Just the beginning-USA Today

[THE KOD]

You couldn't be more wrong about DTB. Jesus!

.............................................................

how do you think we feel when he constantly throws this up in our face that because we dont show up to a golf course , we have no family, friends , or jobs ?

he is worse than wineguy for christ sakes

wtf

 

[Trench]

Nothing like a free bee to give a liberal a boner.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Wayne, what does this mean, exactly. The waivers mean that these companies don't HAVE to provide insurance to the numbers mentioned above, so that they can continue to provide insurance to others in the company? Is that it? I don't really understand the nuances of this, so really curious.

If this is in fact the situation, aren't these decisions elective for each of the companies? And they would be chosing not to insure these people, which is pretty much what they do now, decide whether to provide insurance for employees as a matter of doing business? Kind of a competitive thing, right? So, some of these companies could revise their business model to allow for this, cut expenses in other areas (say upper management, building a new McDonalds on every other street corner, etc.)? Couldn't these companies use this as a strategy to provide better benefits, making the company a more desirable place to work, attracting the better employees?

Just some random thoughts and questions. I really do want to understand what's happening.

Chad- the way I understand it is O's new guidelines would end these plans(among others)--thus challenging the "everyone can keep their current coverage"--actually these companies would be better off dropping their employee plans and paying penalty--

The healthcare plan was really threw together quickly without much thought on consequences.

Granted the - no pre exisiting-everyone covered-ETC sounds very good--but it all comes at a price and gov just now finding out why ins co didn't do it on their own.

Granted the ins industry could use some prodding on several issues but a lot of things in healthcare reform will not remotely float.

I believe I may have mentioned before--my biggest pet peave in insurance industry is risk rating after the fact--especially on individual coverage. eg

We are healthy and take out coverage with modest premiums relecting our good health.
10 years down the road we develope condition that will require expensive treatment for years to come. Insurance company can not cancel our coverage (despite what you hear from some politicians)--but will increase our premium due to our claims history and after a few years premium will be unaffordable to most. I find this defeating the very purpose of insurance and should be corrected.
IMO--the claims should be shared equally by the healthy and sick.
I do however agree with rating individuals for health conditions when 1st applying--just not for claim history after they are covered.

 

[Trench]

Granted the - no pre exisiting-everyone covered-ETC sounds very good--but it all comes at a price and gov just now finding out why ins co didn't do it on their own.

Translation: "Sure, that healthcare-for-all rhetoric sounds good but I believe our tax dollars are much better invested in killing people than keeping people alive. I'm OK with spending $1 Trillion per year on our War Machine but I'm opposed to spending $100 Billion per year providing healthcare for all."

 

[MadJack]

.............................................................

how do you think we feel when he constantly throws this up in our face that because we dont show up to a golf course , we have no family, friends , or jobs ?

he is worse than wineguy for christ sakes

wtf

 

[THE KOD]

....................................................................

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Translation: "Sure, that healthcare-for-all rhetoric sounds good but I believe our tax dollars are much better invested in killing people than keeping people alive. I'm OK with spending $1 Trillion per year on our War Machine but I'm opposed to spending $100 Billion per year providing healthcare for all."

Trench
Appears it boils down to preference on spending on defense or entitlements.

Depends apon where ones concerns are-

-having the gov take care of them
--or providing safe place for them to take care of themselves.

I was of the opinion govs primary job was to keep us safe--not make us dependents of the state?

As usual -we have diff of opinion on definition of the american dream.:SIB

 

[Chadman]

I guess I still don't understand. Is it your understanding that the part time employees and low wage employees will no longer receive whatever insurance benefits they are receiving because more people in there company will now be receiving insurance due to the new legislation? If not, what does this mean?

I don't know many of those that currently receive insurance, but I guess there may be some - I would not expect companies to do that for those two sectors, unless you're talking about companies that schedule employees JUST UP TO the full time numbers specifically to avoid paying benefits, which Wal-Mart and many grocery companies engage in. I know the issue has been that companies do this, then require employees to stay longer due to issues on the job that skirt the scheduled hours thing. I know my son faces this at his job, being asked to stay late because they are short scheduled, which puts him in a tough spot as a young part time worker.

Again, this seems like it is an elective thing for these companies. They could certainly choose to put money into insurance benefits as a competitive advantage for attracting the best employees, instead of making other business decisions that might not benefit the company nearly as much. I can see how it can be a hardship for some companies, but all companies have decisions to make like this every day. Maybe management has to work a little harder, or cut corners in other areas, to provide their employees with basic benefits - as many do now. And maybe this will cause more pressure on cost issues, and continued attention to the problem - which was NEVER looked at until this administration (except for Hillary Clinton, who is one of the originators of bringing this to light).

Perhaps this will be a stimulus for addressing the other issues you and others suggest NOW that we start looking at, which would have never been brought up otherwise. Some people may be happy with their insurance, and those people would be ones that don't have to pay for it. I don't know of one person other than maybe insurance agents and insurance consultants that say they are happy PAYING for their parts of their insurance costs.

 

[THE KOD]

We are healthy and take out coverage with modest premiums relecting our good health.
10 years down the road we develope condition that will require expensive treatment for years to come. Insurance company can not cancel our coverage (despite what you hear from some politicians)--but will increase our premium due to our claims history and after a few years premium will be unaffordable to most. I find this defeating the very purpose of insurance and should be corrected.
IMO--the claims should be shared equally by the healthy and sick.
I do however agree with rating individuals for health conditions when 1st applying--just not for claim history after they are covered.

....................................................................

This is the problem with the crooked rat bastid insurance companys.

They insure a person for 15 years and charge them 5 K with minimal use. They make their money and millions of more just like it.

Then this individual in the 16 year gets cancer. The insurace company cannot cancel the policy like they used to ( how sick was that ) so they will just increase the premiums until the person cant afford it.

Its the greed involved that will bring the ins companys down eventually. The healthcare reform is at least a start to keeping them under control.

Instead of making 4 trillion dollars they would only make 3 trillion doing it the right way and covering people they insure.

Leave it to them to try every crooked angle to fawk the American ppl over again.

Yeh this is why we may go to full gov coverage for all Americans. It is better than to be screwed again for the next 20 years.

Did I mention that Obama is the first President in 50 years to get any kind of a healthcare reform package in place ?