Posted on 07/19/2005 5:30:12 AM PDT by ancient_geezer
Wait, is this a misprint? Your friend has a higher deductable but pays $180 more?
NO, NO, NO.
If a guy making $30,000 a year gets health benefits, and another guy making over $100,000 a year at the same company gets the same benefits, the lower paid guys benefits are worth a whole lot more to him. It could be worth $10,000 a year. Besides, some places, like where I work, the more you make, the more your part of the monthly health insurance is. So for the lowest paid workers, they only pay in I think something like 40%, whereas at the higher end, I think its something like 60%. So the lower paid guy guy would get hit even harder in that type of case.
Of course the best way to take care of this really is to get rid of employer paid health insurance, and give the money to the employee instead.
Everyone wants to pay as little as possible for anything they're buying. That's life. The only solution is to be a very valuable commodity - like a top breeder who can also keep house, homeschool, and organize a Republican precinct :-).
I think the key word was "family." They're paying more for multiple insureds.
That's a little misleading. The doctor might charge the insurance co. $250, but the insurance company probably paid them $50-$75 for it.
lol
You want more government, when it's the government (federal and state) and its regulations that has caused the entire health insurance mess in the first place ? Don't you ever wonder why you can only buy health insurance plans with benefits you don't need - like a single male getting coverage for gynecological services ? Our government at work - one size fits all.
No, freedom and personal responsibility is the only answer. Health care costs, and related health insurance costs, will come down in part when people stop using doctors to diagnose a common cold just because someone else (health insurance and their employer) are paying the cost. If I don't want coverage for certain services, I should be able to get a policy without it as long as someone is offering one. Why should I pay for 30 days of mental health hospitalization insurance since I have no intention of ever using it ?
Those of you who THINK you are conservative should reexamine your premises.
Many people I know have their job skills worth based on mommy and daddy getting them a cushy job and doing nothing.
Regardless, this idea smacks of big business and big government screwing the little guy, again and again and again.
The problem with some Freepers is that they are too wedded to doctrine and theory while not realizing the reality of man's tendancies and what is most likely to happen, rather than what they hope to happen.
Businesses will not only not offer health coverage, but will not absorb the double whammy of paying more in salary.
So, who gets Screwed????
By the way, I have my own business and don't currently have health insurance other than my gym membership, no-fault coverage on auto policy, and good luck.
I am not in favor of any national plan, but this idea just smells of colusion.
One idiotic element of the modern U.S. economy is this bizarre notion that medical insurance must somehow be tied to a person's employment. Breaking this link will likely be one of the best things that ever happened in this country, so anything that moves us in that direction is a good thing.
I'm all for this. This is the way it SHOULD HAVE BEEN in the first place.
IT IS A CONSERVATIVE POSITION TO DO THIS.
IT WILL PUT DECISION MAKING BACK IN THE HANDS OF INDIVIDIUALS AND OUT OF THE GOVT HANDS.
Will it be an easy change.......no.
They may, but the point remains. Doctors don't have to waste time playing games with insurance companies and can spend their time being what they are - doctors. Do you want a doctor, or a car salesman ?
Ah, missed it. :^)
note the words "family plan" - mine is single. Sorry if it was misleading.
instead of 50-100-10000 people represented by your HR dept negotiating for a health care plan, you'll be on your own.
This is a good thing. When I checked into being covered by my wifes policty at the university it was three times the cost of what I could get on my own. My policy and an MSA is the same cost but now I manage it. The are lots of newer companies without the baggage of expensive clients.
A problem, though, is that the Federal government and many states require most employers to provide health insurance. So even if the benefits are taxable to the employee, the employer does not have the option to pay them an equal amount as salary.
As presented, therefore, I see this as harmful.
(Yes, that's different from what I said originally. I gave it more thought.)
Apoligies. I missed that. :^)
Since the rest of what seemed like quotes were italicized and that one was not, no, I didn't realize that was a quote from the article.
Maybe I need more coffee ;)
"IT WILL PUT DECISION MAKING BACK IN THE HANDS OF INDIVIDIUALS AND OUT OF THE GOVT HANDS"
So when some middle class taxpaying citizen gets hit with more taxes and the choice of more salary (Which the employer will not do!), and has less salary to take home, that is a good thing?????
The employer will not offer more salary. What is so hard about this? More salary to the employee means more taxes to the employer and employee. Its a double hit and double negative.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.