White house to working class Americans pay astromical deductibles- or Else...

[hadit]

When you have 'the big one' (which you will) who is going to pay for that? BTW; If you are employed, doesn't your employer provide healthcare? Or do you work for a Republican?

I always could get company insurance but again I didn't want to pay for it..

If your employer makes you pay for insurance, he/she isn't a very good employer. A Republican.

It's about skin in the game.. but you wouldn't understand it.. far beyond a Barista's mentality.

Attracting and retaining good employees is 'skin in the game?' How so?

It's human nature that people tend to not appreciate that which is given to them free of charge. We charge our employees one percent of their premium. The reason in doing this is so that they will notice when their contribution continually rises that the overall premium is rising.

That also helps to reinforce the truth that any benefits you offer are included in the total cost of employment. Employees tend to only see the bottom line number on their paychecks and have no idea how much their employer is really spending to employ them.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I always could get company insurance but again I didn't want to pay for it..

If your employer makes you pay for insurance, he/she isn't a very good employer. A Republican.

It's about skin in the game.. but you wouldn't understand it.. far beyond a Barista's mentality.

Attracting and retaining good employees is 'skin in the game?' How so?

It's human nature that people tend to not appreciate that which is given to them free of charge. We charge our employees one percent of their premium. The reason in doing this is so that they will notice when their contribution continually rises that the overall premium is rising.

That also helps to reinforce the truth that any benefits you offer are included in the total cost of employment. Employees tend to only see the bottom line number on their paychecks and have no idea how much their employer is really spending to employ them.

Now I'm sure 1% will tell me we're screwing our employees.

 

[OnePercenter]

SEC filings. Available online.

So nothing then. You stated that "healthcare insurers own the majority of hospitals and healthcare providers in the US" and won't support it.

You aren't smart enough to do your own homework?

I'll get you started with this;

The Quiet Takeover: Insurers Buying Physicians and Hospitals

Interesting. Your source says this about insurers buying hospitals:

So far, only a handful of payors and providers have made a move and a transaction has yet to involve a major hospital system

It would seem that you are premature in your panic.

Humana (owned by Aetna) isn't major?

It's your source. You explain it.

Sure. The insurance company collects premiums and pays claims to themselves. They own the hospital, clinic, or departments within both.

 

[OnePercenter]

Is that the same insurance industry that made hundreds of billions in net profits last year?

Which is it? Is the insurance industry insane or is it making big bucks? Generally speaking, insane businesses do not make big bucks.

Insane prices. The HMO act was to create competition in the healthcare insurance industry. Insurance companies were able to run-up prices to what we see today.

When the consumer doesn't even see the actual costs involved, there is no incentive to contain costs, so prices rise. Add to that increased mandates for providers to provide care for people who don't pay at all, plus mandates for insurers to cover ever more, and prices continue rising. You blame insurers, naturally, but fail to understand (willfully?) government's role in the cost increases we have been seeing.

WOW! Directly out of the PR handbook of the healthcare insurance industry.

The government did play a role in the increased costs. When Republican deregulated the HMO act which effectively removed any meaningful competition within the industry. I saw it firsthand as an employer over the last 36 years.

Can you dispute anything I said? You seem to cling to the idea that the changes to the HMO act are solely responsible for the increase in healthcare costs.

By removing actual competition in the industry......Yes.

 

[OnePercenter]

When you have 'the big one' (which you will) who is going to pay for that? BTW; If you are employed, doesn't your employer provide healthcare? Or do you work for a Republican?

I always could get company insurance but again I didn't want to pay for it..

If your employer makes you pay for insurance, he/she isn't a very good employer. A Republican.

It's about skin in the game.. but you wouldn't understand it.. far beyond a Barista's mentality.

Attracting and retaining good employees is 'skin in the game?' How so?

It's human nature that people tend to not appreciate that which is given to them free of charge. We charge our employees one percent of their premium. The reason in doing this is so that they will notice when their contribution continually rises that the overall premium is rising.

No, it's greed. I've never charged any employee premium costs. I have shown all of them the costs of their premium package.

 

[OnePercenter]

I always could get company insurance but again I didn't want to pay for it..

If your employer makes you pay for insurance, he/she isn't a very good employer. A Republican.

It's about skin in the game.. but you wouldn't understand it.. far beyond a Barista's mentality.

Attracting and retaining good employees is 'skin in the game?' How so?

It's human nature that people tend to not appreciate that which is given to them free of charge. We charge our employees one percent of their premium. The reason in doing this is so that they will notice when their contribution continually rises that the overall premium is rising.

That also helps to reinforce the truth that any benefits you offer are included in the total cost of employment. Employees tend to only see the bottom line number on their paychecks and have no idea how much their employer is really spending to employ them.

Unless the employer shows NET costs they are misleading their employee.

 

[hadit]

So nothing then. You stated that "healthcare insurers own the majority of hospitals and healthcare providers in the US" and won't support it.

You aren't smart enough to do your own homework?

I'll get you started with this;

The Quiet Takeover: Insurers Buying Physicians and Hospitals

Interesting. Your source says this about insurers buying hospitals:

So far, only a handful of payors and providers have made a move and a transaction has yet to involve a major hospital system

It would seem that you are premature in your panic.

Humana (owned by Aetna) isn't major?

It's your source. You explain it.

Sure. The insurance company collects premiums and pays claims to themselves. They own the hospital, clinic, or departments within both.

Dude, you're not explaining why your own source says things you don't agree with.

 

[hadit]

If your employer makes you pay for insurance, he/she isn't a very good employer. A Republican.

It's about skin in the game.. but you wouldn't understand it.. far beyond a Barista's mentality.

Attracting and retaining good employees is 'skin in the game?' How so?

It's human nature that people tend to not appreciate that which is given to them free of charge. We charge our employees one percent of their premium. The reason in doing this is so that they will notice when their contribution continually rises that the overall premium is rising.

That also helps to reinforce the truth that any benefits you offer are included in the total cost of employment. Employees tend to only see the bottom line number on their paychecks and have no idea how much their employer is really spending to employ them.

Unless the employer shows NET costs they are misleading their employee.

Not so. When an employer not only pays the employee the salary he agreed to, but an additional 6.2% Social Security tax, plus $500/month for the employee's family health insurance plan, plus matching 2% for 401K contributions, he can add those numbers up and say definitively, "This is how much it costs me to have you as my employee". Net or gross simply doesn't apply.

 

[hadit]

Which is it? Is the insurance industry insane or is it making big bucks? Generally speaking, insane businesses do not make big bucks.

Insane prices. The HMO act was to create competition in the healthcare insurance industry. Insurance companies were able to run-up prices to what we see today.

When the consumer doesn't even see the actual costs involved, there is no incentive to contain costs, so prices rise. Add to that increased mandates for providers to provide care for people who don't pay at all, plus mandates for insurers to cover ever more, and prices continue rising. You blame insurers, naturally, but fail to understand (willfully?) government's role in the cost increases we have been seeing.

WOW! Directly out of the PR handbook of the healthcare insurance industry.

The government did play a role in the increased costs. When Republican deregulated the HMO act which effectively removed any meaningful competition within the industry. I saw it firsthand as an employer over the last 36 years.

Can you dispute anything I said? You seem to cling to the idea that the changes to the HMO act are solely responsible for the increase in healthcare costs.

By removing actual competition in the industry......Yes.

Then you're ignoring the additional coverage requirements for health insurance and the growth of required pro bono services. IOW, there are a lot more factors than just your favorite whipping post.

 

[OnePercenter]

It's about skin in the game.. but you wouldn't understand it.. far beyond a Barista's mentality.

Attracting and retaining good employees is 'skin in the game?' How so?

It's human nature that people tend to not appreciate that which is given to them free of charge. We charge our employees one percent of their premium. The reason in doing this is so that they will notice when their contribution continually rises that the overall premium is rising.

That also helps to reinforce the truth that any benefits you offer are included in the total cost of employment. Employees tend to only see the bottom line number on their paychecks and have no idea how much their employer is really spending to employ them.

Unless the employer shows NET costs they are misleading their employee.

Not so. When an employer not only pays the employee the salary he agreed to, but an additional 6.2% Social Security tax, plus $500/month for the employee's family health insurance plan, plus matching 2% for 401K contributions, he can add those numbers up and say definitively, "This is how much it costs me to have you as my employee". Net or gross simply doesn't apply.

Aren't those costs deductible which reduces your tax expense?

 

[OnePercenter]

Insane prices. The HMO act was to create competition in the healthcare insurance industry. Insurance companies were able to run-up prices to what we see today.

When the consumer doesn't even see the actual costs involved, there is no incentive to contain costs, so prices rise. Add to that increased mandates for providers to provide care for people who don't pay at all, plus mandates for insurers to cover ever more, and prices continue rising. You blame insurers, naturally, but fail to understand (willfully?) government's role in the cost increases we have been seeing.

WOW! Directly out of the PR handbook of the healthcare insurance industry.

The government did play a role in the increased costs. When Republican deregulated the HMO act which effectively removed any meaningful competition within the industry. I saw it firsthand as an employer over the last 36 years.

Can you dispute anything I said? You seem to cling to the idea that the changes to the HMO act are solely responsible for the increase in healthcare costs.

By removing actual competition in the industry......Yes.

Then you're ignoring the additional coverage requirements for health insurance and the growth of required pro bono services. IOW, there are a lot more factors than just your favorite whipping post.

Oh come-on, you're smarter than that. Additional coverage means additional fees for providing a service.

What 'pro bono' services?

 

[hadit]

Attracting and retaining good employees is 'skin in the game?' How so?

It's human nature that people tend to not appreciate that which is given to them free of charge. We charge our employees one percent of their premium. The reason in doing this is so that they will notice when their contribution continually rises that the overall premium is rising.

That also helps to reinforce the truth that any benefits you offer are included in the total cost of employment. Employees tend to only see the bottom line number on their paychecks and have no idea how much their employer is really spending to employ them.

Unless the employer shows NET costs they are misleading their employee.

Not so. When an employer not only pays the employee the salary he agreed to, but an additional 6.2% Social Security tax, plus $500/month for the employee's family health insurance plan, plus matching 2% for 401K contributions, he can add those numbers up and say definitively, "This is how much it costs me to have you as my employee". Net or gross simply doesn't apply.

Aren't those costs deductible which reduces your tax expense?

Irrelevant. The employee's salary is a deductible expense. It has nothing to do with the actual cost of employing him/her.

 

[hadit]

When the consumer doesn't even see the actual costs involved, there is no incentive to contain costs, so prices rise. Add to that increased mandates for providers to provide care for people who don't pay at all, plus mandates for insurers to cover ever more, and prices continue rising. You blame insurers, naturally, but fail to understand (willfully?) government's role in the cost increases we have been seeing.

WOW! Directly out of the PR handbook of the healthcare insurance industry.

The government did play a role in the increased costs. When Republican deregulated the HMO act which effectively removed any meaningful competition within the industry. I saw it firsthand as an employer over the last 36 years.

Can you dispute anything I said? You seem to cling to the idea that the changes to the HMO act are solely responsible for the increase in healthcare costs.

By removing actual competition in the industry......Yes.

Then you're ignoring the additional coverage requirements for health insurance and the growth of required pro bono services. IOW, there are a lot more factors than just your favorite whipping post.

Oh come-on, you're smarter than that. Additional coverage means additional fees for providing a service.

<trumpet fanfare>AND HIGHER PRICES!!! Which kind of is the whole point.

What 'pro bono' services?

A hospital is required to treat you in the ER regardless of your ability or intent to pay.

 

[OnePercenter]

It's human nature that people tend to not appreciate that which is given to them free of charge. We charge our employees one percent of their premium. The reason in doing this is so that they will notice when their contribution continually rises that the overall premium is rising.

That also helps to reinforce the truth that any benefits you offer are included in the total cost of employment. Employees tend to only see the bottom line number on their paychecks and have no idea how much their employer is really spending to employ them.

Unless the employer shows NET costs they are misleading their employee.

Not so. When an employer not only pays the employee the salary he agreed to, but an additional 6.2% Social Security tax, plus $500/month for the employee's family health insurance plan, plus matching 2% for 401K contributions, he can add those numbers up and say definitively, "This is how much it costs me to have you as my employee". Net or gross simply doesn't apply.

Aren't those costs deductible which reduces your tax expense?

Irrelevant. The employee's salary is a deductible expense. It has nothing to do with the actual cost of employing him/her.

WOW! You just don't get it.

An employees NET cost is the Gross cost MINUS the savings in taxes.

 

[AntonToo]

Mine went from $2,500 to $12,000.

Nice work.

My girlfriend had to go to the ER, paid a co-pay and got a bill for the whole damn thing.

What a clusterfuck.

You need to stop lying.

Seriously, what kind of idiot will believe that your insurance not only didn't cover ER visit, but also charged you co-pay for a bill you supposedly paid yourself.

 

[OnePercenter]

WOW! Directly out of the PR handbook of the healthcare insurance industry.

The government did play a role in the increased costs. When Republican deregulated the HMO act which effectively removed any meaningful competition within the industry. I saw it firsthand as an employer over the last 36 years.

Can you dispute anything I said? You seem to cling to the idea that the changes to the HMO act are solely responsible for the increase in healthcare costs.

By removing actual competition in the industry......Yes.

Then you're ignoring the additional coverage requirements for health insurance and the growth of required pro bono services. IOW, there are a lot more factors than just your favorite whipping post.

Oh come-on, you're smarter than that. Additional coverage means additional fees for providing a service.

<trumpet fanfare>AND HIGHER PRICES!!! Which kind of is the whole point.

What 'pro bono' services?

A hospital is required to treat you in the ER regardless of your ability or intent to pay.

Higher profits through the healthcare insurance companies billing themselves.

A hospital IS required to provide emergency care. Since most folks have medical insurance that may be less of a factor than it used to be. However, most hospitals are compensated through 'EAP' types of programs.

 

[bripat9643]

That also helps to reinforce the truth that any benefits you offer are included in the total cost of employment. Employees tend to only see the bottom line number on their paychecks and have no idea how much their employer is really spending to employ them.

Unless the employer shows NET costs they are misleading their employee.

Not so. When an employer not only pays the employee the salary he agreed to, but an additional 6.2% Social Security tax, plus $500/month for the employee's family health insurance plan, plus matching 2% for 401K contributions, he can add those numbers up and say definitively, "This is how much it costs me to have you as my employee". Net or gross simply doesn't apply.

Aren't those costs deductible which reduces your tax expense?

Irrelevant. The employee's salary is a deductible expense. It has nothing to do with the actual cost of employing him/her.

WOW! You just don't get it.

An employees NET cost is the Gross cost MINUS the savings in taxes.

hmmm, no. The cost is the cost. Employee wages and benefits reduce your gross income. There is no "savings" only a smaller tax as the result of a smaller income. When a man gets demoted and his salary goes from $150K to $100K, he hasn't saved the tax on that additional $50K.

 

[OnePercenter]

Unless the employer shows NET costs they are misleading their employee.

Not so. When an employer not only pays the employee the salary he agreed to, but an additional 6.2% Social Security tax, plus $500/month for the employee's family health insurance plan, plus matching 2% for 401K contributions, he can add those numbers up and say definitively, "This is how much it costs me to have you as my employee". Net or gross simply doesn't apply.

Aren't those costs deductible which reduces your tax expense?

Irrelevant. The employee's salary is a deductible expense. It has nothing to do with the actual cost of employing him/her.

WOW! You just don't get it.

An employees NET cost is the Gross cost MINUS the savings in taxes.

hmmm, no. The cost is the cost. Employee wages and benefits reduce your gross income. There is no "savings" only a smaller tax as the result of a smaller income. When a man gets demoted and his salary goes from $150K to $100K, he hasn't saved the tax on that additional $50K.

Perhaps in Canada. In the US, deductibles reduce your taxes.

 

[bripat9643]

Not so. When an employer not only pays the employee the salary he agreed to, but an additional 6.2% Social Security tax, plus $500/month for the employee's family health insurance plan, plus matching 2% for 401K contributions, he can add those numbers up and say definitively, "This is how much it costs me to have you as my employee". Net or gross simply doesn't apply.

Aren't those costs deductible which reduces your tax expense?

Irrelevant. The employee's salary is a deductible expense. It has nothing to do with the actual cost of employing him/her.

WOW! You just don't get it.

An employees NET cost is the Gross cost MINUS the savings in taxes.

hmmm, no. The cost is the cost. Employee wages and benefits reduce your gross income. There is no "savings" only a smaller tax as the result of a smaller income. When a man gets demoted and his salary goes from $150K to $100K, he hasn't saved the tax on that additional $50K.

Perhaps in Canada. In the US, deductibles reduce your taxes.

So does a lower income, moron. That isn't "saving money."

 

[OnePercenter]

Aren't those costs deductible which reduces your tax expense?

Irrelevant. The employee's salary is a deductible expense. It has nothing to do with the actual cost of employing him/her.

WOW! You just don't get it.

An employees NET cost is the Gross cost MINUS the savings in taxes.

hmmm, no. The cost is the cost. Employee wages and benefits reduce your gross income. There is no "savings" only a smaller tax as the result of a smaller income. When a man gets demoted and his salary goes from $150K to $100K, he hasn't saved the tax on that additional $50K.

Perhaps in Canada. In the US, deductibles reduce your taxes.

So does a lower income, moron. That isn't "saving money."

Why would you want a lower income?