Re: OT universal health care


"Dutch" <no@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:gde9pg$i03$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Beldin the Sorcerer" <beldinyyz@xxxxxxxxxxx> blabbered incognicantly..

"Dutch" <no@xxxxxxxxx> wrote

According to Obama, employers will be able to continue to provide
the same
plans to their employees as they do presently.

Thank you. There won't be any incentive for them to lessen
coverage will
there?

I don't see why they would. They obviously see it as a tool to
reward their employees and keep them happy and productive. If
anything they might make it better to make sure people are not
tempted to move to other companies which supply government
insurance.

Or they'll drop it entirely to save money, because the government
will take care of it.

The government will take care of what?
Paying for their employees health care.

That's not how it works dumbass, get a frigging clue.

Yep, you're a retard.
That's EXACTLT how it works.
I EXPLAINED it to you, and like the drunken shithead you are, you deleted
it.

I did you a favor, ***-4-brains.

Read the rest of the post again, dumbass.

Not necessary.

Why would they suddenly replace it with a state insurance plan when they
could replace it with some cheaper HMO plan now?

Because dropping coverage entirely is often cheaper than continuing it.

They can't just "drop" coverage even if they wanted to.
Yes, they can.
They pay the fine for not providing it.
They do the math, and see it's cheaper.

I live in MASS, Dutch, We HAVE 'Mandatory insurance' and that's EXACTLY what
some employers are doing now.



Because it won't be a cheaper HMO, it'll be a more expensive one, quite
often.

Good Christ man, you're just tying yourself in knots. They offer a
gold-plated insurance scheme now, they quite obviously COULD offer a
cheaper one if they chose.

Not ALL employers offer gold plated anything.
Many have limited health insurance, because not offering it at all means
weaker applicants.
With a government pool, they can deal with it much more simply and cheaply,
and the employees STILL have coverage.



They obviously view this
insurance plan as a valuable incentive to their employees.
They view it as a requirement to get employees NOW.

Or to keep existing ones.
Again, only if there's no other choices for insurance.


With government insurance, it ceases to be.

Why would it become any less of a benefit to them to offer a gold-plated
insurance scheme just because a government plan appears on the scene?
Dutch, do you, in that convoluted brain, think EVERY employer offers gold
plated insurance?



Explain yourself.

I did.


Some employers have dropped it in Mass, since "Universal care" came
here.

Nobody is saying some will not opt for it. The state insurance is
probably better in many cases.
No, the state insurance sucks.

It's the same plan that members of the US Senate and other federal
employees presently get.
No, you idiot.
It's lousy insurance. It's either high deductable, or high co-pay or both.
Where the HELL did you get the totally misguided idea that the Commonwealth
of Mass is providing public insurance to match the BEST private insurance in
the country, that of the US congress?



It's inferior to most HMO's.

What is? According to whom?
The public health insurance offerings of Mass.

Christ, can't you read?


The fees the businesses need to PAY, by
contrast, are lower than the costs of insuring the workers. It's that
whole
self interest thing.

Again, if the company wanted to offer an inferior health plan they would
already be doing so. It is in their best interests to continue to do so as
long as they believe they need to offer extra incentives to get and keep
employees. As usual, you are running your mouth and nothing is hanging
together.
Dutch, you failed math how many times?

Health insurance is offered because failing to do so gets you lousy workers.

If there's government insurance, that goes out the window.





.

Loading