Employer Based Health Insurance

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by 108, Jun 30, 2014.

  1. QGator2414
    Offline

    QGator2414 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    12,810
    Likes Received:
    156
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Ocala
    Ratings Received:
    +574
    I agree with just about everything you said.

    Now let's get the government out of insurance and let them compete for business and start negotiating directly with our providers for the small things.

    We have the ability to do our own thing. If we want to go out on our own and take that risk we can. If we want to live under the dependence of another we can. But we have choices.

    You seem to agree that the small stuff has no business being covered by a third party. I don't know of many policies that do not cover the big stuff. Sure there may be a deductible but if you want more than your employer is providing and it is worth spending the money on the product...fire away or find an employer that will provide what you want.
  2. gatorman_07732
    Offline

    gatorman_07732 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    Messages:
    31,437
    Likes Received:
    2,266
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    The Irish Riviera
    Ratings Received:
    +4,395
    Seems to me that some people are going to be shocked when they find out some of the big stuff is in covered by some of these ACA compliant plans.
  3. reformedgator
    Offline

    reformedgator Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    1,862
    Likes Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +200
    In real life, I think Fred may be anecdotal. His answers seldom square with reality.
    • Funny Funny x 1
  4. Emmitto
    Offline

    Emmitto VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    5,607
    Likes Received:
    176
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +579
    Yes, I agree with you philosophically. And I'll agree that most policies cover most big stuff, although I bet we all know of individual cases where that didn't work out either -- but those are the exceptions. So perhaps employer-provided insurance should be catastrophic and cheap that doesn't substitute for wages. Even then, I still can't get with the concept. You have to manage your own catastrophes too, and I don't mean to sound glib about it.

    But as a practical matter, finding an employer that will do what you want is rarely an option. Most people simply don't possess that type of leverage. And while it may indeed be worth it to buy even more, given the circumstances, that still doesn't address the issue that there is a cost that is providing little or no value. If it's worth it to strike out on your own, it's even more worth it if you'd just done that from the outset. I suspect that's how it would work out for the vast majority of people -- better value by going it alone from the get go, assuming that the value of the insurance was added back into compensation via wages.

    So if I were starting a new society, businesses would pay wages/salaries and provide virtually no benefits (aside from more abstract economic benefits, like parking and climate control and comfortable chairs and such). Everything else about your life is your life (again, there are some obvious exceptions -- if you keep getting DUI's then I probably can't let you drive the company truck even though you've never shown up to work drunk, etc.) All the cool stuff you get through work, should the company choose to do it, is truly cool and not a substitute for real purchasing power (pay). A company could even provide insurance, but it wouldn't be in lieu of pay -- which means they couldn't, or wouldn't, do it, because there is obvious and substantial cost involved.
  5. DeanMeadGator
    Offline

    DeanMeadGator '63 Gator VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    2,638
    Likes Received:
    78
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +198
    Query: If the ruling went against Hobby Lobby and they closed their business rather than being forced to violate their religious beliefs, could the guvment force them to stay in business?

    Isn't the morning after pill available for purchase at any drug store??

    Here we go with Fox News again. No one has yet to say what news they do like and why they like it.
  6. QGator2414
    Offline

    QGator2414 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    12,810
    Likes Received:
    156
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Ocala
    Ratings Received:
    +574
    No issues here. Get government out of the way and institute the Fair Tax or Flat Tax with No deductions/credits (okay with exempting the first $5K-$10K for everyone).

    But that does not work for daddy government... :)
  7. BastogneGator
    Offline

    BastogneGator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2013
    Messages:
    1,746
    Likes Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +559
    Is that why people who list their previous insurance can't afford a similar plan under the ACA? The provision forcing insures to insure those with pre-existing conditions is meant solely to kill the private health insurance market. I agree that medical costs are inexplicably high. Look at an itemized bill from a hospital. 300 dollar plasticware, seriously? Pharma is way out of control. The AMA is a monopoly that needs to be busted. Why don't doctors competitively advertise for regular procedures covered by insurance?

    Saying anything went exactly as planned with the ACA is laughable.
  8. MichiGator2002
    Online

    MichiGator2002 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    16,221
    Likes Received:
    503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,401
    "Why not?" There is no "why" as a question of social policy unless one first concedes to the intellectual fraud that it is an obligate function of an employer to provide healthcare as though that's an ersatz entitlement. How about some employers will, some employers won't, any of them might cover different things, and all that doesn't matter because the bottom line is that people are responsible for their own healthcare?
    • Like Like x 1
  9. gator10010
    Offline

    gator10010 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2008
    Messages:
    1,362
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Ratings Received:
    +42
    I believe so. Employers are subsidizing the health insurance cost for the employee.

    You have to ask yourself what health insurance would look like if my employer wasn't helping me foot the bill?

    Most everyone would probably move to high deductible catastrophic insurance plans which in turn would lower the cost by forcing doctors and hospitals to actually get their true costs under control.
  10. MichiGator2002
    Online

    MichiGator2002 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    16,221
    Likes Received:
    503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,401
    Employer based health insurance isn't something concocted by the government as an entitlement system that has now disappointingly failed; why talk about it like one? It's private employment contract subject matter, and the government bludgeoned its way into it uninvited and did nothing but muck it up. Why should any rational person look to handing the government that's causing the problems even more power in order to "fix" them?
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. vertigo0923
    Offline

    vertigo0923 night owl mod VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    38,760
    Likes Received:
    3,759
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    sec country
    Ratings Received:
    +5,229
    why do you people hate government workers so much? they're just people. who happen to have found jobs within the government. jealous of their bennies? then get a job with the government. these bennies are in place because the pay generally is not as good as 'civilian' pay.
  12. QGator2414
    Offline

    QGator2414 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    12,810
    Likes Received:
    156
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Ocala
    Ratings Received:
    +574
    I don't hate government workers at all. And I am not jealous of their "bennies" one bit. But I am concerned our kids will be paying for their "bennies" because our government has promised more than it provide for. $17 trillion and growing!

    Government worker compensation is phenomenal. Especially at the federal level. It is what it is!
  13. vertigo0923
    Offline

    vertigo0923 night owl mod VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    38,760
    Likes Received:
    3,759
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    sec country
    Ratings Received:
    +5,229
    you're concerned about other people getting something, it's like 'they're getting over' on someone. it's a fear for you. you don't want people who've paid into social security to get more than you deem acceptable. you blame government workers for receiving benefits, things they've foregone higher pay to receive. they haven't gotten a raise, at least at the federal level, since obama's been president. but in your mind, no one deserves anything, anything that they have a reasonable expectation of receiving. and, since they get 'stuff' that you don't get, you have no problem internally with taking it away.
    is it government workers health care bennies and social security that are solely to blame for that deficit? no. so why don't i ever see you offering any other suggestions, except to take away from people the things they've earned.
  14. gator10010
    Offline

    gator10010 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2008
    Messages:
    1,362
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Ratings Received:
    +42
    The government isn't going to separate businesses and health insurance. They should separate the two as opposed to dropping the ACA on us but that is a different conversation.

    The question 108 asked was does employer based health insurance artificially inflate costs? Of course it does, businesses are subsidizing the costs for employees.
  15. OklahomaGator
    Offline

    OklahomaGator Moderator VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    34,958
    Likes Received:
    1,250
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Miami, OK
    Ratings Received:
    +2,354
    Very interesting question, my first quick answer was yes, but after thinking about it I would say it lowers health costs. My reason is that large groups are able to negotiate better pricing from health care providers by bringing a large pool of potential customers to them. The providers offer better pricing in exchange for being the exclusive provider and guarantees of payment. By agreeing to lower payments they have to become more efficient in order to stay profitable.

    Individuals can not negotiate with providers other than getting a discount for immediate payment.
  16. QGator2414
    Offline

    QGator2414 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    12,810
    Likes Received:
    156
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Ocala
    Ratings Received:
    +574
    LOL!

    I am concerned about our oversized government. That does not mean I am concerned about what another is getting. I feel for those who would lose their job if we contracted government to what it's actual function should be. But they are smart people and will figure it out...

    And give me a break about "forgone higher pay"! Government workers have some of the best jobs out there. Sometimes (many times/what other profession can you choose and retire in your 50's if you want) greater compensation and just about always an inability to be fired. That is fine. But don't give some sob story as if they are sacrificing while others are kicking back on their yacht and private plane because they chose to work in the private sector...
  17. 108
    Offline

    108 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    18,022
    Likes Received:
    371
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    NYC
    Ratings Received:
    +1,406
    if it does lower health care costs, why have we had such dramatic health care inflation over the last 2 decades?

    does large group negotiating out compete 100 million + individuals shopping for on an ACA type website for plans?

    if not, and group rates is the key, then Single Payer would crush it.

Share This Page