Company Dumps Healthcare Plan

[thereisnospoon]

If this employer could save so much money not giving his employees healthcare, why didn't he do it before now?

If you cannot figure that one out, there is really no point in allowing your input.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Sure? of course not. But evidence suggests that it can and does work in other countries. But we have seen that a private based system doesn't work for everyone.

No precisely the opposite. 4 countries in the EU were essentially bankrupted by socialized medicine and other entitlements.
The EU is forever indebted to Germany because but for that nation's prosperity( read they make stuff and have a robust economy) the EU would have collapsed under the weight of government giveaways with no possible resources to pay for them.

And Germany is the nation that started the whole socialized medicine gambit. And has the most generous policies for it's workers.

Development of the Health Care System in Germany

Nearly everyone residing in Germany is guaranteed access to high-quality comprehensive health care. Statutory health insurance (Gesetzliche Krankenversicherung--GKV) has provided an organizational framework for the delivery of public health care and has shaped the roles of payers, insurance or sickness funds, and providers, physicians, and hospitals since the Health Insurance Act was adopted in 1883. In 1885 the GKV provided medical protection for 26 percent of the lower-paid segments of the labor force, or 10 percent of the population. As with social insurance, health insurance coverage was gradually extended by including ever more occupational groups in the plan and by steadily raising the income ceiling. Those earning less than the ceiling were required to participate in the insurance program. In 1995 the income ceiling was an annual income of about DM70,00 in the old Länder and DM57,600 in the new Länder.



In 1901 transport and office workers came to be covered by public health insurance, followed in 1911 by agricultural and forestry workers and domestic servants, and in 1914 by civil servants. Coverage was extended to the unemployed in 1918, to seamen in 1927, and to all dependents in 1930. In 1941 legislation was passed that allowed workers whose incomes had risen above the income ceiling for compulsory membership to continue their insurance on a voluntary basis. The same year, coverage was extended to all retired Germans. Salespeople came under the plan in 1966, self-employed agricultural workers in 1972, and students and the disabled in 1975.

The 1883 health insurance law did not address the relationship between sickness funds and doctors. The funds had full authority to determine which doctors became participating doctors and to set the rules and conditions under which they did so. These rules and conditions were laid down in individual contracts. Doctors, who had grown increasingly dissatisfied with these contracts and their limited access to the practice of medicine with the sickness funds, mobilized and founded a professional association (Hartmannbund) in 1900 and even went on strike several times. In 1913 doctors and sickness funds established a system of collective bargaining to determine the distribution of licenses and doctors' remuneration. This approach is still practiced, although the system has undergone many modifications since 1913.

Non responsive. Germany is a prosperous country not because of social entitlements, but in spite of them. Germany is an exception to the norm.

 

[Contumacious]

The federal government ( taxpayers) pick up the difference.
And that is precisely the purpose of Obamacare. To create dependency on government.

The government picks up the difference when the minimum wage is kept low.

i'm not quite sure why they won't acknowledge that.

the bizarre thing about his post is that it totally and completely ignores the fact that the point, at least as stated by the heritage foundation, was for people to "take responsibility" and insure their own health care by using the private market... which is what the ACA does.

keeping wages and benefits artificially low is what keeps people dependent on the government.

I wonder how the fucktards define "private markets" ........I wonder if the shit heads consider an entity, which is regulated by the government to the max , a "private" market?


.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Sure? of course not. But evidence suggests that it can and does work in other countries. But we have seen that a private based system doesn't work for everyone.

No precisely the opposite. 4 countries in the EU were essentially bankrupted by socialized medicine and other entitlements.
The EU is forever indebted to Germany because but for that nation's prosperity( read they make stuff and have a robust economy) the EU would have collapsed under the weight of government giveaways with no possible resources to pay for them.

And Germany is the nation that started the whole socialized medicine gambit. And has the most generous policies for it's workers.

Development of the Health Care System in Germany

Nearly everyone residing in Germany is guaranteed access to high-quality comprehensive health care. Statutory health insurance (Gesetzliche Krankenversicherung--GKV) has provided an organizational framework for the delivery of public health care and has shaped the roles of payers, insurance or sickness funds, and providers, physicians, and hospitals since the Health Insurance Act was adopted in 1883. In 1885 the GKV provided medical protection for 26 percent of the lower-paid segments of the labor force, or 10 percent of the population. As with social insurance, health insurance coverage was gradually extended by including ever more occupational groups in the plan and by steadily raising the income ceiling. Those earning less than the ceiling were required to participate in the insurance program. In 1995 the income ceiling was an annual income of about DM70,00 in the old Länder and DM57,600 in the new Länder.



In 1901 transport and office workers came to be covered by public health insurance, followed in 1911 by agricultural and forestry workers and domestic servants, and in 1914 by civil servants. Coverage was extended to the unemployed in 1918, to seamen in 1927, and to all dependents in 1930. In 1941 legislation was passed that allowed workers whose incomes had risen above the income ceiling for compulsory membership to continue their insurance on a voluntary basis. The same year, coverage was extended to all retired Germans. Salespeople came under the plan in 1966, self-employed agricultural workers in 1972, and students and the disabled in 1975.

The 1883 health insurance law did not address the relationship between sickness funds and doctors. The funds had full authority to determine which doctors became participating doctors and to set the rules and conditions under which they did so. These rules and conditions were laid down in individual contracts. Doctors, who had grown increasingly dissatisfied with these contracts and their limited access to the practice of medicine with the sickness funds, mobilized and founded a professional association (Hartmannbund) in 1900 and even went on strike several times. In 1913 doctors and sickness funds established a system of collective bargaining to determine the distribution of licenses and doctors' remuneration. This approach is still practiced, although the system has undergone many modifications since 1913.

And Germans also endure very high taxes.
Your problem and the problem with the liberal side is somewhere somebidy sold you on the idea of first dollar coverage ( zero out of pocket) on demand medical care.
Not possible without a trade off. That trade off is in the case of most nations, extreme taxation and rationed care.

 

[Care4all]

A friend of mine is the benefits manager for a small company (500 employees). He tells me as of 12/31 they will no longer offer health insurance. Why?
Well, currently they spend $4M/yr on health coverage for their employees. The employees kick in another 1.5M. By dropping coverage he pays the $1M penalty. But in return he can give each employee $350/mo towards their own coverage and still come out ahead. Some employees can get more even more if the company wants to keep them. The lower paid employees can qualify for gov't subsidies, which they couldnt before because the company offered a health plan. ANd between subsidies and employer contribution they can pick exactly the coverage they want, so better for them.
All in all it's a win win for employer and employee. But since this is a zero sum game the loser is of coure the taxpayer, who will be subsidizing all the lower paid employees who dont have coverage from their jobs.
This will of course drive up the cost of Obamacare astronomically.

Every company similiarly situated is doing exactly the same analysis and they will come to exactly the same concliusions: cheaper to kick employees off the plan and just pay them a little extra.

Figuring the $4 million spent on healthcare, is actually about $2.6 million net for the company, because tax code gave them a 35% tax break on the $4 million deduction.

-----------------------------------------
to pay each employee $350 a month X 12 Months X 500 employees is $2.1 million, but this would give you a business deduction so you would save 35% in taxes on that as well....so that could net out to $1,365,000....

plus another +/-10% for SS taxes and Medicare taxes on the $2.1 million gross salaries, plus higher rate in UE fees for avg employee pay being higher...so, add $210,000 to the $1,365,000, so we are at $1,575,000 for the employer....

PLUS the $1,000,000 in yearly tax assessment penalties, which is NOT tax deductible as a business expense.

soooo thats about $2.575 million a year....

THERE IS NO SAVINGS
to this company in your example

It is about the same amount of money for the owner to try to skirt the situation of paying for employee's health care insurance, WITHOUT giving the employee the benefit of having insurance, without the company's ability to recruit better employees by having the health insurance benefit...

It's a LOSE, LOSE for the employee and the employer...there is no way around that....

and sure, for those of the 500 that are getting paid piss poorly, the exchange could help them, but for most of the employees, in a company that is large enough to have 500 employees, are probably getting paid well enough to not get that much of a subsidy if any at all, and also more than likely, many employees could have a spouse that works and they would have to go on their spouse's plan, and not the exchange with subsidy help...and the spouse's employer is ONLY responsible for making the employee portion affordable, not a family plan...so their employees majorly get dicked with just the $350 gross, that is really $250 net....

And I would have to ask, why would any ETHICAL company, put their employee's health care expense on to the tax payers if it does not save them a dime to do such...if they are going to have to pay the $2.6 million net regardless with a plan like the one you mentioned above?

Makes no sense....

other than intentionally trying to bankrupt us as a Nation....and that is not a laughing matter....

Btw, the penalty for Romneycare was even less for employers in Massachusetts, so there is more incentive for the businesses to just drop it and let their employees get subsidized by the State, but guess what?

They didn't drop employee insurance, coverage actually increased for the number of employers carrying coverage for their employees....

so if a +/-$250 an employee penalty didn't make these businesses jump ship and save the money on health insurance benefits, then why would you think they would jump ship with a $2000 a head penalty?

Just reading your post you don't seem very good at math. Can you put this into a spreadsheet so we can all make sense of your post?

what part do you not understand AzMike, maybe I can explain it to you in further detail?

 

[RDD_1210]

All the more reason why healthcare shouldn't be tied to employment.

If this is a step towards single payer/universal healthcare then I applaud it. Anything that gets us closer to a healthcare system like every other industrialized nation is utilizing is a good thing.

Right. Government does everything correctly 100% of the time.
Genius...Be careful what you wish for.
You want government health insurance( it's not health care)....YOU pay for it.
Do not be so presumptuous as to demand we be suckered into your socialist schemes.
Tell ya what.....Offer an opt out for anyone who wants to go either with private insurance in an open marketplace with no state line restrictions or they can be a cash patient, and you can have your precious free shit high tax health insurance....It's not healthcare...Health care comes from a medical professional. Health insurance is the debate.

You just described the public option.

 

[Contumacious]

No precisely the opposite. 4 countries in the EU were essentially bankrupted by socialized medicine and other entitlements.
The EU is forever indebted to Germany because but for that nation's prosperity( read they make stuff and have a robust economy) the EU would have collapsed under the weight of government giveaways with no possible resources to pay for them.

And Germany is the nation that started the whole socialized medicine gambit. And has the most generous policies for it's workers.

Development of the Health Care System in Germany

Nearly everyone residing in Germany is guaranteed access to high-quality comprehensive health care. Statutory health insurance (Gesetzliche Krankenversicherung--GKV) has provided an organizational framework for the delivery of public health care and has shaped the roles of payers, insurance or sickness funds, and providers, physicians, and hospitals since the Health Insurance Act was adopted in 1883. In 1885 the GKV provided medical protection for 26 percent of the lower-paid segments of the labor force, or 10 percent of the population. As with social insurance, health insurance coverage was gradually extended by including ever more occupational groups in the plan and by steadily raising the income ceiling. Those earning less than the ceiling were required to participate in the insurance program. In 1995 the income ceiling was an annual income of about DM70,00 in the old Länder and DM57,600 in the new Länder.



In 1901 transport and office workers came to be covered by public health insurance, followed in 1911 by agricultural and forestry workers and domestic servants, and in 1914 by civil servants. Coverage was extended to the unemployed in 1918, to seamen in 1927, and to all dependents in 1930. In 1941 legislation was passed that allowed workers whose incomes had risen above the income ceiling for compulsory membership to continue their insurance on a voluntary basis. The same year, coverage was extended to all retired Germans. Salespeople came under the plan in 1966, self-employed agricultural workers in 1972, and students and the disabled in 1975.

The 1883 health insurance law did not address the relationship between sickness funds and doctors. The funds had full authority to determine which doctors became participating doctors and to set the rules and conditions under which they did so. These rules and conditions were laid down in individual contracts. Doctors, who had grown increasingly dissatisfied with these contracts and their limited access to the practice of medicine with the sickness funds, mobilized and founded a professional association (Hartmannbund) in 1900 and even went on strike several times. In 1913 doctors and sickness funds established a system of collective bargaining to determine the distribution of licenses and doctors' remuneration. This approach is still practiced, although the system has undergone many modifications since 1913.

Non responsive. Germany is a prosperous country not because of social entitlements, but in spite of them. Germany is an exception to the norm.

Really?

I wonder then why they would elect Angela Merkel, the former Communist party youth leader to Chancellor??!?!?!?!?!?!?

.

 

[RDD_1210]

Actually, it doesn't work as WELL for everyone.

Yes, it works FOR everyone....but not necessarily as well as private healthcare for those that can afford it.

No arguments there. Our system is THE BEST in the world....if you can afford it. Which way too many can't. So our system is a system for the few, not for the whole. Which is why I supported a public option initially. Let everyone have something, and those who want and can afford it can purchase premium coverage. Many countries have a system like this that works for them.

Medical care in the US is expensive because of government interference.

Simple ideas from simple people.

 

[RDD_1210]

No precisely the opposite. 4 countries in the EU were essentially bankrupted by socialized medicine and other entitlements.
The EU is forever indebted to Germany because but for that nation's prosperity( read they make stuff and have a robust economy) the EU would have collapsed under the weight of government giveaways with no possible resources to pay for them.

And Germany is the nation that started the whole socialized medicine gambit. And has the most generous policies for it's workers.

Development of the Health Care System in Germany

Nearly everyone residing in Germany is guaranteed access to high-quality comprehensive health care. Statutory health insurance (Gesetzliche Krankenversicherung--GKV) has provided an organizational framework for the delivery of public health care and has shaped the roles of payers, insurance or sickness funds, and providers, physicians, and hospitals since the Health Insurance Act was adopted in 1883. In 1885 the GKV provided medical protection for 26 percent of the lower-paid segments of the labor force, or 10 percent of the population. As with social insurance, health insurance coverage was gradually extended by including ever more occupational groups in the plan and by steadily raising the income ceiling. Those earning less than the ceiling were required to participate in the insurance program. In 1995 the income ceiling was an annual income of about DM70,00 in the old Länder and DM57,600 in the new Länder.



In 1901 transport and office workers came to be covered by public health insurance, followed in 1911 by agricultural and forestry workers and domestic servants, and in 1914 by civil servants. Coverage was extended to the unemployed in 1918, to seamen in 1927, and to all dependents in 1930. In 1941 legislation was passed that allowed workers whose incomes had risen above the income ceiling for compulsory membership to continue their insurance on a voluntary basis. The same year, coverage was extended to all retired Germans. Salespeople came under the plan in 1966, self-employed agricultural workers in 1972, and students and the disabled in 1975.

The 1883 health insurance law did not address the relationship between sickness funds and doctors. The funds had full authority to determine which doctors became participating doctors and to set the rules and conditions under which they did so. These rules and conditions were laid down in individual contracts. Doctors, who had grown increasingly dissatisfied with these contracts and their limited access to the practice of medicine with the sickness funds, mobilized and founded a professional association (Hartmannbund) in 1900 and even went on strike several times. In 1913 doctors and sickness funds established a system of collective bargaining to determine the distribution of licenses and doctors' remuneration. This approach is still practiced, although the system has undergone many modifications since 1913.

Non responsive. Germany is a prosperous country not because of social entitlements, but in spite of them. Germany is an exception to the norm.

And what about every other country that has a higher rated healthcare system than us?

All of those are exceptions too?

 

[Care4all]

The large employer gets assessed at $2000-$3000 per employee per year, (as tax penalty) and this $2000-$3000 per employee is not tax deductible, as paying for insurance would be, and the large employer's employees would not be eligible for any subsidies if he offers them the $350 towards health insurance on the exchange, AND the $350 that he would give employees to buy insurance is also not tax deductible because the law states you must be buying the health insurance for the employee, not for the employee to buy their own, so the IRS would not allow that $350 as a deduction...they could just give them all a $350 raise, then that could be deductible, i suppose....

Most large companies offer health care insurance because their employees demand it, and when they go and get rid of the benefit, it is the beginning of their best employees to a mass exodus, of them leaving and going to companies that do offer it....

Before the Obama care mandate, large corporations could have dropped their insurance any time they wanted, or never have offered it in the first place....there was nothing stopping them, no penalties or any of that...yet most of them offered health care insurance....for recruiting the best employees.

Good luck to your friend's company!

That's a lot of "if's".....Sums up to nothing.
it comes as no surprise an uninformed lib such as yourself has not the ability to figure this out.

there is only 1 'if' in there, and that is 'if' the employer gave employees $350.00 to go towards health care insurance each month, it's not a tax deduction allowed for the business, so the business would have to make the increase, as a salary increase if they want the business expense deduction.... but making the $350 a month per each employee as a salary increase, would also obligate the employer to pay the employer portion of their employee's payroll taxes on it too.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Figuring the $4 million spent on healthcare, is actually about $2.6 million net for the company, because tax code gave them a 35% tax break on the $4 million deduction.

-----------------------------------------
to pay each employee $350 a month X 12 Months X 500 employees is $2.1 million, but this would give you a business deduction so you would save 35% in taxes on that as well....so that could net out to $1,365,000....

plus another +/-10% for SS taxes and Medicare taxes on the $2.1 million gross salaries, plus higher rate in UE fees for avg employee pay being higher...so, add $210,000 to the $1,365,000, so we are at $1,575,000 for the employer....

PLUS the $1,000,000 in yearly tax assessment penalties, which is NOT tax deductible as a business expense.

soooo thats about $2.575 million a year....

THERE IS NO SAVINGS
to this company in your example

It is about the same amount of money for the owner to try to skirt the situation of paying for employee's health care insurance, WITHOUT giving the employee the benefit of having insurance, without the company's ability to recruit better employees by having the health insurance benefit...

It's a LOSE, LOSE for the employee and the employer...there is no way around that....

and sure, for those of the 500 that are getting paid piss poorly, the exchange could help them, but for most of the employees, in a company that is large enough to have 500 employees, are probably getting paid well enough to not get that much of a subsidy if any at all, and also more than likely, many employees could have a spouse that works and they would have to go on their spouse's plan, and not the exchange with subsidy help...and the spouse's employer is ONLY responsible for making the employee portion affordable, not a family plan...so their employees majorly get dicked with just the $350 gross, that is really $250 net....

And I would have to ask, why would any ETHICAL company, put their employee's health care expense on to the tax payers if it does not save them a dime to do such...if they are going to have to pay the $2.6 million net regardless with a plan like the one you mentioned above?

Makes no sense....

other than intentionally trying to bankrupt us as a Nation....and that is not a laughing matter....

Btw, the penalty for Romneycare was even less for employers in Massachusetts, so there is more incentive for the businesses to just drop it and let their employees get subsidized by the State, but guess what?

They didn't drop employee insurance, coverage actually increased for the number of employers carrying coverage for their employees....

so if a +/-$250 an employee penalty didn't make these businesses jump ship and save the money on health insurance benefits, then why would you think they would jump ship with a $2000 a head penalty?

Just reading your post you don't seem very good at math. Can you put this into a spreadsheet so we can all make sense of your post?

what part do you not understand AzMike, maybe I can explain it to you in further detail?

Make a spreadsheet and show your work. You do know how to make a spreadsheet right? You seem to think of yourself as a great accountant so this should be easy. It comes down to income versus expenses. You need a few columns to show that. That is the further detail I'm looking for.

 

[francoHFW]

So the world depression was caused by socialized medicine? Hilarious, Pub dupes.

 

[Dad2three]

Has this study been peer reviewed?

Can you show 5 names or faces to go with any of the 45,000 who died annually due to lack of care?

Nearly 45,000 annual deaths are associated with lack of health insurance, according to a new study published online today by the American Journal of Public Health. That figure is about two and a half times higher than an estimate from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) in 2002.

Previous estimates from the IOM and others had put that figure near 18,000. The methods used in the current study were similar to those employed by the IOM in 2002, which in turn were based on a pioneering 1993 study of health insurance and mortality.

17,000 Child Deaths Linked to Lack of Insurance
17,000 Child Deaths Linked to Lack of Insurance - US News

Association Between Lack of Health Insurance and Risk of Death and ESRD: Results From the Kidney Early Evaluation Program (KEEP)

Conclusions

Lack of insurance is an independent risk factor for early death and ESRD in this population at high risk of kidney disease.

Association Between Lack of Health Insurance and Risk of Death and ESRD: Results From the Kidney Early Evaluation Program (KEEP)

"Can you show 5 names or faces to go with any of the 45,000 who died annually due to lack of care?"

lol, Don't like science huh? Is it less likely or more likely chronic diseases who go untreated will die sooner? Are chronic diseases (heart, lung, cancer, etc) treated successfully in the ER?

If that many were dieing from lack of care there would be a story out there somewhere about them. I can only find 2 people in the last 5 years who died from lack of care. One was on medicaid. The other was uninsured & working 3 jobs.

Really? You don't understand how statics work?

Ever see fundraisers in your community for those with CHRONIC conditions that ER doesn't cover?

Uninsured and Dying Because of It:

Forgive me for being personal for a moment, but my current career as a full-time volunteer activist in the health care reform movement has a basis in my prior career. For over three decades, as a family physician, I saw real people who were uninsured and died merely because they didn’t have insurance. They died primarily because they delayed accessing the system because they didn’t have the money to pay for health care. I also saw many “underinsured” patients in the form of Medicaid, a program with such low reimbursement rates in California that it resulted in a lack of willing providers, with consequent impaired access and outcomes for the patients.

Was my practice about body counts? These were real people…


Make that 22,000 uninsured deaths | Physicians for a National Health Program



I’ve seen more women than I can remember who waited far longer than they should have to see a doctor for their breast cancer because they couldn’t afford to see a doctor or were afraid of how much it would cost even to do a biopsy. Over the years, all too often my patients have been symptomatic for quite some time, and when they finally do present their tumors are larger, more difficult to treat, and more likely to kill them.

...n 2002, the Institute of Medicine estimated that over 18,000 Americans between the ages of 25-64 die annually because of lack of health insurance, a number comparable to the number who died of diabetes, stroke, or homicide in 2001. Among the conclusions of this report:

Uninsured adults are less likely than adults with any kind of health coverage to receive preventive and screening services and to receive them on a timely basis. Health insurance that provides coverage of preventive and screening services is likely to result in greater and more appropriate use of these services.


Uninsured cancer patients generally are in poorer health and are more likely to die prematurely than persons with insurance, largely because of delayed diagnosis. This finding is supported by population-based studies of persons with breast, cervical, colorectal, and prostate cancer and melanoma.


Uninsured adults with diabetes are less likely to receive recommended services. Lacking health insurance for longer periods increases the risk of inadequate care for this condition and can lead to uncontrolled blood sugar levels, which, over time, put diabetics at risk for additional chronic disease and disability.

Uninsured adults with hypertension or high blood cholesterol have diminished access to care, are less likely to be screened, are less likely to take prescription medication if diagnosed, and experience worse health outcomes.

Uninsured patients with end-stage renal disease begin dialysis with more severe disease than do those who had insurance before beginning dialysis.

Uninsured adults with HIV infection are less likely to receive highly effective medications that have been shown to improve survival and die sooner than those with coverage.

Uninsured patients who are hospitalized for a range of conditions are more likely to die in the hospital, to receive fewer services when admitted, and to experience substandard care and resultant injury than are insured patients.


Mitt Romney, health insurance, and the myth that no one ever dies because of lack of health insurance ? Respectful Insolence

LEADING UP TO OBAMACARES, REP GRAYSON HAD A SITE WITH THOUSANDS OF NAMES ON IT!

Alan Grayson unveils ?NamesofTheDead.com' - Jake Sherman - POLITICO.com

 

[Dad2three]

The government picks up the difference when the minimum wage is kept low.

i'm not quite sure why they won't acknowledge that.

the bizarre thing about his post is that it totally and completely ignores the fact that the point, at least as stated by the heritage foundation, was for people to "take responsibility" and insure their own health care by using the private market... which is what the ACA does.

keeping wages and benefits artificially low is what keeps people dependent on the government.

I wonder how the fucktards define "private markets" ........I wonder if the shit heads consider an entity, which is regulated by the government to the max , a "private" market?


.

Yeah, because fucktards libertarians have proven so successful EVERYWHERE it's been tried. Oh wait, it hasn't?

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Nearly 45,000 annual deaths are associated with lack of health insurance, according to a new study published online today by the American Journal of Public Health. That figure is about two and a half times higher than an estimate from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) in 2002.

Previous estimates from the IOM and others had put that figure near 18,000. The methods used in the current study were similar to those employed by the IOM in 2002, which in turn were based on a pioneering 1993 study of health insurance and mortality.

17,000 Child Deaths Linked to Lack of Insurance
17,000 Child Deaths Linked to Lack of Insurance - US News

Association Between Lack of Health Insurance and Risk of Death and ESRD: Results From the Kidney Early Evaluation Program (KEEP)

Conclusions

Lack of insurance is an independent risk factor for early death and ESRD in this population at high risk of kidney disease.

Association Between Lack of Health Insurance and Risk of Death and ESRD: Results From the Kidney Early Evaluation Program (KEEP)

"Can you show 5 names or faces to go with any of the 45,000 who died annually due to lack of care?"

lol, Don't like science huh? Is it less likely or more likely chronic diseases who go untreated will die sooner? Are chronic diseases (heart, lung, cancer, etc) treated successfully in the ER?

If that many were dieing from lack of care there would be a story out there somewhere about them. I can only find 2 people in the last 5 years who died from lack of care. One was on medicaid. The other was uninsured & working 3 jobs.

Really? You don't understand how statics work?

Ever see fundraisers in your community for those with CHRONIC conditions that ER doesn't cover?

Uninsured and Dying Because of It:

Forgive me for being personal for a moment, but my current career as a full-time volunteer activist in the health care reform movement has a basis in my prior career. For over three decades, as a family physician, I saw real people who were uninsured and died merely because they didn’t have insurance. They died primarily because they delayed accessing the system because they didn’t have the money to pay for health care. I also saw many “underinsured” patients in the form of Medicaid, a program with such low reimbursement rates in California that it resulted in a lack of willing providers, with consequent impaired access and outcomes for the patients.

Was my practice about body counts? These were real people…


Make that 22,000 uninsured deaths | Physicians for a National Health Program



I’ve seen more women than I can remember who waited far longer than they should have to see a doctor for their breast cancer because they couldn’t afford to see a doctor or were afraid of how much it would cost even to do a biopsy. Over the years, all too often my patients have been symptomatic for quite some time, and when they finally do present their tumors are larger, more difficult to treat, and more likely to kill them.

...n 2002, the Institute of Medicine estimated that over 18,000 Americans between the ages of 25-64 die annually because of lack of health insurance, a number comparable to the number who died of diabetes, stroke, or homicide in 2001. Among the conclusions of this report:

Uninsured adults are less likely than adults with any kind of health coverage to receive preventive and screening services and to receive them on a timely basis. Health insurance that provides coverage of preventive and screening services is likely to result in greater and more appropriate use of these services.


Uninsured cancer patients generally are in poorer health and are more likely to die prematurely than persons with insurance, largely because of delayed diagnosis. This finding is supported by population-based studies of persons with breast, cervical, colorectal, and prostate cancer and melanoma.


Uninsured adults with diabetes are less likely to receive recommended services. Lacking health insurance for longer periods increases the risk of inadequate care for this condition and can lead to uncontrolled blood sugar levels, which, over time, put diabetics at risk for additional chronic disease and disability.

Uninsured adults with hypertension or high blood cholesterol have diminished access to care, are less likely to be screened, are less likely to take prescription medication if diagnosed, and experience worse health outcomes.

Uninsured patients with end-stage renal disease begin dialysis with more severe disease than do those who had insurance before beginning dialysis.

Uninsured adults with HIV infection are less likely to receive highly effective medications that have been shown to improve survival and die sooner than those with coverage.

Uninsured patients who are hospitalized for a range of conditions are more likely to die in the hospital, to receive fewer services when admitted, and to experience substandard care and resultant injury than are insured patients.


Mitt Romney, health insurance, and the myth that no one ever dies because of lack of health insurance ? Respectful Insolence

LEADING UP TO OBAMACARES, REP GRAYSON HAD A SITE WITH THOUSANDS OF NAMES ON IT!

Alan Grayson unveils ?NamesofTheDead.com' - Jake Sherman - POLITICO.com

Were they in the VA? That government run single payer system seems to work just like what you are promoting.

 

[Dad2three]

No precisely the opposite. 4 countries in the EU were essentially bankrupted by socialized medicine and other entitlements.
The EU is forever indebted to Germany because but for that nation's prosperity( read they make stuff and have a robust economy) the EU would have collapsed under the weight of government giveaways with no possible resources to pay for them.

And Germany is the nation that started the whole socialized medicine gambit. And has the most generous policies for it's workers.

Development of the Health Care System in Germany

Nearly everyone residing in Germany is guaranteed access to high-quality comprehensive health care. Statutory health insurance (Gesetzliche Krankenversicherung--GKV) has provided an organizational framework for the delivery of public health care and has shaped the roles of payers, insurance or sickness funds, and providers, physicians, and hospitals since the Health Insurance Act was adopted in 1883. In 1885 the GKV provided medical protection for 26 percent of the lower-paid segments of the labor force, or 10 percent of the population. As with social insurance, health insurance coverage was gradually extended by including ever more occupational groups in the plan and by steadily raising the income ceiling. Those earning less than the ceiling were required to participate in the insurance program. In 1995 the income ceiling was an annual income of about DM70,00 in the old Länder and DM57,600 in the new Länder.



In 1901 transport and office workers came to be covered by public health insurance, followed in 1911 by agricultural and forestry workers and domestic servants, and in 1914 by civil servants. Coverage was extended to the unemployed in 1918, to seamen in 1927, and to all dependents in 1930. In 1941 legislation was passed that allowed workers whose incomes had risen above the income ceiling for compulsory membership to continue their insurance on a voluntary basis. The same year, coverage was extended to all retired Germans. Salespeople came under the plan in 1966, self-employed agricultural workers in 1972, and students and the disabled in 1975.

The 1883 health insurance law did not address the relationship between sickness funds and doctors. The funds had full authority to determine which doctors became participating doctors and to set the rules and conditions under which they did so. These rules and conditions were laid down in individual contracts. Doctors, who had grown increasingly dissatisfied with these contracts and their limited access to the practice of medicine with the sickness funds, mobilized and founded a professional association (Hartmannbund) in 1900 and even went on strike several times. In 1913 doctors and sickness funds established a system of collective bargaining to determine the distribution of licenses and doctors' remuneration. This approach is still practiced, although the system has undergone many modifications since 1913.

Non responsive. Germany is a prosperous country not because of social entitlements, but in spite of them. Germany is an exception to the norm.

40% US size, 40% unionized, min 5 weeks vacation, UHC, exports near as much as US, university costs less than $5,000 per year, min 14 weeks 100% paid leave on maternity, etc



Germany MUST be a hell hole

 

[Missouri_Mike]

And Germany is the nation that started the whole socialized medicine gambit. And has the most generous policies for it's workers.

Development of the Health Care System in Germany

Nearly everyone residing in Germany is guaranteed access to high-quality comprehensive health care. Statutory health insurance (Gesetzliche Krankenversicherung--GKV) has provided an organizational framework for the delivery of public health care and has shaped the roles of payers, insurance or sickness funds, and providers, physicians, and hospitals since the Health Insurance Act was adopted in 1883. In 1885 the GKV provided medical protection for 26 percent of the lower-paid segments of the labor force, or 10 percent of the population. As with social insurance, health insurance coverage was gradually extended by including ever more occupational groups in the plan and by steadily raising the income ceiling. Those earning less than the ceiling were required to participate in the insurance program. In 1995 the income ceiling was an annual income of about DM70,00 in the old Länder and DM57,600 in the new Länder.



In 1901 transport and office workers came to be covered by public health insurance, followed in 1911 by agricultural and forestry workers and domestic servants, and in 1914 by civil servants. Coverage was extended to the unemployed in 1918, to seamen in 1927, and to all dependents in 1930. In 1941 legislation was passed that allowed workers whose incomes had risen above the income ceiling for compulsory membership to continue their insurance on a voluntary basis. The same year, coverage was extended to all retired Germans. Salespeople came under the plan in 1966, self-employed agricultural workers in 1972, and students and the disabled in 1975.

The 1883 health insurance law did not address the relationship between sickness funds and doctors. The funds had full authority to determine which doctors became participating doctors and to set the rules and conditions under which they did so. These rules and conditions were laid down in individual contracts. Doctors, who had grown increasingly dissatisfied with these contracts and their limited access to the practice of medicine with the sickness funds, mobilized and founded a professional association (Hartmannbund) in 1900 and even went on strike several times. In 1913 doctors and sickness funds established a system of collective bargaining to determine the distribution of licenses and doctors' remuneration. This approach is still practiced, although the system has undergone many modifications since 1913.

Non responsive. Germany is a prosperous country not because of social entitlements, but in spite of them. Germany is an exception to the norm.

40% US size, 40% unionized, min 5 weeks vacation, UHC, exports near as much as US, university costs less than $5,000 per year, min 14 weeks 100% paid leave on maternity, etc



Germany MUST be a hell hole

Who pays for all of that?

 

[Listening]

And Germany is the nation that started the whole socialized medicine gambit. And has the most generous policies for it's workers.

Development of the Health Care System in Germany

Nearly everyone residing in Germany is guaranteed access to high-quality comprehensive health care. Statutory health insurance (Gesetzliche Krankenversicherung--GKV) has provided an organizational framework for the delivery of public health care and has shaped the roles of payers, insurance or sickness funds, and providers, physicians, and hospitals since the Health Insurance Act was adopted in 1883. In 1885 the GKV provided medical protection for 26 percent of the lower-paid segments of the labor force, or 10 percent of the population. As with social insurance, health insurance coverage was gradually extended by including ever more occupational groups in the plan and by steadily raising the income ceiling. Those earning less than the ceiling were required to participate in the insurance program. In 1995 the income ceiling was an annual income of about DM70,00 in the old Länder and DM57,600 in the new Länder.



In 1901 transport and office workers came to be covered by public health insurance, followed in 1911 by agricultural and forestry workers and domestic servants, and in 1914 by civil servants. Coverage was extended to the unemployed in 1918, to seamen in 1927, and to all dependents in 1930. In 1941 legislation was passed that allowed workers whose incomes had risen above the income ceiling for compulsory membership to continue their insurance on a voluntary basis. The same year, coverage was extended to all retired Germans. Salespeople came under the plan in 1966, self-employed agricultural workers in 1972, and students and the disabled in 1975.

The 1883 health insurance law did not address the relationship between sickness funds and doctors. The funds had full authority to determine which doctors became participating doctors and to set the rules and conditions under which they did so. These rules and conditions were laid down in individual contracts. Doctors, who had grown increasingly dissatisfied with these contracts and their limited access to the practice of medicine with the sickness funds, mobilized and founded a professional association (Hartmannbund) in 1900 and even went on strike several times. In 1913 doctors and sickness funds established a system of collective bargaining to determine the distribution of licenses and doctors' remuneration. This approach is still practiced, although the system has undergone many modifications since 1913.

Non responsive. Germany is a prosperous country not because of social entitlements, but in spite of them. Germany is an exception to the norm.

40% US size, 40% unionized, min 5 weeks vacation, UHC, exports near as much as US, university costs less than $5,000 per year, min 14 weeks 100% paid leave on maternity, etc



Germany MUST be a hell hole

Feel free to move to you and your three over there as fast as you can.

 

[Dad2three]

If that many were dieing from lack of care there would be a story out there somewhere about them. I can only find 2 people in the last 5 years who died from lack of care. One was on medicaid. The other was uninsured & working 3 jobs.

Really? You don't understand how statics work?

Ever see fundraisers in your community for those with CHRONIC conditions that ER doesn't cover?

Uninsured and Dying Because of It:

Forgive me for being personal for a moment, but my current career as a full-time volunteer activist in the health care reform movement has a basis in my prior career. For over three decades, as a family physician, I saw real people who were uninsured and died merely because they didn’t have insurance. They died primarily because they delayed accessing the system because they didn’t have the money to pay for health care. I also saw many “underinsured” patients in the form of Medicaid, a program with such low reimbursement rates in California that it resulted in a lack of willing providers, with consequent impaired access and outcomes for the patients.

Was my practice about body counts? These were real people…


Make that 22,000 uninsured deaths | Physicians for a National Health Program



I’ve seen more women than I can remember who waited far longer than they should have to see a doctor for their breast cancer because they couldn’t afford to see a doctor or were afraid of how much it would cost even to do a biopsy. Over the years, all too often my patients have been symptomatic for quite some time, and when they finally do present their tumors are larger, more difficult to treat, and more likely to kill them.

...n 2002, the Institute of Medicine estimated that over 18,000 Americans between the ages of 25-64 die annually because of lack of health insurance, a number comparable to the number who died of diabetes, stroke, or homicide in 2001. Among the conclusions of this report:

Uninsured adults are less likely than adults with any kind of health coverage to receive preventive and screening services and to receive them on a timely basis. Health insurance that provides coverage of preventive and screening services is likely to result in greater and more appropriate use of these services.


Uninsured cancer patients generally are in poorer health and are more likely to die prematurely than persons with insurance, largely because of delayed diagnosis. This finding is supported by population-based studies of persons with breast, cervical, colorectal, and prostate cancer and melanoma.


Uninsured adults with diabetes are less likely to receive recommended services. Lacking health insurance for longer periods increases the risk of inadequate care for this condition and can lead to uncontrolled blood sugar levels, which, over time, put diabetics at risk for additional chronic disease and disability.

Uninsured adults with hypertension or high blood cholesterol have diminished access to care, are less likely to be screened, are less likely to take prescription medication if diagnosed, and experience worse health outcomes.

Uninsured patients with end-stage renal disease begin dialysis with more severe disease than do those who had insurance before beginning dialysis.

Uninsured adults with HIV infection are less likely to receive highly effective medications that have been shown to improve survival and die sooner than those with coverage.

Uninsured patients who are hospitalized for a range of conditions are more likely to die in the hospital, to receive fewer services when admitted, and to experience substandard care and resultant injury than are insured patients.


Mitt Romney, health insurance, and the myth that no one ever dies because of lack of health insurance ? Respectful Insolence

LEADING UP TO OBAMACARES, REP GRAYSON HAD A SITE WITH THOUSANDS OF NAMES ON IT!

Alan Grayson unveils ?NamesofTheDead.com' - Jake Sherman - POLITICO.com

Were they in the VA? That government run single payer system seems to work just like what you are promoting.

VA Outranks Private Sector in Health Care Patient Satisfaction


U.S. veterans rate the quality of care they get in Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) hospitals as good as or better on average than in private-sector hospitals, according to a major national customer-satisfaction survey.

The 2013 American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) shows that among the more than 8 million veterans served by the VA health system, VA hospitals earned satisfaction ratings of 84 (out of 100) for inpatient care and 82 for outpatient services, while U.S. private-sector hospitals earned ratings of 80 and 83 in the same categories.

Veterans Happy With VA Hospitals, Survey Says

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Really? You don't understand how statics work?

Ever see fundraisers in your community for those with CHRONIC conditions that ER doesn't cover?

Uninsured and Dying Because of It:

Forgive me for being personal for a moment, but my current career as a full-time volunteer activist in the health care reform movement has a basis in my prior career. For over three decades, as a family physician, I saw real people who were uninsured and died merely because they didn’t have insurance. They died primarily because they delayed accessing the system because they didn’t have the money to pay for health care. I also saw many “underinsured” patients in the form of Medicaid, a program with such low reimbursement rates in California that it resulted in a lack of willing providers, with consequent impaired access and outcomes for the patients.

Was my practice about body counts? These were real people…


Make that 22,000 uninsured deaths | Physicians for a National Health Program



I’ve seen more women than I can remember who waited far longer than they should have to see a doctor for their breast cancer because they couldn’t afford to see a doctor or were afraid of how much it would cost even to do a biopsy. Over the years, all too often my patients have been symptomatic for quite some time, and when they finally do present their tumors are larger, more difficult to treat, and more likely to kill them.

...n 2002, the Institute of Medicine estimated that over 18,000 Americans between the ages of 25-64 die annually because of lack of health insurance, a number comparable to the number who died of diabetes, stroke, or homicide in 2001. Among the conclusions of this report:

Uninsured adults are less likely than adults with any kind of health coverage to receive preventive and screening services and to receive them on a timely basis. Health insurance that provides coverage of preventive and screening services is likely to result in greater and more appropriate use of these services.


Uninsured cancer patients generally are in poorer health and are more likely to die prematurely than persons with insurance, largely because of delayed diagnosis. This finding is supported by population-based studies of persons with breast, cervical, colorectal, and prostate cancer and melanoma.


Uninsured adults with diabetes are less likely to receive recommended services. Lacking health insurance for longer periods increases the risk of inadequate care for this condition and can lead to uncontrolled blood sugar levels, which, over time, put diabetics at risk for additional chronic disease and disability.

Uninsured adults with hypertension or high blood cholesterol have diminished access to care, are less likely to be screened, are less likely to take prescription medication if diagnosed, and experience worse health outcomes.

Uninsured patients with end-stage renal disease begin dialysis with more severe disease than do those who had insurance before beginning dialysis.

Uninsured adults with HIV infection are less likely to receive highly effective medications that have been shown to improve survival and die sooner than those with coverage.

Uninsured patients who are hospitalized for a range of conditions are more likely to die in the hospital, to receive fewer services when admitted, and to experience substandard care and resultant injury than are insured patients.


Mitt Romney, health insurance, and the myth that no one ever dies because of lack of health insurance ? Respectful Insolence

LEADING UP TO OBAMACARES, REP GRAYSON HAD A SITE WITH THOUSANDS OF NAMES ON IT!

Alan Grayson unveils ?NamesofTheDead.com' - Jake Sherman - POLITICO.com

Were they in the VA? That government run single payer system seems to work just like what you are promoting.

VA Outranks Private Sector in Health Care Patient Satisfaction


U.S. veterans rate the quality of care they get in Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) hospitals as good as or better on average than in private-sector hospitals, according to a major national customer-satisfaction survey.

The 2013 American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) shows that among the more than 8 million veterans served by the VA health system, VA hospitals earned satisfaction ratings of 84 (out of 100) for inpatient care and 82 for outpatient services, while U.S. private-sector hospitals earned ratings of 80 and 83 in the same categories.

Veterans Happy With VA Hospitals, Survey Says

How did you poll the dead people?