like the current system? I knew there had to be somebody.

------------------------------------------------------------

Punter once again cites a worthless subjective study that does everything but measure the quality of health care, a study that the WHO admits can't be done accurately and thus haven't done such since 2000, a study that somehow yields significantly different results than the following two simple questions yield. It seems countries that actually CURE illness at higher rates and countries who's residents are happy with their health care have an inverse relationship with that debunked WHO study. It's the kind of lame liberal logic that looney's rely on.

Not only do I like my existing health care, so do 80% of Americans.

Riddle me this boys, why can't Obama get his bill passed with his 1,001 TV appearances, control of Congress, favorable press and more money being spent?

Because Americans ARE HAPPY with their health care.

Americans ARE HAPPY with their health care
Americans ARE HAPPY with their health care
Americans ARE HAPPY with their health care
Americans ARE HAPPY with their health care
Americans ARE HAPPY with their health care
Americans ARE HAPPY with their health care
Americans ARE HAPPY with their health care

sniff a clue someday

Health insurers have issued guidelines saying they could deny coverage to people suffering from such conditions as acne, hemorrhoids and bunions.

Uninsurable conditions included pregnancy, and being an "expectant father" was grounds for "automatic rejection." So was having received "therapy/counseling" within six months of the application. There was also this more general disqualifier: "currently experiencing/experienced within the last 12 months symptoms for which a physician has not been consulted."

Health Net guidelines for 2006 say that people could be denied coverage or charged higher premiums if they were taking certain medications, including Zyrtec, an allergy remedy, and Lamisil, which is widely advertised as a treatment for toenail fungus.

Pregnant women could be rejected, as could expectant fathers, the document said.

Spytheweb:

So all of you who say you like your insurance is just sitting on a denial list waiting to have your name called when it looks like you're going to cost your insurance company too much money and you become a medical loss for them, then they drop/deny you.

So you better not get any of these conditions or many more not listed.

Support single payer HR 676, will save 400 billion dollars a year and cover every US citizen.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...091803501.html

 

[Spytheweb]

An Improved Medicare-for-all system provides business with many benefits:

• It reduces labor costs by 10-12% (a 3.3% additional tax on wages* versus today's 10-15% of wages for medical insurance).
• It reduces liability and auto insurance costs.
• It reduces worker compensation costs, likely by half.
• It eliminates health benefits management costs and yearly insurance company and labor contract negotiations for health care.
• It creates healthier personnel and more employee stability, reduces absenteeism, and eliminates employer health system complaints.
• It reduces the need for part-timers, and provides easier recruiting (no pre-existing disease or COBRA issues).
• It eliminates employee health-related debt and personal bankruptcies.
• It will expand the U.S. economy and business climate by freeing up family income to purchase new products and services.

 

[mplastered]

An Improved Medicare-for-all system provides business with many benefits:

• It reduces labor costs by 10-12% (a 3.3% additional tax on wages* versus today's 10-15% of wages for medical insurance).
• It reduces liability and auto insurance costs.
• It reduces worker compensation costs, likely by half.
• It eliminates health benefits management costs and yearly insurance company and labor contract negotiations for health care.
• It creates healthier personnel and more employee stability, reduces absenteeism, and eliminates employer health system complaints.
• It reduces the need for part-timers, and provides easier recruiting (no pre-existing disease or COBRA issues).
• It eliminates employee health-related debt and personal bankruptcies.
• It will expand the U.S. economy and business climate by freeing up family income to purchase new products and services.

So, what you're saying is that our government is going to save us money?This is almost as funny as a sitcom.