ADVERTISEMENT

Will There EVER Be a GOP Health Care Plan?

Yep. The weird thing is that you can get a better price from the doctor for his/her services if you DON'T use insurance. That right there should tell everyone there is something wrong with the system.

Insurance companies just add a large bureaucracy to the system and increase the costs of service. One would think that "conservatives" would be working to do away with this bureaucracy more so than the democrats, but they don't.

And what I can never figure out why in the heck companies aren't pushing for government health care. You would think they'd be anxious to get out of the health care coverage business for their employees.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheCainer
About $11,000

Yep.

That's $11,000 you could be getting in salary, instead.

So, your ACTUAL cost is more like $1500/month to insure your family. It's just that part of your wages are going directly to the insurer. Pretending you're only paying $450 is nonsense. The insurer is getting $1500/month and THAT is the actual cost.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
Yep.

That's $11,000 you could be getting in salary, instead.

So, your ACTUAL cost is more like $1500/month to insure your family. It's just that part of your wages are going directly to the insurer. Pretending you're only paying $450 is nonsense. The insurer is getting $1500/month and THAT is the actual cost.
Nobody nobody nobody gives that money to their employees now if they say they are covered by spouse and don’t want it. Not even the government Offers it.

mighty generous of you to force / hope they will.

suddenly the democrats are likely increasing my insurance sits exponentially.

that’s exactly why we are in the situation we are in today.

start with locking in reimbursement. That’s where the savings are. The rest is cost shift.
 
And what I can never figure out why in the heck companies aren't pushing for government health care. You would think they'd be anxious to get out of the health care coverage business for their employees.
I think the reason is because they know they have a "captive" work force that is not likely to leave on their own accord for greener pastures. If we had a true national health care plan, people would be a lot less hesitant to leave a "sweatshop" work environment. That's my thinking.

Economically though, the companies would be a lot more competitive if they compete in a global market economy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
About $11,000

so you are now going to tell me my insurance is going up?

and before you say it. I know of no employers ever that currently give their employees any extra if they turn down insurance. That goes for private and government employees. For example...the teachers in my district don’t get $10k more in salary if they turned down the district’s health plan.

you see? That’s why millions of people don’t want it. They have a good deal.
Yes - so many could not care less that others have no deal. They're only concerned with themselves. THAT'S a huge problem in our country - selfishness.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
Great something so simple and obvious. Should be no problem to 100% guarantee me savings over what I pay now with zero risk otherwise.

I cover my entire family for about $435 a month. I look forward to the Democrats saving me money.

So, your family is ACTUALLY covered for $1500/month.

As I recall, family (4 person) plans under the state-based CO insurer that were about this ($1500/month) from UHC ran around $1200/month on the Colorado Health Op. Ergo, with that option, you could probably have saved 20% on your health insurance w/o the insurance middlemen administrative bonus costs. Same deductibles limits; same copays.

Back then, individual plans ran ~$400 for UHC/Cigna/etc (Silver plans IIRC) with the Colorado plans running closer to $325, so my recollection on the numbers I think is close.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman

Switzerland is similar to Germany, but allows the health insurance company to set the premiums and if the premium is more than 8% of your income the government covers the rest.

Unlike Germany, Switzerland does have deductibles.
Sounds like an invitation to price gouge on the part of the Swiss insurance companies. How do they prevent that?

Nor does this address the problem of a percentage of premiums being skimmed off for profit and other non-health purposes.

I suspect (but do not know) that the advantages you like with the German and Swiss approaches may be because they are better-regulated than our insurance companies. Plus, albeit stereotyping, both those cultures have the reputation of being good rule-followers.
 
About $11,000

so you are now going to tell me my insurance is going up?

and before you say it. I know of no employers ever that currently give their employees any extra if they turn down insurance. That goes for private and government employees. For example...the teachers in my district don’t get $10k more in salary if they turned down the district’s health plan.

you see? That’s why millions of people don’t want it. They have a good deal.

I have a better deal than you and I still do want it.
 
Pre-ACA was the GOP plan. A strong Group Health System with an underwritten Individual System that weeded out Pre-X people. The Pre-X people were then left to the State Based (Taxpayer subsidized) Risk Plan, if the state had one. What we have now really helps lower income and young people while harming the healthy individual family plans. We've basically picked a different set of winners and losers. I thought the ACA was a great starting point on the way to Single Payer with a big private supplement/accident plan market (basically Medicare for all). Republicans are not interested in improving existing government policy anymore. They simply want to cut the legs out and blame the Dems/Obama for any failures. They offer nothing and won't be getting my vote anytime soon.
 
Nobody nobody nobody gives that money to their employees now if they say they are covered by spouse and don’t want it. Not even the government Offers it.

mighty generous of you to force / hope they will.
That's one of the points - the current system is stupid. You pay insurance costs whether you have coverage through your employer or not. A two income couple, both are "paying" for insurance with lower wages even though only one receives coverage.
 
I think the reason is because they know they have a "captive" work force that is not likely to leave on their own accord for greener pastures. If we had a true national health care plan, people would be a lot less hesitant to leave a "sweatshop" work environment. That's my thinking.

Economically though, the companies would be a lot more competitive if they compete in a global market economy.

It is exactly why the health insurance industry is NOT a "healthy free market".
Standard free market metrics simply do not translate.

Same reason why health care costs aren't a free market - when you need urgent care, the last thing you can do is price-negotiate. And once you've accepted the care, your ability and negotiating power to re-negotiate the costs is pretty small.

Most insurance negotiates around $0.30-.40 on the dollar compared to what the providers try to bill for. Good luck getting anywhere close to that AFTER you've been billed full-rate. If you're lucky, you MIGHT get half, but more like $0.70 on the dollar, or twice the insurer negotiated rates.

For elective stuff, yeah, you might negotiate some. But you may end up having to negotiate with 3 separate parties: hospital, surgeon, anesthesiologist. Any of which can say 'no' and get a court judgement for the nonpaid balances.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheCainer
That's one of the points - the current system is stupid. You pay insurance costs whether you have coverage through your employer or not. A two income couple, both are "paying" for insurance with lower wages even though only one receives coverage.

Yep. Depresses wages for those who opt to not take the coverage, because their spouse/SO gets the coverage.

That's a feature, not a bug.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
About $11,000

so you are now going to tell me my insurance is going up?

and before you say it. I know of no employers ever that currently give their employees any extra if they turn down insurance. That goes for private and government employees. For example...the teachers in my district don’t get $10k more in salary if they turned down the district’s health plan.

you see? That’s why millions of people don’t want it. They have a good deal.
If we were to shift to M4A we could require that by law. Could; probably wouldn't.

Look, insurance companies and employers already game the system. So they will doubtless try to game the system if we move toward M4A. But we know that. So we can write our laws to prevent it. If we choose to do so.

Insurance companies will fight M4A - because it reduces their market and profits. Many employers will fight giving employees the monetary equivalent of the benefits they own - because they are anti-worker crooks.

Again, these are not difficult problems to address, but we need the political will to do so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
My employer isn’t that big and they also toss in 9% into my 401(k).
Their policy on 401k matching has nothing to do with health subsidies.

If you take your spouse's plan, then you're eating $11k in underpayment from your company. Or, your spouse is eating whatever that difference is on theirs.

Again: a Feature, not a bug.
 
Their policy on 401k matching has nothing to do with health subsidies.

If you take your spouse's plan, then you're eating $11k in underpayment from your company. Or, your spouse is eating whatever that difference is on theirs.

Again: a Feature, not a bug.
How come nobody pays it back now ? Including your government which you can’t get enough of?

if they give you it it more wages it’s more matching taxes they have to pay. Instead of a $11,000 deduction they will have to pay their matching federal and state taxes like all payroll.It just isn’t as easy as you make it out to be.

will their be a deductible? Will providers be able to take the Medicare reimbursement and turn around and go after the patient for more money? Forcing people to pay the new Medicare for all tax and also shop for more private insurance ? To cover what Medicare doesn’t ?

if you don’t know the answer to that it’s pretty Fing stupid to act like America is dumb for wanting details before jumping in.
 
How come nobody pays it back now ? Including your government which you can’t get enough of?

if they give you it it more wages it’s more matching taxes they have to pay. Instead of a $11,000 deduction they will have to pay their matching federal and state taxes like all payroll.It just isn’t as easy as you make it out to be.

will their be a deductible? Will providers be able to take the Medicare reimbursement and turn around and go after the patient for more money? Forcing people to pay the new Medicare for all tax and also shop for more private insurance ? To cover what Medicare doesn’t ?

if you don’t know the answer to that it’s pretty Fing stupid to act like America is dumb for wanting details before jumping in.
Explain why it makes sense for insurance, of any sort, to be provided through an employer?

Should everyone be covered by health insurance or have access to healthcare? Even if their employers don't pay for it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
If we were to shift to M4A we could require that by law. Could; probably wouldn't.

Look, insurance companies and employers already game the system. So they will doubtless try to game the system if we move toward M4A. But we know that. So we can write our laws to prevent it. If we choose to do so.

Insurance companies will fight M4A - because it reduces their market and profits. Many employers will fight giving employees the monetary equivalent of the benefits they own - because they are anti-worker crooks.

Again, these are not difficult problems to address, but we need the political will to do so.
How can you write a law that would force that ? Employers will just stop / slow future raises. That’s just for starters on maneuvers.
 
Explain why it makes sense for insurance, of any sort, to be provided through an employer?

Should everyone be covered by health insurance or have access to healthcare? Even if their employers don't pay for it?
I am all for cheaper but just assuming employers will pay their employees more as the centerpiece to the plan is assholing stupid.

the center piece should be forcing providers to take less reimbursement.
 
I am all for cheaper but just assuming employers will pay their employees more as the centerpiece to the plan is assholing stupid.

the center piece should be forcing providers to take less reimbursement.
Employers will pay what the market requires for the skills. With more freedom of movement wages are likely to go up to keep people in their jobs (there are big costs for turnover) and to attract. But that wasn't the question.

Why does it make sense for health insurance to be supplied by employers?

Should everyone be covered by health insurance or have access to healthcare? Even if their employers don't pay for it?
 
will their be a deductible?

Depends on which plan you buy, and which plan(s) your employer decides to offer.

If your employer simply paid you the wage difference, then you could go out and shop around among multiple plans for the ones that best fit your needs. Much more of a "free market", actually.
 
Sounds like an invitation to price gouge on the part of the Swiss insurance companies. How do they prevent that?

Nor does this address the problem of a percentage of premiums being skimmed off for profit and other non-health purposes.

I suspect (but do not know) that the advantages you like with the German and Swiss approaches may be because they are better-regulated than our insurance companies. Plus, albeit stereotyping, both those cultures have the reputation of being good rule-followers.

I am almost certain that their health insurance is much better regulated then our own.

But to me this is the conversion that we could do to get universal health care. And it will be a lot easier of a conversion than some attempt to convert to a Canadian style of healthcare.
 
  • Like
Reactions: srams21
so you dems think it is a right and you can tax people to pay for it. guns are a right so can i tax you to pay for my guns?
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT