Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

More competition in health care across the board!
1 posted on 10/17/2007 10:34:31 PM PDT by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-30 last
To: Lorianne
In order to achieve this, the CED would make health insurance mandatory for every American.

Oh, THAT will make it more affordable! /sarcasm (as if that tag is needed).

119 posted on 10/18/2007 7:17:15 AM PDT by al_c
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Lorianne

Don’t know about everyone else, but in my case, my employer benefits have been getting lesser each year.

Every few months it seems that more former benefit(s) have been discontinued, and the co-pays keep going up.


129 posted on 10/18/2007 7:52:39 AM PDT by Radix (When I became a man, I put away childish things)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Lorianne
I think something is being missed in this analysis. When people hit age 65, the employer sponsored health insurance dumps them onto the medicare system...because it can. The leading edge of the baby boomers is approaching this cliff at age 65. It is estimated that 10,000 baby boomers will be retiring each day for the next 15 to 20 years. That's an incredible shift from private insurance sponsored by employers to government medicare financed by the taxpayers. At the same time this shift is occurring, some of those shifted will massively reduce the amount of taxes they pay as they retire from productive work. The government is going to be looking for ways to replace that revenue. Watch your wallet!

I became aware of this situation as a colleague at work is approaching his 65th birthday. He plans to continue working well beyond age 65, but his medical insurance from the company sponsored plan goes away on his birthday.

Company sponsored medical insurance has been offered as a perk to retain good quality employees. It isn't a right. It certainly isn't a responsibility of employers. If companies decide to withdraw the perk, they will have to either pay the difference or face losing valuable employees to competitors who will pay the difference. Therein lies the issue. It's a matter of paying a valuable employee that extra money to retain them. An employer isn't going to pay perks for commodity labor. All labor is not of equal value. If you question that opinion, ask yourself if you would submit to brain surgery performed by a janitor.

136 posted on 10/18/2007 8:23:21 AM PDT by Myrddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Lorianne

147 posted on 10/18/2007 9:09:15 AM PDT by RightWhale (50 years later we're still sitting on the ground)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Lorianne

I think it sounds horrible because the companies’ have the power of collective purchasing. If you belong to the company and have the opportunity to participate you gain benefits based on the size of the companies collective purchase.

Taking this out of the equation is a disincentive to work long term at one place. It’s also going to make it more expensive to shop for insurance becuase you have become a company of 1-10 people and have to face the lack of incentive on the health insurance company to keep your business.


158 posted on 10/18/2007 9:51:28 AM PDT by Centurion2000 (False modesty is as great a sin as false pride.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Lorianne
costs are out of control ... Individuals could purchase insurance above and beyond the minimum benefit plans with after tax dollars.

How will shifting health care costs from employer to taxpayer help at all with out of control costs? Making health care free for retired and poor people will induce more usage increasing costs. People without jobs have a lot of time on their hands to spend in soviet style rationing lines.

Employers insurance premiums are before-tax. This calls for individuals to pay income tax before buying reasonable waiting room time level service, a tax increase. How will increasing taxes and demand do a thing for rising costs? Are people willing to give up their lotto lawsuits and resulting defensive over-care to slow runaway costs? If so we don't need Hillarycare to accomplish that.

171 posted on 10/18/2007 10:41:41 AM PDT by Reeses (Leftism is powered by the evil force of envy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Lorianne

The question is whether the insurance companies will be forced to insure everyone including those with prexisting illnesses.


186 posted on 10/18/2007 2:15:24 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Lorianne

The question is whether the insurance companies will be forced to insure everyone including those with prexisting illnesses.


187 posted on 10/18/2007 2:15:46 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Lorianne
Employers are jettisoning health insurance because costs are out of control.

So, if costs are brought back in control, does this problem go away?

Seems to me that we should be focusing on controlling the costs. What's driving up the costs?

-PJ

203 posted on 10/18/2007 4:01:09 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (Repeal the 17th amendment -- it's the "Fairness Doctrine" for Congress!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Lorianne
...the CED would make health insurance mandatory for every American.


206 posted on 10/18/2007 4:10:35 PM PDT by uglybiker (relaxing in a luxuriant cloud of quality, aromatic, pre-owned tobacco essence)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-30 last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson