Backdoor to socialized medicine?

[briansd1]

[quote=flu]
You think $8500/yr per person is enough for small biz that is covering employees with a mix of ages including some in 45-50 years old with pre-existing conditions? Boy, like I suspected, you only looked at rates for yourself, you’re probably young, and haven’t had any medical issues. I hope for your sake that continues.[/quote]

It’s $8,500 per person if single, and $23,000 for a family.

flu, there is a good chance that your family’s health insurance plan is not costing your employer more than $23,000. That’s why I suggested that you check with your HR department.

If your company is paying substantially more, then you really should

1/ support the Bill because you company can participate in an insurance exchange that comprises million of employees. Your company will then benefit from the rate schedules of the exchange rather than be constrained to its own small group rating.

2/ or better yet, wish for a government-run single-payer system. Your company would pay out all compensation in salaries and the government would take care of health care. One less worry for company executives.

Like ocrenter posted before, a single payer system is business friendly because it obviates the need for businesses to provide health insurance.

Additionally, employees would never be insurance-locked to jobs so they’ll be free to become entrepreneurs and innovate, if they wish.

[afx114]

[quote=SK in CV]But on the 2nd part, you are simply wrong. Single payer is not socialism. Canada essentially has single payer but they do not have socialized medicine. Most retirees in this country are covered by a single system. Medicare is not socialized medicine. You may be opposed to a single-payer system, but fearing it because it’s socialism is fearing the boogie man.[/quote]

Damn. Once again I forgot my /snark tag and got my post mis-interpreted. I was attempting to point out that many opponents like to claim that the bill will kill business while at the same time opposing single payer — which would have solved the very problem they are talking about.

Both sides seem to agree that insurance should be decoupled from employment. Single payer is a great option to do so, but then the socialism boogie man comes out and it’s all over.

I would have preferred single payer to what we ended up with, but fall in the “it’s better than nothing” camp.

[afx114]

[quote=SK in CV]But on the 2nd part, you are simply wrong. Single payer is not socialism. Canada essentially has single payer but they do not have socialized medicine. Most retirees in this country are covered by a single system. Medicare is not socialized medicine. You may be opposed to a single-payer system, but fearing it because it’s socialism is fearing the boogie man.[/quote]

Damn. Once again I forgot my /snark tag and got my post mis-interpreted. I was attempting to point out that many opponents like to claim that the bill will kill business while at the same time opposing single payer — which would have solved the very problem they are talking about.

Both sides seem to agree that insurance should be decoupled from employment. Single payer is a great option to do so, but then the socialism boogie man comes out and it’s all over.

I would have preferred single payer to what we ended up with, but fall in the “it’s better than nothing” camp.

[afx114]

[quote=SK in CV]But on the 2nd part, you are simply wrong. Single payer is not socialism. Canada essentially has single payer but they do not have socialized medicine. Most retirees in this country are covered by a single system. Medicare is not socialized medicine. You may be opposed to a single-payer system, but fearing it because it’s socialism is fearing the boogie man.[/quote]

Damn. Once again I forgot my /snark tag and got my post mis-interpreted. I was attempting to point out that many opponents like to claim that the bill will kill business while at the same time opposing single payer — which would have solved the very problem they are talking about.

Both sides seem to agree that insurance should be decoupled from employment. Single payer is a great option to do so, but then the socialism boogie man comes out and it’s all over.

I would have preferred single payer to what we ended up with, but fall in the “it’s better than nothing” camp.

[afx114]

[quote=SK in CV]But on the 2nd part, you are simply wrong. Single payer is not socialism. Canada essentially has single payer but they do not have socialized medicine. Most retirees in this country are covered by a single system. Medicare is not socialized medicine. You may be opposed to a single-payer system, but fearing it because it’s socialism is fearing the boogie man.[/quote]

Damn. Once again I forgot my /snark tag and got my post mis-interpreted. I was attempting to point out that many opponents like to claim that the bill will kill business while at the same time opposing single payer — which would have solved the very problem they are talking about.

Both sides seem to agree that insurance should be decoupled from employment. Single payer is a great option to do so, but then the socialism boogie man comes out and it’s all over.

I would have preferred single payer to what we ended up with, but fall in the “it’s better than nothing” camp.

[afx114]

[quote=SK in CV]But on the 2nd part, you are simply wrong. Single payer is not socialism. Canada essentially has single payer but they do not have socialized medicine. Most retirees in this country are covered by a single system. Medicare is not socialized medicine. You may be opposed to a single-payer system, but fearing it because it’s socialism is fearing the boogie man.[/quote]

Damn. Once again I forgot my /snark tag and got my post mis-interpreted. I was attempting to point out that many opponents like to claim that the bill will kill business while at the same time opposing single payer — which would have solved the very problem they are talking about.

Both sides seem to agree that insurance should be decoupled from employment. Single payer is a great option to do so, but then the socialism boogie man comes out and it’s all over.

I would have preferred single payer to what we ended up with, but fall in the “it’s better than nothing” camp.

[SK in CV]

[quote=afx114]

Damn. Once again I forgot my /snark tag and got my post mis-interpreted. I was attempting to point out that many opponents like to claim that the bill will kill business while at the same time opposing single payer — which would have solved the very problem they are talking about.

Both sides seem to agree that insurance should be decoupled from employment. Single payer is a great option to do so, but then the socialism boogie man comes out and it’s all over.

I would have preferred single payer to what we ended up with, but fall in the “it’s better than nothing” camp.[/quote]

My apologies. We are in total agreement.

[SK in CV]

[quote=afx114]

Damn. Once again I forgot my /snark tag and got my post mis-interpreted. I was attempting to point out that many opponents like to claim that the bill will kill business while at the same time opposing single payer — which would have solved the very problem they are talking about.

Both sides seem to agree that insurance should be decoupled from employment. Single payer is a great option to do so, but then the socialism boogie man comes out and it’s all over.

I would have preferred single payer to what we ended up with, but fall in the “it’s better than nothing” camp.[/quote]

My apologies. We are in total agreement.

[SK in CV]

[quote=afx114]

Damn. Once again I forgot my /snark tag and got my post mis-interpreted. I was attempting to point out that many opponents like to claim that the bill will kill business while at the same time opposing single payer — which would have solved the very problem they are talking about.

Both sides seem to agree that insurance should be decoupled from employment. Single payer is a great option to do so, but then the socialism boogie man comes out and it’s all over.

I would have preferred single payer to what we ended up with, but fall in the “it’s better than nothing” camp.[/quote]

My apologies. We are in total agreement.

[SK in CV]

[quote=afx114]

Damn. Once again I forgot my /snark tag and got my post mis-interpreted. I was attempting to point out that many opponents like to claim that the bill will kill business while at the same time opposing single payer — which would have solved the very problem they are talking about.

Both sides seem to agree that insurance should be decoupled from employment. Single payer is a great option to do so, but then the socialism boogie man comes out and it’s all over.

I would have preferred single payer to what we ended up with, but fall in the “it’s better than nothing” camp.[/quote]

My apologies. We are in total agreement.

[SK in CV]

[quote=afx114]

Damn. Once again I forgot my /snark tag and got my post mis-interpreted. I was attempting to point out that many opponents like to claim that the bill will kill business while at the same time opposing single payer — which would have solved the very problem they are talking about.

Both sides seem to agree that insurance should be decoupled from employment. Single payer is a great option to do so, but then the socialism boogie man comes out and it’s all over.

I would have preferred single payer to what we ended up with, but fall in the “it’s better than nothing” camp.[/quote]

My apologies. We are in total agreement.

[Jim Jones]

[quote=briansd1][quote=flu]
You think $8500/yr per person is enough for small biz that is covering employees with a mix of ages including some in 45-50 years old with pre-existing conditions? Boy, like I suspected, you only looked at rates for yourself, you’re probably young, and haven’t had any medical issues. I hope for your sake that continues.[/quote]

It’s $8,500 per person if single, and $23,000 for a family.

flu, there is a good chance that your family’s health insurance plan is not costing your employer more than $23,000. That’s why I suggested that you check with your HR department.

If your company is paying substantially more, then you really should

1/ support the Bill because you company can participate in an insurance exchange that comprises million of employees. Your company will then benefit from the rate schedules of the exchange rather than be constrained to its own small group rating.

2/ or better yet, wish for a government-run single-payer system. Your company would pay out all compensation in salaries and the government would take care of health care. One less worry for company executives.

Like ocrenter posted before, a single payer system is business friendly because it obviates the need for businesses to provide health insurance.

Additionally, employees would never be insurance-locked to jobs so they’ll be free to become entrepreneurs and innovate, if they wish.[/quote]

What the single payer system would do is externalize the costs of medial care from industry to another sector.

I like a single payer in a perfect world, but in a modern society with the costs it is not really something that adds up.

Look at the addition of user fees all over Canada and the UK for their national health services. $20 here $10 there adds up and is a form of rationing. This legislation goes in the opposite direction making all preventative care etc. free of these fees starting in 2018.

In order to control costs a free good required some rationing. When productive members of society are rationed they tend to get upset, I think that is part of the dissatisfaction with the legislation.

[Jim Jones]

[quote=briansd1][quote=flu]
You think $8500/yr per person is enough for small biz that is covering employees with a mix of ages including some in 45-50 years old with pre-existing conditions? Boy, like I suspected, you only looked at rates for yourself, you’re probably young, and haven’t had any medical issues. I hope for your sake that continues.[/quote]

It’s $8,500 per person if single, and $23,000 for a family.

flu, there is a good chance that your family’s health insurance plan is not costing your employer more than $23,000. That’s why I suggested that you check with your HR department.

If your company is paying substantially more, then you really should

1/ support the Bill because you company can participate in an insurance exchange that comprises million of employees. Your company will then benefit from the rate schedules of the exchange rather than be constrained to its own small group rating.

2/ or better yet, wish for a government-run single-payer system. Your company would pay out all compensation in salaries and the government would take care of health care. One less worry for company executives.

Like ocrenter posted before, a single payer system is business friendly because it obviates the need for businesses to provide health insurance.

Additionally, employees would never be insurance-locked to jobs so they’ll be free to become entrepreneurs and innovate, if they wish.[/quote]

What the single payer system would do is externalize the costs of medial care from industry to another sector.

I like a single payer in a perfect world, but in a modern society with the costs it is not really something that adds up.

Look at the addition of user fees all over Canada and the UK for their national health services. $20 here $10 there adds up and is a form of rationing. This legislation goes in the opposite direction making all preventative care etc. free of these fees starting in 2018.

In order to control costs a free good required some rationing. When productive members of society are rationed they tend to get upset, I think that is part of the dissatisfaction with the legislation.

[Jim Jones]

[quote=briansd1][quote=flu]
You think $8500/yr per person is enough for small biz that is covering employees with a mix of ages including some in 45-50 years old with pre-existing conditions? Boy, like I suspected, you only looked at rates for yourself, you’re probably young, and haven’t had any medical issues. I hope for your sake that continues.[/quote]

It’s $8,500 per person if single, and $23,000 for a family.

flu, there is a good chance that your family’s health insurance plan is not costing your employer more than $23,000. That’s why I suggested that you check with your HR department.

If your company is paying substantially more, then you really should

1/ support the Bill because you company can participate in an insurance exchange that comprises million of employees. Your company will then benefit from the rate schedules of the exchange rather than be constrained to its own small group rating.

2/ or better yet, wish for a government-run single-payer system. Your company would pay out all compensation in salaries and the government would take care of health care. One less worry for company executives.

Like ocrenter posted before, a single payer system is business friendly because it obviates the need for businesses to provide health insurance.

Additionally, employees would never be insurance-locked to jobs so they’ll be free to become entrepreneurs and innovate, if they wish.[/quote]

What the single payer system would do is externalize the costs of medial care from industry to another sector.

I like a single payer in a perfect world, but in a modern society with the costs it is not really something that adds up.

Look at the addition of user fees all over Canada and the UK for their national health services. $20 here $10 there adds up and is a form of rationing. This legislation goes in the opposite direction making all preventative care etc. free of these fees starting in 2018.

In order to control costs a free good required some rationing. When productive members of society are rationed they tend to get upset, I think that is part of the dissatisfaction with the legislation.

[Jim Jones]

[quote=briansd1][quote=flu]
You think $8500/yr per person is enough for small biz that is covering employees with a mix of ages including some in 45-50 years old with pre-existing conditions? Boy, like I suspected, you only looked at rates for yourself, you’re probably young, and haven’t had any medical issues. I hope for your sake that continues.[/quote]

It’s $8,500 per person if single, and $23,000 for a family.

flu, there is a good chance that your family’s health insurance plan is not costing your employer more than $23,000. That’s why I suggested that you check with your HR department.

If your company is paying substantially more, then you really should

1/ support the Bill because you company can participate in an insurance exchange that comprises million of employees. Your company will then benefit from the rate schedules of the exchange rather than be constrained to its own small group rating.

2/ or better yet, wish for a government-run single-payer system. Your company would pay out all compensation in salaries and the government would take care of health care. One less worry for company executives.

Like ocrenter posted before, a single payer system is business friendly because it obviates the need for businesses to provide health insurance.

Additionally, employees would never be insurance-locked to jobs so they’ll be free to become entrepreneurs and innovate, if they wish.[/quote]

What the single payer system would do is externalize the costs of medial care from industry to another sector.

I like a single payer in a perfect world, but in a modern society with the costs it is not really something that adds up.

Look at the addition of user fees all over Canada and the UK for their national health services. $20 here $10 there adds up and is a form of rationing. This legislation goes in the opposite direction making all preventative care etc. free of these fees starting in 2018.

In order to control costs a free good required some rationing. When productive members of society are rationed they tend to get upset, I think that is part of the dissatisfaction with the legislation.

[Author]

Posts