Who else got an insurance rate hike?
in [Golf]
|
Prev: Jock strap recommendations for low hanging balls?
Next: Media buries story about convictions for massive election rigging
From: Dinosaur_Sr on 10 Apr 2010 23:22 On Apr 10, 4:31 pm, "Kommienezuspadt" <NoS...(a)NoWay.com> wrote: > "Dinosaur_Sr" <frostb...(a)dukesofbiohazard.com> wrote in message > > news:0ffe4436-5f36-430d-8832-21372dc1f572(a)b33g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 9, 5:27 pm, "Kommienezuspadt" <NoS...(a)NoThanks.net> wrote: > > > > > "Dinosaur_Sr" <frostb...(a)dukesofbiohazard.com> wrote in message > > >news:db82085e-9774-4cc7-8569-bed8104d1ed0(a)g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com.... > > On Apr 7, 7:27 pm, "Kommienezuspadt" <NoS...(a)NoThanks.net> wrote: > > > > "BAR" <sc...(a)you.com> wrote in message > > > >news:MPG.2626db0beecff47c989db5(a)news.giganews.com... > > > > > In article <yP6vn.306035$OX4.117...(a)newsfe25.iad>, NoS...(a)NoThanks.net > > > > says... > > > >> The nature of the "loophole" doesn't alter the fact that it > > > >> represents > > > >> billions in revenue for the various companies. IT was a reduction in > > > >> the expense associated with a specific benefit, whose expressed > > > >> purpose was to sustain the benefit. Now that the loophole is gone, > > > >> the > > > >> benefit too will go. > > > > >> My understanding is that this particular thing was associated with > > > >> the > > > >> Bush administrations free drugs for seniors program, and this program > > > >> saved them money by maintaining a class of seniors who got their drug > > > >> money from another source...it was/is apparently cheaper this way > > > >> than > > > >> having the govt directly subsidize the seniors. > > > > >> This will pull billions from salary expenses from various businesses > > > >> and cannot have any other effect than reducing jobs and/or benefits, > > > >> depending on how they want to make up the revenue shortfall. > > > > >> === > > > >> It was a gift to the large companies that has been closed -- simple > > > >> as > > > >> that -- maybe YOU like handing over $$ & then letting them write it > > > >> off > > > >> as > > > >> an expense --- if so - you must be a give it away & borrow type > > > > > Tax policy should encourage employment rather than discourage > > > > employment. Screwing the big companies only results in screwing the > > > > "worker", the guy Obama says he is trying to help. > > > > > How many people were hired by the poor today? > > > > Let's give AT&T all of your money then. > > > I can choose to purchase a product from ATT or not. I cannot choose my > > health insurance though. > > > === > > > true -- but YOU said they were being screwed by them not being able to > > write > > off a huge gift to them -- I'm still shaking my head on how you can think > > that is a good idea - but you'll howl about paying for insurance with tax > > money. > > I never said the companies were being screwed, just that the > elimination of the policy will cost them money, and it will, and that > it is salary money that they will loose. These are simple facts, and > it is not too difficult to extrapolate the consequences. > > I agree with you that it is and was a dumb policy. > > === > > I stand corrected -- it was BAR who said it was screwing them -- > > Still -- you are saying that we should give them $$ to buy insurance -- but > not regular people --- How can you defend giving money away & then defend > not giving it for the same end result? > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5016 (20100410) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com Nope. People should buy their own insurance. Why should health insurance be different than any other form of insurance?
From: Dinosaur_Sr on 10 Apr 2010 23:24 On Apr 10, 6:42 pm, "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 10, 12:50 pm, Dinosaur_Sr <frostb...(a)dukesofbiohazard.com> > wrote: > > > > > On Apr 9, 6:34 pm, "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > > > > "Dinosaur_Sr" <frostb...(a)dukesofbiohazard.com> wrote in message > > > >news:fd1a94bf-aa15-46ab-81c1-4461ac8c077b(a)w42g2000yqm.googlegroups.com.... > > > > Very stupid policy, IMHO. > > > > The whole free drug for seniors policy is/was a bad policy. This is > > > typical of these sorts of things though, IMHO. Some "deal" has to be > > > made to satisfy some contingency. How about "you use a product, like > > > say drugs, you pay for it"? Why is that so bad? And who is going to > > > pay for it if the user doesn't...and where are those people going to > > > get the money? > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Grandma on SS and a small pension paying $300/mo. for medication, just to > > > stay alive. "Why is that so bad?" > > > > -Greg > > > Fine, so you can pick up the costs then? > > > The aspect of this that some, like Gray Asphalt for example, don't > > seem to get is that health care has expanded and improved dramatically > > over the last few decades, and that is great. Driven a lot of economic > > activity and given people access to better health care. > > > For example, in the 1970's, how many people were on blood thinners and > > statins? Today? In the 1970's how many people had angioplasty and > > stents? Today? These kinds of things cost money, and that fact has to > > be accounted for. The people talking about this today seem to me to be > > using 1970's based logic on the costs of health care. > > > The fact is that *EVERYONE* is going to have use of, in some sense or > > another, expensive, modern health care. So my question remains: who > > pays for it? IMHO, the fairest solution is for the user to pay for it. > > If the taxpayer pays you wind up, at best, having working people > > working solely to pay for health care. > > > Everyone can't have everything, the best, whatever. That applies to > > housing, food, transportation, health care, clothing, > > education...whatever aspect of society you want to look at. > > > So who is the decider? The govt. giving one size fits all to everyone, > > like in the UK, so John Bs mom couldn't spend her 2 million being as > > comfortable as possible with her ALS, but gets the one size fits all > > daily visits from some nurse, like in the UK? Or how about you get > > what you can earn...and the govt helps out people in legitimate > > need...but no universality to any entitlement. > > A UK-style system would not have prevented my mother from spending her > money on medical and nursing care. Depends. If she needed access to specialists and specialized facilities it would have. They are tightly rationed, and money doesn't buy access.
From: Dinosaur_Sr on 10 Apr 2010 23:27 On Apr 10, 6:38 pm, "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 10, 12:37 pm, Dinosaur_Sr <frostb...(a)dukesofbiohazard.com> > wrote: > > > > > On Apr 9, 1:55 pm, "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > > > > "Dinosaur_Sr" <frostb...(a)dukesofbiohazard.com> wrote in message > > > >news:8f9e8c65-f27d-40ce-974a-aca10aca853d(a)y14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com.... > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > People have that choice now and often take it....but it's not the best > > > > choice for everyone. For example...young married couple in their 20's, > > > > having children. Are you expecting them to pony up the first 10k for the > > > > pre-natal and delivery? > > > > > -Greg > > > > People do not have that choice. They get the health insurance provided > > > by their employer, and that insurance is far too often designed to > > > suit the needs of the older (and more powerful within the company) > > > employees. People need to be able to choose their own insurance as > > > much as possible, and certainty don't need the govt. or their > > > employers making those choices. > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Employers pay most, if not all, the insurance for the employee, so they > > > ain't complaining. Their dependents have the choice of buying in or > > > acquiring their own plans, which they often do. There are no victims in > > > your scenario. They have choices. > > > > -Greg > > > The money allocated to salaries and benefits is a budgeted item. You > > want to be as competitive as possible. If the money were not spent on > > health insurance, it would go to salary. My advocacy is for the > > employee to get the benefit of what they earn and make their own > > decisions with respect to things like health care, as opposed to have > > the salary paid to the employee reduced and some health insurance > > program imposed on the employee by the employer...or the govt..the > > govt would be worse though, IMHO as it is in fact less responsive to > > the employee and far more expensive. > > If a survey were taken of working people who are insured through their > employers, and if they were asked if they preferred the scenario you > favor, those answering yes would be about 5%. People like having > employer-provided health insurance. It's much better than what they > could get on their own. You are almost certainly right. However if the tangle of idiotic state and local regulations were removed, and the pools were national and fully competitive like for say homeowners insurance or auto insurance, the cost would be much lower for what we get, IMHO. Obama is right in that a lot of money is wasted on foolish bureaucracy, and the payouts are a tangled web of gobbledegook language...but that would go if people bought the policies for themselves.
From: dene on 10 Apr 2010 23:37 "Dinosaur_Sr" <frostback(a)dukesofbiohazard.com> wrote in message news:e30d26b2-dac7-4ef3-b919-718e040459f6(a)z7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... On Apr 10, 3:49 pm, "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > "Dinosaur_Sr" <frostb...(a)dukesofbiohazard.com> wrote in message > > news:73b1da5a-b64d-46e1-9e92-8506b0b2ba4a(a)u31g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 9, 1:55 pm, "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > > > > > "Dinosaur_Sr" <frostb...(a)dukesofbiohazard.com> wrote in message > > >news:8f9e8c65-f27d-40ce-974a-aca10aca853d(a)y14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > People have that choice now and often take it....but it's not the best > > > choice for everyone. For example...young married couple in their 20's, > > > having children. Are you expecting them to pony up the first 10k for the > > > pre-natal and delivery? > > > > -Greg > > > People do not have that choice. They get the health insurance provided > > by their employer, and that insurance is far too often designed to > > suit the needs of the older (and more powerful within the company) > > employees. People need to be able to choose their own insurance as > > much as possible, and certainty don't need the govt. or their > > employers making those choices. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > Employers pay most, if not all, the insurance for the employee, so they > > ain't complaining. Their dependents have the choice of buying in or > > acquiring their own plans, which they often do. There are no victims in > > your scenario. They have choices. > > > -Greg > > The money allocated to salaries and benefits is a budgeted item. You > want to be as competitive as possible. If the money were not spent on > health insurance, it would go to salary. My advocacy is for the > employee to get the benefit of what they earn and make their own > decisions with respect to things like health care, as opposed to have > the salary paid to the employee reduced and some health insurance > program imposed on the employee by the employer...or the govt..the > govt would be worse though, IMHO as it is in fact less responsive to > the employee and far more expensive. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > IOW, people buy health insurance like they buy car insurance. Fine with me. > You still have to force people to buy it otherwise only the sick will buy it > in their time of need. In the scenario you wish for, how do you force them > to buy? The present system does a fair job of enrolling all, by forcing the > employees to particpate. Again, how is this accomplished on an individual > basis? > > -Greg >What happens if you buy car insurance after you have an accident? You >pay for the accident. Not if medical is involved or loss of property. Uninsured people skate right out of those liabilties. >You can pay for your own health care too. One >thing for sure, there is not enough wealth in the system to have the >govt pay for everyone's health care. Can you honestly pay for a few days in ICU? I can't and I doubt if you can either! There is sufficient wealth to pay claims for all if all are participating in the plan. That's how insurance works. Now answer my question, Rob. If you throw out the employer system, how do you force everybody to buy health insurance or pay their own claims? -Greg
From: dene on 10 Apr 2010 23:39
"Dinosaur_Sr" <frostback(a)dukesofbiohazard.com> wrote in message news:906376a6-c6c2-4ea1-9757-37fea5e6d0b2(a)i25g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... Really? So no one can buy their own meds? No one? That's an absurd conclusion. ---------------------------------------------------------- Rob, In 2006, I signed up about 100 seniors on part D plans. Part of the enrollment was reviewing the cost of their meds, so they could choose how much coverage they need. Some of these people were easily paying $300 plus for medicine and didn't have the means to do it. You really need to wake up as to how much stuff costs out there, beyond generic Rx. Enrolling these people was very eye opening to me. -Greg |