Political ThreadsThis section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:
3M has dropped their drug plan for their retirees. They will have no choice
but to go to Part D of Medicare to cover them and guess where the $$ comes
to pay for that? Right out of all our pockets.
Honeywell will no longer offer Group HC to retirees so guess who will be
picking up the tab for that.
This is just the beginning as companies drop their plans and turn them
over to Obama-care.
What happened to Obama's promise that you can keep your own plan
if you choose?
WHAT own plan, as companies bail out in a domino effect?
Companies have been cutting benefits for retirees for years. This is nothing new. I think my father had his drug benefits eliminated at least five years ago and he's a retired exec at a large company.
For all the talk of rising costs due to obama, how much of this was happening anyway? Seems like increases of 10-25 percent were becoming pretty common over the last decade.
Quote:
Originally Posted by justplugit
And so the HC Debacle continues.
3M has dropped their drug plan for their retirees. They will have no choice
but to go to Part D of Medicare to cover them and guess where the $$ comes
to pay for that? Right out of all our pockets.
Honeywell will no longer offer Group HC to retirees so guess who will be
picking up the tab for that.
This is just the beginning as companies drop their plans and turn them
over to Obama-care.
What happened to Obama's promise that you can keep your own plan
if you choose?
WHAT own plan, as companies bail out in a domino effect?
Companies have been cutting benefits for retirees for years. This is nothing new. I think my father had his drug benefits eliminated at least five years ago and he's a retired exec at a large company.
For all the talk of rising costs due to obama, how much of this was happening anyway? Seems like increases of 10-25 percent were becoming pretty common over the last decade. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
so what Spence is trying to say is despite the countless hours spent by our congress and the president and the additonal debt and tax burden, this healthcare bill will do nothing to change YOUR expenses. Things are going down hill and will continue to. So lets make sure we dont return to "the failed policies of the GOP"
so what Spence is trying to say is despite the countless hours spent by our congress and the president and the additonal debt and tax burden, this healthcare bill will do nothing to change YOUR expenses. Things are going down hill and will continue to. So lets make sure we dont return to "the failed policies of the GOP"
I think there's an alternate narrative that your costs are going up anyway and that long-term the reforms will work to slow the rate of increase while also covering the 40M or so presently uninsured. Remember that most of the bill hasn't even been phased in.
Now, I'm not sure I agree with this story in whole, but the existing trajectory was clearly not sustainable either.
The Health Care Bill won't magically fix the problem, the problem is huge, but it will probably drive the real change necessary to make lasting improvements more real. If this means shifting control of Congress to force bi-partisan reforms then so be it.
Companies have been cutting benefits for retirees for years. This is nothing new. I think my father had his drug benefits eliminated at least five years ago and he's a retired exec at a large company.
For all the talk of rising costs due to obama, how much of this was happening anyway? Seems like increases of 10-25 percent were becoming pretty common over the last decade. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
If your Dad is over 62 and covered under Medicare Part D then we have been
paying for his drugs over the last 5 years.
According to research by the Partnership for Health Care Reform, the total government cost is almost twice as high for every enroll-ee to Part D from an employee plan. Five million retirees going into Part D would be an additional cost
of 2.7 BILLION per year.
Now add all the soon to retire" yuppie generation" and i don't want to do the math.
Most of the increases over the last 10 years have come from increase in malpractice insurance, where every Doc will tell you there are 2 groups, those who have been sued and those about to be, and all the new high tech test costs.
Tort reform and across state insurance competition is one way to reduce costs
imho.
Last edited by justplugit; 10-25-2010 at 07:23 PM..
If your Dad is over 62 and covered under Medicare Part D then we have been
paying for his drugs over the last 5 years.
According to research by the Partnership for Health Care Reform, the total government cost is almost twice as high for every enroll-ee to Part D from an employee plan. Five million retirees going into Part D would be an additional cost
of 2.7 BILLION per year.
Funny, he was upset that Obama (and this is a person who's generally against Obama mind you) wanted to kill Medicare Advantage as part of the legislation. When I explained that their benefits from Medicare Advantage -- even with his cash contribution -- consumed a higher rate of taxpayer money than regular Medicare he didn't seem to care because he felt he was being less dependent on the Government.
Quote:
Most of the increases over the last 10 years have come from increase in malpractice insurance, where every Doc will tell you there are 2 groups, those who have been sued and those about to be, and all the new high tech test costs.
I agree that lawsuits are a problem (and those predatory HMO's trying to kill off the independent practitioner) but tort isn't the root cause. I've seen numbers like 185B or so a year could be saved by tort reform, a lot for sure, but I can't believe it's the main driver behind increases.
They raise rates because they can.
Quote:
Tort reform and across state insurance competition is one way to reduce costs
And I support both. Kerry in 2004 proposed that medical malpractice cases should be moved to Federal courts where the standards of evidence were much higher, hence, making frivolous lawsuits more difficult to bring before a court.
I do think that interstate competition is an easy one the Dems should have used as barter to get some Repubs on board. I think it would have a dramatic impact on cost and there's really no counter argument that the average person can understand...it's basic competition and some states really have few choices available.
I don't smoke so I really don't care but all tobacco users will pay higher Healthcare premiums in 2011 at my company because they use tobacco (even an occasional Cigar on the Golf Course). If they say they don't use and get caught, they can be terminated.
People who participate in "Extreme Sports" as hobbies carry a higher premium too, sky diving, motor cycle riding, mountain climbing, skiing, etc (fishing isn't on there yet). If you say you don't do these things to not pay the higher premium and get hurt doing them, you are not covered by insurance. I guess the saft bet is to sit on the couch and watch TV all day.
Where will it end?? I can tell you that the fat people I work with are getting nervous because they will be next. "You are overweight and you are a health risk so your premium will now cost more"
What about drinking a beer? Will that be next too?
The reason for these changes is all because the dink in the oval office wants some of the people to pay for healthcare for all of the people.................sounds socialist to me
"I know a taxidermy man back home. He gonna have a heart attack when he see what I brung him!"
I don't smoke so I really don't care but all tobacco users will pay higher Healthcare premiums in 2011 at my company because they use tobacco (even an occasional Cigar on the Golf Course). If they say they don't use and get caught, they can be terminated.
People who participate in "Extreme Sports" as hobbies carry a higher premium too, sky diving, motor cycle riding, mountain climbing, skiing, etc (fishing isn't on there yet). If you say you don't do these things to not pay the higher premium and get hurt doing them, you are not covered by insurance. I guess the saft bet is to sit on the couch and watch TV all day.
Where will it end?? I can tell you that the fat people I work with are getting nervous because they will be next. "You are overweight and you are a health risk so your premium will now cost more"
What about drinking a beer? Will that be next too?
The reason for these changes is all because the dink in the oval office wants some of the people to pay for healthcare for all of the people.................sounds socialist to me
Good. You take part in risky behaviors, you should pay a higher rate. I'm 27, hardly ever seriously sick, never broken a bone, fit, eat well, don't smoke and have low cholesterol. Yet I have to pay the same rates as some fat ass who eats at McDonald's every day, smokes a pack of day, gets their exercise by their multiple trips to the fridge, probably has diabetes and heart disease.
They should make it like car insurance, force people with unhealthy habits to pay a surcharge. What's socialist about it is that everyone is treated the same regardless of their health.
They should make it like car insurance, force people with unhealthy habits to pay a surcharge. What's socialist about it is that everyone is treated the same regardless of their health.
Thats how they do life insurance. evil socialist life insurance I guess
Bryan
Originally Posted by #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&
"For once I agree with Spence. UGH. I just hope I don't get the urge to go start buying armani suits to wear in my shop"
What's socialist about it is that everyone is treated the same regardless of their health.
And not everyone is treated the same regardless of there wealth. The few pay for the many.......not fair. Pretty soon, there is too many to pay for.
An extreme activity sports person is not driving up health care. It is people who don't take care of themselves.
I pretty much agree with you, but where do you draw the line. We now have DNA testing to see if you are predisposed to cancer. Should everyone get that at birth to see what their insurance should be?
As a side note, take a listen to this clown:
"I know a taxidermy man back home. He gonna have a heart attack when he see what I brung him!"
THAT CLOWN DOESN'T EVEN PAY RENT!!!! He was outed several days later that he's stiffed every landlord he's ever had!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piscator
And not everyone is treated the same regardless of there wealth. The few pay for the many.......not fair. Pretty soon, there is too many to pay for.
An extreme activity sports person is not driving up health care. It is people who don't take care of themselves.
I pretty much agree with you, but where do you draw the line. We now have DNA testing to see if you are predisposed to cancer. Should everyone get that at birth to see what their insurance should be?
I pretty much agree with you, but where do you draw the line. We now have DNA testing to see if you are predisposed to cancer. Should everyone get that at birth to see what their insurance should be?
The line is exactly where I said it should be, for people with unhealthy lifestyles - smokers, drug users, the sedentary and the obese.
The line is exactly where I said it should be, for people with unhealthy lifestyles - smokers, drug users, the sedentary and the obese.
my grandmother is fat, drank and smoked her whole life, she is 84 and lives on her own. Her daughter, my mom, exercised daily, non-smoker, white bread wasnt allowed in my house, alfalfa sprouts were the norm, died at 65 from cancer.
my grandmother is fat, drank and smoked her whole life, she is 84 and lives on her own. Her daughter, my mom, exercised daily, non-smoker, white bread wasnt allowed in my house, alfalfa sprouts were the norm, died at 65 from cancer.
Exceptions to the rule. So the average fat smoker is healthier than the average person that eats well and is fit?
The line is exactly where I said it should be, for people with unhealthy lifestyles - smokers, drug users, the sedentary and the obese.
An unhealthy life style is in the eye of the beholder. Fishing the canal several nights in a row is not very healthy. How about the goverment take care of defense and infrustructure and stay the hell out of my fridge. Damn, they make a killing with "sin" taxes and some think it's great.
An unhealthy life style is in the eye of the beholder. Fishing the canal several nights in a row is not very healthy. How about the goverment take care of defense and infrustructure and stay the hell out of my fridge. Damn, they make a killing with "sin" taxes and some think it's great.
The health benefits of being a smoker, obese, and using drugs is in the eye of the beholder?
You're absolutely nuts if you think the average person who is 100lbs overweight won't have higher health care costs over their lifetime than a person.
Exceptions do not make up the rule. Sure, I have met people that smoked for 65 years and lived into their 80s. I've met a whole lot more people that had family members smoke and died in their 50s.
There are people that eat garbage every day and will live to be 90. There are far, far more people that eat garbage and will have their first hear attack or stroke in their 50s.
More than half of Americans are overweight. Diabetes rates are going through the roof.
Why should I - a person who exercises, eats well, and rarely sick even though I work a desk job - pay the same rates as someone that is overweight or a smoker?
Good. You take part in risky behaviors, you should pay a higher rate. I'm 27, hardly ever seriously sick, never broken a bone, fit, eat well, don't smoke and have low cholesterol. Yet I have to pay the same rates as some fat ass who eats at McDonald's every day, smokes a pack of day, gets their exercise by their multiple trips to the fridge, probably has diabetes and heart disease.
They should make it like car insurance, force people with unhealthy habits to pay a surcharge. What's socialist about it is that everyone is treated the same regardless of their health.
Whats socialist about it is that its NONE OF THE GOVTS BUSINESS. Let the market do its thing.
All of this is EXACTLY why government should not be involved in insurance or healthcare. We get dangeroulsy close to infringing on the rights of citizens.
Hybrid Mode
