Fast Tracking Socialism
If we’re going to have a massive overhaul of health care in the U.S., shouldn’t we at least have a healthy debate about it?
WASHINGTON – Majority Leader Harry Reid indicated Wednesday he’s willing to move sweeping health care legislation through the Senate with a procedural maneuver that would block a GOP filibuster. The prospect of the controversial tactic has already ignited Republicans’ ire, and key Senate Democratic chairmen have said they don’t want to do it.
Reid, D-Nev., took a different position on a conference call with reporters.
“I think it’s something we need to consider,” Reid said.
You think filibustering = healthy debate?
Please tell me you’re kidding.
What’s so wrong with majority rules? Why should everything always require a 60-vote supermajority?
The truth is that you don’t want a healthy debate, you just want gridlock so that nothing will change.Posted by Mike Thomas on March 25, 2009 at 2344 hrs
I understand the need for swift action on some recession issues, but haste in this arena would be bad. I think that the strident cultural conservatives need to take a step back and let the economic conservatives (currently called RINOs) assume control for the next election so that some balance in Congress can be restored.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 26, 2009 at 0020 hrs
I seem to recall a similar discussion a couple of years ago when the numbers were reversed. The press went ape-*hit over it and called it the “nuclear” option. Somehow I’m not sensing the same level of indignation now.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 26, 2009 at 0648 hrs
No debate? What’s been going on for the past 16 years?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 26, 2009 at 0653 hrs
“I think it’s something we need to consider.”
Translation:
“We will do it.”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 26, 2009 at 0821 hrs
Spread the Wealth Around is almost done and the USA is broke so its time to move onto Spread the Health Around.
If spreading the wealth bankrupted this country for decades to come….what can we expect from the health plan?Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 26, 2009 at 0839 hrs
Doing nothing on health care is not an option.
Businesses are learning that the biggest reason they are hurting is the cost of health insurance and not the dreaded taxes. They are forced to spend $1000 or more a month for insurance or risk losing good workers. Do you think they spend more than that for taxes?
We have been having this debate since Clinton was in office and it came to a head during the Bush years. It is out of control and would have been a better issue to tackle than the economy bailout at this point. We should have spent the bailout money to set up a national single payer health insurance plan.
With more affordable health insurance, most of the failing businesses would have seen savings sufficient to see them through.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 26, 2009 at 0951 hrs
Obviously none of you idiots own a business.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 26, 2009 at 1008 hrs
Obviously none of you idiots own a business.
I was talking about businesses that pay health insurance. I owned my own business for 15 years and sold it before the economy went to hell.
The money that the government would save with a single payer system requiring government employees to pay the same share as anyone else would be mind boggling.
I know that I will be lambasted for supporting this but I have looked at both sides and it will soon be necessary.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 26, 2009 at 1016 hrs
MF,
Who is saying that we shouldn’t do anything? All I’m doing is saying that instead of ramming through the socialist “solution,” we should have a healthy debate about it. You may like burning straw men, but it’s not very beneficial for our society.
Posted by Owen on March 26, 2009 at 1017 hrs
Businesses are learning that the biggest reason they are hurting is the cost of health insurance and not the dreaded taxes
Untrue
I see this is going to turn in one of those “lets make shit up to try to prove a point” threads…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 26, 2009 at 1135 hrs
It started with post #1. :(
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 26, 2009 at 1147 hrs
Why in the hell does anyone believe that the government will be efficient or even competent at managing this. Anyone ever hear of Medicare/Medicaid fraud? Is anyone doing anything about it? Didn’t think so. The government is not a group of squeaky clean boy scouts either (for all of you that think that all private business is evil). Here in the new state, the state employee’s health fund is underfunded by a few hundred million dollars. It was found during an open request that the health plan administrator (headed by a buddy of the leader of the state senate) over $15 to process each claim. This administrator was chosen even when a competitor would have only charged 57 cents to process each claim.
Its time to figure out a way to improve the system without giving it to the government to control. Like tightening up on frivolous malpractice claims with loser pays rules to reduce malpractice insurance costs. Or coming up with one standard insurance form so the doctors don’t need an entire staff to process billing. Or the ambulance getting to the house and finding the person who just wanted a ride to the doctor and leaving without them and then sending a bill to the person instead of the insurance company. Or letting people choose ala carte coverage - you know, so men aren’t paying for maternity coverage or those without kids aren’t paying for well baby or autism and the like, and women aren’t paying for viagara. Or expanding the health care spending accounts and the tax breaks for them. Or all of the above.
I don’t want my coverage to be rationed by the government, or for a bunch of the morons in Washington to decide what treatments or drugs are worth paying for and therefore available. I want my 75 year old father to get his knee replacement, not to have it turned down on a cost-benefit analysis.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 26, 2009 at 1152 hrs
Why in the hell does anyone believe that the government will be efficient or even competent at managing this.
Its just a mess. All one need do is look at government social programs. Show me one that worked well and isn’t fraught with waste and inefficiency. Private systems are not perfect but they are FAR better than anything our government attempts to do.
Second, our president was defending his trillion dollar deficits on Tuesday night be talking about how all the growth in cost was coming from medicare and medicaid and trimming those cost and finding efficiency there was going to provide “all this savings” but yet out of the other side of his desk, he’s proposing adding MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS of people to a system that he freely admits needs to find ways to reduce costs and become more efficient.
The problem with these life-long government descendants is that they have never operated outside fo a government run institution. Government paid for their college, government provided them jobs, government is the only thing they know.
They should all do this experiment:
Send out 10 people on a business trip. Tell them they can spend up to $100 a day on food and they must consume 3000 calories. (enough calories to MORE than feed a typical person nutritiously. Make note of what they buy, where they eat, and how much money is left over from each of the $100. Then ask them if it was “enough”.
NOW send out 10 people on a business trip. Give them each $100 a day and tell them they MUST consume 3000 calories, but whatever they don’t spend, they get to KEEP! Document what they buy, where they eat, and how much money is left over (that they get to keep)
I guaran-fucking-tee you group B will spend $10 on food at a discount grocery story, BE WELL FED, and pocket the rest. NO need to ask them if they got enough to eat because they will have SO much money left over, that speaks for itself.
And I GUARANTEE group A will spend EVERY penny of the money per day, eat at the NICEST restaurants they can find, and COMPLAIN at the end of the day that $100 a day “just wasn’t enough”
And that my friends is exactly why government entitlement doesn’t work. When it ain’t your money, isn’t it just funny how innefficient people are and how poorly they spend money. But suddenly when its YOUR money, and you actually care, the true picture emerges.
So now we are going to start giving away more healthcare? AND Barack thinks he’s going to ‘make it more efficient’
Devoid of logic.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 26, 2009 at 1226 hrs
Doing nothing on health care is not an option.
-MoveForward
When the gov’t is essentially broke it is NOT a good time to proceed with money-obliterating programs. As JJ has mentioned, the gov’t has never been an entity that has a close to average track record with managing programs, and you want them to manage this?!?
loser pays rules to reduce malpractice insurance costs.
I heartily agree with this comment from JJ. The U.S. populace has gotten too lawsuit happy. This little tidbit, I think, would go a good ways to clearing out a good deal of frivolous lawsuits. This alone would put a dent in healthcare costs.
People need to get away from relying on someone else to provide for them in some manner or form. This country was not founded with those principle and they should be buried today.
Now, before you rant about how I don’t care about people, let me make this addendum—I do believe there are people that DO need that sort of help, and it should be provided in some manner or form, and not entirely from gov’t.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 26, 2009 at 1228 hrs
There is ample existence of other socialized medicine programs - and they all SUCK!
Where are the people in the US who are not getting healthcare? If you have a problem and walk into any hospital - you are going to get taken care of.
Why do you want to destroy the best healthcare system in the world? The one that people from all these other socialized systems come to when they don’t want to wait 18 months for care.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 26, 2009 at 1343 hrs
Businesses are learning that the biggest reason they are hurting is the cost of health insurance and not the dreaded taxes
Untrue
Got any data to back that up xxp?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 26, 2009 at 1348 hrs
And Owen,
Who is saying that we shouldn’t do anything? All I’m doing is saying that instead of ramming through the socialist “solution,” we should have a healthy debate about it.
So start the debate.
What should we do?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 26, 2009 at 1354 hrs
The biggest part of the problem is that the buyer is separated from the cost of the service, thus disrupting normal market forces. Here are some steps I would seriously consider:
- Change our legal system to a “loser pays” system, thus reducing frivolous lawsuits.
- Eliminate many mandates on insurance coverage to allow insurance companies to offer tailored products. For example, I’m at a point inn my life where I don’t need to pay for maternity coverage or Viagra, but I want wellness coverage for our kids.
- In conjunction with the above… eliminate tax advantages on business-provided health insurance. This would push more people to carry personal coverage, thus seeing the actual cost, but it will only work in the insurance companies are allowed to offer targeted products at a price point that people can afford.
- Create a mechanism to evaluate and publish the cost and outcomes of routine procedures for consumers to evaluate health care companies.
- I’d consider having the taxpayers cover catastrophic issues if they get out of funding routine medical issues. This would lop off the high-end expenses and take the huge risk away from insurers, thus reducing prices and making insurance more affordable for more people.
- Kill Medicaid and cover the poor through normal welfare, if they need it.
- Limit the liability of doctors for medical outcomes. Medicine is still very much an art and the fear of lawsuits results in doctors conducting many tests that are expensive and unnecessary. Sure, that pain in your gut may be cancer or some rare illness, but most likely it’s just gas. Should we test for everything every time?
There’s a start.
Posted by Owen on March 26, 2009 at 1420 hrs
Got any data to back that up xxp?
Sure do… And I’ll expend the time to lay it out here just as soon as MoveForward provides the data to support his claim.
The biggest part of the problem is that the buyer is separated from the cost of the service, thus disrupting normal market forces. Here are some steps I would seriously consider:
Absolutely…
Imagine if car insurance was provided by your employer and every nick and scratch you could just run to the body-shop pay $30 co-pay and have thousands of dollars of work done for free.
Health coverage is expensive because people USE IT LIKE CRAZY.
Walk into any ER and ask the nurses on staff (or doctor) what percentage of the people there getting free healthcare should be in the ER. My girlfriend is an RN and she told me “about 5%”
Everyone with “the little card” uses the ER like their personal attendant. There is no conscience among people who get free healthcare.
Not to mention that fact that while part of ones health, people have no control over, a GOOD part of your health YOU DO.
Sedentiary lifestyle, eating bad foods, improper rest, improper hygene habits, smoking, etc etc.
If people had to pay out of pocket to go to the doctor they’d think twice about the lifestyle they lead.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 26, 2009 at 1431 hrs
I must say that I agree with many of Owen’s suggestions. One thing to remember, however, is that in acute healthcare, it’s pretty much an inelastic demand situation, so the normal market forces are not in play. Certainly litigation is a big problem. I am pretty angry that the republicans, when in full control. did not address this issue and instead used their “political capital” for war mongering. I would go one step further with employers and suggest that they get out of the healthcare business completely. They are only there because of foolish wage/price controls established after WWII. I like the idea of a hybrid system, that is, some sort of nationalized insurance for catastrophic coverage, and then introducing market forces for mundane or wellness coverage. Because of the ability to change job, the health insurance companies place no priority on preventative healthcare, which may be smart from their parochial view, but is costing us all dearly. The Brits have discovered this and give financial incentives to their docs to encourage healthy lifestyles. Transparency of pricing and outcomes is absolutely necessary for a free market. This is one of the reasons that universal electronic health records are so very important. So, in summary, I’m not a fan of a total socialized health system, but I also realize that our current system is not really working either - too much cost for disappointing outcomes. And, yes Maynard, I have been a business owner for more than 25 years. Let the discussions continue, and could we not sink to mindless name-calling?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 26, 2009 at 1612 hrs
Change our legal system to a “loser pays” system, thus reducing frivolous lawsuits.
Create a mechanism to evaluate and publish the cost and outcomes of routine procedures for consumers to evaluate health care companies (you mean providers, right).
Yep & Yep
I wasn’t aware of any “mandates” from anybody but the insurers themselves for say maternity coverage for women of child bearing age.
As far as I am concerned stuff like Viagra shouldn’t be covered at all.
- In conjunction with the above… eliminate tax advantages on business-provided health insurance. This would push more people to carry personal coverage, thus seeing the actual cost,
The “actual cost” is exactly one of the things that is driving both business and individuals to consider govt involvement. You disagree?
it will only work in the insurance companies are allowed to offer targeted products at a price point that people can afford.
I think insurance companies already do this with prexisting conditions and other exclusions and they don’t provide it at a price point people can afford.
How much more targeted would you like to see it become?
Limit doctor’s liability? Why?
If they screw up they should be held accountable.
Oh and who decides what poor is and who is going to decide what is catastrophic and what is routine?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 26, 2009 at 1639 hrs
wasn’t aware of any “mandates” from anybody but the insurers themselves
States mandate coverage for all sorts of stuff - the latest brou-ha-ha over coverage for autism is just the most recent. California is one of the worst. Wisconsin is on the same path.
The “actual cost” is exactly one of the things that is driving both business and individuals to consider govt involvement. You disagree?
I do. Normal, preventive care is not that expensive. I’ve had a couple of my doctors when I asked mention that they were thinking of dropping the insurance altogether for routine care. They would make more, wouldn’t have to deal with the paperwork and with the expense of some of the co-pays, a good many patients would pay less. Did you hear about the doctor in New York that started offering a flat $79 per month fee for wellness and basic sick care for patients? The state ordered him to cease and desist, then said he could keep the flat fee as long as he charged $33 per sick visit. Our government at work to keep costs down and make healthcare affordable, right?
I landed in ICU a couple of years ago with a very fast-moving strep variant that gave me pnuemonia and I went septic. I thank God every day for the quality of the healthcare that we have in this country. If not for the fast thinking and quality of the hospital, the ER doc, and the infectious disease doc, I wouldn’t be here today and my girls would have lost their mom at the ages of 3 & 7.
We need to get more creative about making it more cost-effective. Not on handing control of the care to the government and dismantling the quality.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 26, 2009 at 1721 hrs
Re#14
Yep & Yep.
I once took a tour of a Post Office. In the corner were several huge, new machines covered with tarps. I asked what they were. “They are automatic sorters (sorting machines”. I asked why they weren’t in use. Answer: “They are too fast. When we ran them several employees stood around with nothing to do.”
This is the kind of mentality you what to f__k around with health care?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 26, 2009 at 1920 hrs
JJ,
Good point on the autism. Unfortunately the current situation here in WI seems to leave the bill at the taxpayer’s door if the parents can’t afford the treatment themselves.
Did you hear about the doctor in New York that started offering a flat $79 per month fee for wellness and basic sick care for patients? The state ordered him to cease and desist,
I heard about this a couple of weeks ago, when you mentioned it, I googled it today.
This is what Fox News had posted,
Insurance Industry Wins, Low-Cost Doctor Raises Fees
New York must be a very pro business state.
Some other tidbit I picked up from some of the other search results were;
- The AMA was opposed to it for ethical reasons?
- The flat fee scheme hasn’t turned a profit. 75% of his patients have regular insurance and it appears that would mean that the regular patients and their insurance companies are paying the freight.
Nice idea though.
baja, I am also opposed to postal workers running the health care system or providing health care services.
Charlie & Owen, I am still wondering who would be defining “catastrophic” and in what sense that is meant. Is it a definition relative to the medical condition or a cost/ability to pay calculus?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 26, 2009 at 2052 hrs
Any Human Resource Director could give you the data on the costs of their health insurance and what percentage of the compensation is consumed by insurance. The Healthy Wisconsin Plan was not “free” and not “government run”. It was a means to make insurance more affordable for the working people.
Those that are not working are blamed for wanting free health care paid for by xxpilot. NEWS FLASH: You are already paying for them even if they do work but don’t have insurance. They are the BadgerCare Plus recipients who do not pay anything for their share of expenses and they are many. Why shouldn’t they pay a share (percentage of wage) of their health insurance?
Many people that have money are able to get on BadgerCare. Our local grocery store owner is able to be on it because he has several kids and does not pay himself more than the limit. His business is fine but for now we will pay his insurance.
For those that work in a large company, ask what the costs are for health insurance and run the numbers provided in Healthy Wisconsin. You will find that any decent insurance coverage is costing your employer 50% to 100% more. I know this is true with government, look what government workers get and see if you think they shouldn’t be paying their share as well.
I can see some of your points Owen but most would actually cost us more. I am surprised that you are advocating for more welfare instead of medicare (that one made no sense). Do you want to tell JJ’s father that he will be denied his knee replacement after he paid all his life to earn the right to his health care. In that atmosphere they will take everything you own before you get anything for free.
Healthy Wisconsin would save money, not be the big costly program you people are complaining about. You have not really looked at it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 26, 2009 at 2340 hrs
Any Human Resource Director could give you the data on the costs of theirhealth insurance and what percentage of the compensation is consumed byinsurance.
And any CFO can give you the data on the tax burden on the company. Corporate income taxes, unemployment taxes, social security matching taxes, medicare matching taxes.
Businesses are learning that the biggest reason they are hurting is the cost of health insurance and not the dreaded taxes. They are forced to spend $1000 or more a month for insurance or risk losing good workers. Do you think they spend more than that for taxes? [/b}
Are you smoking crack? So a company of 30 employees spends 30,000 a year on health insurance if the company pays the whole share. (most don’t) You want to compare that to the aggregate tax burden for a company of 30 employees? Do you really need to see the math on this?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 27, 2009 at 0940 hrs
Healthy Wisconsin would save money, not be the big costly program you people are complaining about. You have not really looked at it.
I’m sure on paper it all looks REAL good MF. The history of how government programs really work when they are actually implemented is something you “have not really looked at”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 27, 2009 at 0942 hrs
Do you really need to see the math on this?
Yes, please.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 27, 2009 at 0949 hrs
Here is what the now retired CEO of the USA’s largest employer had to say about health care.
A conversation with Lee Scott, CEO of Wal-Mart
I bet he has done the math.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 27, 2009 at 1006 hrs
Does this help xxp?
Healthcare Costs and U.S. Competitiveness
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 27, 2009 at 1027 hrs
pjr. in #30
Sorry, I don’t have 46 minutes to watch a video. Perhaps you could be supportive of your arguement and pull a quote???
Second, I am aware that Wal-mart wants to shed costs by placing the healthcare costs on its workers on society.
#31. I see nothing in this article that compares the cost of taxes on a company to the cost of healthcare.
I’ve never claimed healthcare wasn’t expensive. When unhealthy, overweight, non-exercizing, americans that have a love-affair with “pharaceutical cures” would rather go to the doctor and have a script written for a pill than change their lifestyle, one can be ASSURED that insurance (which is just a form of private socialism) costs are going to RISE. Americans, your healthcare is expensive for many reasons, and one of the MAIN ones is SUPPLY AND DEMAND! I prefer a system that doesn’t BIND one to paying for an expensive system, but rather a private system that those with healthier lifestyles can choose not to participate in or choose plans more suitable to their “risk” level.
MF claimed healthcare was more of a burden on a company than taxes. I say bullshit. I know what our company spends on healthcare and I know what we pay in taxes and I’m here to tell you ITS NOT EVEN FUCKING CLOSE
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 27, 2009 at 1100 hrs
...and futhermore, when healthcare becomes too much of a burden, we can shed the expense. You might not like it, you might think thats “horrible” but if its that or shut the doors its an each choice. Healthcare will never drive us out of business. Try saying “no” to uncle sam once. See where that gets you.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 27, 2009 at 1102 hrs
They are forced to spend $1000 or more a month for insurance
Are you smoking crack? So a company of 30 employees spends 30,000 a year on health insurance if the company pays the whole share. (most don’t) You want to compare that to the aggregate tax burden for a company of 30 employees? Do you really need to see the math on this?
I see the genius in your math xxp.
30 employees X 12,000 (that’s 1,000 per month times 12) = $360,000 (granted some pay pay more in taxes but that’s a shitload)
Right now they pay the $360,000 plus their property taxes. I see if you apply the savings of 25% that they could save $90,000 or more on health insurance.
I am glad that you can attack my crack habit with your stellar math skills and reading comprehension.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 27, 2009 at 1511 hrs
pjr said - New York must be a very pro business state. That is a little disingenuous when you read the article and find that the insurance companies weren’t going after Dr. Muney, the State officials were….
A New York City doctor whose low-cost health care plan angered state officials has agreed to increase his fees.
The state Insurance Department told Dr. John Muney last month to end the $79-a-month medical service at his AMG Medical Group clinics in all five boroughs. Department spokesman Andy Mais says Muney was violating state law by basically operating as an insurance operator without a license.
The monthly fee buys unlimited office visits, including certain tests and in-office surgeries.
Muney will charge $33 per visit for all but preventive care, which Mais says brings him in compliance. Muney’s spokesman says he’ll challenge the restrictions through legislation.
Muney, a former surgeon, started offering the $79-a-month plan in 2008.
I saw him interviewed and said as much that he wanted to help those that didn’t have insurance by offering this program as a way of “giving back” to the country that has allowed him to prosper. You know - charity - freely given.
MoveForward -
The cost to the employer to provide coverage for employees varies greatly by the plan, the administrator, the geographic location, etc.
Our company is “self-funded” - they pay for an administrator to handle the claims and to get a local network of docs and their negotiated rates. It isn’t “insurance” in the true sense, but more of a pay-as-you-go with a lifetime maximum. Our max is like $2MM per person. The contribution amount is based on salary. I pay just shy of $200 per month as my contribution for family coverage. Then there is a schedule of copays - $15 for a regular doc, $30 for a specialist, $50 for an ER visit, $150 for an ambulance ride, $300 for an in-patient stay. The most annoying thing is that they push the mail-order prescriptions, so if you have to get meds for a sick kid at Walgreen’s it costs more, but I can’t complain about it. Good coverage, certainly not MPS or government coverage, but good. I haven’t run across anything that hasn’t been covered, our docs have been very good. We have an on-line thing where they post the cost/value of our benefits. We average about 30% of salary in fringe bennies. That is an approximate “normal” percentage in the private sector. The public sector really skews the percentage with their 50, 60 and 70% figures - so yeah, I get a little miffed when the teachers and AFSCME want to raise my taxes to pay for their bennies. But I digress.
Last time I checked the corporate tax rate was 35% right? Isn’t that higher than 30%? Add in the medicare and SS taxes paid by the employer and the unemployment fees and workers comp, and all the permits and regulations and people needed to comply with all the government mandates, rules and regulations. Altogether, I would say that the government is far more of a burden on employers than health insurance expenses.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 27, 2009 at 1722 hrs
I wanted to expand on the working model the xxpilot started here as compared to the Healthy Wisconsin Plan.
Take those 30 employees and lets assume they make $50,000 per year. under the HW plan the employer would pay 10-12% and the employee would pay 4-5%.
This company under HW would pay $150,000 -$180,000 in annual premiums cumulatively, or $500 monthly per employee. The employees would be paying $60,000-$75,000 cumulatively or $2000-$2500 individually per year or about $166-$208 per month.
Now apply that model to our government on all levels and realize why your taxes are so high.
I will wait to hear from you but I would take this deal anyday and know that it helped to cover others.
Obamas plan is not the same, I hope the discussion turns to the single payer plan so that everyone is paying in.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 27, 2009 at 1728 hrs
JJ
I agree that you have a decent plan and I would stay there unless things would improve elsewhere.Healthy Wisconsin has co-pays and doctor visit fees as well to prevent those that visit with every sniffle etc. you are correct that it varies with geography and access to facilities but the fact remains that Wisconsin has one of the highest cost of premiums per average.
When I compare the cost of health insurance to taxes, I was using the property tax only. The other taxes were not figured in and not affected. I am guessing that they would continue as is.
Property taxes would be affected in a good way as our school, local government, county and state employees would have to pay 4% like everyone else. The cost of health insurance that hits your property tax bill is outrageous when all these employees are considered.
Some food for thought.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 27, 2009 at 1743 hrs
MF -
Huh?
Honestly, I don’t follow your logic on the property tax thing. Especially since the original comment was the cost of health insurance as compared to taxes for the businesses.
The vast majority of property tax dollars in WI go to the schools. If we made the school districts go to the same type of self-funded program with the contributions and co-pays that my company has, wouldn’t that have a bigger effect and be more efficient than letting the state control it? See my example above about the state employees health plan in my new state of NC paying over $15 per claim processed because of the political buddy system (Democrat btw) when a competitive bid found thru an open records request showed one bidder at 57 cents per claim processed - that amounted to a couple hundred million dollars per year to the buddy company. Do you really think WI would administer Healthy Wisconsin any less corruptly than the NC example? Really?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 27, 2009 at 1833 hrs
pjr said - New York must be a very pro business state. That is a little disingenuous
Yep. It was meant to be completely facetious and sarcastic.
when you read the article and find that the insurance companies weren’t going after Dr. Muney, the State officials were….
JJ, the origin & title of the story was Fox News carrying an AP story. I did not change a word.
Guess I shouldn’t have taken their “Fair and Balanced” trademark literally.
You know - charity - freely given.
Except it wasn’t free. And He isn’t breaking even on it, though he would like to.
I am not questioning his motives or the goodness of his heart. Just pointing out that it sounds like the business model might need some tweaking.
The public sector really skews the percentage with their 50, 60 and 70% figures
Where did you get those percentages?
This is what I was able to find?
Employee Benefits as a Percentage of Total Compensation Costs, by Occupation and Industry
• Among service occupations, benefits accounted for the highest percentage of total compensation costs
in state and local governments (37.4 percent in September 2004). Among teachers, benefits
accounted for the lowest percentage of total compensation costs (25.7 percent).
• In public administration, benefits accounted for the highest percentage of total compensation costs in state and local governments (36.2 percent in September 2004). In elementary and secondary education services, benefits had the lowest percentage of total compensation costs (27.8 percent).http://www.ebri.org/pdf/publications/facts/0305fact.pdf
xxp, if you don’t want to listen to what Lee Scott had to say fine, I’m not going to spoon feed you.
Yeah I know, Wal-Mart bad, I have heard that before
Here’s a bit from the introduction of the CFR’s paper,
Factoring in costs borne by the government, the private sector, and individuals, the United States spends over $1.9 trillion annually on healthcare expenses, more than any other industrialized country. Researchers at Johns Hopkins Medical School estimate the United States spends 44 percent more per capita than Switzerland, the country with the second highest expenditures, and 134 percent more than the median for member states of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). These costs prompt fears that an increasing number of U.S. businesses will outsource jobs overseas or offshore business operations completely. U.S. economic woes have heightened the burden of healthcare costs both on individuals and businesses.
The United States spent 16 percent of its GDP in 2007 on health care, higher than any other developed nation.
Total (business & personal) tax revenue in the US for 2008 was about 18% of GDP.
Here’s that source: http://www.project.org/info.php?recordID=151
And here’s a breakdown: http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/article/0,,id=102886,00.html
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 28, 2009 at 0403 hrs
pjr asked
Where did you get those percentages?
In the Milwaukee area, there are more, but here’s one for starters off of a very quick google…..
Milwaukee Public Schools: 51 cents, and 55 cents projected in 2004.Milwaukee County: 47 cents, and soaring to a projected 65 cents in 2004.
from a 2003 study (yes, its old but the percentages aren’t going down)
http://www3.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=185469&format=print
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 28, 2009 at 0928 hrs
xxp, if you don’t want to listen to what Lee Scott had to say fine, I’m not going to spoon feed you.
Sorry pjr, I don’t have 46 minutes to watch your little video.
If you can’t expend the brain cell to offer up a quote or two then I guess we have nothing to debate.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 29, 2009 at 1233 hrs
Thanks JJ,
I am trying to figure out why you used an article subtitled
Some local governments far exceed national average in perks for employees
To make your point.
The article refutes just about everything you stated.
JJ
We average about 30% of salary in fringe bennies. That is an approximate “normal” percentage in the private sector.
Article
The average spending for benefits at large private companies is 45 cents on the dollar, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
It occurs to me you are really getting screwed at 30% JJ
JJ
The public sector really skews the percentage with their 50, 60 and 70% figures - so yeah, I get a little miffed when the teachers and AFSCME want to raise my taxes to pay for their bennies
Article
That’s (the private sector that is) slightly more generous than the 43-cent figure for state and local governments.
And guess what,
JJ
from a 2003 study (yes, its old but the percentages aren’t going down)
If you take a look at the EBRI publication I referenced in #39, the national percentages have gone down.
What has not gone down of course is the average 10% annual increase in health care costs in Wisconsin since 2003.
I sure hope Scotty has gotten the county’s percentages down, wasn’t it the central platform plank of his initial election?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 29, 2009 at 2008 hrs
Should have read.
Article
The average spending for benefits at large private companies is 45 cents on the dollar, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
It occurs to me you are really getting screwed at 30% JJ
And guess what,
JJ
from a 2003 study (yes, its old but the percentages aren’t going down)
If you take a look at the EBRI publication I referenced in #39, the national percentages have gone down. And yes, BLS is also the source for their data.
What has not gone down of course is the average 10% annual increase in health care costs in Wisconsin since 2003.
I sure hope Scotty has gotten the county’s percentages down, wasn’t it the central platform plank of his initial election?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 29, 2009 at 2015 hrs
So if all the percentages of healthcare as a percentage of wages have been going down since 2003 as pjr is indicating above….
What’s all the hullaballo about the massive increase in the cost of healthcare that will doom us all in the next 6 months unless we pass a single payer system and give control to the Obama government RIGHT NOW because people are being denied care all over the place and dying out there so it has to be done without any debate or amendments or by letting the citizens have any input by sliding it in thru reconciliation!!!! <sarc off>
On a serious note, if in fact, the percentages are falling, then the problem with skyrocketing costs are in the entitlements of Medicare and Medicaid and turning over complete control to the same group that runs these two programs is the absolute wrong thing to do.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 30, 2009 at 1138 hrs
On a serious note, if in fact, the percentages are falling, then the problem with skyrocketing costs are in the entitlements of Medicare and Medicaid and turning over complete control to the same group that runs these two programs is the absolute wrong thing to do.
Seriously, that is the only reason you can think of that the percentages would change?
And in this case decrease?
JJ, I hope your job does not involve critical thinking.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 30, 2009 at 1501 hrs
and pjr - since we have decided to descend into ridicule and namecalling - I hope your job doesn’t involve finance or math.
It is very simple really. All we have been hearing from those screaming for socialized medicine (we have to do something) is how the costs are skyrocketing, that businesses would actually save money if we did this, yada yada… Those same people are generally the same crew lamenting that wages haven’t been going up - that they are actually down after inflation is taken into account, blah blah….
The math is very simple. If you increase the numerator (health care costs) and the denominator stays the same or decreases (wages) then then percentages would be increasing. If the percentages are actually decreasing then the math and the underlying assumptions are, uh, inaccurate.
Its really all a truck-load of s..t from people that just want to control everything.
There are a bunch of really good ideas laid out above that need to be looked at before we let the government decide what medicines and treatments are appropriate for us.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 30, 2009 at 1737 hrs
The math is very simple.
Exactly JJ.
If you increase the numerator (health care costs) and the denominator stays the same or decreases (wages) then then percentages would be increasing.
That would be true if the employer’s percentage contribution for benefits was also a constant.
My guess is that the percentage has decreased or that the $ amount has been capped.
What’s your guess?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 30, 2009 at 2132 hrs
Total Entries: 19656
Total Comments: 129831
Most Recent Entry: 02/11/2012 09:52 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 02/11/2012 04:55 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 108
Total anonymous users: 1
Most Recent Visitor on: 02/11/2012 11:07 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).