Kennedy calls for employer-paid health coverage - Think Senator - who actually pays?

Boston Globe ^ | January 19, 20043 | Wayne Washington

[Cincinatus' Wife]

WASHINGTON - Employers with five or more workers would be required to pay for most of their health coverage under a new proposal from Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts.

Kennedy, a Democrat, has long pushed for coverage of the uninsured, whose numbers are expected to rise over the 50 million mark within six years. His new plan would require employers to pay 75 percent of the cost of coverage for their employees, who would pay for the rest.

[Skooz]

What is wrong with the people of Massachusetts that they keep reelecting this absurd buffoon?

[Nubbin]

Oh, and another benefit to the employer using "Temporary" workers is that he doesn't have to jump through hoops to get rid of an employee. You simply tell the employee you no longer need his services and send him home. A "Temp" is not entitled to an explanation for termination.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Glory be! Sounds like a plan, Mr. Chappaquidic!

The man with the plan. As my mother would tell me, numbers don't lie by liars can figure.

[Nubbin]

See my posts #20 & #22. Borrow a page from the Governments playbook & hire them as Temporary employees.

[roj]

Ted needs to START a business and create jobs. Then he'll see how his ideas are screwed up

[PGalt]

If we can't tax you directly we will tax you indirectly by government mandates imposed on business. Either way all of your $ (time of life) are belong to us - Democratic/Socialist Crime Syndicate.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

No sweat, as long as every employer gets the same break as the US Government. I work for the USDA and I don't have health care coverage.

I understand our esteemed senators have a very nice health care plan.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Bump!

[Zansman]

Just for the sake of arguement, let's assume "non-providing" employers do have a competitive advantage in terms of labor costs. That sword certainly cuts both ways.

They may have a labor cost advantage, but they put themselves at a HUGE disadvantage in terms of labor quality and employee retention.

This would not be true only if the "non-providing" company paid higher wages instead of providing healthcare benefits which the employee could either use to buy coverage or not.

If all individuals were required to carry catestrophic policies (just like in theory drivers are required to have a base level of auto insurance) risk would be spread out over a larger patient population (due to people currently without coverage obtaining it), costs would decrease (since cost increases in proportion to risk, let's assume the reverse to be true as well), and people could be further incentivized to purchase these plans by making some or all of the premiums tax deductable or eligible for some type of tax credit.

[Dave S]

''Most employers provide coverage,'' he said. ''Those who aren't providing it are at a competitive advantage

Not really. A manufacturer who doesnt offer medical coverage these days is not likely to have its pick of employees. Its most likely to get the very young, inexperienced, and less stable elements of the labor force. Competitive advantage? Not unless they are running a fast food franchise or a record store.

[pabianice]

Teddy kicks-back, has another Cutty, hits some keys on his laptop, and makes more millions online from the gangster blood money Papa Joe left him. Then he dreams-up yet another scheme to destroy small business.

If there is a more loathsome hypocrit in the US, I am unaware of him.

[americanbychoice]

If I sell a widget for $ 1.00 and it costs me .98 cents to make it, I have .02 cents profit per widget. If my costs go up to $ 1.05, I have to increase the price or go out of business. The consumer (us) will always pay for it.
Whenever I hear about National Healthcare I look at Germany who has had a moderate Government Healthcare system in place. They are broke, the premiums for Health Insurance are 14.5%, unemployment Insurance 6.5% and Social Security 18.6%. That doesn't include the employer payments.
In this country, something has to be done about healthcare, I agree. National Healthcare is not the answer, however. One of the biggest problems we have is, Insured people have to pay for the deficits left by the uninsured who get treatment and don't pay their bills. That is what drives the costs up. One of the biggest problems is that while employers offer Health coverage, many young "healthy" individuals decline coverage and use the money for other "fun" things.
If you look at the KIDS CARE, most states can't get enough kids enrolled. they are begging people to enroll in order to maintain funding. The rules are very lenient, the income for a family is up to $ 42 000 per annum. My Daughter, in Florida, a deadbeat with 4 children, would have to pay $ 15.00 per month for their coverage. Because she is too lazy to apply and she spends all her money on Beer she has no coverage. Imagine, of of the Kids is a diabetic.
This is a very difficult situation. There is an answer. We have to look at other countries and learn from their mistakes. We can't, out of pride, insist to always make OUR OWN mistakes.
By the way, The Democrats (Socialists) who are controlled by Trial Lawyers, always insist that people should have the right to sue for anything. At the same time, they advocate federalizing Health care. Under that system, you could not sue at all, You can't sue the government. Sort of hypocritical isn't it?

[NYDave]

The diaper is not clean, it's just turned inside out.

I live in New York City. I was self-employed for over 25 years. My health care costs rose astronomically when the state legislature "normalized" the cost of medical coverage with those who deal in risky sexual behavior. I am the father of five and grandfather of six beautiful children. I don't deal in any form of risky behavior. Why should I be "normalized" with those who are irresponsible of their own behavior?

Another point. Why don't we have tort reform so that doctors don't have to pay ridiculous premiums for their liability insurance. Clinton vetoed tort reform when a group of Texas trial lawyers donated $100,000.00 to the DNC. The problem here lies with government and more government. Hey, Senator Ted, can I give you a ride home? We just have to pass over a small bridge.

[lawdude]

"His new plan would require employers to pay 75 percent of the cost of coverage for their employees, who would pay for the rest. "

The employee pays the WHOLE boat in any case!

[americanbychoice]

bump

[MarkL]

No sweat, as long as every employer gets the same break as the US Government. I work for the USDA and I don't have health care coverage. Here's how it works. You classify your employees as Temporary Workers and they are not entitled to retirement or insurance benefits. You renew their contract every year. At least half of USDA employees have worked 5, 10, 15, and even 20 years with USDA without insurance or retirement benefits.

Interesting... If a company in the private sector did that, they'd be eaten alive by the IRS. There's an entire industry that's sprung up that does nothing more than certify that a "contractor" complies with the IRS's definition of the term.

As a certified technical instructor, I was given the chance to teach a class for Novell, however, we had to go through this certification process that kept coming up with the "fact" that for the three days that I'd be teaching this class in VA (I work and live in MO),I was actually going to be an employee of Novell: The only problem was that Novell was contracting with MY EMPLOYER for me to teach the class! It took WEEKS to get the paper work straightened out, including my sending pay stubs and previous tax records, showing that I was a full time, salaried employee of the company that was being contracted to provide the training...

All of this due to the IRS crackdown on "independant contractors." And if you really want to see a big screw-up, check out what the IRS decision did to Microsoft.

I wonder if you could successfully sue for back pay and benefits, based on IRS case law given the Microsoft case?

Mark

[MarkL]

If all individuals were required to carry catestrophic policies (just like in theory drivers are required to have a base level of auto insurance) risk would be spread out over a larger patient population (due to people currently without coverage obtaining it), costs would decrease (since cost increases in proportion to risk, let's assume the reverse to be true as well), and people could be further incentivized to purchase these plans by making some or all of the premiums tax deductable or eligible for some type of tax credit.

Good points, and I think that the place to start putting a cap on health care cost is with tort reform. The concept of a cap on punative, non-economic damages is one way to go, another being to place an exemption on contingency fees on certain parts of the settlement.

Health care costs have been spiraling out of control, as have insurance costs. As an example, I had a broken foot, which was diagnosed at a hospital emergency room. I had been seeing a doctor (ortho) about foot pain and swelling, and he had perscribed anti-inflamatory drugs, as well as "water pills." No x-rays or other diags... Anyway, it turns out that I had three broken bones in my foot, and when I took the X-rays from the hospital to show him, just to update my records, I later found out that he had billed my insurance company for $125 for the diagnosis of a broken foot. Of course, I called my insurance, and told them the story, but they said that technically, he was within his right to do that. Of course, I've never seen that Dr again, and if ever asked about an ortho, I specifically tell them NOT to see him...

BTW, I have to pay for my own health insurance. I recently bumped my deductable to $2500 and my out of pocket expense to $5000 due to rate increases. For me to keep my $500/1500 coverage would have cost me over $550/month. Now, it's back down to a more reasonable $350/month... Even in the years where I haven't gone to a single Dr or files a single claim, my rates have gone up at least 20% a year.

At the rate of increase, I figure that I'll only be able to afford medical insurance for about another 4 or 5 years. As it is, my #1 expense is taxes, #2, my mortgage, #3, my health insurance (if I wouldn't have made the change, #2 would have been health insurance).

Mark

[razorback-bert]

I bet non-profits and family foundations are exempt.

[StriperSniper]

Wasn't Teddy boy the one who pushed the bill that created HMO's?

I think you are right. Of course he will never be challenged by the media as to what went wrong.

[Conservateacher]

Too many doctors are complicit in this problem. My wife was having some tests done. We went to the doctor on a pre-arranged date to get the results. Results weren't in so we were told to come back another day. On the way out we overheard the doctor tell his nurse to bill us for the visit if we had insurance. This doctor was paid to tell us the test results weren't in.