patrick.net

LeonDurham says

a plan that saves money and gives everyone health care

When one is actually discussed, then you have a point.

Until then, no dice.

ThreeBays says

In case that's not obvious as well, employers could be MADE to pay their part, just the same way as they DO for Social Security already. It's called writing legislation.

Did ya miss this part:

MrMagic says

You think the employers will roll over at the barrel of a gun and start paying all these new INCREASED Medicare taxes for ALL employees?

Let's see some logic, if the employers are "MADE" to pay these additional, increased taxes for ALL employees, what do you think will happen to total headcount in the company?

This answer should be great!

Goran_K says

When one is actually discussed, then you have a point.

Until then, no dice.

This thread is discussing it.

MrMagic says

Actually it's not, it's a "benefit", as in perk of their job. That's why there are employees who DON'T get it.

lol--no, it's a benefit.

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/employee-benefits.html

"In general, indirect and non-cash compensation paid to an employee. Some benefits are mandated by law (such as social security, unemployment compensation, and workers compensation), others vary from firm to firm or industry to industry (such as health insurance, life insurance, medical plan, paid vacation, pension, gratuity)."


Regardless of the term you want to call it, it's part of one's compensation package so it's YOUR money.

LeonDurham says

MrMagic says

Actually it's not, it's a "benefit", as in perk of their job. That's why there are employees who DON'T get it.

lol--no, it's a benefit.

Regardless of the term you want to call it, it's part of one's compensation package so it's YOUR money.

So, EVERYONE in the company gets it, since it's THEIR money?

Leon - I believe the analysis showing $2 trillion in savings assumes that the health industry remains static and that all doctors will happily take roughly a 30-40% cut to accept Medicare level payments.

I think it is obvious that we will see many doctors leave the practice and the shortage of healthcare providers will have a big impact on costs, wait times and quality of care.

socal2 says

I think it is obvious that we will see many doctors leave the practice and the shortage of healthcare providers will have a big impact on costs, wait times and quality of care.

That's actually true. If anyone here knows someone on Medicaid, go ask them how's access to the doctors of their choice and how much freedom to they have to choose what treatments they want.

We should allow the government to run healthcare and every other important industry. Over the years they have proved to be competent and efficient.

MrMagic says

So, EVERYONE in the company gets it, since it's THEIR money?

wtf are you talking about? Those that get healthcare costs paid by the company are getting a benefit as part of their total compensation package. Regardless of who sends the check to the healthcare company, it's the employee's money.

socal2 says

Leon - I believe the analysis showing $2 trillion in savings assumes that the health industry remains static and that all doctors will happily take roughly a 30-40% cut to accept Medicare level payments.

Can you show something to back that up?

LeonDurham says

This thread is discussing it.

... and so far, no plan has been presented that would cover ALL, and save money.

LeonDurham says

Can you show something to back that up?

I didn't realize this was in dispute.

*More Doctors Steer Clear of Medicare*
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323971204578626151017241898

Where will doctors go if the Government takes over the whole system?

socal2 says

Where will doctors go if the Government takes over the whole system?

Heh heh heh heh heh (evil laugh).

One thing I guarantee is that Rx Companies will get paid full retail price, even when Medicaid is buying the same pills by the billions.

tovarichpeter says

Medicare For All plan would actually save us money

That is a non-sequitur. (Where is Iwog when you need him?) If your taxes increase more than you are paying for insurance now, not so.

LeonDurham says

MrMagic says

So, EVERYONE in the company gets it, since it's THEIR money?

wtf are you talking about? Those that get healthcare costs paid by the company are getting a benefit as part of their total compensation package. Regardless of who sends the check to the healthcare company, it's the employee's money.

Not sure that there are many, if any, people who get Healthcare costs paid for by the company they work for outside of workmen's comp claims.

What you're talking about is health insurance premium costs, please keep the terminology straight. To the point of compensation, one can figure health insurance premium cost paid by an employer as compensation, in the event that they would most likely otherwise purchase the insurance and use it. If one would not purchase the insurance and use it, it is hardly compensation worthy of comparison to other compensation when comparing job to job.

There is a technicality here that has not been mentioned. The shared responsibility charge, where in you're charged for working without obtaining health insurance, should be factored into the base cost of the insurance as a deduction of "compensation." You would be forced at gun point/threat of jail/fines to pay this, so it should be a consideration that lowers the base.

Health Insurance Premium is NOT Healthcare Cost!!!! Use the proper terminology, otherwise the industry that benefits from the confusion will just keep reaping profits enforced by the ACA.

Tatupu, knock it off with the personal attacks.

MisterLefty says

If your taxes increase more than you are paying for insurance now, not so.

Of course. But, it wouldn't be the case here. As the OP states.

ForcedTQ says

What you're talking about is health insurance premium costs, please keep the terminology straight.

Healthcare premium costs are a subset of healthcare costs. They are part of healthcare costs.

The double standard is again made plain. It's quite amusing to me at this point.

Let us never again pretend that people left because of Trump winning, shall we?

LeonDurham says

Healthcare premium costs are a subset of healthcare costs. They are part of healthcare costs.

Heath care premiums are a funding source for health care. Like fica for medicare or income tax for medicaid. Where the money goes after it is collected is health care costs. You can't double count the same funds like paying a premium than paying a hospital out of the premium.

bob2356 says

LeonDurham says

Healthcare premium costs are a subset of healthcare costs. They are part of healthcare costs.

Heath care premiums are a funding source for health care. Like fica for medicare or income tax for medicaid. Where the money goes after it is collected is health care costs. You can't double count the same funds like paying a premium than paying a hospital out of the premium.

'

Exactly, health insurance premiums support a vehicle for payment of Actual Health CARE costs. Just like wages/interest/profits/creditcards/loans are vehicles for paying Actual Health CARE costs.

The ACA that "we don't have to read" before voting on was mis-represented to the public from the start. And now people are incorrectly associating terms.

ForcedTQ says

Exactly, health insurance premiums support a vehicle for payment of Actual Health CARE costs. Just like wages/interest/profits/creditcards/loans are vehicles for paying Actual Health CARE costs.

The ACA that "we don't have to read" before voting on was mis-represented to the public from the start. And now people are incorrectly associating terms.

I understand where you and Bob are coming from. As long as you are counting insurer's profits in your calculation of health care costs, then I'd agree.

Health care is evolving quickly. I can envision a future that reduces costs by using

1) AI for diagnostics and consultations. (in conjunction with)
2) nurse practitioners.
3) Overseen by MD managers

But also increases in costs attributed to specialized experimental cutting edge procedures that are by definition expensive, and for those who can afford them. In other words, not everything that can be developed in the way of medical technology is "a right," but basic care should be, and in fact for basic care, it often saves money to catch things earlier - especially as our medical tech gets better.


If what's right and most cost effective happens, then the basic care will be covered by some kind of national health care plan that removes the profit incentive from health care. Remember, sometimes therapies that are optimal for the patient are not optimal for maximizing tests, the number of procedures procedures and profits. Leave the profit motive for the optional specialized stuff, but remove all profit motive from basic health care.

And yes, everyone should get it. If you want to call that a "right" then fine. I just see it as something everyone should get. This is America after all. What the hell folks !!!

The thing that holds us back, is that the wealthy don't want to lose the expensive treatments that we can't for sure scale out to be available to everyone. We need to just allow - at least for now - for these to exist, in a separate private marketplace - or premium insurance based market that's available to all (at a price). That's what we have now anyway, so it's not really an ethical problem to go ahead and admit it, but to then do what's right for the masses.

Again. This is America.. Those masses are descendants of people that have fought in wars for our rights and freedoms.

LeonDurham says

Those that get healthcare costs paid by the company are getting a benefit as part of their total compensation package. Regardless of who sends the check to the healthcare company, it's the employee's money.

I see, so it's their money, as you claim, so when a new employee starts at a company, and has a 3 month probation period before their healthcare coverage kicks in, the employer gives them additional money in their paycheck those first three months. Then when insurance starts, they take that money out of the paycheck and divert it to insurance payments, right? After all, it's THEIR money.

Conversely, if two people, Joe and Harry, start at a company at the same time with the same position. Joe needs insurance but Harry doesn't, so since it's THEIR money, Harry gets more in his paycheck than Joe, since it's the employee's money, and he's not getting the insurance, so that premium amount is given to him as additional cash.

Is that correct?

Aphroman says

Remember @Patrick has asked not to accuse people of being ex users names.

Even if it's true?

I thought telling the truth was always so important.

MrMagic says

I see, so it's their money, as you claim, so when a new employee starts at a company, and has a 3 month probation period before their healthcare coverage kicks in, the employer gives them additional money in their paycheck those first three months. Then when insurance starts, they take that money out of the paycheck and divert it to insurance payments, right? After all, it's THEIR money.

Depends on what you negotiate. Some people ask the company to cover Cobra for the 3 months until their coverage kicks in. Some don't. A lot of employers don't have a 3 month waiting period.

MrMagic says

Conversely, if two people, Joe and Harry, start at a company at the same time with the same position. Joe needs insurance but Harry doesn't, so since it's THEIR money, Harry gets more in his paycheck than Joe, since it's the employee's money, and he's not getting the insurance, so that premium amount is given to him as additional cash.

Depends on what Harry negotiates.

LeonDurham says

Depends on what you negotiate.

LeonDurham says

Depends on what Harry negotiates.

Ahhh, I see how it spins now. It's no longer automatically THEIR money, but now it's based on what they negotiate.

Wouldn't that be considered a flexible "benefit" and NOT their money. BTW, did you look up the definition of "benefit" yet?

Move the goal posts much?????

Health Insurance Coverage of the Total Population (2016)

Employer (Group) 49%
Non-Group 7%
Medicaid 19%
Medicare 14%
Other Public 2%
Uninsured 9%

https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/total-population/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22desc%22%7D

In 2017, the average annual premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance are $6,690 for single coverage and $18,764 for family coverage

... the average annual premium contributions by covered workers for 2017 are $1,213 for single coverage and $5,714 for family coverage. Eight percent of covered workers contribute $12,000 or more a year for family coverage.

https://www.kff.org/report-section/ehbs-2017-summary-of-findings/

So the argument is that we will transfer 65% of the population to a government plan, and that folks' tax increases will not exceed $1,213 for single folks and $5,714 for an average family?

Does anyone have any proof to back this assumption up?

MrMagic says

Ahhh, I see how it spins now. It's no longer automatically THEIR money, but now it's based on what they negotiate.

Wouldn't that be considered a flexible "benefit" and NOT their money. BTW, did you look up the definition of "benefit" yet?

Move the goal posts much?????

No, you clearly don't see. Any money the company pays towards health care premiums is part of one's compensation package.

That has nothing to do with the fact that Joe's compensation package might be more lucrative than Jack's.

MisterLefty says

Where is Iwog when you need him?

He is a film producer now.

MisterLefty says

So the argument is that we will transfer 65% of the population to a government plan, and that folks' tax increases will not exceed $1,213 for single folks and $5,714 for an average family?

Nope that's not the argument.

LeonDurham says

Nope that's not the argument.

Why not?

MisterLefty says

Why not?

The "admin savings" is speculation. It is guess work at reducing redundant admin costs. Somehow the author forgot the efficiencies of competition, or the inefficiencies from lack thereof. Does anyone really think costs wouldnt skyrocket? Or that the legislation process wouldnt be completely manipulated by health industry billionaires looking after their own interests?

Here is the math if tax increases were to equal costs to individual and families insured through employers or through private plans.

US population: 325.7 million

Married versus single: 50/50

Employer insured: 49% of population = 159.6 million

Non-group plans: 7% of population = 22.8 million

Employee yearly premium cost under employer sponsored group plan: $1,213 for single coverage and $5,714 for family coverage

Yearly premium cost under non-group plan: $3603 for single coverage, $7,102 for family coverage.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/185968/average-annual-premiums-of-non-group-health-insurance-by-coverage-type/

Total annual premium cost: $674,782 million.

Does anyone believe that will cover transferring 65% of the population over to the government plan? Does anyone believe increased taxes to pay for this will not exceed the annual premiums paid by individuals and families?

LeonDurham says

That has nothing to do with the fact that Joe's compensation package might be more lucrative than Jack's.

Straw man again....

Please use reading comprehension before replying. Let's try this again:

MrMagic says

Conversely, if two people, Joe and Harry, start at a company at the same time with the same position.

Apparently I have to spell out the last piece of that: also at the same wages, same positions.

LeonDurham says

Any money the company pays towards health care premiums is part of one's compensation package.

The problem is, that's not what you said above, you said it was "Their Money":

LeonDurham says

it's the employee's money.

So, let's see if we can clear this up, you say their Benefits are part of their compensation package and their money. So based on that assertion, the employee can decide to take that complete benefit package as cash, right? Say the employer is paying $12k a year for the insurance premium as part of the benefit package, the employee can request his employer to cut him a check for that $12k instead. Is that how it works?

How often do employers agree to do that?

marcus says

Health care is evolving quickly. I can envision a future that reduces costs by using

1) AI for diagnostics and consultations. (in conjunction with)
2) nurse practitioners.
3) Overseen by MD managers
...

The only problem here is the oversight by "MD managers". MD's aren't really very well trained to manage the provision of healthcare. They're basically a second line of defense for problems that can't be solved by a nurse or PA. Specialists are a third line for problems that a GP suspects are related to a specific system but can't address himself.

The problem is that the farther you go up that chain the less the person is capable of seeing the bigger picture and the more they are zeroed in on their pet disease or bread-and-butter procedure. If you really want to administer better care for less money you need move in the opposite direction and find people who a detached from the "front lines" of treating this or that illness. Basically similar to what insurance benefit managers do but make the primary goal eliminating harmful and/or useless treatment rather than adding to the bottom line of the insurer (and yes there is a big difference between the two because insurers in many cases are effectively paid a percentage of all healthcare spend so they actually benefit from wasteful treatment).

bolinos says

marcus says

Health care is evolving quickly. I can envision a future that reduces costs by using

1) AI for diagnostics and consultations. (in conjunction with)
2) nurse practitioners.
3) Overseen by MD managers
...

The only problem here is the oversight by "MD managers". MD's aren't really very well trained to manage the provision of healthcare. They're basically a second line of defense for problems that can't be solved by a nurse or PA. Specialists are a third line for problems that a GP suspects are related to a specific system but can't address himself.

The problem is that the farther you go up that chain the less the person is capable of seeing the bigger picture and the more they are zeroed in on their pet disease or bread-and-butter procedure. If you really want to administer better care for less money you need move in the opposite direction and find people who a ...

People should be free with the adequate private ppo or out of pocket add-on to pursue the specialists and their procedures. I agree that there are many specialist procedures that aren't necessary from a quality of life and life expectancy perspective but everybody is different and has a different threshold for specialist / surgery involvement. The most basic insurance should not cover this, but mainly acute and only life threatening chronic conditions. A first in line GP can not only be a cost prevented but also a functional / holistic adviser for general lifestyle health/fitness and prevention.

MrMagic says

So, let's see if we can clear this up, you say their Benefits are part of their compensation package and their money. So based on that assertion, the employee can decide to take that complete benefit package as cash, right? Say the employer is paying $12k a year for the insurance premium as part of the benefit package, the employee can request his employer to cut him a check for that $12k instead. Is that how it works?

No, of course not. A benefit is a benefit. Salary is salary.

MisterLefty says

Why not?

Have you read any of my posts?