Why is New York killing health insurance for my employees?

The New York Post ^ | t April 14, 2017 | Kevin Pickhardt

[TBP]

The share of US companies that do not provide health insurance spiked this year, to nearly 55 percent. After next year, many New York firms may have to join them — or risk downsizing.

Thanks to a 2012 state law, many mid-sized firms — those with between 51 and 100 insured employees — may have to drop their health plans, beginning in 2019. Wittingly or not, the state is pushing employers to purchase much more expensive and often less comprehensive insurance.

Absent changes to the law, businesses and employees could collectively lose millions of dollars — and companies would have to consider staff reductions. Empire State legislators must change course.

At issue is a method of providing health benefits called “self-insurance.” Under this strategy, employers pay their employees’ medical claims directly, rather than buy coverage from a conventional insurer.

Self-insurance encourages companies to design comprehensive health and wellness initiatives that focus on keeping employees healthy, versus waiting to treat them when they are not. At my company, Pharos Systems International, our wellness program covers everything from subsidized exercise and yoga to classes taught by experts on topics like nutrition, child care and the impact of mental well-being on health.

The results can save employers and employees significant amounts. Since self-insured companies only pay for the health care their employees consume, they benefit from helping their employees stay healthy. Employers and employees can hold onto money they otherwise would have paid in insurance premiums.

[TBP]

That's the way progressives want it. The more harm they can do, the more dependency they can create. The more dependency they can create, the more voters to keep them in power. And that is the ONLY thing they care about.

[CptnObvious]

Why is New York killing health insurance for my employees?

They're Dems, that's what they Do.

Awk Awk, Squawk Squawk

[DugwayDuke]

TBP wrote: “That’s the way progressives want it. The more harm they can do, the more dependency they can create. The more dependency they can create, the more voters to keep them in power. And that is the ONLY thing they care about.”

I don’t think I agree with that. Back during the HillaryCare fiasco, I asked several liberals this question. Suppose there are two possible health care systems. In the first system there are two tiers of service. In the second system there is only one tier but that tier provides less service that either tier in the first system. IOW, everyone is better off in the first system even if some are more better off than others.

Rather surprisingly, many liberals preferred the second system because it was “more fair”. Actually, I think they were afraid that someone would have something they didn’t have.

[TBP]

IOW, they would prefer the lesser system. The one that would cause the more misery for the greater number of people.

That’s fair — and cruel. But that’s progressivism. Maximizing misery for all, as equally as possible.

[dynachrome]

Why is New York killing health insurance for my employees?

Because you are an evil capitalist pig, probably a white privilege evil racist, homophobe, islamophobe, leperphobe, etc.

[Wuli]

It is as the author suggests. Protecting formal “insurance plans” where the employer has a plan run by an insurance company, versus self-insured plans, where the employer is self-administering their own plan. A self-insured plan, dominated or not by health savings accounts, might use, from outside services, a “claims” processing/administrator and possibly, jointly with that or separately, a manged-care coordinator and/or a prescription drug processor. With a self-insured plan those are services the self-insured plan selects, or deems to do internally, and not the “insurance”, which is their own benefit plan, with their own rules, premiums, and other financial self-adminstered asepcts, including, importantly buying stop-loss insurance.

[Skywise]

This was part of the plan all along - disrupt the current system and force employers to buy ever increasing insurance plans or offer none at all.

So they offer none at all and then the Dems say “See? Insurance doesn’t work and it’s all the republicans fault - so now you need socialized medicine or you’re going to die.”

It will happen this year and they’ll make their push for it as part of thei tactics to regain power in the primaries next year.

[Mr Ramsbotham]

Whatever the case, it’s obvious that we’ve all bought into the notion that government must be involved in health insurance.

[Yosemitest]

The ILLEGAL ALIEN IN CHIEF wants ~ and is DIRECTING the policies that regulate ALL health care plans
in the United States ~ TO FAIL !
NEVER FORGET THAT !

Many of us have said for many years that Obama is doing this INTENTIONALLY.
He using the old Soviet Plan from 1934 or earlier.




Only idiots and the evil voted for Obama, or ANY of the Democrats.
AND NOW, WE CAN ADD "Establishment Republicans" TO THAT LIST, ALSO!
They've lied to us, constantly, and really are "Collapsing the System".
And now, these "Useful IDIOTS" who voted for them, are buying the lies that "Obamacare was designed to work." ?
It was designed to fail from the start.
THEN ... THEY GO TO THE "SINGLE-PAYER SYSTEM".

Flashback: Obama's Campaign to Transition to Single Payer Health Care (VIDEO)


obama master plan on health careover the years in his own words--SINGLE PAYER!!! ( 3:38 )

They've been sucking our wallets dry for over four years now on the "Obamacare" LIE.
AND NOW THEY WANT MORE TAXES ?
Our Founding Fathers would have hung them already!

Lets review:

Who was it that cut future funding for Medicare by $575 billion?

...the president and the Democratic Party successfully bamboozle voters... The 2012 election could turn on this falsehood.
The truth is that the Obama health law reduces future funding for Medicare by $575 billion over the next 10 years ...

Mr. Obama and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius frequently make that false claim.
Indeed, even Medicare's mailings to seniors repeat the claim
that reducing spending on Medicare will make it more financially secure for future years.
The fact is that Mr. Obama's law raids Medicare.

"In early 1968 President Lyndon Johnson [DEMOCRAT] made a change in the budget presentation by including Social Security and all other trust funds in a"unified budget." "

Who was it that expanded Medicare and Medicaid to cover many, many more people than it was originally designed to cover?

The History of Medicare

In 1965, the Social Security Act established both Medicare and Medicaid. Medicare was a responsibility of the Social Security Administration (SSA), while Federal assistance to the State Medicaid programs was administered by the Social and Rehabilitation Service (SRS). SSA and SRS were agencies in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW). In 1977, the Health Care Financing Administration was created under HEW to effectively coordinate Medicare and Medicaid. In 1980 HEW was divided into the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

The first U.S. President to propose a prepaid health insurance plan was Harry S. Truman [DEMOCRAT]. On November 19, 1945, in a special message to Congress, President Truman outlined a comprehensive, prepaid medical insurance plan for all people through the Social Security system. The plan included doctors and hospitals, and nursing, laboratory, and dental services; it was dubbed "National Health Insurance." Furthermore, medical insurance benefits for needy people were to be financed from Federal revenues.

Over the years, lawmakers narrowed the field of health insurance recipients largely to social security beneficiaries. A national survey found that only 56 percent of those 65 years of age or older had health insurance. President John F. Kennedy [DEMOCRAT] pressed legislators for health insurance for the aged. However, it wasn't until 1965 that President Lyndon B. Johnson signed H.R. 6675 (The Social Security Act of 1965; PL 89-97) to provide health insurance for the elderly and the poor.

On July 30, 1965, President Johnson signed the Medicare and Medicaid Bill (Title XVIII and Title XIX of the Social Security Act) in Independence, Missouri in the presence of former President Truman, who received the first Medicare card at the ceremony; Lady Bird Johnson, Vice-President Hubert Humphrey, and Mrs. Truman also were present. President Johnson remarked: "We marvel not simply at the passage of this Bill but that it took so many years to pass it."

Medicare extended health coverage to almost all Americans aged 65 or older. About 19 million beneficiaries enrolled in Medicare in the first year of the program. Medicaid provided access to health care services for certain low-income persons and expanded the existing Federal-State welfare structure that assisted the poor.

The 1972 Social Security Amendments expanded Medicare to provide coverage to two additional high risk groups disabled persons receiving cash benefits for 24 months under the social security program and persons suffering from end-stage renal disease.

...(continued at link)

So Democrats,

YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE
FOR INSURING THE FAILURE
OF THE MEDICARE/MEDICAID PROGRAM,
and now YOU DEMOCRATS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INTENTIONAL DESTRUCTION OF THE U.S.A. ECONOMY!!!

So DEMOCRATS ... SHUT UP!!!

You have no integrity!!!

Sen Mark Kirk's statement Thursday, Dec 1, 2011 ...

"There are 55 million Social Security beneficiaries that will see little or no extra cash from this 2012 tax holiday;
instead, the dedicated payroll contributions meant to pay for future benefits are being diverted from the Trust Fund
and replaced with Treasury debt that does not even have a AAA credit rating.
Social Security was designed to be independent and free from the danger of Congressional manipulation,
and maintaining the firewall between the Social Security Trust Fund and general government funding is the best way to maintain the solvency of this important program.
Neither bill protects the Social Security Trust Fund
so I voted no. "

It's not our fault that DEMOCRATS raided the Social Security Trust Fund.
Let's remember ...

Not ALL are to blame for the empty lock box.

It's the Democrats Communists.

Let's take a deeper look.

Obama: "I Don't Want the Folks who Created the Mess to do a lot of Talking" "

Okay, then the DEMOCRATS need to shut up!!!

[PAR35]

I was going to say that if they didn’t re-insure against catastrophic losses, they were taking a huge risk. But I clicked on the link and see that they do.

As for the question - the self insurance programs are a barrier to the socialist dream of single pay.

[RossA]

True equality occurs when everyone is dead.

[Mears]

I find the word “wellness” VERY annoying.

I was at my pharmacy and a “Wellness Consultant” approached me and asked if I had any questions. I told her that I was 84 years old and what on earth could she possibly tell me about keeping healthy?

She backed off.

Wellness,for God’s sake. Dumbest word ever.

[be-baw]

What’s your secret for your longevity?

[Mears]

Genes.

[publius911]

Genes.

Wise AND honest!
How novel!

Kudos.

[wastoute]

See tag line...

[okie 54]

This has to be a trick question. Didn’t you fine New Yorkers vote for 0bama not once but twice? You lot even elected the carpet bagging Hillary Clinton for senator. You even voted for Hillary for president. What part of you cannot fix stupid do you people not understand. Voting for Democrats is not working out for you folks but you keep doing it.

[Vigilanteman]

Pretty much explains their affection for Communism, Islamofacism and other top down philosophies . . .

[ully2]

They hate competion.