I'm actually fine with companies dropping coverage as long as the employee is partially reimbursed for the loss of benefits. I'm sure that they expect a response from the their workforce in the form of a demand for higher wages. That money (combined with the partial premiums they are already paying), will buy them the same or better coverage in the exchange.
How about that? In the end the company probably saves a few bucks in "logistics", the government gets money in form of the penalties, and the employee can still take little Johnny to the doctor for a free antibiotic script.
Obamacare! Good or Bad?
Please distinguish health care providers (nurses, doctors, tharapists, etc) from HMO's and pharmaceutical companies; the former have reasons in addition to vocation for doing what they do, the latter are businesses whose sole reasons for existence are profit and growth. A little scarey that government-operated health care is neither...
ancient gumby,
whatsa gumby?
whatsa gumby?
So by "free antibiotic script" you are referring to the government program that will cost $1T over 10 years providing only 8 years of service?
Do the math. That's $300 a year for every man, woman, and child in this nation. All of them. That's $900 I'm paying in taxes for a year for my household. That would be a bargain if I didn't already have health coverage I will be paying for. Of course, I could not pay for that coverage, pay the fine, and be on the gubmint's health plan.
Of course, that $900 tax liability is assuming that EVERYBODY is covering their own share. What about Steve in the trailer park who's been on unemployment and welfare his whole life? Who's covering his $300? What about little Suzy who lives in an orphanage? She's not even old enough to get a job. Who is picking up her tax liability?
All of a sudden, that "free antibiotic script" doesn't seem so free...
Do the math. That's $300 a year for every man, woman, and child in this nation. All of them. That's $900 I'm paying in taxes for a year for my household. That would be a bargain if I didn't already have health coverage I will be paying for. Of course, I could not pay for that coverage, pay the fine, and be on the gubmint's health plan.
Of course, that $900 tax liability is assuming that EVERYBODY is covering their own share. What about Steve in the trailer park who's been on unemployment and welfare his whole life? Who's covering his $300? What about little Suzy who lives in an orphanage? She's not even old enough to get a job. Who is picking up her tax liability?
All of a sudden, that "free antibiotic script" doesn't seem so free...
Sure is a lot of fun while you're doing it...
No, what I mean by free is that many pharmacies now offer basic antibiotics for free or low fee ($1.00 for example).
I'm not saying healthcare for free, but if you think your $300.00 scenario outlined above is any different than it has been or will continue to be, I would say you are mistaken. You have been funding Steve in the trailer park and poor orphan Suzy all along, just in a different way.
Again, my point is that if an employee can take the same money they pay out of pocket now for premiums and continue to get the same (or better) coverage through a different means, what is the problem?
I'm not saying healthcare for free, but if you think your $300.00 scenario outlined above is any different than it has been or will continue to be, I would say you are mistaken. You have been funding Steve in the trailer park and poor orphan Suzy all along, just in a different way.
Again, my point is that if an employee can take the same money they pay out of pocket now for premiums and continue to get the same (or better) coverage through a different means, what is the problem?
-
michaelarmand
- Posts: 527
- Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 1:08 pm
The problem is that you are dead wrong about this whole debate Brad. Socialism fails everywhere it is attempted, including with medicine. Steve in the trailer park currently only has access to health care in the emergency room or free clinics. He will not get a knee replacement, he will not be able to see the doctor of his choice, he will not be able to get physical therapy, he has lousy access to care!!bcombs wrote:No, what I mean by free is that many pharmacies now offer basic antibiotics for free or low fee ($1.00 for example).
I'm not saying healthcare for free, but if you think your $300.00 scenario outlined above is any different than it has been or will continue to be, I would say you are mistaken. You have been funding Steve in the trailer park and poor orphan Suzy all along, just in a different way.
Again, my point is that if an employee can take the same money they pay out of pocket now for premiums and continue to get the same (or better) coverage through a different means, what is the problem?
You say this is a bad thing? For Steve maybe - but it should motivate him to get a job!
Your solution is to give all of us the same access to care that Steve will get. Steve won't have to pay, or work for it. Those of us working will no longer be as motivated to produce, knowing that we can quit our jobs, and somebody else will pay for our (government run) health care. It is pure socialism...
I've been a gumby longer than you've been climbing.
Mike, I'm pretty sure you would think I'm dead wrong about just about everything.
Maybe I just don't live in your world. I don't drive to work everyday being pissed off that I have to work and some other guy is being a bum and getting welfare. If I wanted to, I could also be a bum and get welfare. Have you seen Office Space?
"Well, you don't need a million dollars to do nothing, man. Take a look at my cousin: he's broke, don't do shit."
Maybe I just don't live in your world. I don't drive to work everyday being pissed off that I have to work and some other guy is being a bum and getting welfare. If I wanted to, I could also be a bum and get welfare. Have you seen Office Space?
"Well, you don't need a million dollars to do nothing, man. Take a look at my cousin: he's broke, don't do shit."