Reply With Quote
Don't be ridiculous. The democrats can't push through a public option now and it sure as won't be any easier to get one down the road after the republicans pick up seats in november. The public option is dead.
washingtonpost.com
Employers plan to shift more health-care costs to workers, survey reports
By David S. Hilzenrath
Friday, March 12, 2010; A04
Most big employers plan to shift a larger share of health-care costs to their workers next year, according to a survey released Thursday.
Many say they may charge more to cover spouses, tighten eligibility standards for their health plans and dispense financial rewards or penalties based on the results of certain lab tests. At some companies, overweight employees could be excluded from the most desirable plans.
Meanwhile, employees at many companies can expect significantly higher premiums, deductibles and co-payments, according to the annual survey by the National Business Group on Health, a coalition of big employers, and Towers Watson, a consulting firm that advises companies on employee benefits.
"This shows that the constant, unrelenting increases in health-care costs are going to cost employees and their families more and more," said Helen Darling, president of the business group. Faced with rapidly rising medical expenses, "employers are going to have to do something," she said.
People who work for large corporations have some of the most stable and comprehensive medical coverage in the nation. They are insulated from insurance industry practices at the heart of the Washington health-care debate, such as having their policies rescinded after getting sick or being denied coverage based on preexisting conditions. However, the new survey is a reminder that even people who are satisfied with their insurance plans cannot count on a continuation of the status quo.
With or without reform, coverage at big corporations is likely to become less affordable, and it could become more restrictive.
The survey, which involved 507 employers with at least 1,000 employees each, was conducted in November, December and January.
It found anxiety among employers about the government's plans to revamp the health-care system. Although the substance of the pending legislation has been a moving target, more than two-thirds of those surveyed said they expected it to make their plans more costly; 2 percent said the opposite. Twenty-seven percent of firms predicted it would prompt them to make coverage less generous, while 14 percent said it would make them more generous.
Darling's view of the legislation, though, is that it would do "very little" to affect large employers and that it should do more to help control the cost of corporate health benefits.
Meanwhile, employers continue to take matters into their own hands. Fifty-six percent plan to hold employees responsible for a larger share of the costs next year, the survey found.
Towers Watson consultant Ted Nussbaum said he doubts employers will follow through on that prediction.
One of the survey's more surprising findings is that, during economic hard times, the share of premiums borne by employees at big companies has not risen more. On average, employees are paying 21 percent of total premiums this year, up from 20 percent last year, Nussbaum noted.
He predicts that employers will use other approaches.
So-called spousal surcharges impose a fee if an employee's spouse enrolls in the company plan, despite having the option of getting coverage through his or her own job. The theory is that spouses who take advantage of the company plan are likely to be heavier consumers of health care. Twenty-eight percent of employers plan to use spousal surcharges next year, up from 21 percent this year, the survey found.
Although only 3 or 4 percent of employers give employees financial incentives to meet targets for blood pressure, weight and cholesterol, 13 to 14 percent are considering doing so, the survey found. Six to 7 percent are considering declaring that only employees who meet targets can enroll in "preferred" health-care plans, up from 1 percent now.
Nineteen percent of large employers are considering giving workers incentives to undergo biometric screening and health-risk appraisals, on top of 22 percent that already do.
In addition, employers are increasingly moving toward high-deductible plans, which carry lower premiums while leaving workers responsible for higher out-of-pocket expenses. Next year, 12 percent of employers plan to offer only high-deductible coverage, the survey found.
Employers and insurers have placed great hope in high-deductible plans, but the survey found that although companies can save money by switching to such plans, it now appears that over time their costs rise as fast as those for other types of coverage.
===========
So group plan members will start to get gouged the way individual plan clients have always been.
I figure the insurance companies know that a Medicare-for-all strong public insurance option open to every citizen is coming, so they are fleecing group plan members aggressively.
Don't be ridiculous. The democrats can't push through a public option now and it sure as won't be any easier to get one down the road after the republicans pick up seats in november. The public option is dead.
"democrats can't push through a public option now"
they aren't trying now, but it's the next step, and the insurance companies know it coming for sure.
PO has huge public support. Not having a PO now is one of the reasons the current bill is less popular that it should be.
If the public support was there, it would be in the current bill and the dems would be able to push it through. Considering the congressional seats that the dems are going to lose come november the odds of the dems getting a PO do not improve as time goes on. Their best chance at getting one is right now. The fact that they're not trying either proves that the democrats are stupid for not taking advantage of their best opportunity to get a PO, or that the support for a PO just isn't there.
The current bill isn't popular because everyone can see 2700 pages of liberal bull for what it is, and doesn't buy the argument for one minute that costs will go down or quality of service will remain the same if it happens.
In short, the electorate is finally waking up.
"If the public support was there, it would be in the current bill and the dems would be able to push it through."
No, the spineless Dems are owned and intimidated by BigPharma and BigInsurance, and intimidated by the Repugs bogus bull of socialism.
The corps and capitalists will always get what they want, and they don't want insurance compe ion and single-buyer, both of which will seriously hurt their exorbitant profits on the backs of sick Americans.
Perhaps you should resolve the argument you're having with yourself before offering any more opinions on this topic.
What citizens want versus what corporations want and corporate/capitalist-own Congress delivers are totally detached.
After the current corporate- ed-up reform bill gets passed and starts working to save lives and $Bs, the public option will be inevitable. It will takes years, and the health care pirates will rip $100s of $Bs from Americans' pockets in the meantime, just as they do now.
More self contradiction. The "corporate ed up reform bill" will work, and saving "lives and $B's" by forcing everyone to sign up with the "health care pirates" will make the public option inevitable.
What specifically are you against in the bill? I keep hearing the American peoipole are against it.. yet I haven't hear anything specifically that people are against.
People who poll against "the bill" are then decidedly for the bill when specific parts are explained and polled upon.
"More self contradiction"
The bill is ed up by corporate $$$ (no public option for all, no single payer/buyer) but there are still many parts of the bill which are excellent. WAY too subtle for stupid wrongies to parse.
Forcing citizens to buy products from commercial organizations is ing insane and should be challenged and forbidden.
Pretty good summary
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health...l_primer/print
Quit pretending you're interested in specifics and just stick to the pom-pom waving. Whenever someone does call your bluff and actually provides the specifics you ask for you just nitpick a few inconsequential points and then cut and run from the thread without ever actually refuting anything.
Care to give some examples of what the "excellent" parts of the bill are that more than make up for forcing everyone into the grasp of those big meany insurance companies?
So government forcing people into a commerical organization is bad, but the government forcing people into a government organization is okay. Hmm.Forcing citizens to buy products from commercial organizations is ing insane and should be challenged and forbidden.
yes, govt's don't have to pay dividends to investors, don't have to pay 100 of $Ms to executives, don't have to do acctng tricks to prop stock price every quarter, don't have to "grow" revenues to satisfy investors.
"excellent" parts of the bill
Read the AP summary on Yahoo. Plenty of excellent stuff in there. It makes for a more humane US, not that Repugs and conservatives give a humanitarian about human beings, nevermind US citizen human beings.
I couldn't get your link to work...but this one does. I think it's the same one.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health...verhaul_primer
When people's taxes start going up, please be there to remind them how the government doesn't have to "grow" revenues.
Reading the ap summary doesn't tell me what parts of the bill you think are so excellent that they compensate for forcing people to sign up with the insuarnce companies you hate.
US Healthcare System Wastes $800 Billion a Year
by David Gutierrez, staff writer
(NaturalNews) The U.S. healthcare system loses between $505 and $850 billion a year to mistakes, inefficiency and fraud, according to a report by Thomson Reuters. This amounts to one-third of all national healthcare spending.
"America's healthcare system is indeed hemorrhaging billions of dollars," the report says.
According to the report, unnecessary medical procedures and treatments -- including antibiotic overuse and superfluous tests -- account for 37 percent of all wasted spending, $200 to $300 billion per year. Fraud -- including false Medicare claims and kickbacks for referrals or prescriptions -- accounts for another 22 percent, as much as $200 billion a year. Medical errors are responsible for 11 percent of excess spending, or $50 to $100 billion yearly. Preventable health problems, such as diabetes, cost the healthcare system $30 to $50 billion per year.
One of the easiest areas to repair might be administrative inefficiency, which accounts for a full 18 percent of medical overspending.
"The average U.S. hospital spends one-quarter of its budget on billing and administration, nearly twice the average in Canada," the report says. "American physicians spend nearly eight hours per week on paperwork and employ 1.66 clerical workers per doctor, far more than in Canada."
Administrative inefficiency can also lead to other wasteful practices.
"It is waste when caregivers duplicate tests because results recorded in a patient's record with one provider are not available to another or when medical staff provides inappropriate treatment because relevant history of previous treatment cannot be accessed," the report says.
Although the United States has the highest per capita healthcare spending and spends a higher proportion of its GDP on healthcare than any other nation in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (a group of predominantly high income Western democracies), it has the highest rates of heart disease, obesity, diabetes and neonatal death in the developed world, as well as the unhealthiest population.
Sources for this story include: www.reuters.com.
=============
iow, America is its own worst enemy, not underwear bombers or the Taliban.
I approve of everything in the AP summary, with exceptions of
1. no single payer/buyer
2. medicare-for-all public option, open to EVERYBODY (including employees offered employer group plans). PO premiums should 75% paid with pre-tax income, just list for-profit group plans, OR no tax-break for employer group plans. Medicare-for-all spreads the risk pool over maybe 150M people.
The statess exchange pools are too small to cover the high-risk people.
The states exchanges should be replaced with national public option.
"For people with private health insurance"
see above, either they buy their insurance with after-tax revenue or everybody pays with pre-tax revenues.
"But a similar family making $66,000 would have to pay $6,257 in premiums, close to 10 percent of its income. That may be less than a mortgage, but it's more than a car payment."
A family of four on a group plan pays about $13K now, with 75% or more paid by the employer. So self-employed people and small businesses still get screwed versus the tax break for employees' group plans.
What so ing stupid about wrongies whining about how much covering uninsured people will cost is that insured people paying with pre-tax revenues already cost the govt 10 of $Bs every year.
" required to carry health insurance or pay a fine.'
horrible idea, a subsidy/bribe for for-profit insurers. OK if people are forced to buy public option insurance.
"People with employer-provided insurance would not see major changes. But if they lost their job, they'd be able to get coverage through the exchange."
really? what revenue do unemployed people have to buy insurance?
In the crosshairs are subsidies to private Medicare Advantage insurance plans, which now enroll about one-quarter of seniors. The government overpays the plans when compared to the cost of care under traditional Medicare. That largesse translates to lower costs for seniors in the plans, and the overhaul could trigger an exodus from Medicare Advantage as insurers are forced to raise rates to stay in business.
Medicare Advantage is a unfund Repug-business-friendly disaster requiring the govt to subsidize private insurers to participate and compete with non-Advantage Medicate, but you never her Repugs or conservatives ing about Medicare Advantage.
I guess the donut hole (aka, seniors stop buying their meds) was the Repugs idea of "funding" Medicare advantage.
_INSURANCE COMPANIES
fixed percentage of income from premiums would have to go to medical care, otherwise insurers would be forced to provide rebates to consumers. That share is 85 percent for large group plans, and 80 percent for plans in the small group and individual markets.
... sounds like a good idea, but I'm sure it's full of loopholes.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
