Company Dumps Healthcare Plan

[JoeB131]

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

The only companies dumping insurance are the ones that aren't going to be around in five years, anyway. All the half-asser and fly by nighters who dredge the bottom of the labor pool.

 

[Bfgrn]

This was the far left plan in the long run, to make health insurance unaffordable except through the government run exchanges.

is that another intentional lie or are you really that brainwashed and stupid?

if you're capable, read and learn.

thanks.

Original document where Heritage created Obamacare individual mandate

The Heritage Foundation also rightfully pointed out that employers don't GIVE you health insurance, YOU pay for it. It is money they could add to your pay. Obviously this company is not really fairly compensating their employees.

It is a gimmick to lower the pay of employees. But turds like Rabbi will NEVER find fault with his beloved CEO's and 'captains of industry'.

Robert Moffit - The Heritage Foundation senior fellow

Let's let Robert Moffit, who was deputy director of domestic policy studies at The Heritage Foundation back in 1994 explain. Here is what conservatives said when THEY proposed the individual mandate in the leading Senate alternative to the Clinton plan.


Journal Article: Perspectives: Personal Freedom, Respnsibility, And Mandates

Robert E. Moffitt

Health Aff April 1994 13:2101-104; doi:10.1377/hlthaff.13.2.101



A Snare And A Delusion

Employer-based health insurance in this country is the product of wartime economic and tax policy of the 1940s. There is no reason why health reform in the 1990s should be governed by those unique circumstances and outdated tax policies.

Uwe Reinhardt and Alan Krueger tell us that the tax treatment of employment-based health insurance now is sharply regressive. And, Mark Pauly confirms, it contributes to market distortions, high costs, and lack of portability in health insurance. Americans today get tax relief for health insurance on only one condition: that they get it from their employer. This has tied health insurance to the workplace in a way that no other insurance is treated. It means that if we lose or change a job, we lose our health coverage.

Pauly also tells us that employer-based insurance hides the true costs of health care. Thus, there is no normal collision between the forces of supply and demand on even the most basic level. Most workers do not purchase health insurance; it is purchased by somebody else, usually the company. For most workers, it is a “free good,” an extra, that automatically comes with the job. At least, we live with that comfortable illusion. But, in fact, it is not free at all, and the employer gives us nothing. Because too many people think that the employer’s contribution is the employer’s money and not theirs, the consumer’s perception is distorted (as is the provider’s), and health spending is not subject to market discipline. Likewise, because too many people still do not understand this reality, “hidden taxes” through the employer mandate are politically attractive. Such a mandate thus serves as a psychological snare and an economic delusion.

Karen Davis and Cathy Schoen suggest a payroll tax to finance reform, whereby the employer pays 8 percent and the employee pays 2 percent. If one of our tasks is to make the true costs transparent, this suggestion does not help very much.

In his otherwise enlightening paper, Reinhardt calls attention to the virtues of a “mandated purchase” of health insurance. And he warns that calling an employer’s “mandated purchase” a “tax” comes close to debasing the English language. But, in a similar context, Reinhardt uses the word contribution to describe suspiciously similar functions. Suffice it to say, the campaign for linguistic precision is hardly advanced by using the word contibution to describe the state’s forcible extraction of citizens’ money.

In another context, Reinhardt proposes perhaps the best single reform idea to date. He suggests a simple financial disclosure on the part of the nation’s employers, requiring every employer to put periodically on the pay stub of every worker in America something like the following: “We have paid you X thousand dollars in health benefits. This has reduced your wages by X thousand dollars.” We would add: “Have a nice day!„

http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/13/2/101.full.pdf

 

[itfitzme]

This is US mortality rates from 1900

 

[The Rabbi]

This was the far left plan in the long run, to make health insurance unaffordable except through the government run exchanges.

is that another intentional lie or are you really that brainwashed and stupid?

if you're capable, read and learn.

thanks.

Original document where Heritage created Obamacare individual mandate

The Heritage Foundation also rightfully pointed out that employers don't GIVE you health insurance, YOU pay for it. It is money they could add to your pay. Obviously this company is not really fairly compensating their employees.

It is a gimmick to lower the pay of employees. But turds like Rabbi will NEVER find fault with his beloved CEO's and 'captains of industry'.

]

Obviously you dont know what the fuck you're talking about.

 

[The Rabbi]

This is US mortality rates from 1900

Flatlined about the time 3rd party payers became common. Thanks for supporting my point!

 

[Bfgrn]

is that another intentional lie or are you really that brainwashed and stupid?

if you're capable, read and learn.

thanks.

Original document where Heritage created Obamacare individual mandate

The Heritage Foundation also rightfully pointed out that employers don't GIVE you health insurance, YOU pay for it. It is money they could add to your pay. Obviously this company is not really fairly compensating their employees.

It is a gimmick to lower the pay of employees. But turds like Rabbi will NEVER find fault with his beloved CEO's and 'captains of industry'.

Obviously you dont know what the fuck you're talking about.

Obviously Rabbi, you've never known what you are talking about...

"People are not on unemployment for 2 years because there are no jobs. There are no jobs because people are on unemployment for 2 years."

 

[The Rabbi]

The Heritage Foundation also rightfully pointed out that employers don't GIVE you health insurance, YOU pay for it. It is money they could add to your pay. Obviously this company is not really fairly compensating their employees.

It is a gimmick to lower the pay of employees. But turds like Rabbi will NEVER find fault with his beloved CEO's and 'captains of industry'.

Obviously you dont know what the fuck you're talking about.

Obviously Rabbi, you've never known what you are talking about...

"People are not on unemployment for 2 years because there are no jobs. There are no jobs because people are on unemployment for 2 years."

Wow. You still post that like you're insulting me after I posted articles by economists saying exactly the same thing.
Looks like you're batting a big zero here in the truth department.

 

[itfitzme]

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.

I don't know who you guys are. I do, though ,have to remember that factiousness some how gets lost in translation on the net.

If you want to get all serious about it,your statement lacks demonstratable evidence. The economy isn't an either or prossess.

Your statement would be definitively true if there was a known curefor cancer.

One problem is, there's no saying that there even is a cure.

There has been a lot of research. My mother died of malignent melanoma that sprad to her lymph nodes. For some time, she flew to L.A. for experimental treatment.

Cervical cancer has been cured.

And many people are currently being cured with existing treatments.

There is also the fact that the company that does find a cure will have the patent on it or years and benefit tremendously. The execs, stockholders, and researchers will make bank. They'll end up with wheelbarrowsof money NOW instead of trickling in.

The researchers and execs at these companies don't have much difficulty finding work or making money. And there are plenty of investors in the market place that will gladly maket a cure. Competition isn't limited to existing companies. Everyone with the resources to bring it to market is comptition. And there are plenty of those.

Pharmaceutical companies aren't the only ones doing reseach. Universities d research and publishing a cure is far more lucrative than not. They don't manufacture. They don't make anything from existing products. And, many established and suuccesful companies are spinoffs from university research.

Everyone isn't motivated strictly by money. Most people have a number of motivations running side by side. People that do research are highly motivated by the simple fascination with the subject. Many people are actually motivated by things like contributing, helping others, and simple validation of their work. History is full of examples of inventors that died broke.

10 Celebrated Geniuses Who Died Penniless ~ Ideas, Inventions And Innovations

Sure, there are plenty of companies with innovations that they roll out on a schedule to maxmixe profit. But they do roll them out and you can bet that they are watching to be sure someone else doesn't do it before them.

I just don't see much support for the idea that a cure is being withheld by big pharma.

The better explanation is the simpler one. They just haven't found it.

 

[Dad2three]

This is US mortality rates from 1900

At the beginning of the 20th century, for every 1000 live births, six to nine women in the United States died of pregnancy-related complications, and approximately 100 infants died before age 1 year (1,2). From 1915 through 1997, the infant mortality rate declined greater than 90% to 7.2 per 1000 live births, and from 1900 through 1997, the maternal mortality rate declined almost 99% to less than 0.1 reported death per 1000 live births (7.7 deaths per 100,000 live births in 1997)


Environmental interventions, improvements in nutrition, advances in clinical medicine, improvements in access to health care, improvements in surveillance and monitoring of disease, increases in education levels, and improvements in standards of living contributed to this remarkable decline

Achievements in Public Health, 1900-1999: Healthier Mothers and Babies




Life expectancy increases with age as the individual survives the higher mortality rates associated with childhood. For instance, the table above listed the life expectancy at birth in Medieval Britain at 30. Having survived until the age of 21, a male member of the English aristocracy in this period could expect to live:]

1200–1300: to age 64
1300–1400: to age 45 (due to the impact of the bubonic plague)
1400–1500: to age 69
1500–1550: to age 71


Life expectancy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[itfitzme]

"People are not on unemployment for 2 years because there are no jobs. There are no jobs because people are on unemployment for 2 years."

Doyou mean that aggregate demand is down because of the high unemployment that resulted from the balance sheet recession initiated by the collapse of the speculative housing bubble which was driven by an unregulated financial market that employment would have improved considerably more if that demand failure had been addresses properly by Keynsian stimulous as championed by Krugman?

You mean that?

Because if you do then you are half right because the economy is a closed loop feedback system with variable amplification which typically ranges from -1.5 to 1.5 demand side stimulous, depending on th state of the economy?

Because that's the only way your statement begins to make sense and would makey half rightt

Otherwise, unemployment and people ot having jobs is the exact same thing.

If, in fact, you are talkng about aggregate emand, then the two statements,regarding unemployment and jobs, are not mutually exclusive. They are, in fact, mutually inclusive.

 

[Bfgrn]

Obviously you dont know what the fuck you're talking about.

Obviously Rabbi, you've never known what you are talking about...

"People are not on unemployment for 2 years because there are no jobs. There are no jobs because people are on unemployment for 2 years."

Wow. You still post that like you're insulting me after I posted articles by economists saying exactly the same thing.
Looks like you're batting a big zero here in the truth department.

You have posted zero articles saying anything THAT stupid. You are not only obtuse, you are dishonest.

 

[itfitzme]

This is US mortality rates from 1900

Flatlined about the time 3rd party payers became common. Thanks for supporting my point!

I am sure it doesn't. But you are welcome to present some well reasoned explaination that shows it does. That is if you are capable. I don't recollect sucha thing from you, but there is always a first time

 

[The Rabbi]

"People are not on unemployment for 2 years because there are no jobs. There are no jobs because people are on unemployment for 2 years."

Doyou mean that aggregate demand is down because of the high unemployment that resulted from the balance sheet recession initiated by the collapse of the speculative housing bubble which was driven by an unregulated financial market that employment would have improved considerably more if that demand failure had been addresses properly by Keynsian stimulous as championed by Krugman?

You mean that?

Because if you do then you are half right because the economy is a closed loop feedback system with variable amplification which typically ranges from -1.5 to 1.5 demand side stimulous, depending on th state of the economy?

Because that's the only way your statement begins to make sense and would makey half rightt

Otherwise, unemployment and people ot having jobs is the exact same thing.

If, in fact, you are talkng about aggregate emand, then the two statements,regarding unemployment and jobs, are not mutually exclusive. They are, in fact, mutually inclusive.

If you think "unemployment and people not having jobs" are the exact same thing then you are too fucking stupid to engage with.

 

[The Rabbi]

This is US mortality rates from 1900

Flatlined about the time 3rd party payers became common. Thanks for supporting my point!

I am sure it doesn't. But you are welcome to present some well reasoned explaination that shows it does. That is if you are capable. I don't recollect sucha thing from you, but there is always a first time

Res ipsa loquitur.

 

[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.

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.

Let me know when that happens.

But back to my point, which you seem to have missed because I didn't spell it out for you and you were easily distracted by the only thought that managed to come to mind, it isn't a zero sum game.

Now, I know I have explained this to you before but I go over it again.

First, you aren't paying for anyones anything. What you pay is your taxes. That's it. The government pays for government programs. It is basic bookkeeping.

Otherwise, by your nonsense reasoning, I pay your taxes because I buy the foodbat the store that pays the clerk that shops at target which purchases computers from the company that is a subsidiary af the conglommerate that buys stuff from the business that poays your income and your taxes.

Even so, no manner of a lower tax rate or payment will result in you being able to buy more stuff. Everyone pays taxes and, if lowered, everyones nominal disposable income would increase at the same time. Aggregate nominal prices are dirrectly related to the money supply. When the money supply increases, ceterus parabus, prices increase. This is well established and called inflation. The portion of the money supply that is directly causal of price inflation is the aggregate disposable income.

What you are able to buy with your disposable income is highly indirectly related to government expenditures and related by numerous real economic factors and processes. Money is simply a method of accounting and does not dirrectly cause anything. The causal relationshp between your real disposable income and government expenditures is barely exists at all. There is no manner of reason by which you have paid for anyone elses anything.

Even when price inflation doesn't manage to pick up all of your nominal increase, you still don't get what remains as your employer has the exact same misplaced reasoning. You employer believes he is paying for everyone elses whatever because he thinks that if not for those taxes, he wouldn't have fork out so much every pay day. It's his money. He gives you things like food and housing. He pays for the stuff you buy. And when taxes go down, he just doesn't have to pay you as much. If you ask for a raise, he'll tell you "you just got one."

I know why you think you'll be able to buy more, because you have a home economic model in mind where everything revolves around you.

I would think, at your age, you'de have figured out it doesn't, but I've always given too much credit to peoples intelligence. You've taught me differently. Now I get why the government has to make things involuntary. People's learning and behavior is caused by direct punishment and reward. Unfortunately, reward tends to be far less effective one...well...you.

Do you need me to put that in simpler words, with Dr. Seuss rhymes, or do ya' suppose ya' might manage to actually think it through without getting an aneurism.

 

[Listening]

Obviously Rabbi, you've never known what you are talking about...

Wow. You still post that like you're insulting me after I posted articles by economists saying exactly the same thing.
Looks like you're batting a big zero here in the truth department.

You have posted zero articles saying anything THAT stupid. You are not only obtuse, you are dishonest.

Look at the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Let me know when that happens.

But back to my point, which you seem to have missed because I didn't spell it out for you and you were easily distracted by the only thought that managed to come to mind, it isn't a zero sum game.

Now, I know I have explained this to you before but I go over it again.

First, you aren't paying for anyones anything. What you pay is your taxes. That's it. The government pays for government programs. It is basic bookkeeping.

Otherwise, by your nonsense reasoning, I pay your taxes because I buy the foodbat the store that pays the clerk that shops at target which purchases computers from the company that is a subsidiary af the conglommerate that buys stuff from the business that poays your income and your taxes.

Even so, no manner of a lower tax rate or payment will result in you being able to buy more stuff. Everyone pays taxes and, if lowered, everyones nominal disposable income would increase at the same time. Aggregate nominal prices are dirrectly related to the money supply. When the money supply increases, ceterus parabus, prices increase. This is well established and called inflation. The portion of the money supply that is directly causal of price inflation is the aggregate disposable income.

What you are able to buy with your disposable income is highly indirectly related to government expenditures and related by numerous real economic factors and processes. Money is simply a method of accounting and does not dirrectly cause anything. The causal relationshp between your real disposable income and government expenditures is barely exists at all. There is no manner of reason by which you have paid for anyone elses anything.

Even when price inflation doesn't manage to pick up all of your nominal increase, you still don't get what remains as your employer has the exact same misplaced reasoning. You employer believes he is paying for everyone elses whatever because he thinks that if not for those taxes, he wouldn't have fork out so much every pay day. It's his money. He gives you things like food and housing. He pays for the stuff you buy. And when taxes go down, he just doesn't have to pay you as much. If you ask for a raise, he'll tell you "you just got one."

I know why you think you'll be able to buy more, because you have a home economic model in mind where everything revolves around you.

I would think, at your age, you'de have figured out it doesn't, but I've always given too much credit to peoples intelligence. You've taught me differently. Now I get why the government has to make things involuntary. People's learning and behavior is caused by direct punishment and reward. Unfortunately, reward tends to be far less effective one...well...you.

I was going to select out the loonier bits. BUt the whole post shows you know exactly nothing. Yes, when government hands out subsidies to pay people's health insurance premiums, I as a taxpayer am paying for that. It is totally unlike your absurd example.
Second, you think tax rates affect money supply. That says you are clueless right there.
The rest of your post is the usual errant nonsense believed by people who really dont know very much.

 

[Bfgrn]

Wow. You still post that like you're insulting me after I posted articles by economists saying exactly the same thing.
Looks like you're batting a big zero here in the truth department.

You have posted zero articles saying anything THAT stupid. You are not only obtuse, you are dishonest.

Look at the pot calling the kettle black.

Have an adult take you to one of these. That is what the valve on the side of your head is for. You're low on air...

 

[The Rabbi]

You have posted zero articles saying anything THAT stupid. You are not only obtuse, you are dishonest.

Look at the pot calling the kettle black.

Have an adult take you to one of these. That is what the valve on the side of your head is for. You're low on air...

Your inability to answer his objection is noted.
Your stupidity and 2nd grade insults are also noted.

 

[itfitzme]

"People are not on unemployment for 2 years because there are no jobs. There are no jobs because people are on unemployment for 2 years."

Doyou mean that aggregate demand is down because of the high unemployment that resulted from the balance sheet recession initiated by the collapse of the speculative housing bubble which was driven by an unregulated financial market that employment would have improved considerably more if that demand failure had been addresses properly by Keynsian stimulous as championed by Krugman?

You mean that?

Because if you do then you are half right because the economy is a closed loop feedback system with variable amplification which typically ranges from -1.5 to 1.5 demand side stimulous, depending on th state of the economy?

Because that's the only way your statement begins to make sense and would makey half rightt

Otherwise, unemployment and people ot having jobs is the exact same thing.

If, in fact, you are talkng about aggregate emand, then the two statements,regarding unemployment and jobs, are not mutually exclusive. They are, in fact, mutually inclusive.

If you think "unemployment and people not having jobs" are the exact same thing then you are too fucking stupid to engage with.

Apperently you can't read because I clearly askes you what you meant.

Last I checked, the for the BLS CPS , they call people on the phone and ask, "do you have a job"? When then say " No", they are counted as unemployeed.

It isn't my problem if your only communication skill is talking to yourself in the mirror. I'm sure chimpanzees know exactly what they mean by "ooh ooh". But that doesn't mean they've made sense to anyone else.

I get it, you truely believe, without question, that the world revolves around you. So, of course, the definitions that you've made up MUST be the right ones. He dictionary according to The Rabbi. Nope, not on Amazon. Economics according to The Rabbi isn't there either.

But go ahead, get all pissy. That always makes you FEEL like you are right. That little pulse of adrenaline does wonders. You should try crystal meth. Man, you think that you are a genius with all that coursing through your veins. Norepinephrine, throw some seritonine on top of that, and you'll be standing on the edge of a rooftop, dick in hand, thinking you can fly.