Skip to comments.
Kennedy calls for employer-paid health coverage - Think Senator - who actually pays?
Boston Globe ^
| January 19, 20043
| Wayne Washington
Posted on 01/19/2003 2:18:05 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:08:59 AM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
TOPICS: Business/Economy; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: always; thepeoplepay
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-48 last
To: Cincinatus' Wife
"Fulfill their corporate responsibility"? Responsibility my ass, Senator Swimmer! These companies provide their employees with jobs! This isn't a socialist wellfare state porker!
As one rich punk who hasn't had to work a day in your life, livin' large off the proceeds of your old man's bootlegging, having slick lawyers getting you off the hook for murder and adultry, you have no place to try and shove socialism down our throats.
41
posted on
01/19/2003 11:10:06 AM PST
by
Redleg Duke
(Stir the pot...don't let anything settle to the bottom where the lawyers can feed off of it!)
To: Cincinatus' Wife
This is bound to upset Lincoln Chaffee. He's always so worried about people spending "our revenues," like they BELONG to them and not us.
42
posted on
01/19/2003 11:11:58 AM PST
by
Howlin
(It's yet ANOTHER good day to be a Republican!)
To: Redleg Duke
As one rich punk who hasn't had to work a day in your life, livin' large off the proceeds of your old man's bootlegging, having slick lawyers getting you off the hook for murder and adultry, you have no place to try and shove socialism down our throats.Kennedys and Clintons are a good example of why we don't want an aristocracy.
43
posted on
01/19/2003 12:42:37 PM PST
by
FITZ
To: Conservateacher
Too many doctors are complicit in this problem. Sort of ---but in a way the doctor was helping you because if you didn't have insurance, he was giving you a break ---you could be charged for the visit and have to pay out of your own pocket.
44
posted on
01/19/2003 12:45:11 PM PST
by
FITZ
To: FITZ
"Sort of ---but in a way the doctor was helping you because if you didn't have insurance, he was giving you a break ---you could be charged for the visit and have to pay out of your own pocket."
Yes, on the one hand he would be considered generous. On the other, and this was my situation, we had insurance. So, he was paid for not doing anything. The following year the insurance company added up it's costs and raise my rates to pay for services rendered. Did the insurance company eat the cost for this visit?
The insurance company didn't pay. The doctor didn't lose. Who ends up paying for it? ME!!!! Can I afford to pay astronomical rates so doctors can charge me to tell me the results aren't in? NO!
To: Zansman
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 decreaseThis point is one of my hot buttons. My health ins. comes from my employer, and I have to pay part of the cost (actually, all of it, but the part I see is the more aggravating part because I am reminded so often). But I don't get to choose deductibles, or coverage.
My policy is expensive. It covers such expensive items as fertility services and domestic partners. And, of course, almost any diagnostic test I might ever want.
I have never used nearly as much in medical care as I have paid in premiums, but I do need catastrophic coverage. I might get more choices next year, but that would really enrage some people who would have to pay more of the noticeable premium.
Why can't we make health ins. more like car ins, where the state has a pool for people who can't get coverage otherwise?
To: NYDave
"Another point. Why don't we have tort reform so that doctors don't have to pay ridiculous premiums for their liability insurance." Keep the faith, friend...help is on the way--and it's spelled DUBYA.
We must - and will--keep up the fight. Hillary!; aided by the rest of the liberal/socialists in our government will ruin our health care system AND our economy--if given the chance.
Together we can take that chance away from them!
To: Right_in_Virginia
Thanks for the reply. I voted for GW but he is still part of the "establishment". His Dad talked about the coming "New World Order". I'm afraid that former gov. Wallace was right when he said, regarding the dems and repubs, "Their ain't a dime's worth of difference between them.". At least GW isn't poll driven and works from what he feels is right, not necessarily popular. Can you imagine what things would be like if "Who Am I Today" Gore had squeeked into office. Let Gore just continue to write all of those "best selling" books and work on his beard.
48
posted on
01/20/2003 7:40:36 AM PST
by
NYDave
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-48 last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson