[bobthecockroach]

Originally Posted by jthomas1600

What I said isn't meaningless. My point wasn't that I will pay so much it will crush me. My point was that I will be the one paying. Everyone wants to say "oh, these big companies are making so much money, it won't hurt them to pay a little more." More costs always get passed on to either the employee or the consumer.

Anyway, here's my best guess. TDW has 8,500 employees, but only the U S Mariner will be effected by this. Overseas workers (probably 80% of employees) are in a separate division, and corporate executives will not only escape the added expense, they will probably get a bonus for figuring out a way to pass the cost on to the mariner and not the stock holder. So all that being said, there would be less than 1,500 employees taking the brunt of the burden. So if TDW incurred just 10% of that 15k and passed it on to the mariner it would be $100 per year. That wouldn't hurt, but what if they incurred 50% of the 15K? Then I'm looking at a pretty big price tag.

I don't follow your explanation at all. What are the companies involved? How are they related? How many employees are in each? How much money will each be responsible for?

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by bobthecockroach

Anesthesia during an appendectomy probably isn't strictly necessary either. To me, pain management is an essential part of health care.

appendectomies do not occur naturally without pain meds. Birth was going on for 10,000+ years without epidurals. And pain was not the cause of death in childbirth. Obviously, the existence of the human race indicates it is not that necessary.

I can see cutting the niceties, while keeping the essentials. You have to do that. It would be great if we had infinite resources, but lets face it, hospitals are closing because of lack of profit. Increasing paid services on niceties which do not increase survivability will be cut.

If I am not mistaken, there are risks of complications with epidurals as well. SO essentially, you throw in an extra, unpaid, non-essential procedure.

In essence, this would be like requiring the soup kitchen to add a choice of sides to the soup. They are getting the essentials for free.

Anesthesia during an appendectomy is strictly necessary to not risk complications I would imagine. I'd be writhing in pain and moving people are not the ones you want to have a scalpel in.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

Anesthesia during an appendectomy is strictly necessary to not risk complications I would imagine. I'd be writhing in pain and moving people are not the ones you want to have a scalpel in.

They can relax your muscles without using analgesics. Sounds hellish though.

[bobthecockroach]

Again though, the point was not the specific example.

To me, bare bones care is not enough. Remember that other countries are able to provide higher quality care universally at a lower cost than the U.S. is already paying. It should really be within the realm of possibility to lower health care costs while simultaneously raising quality of care and making care universally available at the same high level.

Basing views of what U.S. health care should be based on what U.S. health care is doesn't work. U.S. health care is a joke and a complete embarrassment at the global level.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by bobthecockroach

I don't follow your explanation at all. What are the companies involved? How are they related? How many employees are in each? How much money will each be responsible for?

What he is saying is simple.

Companies will not eat it.

My insurance in total is right at a thousand a month, (what I and the company pay) If premiums rise by 10% essentially the company will find ways to deduct the extra 100 a month to you, to where you will not actually be reimbursed.

Add this onto the fact, that the state is threatening an 8% pay cut across the board and the cost of living is increasing, and in a few words, we are getting hosed. It increases cost to those who work, decreasing income, thus decreasing spending in other sectors and tanking the economy further.

In short, this brilliant scheme to save us all money will increase the cost of insurance, and fine those who couldn't afford it (and still probably can't since you just jacked up the rate on what they couldn't afford before.)

[Bryan]

they will eat it. not directly, but when consumers start buying less because of the increase price, they'll pay for it.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by Bryan

they will eat it. not directly, but when consumers start buying less because of the increase price, they'll pay for it.

Yes. But as I read this, how the companies will eat this is by damaging the economy by decreasing spending in the overall economy.

Doesn't that hurt matters?

The way I am reading this is we are essentially creating a "trickle down" depression. I don't think I like this...

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by slap_j

They can relax your muscles without using analgesics. Sounds hellish though.

umm, yeah, theoretically I suppose you could... But wouldn't that require paralytics and such? Which... wouldn't that create even more issues than anasthesia?

The stuff my wife uses that you could do that stuff with, tends to have other effects

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by bobthecockroach

Again though, the point was not the specific example.

To me, bare bones care is not enough. Remember that other countries are able to provide higher quality care universally at a lower cost than the U.S. is already paying. It should really be within the realm of possibility to lower health care costs while simultaneously raising quality of care and making care universally available at the same high level.

Basing views of what U.S. health care should be based on what U.S. health care is doesn't work. U.S. health care is a joke and a complete embarrassment at the global level.

Basing us government efficiency on US Government track record is why I don't think it will work. We cannot say a plan will work because a similar plan worked in a similar structure of government.

At the moment, the US government is worse than bankrupt.

If this were a perfect world babies would come with an owners manual, house and lifetime supply of diapers, and heck, a pony while we are at it. But this is fantasy, not reality.

I wish to point out that most countries with "better" healthcare do not have the illegal entry problems we do. I dare say that after having looked into it, that I would be bankrupt without my insurance if I as an American were to say be in an auto accident in Europe. (The places I looked require 5 years legal residency before you get access to healthcare.)

Simple fact is, our government is in debt beyond its eyeballs, hospitals are going under. Now is not the time to pretend we have resources we don't have and such a spendthrift attitude will just destroy what infrastructure there is, creating a lower access to healthcare (through hospital closure) or government control of hospitals which will hemorrhage more money we do not have as a country (if they were to open government hospitals to fill the void as private hospitals fail)

[Than]

I thought this bill is going to help reduce the federal deficit

[nolidad]

Not according to this law- Children with preexisting conditions get copverage this year- adults not fully until all are mandated to have coverage in 2018.

Not until 2018

so?

Well unless the states are succesful in their lawsuit (14 states adn rising) we will find out won't we!

[Than]

The only thing those suits are probably going to be successful in is wasting more taxpayer dollars.

[nolidad]

Originally Posted by thesteve

Source? I haven't read this and from what I had heard on previous commentaries regarding paying taxes on employer contributions, this wasn't true.
To be fair, having to pay a 40% tax on my health insurance would be pretty bad. I would say that if it were true it would make me pretty skeptical of the intelligence of the plan as it would force a significant lifestyle change for me and I suspect most of the people that have the same plan I do.

It is in the bill. Though this is prior to the bill passing it was in teh bill signed into law.

Senate health bill targets ‘Cadillac’ plans - Health care- msnbc.com

[nolidad]

Originally Posted by Ridley's Own

It's not true. That tax on cadillac plans gets paid by the insurers, not the insured.

Wrong it gets paid by those who are buying the insurance. Example if you have a family plan that os called a cadillac plan (over 22,000 a year in premiums) and trhe premiums are a total of $26K of which the emplyer pays 90% and you pay 10% , $4,000 of this plan is +cadillac and requires a $1,600 surcharge of which you remployer pays 90% of that tax ($1,400) and you pay $160 or the 10% you co pay for premiums.

But this is all moot fo rthis is an unconstitutional law that is in the process fo being brought through the court system. It forces people to in order to be considered a citizen in good standing buy a service or face a fine. The federal govt. has no authority to mandate this.

[thesteve]

Originally Posted by nolidad

It is in the bill. Though this is prior to the bill passing it was in teh bill signed into law.

Senate health bill targets ‘Cadillac’ plans - Health care- msnbc.com

Ah...ok. The explanation in the article, combined with what I've read is a lot different than what I imagined from your earlier depiction.

Based on what you first said:

If you have a really great health plan- you will have to pay a 40% tax on the portion that makes it a great plan.

I had the impression that the 40% was on the entire plan (I wasn't sure what "on the portion" meant. Also, I didn't realize that this only applied to specific plans. As such, I thought that I would be taxed for about $4000 a year under the new law.

Instead I am finding that I still have an $11,000 gap before I incur any taxes for my health insurance plan.