Company Dumps Healthcare Plan

[Vandalshandle]

At National Prosperity Life and Health, we have
an alternative to HSAs.
It is called Health Matching Insurance. Instead of crediting regular interest off of our investments, which would be piddly, we offer benefits for the HMI contributions which are pooled benefits. Pooled benefits is more effective than investment interest, for only 10-20% of the participants in a pool are expected to have 80-90% of the claims.
Every claim that is not made adds to our reserves.
In turn, we share a portion of our reserves in the form of HMI pooled benefits.
The "interest" starts at 8% percent a month, and increases 8% a month, until it caps at 3 in month 34.
For example, a $300 HMI contribution in month 34 would earn 300% interest, or $900.
So the total growth in the paid-for benefits in month 34 is $1,200.
What HSA can return 300% a month?
We have worked with Milliman, a well-respected actuarial form for the last 3 years, crafting this patented product.
Over time, self-funded employers of 200 employees or more will save 60-80% of the original premium, including medical inflation.
Don Levit,CLU,ChFC
Treasurer of National Prosperity Life and Health

Frankly, Don, there seems to be a few holes in your proposal.
1. According to Google, National Prosperity Life and Health has not yet been approved for doing business in your home state of Texas.
2. I have never heard of a "Patented" health plan.
3. You state in blogs I have read that you are in the insurance business. yet, you only deal with self funded employers. Which is it?
4. If in fact, you are NOT an insurance company, what regulatory authority is responsible for oversight of your reserves and liquidity?

VH
FLMI, CLU, ChFC, HIAA

 

[JoeB131]

Yeah because the company that discovers a cure for AIDS or cancer wouldn't make anything off the discovery.
You're such a fucking toolbag Joe. You never have anything constructive to contribute and most posts after yours are spent demonstrating that your information is wrong.

Companies make far more money treating cancer than curing it. so theres no big incentive from big pharma to find a cure for cancer.

 

[itfitzme]

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.

That's one way to do it.

If it' s a zero sum game, it doesn't matter how it gets there. Either the employer pays directly or it comes from his business and corporat taxes as well as the income taxes of employees. Either way, it gets paid.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yeah because the company that discovers a cure for AIDS or cancer wouldn't make anything off the discovery.
You're such a fucking toolbag Joe. You never have anything constructive to contribute and most posts after yours are spent demonstrating that your information is wrong.

Companies make far more money treating cancer than curing it. so theres no big incentive from big pharma to find a cure for cancer.

Yeah they couldnt possibly charge any money for a cancer cure.
Joe, sorry but reality is a stranger in your world.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

That's one way to do it.

If it' s a zero sum game, it doesn't matter how it gets there. Either the employer pays directly or it comes from his business and corporat taxes as well as the income taxes of employees. Either way, it gets paid.

I think most people would prefer that people pay for their own health insurance rather than they paying for other people's. Second best is someone's company paying for the employees' health insurance, which is at least a voluntary arrangement. Worst is taxpayers paying for people's insurance, which is coerced.

 

[bripat9643]

Yeah because the company that discovers a cure for AIDS or cancer wouldn't make anything off the discovery.
You're such a fucking toolbag Joe. You never have anything constructive to contribute and most posts after yours are spent demonstrating that your information is wrong.

Companies make far more money treating cancer than curing it. so theres no big incentive from big pharma to find a cure for cancer.

We can always count on you to regurgitate all the worn out pinko propaganda memes about capitalism. Drug companies don't make a dime selling drugs that don't work. According to your theory, drug companies wouldn't sell penicillin because it cures people.

You're basically just a commie moron, Joe.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

That's one way to do it.

If it' s a zero sum game, it doesn't matter how it gets there. Either the employer pays directly or it comes from his business and corporat taxes as well as the income taxes of employees. Either way, it gets paid.

It does matter how it gets there because when I'm spending my own money, I'm going to make different decisions than if someone else is spending my money, and even more different decisions than if some faceless bureaucrat is spending it.

 

[bripat9643]

Okay.

Except most medical research is funded by - wait for it- the government!

Who insisted on improving work conditions! The government in the form of that bleeding heart liberal Richard M. Nixon.

Proof most research is funded by the gov't? A lot is. Whether it should be or not is a different question.

You mean the government might decide that finding a cure for AIDS or Cancer is a little more important than a pill that makes an old guy's dick hard for an hour?

Perish the thought.

There are millions of old guys who are very happy that Viagra was discovered, and it didn't prevent cures for cancer from being developed.

I don't know why you prefer to have some bureaucrat deciding which drugs are available to you. Why don't you let them choose the house you can buy or the car you drive?

 

[bripat9643]

Joe, proving he can't understand math.

I understand math perfectly well.

Let's recap. You said that we had a wonderful "Free Market' health care system before World War II before the "socialists" fucked it up.

Well, no, not really. People died early and they frequently died in infancy. And there wasn't a lot of research into medical innovation because there was no money to be made keeping old people alive.

Then the government forced private companies to provide health insurance and established medicare and medicaid and the VA and suddenly, people started living longer and we got around to curing things because the government gave grants to universities to find cures to things like Polio.

Bunch of fucking commies.

Poor Joe. The fallacy of what he just posted will escape him forever.
Libs are bad at math and logic!

Libs seem to think that because the state of technology or medical science has improved since 1930, that means our government is better now than in 1930. So, for the claim that government to better in 1930 than now, television would have to have been uninvented since then.

 

[The Rabbi]

I understand math perfectly well.

Let's recap. You said that we had a wonderful "Free Market' health care system before World War II before the "socialists" fucked it up.

Well, no, not really. People died early and they frequently died in infancy. And there wasn't a lot of research into medical innovation because there was no money to be made keeping old people alive.

Then the government forced private companies to provide health insurance and established medicare and medicaid and the VA and suddenly, people started living longer and we got around to curing things because the government gave grants to universities to find cures to things like Polio.

Bunch of fucking commies.

Poor Joe. The fallacy of what he just posted will escape him forever.
Libs are bad at math and logic!

Libs seem to think that because the state of technology or medical science has improved since 1930, that means our government is better now than in 1930. So, for the claim that government to better in 1930 than now, television would have to have been uninvented since then.

He thinks that because medicine in 1930 was not as advanced as it is today that means the medical system was bad. Of course it's an invalid comparison. A better comparison is 1930 to 1900. ANd the rate of child mortality etc declined much more between 1900 and 1930 than between 1950 and today.

 

[Politico]

Yeah because the company that discovers a cure for AIDS or cancer wouldn't make anything off the discovery.
You're such a fucking toolbag Joe. You never have anything constructive to contribute and most posts after yours are spent demonstrating that your information is wrong.

Companies make far more money treating cancer than curing it. so theres no big incentive from big pharma to find a cure for cancer.

We can always count on you to regurgitate all the worn out pinko propaganda memes about capitalism. Drug companies don't make a dime selling drugs that don't work. According to your theory, drug companies wouldn't sell penicillin because it cures people.

You're basically just a commie moron, Joe.

You're right. The drug companies make a fucking fortune selling drugs that don't cure anything much less barely treat it. And of course they are not fans of Penicillin. It is not something they can patent in a lab.

 

[JoeB131]

I understand math perfectly well.

Let's recap. You said that we had a wonderful "Free Market' health care system before World War II before the "socialists" fucked it up.

Well, no, not really. People died early and they frequently died in infancy. And there wasn't a lot of research into medical innovation because there was no money to be made keeping old people alive.

Then the government forced private companies to provide health insurance and established medicare and medicaid and the VA and suddenly, people started living longer and we got around to curing things because the government gave grants to universities to find cures to things like Polio.

Bunch of fucking commies.

Poor Joe. The fallacy of what he just posted will escape him forever.
Libs are bad at math and logic!

Libs seem to think that because the state of technology or medical science has improved since 1930, that means our government is better now than in 1930. So, for the claim that government to better in 1930 than now, television would have to have been uninvented since then.
:

Uh, what does television have to do with the quality of health care?

So we don't get to see those Big Pharma commercials telling us to call a doctor if we have an erection lasting four hours?

Here's the reality. The biggest advance we made in health care was MediCare. It made health care accessable to the elderly. That did more than any advance in technology did.

 

[JoeB131]

There are millions of old guys who are very happy that Viagra was discovered, and it didn't prevent cures for cancer from being developed.

I don't know why you prefer to have some bureaucrat deciding which drugs are available to you. Why don't you let them choose the house you can buy or the car you drive?

Works for me. Every time I see some douchebag driving recklessly in a Lexus Douchemobile, I wonder why that is allowed.

Point is, we spend billions on crap while basic medical needs go unmet.

11% of health care is spent on keeping terminal patients alive until their insurance runs out.

We spend 17% of our GDP on health care and have the poorest numbers in the INdustrialized world. All those other countries spend about 10%, but they prioritize and the government runs it. They get better results and their economies are stronger.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Companies make far more money treating cancer than curing it. so theres no big incentive from big pharma to find a cure for cancer.

We can always count on you to regurgitate all the worn out pinko propaganda memes about capitalism. Drug companies don't make a dime selling drugs that don't work. According to your theory, drug companies wouldn't sell penicillin because it cures people.

You're basically just a commie moron, Joe.

You're right. The drug companies make a fucking fortune selling drugs that don't cure anything much lees barely treat it. And of course they are not fans of Penicillin. It is not something they can patent in a lab.

Yer dumb as rat shit. (Offhand, my brother considers Claritin a miracle.)

 

[The Rabbi]

There are millions of old guys who are very happy that Viagra was discovered, and it didn't prevent cures for cancer from being developed.

I don't know why you prefer to have some bureaucrat deciding which drugs are available to you. Why don't you let them choose the house you can buy or the car you drive?

Works for me. Every time I see some douchebag driving recklessly in a Lexus Douchemobile, I wonder why that is allowed.

Point is, we spend billions on crap while basic medical needs go unmet.

11% of health care is spent on keeping terminal patients alive until their insurance runs out.

We spend 17% of our GDP on health care and have the poorest numbers in the INdustrialized world. All those other countries spend about 10%, but they prioritize and the government runs it. They get better results and their economies are stronger.

Your talking points are outdated.

 

[JoeB131]

You're inability to argue your position is duly noted.

"BUt I want the most expensive system in the world that produces the worst results."

Because it just kills you that poor people might have the same access to health care you have.

 

[itfitzme]

I don't know why you prefer to have some bureaucrat deciding which drugs are available to you.

Are you talking about Medicare or do you still not know how the PPACA works?

Here is a link to the text. It is available in .pdf form. You can do a search. Start with "formulary".

 

[itfitzme]

Yeah because the company that discovers a cure for AIDS or cancer wouldn't make anything off the discovery.
You're such a fucking toolbag Joe. You never have anything constructive to contribute and most posts after yours are spent demonstrating that your information is wrong.

Companies make far more money treating cancer than curing it. so theres no big incentive from big pharma to find a cure for cancer.

And all this time we thought market comptition drove innovation. Or is that only sometimes true? Like, I don't know..when you want it to be true?

 

[Avatar4321]

awwwww.... $350 to every employee for insurance that costs thousands.

how nice.

thanks for the "story". but good that you want to encourage companies to force us to pay for you freeloaders.... while crying and whining about efforts to get people covered by insurance in a manner they can afford.

typical rightwingnut idiocy.

Shouldn't have driven up the prices with government healthcare then.

It's amazing, companies respond to poorly planned policy and do exactly what everyone who thought about it for more than a minute realized they would do, yet somehow it's the companies fault rather than the fools who wrote and blindly supported the poorly planned policy.

And we wonder why our nation is coming apart.

Start admitting where you are wrong instead of blaming others and take responsibility foe your actions we told you this would be the exact response to this law. You forced it through anyway. Stop acting like you are some sweet innocent and let's end this piece of crap legislation and send it back to the dumpster of bad ideas to never be heard from again

 

[JoeB131]

Yeah because the company that discovers a cure for AIDS or cancer wouldn't make anything off the discovery.
You're such a fucking toolbag Joe. You never have anything constructive to contribute and most posts after yours are spent demonstrating that your information is wrong.

Companies make far more money treating cancer than curing it. so theres no big incentive from big pharma to find a cure for cancer.

And all this time we thought market comptition drove innovation. Or is that only sometimes true? Like, I don't know..when you want it to be true?

I don't buy the religious attachment you guys place on "the market".

The market leave cancer uncurable after 50 years but we've got a pill that will make your dick hard for four hours.