I can't help but think, if we're all "forced" to buy healthcare insurance, why would employers....

[Just-plain-Kathy]

....continue to offer it to their employees?

Wouldn't this kind of "healthcare reform" turn out to be one big gift to corporations?

It looks as if we're still on the path of catering to big business.

[Hello_Kitty]

1. Yeah. Especially since the Senate dropped the requirement for employers to provide it.

Good point.

[sandnsea]

4. For employers with payrolls under $500,000

and yes I realize that's way too many employers, but they didn't drop it completely. Watch Walmart do an about face on their support for the mandate.

[customerserviceguy]

17. Mal-Wart has already killed off the local druggist

Now they're aiming at Target and the supermarkets that have their own drug counters. They'll still be on board.

Besides, they're figuring that if there is more health insurance, there will be more doctor visits, and more prescriptions that they will ultimately sell.

[Common Sense Party]

2. Yes, many (most) of them will eventually drop their own plans

but they will have to pay a certain percentage of payroll into the federal kitty.

They'll crunch the numbers and decide that paying the government is cheaper than paying the ever-increasing expenses of the private plan they have now--where premiums go up 14% a year.

I think most Democrats realize this is the best way to ever accomplish single payer. We have to back door it and let it happen via attrition. Americans won't willingly allow their elected officials to vote for a government run health care system, but they'll allow it to happen, bit by bit, gradually. That's how you boil the frog.

[sandnsea]

3. Then we'll all join the public plan

and it'll be that much faster to single payer.

[dysfunctional press]

5. and if there is no public plan...?

what then?

because that's the direction a lot of them seem to be veering.

[sandnsea]

7. Every plan has one so far n/t

[regnaD kciN]

9. Only if you consider a "non-profit co-op" a public plan...

The model they always hold up for that is Group Health Cooperative of Washington. It just so happens that we have our coverage through them, and, while their service is excellent, their premiums/co-pays/etc. are no lower than private health plans (somewhat over $1,000/month for a family).

If that's what a "public plan" is going to cost, don't be surprised if lots of people turn Republican straight away when they find out that the Democratic health plan requires them by law to fork out that much per month, whether to a private insurer or a "non-profit co-op."

[sandnsea]

11. The co-op is added, not a replacement

That Group Health that you mention says it was founded in 1947. It's a non-profit insurance, like Kaiser, some of the BCBS that are still non-profit, etc. I don't know why non-profit insurance and hospitals are as expensive as for profit.

[Selatius]

13. Another DUer some years back said there are laws preventing co-ops from undercutting for-profits.

Otherwise, the entire market for health insurance would be dominated by a few large co-ops. I dunno, maybe they twisted around anti-trust laws to cripple non-profit health insurance in the name of preserving competition and choice. :shrug:

It's what I would do if I were a lawyer hired to lobby for health insurance companies on Capitol Hill.

[eridani]

16. The notion that some "co-op" set up next year could replace Group Health's 60 year

--investment in physical capital is just bullshit anyway.

[dysfunctional press]

21. wow...how much of the kool-aid have you drunk...?

not every plan has a REAL public option- for instance- a co-op is NOT a viable public option. a plan that can't negotiate reimbursement rates like insurance companies is NOT a viable public option...

[Selatius]

12. That depends on how easy they make it to enroll in the public option or if there are restrictions.

The details have yet to be finalized. The devil is in the details.

[sandnsea]

15. That's exactly right

Which is why it's irresponsible for anybody to be claiming the plan does this or that, because we still need to be motivated to get the best plan possible.

Frankly, the most important thing that has to be clarified is whether the plan requires people to pay 12% of their income before subsidies kick in. I have read people will have to pay 12% of the premium, which is fine. And that someone who is covered by an employer can opt out if their premium is over 12% of their income, which is also okay, not preferable, but okay. But if low income people can't get a subsidy until they've spent 12% of their income, that's terrible and different than the previous plan which was on a sliding scale. That's what is going to make the key difference in whether this plan is successful. Otherwise it'll be like the long term care plan back in the 80s that was scrapped because it was too expensive.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

20. Through my husband's job we have an excellent insurance plan that we pay nothing for.

Money is tight, I don't think we could afford any new expenses right now.

[sandnsea]

29. So you get to keep that

Maybe you want to start a thread explaining that to some folks around here.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

31. I can't help but think, if we're all "forced" to buy healthcare insurance, why would employers....

....continue to offer it to their employees?

[dysfunctional press]

6. some offer it as a competetive incentive, or else as a way to keep an employee captive.

[imdjh]

8. There is an old saying in real estate, "Two people cannot save the same commission."

The property owner who doesn't want to pay a realtor finds out that the buyers all want him to charge them 6% under market.

Same story with people who don't want to pay taxes- they don't consider that their employers (and everyone else) will have considered them to have just gotten a raise.

Same story with employers who think that a Single Payer system would get them off the hook for healthcare.

Same story with anyone who thinks he's going to get something for nothing.

Single Payer only works if the money currently going to health insurance companies goes into the Single Payer system.

[lexanman]

10. What will happen

is employers will start dropping medical coverage for employees. Employees will then have to "shop" on the free market for for profit plans, and if they refuse every person will pay a fine. If they accept, those employees will be required by law to buy into plans that are much more expensive than what they were receiving as employees. Those who are laid off or fired are also required to buy private plans. Even if it cuts into buying food or a roof over their heads.

Buck up cowboys, pick yourselves up by your bootstraps.

Is anybody yet getting why profit and Capitalism is very very evil?

[Selatius]

14. It used to be if an employer tried to drop medical coverage, the workers would go on strike.

But back in those days, many workers belonged to labor unions. About a third of workers belonged to labor unions in the Labor Movement's haydays. Today, like 10% of the workforce is totally union. The rest of the workforce is totally unorganized.

[Common Sense Party]

28. It used to be that health insurance wasn't an employer-offered benefit.

It used to be that Americans didn't even need insurance.

It used to be that people went to the doctor and paid the doctor.

Times have changed. They ain't what they used to be.

[Greyhound]

23. Far too few "get it".

It is still the pervasive "I've got mine, fuck you" mindset.

[lexanman]

30. right on

Im starting to get the feeling that darwin's ideas also extend to humanity, sadly. It really is a dog eat dog type world. Instead of cooperation, we compete. Instead of helping, we hurt.

[Greyhound]

33. And out-breeding trumps intelligence.

"Idiocracy" might become a classic film because of prescience.

[B Calm]

18. Our wages have been stagnant going on 25 years. One reason is

the employers cost to insure their employees.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

25. So do you think employers will start giving big raises once they start saving on insurance?

I'm betting they'll pocket the savings.

[pampango]

19. Unfortunately, we'll get effective national health care when corporations (employers)

realize that it is their best interests. US companies will find it easier to compete with Canadian and European companies when they are not stuck with medical costs that the other countries' companies do not have to pay.

I suppose that the fact that Canadian and European companies have been freed from paying medical costs of their employees could be viewed as a sell-out to their corporations, but it is also just a part of having effective national health care.

[Greyhound]

22. Of course it will, that's what it is designed to do. The "public option" is doomed.

(From http://madashelldoctors.com/">Mad As Hell Doctors);

First: we will still have a dysfunctional health care system designed around insurance companies. Second: it will be impossible to cover everyone without raising taxes. The Obama administration is already saying it is acceptable to leave out 15 million people. Which 15 million? Will you be one of them? Who gets to decide? Third: in a "post-option" environment you can bet that the health insurance industry will manipulate the rules so that the sickest, most expensive patients will gravitate toward the public plan, which will cause it to fail. When it does, the opponents of real reform will point to the "public option" and scream: "See! Single Payer won't work!"

Another huge corporate welfare program, while tens of millions of citizens live in deprivation to provide the resources for this largess.

Shameful.

[SammyWinstonJack]

24. This is the best the privileged members of Congress and Obama can come up with?

It is shameful! Disgustingly so. x(

[slipslidingaway]

26. 15 million waivers, thanks for the link...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6185195&mesg_id=6185195

President Obama’s hardship waivers

http://www.pnhp.org/blog/2009/07/30/president-obamas-hardship-waivers/

"President Obama: I feel pretty good that I’ve been pretty consistent on this. The individual mandate is probably the one area where I basically changed my mind. The more deeply I got into the issue, the more I felt that the dangers of adverse selection justified us creating a system that shares responsibility, as long as we were actually making health insurance affordable and there was a hardship waiver for those who, even with generous subsidies, couldn’t afford it. And that remains my position..."

[Subdivisions]

27. Therein lies our dilemma. Whatever we end up gettting, it will

benefit the healthcare industry more than it will ever benefit We the People. Anything that will cause business to drop their employee health benefits WILL NOT PASS.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

32. I hope you're right. n/t