Because I choose to. Do you want me to close yet another small business and lay off another 8 people?
C'mon ezra, my issues have nothing to do with Obama. I want health care, I am willing to pay my fair share, and I want to be treated fairly.
Health Insurance III
- Thread starter mrsrunningbear
- Start date
Because I choose to. Do you want me to close yet another small business and lay off another 8 people?
C'mon ezra, my issues have nothing to do with Obama. I want health care, I am willing to pay my fair share, and I want to be treated fairly.
I agree we needed reforms but 2000 pages? and no one knows all that is hiding in this monstrosity.I also provide insurance for my guys we have a high deductible 10g but I match the guys up to the 10 g in the med spending accounts.now next yr that money will be taxed so I was told buy my accountant last week.I am sure that will make the guys happy.I wish I could afford a better policy for the guys but really it is insurance not a maintenance program.1 guy with 2 kids is the only one who bitches but he halls the kids to the doc for every runny noise every cut and bump.so for that I like the high deductible except I have to match him the most because he is the only one constantly burning up the flex money.so on that side I see how people take advantage of insurance.where me and most other just do minute clinic and scripts poss 1 trip to doc a yr less than 300 per guy in flex match after account is maxed in most cases.
Good info, might help me with my employees. Who explained all this to you and helped set it up?
rocketman356
New member
I would like to know who wrote the 2200 pages and that would answer what it is all about.Forty pages would of covered the reforms needed to bring down costs.
xsledder
Active member
OK, you own a motel and your a consultant. Do you have employees?
Are your companies non-for-profit? Mine's for profit. When your not making money, do you pay yourself or your employees if you have them? If you have employees, do they get mad if you don't pay them?
This is your first irrational argument. Unless the company is like BC/BS, yes they will drop people that are costing to much. It is their right as a company. I fire people who are under performing in my company. It is my right as the boss. Do you fire under-performing employees or do you let them keep losing money for you?
Yes your right. Also, those in America with bad driving records are continually and systematically drop from car insurance. Those in America who commit crimes are continually and systematically put in jail. Those in America who perform bad at work are continually and systematically fired. Your point is? Are you looking for a utopian society where there are no ills or failures. This is Earth.
Daaa. Every insurance company makes money by not paying out claims. That is their type of business.
Daaa. You can get most insurance at a reasonable price as long as you don't file a lot of claims.
This comment was design to detract me from logic and tug at my heart strings by personalizing it to me. This is a great example of an irrational point. The last sentence in this quote is your complete premise for providing health care to everyone. "...you will get old and you will understand." Yes, I WILL get older. Yes, I COULD get cancer, diabetes, or have a heart attack; and for this you are trying to make me think that I should provide for the great good of the individual over the many.
You brought up the example of your friend with cancer. I am sorry that he has cancer and I wish him a full recovery, but truthfully that is as far as it goes between me and your friend. I don't know him and I won't miss him if he unfortunately dies. That is because there are several degrees of separation between him and me. Now, I'll probably be seen as the most horrible person on this site for saying it, but it is the truth and needs to be said. I don't care much about him to provide for his health insurance because I don't know him and probably will never know him. (There, I said it but most people are thinking it.)
I have friends and relatives with cancer and other aliments who I care more about. I too wish they could get treatment without affecting their live style. Unfortunately, for them to get the treat they need and to maintain their life style brings down someone else's life style for which they didn't cause the problem. Is this what you want? "I'm suffering so everyone else needs to suffer too." Openly your saying it is moral that we help these people out; but internally you want this for yourself because "...you will get old and you will understand." Universal Health Care is not about the great good of the Country; it is about the selfishness of the individual and their fear of the future. Yes, your right. I too don't want to lose everything if I get sick. Is it better for the future generations to have all this debt? I don't think so, therefore, if I get sick I will find my way to pay for it myself and not force someone who doesn't know me or care about me, support me.
This is my idea of social justice, I don't want to be a burden to someone else or my kids.
Absurd also means irrational. Yes, it is.
mrsrunningbear
Active member
good opinions from all sides, so interesting each opinion…and don’t ya learn just a little from each one….but it shouldn't get so personal......
....I know its heated....but good discussion....right
....I know its heated....but good discussion....right
Last edited:
First, let me say that I don't intend to get into an extended debate with xsledder, I respect his position, his entrepreneurship, and business acumen. I just don't agree, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Philosophically, I do believe that xsledder has been too deeply enmeshed in the issue, the administrivia of running a business, to see the picture conceptually, from "outside the box". I will also agree that his view is certainly pragmatic, and consistent with "the way it's done". No, not "wrong".
But why is it done that way?
Let's just try to "think outside the box" here, as an exercise. In the exchange between myself and xsledder, we had a bit of a difference of opinion about the terms "salary/wages" and "benefits". If you step outside the box, what we're talking about is more broadly called "compensation".
"Compensation" may be considered to be the sum total "bundle" of economic value that an employer offers to lure (and retain) employees. You can play the "shell game" and put little bits in separate compartments, like "pay" and "benefits" if you prefer (and to a certain extent you are encouraged to do so by the tax laws), but bottom line, lump it all together and it's just plain ol' "compensation". I certainly can appreciate the time and effort that en employer must put into all this administrivia, but wouldn't be easier, conceptually, to just lump it all together and call it what it is?
Compensation.
Pay it in cash (check, electronic funds transfer, etc). Shift all that administrivia to the individual employees while devoting your time and energy to running the business. The main reason it is not done that way is that a large majority of employees, being human, would not do it on their own, they are dependent upon the employer to play parent, coercing them to deal with such matters.
The "compensation" bundle might even allow for a number of non-negotiable "holidays" as a practical matter, but if the employee wants "vacation" days, "personal time", other "flex time", he/she can buy 'em at so much $ per hour or per day. How much time would such an arrangement free up for the employer to devote to the nitty gritty of running the business?
Beyond that, the other reason that "compensation" is sorted out into so many separate "boxes", is the same reason that automobiles are sold the way they are. A psychological ploy, aimed at making the "deal" appear to be more attractive than just a boring pile of greenbacks on the table. Apparently because it works. Human nature?
And finally, thank you dcsnomo, for nailing it with your discussion of health care vs. health insurance.
As to the "problem" of the elderly, their need for health care, and maybe their inability to afford it:
If we'd had "Universal Health Insurance", with "everyone in the pool", including all those healthy folks in the prime of life, all paying into the system from the outset, in anticipation of the inevitable, that would cover it. Since we have not done so, there will be a period of adjustment.
As I said before:
At least I think that is the case. If you don't agree, perhaps you'll be one of the first in line to sign up for the "death panels", so you can help to implement the "final solution" to the "elder problem". Hmm, that rings a vaguely familiar bell, from somewhere back in the 1930s and 1940s in Europe, wasn't it?
And lest you misunderstand, no I do not think any of us are prepared to endorse that plan. I think we can agree to call that approach abhorrent!
P.S.: I have to agree with mrsrunningbear, 'tis a valuable discussion, but let's not make it personal!
Philosophically, I do believe that xsledder has been too deeply enmeshed in the issue, the administrivia of running a business, to see the picture conceptually, from "outside the box". I will also agree that his view is certainly pragmatic, and consistent with "the way it's done". No, not "wrong".
But why is it done that way?
Let's just try to "think outside the box" here, as an exercise. In the exchange between myself and xsledder, we had a bit of a difference of opinion about the terms "salary/wages" and "benefits". If you step outside the box, what we're talking about is more broadly called "compensation".
"Compensation" may be considered to be the sum total "bundle" of economic value that an employer offers to lure (and retain) employees. You can play the "shell game" and put little bits in separate compartments, like "pay" and "benefits" if you prefer (and to a certain extent you are encouraged to do so by the tax laws), but bottom line, lump it all together and it's just plain ol' "compensation". I certainly can appreciate the time and effort that en employer must put into all this administrivia, but wouldn't be easier, conceptually, to just lump it all together and call it what it is?
Compensation.
Pay it in cash (check, electronic funds transfer, etc). Shift all that administrivia to the individual employees while devoting your time and energy to running the business. The main reason it is not done that way is that a large majority of employees, being human, would not do it on their own, they are dependent upon the employer to play parent, coercing them to deal with such matters.
The "compensation" bundle might even allow for a number of non-negotiable "holidays" as a practical matter, but if the employee wants "vacation" days, "personal time", other "flex time", he/she can buy 'em at so much $ per hour or per day. How much time would such an arrangement free up for the employer to devote to the nitty gritty of running the business?
Beyond that, the other reason that "compensation" is sorted out into so many separate "boxes", is the same reason that automobiles are sold the way they are. A psychological ploy, aimed at making the "deal" appear to be more attractive than just a boring pile of greenbacks on the table. Apparently because it works. Human nature?
And finally, thank you dcsnomo, for nailing it with your discussion of health care vs. health insurance.
I couldn't have said it any better!
As to the "problem" of the elderly, their need for health care, and maybe their inability to afford it:
If we'd had "Universal Health Insurance", with "everyone in the pool", including all those healthy folks in the prime of life, all paying into the system from the outset, in anticipation of the inevitable, that would cover it. Since we have not done so, there will be a period of adjustment.
As I said before:
At least I think that is the case. If you don't agree, perhaps you'll be one of the first in line to sign up for the "death panels", so you can help to implement the "final solution" to the "elder problem". Hmm, that rings a vaguely familiar bell, from somewhere back in the 1930s and 1940s in Europe, wasn't it?
And lest you misunderstand, no I do not think any of us are prepared to endorse that plan. I think we can agree to call that approach abhorrent!
P.S.: I have to agree with mrsrunningbear, 'tis a valuable discussion, but let's not make it personal!
Last edited:
rocketman356
New member
This 2200 page take over is so good.All that voted for it are exempt from it.Let them try to explain that one.President Obama was directly ask that questions and would not answer.Have a nice day.
Last edited:
xsledder
Active member
frnash, have you recently applied for a building permit? Have you recently applied for any type of permit through a local government agency? If you have, what type? If you have recently dealt with the regulation of permits from local government agencies, I can explain things to you better. You can't just look at it from "outside the box". You can look at compensation from a broader picture as an employee or talking in generality, but not when it comes to government regulation. Certain parts of your compensation is not taxed. If you want to broad brush compensation, then the Feds will tax everything. Right now (or until a few weeks ago) not everything was taxed.
Every boss has been an employee, not every employee has ever been a boss.
Every boss has been an employee, not every employee has ever been a boss.
mrsrunningbear
Active member
the world has really made a lot of people cold and hard....pretty upsetting and hard to see sometimes....
but understandable too
Last edited:
Just a quick clarification:
I'll just say this: "Stepping out of the box" and looking at the issue with a new perspective can give one an even better appreciation for the absurdity of life "in the box", and might possibly inspire one to work to change some of those burdensome government regulations. Much more so than blindly slaving away inside the box.
Now off to heed kevisip's advice (posted as I was composing this entry):
Yes I was "taking in generality" (generalities), i.e. philosophically.
I'll just say this: "Stepping out of the box" and looking at the issue with a new perspective can give one an even better appreciation for the absurdity of life "in the box", and might possibly inspire one to work to change some of those burdensome government regulations. Much more so than blindly slaving away inside the box.
True, and I certainly acknowledged the coercion exerted by the tax laws -- "inside the box". Speaking philosophically again:
Now off to heed kevisip's advice (posted as I was composing this entry):
OK everyone, go get some sleep, take Easter/Passover off. We can re-group on Monday. Then we might have all this solved.
Last edited:
I pay $67.50 a week for my chunk of employer sponsored health insurance. In the 16 plus years I have been at my employer, I personally, have only used my insurance 3 times, all for minor things. The way I look at it, I just go to the job, work for 8 hours, and go home. I am old school in this approach...I only go to the doctor if I am really sick or in pain. How many others out there are the same way?
G
G
Guest
No, it is not the govt's job to turn a profit. It is the govt's job to spend the taxes it collects to provide necessary services. It is also the govt's job to spend the taxpayers money in a way that the taxpayer might himself spend it. Responsibly. We have all heard of the $1200.00 hammers sold to the military. We have all seen the studies that show the more money you throw at the educational system does not insure brilliance or even graduation. Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid all suck up enormous administration costs. Spending other peoples money is easy. It requires no particular skill. Especially when there are no limits to what can be spent. If they don't get enough through taxation they just borrow more. This is an insane path to be going down.
I am not going to get into who pays for what and who is covered and who isn't. As I stated before I am in small business and provide insurance to my employees. Yes, the cost goes up as they age. Duh. At this time if a person has some form of health insurance it costs money whether pre-tax or otherwise. The ratio of what it costs depends on your age and your pre-existing conditions. Up to your max out-of pocket anyways.
I live 20 miles south of Canada. I have many Canadian friends. They have had their health care plan in place for decades. Years ago when I was in my 20's I used to go fishing with a bunch of Canadian friends of similar age. Their taxes and healthcare was always one of their favorite campfire discussions. At that time 50% of their salary went to pay for taxes/healthcare. It was non-negotiable and basically a fact of life.
I will not argue with anyone here that the system we have right now is in any way fair or equitable. Yes, there are sick people that get dropped. Yes, there are people that can't afford health insurance. Yes, there are already thousands of hoops to jump through just to be in business. It is a system that needs work. BUT
I have a serious problem with the way it is starting. It has been represented to be legislation that will be budget neutral in the long run. Based on ONE study by an agency that has a shaky record in predicting the future already, we have been launched down a rocky road. Yes, we need improved healthcare. But it should have been made crystal clear that it is going to cost a lot of NEW money. Unless they choose to keep borrowing more. Either direction poses life-changing circumstances. Such serious business should not have been rammed through in 3 days and deemed a 'win' for such and such. I thought we were all in this together.
Grub-
In general, I agree with you. Only issue is that it took a lot longer than 3 days. Depending on how you look at it you could say this started with the Clintons or even earlier.
I am also getting real tired of the "we win/you lose" mentality in Washington, that also seems to have started in the Clinton years.
Interestingly, there was a republican Congressman on Chris Wallace today stating the case for why we should vote Republican in November. After all his promises he said "And if we don't perform, throw us out at the next election!" I am getting so tired of this. We threw out the Democrats in 1994 and hung our hopes on the "Contract with America". We threw the Republicans out in 2004 and 2006. Now we are getting ready to throw the Democrats out in 2010. I no longer care who controls the Congress. I want representatives who can solve our problems rather than "winning". I fear, however, that this will not happen. While I am, and will continue to be a staunch supporter of health care reform, I am for the first time in my 57 years in America, seriously worried about our country. I miss the Reagan years.
rocketman356
New member
On another note how can you and why would anyone even consider another entitlement program without first addressing social security and medicare? Which are currently projected to have over 60 trillion in unfunded future costs.I reason a value added tax is next with the cap and tax bill also.
mrsrunningbear
Active member
Now I gotta say dcsnomo thats a little to political...and what happened to what kevisip said....I liked that....its Easter.....
G
G
Guest
As I understand it there are currently no plans to balance the budget. In fact it is projected to get worse and worse for the forseeable future. I know what would happen to me if I chose to continue to borrow past the point of never ever being able to address my debt. This is what makes the whole thing so frustrating for me. And it's not just me - what about the next generation. The only thing I can think of is that whoever is in charge is going to have to come out and say "Look - we are going to have to raise taxes A LOT." Of course that is not a voter friendly thing to say. But we are there. If any congressperson or senate candidate ran on the platform of raising taxes from roughly 1/3 of your income to 1/2 of your income how would that go? This is a bitter pill but borrowing billions from China is no better. There will be an end someday and we will HAVE TO balance. Better to do it by choice rather than force.