The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Gun Dog Broker
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 47

Thread: The WSJ on the contradictions in Osamacare

  1. #21
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tpaschal30 View Post
    It is the bailout. There is a fall back plan(public option) and they don't look like the bad guy. Let's use your numbers of 10%. If you could reduce payroll by 2% and wash your hands of administering a HI plan giving you a leg up on the competition. Who wouldn't? Owners and stockholders don't run a business to fund health care. The point is when Obama says you will get to keep your plan, in the end very few will, except Congress.
    I'm not sure I understand what you think will happen or why. The "public option" is nothing except another insurance policy that an employee or employer can choose. As an employer, I routinle reviewed our health insurance every three years, or more frequently if face with massive premium increases. I looked at cost, services (remember, I was covered by the same plan), and the extent to which physicians used by my staff were also included in the plan under consideration.

    I offered insurance to be competitive in the employment market. If I had not offered it I would have lost many of my staff. I agree that as an employer I would have preferrd to be out of the health care business entirely and I ultimately dropped all insurances after watching my costs triple in 12 years. However, the proposed public option would not have gotten me off the hook any more than a private option. I am either providing group coverage or I am not. As an employer I would prefer it if the government automatically enrolled all citizens in a government program with no involvement from me. That would get the employer off the hook and make employers more competitive in the global market. However, that is not a proposal that is on the table.

  2. #22
    Senior Member tpaschal30's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salisbury, MD
    Posts
    249

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dnf777 View Post
    I am not endorsing this answer, but here is one explanation I've heard. Anytime you unburden the private sector (ie tax cuts, or employee benefit cuts), that will be so good for the economy that productivity will increase, GDP will increase, and therefore tax revenues will increase, all without increasing the tax rate.

    If this logic held true in 2001, then I assume it still is valid today?
    A bureaucrat spending someone else's money on someone else and himself. Now that sounds efficient!!!!

  3. #23
    Senior Member dnf777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Western Pa
    Posts
    6,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tpaschal30 View Post
    A bureaucrat spending someone else's money on someone else and himself. Now that sounds efficient!!!!
    Personally, as I stated I don't agree with that philosophy. It was what we were sold as justification for the Bush tax cuts, however, and we can see and feel how well it worked then.
    God Bless PFC Jamie Harkness. The US Army's newest PFC, but still our neighbor's little girl!

  4. #24
    Senior Member tpaschal30's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salisbury, MD
    Posts
    249

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dnf777 View Post
    Personally, as I stated I don't agree with that philosophy. It was what we were sold as justification for the Bush tax cuts, however, and we can see and feel how well it worked then.
    A socialist won't.

    Everytime marginal taxes rates have been cut federal revenues have risen. Tax cuts have nothinbg to do with what has happened.

  5. #25
    Senior Member tpaschal30's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salisbury, MD
    Posts
    249

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YardleyLabs View Post
    I'm not sure I understand what you think will happen or why. The "public option" is nothing except another insurance policy that an employee or employer can choose. As an employer, I routinle reviewed our health insurance every three years, or more frequently if face with massive premium increases. I looked at cost, services (remember, I was covered by the same plan), and the extent to which physicians used by my staff were also included in the plan under consideration.

    I offered insurance to be competitive in the employment market. If I had not offered it I would have lost many of my staff. I agree that as an employer I would have preferrd to be out of the health care business entirely and I ultimately dropped all insurances after watching my costs triple in 12 years. However, the proposed public option would not have gotten me off the hook any more than a private option. I am either providing group coverage or I am not. As an employer I would prefer it if the government automatically enrolled all citizens in a government program with no involvement from me. That would get the employer off the hook and make employers more competitive in the global market. However, that is not a proposal that is on the table.
    Yep bailout.

  6. #26
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tpaschal30 View Post
    Yep bailout.
    Who is being bailed out? I don't understand your comment.

  7. #27
    Senior Member tpaschal30's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salisbury, MD
    Posts
    249

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YardleyLabs View Post
    .
    I That would get the employer off the hook and make employers more competitive in the global market. However, that is not a proposal that is on the table.
    Off the hook, bailout, pardon, or take over. There is no free lunch. Someone somewhere will have to pay. I agree it needs to get out of the employers hands, but not to the government. Patients must be the employer of the providers.

  8. #28
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tpaschal30 View Post
    Off the hook, bailout, pardon, or take over. There is no free lunch. Someone somewhere will have to pay. I agree it needs to get out of the employers hands, but not to the government. Patients must be the employer of the providers.
    I'm not sure I would call that a bailout. We are the only country in the world that expects employers to pay for health insurance for their employees. The cost of that coverage becomes part of product pricing and helps make our goods less competitive in the global economy.

    International trade regulations prohibit government subsidies to stimulate exports. However, removing that cost from business would make our products more competitive and increase jobs in this country. Instead, the need to pay health care contributes to businesses exporting jobs to other countries or encourages them to terminate health coverage, adding to the ranks of the uninsured. One way or another, I believe it is inevitable that employers will stop subsidizing health care benefits. The real question is how ugly will the process get.

  9. #29
    Senior Member tpaschal30's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salisbury, MD
    Posts
    249

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YardleyLabs View Post
    I'm not sure I would call that a bailout. We are the only country in the world that expects employers to pay for health insurance for their employees. The cost of that coverage becomes part of product pricing and helps make our goods less competitive in the global economy.

    International trade regulations prohibit government subsidies to stimulate exports. However, removing that cost from business would make our products more competitive and increase jobs in this country. Instead, the need to pay health care contributes to businesses exporting jobs to other countries or encourages them to terminate health coverage, adding to the ranks of the uninsured. One way or another, I believe it is inevitable that employers will stop subsidizing health care benefits. The real question is how ugly will the process get.
    Employer provided health care insurance became customary from employers working around wage controls imposed during WW2. Another example of government interferance causing unintended consequences.

  10. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YardleyLabs View Post
    I'm not sure I would call that a bailout. We are the only country in the world that expects employers to pay for health insurance for their employees. .
    Why are we the only country to have employers pay for health insurance?

    Is it because of government wage controls that were put in place long ago. The employers trying to make themsleves more competitive in the labor market began to offer insurance. Then the unions began to demand more coverage.

Similar Threads

  1. Its all a deathpanel, the truth about osamacare
    By Bob Gutermuth in forum POTUS Place - For those who talk Politics in the Gallery!
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 08-25-2009, 12:22 PM
  2. AARP losing members over support for osamacare
    By Bob Gutermuth in forum POTUS Place - For those who talk Politics in the Gallery!
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 08-19-2009, 05:50 AM
  3. Osamacare dirty secret #2
    By Bob Gutermuth in forum POTUS Place - For those who talk Politics in the Gallery!
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 08-18-2009, 09:47 AM
  4. Gov Palin on Osamacare
    By Bob Gutermuth in forum POTUS Place - For those who talk Politics in the Gallery!
    Replies: 78
    Last Post: 08-17-2009, 05:03 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •