You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Question 5
- Thread starter Imogene
- Start date
ginandbrea
New member
In my previous job I paid nothing for my coverage, the Employer paid about $900/month for my coverage. To add my daughter would have cost me $450/month. I elected to seek private coverage for my daughter elsewhere with a good plan for about $120/month. 80/20 with Brand Rx. small co-pays and deducts.
Employers should pay a portion into a reform system, a percentage based on the annual income of the business, type of business and # of employees. Afterall, most companies want to know their employees have the capability of seeking health care if/when they need it.
Employers should pay a portion into a reform system, a percentage based on the annual income of the business, type of business and # of employees. Afterall, most companies want to know their employees have the capability of seeking health care if/when they need it.
ginandbrea
New member
In my previous job I paid nothing for my coverage, the Employer paid about $900/month for my coverage. To add my daughter would have cost me $450/month. I elected to seek private coverage for my daughter elsewhere with a good plan for about $120/month. 80/20 with Brand Rx. small co-pays and deducts.
Employers should pay a portion into a reform system, a percentage based on the annual income of the business, type of business and # of employees. Afterall, most companies want to know their employees have the capability of seeking health care if/when they need it.
Employers should pay a portion into a reform system, a percentage based on the annual income of the business, type of business and # of employees. Afterall, most companies want to know their employees have the capability of seeking health care if/when they need it.
ginandbrea
New member
In my previous job I paid nothing for my coverage, the Employer paid about $900/month for my coverage. To add my daughter would have cost me $450/month. I elected to seek private coverage for my daughter elsewhere with a good plan for about $120/month. 80/20 with Brand Rx. small co-pays and deducts.
Employers should pay a portion into a reform system, a percentage based on the annual income of the business, type of business and # of employees. Afterall, most companies want to know their employees have the capability of seeking health care if/when they need it.
Employers should pay a portion into a reform system, a percentage based on the annual income of the business, type of business and # of employees. Afterall, most companies want to know their employees have the capability of seeking health care if/when they need it.
ginandbrea
New member
In my previous job I paid nothing for my coverage, the Employer paid about $900/month for my coverage. To add my daughter would have cost me $450/month. I elected to seek private coverage for my daughter elsewhere with a good plan for about $120/month. 80/20 with Brand Rx. small co-pays and deducts.
Employers should pay a portion into a reform system, a percentage based on the annual income of the business, type of business and # of employees. Afterall, most companies want to know their employees have the capability of seeking health care if/when they need it.
Employers should pay a portion into a reform system, a percentage based on the annual income of the business, type of business and # of employees. Afterall, most companies want to know their employees have the capability of seeking health care if/when they need it.
ginandbrea
New member
In my previous job I paid nothing for my coverage, the Employer paid about $900/month for my coverage. To add my daughter would have cost me $450/month. I elected to seek private coverage for my daughter elsewhere with a good plan for about $120/month. 80/20 with Brand Rx. small co-pays and deducts.
<br />
<br />Employers should pay a portion into a reform system, a percentage based on the annual income of the business, type of business and # of employees. Afterall, most companies want to know their employees have the capability of seeking health care if/when they need it.
<br />
<br />Employers should pay a portion into a reform system, a percentage based on the annual income of the business, type of business and # of employees. Afterall, most companies want to know their employees have the capability of seeking health care if/when they need it.
I'm speaking to the 2nd part of the question: what should the employer's role be?
Lots of different systems CAN work - the problem is about how to equitably and humanely change from one system to another if the current one is not working.
Right now most of us have a long history of employers sharing the cost of health insurance and, more importantly, employers negotiation with the providers for the benefits and rates with greater power than most individuals would have in the marketplace. With financial pressures on companies, we're seeing them try to reduce their costs by reducing the amount they pay or negotiating cheaper insurance packages that either push costs to the insured or eliminate benefits. At the end of the day these tactics just cause us all to drift toward less access to health care and greater portions of take-home pay devoted to health care costs.
Employer-paid health care is part of "compensation" (regardless of the tax policy issues of this topic) and if employers pay less but the actual cost of the same level of care lands more heavily on the employee via the premium or copayments, then employee pay should be increased to some extent to make up for it - otherwise we watch standards of living decline in exchange for the priviledge of just living if you have a disease/illness.
The lower negotiating power of individuals makes it important for businesses or government to take a major role in working out the insurance benefits/costs in the marketplace - otherwise we will see insurance companies do what business models tell them to do: some companies will offer cheaper insurance with only basic/catastrophic benefits for the "healthy" and a few will offer expensive insurance for the "sick" but wealthy population. Those who are sick but not wealthy will live shorter lives.
Lots of different systems CAN work - the problem is about how to equitably and humanely change from one system to another if the current one is not working.
Right now most of us have a long history of employers sharing the cost of health insurance and, more importantly, employers negotiation with the providers for the benefits and rates with greater power than most individuals would have in the marketplace. With financial pressures on companies, we're seeing them try to reduce their costs by reducing the amount they pay or negotiating cheaper insurance packages that either push costs to the insured or eliminate benefits. At the end of the day these tactics just cause us all to drift toward less access to health care and greater portions of take-home pay devoted to health care costs.
Employer-paid health care is part of "compensation" (regardless of the tax policy issues of this topic) and if employers pay less but the actual cost of the same level of care lands more heavily on the employee via the premium or copayments, then employee pay should be increased to some extent to make up for it - otherwise we watch standards of living decline in exchange for the priviledge of just living if you have a disease/illness.
The lower negotiating power of individuals makes it important for businesses or government to take a major role in working out the insurance benefits/costs in the marketplace - otherwise we will see insurance companies do what business models tell them to do: some companies will offer cheaper insurance with only basic/catastrophic benefits for the "healthy" and a few will offer expensive insurance for the "sick" but wealthy population. Those who are sick but not wealthy will live shorter lives.
I'm speaking to the 2nd part of the question: what should the employer's role be?
Lots of different systems CAN work - the problem is about how to equitably and humanely change from one system to another if the current one is not working.
Right now most of us have a long history of employers sharing the cost of health insurance and, more importantly, employers negotiation with the providers for the benefits and rates with greater power than most individuals would have in the marketplace. With financial pressures on companies, we're seeing them try to reduce their costs by reducing the amount they pay or negotiating cheaper insurance packages that either push costs to the insured or eliminate benefits. At the end of the day these tactics just cause us all to drift toward less access to health care and greater portions of take-home pay devoted to health care costs.
Employer-paid health care is part of "compensation" (regardless of the tax policy issues of this topic) and if employers pay less but the actual cost of the same level of care lands more heavily on the employee via the premium or copayments, then employee pay should be increased to some extent to make up for it - otherwise we watch standards of living decline in exchange for the priviledge of just living if you have a disease/illness.
The lower negotiating power of individuals makes it important for businesses or government to take a major role in working out the insurance benefits/costs in the marketplace - otherwise we will see insurance companies do what business models tell them to do: some companies will offer cheaper insurance with only basic/catastrophic benefits for the "healthy" and a few will offer expensive insurance for the "sick" but wealthy population. Those who are sick but not wealthy will live shorter lives.
Lots of different systems CAN work - the problem is about how to equitably and humanely change from one system to another if the current one is not working.
Right now most of us have a long history of employers sharing the cost of health insurance and, more importantly, employers negotiation with the providers for the benefits and rates with greater power than most individuals would have in the marketplace. With financial pressures on companies, we're seeing them try to reduce their costs by reducing the amount they pay or negotiating cheaper insurance packages that either push costs to the insured or eliminate benefits. At the end of the day these tactics just cause us all to drift toward less access to health care and greater portions of take-home pay devoted to health care costs.
Employer-paid health care is part of "compensation" (regardless of the tax policy issues of this topic) and if employers pay less but the actual cost of the same level of care lands more heavily on the employee via the premium or copayments, then employee pay should be increased to some extent to make up for it - otherwise we watch standards of living decline in exchange for the priviledge of just living if you have a disease/illness.
The lower negotiating power of individuals makes it important for businesses or government to take a major role in working out the insurance benefits/costs in the marketplace - otherwise we will see insurance companies do what business models tell them to do: some companies will offer cheaper insurance with only basic/catastrophic benefits for the "healthy" and a few will offer expensive insurance for the "sick" but wealthy population. Those who are sick but not wealthy will live shorter lives.
I'm speaking to the 2nd part of the question: what should the employer's role be?
Lots of different systems CAN work - the problem is about how to equitably and humanely change from one system to another if the current one is not working.
Right now most of us have a long history of employers sharing the cost of health insurance and, more importantly, employers negotiation with the providers for the benefits and rates with greater power than most individuals would have in the marketplace. With financial pressures on companies, we're seeing them try to reduce their costs by reducing the amount they pay or negotiating cheaper insurance packages that either push costs to the insured or eliminate benefits. At the end of the day these tactics just cause us all to drift toward less access to health care and greater portions of take-home pay devoted to health care costs.
Employer-paid health care is part of "compensation" (regardless of the tax policy issues of this topic) and if employers pay less but the actual cost of the same level of care lands more heavily on the employee via the premium or copayments, then employee pay should be increased to some extent to make up for it - otherwise we watch standards of living decline in exchange for the priviledge of just living if you have a disease/illness.
The lower negotiating power of individuals makes it important for businesses or government to take a major role in working out the insurance benefits/costs in the marketplace - otherwise we will see insurance companies do what business models tell them to do: some companies will offer cheaper insurance with only basic/catastrophic benefits for the "healthy" and a few will offer expensive insurance for the "sick" but wealthy population. Those who are sick but not wealthy will live shorter lives.
Lots of different systems CAN work - the problem is about how to equitably and humanely change from one system to another if the current one is not working.
Right now most of us have a long history of employers sharing the cost of health insurance and, more importantly, employers negotiation with the providers for the benefits and rates with greater power than most individuals would have in the marketplace. With financial pressures on companies, we're seeing them try to reduce their costs by reducing the amount they pay or negotiating cheaper insurance packages that either push costs to the insured or eliminate benefits. At the end of the day these tactics just cause us all to drift toward less access to health care and greater portions of take-home pay devoted to health care costs.
Employer-paid health care is part of "compensation" (regardless of the tax policy issues of this topic) and if employers pay less but the actual cost of the same level of care lands more heavily on the employee via the premium or copayments, then employee pay should be increased to some extent to make up for it - otherwise we watch standards of living decline in exchange for the priviledge of just living if you have a disease/illness.
The lower negotiating power of individuals makes it important for businesses or government to take a major role in working out the insurance benefits/costs in the marketplace - otherwise we will see insurance companies do what business models tell them to do: some companies will offer cheaper insurance with only basic/catastrophic benefits for the "healthy" and a few will offer expensive insurance for the "sick" but wealthy population. Those who are sick but not wealthy will live shorter lives.
I'm speaking to the 2nd part of the question: what should the employer's role be?
Lots of different systems CAN work - the problem is about how to equitably and humanely change from one system to another if the current one is not working.
Right now most of us have a long history of employers sharing the cost of health insurance and, more importantly, employers negotiation with the providers for the benefits and rates with greater power than most individuals would have in the marketplace. With financial pressures on companies, we're seeing them try to reduce their costs by reducing the amount they pay or negotiating cheaper insurance packages that either push costs to the insured or eliminate benefits. At the end of the day these tactics just cause us all to drift toward less access to health care and greater portions of take-home pay devoted to health care costs.
Employer-paid health care is part of "compensation" (regardless of the tax policy issues of this topic) and if employers pay less but the actual cost of the same level of care lands more heavily on the employee via the premium or copayments, then employee pay should be increased to some extent to make up for it - otherwise we watch standards of living decline in exchange for the priviledge of just living if you have a disease/illness.
The lower negotiating power of individuals makes it important for businesses or government to take a major role in working out the insurance benefits/costs in the marketplace - otherwise we will see insurance companies do what business models tell them to do: some companies will offer cheaper insurance with only basic/catastrophic benefits for the "healthy" and a few will offer expensive insurance for the "sick" but wealthy population. Those who are sick but not wealthy will live shorter lives.
Lots of different systems CAN work - the problem is about how to equitably and humanely change from one system to another if the current one is not working.
Right now most of us have a long history of employers sharing the cost of health insurance and, more importantly, employers negotiation with the providers for the benefits and rates with greater power than most individuals would have in the marketplace. With financial pressures on companies, we're seeing them try to reduce their costs by reducing the amount they pay or negotiating cheaper insurance packages that either push costs to the insured or eliminate benefits. At the end of the day these tactics just cause us all to drift toward less access to health care and greater portions of take-home pay devoted to health care costs.
Employer-paid health care is part of "compensation" (regardless of the tax policy issues of this topic) and if employers pay less but the actual cost of the same level of care lands more heavily on the employee via the premium or copayments, then employee pay should be increased to some extent to make up for it - otherwise we watch standards of living decline in exchange for the priviledge of just living if you have a disease/illness.
The lower negotiating power of individuals makes it important for businesses or government to take a major role in working out the insurance benefits/costs in the marketplace - otherwise we will see insurance companies do what business models tell them to do: some companies will offer cheaper insurance with only basic/catastrophic benefits for the "healthy" and a few will offer expensive insurance for the "sick" but wealthy population. Those who are sick but not wealthy will live shorter lives.
I'm speaking to the 2nd part of the question: what should the employer's role be?
<br />
<br />Lots of different systems CAN work - the problem is about how to equitably and humanely change from one system to another if the current one is not working.
<br />
<br />Right now most of us have a long history of employers sharing the cost of health insurance and, more importantly, employers negotiation with the providers for the benefits and rates with greater power than most individuals would have in the marketplace. With financial pressures on companies, we're seeing them try to reduce their costs by reducing the amount they pay or negotiating cheaper insurance packages that either push costs to the insured or eliminate benefits. At the end of the day these tactics just cause us all to drift toward less access to health care and greater portions of take-home pay devoted to health care costs.
<br />
<br />Employer-paid health care is part of "compensation" (regardless of the tax policy issues of this topic) and if employers pay less but the actual cost of the same level of care lands more heavily on the employee via the premium or copayments, then employee pay should be increased to some extent to make up for it - otherwise we watch standards of living decline in exchange for the priviledge of just living if you have a disease/illness.
<br />
<br />The lower negotiating power of individuals makes it important for businesses or government to take a major role in working out the insurance benefits/costs in the marketplace - otherwise we will see insurance companies do what business models tell them to do: some companies will offer cheaper insurance with only basic/catastrophic benefits for the "healthy" and a few will offer expensive insurance for the "sick" but wealthy population. Those who are sick but not wealthy will live shorter lives.
<br />
<br />Lots of different systems CAN work - the problem is about how to equitably and humanely change from one system to another if the current one is not working.
<br />
<br />Right now most of us have a long history of employers sharing the cost of health insurance and, more importantly, employers negotiation with the providers for the benefits and rates with greater power than most individuals would have in the marketplace. With financial pressures on companies, we're seeing them try to reduce their costs by reducing the amount they pay or negotiating cheaper insurance packages that either push costs to the insured or eliminate benefits. At the end of the day these tactics just cause us all to drift toward less access to health care and greater portions of take-home pay devoted to health care costs.
<br />
<br />Employer-paid health care is part of "compensation" (regardless of the tax policy issues of this topic) and if employers pay less but the actual cost of the same level of care lands more heavily on the employee via the premium or copayments, then employee pay should be increased to some extent to make up for it - otherwise we watch standards of living decline in exchange for the priviledge of just living if you have a disease/illness.
<br />
<br />The lower negotiating power of individuals makes it important for businesses or government to take a major role in working out the insurance benefits/costs in the marketplace - otherwise we will see insurance companies do what business models tell them to do: some companies will offer cheaper insurance with only basic/catastrophic benefits for the "healthy" and a few will offer expensive insurance for the "sick" but wealthy population. Those who are sick but not wealthy will live shorter lives.