Here's a question about health care insurance:

[PaceAdvantage]

How hard would it be to pass a law which states that anyone eligible for unemployment insurance is also eligible to REMAIN on their prior employer's health care plan at the same cost as when they were employed by said company?

Is it really that much of a burden for an employer to keep a recently laid off employee on their health plan for another 6 months?

It seems like such an easy fix that would help a lot of people out....

[sammy the sage]

WTF...did some-one else get ahold of P.A.'s acct...that sounds aweful DEMOCRATIC of you... :lol:

By the way...health way too expensive for average business owner to consider...(less than 20 employees and at one time considered the BACKBONE of USA)...I looked at it 3 yr.s ago... :mad:

Couldn't afford it...and considering my own personal premiun as gone up over 65% in 3yrs...(BUT there's NO inflation/recession...RIGHT)...I will say...sounds like Clinton plan to me! :bang:

[Tom]

I like it for larger employers, but it could kill the little guys.
And it might make laying off people a bit harder choice to make.

How about this - all health care related costs are 100% deductable.
And we lift the cap on social security to include 100% of all earnings by everyone.

Two simple, painless options - could go in place this week.

[sammy the sage]

By the way...do ya'll ACTUALLY KNOW the costs and rules for employee health care.

..offer one...MUST offer ALL...that INCLUDES smoker's, overweight, ect...

Do you have ANY idea how MUCH that affects the POOL PREMIUM...

So before GLIBBLY giving away an EMPLOYER'S/MY money...perhaps a LITTLE research is in order?

That rebate our own gov. just gave make would be tiny compared to what businees would have too...and in my case...just x's 6.

Oh...there is a COBRA plan...were employee's are eligible to be covered for 18 months...but they must pay themselves.

[Tom]

The premise PA gave was that the employee was already getting HC from the employer. No one is glibbly giving way your money - it was already part of the employee's compensation package. I suggested that larger employers were in a better positon to carrry them for the 6 months than smaller ones.

My preference is that you, as an employer, pay me 100% of my compensation package and let me take care of taxes, HC, everyting, myself.

Your comment about the pool premiums is not fair - do you cover some who ride a motocycle and gets hurt? Someone who waterskies, climbs mountains, lives in high crime areas and gets mugged? What if someone gets cancer from eating processed food, or charcoal grilled foods? You have to include everyone.

[Tom]

You know, that is a good point - should employers provide the HC insurance?
Obviously, Xerox, of IBM can better afford it than a small employer with 50 people working for them.

Should STATES be the ones to form groups to obtain discount HC, or counties, cities....?

If employers stopped providing HC, would they increase the pay to keep the total benefits package equal? Or keep it?

[prospector]

How hard would it be to pass a law which states that anyone eligible for unemployment insurance is also eligible to REMAIN on their prior employer's health care plan at the same cost as when they were employed by said company?

Is it really that much of a burden for an employer to keep a recently laid off employee on their health plan for another 6 months?

It seems like such an easy fix that would help a lot of people out....

health care is mostly a BENEFIT for employment for working for the company..it is an expense the company is willing to bear for your continued success...when you leave, all your benefits go as well...as a shareholder, i want those funds going into the stock..not paying benefits to someone who doesn't work for the company...taxes are enough..

[Tom]

Benefits are part of your compensation package. You are entitles to unemployment, it follows you should be entitles to non-paycheck bennies as well. And not all are corporations.

[Dave Schwartz]

Sammy,

I feel your pain, or at least I have felt it in the past when I had employees.

As a very small employer, I could never get real group health insurance for myself or other employees. However, I could invite them to apply for a personal policy of their choice and pay the premiums.

However, as you said, that is not a trivial "gesture" for a small business owner. And for many small businesses, adding $300-$400 per month per employee would cause a total change in how they did business or even whether or not they are able to stay in business at all.


Health care in this country is out of control. We need a new solution and it isn't socialized medicine or forced group insurance. (The second one would do nothing for the small business except make it harder for him to compete with bigger businesses.)


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[ljb]

This is really impressive, all these Republicans talking about health care. Who woulda thunk ?
Health care costs have been increasing for years. For most of that time all I heard from the right was "it's them damn trial lawyers." We all know the insurers and health care facilities are making hefty profits. We also know, or should know. Medicare has 10 to 15 percent overhead vs. 25 to 30 percent overhead for private insurers.
I have seen both PA and Tom sounding like them damn libs in this thread. What goes guys ?
Get back on your horses, if someone doesn't have health insurance let them get a job. screw em.

[kenwoodallpromos]

If someone is on unemployment why can they not get immediate temporary Govt health care? Oh yeh, nothing about the Govt works that fast.

[46zilzal]

If someone is on unemployment why can they not get immediate temporary Govt health care? Oh yeh, nothing about the Govt works that fast.

Employed or not you are covered here.

[chickenhead]

Re: small businesses, there was a similiar problem with the Bush Social Security plan that died a few years ago. Having a private, essentially a 401K plan, requires that someone pays to administer it. Many small businesses can't easily afford 401K administration, so they don't offer them.

The other problem, when total investment per person would have been on the order of $400 a year any admin costs, trading costs, and fund management costs effectively slaughter your returns.

[riskman]

Ron Paul tried---think this bill died.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul407.html

[skate]

[QUOTE=sammy the sage]WTF...did some-one else get ahold of P.A.'s acct...that sounds aweful DEMOCRATIC of you... :lol:

QUOTE]

Why would PAs idea sound Democratic? A little specific is needed.

It does not matter what the cost would be. you set up the Plan, whatever the Plan would be, and you adjust the amount needed to the Plan.
the cost will always go to the one paying.

Its is not a matter of "the Dems want coverage and the Rep do not want coverage". It's how...,.?

[dvlander]

This will probably be a radical idea on this forum.

Why not put the responsibility for health care on the individual by having them save six months worth of living expenses "just in case" the bottom drops out and they are laid off? Sacrifice something else in life to prepare for this possibility. Drive an older car instead of a brand new car. Delay buying that Bose sound system. Heaven forbid, hold off having children until you are in a position to afford them. I understand that circumstances can dictate difficult times for some. I've been laid off but luckily I was the accountant so I could see it coming for months. I was adequately prepared and luckily, I was able to find work again within three months.

If the employer is forced to pay for your health care after you are gone, he/she has to either raise his prices or lower costs elsewhere, most likely in compensation and benefits to the remaining employees. I am never in favor of government mandating what employers or employees must pay for health insurance (i.e. Hilary Care). Can anyone one cite a single federal social program that has been a success?

[robert99]

Insurance could be cheaper if it was pay-out limited to cover only most routine medical bills, but for the relatively few that had long term serious illnesses, a ring fenced State fund was set up by population levy that funded those long term cases (insured or not).

For most people, serious illness is getting concentrated into a short period of old age - so you are not employed in any case.

If the recession bites, then even the big companies are going to renege on the deal or keep it just for the "top" executives.

[Grits]

This is a not only a gross generalization; it's insulting, for those that not only work hard to make ends meet week to week, or month to month; but also those that didn't have several thousand sitting somewhere in trust before their first child came into this world.

"We've got 100 K saved up honey, so can I quit work now, and stay home? We can practice getting pregnant." How many households have both parents working fulltime today?

Too, may I remind you, as apparently, someone needs to. Many of those that have been laid off, became statistics when their jobs went overseas, courtesy of the corporations that didn't want to continue paying benefits and decent wages. These hard working people, most having lengthy careers with said corporation either had to take lesser paying jobs, or leave their field altogether and go back to community colleges to be educated in a new vocation or field.

Your post isn't radical. Its shortsighted.

dvlander

This will probably be a radical idea on this forum.

Why not put the responsibility for health care on the individual by having them save six months worth of living expenses "just in case" the bottom drops out and they are laid off? Sacrifice something else in life to prepare for this possibility. Drive an older car instead of a brand new car. Delay buying that Bose sound system. Heaven forbid, hold off having children until you are in a position to afford them. I understand that circumstances can dictate difficult times for some. I've been laid off but luckily I was the accountant so I could see it coming for months. I was adequately prepared and luckily, I was able to find work again within three months.

If the employer is forced to pay for your health care after you are gone, he/she has to either raise his prices or lower costs elsewhere, most likely in compensation and benefits to the remaining employees. I am never in favor of government mandating what employers or employees must pay for health insurance (i.e. Hilary Care). Can anyone one cite a single federal social program that has been a success?

[sammy the sage]

Tom...your READING COMPRHENSION skills...need to improve...PLUS re-read what you ACTUALLY wrote...and THINK...just for a minute

""Your comment about the pool premiums is not fair...YADA,YADA, YADA... You have to include everyone.""

EXACTLY...MY POINT!....therefore :bang:
__________________

[sammy the sage]

Skate...Ditto the TOM comments...

"It does not matter what the cost would be...YADA,YADA,YADA...the cost will always go to the one paying.

AND PRAY tell...who might that be?

Think...just for one minute...deep breath...AHHH...isn't that a democrat's position... :bang:

I'm just jabbing P.A.....since he is a Pub. defender...kinda weird for him to suddenly do a 180.......and I'm sure he understands completely now!

[sammy the sage]

Perhaps GM has the best answer..eh...AMERICAN society now has a ME NOW mentality...time for a slap to the face!

[Tom]

Tom...your READING COMPRHENSION skills...need to improve...PLUS re-read what you ACTUALLY wrote...and THINK...just for a minute

""Your comment about the pool premiums is not fair...YADA,YADA, YADA... You have to include everyone.""

EXACTLY...MY POINT!....therefore :bang:
__________________

Well excuuuuuuuuuusse me!
I thought your were suggesting we not include everyone. In which you would be a jerk. Perhaps your writting skills need improvement.

[PaceAdvantage]

This is really impressive, all these Republicans talking about health care. Who woulda thunk ?
Health care costs have been increasing for years. For most of that time all I heard from the right was "it's them damn trial lawyers." We all know the insurers and health care facilities are making hefty profits. We also know, or should know. Medicare has 10 to 15 percent overhead vs. 25 to 30 percent overhead for private insurers.
I have seen both PA and Tom sounding like them damn libs in this thread. What goes guys ?
Get back on your horses, if someone doesn't have health insurance let them get a job. screw em.And this is why people don't invite you to parties...

[PaceAdvantage]

If the employer is forced to pay for your health care after you are gone, he/she has to either raise his prices or lower costs elsewhere, most likely in compensation and benefits to the remaining employees.You see, I don't buy this argument. The employer is ALREADY paying for your health care when you are an employee. Extending it out 6 months after being laid off isn't asking too much, in my opinion. Plus, the ex-employee must still make a contribution to the cost of the insurance, just as before.

I find it insane that a person is laid off, then "offered" COBRA, whose cost, at this point, is approaching that of a second mortgage. Wow...thanks! (and no, I haven't lost my job lately, in case anyone is wondering why I am bringing this up....)

If we're going to offer unemployment benefits to folks, then health benefits should also be extended to those who are laid off through no fault of their own.

[sammy the sage]

^^^^^^^^^^^

P.A...re-read what you just wrote...EXACTLY why employer's DO NOT OFFER health care...it would COST THEM close to a 2nd mortgage! :bang:

Oh...& TOM...."Well excuuuuuuuuuusse me!
I thought your were suggesting we not include everyone. In which you would be a jerk. Perhaps your writting skills need improvement.""

No my writing skills are fine...re-read it a 3rd time...PLEASE...as stated if you OFFER one you must offer ALL...IT IS THE LAW!....

I never implied either way...what I did IMPLY...it was TOO DAMN COSTLY as is...MUCH LESS P.A.'s democratic idea!

[Tom]

No need to read a third time, I now support sticking it to all employers! :lol:

[ljb]

And this is why people don't invite you to parties...
Probably the same reason they try to ban me from this board every so often. Some just can't handle the truth. But I must continue in my quest of enlightenment for all.
Pa,
I told you and others on this board years ago, that this was going to happen. The rising cost of health insurance and other "living" expenses to the middle class. Corporate powers are trying to eliminate health coverage for their workers why would they agree to covering their unemployed workers ?
You ain't talking like yourself here, what gives ? Did you read the latest book by Fromm ?

[ljb]

Sorry about the mistake.
The book is by David Frum. It talks about the conservatives regaining their power and mentions health care as a hot topic. Frum says the conservatives have to start addressing health care. Tax cuts are so 1970s.

[dvlander]

PACE, I've read quite a few of your posts in this section and frankly, I agree with you most of the time. However, one fact I think you are forgetting on this subject is that it is currently not mandatory for employers to provide health insurance AT ALL. Thus, if you make it mandatory that employers must pay after employee departure, they may choose to not cover at all during employment so they won't be forced to pay for it after layoff at a time when they are trying to reduce costs. Your unintended result would likely be less coverage for active workers.

This edges into the "health care is a right" argument that the Dems like to push. I think HI is properly classified as "benefits" for a reason. It is one of the factors a prospective employee must consider when accepting a job. If the benefits are subpar in one's opinion, they have the right to pursue a better opportunity with another organization. If it not easy to do so, improve your skills. Let the open market take care of it instead of forcing government mandates down our throat.

[46zilzal]

Probably the same reason they try to ban me from this board every so often. Some just can't handle the truth. But I must continue in my quest of enlightenment for all.

how true

[skate]

^^^^^^^^^^^

P.A...re-read what you just wrote...EXACTLY why employer's DO NOT OFFER health care...it would COST THEM close to a 2nd mortgage! :bang:

Oh...& TOM...."Well excuuuuuuuuuusse me!
I thought your were suggesting we not include everyone. In which you would be a jerk. Perhaps your writting skills need improvement.""

No my writing skills are fine...re-read it a 3rd time...PLEASE...as stated if you OFFER one you must offer ALL...IT IS THE LAW!....

I never implied either way...what I did IMPLY...it was TOO DAMN COSTLY as is...MUCH LESS P.A.'s democratic idea!

Well, god help you, i'm gonna re read.
In the mean time, think on "Nothing (as in Zero) is Too Costly".

Now, adjustments, fine, make adjustments, but Too costly would be foolish.

Adjust, adjust (think) and adjust. easy...

[skate]

By the way...do ya'll ACTUALLY KNOW the costs and rules for employee health care.

..offer one...MUST offer ALL...that INCLUDES smoker's, overweight, ect...

Do you have ANY idea how MUCH that affects the POOL PREMIUM...

So before GLIBBLY giving away an EMPLOYER'S/MY money...perhaps a LITTLE research is in order?

That rebate our own gov. just gave make would be tiny compared to what businees would have too...and in my case...just x's 6.

Oh...there is a COBRA plan...were employee's are eligible to be covered for 18 months...but they must pay themselves.


i started my re-reading, your first THREE remarks mean nothing. but i should keep reading, no?

here's what i see, correct me on being wrong, thanks.
you ask and tell the following
1) "the cost"
2) "for everyone"
3) "do we have any Idea".

It seems as if you are saying "its too expensive". Ok fine, that's because you view the concern from ITS present state.

You see, i believe PApolice is saying, "Change what is in place today". This change negates ANY research that you are thinking others should perform, correct?
If we do not agree on this point, no need to re-read, yep?

[skate]

However, as you said, that is not a trivial "gesture" for a small business owner. And for many small businesses, adding $300-$400 per month per employee would cause a total change in how they did business or even whether or not they are able to stay in business at all.



Ok Swartzy, but, what if the health care was $300, $400 or even $1000/mo. on each and every small business, applied in increments, over time.
If everyone is paying, then nobody goes under.

That is a fact we can apply. and if so, then we adjust from the top down, because the real problem is the cost, the cost is the top.

But to say it's too expensive on the lower end(employer end) and not too say it's is TOO expensive on the higher end, would lend itself to defeat.


The money on the lower end (from employer), as always, comes from People. It's only a matter of adjusting from the higher end, which does NOT mean "thru Taxation".
A change in our F.U. system, more doctors, more (yep) lawyers and more hospitals. In turn would bring down the Cost.
Also, consequence of Courts , loser pays.

[skate]

PApolice post, is a perfect example as to why the Neolibs...hits, Keep on missing The Point.


ie,...Symbolism over Substance, thats what we on the Right side must endure.


:bang:

[HUSKER55]

Ok People, I happen to think that everyone is looking at this the wrong way. The only people that need the insurance are those that don't age well and no one knows that until the sh** hits the fan.

I think people should take care of themselves and health insurnce benefits are a perk. I also believe that government should only do for the people what the individual can not do. While government may have to regulate I really wish there was a way to keep government out of the medical field. The government screws up every thing it touches and I wish they would leave my health alone.

Consider, suppose every person who has a drivers license has to have proof of insurance. It sounds dumb and unrelated BUT does anyone have an idea of how many people in the hospital are there on their employers dime because of some bad and uninsured driver. How about residual affects several years down the road? The list goes on. I think there is a lot that happens to people that health insurance get stuck paying for something that should be put on someone elses shoulders.

We have to have a health insurance policy in this country of ours that provides quality care at an affordable price. The only way to do that is to make sure everyone pays. Going through employers is the easiest way to do that right now. I do not think that is working.


What is needed is a fair, affordable and equitable means of spreading the cost. Yes, doctors and hospitals are not going to be able to charge as much. that is also part of the solution. But I also think no one should ride for free.

just my humble opinion

[PaceAdvantage]

PACE, I've read quite a few of your posts in this section and frankly, I agree with you most of the time. However, one fact I think you are forgetting on this subject is that it is currently not mandatory for employers to provide health insurance AT ALL.Obviously, my idea would not apply to employers who do NOT currently offer health care coverage. It would only apply to those companies that DO offer health care coverage.

If you weren't receiving health care covereage before you were laid off, you wouldn't get it after....that's a no-brainer that I thought was implied in my posts, but perhaps it was not.

[PaceAdvantage]

Probably the same reason they try to ban me from this board every so often. Some just can't handle the truth.Yeah, that's what it is....:rolleyes:

[PaceAdvantage]

how trueWhy does this reply by 46zilzal remind me of the following scene from the classic comedy, Midnight Run:

BCOX_whrLqc

[dvlander]

Obviously, my idea would not apply to employers who do NOT currently offer health care coverage. It would only apply to those companies that DO offer health care coverage.

If you weren't receiving health care covereage before you were laid off, you wouldn't get it after....that's a no-brainer that I thought was implied in my posts, but perhaps it was not.

Nope, you were clear on this. I am trying to make a point. Say I am the owner of a growing business and I am approaching the time where I am considering health insurance for my staff. If there is a government mandate that I have to pay for laid off staff if something goes wrong down the road, this may convince me to either delay providing HI or maybe deciding not to do it at all. I think the end result could be less employers providing HI for active workers.

[skate]

Obviously, my idea would not apply to employers who do NOT currently offer health care coverage. It would only apply to those companies that DO offer health care coverage.

If you weren't receiving health care covereage before you were laid off, you wouldn't get it after....that's a no-brainer that I thought was implied in my posts, but perhaps it was not.


"Not" is correct,thanks, perhaps...

[PaceAdvantage]

Nope, you were clear on this. I am trying to make a point. Say I am the owner of a growing business and I am approaching the time where I am considering health insurance for my staff. If there is a government mandate that I have to pay for laid off staff if something goes wrong down the road, this may convince me to either delay providing HI or maybe deciding not to do it at all. I think the end result could be less employers providing HI for active workers.The cost would be that prohibitive just to keep someone on for another six months?

OK...if that is the case, then perhaps a laid off employee would have to pay a bit more for the health insurance, but something far below the insane COBRA costs that are currently offered....

[Robert Goren]

As it is now people get fired because they use their health insurance. And people don't get hired because they might use it. Try coming down with a major health problem like I did and see what happens. I got Crohns. good bye job.

[Tom]

OK...if that is the case, then perhaps a laid off employee would have to pay a bit more for the health insurance, but something far below the insane COBRA costs that are currently offered....

We have three current seantors wunnig right now - if they have all failed to anything constructive in thier senate roless, where legislation is intorduced, what the HELL are they going to do as president, other than screw up everything.

Immediate tax credits for HC costs up to $10,000 and remove the cap from SS taxes, a truly discriminitory practice.

[chickenhead]

You know, that is a good point - should employers provide the HC insurance?
Obviously, Xerox, of IBM can better afford it than a small employer with 50 people working for them.

Should STATES be the ones to form groups to obtain discount HC, or counties, cities....?

If employers stopped providing HC, would they increase the pay to keep the total benefits package equal? Or keep it?

I think that is really the biggest problem with the way things are set up right now. What does my company have to do with my health insurance? We don't expect them to provide auto insurance, or flood insurance, or fire insurance. We don't change all those other insurances every time we change jobs, why we think its a good idea to change health insurers every time is crazy.

[Tom]

Where we have to be careful, though, is changing it and keeping the value as apart of our benefit package. Most employers woiuld probably jump at the chance to screw us out of it. Whether we deserve it or not, it is part of our package, and am not iwlling to give it up. We all know how most busnesses arae fast to screw you - youget the "we are a team" bullshit when they need you, but look out when they are down a couple of pennies. Team my ass. I ain't pitching. :mad::ThmbDown:

You know, I'm helping my sister look into medicare, and the conclusin I came to is it sucks. It is a patheric program. Bush must be on drugs all the big talking he did on it last year. Someone read it to him wrong.

[skate]

Skate...Ditto the TOM comments...

"It does not matter what the cost would be...YADA,YADA,YADA...the cost will always go to the one paying.

AND PRAY tell...who might that be?

Think...just for one minute...deep breath...AHHH...isn't that a democrat's position... :bang:

I'm just jabbing P.A.....since he is a Pub. defender...kinda weird for him to suddenly do a 180.......and I'm sure he understands completely now!

well. the-skate went too fast. had the situation WRONG, sorry.

i'm not an insurance type guy (per se), but if we (the USA) have a program (whatever it is) i'll go along. i guess i just figure "get on with the game" "screw the rules" "let's skate", that's how i deal with the overall crap.

It's a merry-go-round and free money escalates the mess.

Having said that, i really do not see a good reason to fight the situation and that's why i'd say that PA's feelings do not matter on the Dems/Rep side- taking on this type issue. he might feel different, sure...

This issue is soooooooooooo F.U., why take a side?