Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: ROC on January 17, 2007, 11:49:07 PM
-
Ok, I'm curious as to the root of the health care responsibilities.
Now, as a business manager, I have a question to workers and management.
When does it become My responsibility to cover You medically?
Now, think about a few things here. You get Paid, and can use your money how you wish. Buy car insurance, health insurance, big screen TV, I don't care, as long as you perform the work you are paid for. One might argue "It isn't enough" ok, great, get a job somewhere else. But when, exactly, does it become my responsibility to pay for Your medical? Am I your Father? Mother? Grandparents? Do I have a Say in how you ACT off of work hours? Do I get to tell you Not to smoke? Not to Have unprotected sex? Not to Drink alchohol? Don't eat at at McDonalds? No, I don't, but the States keep coming up with reasons why companies Owe you some form of coverage?
Someone who has Built a business from the ground up, and have sacrificed Their income for years and years, to finally get successful, Please explain to me why I "owe" anyone Anything at all other than Pay for their Work.
How on Earth have people become so convoluted as to think in any way, shape or form that they are Owed anything other than Pay for their work? I, for the life of me, am at a loss here. Granted, I see the Value of offering it to recruit good solid employees, that is a very good benefit, but tell me, prove to me somehow, that this is something Owed simply by employment.
-
Wow, you think you would be proud to have a business that provides health care for your workers.
Oh well, I now see why we are getting closer to government healthcare.
-
Originally posted by ROC
:furious
unles u've bin convictd of 3 felonys, u can leave caliph0nia when u wants to
u should move 2 georga, caus OMG they have really good fresh fruit there
IM NOT JOKING
ITS GREAT:aok :aok :aok :aok :cool:
-
Beats me..
Are you the business manager or the owner?
As you said, it's a good perk for recruiting solid workers. It's also a perk to keep the solid workers you have. So is a 401 contribution plan. Legally, I think it depends upon number of employees you manage for the owner? As the busineess manager what did the owner say? Why do you care what he forks out, not your responsibility from my point of view.
The other option is federal health care, lasz will shoot you for voting that in.
-
Wow, you think you would be proud to have a business that provides health care for your workers.
Missed the point. What does being Proud of offering it have to do with being Obligated to offer it?
So, sixpence, we are moving closer to government healthcare because...the Business owes it to you and doesn't want to pay it? Why does the business OWE it?
Booz, Im the GM of a corporation. Mind you, I do offer good pay, prevailing wage, and great benefits. I'm wrestling with why it's felt I OWE it to the employees, other than a benefit to keep and recruit good employees.
-
Originally posted by ROC
Booz, Im the GM of a corporation. Mind you, I do offer good pay, prevailing wage, and great benefits. I'm wrestling with why it's felt I OWE it to the employees, other than a benefit to keep and recruit good employees.
From what I recall of readings YEARS ago, the entire health care idea developed in Germany somewhere in the 19aughts.. maybe the guy who was making today's Bayer aspirin, I don't remember. Big company though. But his logic was, providing health care for employees benefitted the company in that they had happy, healthy workers who showed up more often which helped productivity..and in that day it was true.
Today though, when a company will dump an entire division for next quarters numbers there's not much allegiance from the bottom up or the top down, and that's a shame. Folks don't plan a career anymore, most employees are looking for a 2-5 year stint and move on, and companies don't want to maintain employees if it cost an extra buck.
I dunno.. what's right?
cut em all off, make up for increased sick calls by firing and hiring cheaper workers, with lower output?
pay 'em more so they can afford to stay healthy enouh to come to work?
pay more taxes so it's uncle sam's and lazs' headache?
develop in house health care?
I think the Bayer guy was onto something over a hundred years ago, but we take it's benefits for granted today, from both sides.
I don't know where the yard-stick should lie, but it's a question of who's greed shall prevail, and that too is sad.
-
just hire "undocumented" workers, no min wage, no over time, no SS, no health care, you will make the owner rich and he will love you.
-
Until he realizes your unqualified staff is fighting an uphill battle to maintain Wal-Mart quality...and sales tank. Oh, and they call in sick 8 times a month.
-
Originally posted by ROC
Ok, I'm curious as to the root of the health care responsibilities.
Justice and mercy abide at the root.
Regards,
hap
-
Originally posted by Booz
Until he realizes your unqualified staff is fighting an uphill battle to maintain Wal-Mart quality...and sales tank. Oh, and they call in sick 8 times a month.
no, you don't understand, the owner built the business and is responsible for it's success, workers don't matter, they are just a cost item. Ask any owner.
-
Ah! Let's fire ROC for the situation then :)
-
Originally posted by Booz
From what I recall of readings YEARS ago, the entire health care idea developed in Germany somewhere in the 19aughts.. maybe the guy who was making today's Bayer aspirin, I don't remember. Big company though. But his logic was, providing health care for employees benefitted the company in that they had happy, healthy workers who showed up more often which helped productivity..and in that day it was true.
Actually it was Otto von Bismark, who introduced several laws to improve the lot of the working class and, more important, tried battle the uprising Social Democratic Party this way.
The law concerning heatlth care was adopted in 1883 "Gesetz betreffend die Krankenversicherung der Arbeiter" = "Law regarding the workers health care insurance".
-
"The myth that the United States has the best health care system in the world has long been shattered. We don't have the best health care in the world -- we have the most overpriced health care system in the world. And frankly, it's not even a health care system -- it's a disease care system."-Mike Adams. Skyrocketing Health Care Costs make U.S. Employers Non-competitive in the Global Marketplace, NewsTarget.com, Aug 8, 2004.
The history of medical insurance coverage for employees by U.S. companies began after WWII when companies were searching for employees during the boon of activity after the war. Health care coverage was considered a benefit and was largely a success to the degree that Americans now expect to have health care insurance with employment. However, many companies are re-evaluating the issue.
In 2004 total national health expenditures rose 7.9% (3X inflation). Total spending 1.9 Trillion or $6,280 per person in the U.S./16% of the GDP. In 2006 employer health insurance premiums increased 7.7% (2X inflation) but small employers with less than 24 employees saw a 10.5%. Annual premium payed by employers for families $11,500 and singles $4,200. "The annual premiums for family coverage significantly eclipsed the gross earnings for a full-time minimum wage worker ($10,712)."-National Coalition on Health Care, The Impact of Rising Health Care Cost on the Economy Fact Sheet Series.
Now it seems to me that a buisness owner/operator can only tolerate so much incroachment of benefits on profit before there is no profit. How does the buisness keep its doors open?
What is not healthy for the economy is employer or government mandated or expected health care coverage without some cost (sacrifice) for the individual. This kills natural economic forces that keep costs in check. Frankly, this is what is driving the problems we have in health care costs now (Medicare/Medicaid/Third party payers/etc).
I think we are not healthy as a nation (obesity, diabetes, cancer, etc) due to poor lifestyle habits partly because you can eat that junk food, smoke, avoid exercise and get cheap medical care (low co-pay employer covered insurance). Well employers are sick (pun intended) of covering the bill.
Of course this is only part of the problem, but if the companies who provide the coverage for health insurance place that responibility on the consumer (employee) then I bet the outrage of health care cost will become more of a priority to address.
Employees will have to accept certain facts though. You can't expect an MRI if you had a headache this morning, or an Ultrasound of the unborn child for scrap book pictures, or for that matter an "annual" physical exam with all the bells and whistle labs without paying the cost/sacrifice.
The medical malpractice lotto mentality will also have to be addressed, and physicians should be allowed to do there job the way they are trained. Meaning not everyone with a headache needs an MRI/CT scan, etc. This means addressing the overutilization of resorces (defensive medicine). I think putting the consumer in charge of paying for health care would do some of that.
-
Originally posted by Booz
pay 'em more so they can afford to stay healthy enouh to come to work?
I don't think it will work. Make them pay for their health care and they will demand reasonable health care costs by economic market forces and they will also likely think twice about smoking that cig, or eating those trans fat containing potato chips.
-
Originally posted by festus
I think we are not healthy as a nation (obesity, diabetes, cancer, etc) due to poor lifestyle habits partly because you can eat that junk food, smoke, avoid exercise and get cheap medical care (low co-pay employer covered insurance).
I didn't mean to imply cheap health care by the employer, I meant the employee. The lower the cost of the individual the higher the utilization.
-
Originally posted by festus
"The myth that the United States has the best health care system in the world has long been shattered. We don't have the best health care in the world -- we have the most overpriced health care system in the world.
snip
Here lies the crux of our collective dilemma - the cost of health care in the USA.
I'm old enough to remember the days when, as a wage earner, it was actually feasible to pay for my own health care. Even when something major was involved, the cost was such that it could be managed with installment payments.
The last 40 years, however, have seen the cost of medical care balloon to the extent that for most wage earners, any event which requires hospitalization costs so much that it exceeds the ability to pay, even with installment payments.
The result is that people without insurance who need more than routine care very often present to healthcare providers as effectively indigent. The cost of their procedures then becomes the burden of the healthcare provider (who must provide it but absorb the cost) or the state, which reimburses healthcare providers for some indigent parties.
Thus, the costs are borne by all of us, albeit indirectly. We pay for our care, part of which cost goes to cover our providers' losses on unreimbursed indigent care, and we pay more taxes to cover what the state pays for indigent care.
So, what is an equitable solution?
I know ROC, he's a decent enough individual at heart (even though he's also an a**hole, but I suppose I shouldn't cast stones ;)). I'm sure he would not suggest that indigent folks should simply be allowed to suffer and die uncared for. Remember that for this discussion, "indigent" includes a huge segment of those we refer to as "gainfully employed" people.
So, how do we arrive at an equitable solution?
Its obviously not possible to get the cost tiger back in the cage. There's no way that we can expect the medical profession as its structured now to reduce costs enough to bring them into realistic alignment with individual ability to pay.
The only way people will be able to pay for their own care is by participating in some sort of pooled risk arrangment. This could be insurance from for-profit insurance providers, pooled resource schemes ("self-insured" employment groups, for instance), or some socialized medical care system.
I think we all agree its best if possible to keep the government from expanding its mandate to include healthcare. And, only truly huge organizations have the ability to self-insure.
This leaves insurance. But, guess what? Because of the huge cost increases in recent decades, insurance companies have raised prices accordingly.
The only way insurance is feasibly affordable is through participation in a large group. Large groups are able to spread costs over a large enough pool that they are able to negotiate an average cost that's reasonable. Individuals, however, are quoted prices for healthcare insurance that are exorbitant, because they have no bargaining power. Trust me on this, its one of the reasons I chose to stop being self-employed about a decade ago - I simply could not afford to continue paying for insurance because the cost went through the roof over the prior decade, and I did not want to invest in increasing the size of my business to allow for group participation.
So, rather than going to socialized medicine, we (as a society) must consider requiring all employers to ensure that their employees have medical insurance.
There is good sense in this. Employers should not see this as an entitlement their employees expect over and above their wages. They should see it as a cost of doing business, that cost being a measurable portion of their employees' compensation. It simply requires a change in the way you think about labor costs ("OK, I need 25 people, who I will pay $x/hr + $x/week for insurance").
So long as we mandate this by law, we make the playing field for all employers level. They all have the same ability to seek participation in group plans at the best possible negotiated rates to keep their costs as low as possible. They all pass the cost along to consumers.
The benefit to us as a society is to reduce the amount of tax money that must go to indigent care. Since we agree that the government is most inefficient in managing costs, any reduction we make there is probably also a reduction of care that is being provided at exorbitant cost. The net cost to us as a society will be better if private concerns pay, rather than The Tax Teat.
Does this mean that if you want to be in business, your life becomes more complicated? Yes.
The only other alternative would be for the government to mandate that insurance providers must provide "group rates" to individual consumers. On the surface, I like that best - make everyone pay their own way individually. However, this seems to be a really slippery slope that might lead to us effectively having a socialized healthcare system, since it would increase the involvement of government in the regulation of the insurance industry.
I think we're all best off keeping it all in private hands as much as possible. Hence, think of mandatory employer-sponsored group plans as a normal cost of doing business, same as the minimum wage.
**** my hat, my fingers are tired now :)
-
myself, being unemployed, would take a job without healthcare....
for now for a very short time, I would be looking for something else the whole time.
I personally have health issues, so it is possibly more of a concern for me, but my image of a job that doesn't provide healthcare is something like a small crummy cash under the table labor job or something.
there are laws about an employer providing it when a certain number of employee's are there, I thought 25, though I may be wrong.
just my thoughts on the matter
to talk about what is "owed"? I am not. it is the basic principle of the matter, I need my wisdom teeth worked on for example right now in real life.
thats like $6,000 minimum, something a normal worker can't just pay out of pocket.
also, think of a car accident. I get hit by some moron, and am in the hospital for a month. there's $200,000 right there in medical bills.
what if I develop brain cancer? (people get diseases and have medical problems not related to what they do in their lifestyle choices)
it basically boils down to a safety precaution, and because of the enormous costs of medical bills, i really am uncomfortable going without insurance.
-
It is not health care that people want...it is free health care and getting the same wages they get now with no further tax burden on them.
They want health insurance that is cheaper and better than their car insurance. with no deductibles.
They want to be able to continue to sue a doctor for millions of dollars if he botches an operation no matter how honestly.
If you offer good pay... try offering a couple hundred to five hundred a month less and giving that as a health benifiet package.
Get a group insurance rate from a company that offers health insurance in tiered amounts... this can be from as low as $80 a month for high deductible to as high as $800 for a family or more.
Offer to pay these premiums up to the $500 amount (or whatever amount you decide) give the rest back if they don't use it in the form of a 401k or whatever.
festus points out the evils of national health.... he (or who he quotes) is correct in saying that with national health we will have to give up our ability to sue the government doctors (ever sue the government?).... and... we will have to put up with a few deaths of hard working citizens who have health insurance who will not get that mri...headache or not... 6 month long appointments.... the non productive will still sit in waiting rooms cause they have the time... you don't. I don't guess that was what festus was trying to say but it is what sticks out.
With national health... the over all effect may be somewhat better overall care ... more people will have easier access but... the people who have good insurance now... well.. they will see a dramatic drop in service.
National health takes away choice and freedom and grows the government. There is no need for it.
What it amounts to is.... if you are unwilling to buy any decent insurance and if you think that you will always have a low paying job just getting by and trips to the DMV and dealing with the people there seem ok to you ... then national health is for you.... let someone else making more money than you pay for a little bit higher level of insurance than you have now (or can afford now).... or....you just feel that no matter what the reason... that you owe it to others to take care of them even if they won't do it themselves.
lazs
-
Originally posted by ROC
When does it become My responsibility to cover You medically?
It doesn't. Not even up here in the wonderland to your north. Excepting of course, situations where employees are injured and employer negligence is proven.
It is however completely reasonable for prospective employees to demand health coverage as a part of their compensation package or for union negotiators to make the demand in contract negotiations. If employers provide medical coverage as the norm in your area, then you get with the program or the best of the prospective employees go elsewhere and the union gets ugly.
asw
-
I agree dtech.. well said.
The democrat women have raised the minimum wage.. kids will now be able to cruise more even if they have only been on the job a week... they will be able to afford a few more drugs or clothes or electronic crap that will be junk by the end of the year.
The cost of health insurance should be part of the wages... let's get it out and honest.... if you make $3000 a month and you get a $500 insurance benifit then you really make $3500 a month. If you make $7 an hour but get $1 an hour in health benefits then you really make $8 an hour.
The government wants to help you? how bout they then take off of your taxes any money that you are paying in health benefits?
No? they don't like that idea... they want more taxes and bigger government not what is best for you. Not less taxes and more choice... they want to make more decisions in your life.. the women democrats in power want to be your mommy and a lot of you really like that idea... hell... it was almost impossible to get you to move out of moms house (or the womb) in the first place... you want back in. It is scary out here and only mom can help.
lazs
-
it should not be required by an employer .. should be a perk to draw ppl to your company
I have outstanding benefits at the company I work. I could make more money, ie contract, but will take the security, salary and perks the company offers over a couple more $$
the sad fact is if the employer did not offer insurance, the majority of workers would not have any as they'd rather spend the couple extra bucks on more pizza and beer
-
You owe it because I demand it (yeah, like that's gonna work ;) ), if you dont want to provide it, hire some entry level goober and 3 of his friends, and they might be able to replace me, maybe, probably not.
Sounds like I am full of myself doesn't it? Lots of skilled people out there who feel the same way. WE know we are expendable, we also know we can get another, probably better, job, by lunchtime. But I digress.
I dont think my company "owes" me medical (other than on the job injury stuff), and in actuality, they provide what has got to be the worst insurance ever at no small cost to the employees. I opted out of it. Some cant go without it and thats the part that ticks me off, no real options for them. Of course my bosses are kinda silly about some things. We also dont have "sick" days, because having them would promote illness.
-
betcha health insurance is much cheaper in India or Mexico, if it is required by the company at all ..
-
I think something is being forgotten about the cost of healthcare...
malpractice insurance.
yes another type of insurance.
lawyers making enormous cases for things make the hospitals and doctors pay inordinate amounts of money for the insurance.
I could have been lied to, but when I was working at the hospital I was told the insurance premiums for a doctor were up to and above $75,000 / year, and that was taken out of the Dr's salary. yes they make triple that, but that is part of the reason.
-
I didn't know health coverage was required by an employer (in fact I know it's not). It almost sounds like you're complaining that you have to compete for employees with employers that may be more generous than you...
Employers who refuse to fairly compensate their employees then complain about not being able to find good help have always puzzled me just as employers who demand loyalty from their employees without giving it do.
-
It almost sounds like you're complaining that you have to compete for employees with employers that may be more generous than you...
I'm not complaining about anything, it's a discussion. I'm trying to get to the core reason some people think they are Owed things mearly by employment. I don't have competition, I'm the best in my industry, with the best employees who have earned their share. It sounds to me like you bit on the popular media sound bites, do you have a thought you might contribute that's not an assumption?
Why make the employee pay, which is a direction many prominent leaders are going? Why not simply mandate you get health insurance like most states require Car insurance? People go to work and get paid for that work, why do I or should I care how they spend their money?
The problem with mandating health care by the employer is that we do not have the ability to control our costs. How many of you want your employer telling you not to smoke, drink, when to go to bed or whatever, as I said above? We are being pushed to pick up more and more of the costs and are restricted from any preventative measures. Would those who have argued Fairness explain how fair that is? Granted, it's nice and wholesome when big bad greedy companies provide benefits, but that should be their choice, to draw the best people possible by being competitive. I am still trying to get a grip on the mindset of people who think it's Owed, not mandated YET, but simply Owed to them, that's all this is about :)
Oh, and bite me Culero :D
-
I think Lazs (as usual) nailed it when he suggested that the mindset be changed to look at benefits the same as monetary compensation.
I once worked for a heating and cooling business that told me I would get health insurance after a year. After asking around I figured out the farce. He didn't offer anything; he let you buy into his plan. With a family of four it would cost me about $240 a week for his "benefit." When considering a job a potential employee has to take into account the monetary value of everything being offered. When the "benefit" costs the employee 2/3 of his paycheck, it's not a benefit. Most people (who have their head screwed on right) will take a job with a lower salary if the benefits are right, just as most people will take a job without health coverage if the salary is right.
If you are paying a decent living wage that people can afford to buy their own insurance with, there shouldn't be a problem. However, if you're like most employers, and are paying your help just enough to keep them, when you take away their health insurance, you've just tipped the scale for them to start looking for other employment. Then you can be like all those other guys complaining that "you just can't find good help anymore..."
-
If health care by the employer is mandated, the playing field should remain the same because the cost is passed on to consumers as price increases by all competitors.
National health care is only a bad idea if you automatically assume that it must be operated the same way, and have the same problems, as the bad systems used as examples.
The combined problems of the US food/pharma/legal/insurance/government/hospital/health care system are so diverse that it's a full-time job just to discuss it.
-
Originally posted by ROC
I am still trying to get a grip on the mindset of people who think it's Owed, not mandated YET, but simply Owed to them, that's all this is about :)
Are you equating "owed" with deserved or something else? I consider every possible benefit as deserved, IF I can get that benefit with another employer or it is standard throughout my industry. Might just be arguing semantics here, but I think if I deserve it, it is owed.
You seem to be looking at it like something that is not deserved and your employees are demanding a benefit that has not been earned or is not standard throughout your industry. In that case, I'd say its not "owed" and should not be expected. But, I doubt there are many large companies left that do not have some type of health care package.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Wow, you think you would be proud to have a business that provides health care for your workers.
Oh well, I now see why we are getting closer to government healthcare.
Sure I'll supply medical to you... of course you wont make the wages your making now and you have to live as I say since your lifestyle is now part of my business.
All this talk stems from the fact that we no longer treat lazy folks as we used to. Now if you don't work we feed you... give you spending money and medical. If you have kids we pay you to take care of them even if you don't take care of them. If you have more kids while we are paying you... we pay you more. Weakening a once powerful nation by helping bums procreate.
If has been said many times in the past..... but if you take all the money from the rich and give it to the poor, in a few years the rich will have all the money back... the poor will be poor again.
Disgusting totally disgusting
-
Originally posted by Shuffler
Sure I'll supply medical to you... of course you wont make the wages your making now and you have to live as I say since your lifestyle is now part of my business.
So, instead of paying an insurance premium, you want to actually pay my medical expenses? Cause, thats what it sounds like.
If you are paying for insurance and holding my wages down because of it, you can tell me how to live til yer blue in the face. I'm assuming you've never needed medical attention that you couldn't afford.
BTW
Do I get a bonus for not going to the doctor?
Will you supply me with a helmet to wear while I ride my bicycle to work?
Will you promise not to yell at me for doing a poor job? It might cause stress and affect my health.
Can I have a pony mommie?
-
not real sure why people think they are owed. If you receive HC, you are paying for it one way or the other. They definately aren't owed it & I don't think it is really given to anyone.
Kinda like businesses and corporations aren't owed the opportunity by a state to operate in any manner they like. If they don't like the rules mandated by state to have business, there is always choice to pick up & move. Lot of companies do just that.
-
The last 40 years, however, have seen the cost of medical care balloon to the extent that for most wage earners, any event which requires hospitalization costs so much that it exceeds the ability to pay, even with installment payments.
This is directly because of Health Insurance that costs have bloomed. With health insurance, you take away the competition for money. With health insurance, you pretty much don't care where you go because it's already paid for. And because of this, the doctors know that the costs don't affect you directly that they push up the costs.
But suddenly if you threaten to leave a certain doctor to go to another who is charging a thousand dollars less for a surgical procedure, then the costs for procedures become competitive.
When does it become My responsibility to cover You medically?
When you cannot attract employees without medical benefits. Everything follows the laws of supply and demand. If there's a surplus of workers, then they have to sacrifice something they want in able to have a job. I.E. Working without having medical coverage.
If there's a surplus of jobs, then you have to sacrifice something of yours in order to get employees rather then the other companies getting those employees. I.E. Offering medical coverage or higher wages.
-
Good thread, ROC, with well-stated preface.
Always comes down to capitalism vs. socialism vs. communism. The latter seems to have the most idealism, i.e., from each according to his means, to each according to his needs, but in practice doesn't seem to work very well since many people are more pragmatic than idealistic.
So given enough choices, we usually wind up in some sort of compromise, e.g., the line where x number of employees requires the employer to provide health insurance.
It's always a huge decision for any business owner to choose exactly when hiring even one employee would bring him more benefit than grief. You make an excellent point in considering why don't businesses simply pay x salary and let the workers buy what they want with it, including health care insurance just as they buy car insurance on their own.
(Minor digression: Naturally the tax code is big help. :rolleyes: Remember when people could do their own taxes without a tax company or a computer program? Remember when the tax rules didn't weigh as much as a phone book?)
I think a lot of the health care issues derive from some industries that were more hazardous to health than others. And from the days when workers were so desperate and had so little they were helpless to become little more than slaves to a company.
We've come a long way, and now as a society we're at the cash cow level where adjustments will be frequent and perpetual. We all pay for everything one way or the another.
-
why should I work for anything in this life. The government owes me a job where I dont have to do anything, a house, a car, all the food I can eat... and oh, medical coverage to take care of my pathetic fat lazy unhealthy sedentary ass.
And yes, Im a democrat, always have been, always will be!
-
I think that with the type of insurance we have in this country that it is correct to discuss one tangent on the whole "owed" thing...
I think it is wise and correct for the employer to look into every group plan available and to offer a choice of plans for employees.. it is often much cheaper for everyone to participate in group plans.
laser is again simplifying the free market approach but... not too badly this time... free market works but it's benifiets diminish with increased levels of expertise.... examples would be legal counsel, and real estate..
there is lot's of competition in both fields...just look at those sections in the phone book... it arguably takes a lot of effort to become a lawyer and, arguably.. some cost more than others but... they all cost a bunch... even starving ones.. they all charge the most they can on personal injury for instance which is... the most the law will allow...
real estate.. up until recently... they all charged a percentage that was 3-6% to sell your home... the glut of them has dropped the price somewhat... the reason being that it really does not take to much effort to become a real estate agent nor does it require much work for the monetary return.
Doctors would not cut rate in the free market.. they would always end up charging more than say lawyers and never sink to real estate agent cutthoat prices.
lazs
-
Roc,
As to your first question as to why an employer should provide health care. It's a cost of doing business. In CA. it will be a mandated cost of business very soon. As an employer, don't like the cost, relocate, outsource, whatever you want to call it. Oncve enough employers leave the tax base gets even shorter and some breaks will start up again.
In another state that is not trying to mandate health care, it's a tool to attract the better emeployee. The smart ones know that an extra beer and pizza a week (That's pure BS as the cost is far far higher) is not worth the cost of not having insurance.
Any employee not of the first job mentality will be looking for the best overall package of both wages and insurance. The famnily requirements will demand that outlook. A bout with cancer, severe illness, problem pregnancy will drive that issue home very very fast. The employee won'where else unless they have at least equivalent coverage and better salary.
As to the individual costs. Retirement teaches a few things. One of which is the health care you had while working does not necessarily stay at the same level and the costs go up. The coverage for the 2 of us plus my son have topped $10,000.00 annually some time ago. The lion's share of the cost is the cost of coverage that comes right off the top of the check. That has now reached 30% of our annual income, oh and that is pre tax. In the case of my wife's income it's just about 40% of her check, then the taxes are witheld. This is not based on her working income, it's what her retirement benefit is set at.
Because of required meds to maintain cancer remission the cost of meds alone would be better than twice the cost of our insurance. Health coverage is a mandatory situation for us. It is also one that we pay attention to each year when the "open enrollment" comes up. We have to weigh coverage vs premium each year, provided there is even a choice to be had.
What is the answer? To my way of thinking it's based on 2 main factors. Medical malpractice insurance costs at ALL levels of medicine. Not just the Dr. or Nurses, but the entire indiustry. The second factor is directly related and that's unlimited awards for malpractice suits.
A third factor but less than the other 2 are the costs of research and development. Since it's done on a profit basis plus the cost of the Govt. over sight and requirments it's astronimical to develop something used in the health care industry.
If we can get a handle on these issues and put a cap on profits as well as suits we might see some reduction in costs. I won't hold my breath waiting for it.
-
the reason for offering employee benefits is simple. if you want to market a quality product then you need to hire good people. in order to attract good people you need to have a good benefits program as well as paying competetive wages. the cost of these isn't paid by the business owner the end user pays all costs.
in my business we require some highly skilled workers guys who can measure, fit, weld, shape, polish and install expensive gates. aside from that we need guys who are competent electronics trouble shooters who need to be available on a 24/7 basis in case of emergencies. these guys get top dollar from me because they are worth it, I need them to satisfy my customer base and to keep my commitments. the more menial tasks that don't require skilled workers we sub out to labor contractors and save ourselves the headaches associated with people who don't have the ambition to at least learn a skill.
-
Lazs, the great thing about the laws of supply and demand is that they always apply.
Unfortunately, the Health Insurance companies has really humped the individual without health insurance. Not in that the individual isn't covered, but because my aforementioned price gouging by doctors because they can.
Because the doctors can charge more to the insurance companies, they end up charging more to someone without health insurance. More then what the medicines and procedures would be worth in an open competitive environment.
But this is the one time I don't have a solution. Insurance is all about gambling. You're gambling that you WILL get sick, they are gambling that you WON'T get sick. You are willing to spend a certain amount of money in the hopes that if something ever happens, the health insurance will cover it. They are willing to accept that deal in the hopes that you never get sick. And it works for them, they wouldn't be in business if it were not profitable.
So to the solution, I see none. Least of all government mandated health care, both personal and business. The doctors have a right and should charge as much as they can get for services. But this cycle will continue. The prices for procedures and surgeries will rise way faster then inflation will for the true free market value for them will.
-
That's why its called a "benefits" package.
But you make a very valid point that others have discussed over the years....why does the burden of health insurance fall into the hands of employers?
All it does to employers is make their costs rise.
-
Originally posted by ROC
Ok, I'm curious as to the root of the health care responsibilities.
...As someone who has built a business from the ground up, and have sacrificed Their income for years and years, to finally get successful, Please explain to me why I "owe" anyone Anything at all other than Pay for their Work.
How on Earth have people become so convoluted as to think in any way, shape or form that they are Owed anything other than Pay for their work? I, for the life of me, am at a loss here. Granted, I see the Value of offering it to recruit good solid employees, that is a very good benefit, but tell me, prove to me somehow, that this is something Owed simply by employment.
It's not. You are only governed by state law (depending on the number of employees you have) and Federal Law (depending on your requirements for Workmans Compensation).
Outside of that, you, as an employer, don't owe any employee JACK.
And NOW...for the REALITY of the business world, and since you are a business manager...this APPLIES DIRECTLY to YOU:
QUESTION: DO YOU as a HUMAN care about your EMPLOYEES?
If the answer is NO...there is no need to read further.
If the answer is YES...read on...
Are you personally responsible for the health issues of smokers, drinkers, overweight folks, etc....no. That is their personal decision.
BUSINESS RULE # 3.... Employers who offer the most benefits will retain employees LONGER, have HIGHER PRODUCTION, and in the end, have fewer employee related business costs than those who don't. REASON: Happy employees make ANY business more successful. Besides, how much MORE are the costs of having a high turnover rate and constantly having to train new people...AND...because valued employees WILL LEAVE for better benefits...regardless of what type of business you run.
MAJOR MEDICAL: Yes, you have to pay a share (usually 50%) of the premiums, but if you fail to provide this benifit, your most valued employees can be EASILY lured to your competition that does...including ALL the knowledge they have of YOUR business that they will gladly tell their new employer....and taking some of your most valued customers in the process.
SUPPLIMENTAL: With most companies, this won't cost you so much as a DIME. One company, AFLAC, for example, even helps with the setup of payroll deductions, paperwork, education, and even takes care of the employee claims PERSONALLY. They can get cancer, hospitalization, accident, life, and even disability to pay their out-of-pocket family expenses when they are sick or in an accident and CAN'T work. Supplimentals are employee optional, and again, cost employers NOTHING.
Employers who care do not wish to see their employees have to declare bankruptcy due to not only the medical bills major medical doesn't cover (up to 20% of the total bill)...PLUS...co-pays, deductables, gas, travel time, and MOST of all...LOST INCOME...(not to mention having to STILL pay their cable, credit cards, car payment, auto insurance, rent, food, daycare, (etc) ALL while they were unable to work...and WITHOUT a paycheck...get supplimental as a minimum....BUT...
Over 50% of ALL bankruptcies are due to medical bills...80% of THOSE people HAD major medical through their employer, but NO supplimental insurance.
QUESTION #2...how many paychecks can YOUR employees afford to miss before their situation begins to get catastrophic?
The NATIONAL average is TWO...less in some areas. The vast majority of employees in America live paycheck to paycheck.
As a former director of a business, I not only provided major medical to every full time employee, but HIGHLY encouraged that they get as much supplimental as they could afford.
BTW: many supplimental policies cost the equivilent of ONE HOUR'S pay a WEEK for their monthly premium ($5.00-$7.00), something even all minimum wage employees can afford.
During my tenure, turnover dropped from 40% a year to lower than 4%, and NOT ONE left to go to any of my competitors.
When I did need a new employee (usually from promoting from within), the stream of current employees at my door to refer a friend or relative to fill the vacancy was overwhelming. Every time I put an add in the paper, the response to ONE job posting was always 300-400 applicants, and this is a small (population less than 40,000) town.
Word gets around if you care....
Word ALSO get's around if you don't.
Good luck!
Messase me if I can help.
ROX
-
As a naive 25 year old, I'd like to think a business is about more than just making money. I would also like to think that if I owned a business and had good faithful employees, I would want them to be taken care of....
The whole "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" comes to mind, and "The love of money is the root of all evil."
As a lower-middle class (teacher salary) employee who had a father who worked a hard life (100+ hour work week) in the oil field for little pay....the whole "Please explain to me why I "owe" anyone Anything at all other than Pay for their Work" statement makes me want to vomit.
I'm sure your business isn't the same, you are probably a good employer, providing good pay, for descent work hours...but the law is there to protect the less fortunate...
-
laser... again.. I think that you are not thinking it through. supply and demand does not work if the supplier is united. How would you explain lawyers? look at the phone book... it is jam packed with em. They don't cut each others rates on settlements.
Same for real estate... can't swing a dead cat without hitting an agent and they need little skill to do the job yet.. they charge laughably high prices. (this is changing slightly)
I see little in the way of ultimate solution but would say that some tort reform would go a long way... use the socialist model for that. Make it so doctors do not have to pay for malpractice insurance... if they screw up too much compared to other doctors doing the exact same job... pull their licence.
if they are allowed to keep more of their money (no $75,000 a year in malpractice insurance) more will go into the medical field and we will have more doctors.
Socialist medicine? who will want to be a doctor under that system.... Not Americans who know better.
insurance is worthless if you never need it. It is also worthless if you have nothing to protect. Homeless people need no insurance.. they can wander into an emergency room and get treated.
I just find it odd that people are willing to pay 200 a month for car insurance with a $4,000 deductible but scream bloody murder about health insurance that costs $80 a month with the same deductible and a $50 charge for a doctors visit.
lazs
-
Originally posted by republic
As a naive 25 year old, I'd like to think a business is about more than just making money. I would also like to think that if I owned a business and had good faithful employees, I would want them to be taken care of....
The whole "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" comes to mind, and "The love of money is the root of all evil."
As a lower-middle class (teacher salary) employee who had a father who worked a hard life (100+ hour work week) in the oil field for little pay....the whole "Please explain to me why I "owe" anyone Anything at all other than Pay for their Work" statement makes me want to vomit.
I'm sure your business isn't the same, you are probably a good employer, providing good pay, for descent work hours...but the law is there to protect the less fortunate...
Careful young one, you are drifting into the bowls of socialism. No one owes anyone anything, least of all their personal property. Do you owe a homeless man money because he has less then you? No.
By the way, Money is the root of everything good that happens in this world. It is the socialists who would want you to think otherwise and to hate success.
laser... again.. I think that you are not thinking it through. supply and demand does not work if the supplier is united. How would you explain lawyers? look at the phone book... it is jam packed with em. They don't cut each others rates on settlements.
Yes it does Lazs. At all times you have the choice to decide whether or not to pay a Lawyer to do a service. If he's cheap, it makes the trade better for you. If he's not, then just don't deal with him. Do it yourself. When enough people decide that lawyer fees aren't worth their cost, the lawyers will either go out of business or lower their costs.
And then factor in the cost of various quality of lawyers. You can pay 3x the amount of a phonebook lawyer to get a good one. You would trade off your money for a higher chance of success. Again, supply and demand.
If people keep demanding lawyers, not looking for competetive bids and paying rediculous amounts of money, then they are going to still charge rediculous amounts of money.
The power to change it is in you, not the legislative system.
but the law is there to protect the less fortunate...
The law is there to keep the politicians in power. Any other reason is just naive on your part.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I just find it odd that people are willing to pay 200 a month for car insurance with a $4,000 deductible but scream bloody murder about health insurance that costs $80 a month with the same deductible and a $50 charge for a doctors visit.
lazs
Wow, that's some amazing health insurance. Just to add my wife to my plan at work it's $440 per month. To cover her under Blue Cross Blue Shield (the most popular individual ins coverage here), it's $300 per month.
I also pay 130 per month for a 500 deductible on my new car and liability on my truck that's paid for.
Are insurance rates really that variable from state to state?
-
yes they are. even by area here in kalifornia.
perhaps the rest of the country should subsidze our car insurance?
I would also say that there are many health insurance plans and that you are talking about a fairly good (coverage wise) one.
laser... not disagreeing with your basic premise of supply and demand.... just pointing out that it is not 100%
if you don't believe me then try to get one of the billions of personal injury lawyers to take the case for less than a third of the settlement...
You do not want to be your own lawyer or... for that matter... doctor... you can sell your own house. not sure if you get my point tho.
lazs
-
That means the laws of supply and demand apply. Because you don't have those skills, you demand to use a lawyer/doctor.
-
OH...I forgot a couple of interesting items...
1) As a business owner, you can deduct the cost you pay toward your employee's major medical plans...so while you may have to pay a bill for it at the end of the month...at the end of the year at tax time...you get it all back.
2) If your employees had a GREAT supplimental (again..at a whopping cost of the equivalent of one hour's pay at minimum wage a week), when they DID have co-pays, deductables, and items that their major medical DOESN'T pay for, that supplimental will SEND A CHECK DIRECTLY TO THEM.
Again, if I can help, message me.
I've run a $154-Million a year business, and now I run my own business...I've walked MANY miles in your shoes.
If the folks ABOVE can say better than that...then listen to them instead.
ROX
-
Cheap rates
Over this way, people using Anthem (Blue Cross variant) are getting the screws put to em. The insurance company claim the high usage of users hurting their bottom end. Customer were told to be prepared, their monthly rates could for from $390 to $700+.
I agree with what laz is saying. There has to be a better way. Im not convinced social medicine is. Every time it talked about here in Maine, we have lots of Canadien Doctors who pour in, telling us what a terrible idea it is.
But I also dont see why it falls on the hands of employers, making the products and services we use cost more. Its pretty well known that every UAW car out there has $1500 added stcker cost for the healthcare benefits.
Why insurance can't be much like a power company co-op baffles me. There should be a better way, much like car insurance is.
Its an interesting thread, I just haven't seen that magic post that seems to "get" it yet
-
Car insurance, flood insurance, fire insurance etc. are not valid comparisons to medical insurance. Those are all expected to be infrequently used. Health insurance on the other hand is expected to be used very frequently and the costs for a severe illness can far exceed those of a simple house casualty loss. That's one of the reasons that health insurance costs more than a simnple casualty policy. Besides there usually no cap on payout of a health insurance policy like there is in a casualty policy.
-
Thanks guys, great discussion, fun to read the replies.
I noticed a great deal of discussion about the finer points of the healthcare industry, it's costs, how a good company would Want to offer it, etc, but didn't see the core explanation of "owed" supported. That, in itself, provides a more positive outlook on things.
I wasn't really interested or concerned about the financial condition surrounding a bloated system. I deal with it daily. I did get a good satisfying read on something else though. Those that Know how things work, have rational explanations of the difficulties balancing the desire for a decent healthcare system, while there are others that clearly think someone else should pay it, and rely on sound bites such as "you can afford it" and "if you cared" but can not afford any sound backing to support their desire.
It seems to have been a good discussion between thoughtful and rational discussion and simple reaction to what someone else told them they should think and say, with no core understanding of "why"
Nice job guys, very nice. And not once did this degrade to name calling, thank you.
-
Originally posted by ROC
Nice job guys, very nice. And not once did this degrade to name calling, thank you.
Roc you are a poopy head!!!
There, now the O'club standard has been maintained! :p
-
hehe :p
-
Why in the Hell would you ask an AH forum about your buisiness healthcare responsibilitys?:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Besides there usually no cap on payout of a health insurance policy like there is in a casualty policy.
HUGE INNACURACY.
Most ALL major medicals have a maximum cap.
Most supplimentals don't.
Is there anyone else on this thread state board tested, licenced, and certified in Life and Health but me? Jeesh!
ROX
-
No I suppose most of us work in other areas instead of being insurance or shoe salesmen.
-
Why in the Hell would you ask an AH forum about your buisiness healthcare responsibilitys
It's the OC, why in the hell would you care what I ask about? :) Now, considering you may not have had your eye glasses on, did I ask about my "responsibilities"? No, I asked why people think business Owes them anything. Now, go to bed, get some rest, and try again tomorrow.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
No I suppose most of us work in other areas instead of being insurance or shoe salesmen.
Nice Mav...
I help people who when an accident or illness happens would normally go bankrupt, ruin their family, credit record, and lives.
I sleep pretty well at night
ROX