Re: Ah, the glories of national health care

Quiet, "mianderson" <clayabc@xxxxxxxxxx> -- I'm transmitting rage.

On Mar 10, 7:57 pm, James Schrumpf
<jaspammenotschru...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Quiet, "mianderson" <clay...@xxxxxxxxxx> -- I'm transmitting rage.

On Mar 10, 5:29 pm, James Schrumpf
<jaspammenotschru...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
It does seem odd when I think of it that most people get their
insurance through work as a benefit (though not a completely paid
benefit). I assume this is because they get group rates from
having boatloads of people sign up.

Yes "group rates" do lower the rate some, but the bigger benefit
for
most people is that the employer is picking up a ton of the tab.

In my case, I pay about $700/month and my employer kicks in
$500/month. I wouldn't call that "picking up a ton of the tab."

1) most people without insurance today don't have 700/month to pay for
it anyway
2) even at $500 month x all the people without insurance = a massive
gov program at massive cost





Why couldn't a similar plan be in effect through a government
plan? NOT where the government picks up the tab completely, but
where it provides a HUGE group of people to various insurers for
lower rates?

well then that would require the gov't subsidizing unisured
people.....ie "national health care". If the gov't pays $600 a
month of a family's plan and the family only pays $200, then that
sounds like something democrats would propose(and I'm guessing you
wouldn't support). It would be insanely expensive as well.

Well, it's not my concept of "national health care", in which the
victims would go to "government" hospitals/clinics and see
"government" doctors. Like VA is now, or plain old Army or Navy
hospitals.

I'm picturing more of a subsidy to those people who could choose from
a variety of plans offered by private providers. If you want to call
that "national health care", I won't really argue. But my caveat is
still that I won't have to give up my current plans; this would just
be for those who are now uninsured.

well sure, but imo it would be the worst of both worlds. You'd still
be paying a ton(1200 a month in you and your employers contributions)
for your plan, and then there would be a massive govt program(from
which we would all pay a ton) to subsidize 40-50 million uninsured at
massive costs. In effect you'd be getting hit twice.





All I seem to hear about is "National Heath Care", which seems to
be "socialized health care."

A great deal of our health care is already socialized(medicare).
Even without going to a one payer system, that component is only
going to increase because with health care costs going the way they
are a lot of people in their 30s, 40s who are now on their employer
group plans(or even state employees with plans) will see themselves
shifted to medicare when they hit medicare age since a lot of large
employers just simply aren't funding their retirement health plans
to sufficient levels(in terms of what they have promised in the
past)

I wonder. I've seen a lot more employers offer "long-term health
care" which is targeted to go beyond retirement. I haven't yet
looked into them, though I no doubt will soon.

Programs aimed at providing health care insurance to retirees costs a
ridiculous amount to the employer........the oft-cited figure about
how it cost GM some insane amount *per car* going to employee health
benefits(a good deal for retirees) is the best example of this(it's
1800 dollars per car). The airlines are going through the same thing
of course.

Here's a quote from money magazine: "Retiree health care costs have
become a major competitive burden for the automaker, adding thousands
of dollars per vehicle. Of the estimated $5.6 billion GM is spending
on health care this year, about $4 billion is spent to cover retirees
and their families."



It wouldn't be $500/person/month. My insurance is for my entire family.
If my insurance was only for me, it would be much much less.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Schrumpf http://www.hilltopper.net

Play like your couch is on fire!
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Why is number without health insurance increasing?
    ... We want everyone to have access to health care, ... Insurance is one approach. ... We also have a history of insurance companies minimizing risk by cherry ... also be required of any employer or other group based insurance. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Ah, the glories of national health care
    ... insurance through work as a benefit (though not a completely paid ... most people is that the employer is picking up a ton of the tab. ... a variety of plans offered by private providers. ... that "national health care", I won't really argue. ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Re: Phony Controversy
    ... of buying the specific plans they want. ... not the customer, the employer is. ... the insurance and let them make the financial decisions. ... i.e. incentive to the employee to stay with the business, ...
    (rec.sport.golf)
  • Re: Abolish the Laws of Mathematics
    ... The elected leaders of Massachusetts have just voted to "abolish the ... employers that don't provide insurance. ... uninsured residents whose health care costs average $6,000 a year. ... plans, between private insurance and publicly funded health care. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Ah, the glories of national health care
    ... I assume this is because they get group rates from having ... I pay about $700/month and my employer kicks in $500/month. ... Well, it's not my concept of "national health care", in which the victims ... variety of plans offered by private providers. ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
Loading