Health Care Costs Destroying Small Businesses

[Left Seater]

Smack hit on a couple of things that must happen before any universal health care is offered.

1) Tort reform. Instead of doing away with jury trials like he suggests, it can be done much easier. Have the Feds offer malpractice insurance just like they do flood insurance. This is often the largest expense for Docs. A family friend is a colo/rectal surgeon and has twice been sued after surgeries. In both cases the insurance company would only authorize a certain proceedure and not the one he recommended. So he completed the proceedures as dictated by the insurance company. Later when the cancer returned the patients sued him and the insurance company.

2) Medicare and Medicade payments. Most of you have no idea how those are paid. Let's say your grandmother checks into the hospital for for a knee replacement. She has no private insurance and is of Medicare age. Medicare will go to their big book of proceedures and determine the "normal" stay for such a proceedure, say 5 days. Then they pay the hospital/doctor for this "normal" stay. In most cases the hospital will attempt to push your grandmother out of the hospital on the 3rd or 4th day unless something is really wrong with her. This works to their advantage because they are paid for 5 days regardless of how long she stays in the hospital. If they get her out on the 3rd day, they have another bed they can fill and get double payment. If your grandmother stays for longer than 5 days it comes out of the hospitals pockets. Stop paying for these unused days and not only will the Feds save money, the care will increase.

If we don't change these things then we are just putting a bandaide on the dam.

Changing directions how do those of you in favor of govt coverage suggest we pay for this. I have heard many things, but most will cause a huge backlash across broad groups of people. Prez Hussein yesterday suggested having "rich" seniors pay more for their drugs. Earlier he suggested a tax on employer health plans, and congress is considering a tax on sodas to pay for this.

So how will this be paid for on top of the record deficits Prez Hussein has already racked up?

[Smackie Chan]

Just to add some fuel to the fire ...

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0616/p09s01-coop.html

The time is now for our country to join the rest of the industrialized world and provide cost-effective, comprehensive, quality healthcare to every man, woman, and child in our country. The time is now to take on the powerful special interests in the insurance and pharmaceutical industries and pass a single-payer national healthcare program.

[Mikey]

What you've highlighted is the absurdity of a national health care insurance systems being tied directly to employment. You can't begin to consider reform without addressing why that situation exists. And, of course, it's the government's fault, i.e., progressive liberalism's fault.

Care to explain exactly why it's the government, i.e., "progressive liberalism's" fault (beyond "of course it is")? Or are you just taking another ignorant swipe at "progressive liberalism", because "of course" everything is progressive liberalism's fault?

Up until now health insurance had been pretty much left up to the free market. This has resulted in millions of people left uninsured either because they can't afford it or because the insurance companies only want to insure those who are unlikely to make any claims.

So, how is this progressive liberalism's fault (other than that government has been too slow to take over the entire sytem)? Please explain.

[JMak]

Just to add some fuel to the fire ...

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0616/p09s01-coop.html

The time is now for our country to join the rest of the industrialized world and provide cost-effective, comprehensive, quality healthcare to every man, woman, and child in our country. The time is now to take on the powerful special interests in the insurance and pharmaceutical industries and pass a single-payer national healthcare program.

What special idiot is writing this? Despite the lefty mythmaking, the rest of the industrialized world doesn't provide such health care. Certainly not at a level that Americans would tolerate and certainly not run/administered by the government. Britain and Canada are as different from Japan and Germany in this respect as Felix and rational thought are different. It ain't a difference in measure, either, but in kind.

Oh, now I get it...the Socialist member of Congress wrote that nonsense.

Oh, btw, how does Obama square this trojan horse for a single-payer plan with his stimulus plan to create new jobs? You nationalize 1/7th of the nation's economy and what happens? Millions of people that used to work for private insurers are out of work. Those firms disappear. All of us with our retirement investments in these firms take massive hits. No more dividends payments. Nice. Lets put millions out of work so we can, what? Ration health care? Make doctors take less pay for their work? Make poor people feel better because the man is taking a hit?

Nice work, Democrats.

[JMak]

Care to explain exactly why it's the government, i.e., "progressive liberalism's" fault (beyond "of course it is")? Or are you just taking another ignorant swipe at "progressive liberalism", because "of course" everything is progressive liberalism's fault?

Oh, I don't know...but I don't recall conservative Republicans or Republicans imposing wage and price controls, do you? You know, that led directly to employees offering benefits like health care because said employers could offer any additional cash compensation? Maybe wage and price controls are really conservative governing policies. I don't know.

Up until now health insurance had been pretty much left up to the free market. This has resulted in millions of people left uninsured either because they can't afford it or because the insurance companies only want to insure those who are unlikely to make any claims.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

What free market? Over 1500 different state and fed regulations regulate the insurance industry. I, a Michigan resident, cannot purchase insurance from an insurer not located here in Michigan. I cannot purchase health insurance in Michigan that doesn't include coverage for diabetes maintenance drugs, products and services. Shall issue laws that require insurers to offer health insurance to individuals yet not permit adjusting rates for far riskier subscribers.

So, how is this progressive liberalism's fault (other than that government has been too slow to take over the entire sytem)? Please explain.

Progressive liberalism is what's driving this nonsense that health care and health insurance is some kind of fundamental basic right in life. It's progressive liberalism that pushed us into this current mess of employer-based insurance.

Your whining about the long-time employee who rarely utilized insurance completely misses/ignores the fundamental function of insurance - risk. In your view, health insurance is just a substitute payment system for claims shifting costs from end-users to evil corporations.

[Mikey]

For you class warriors out there, lets emulate those systems where the rich/wealthy can ge immediate and high quality medical treatment because they can afford it. Great idea!

You mean that's not how our system works right now?

double

[JMak]

You mean that's not how our system works right now?

double

Hardly. An individual without insurance can get excellent treatment at nearly any hospital. Period.

Now, that is how it works in Canada and Britain. In Canada the rich either go to illegal private hospitals (Canadian law prohibits private hospitals but doesn't enforce the law) or come to the US. That's despite the retarded lefty notion that American medicine is no inferior to practiced medicine in Canada, Britain, or elsewhere.

[Mikey]

You mean that's not how our system works right now?

double

Hardly. An individual without insurance can get excellent treatment at nearly any hospital. Period.

Are you really this stupid?

A rich person can get excellent treatment at nearly any hospital whether or not they have insurance.

A employed person without insurance may get excellent treatment and probably be bankrupted by the cost.

An uninsured and indigent person can't legally be turned away from an emergency room, but can't just walk into a hospital and get "excellent" treatment. Poor people walking into emergency rooms because they have a 102 degree temperature and getting treatment that costs 10x what it would if they could go to a doctor's office is one of the major issues bankrupting the system and driving everybody else's costs throught the roof. Who do you think pays for this in the end?

And you think this works?

[Terry in Crapchester]

Doctors have been making less and less over the years. The out of control expenses are courtesy of the blood sucking lawyers.

No, the problem is that after the stock market tanked, the insurance companies decided they weren't going to sacrifice any of their profits, and instead raised premiums on doctors.

Seriously that's what you think?

It's what I know.

At least where I live and practice, med mal defendants have huge advantages over other personal injury defendants. Among other things, these include a shorter statute of limitations (2 1/2 years vice 3 years), as well as a requirement that the attorney file, at the time of commencement, a certification that he/she has consulted with at least one physician authorized to practice in the relevant area, and that in the opinion of that physician, a cause of action for medical malpractice exists. There's also a smaller contingency fee allowed for plaintiffs' lawyers in med mal actions than in other personal injury actions (sliding scale starting at 30% and declining to 10%, vice 33 1/3%), which is a disincentive for plaintiffs' lawyers to take med mal actions in the first place. Throw in the costs associated with a med mal action, and you can see why many legitimate cases never get sued out in the first place.

Even with all of that, med mal defendants actually fare better in trial than do most other personal injury defendants. A few years back the NYLJ did a study on this and found that other personal injury plaintiffs won about 50% of trials over a five year period (which one might expect, given that the stronger cases generally settle before trial and the weaker ones get bounced prior to trial). Med mal plaintiffs, over the same time period, won only about 33% of trials.

But by all means, continue to bash the trial lawyers. Why let facts get in the way of that?

[Van]

Just one little factual flaw in your argument there, Terry. Our health coverage system was a total financial abortion long before the stockmarket crashed. In trying to tie our horribly expensive and inefficient health care system to the stockmarket crash you're talking about an irrelevancy on the scale of adding one extra deck chair on the Titanic.

[War Wagon]

Pro-choice and pro-gay rights pretty much makes Chippy the devil.

And lets not forget SEC Ballsucking homer...

And driving up Jimmy Meds health care costs because he's a broken spoke in a warped wheel. Actually, about 8 broken spokes.

Nah, Van... no hate here for Jsc or anyone for that matter. Chip nailed it (what kinda' faggot ass name is "Chip", btw? Oh yeah, Jsc... nevermind). Easy target. And he's a lawyer. There's a special place in hell reserved for lawyers, right next to payday loan managers and AIG execs.

Again, no hate. There's guys here I have way less use for but for the most part they're not worth the time. S'up Screwed? I'd compare my W-2 statement to yours anyday, you fucking braindead mongoloid. You probably file your taxes on the short form because since there's no mortgage interest on that room above the garage you rent, it's not worth claiming. Not that you'd be smart enough to do your own taxes anyway. You probably take them to H&R Block, like a good dumbfuck, and pay thru the nose.

[Mikey]

Epoch balst.

SM has just been runnd. Bigtime.

[Dr_Phibes]

Mikey, Those are good points. In such a case, a single payer system might seem like the fair way to go and perhaps we should have a single system. But, if it is a single system that covers everything from that bypass surgery to some lonely fukking hypocondriac that just wants somebody to talk to, it will be rife with abuse and there will have to be rationing. There is no arguing this point.

In countries with socialised insurance, abuse/ignorance (whatever the situation may be) of the system accounts for something like 2% of total expenditure. I know that different countries have experimented with some kind of extra fee to deal with it - but they were abandoned as they did more to discourage people with very real problems from seeking treatment.

It's a popular talking point, but minor and not really worth the hysteria when the US wastes something like 15% of GDP on healthcare.

[Dr_Phibes]

Now, that is how it works in Canada and Britain. In Canada the rich either go to illegal private hospitals (Canadian law prohibits private hospitals but doesn't enforce the law) or come to the US.

yeah, the rich slip on a pair of Groucho Marx glasses, duck into the laneway and pop into a luxury hospital, cleverly disguised as a pool hall.

[titlover]

Wait.......

Am I hearing somone suggesting that healthcare is our "right" and the people we depend on to provide that "right" should not be paid much more than a fucking bus driver?

This Onions cat is bringing failure to previous unseen levels.

Military and police protection are a right. How much do those guys get paid for putting their necks on the line?

but there's not a great shortage so the pay scale is just right. they do those jobs for other reasons than money. and cops get other perks.......

[Mikey]

Military and police protection are a right.

Link?

[Van]

[AP's Self of Steam]

Still wondering how health insurance and home insurance and the details et al have anything remotely to do with one another, but I'll let 88 explain that one.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Just one little factual flaw in your argument there, Terry. Our health coverage system was a total financial abortion long before the stockmarket crashed. In trying to tie our horribly expensive and inefficient health care system to the stockmarket crash you're talking about an irrelevancy on the scale of adding one extra deck chair on the Titanic.

I wasn't talking about health insurance. I was talking about doctors' medical malpractice premiums, which did increase dramatically right around the same time the stock market tanked.

And, btw, since both smackaholic and jiminphilly called me out on it . . .

http://www.centerjd.org/air/issues/StableLossesPA.pdf

[Terry in Crapchester]

Okay, I gotta ask...

What'd I miss here, with this constant WW vitriol towards Jsc? WW is usually never this evil and foul mouthed towards anybody, and Jsc is one of the most likeable people on the whole board. He almost doesn't possess the ability to truly piss somebody off, and he never tries to piss anybody off, so what'd I miss? What's the story there?

War Wagon is trying to reinvent himself as mvscal. It's not going terribly well for him.

Even if that were true it wouldn't explain how he came to singularly target Jsc for his vitriol.

Oh, but it is. And he hasn't.

[Mikey]

The best argument for health insurance reform, IMO, is this...

Consider two people.

First, consider a guy in his mid 50s who has been employed and healthy all of his life. He and his employer(s) have been paying big bucks to one insurance company or another for 30 some years and he's never taken anything out except for maybe a colonoscopy last year. Suddenly the company he works for goes out of business, or he gets laid off and he can't afford $1,200 a month for COBRA and no insurance company will pick him up as an individual because he has slightly elevated blood pressure or cholesterol. One evening he feels a sharp pain in his chest. He knows he's having a heart attack. He calls 911, is rushed to the hospital and has emergency bypass surgery. A couple of weeks later he's feeling pretty well again but now he's got $150,000 in hospital bills but no insurance and no way to pay for it except to sell his house or declare bankruptcy.

Second, a woman in her early 30s has worked part time most of her life and never had insurance but she gets a new job with full benefits. A few months later she's diagnosed with breast cancer. So, she has radiation, surgery, chemo - the whole nine yards. The bill is also around $150,000 but she's out of pocket about $75 and has not been paying premiums for more than a few months.

I'm not saying that the young woman shouldn't get treatment, but how is this fair? And both situations are 100% feasible under the system we have now. I'm not sure what the solution is but there has to be a better way.

Mikey-

You are a smart guy, so I won't be a smart ass. But you know how insurance works, don't you?

First, consider a guy in his mid 50s who has paid casualty insurance premiums all of his life. He has been paying big bucks to one big ass insurance company for 30 some years and he's never had a fire. Suddenly he can't afford the premiums on his policy, so he lets it lapse. One evening his house catches on fire because he built the fucker in an area of California that is subject to annual wildfires. He calls 911, but there is nothing the fire department can do. A couple of weeks later he's feeling OK because he still has his health, but his $150,000 house is gone and he has no way to rebuild. He has to sell his burned out lot and declare bankruptcy.

Second, a woman in her early 30s has just won $15,000 on a scratch-off lottery ticket. She has never owned a home or had casualty insurance, but she plunks that $15K down on a house right next door to the first guy. Because she doesn't own the house outright, her lender requires her to maintain casualty insurance on the structure to protect their investment in the event of a catastrophic loss. Right after she makes her first payment, that fire I mentioned swoops in and burns her new casa to the ground. A dork in a white car from the same big ass insurance company that the first guy has been sending premiums to his whole life drives up and hands her a check for $150,000. She pays off the lender and takes the balance of the cash and plunks it down on a new house in another fire trap neighborhood in Cali.

Using your logic, I am to conclude the following:

I'm not saying that the young woman shouldn't get her insurance check, but how is this fair? And both situations are 100% feasible under the system we have now. I'm not sure what the solution is but there has to be a better way.

Here's the solution to your problem. The first guy should borrow against his home or do whatever is required to protect his assets through health insurance. Yes, his premiums are going to be high. And yes, it is going to suck. But if he chooses not to insure himself against a loss and then suffers one, who's fault is it?

OK, point taken.

However there is a big difference here.

If health insurance really worked like insurance there wouldn't be such a problem.

If you own an auto or a home you can get insurance, if you're willing to pay for it and don't have multiple DUI's.

In my example above, take away the assumption that the guy owns his home. The fact that health insurance is so expensive that it would require one to mortgage one's home to obtain it is another issue. If a person can't get COBRA - doesn't have a home to mortgage or misses out on the 30 day window to activate it - then they have to find individual coverage.

I don't know what the situation is where you live, but for most people here individual coverage is not just expensive, but impossible to find. Any existing condition, slight hypertension, whatever, will be cause for rejection. Almost anybody over the age of 40 will have something in their medical history that the insurance companies will use as a reason.

When I was self-employed I applied to Blue Cross. They said, "sure we'll cover your wife and kids but you can take a hike. We won't cover you at any price."

Thanks a lot. As far as I'm concerned the health insurance industry is a blot on our society. Socialism or not, I think they should all be run out of business.

[Van]

Even if that were true it wouldn't explain how he came to singularly target Jsc for his vitriol.

Oh, but it is. And he hasn't.

Terry, yeah, I saw that. I gotta admit, I was pretty shocked to see WW go to that card against you. I thought WW was above that kind of garbage, just in general, and I wasn't aware that he had any beef whatsoever with you.

[Mikey]

I thought WW was above that kind of garbage.

The only time WW has been above any kind of garbage was when he was in the process of jumping into it.

[Van]

I thought WW was above that kind of garbage.

The only time WW has been above any kind of garbage was when he was in the process of jumping into it.

Maybe so, but it's sure seemed to me over the years that WW hasn't been one to go to the personal info/family life smack card, especially after he had to endure all the bulldyke talk about his own daughter.

Can't recall as I've seen a whole lot of "gorilla" style racist talk from WW either, so, yeah, I was a bit taken aback to see WW fling that shit Terry's way. I can't imagine that Terry's ever given WW reason to become that ugly. Terry has no beefs with anybody here, other than maybe mvscal, and even there Terry does nothing but take personal insults; he never doles any out.

Terry is too classy to go down that road.

No offense, Mikey, but I see you in the same vein. I don't mean that I see you, WW and Terry as all being the same posters, no, but I would be surprised as hell to see you fling persanal info racist smack, same as I was surprised to see it from WW. I'd be flat out stunned to see it from Terry, of course, but I'd be equally stunned to see it from you, and I was a little shocked to see it from WW.

S'all.

[socal]

to see you fling persanal

Spending some closet time in Mikey's house?

:P

[Mikey]

to see you fling persanal

Spending some closet time in Mikey's house?

:P

Careful, Buster.

[Left Seater]

I

There are a lot of factors that affect the cost of health care. One is the constant threat of malpractice litigation and the concommitant defensive practice of medicine. But I think that factor is overblown. Another factor is that illegal aliens use our emergency rooms as free health clinics. This practice should be ended immediately. If you are in the country illegally, you get nothing. Nada. That will take at least 20M unpaying health care users out of the system. Pack their sick ass up and send it home. Sorry, bub. You gambled and lost on sneaking into the country. Sucks to be you.

I would also get rid of HIPPA and some of the other onerous paperwork/reporting obligations placed on physicians and health care providers. That costs enormous jack, and serves no particularly useful purpose other than to placate the government. It would also be nice if insurance companies were freed from the restrictions of providing health insurance across state lines. That makes it hard to do business.

But 88 those illegals have to stay and we can't ask them for their ID when they show up to vote cause that would just be wrong.



So back to the topic title. If health care costs are really destroying small businesses, how is Prez Hussein's plan to tax private insurance plans going to help?

[JMak]

If health insurance really worked like insurance there wouldn't be such a problem.

If you own an auto or a home you can get insurance, if you're willing to pay for it and don't have multiple DUI's.

In my example above, take away the assumption that the guy owns his home. The fact that health insurance is so expensive that it would require one to mortgage one's home to obtain it is another issue. If a person can't get COBRA - doesn't have a home to mortgage or misses out on the 30 day window to activate it - then they have to find individual coverage.

I don't know what the situation is where you live, but for most people here individual coverage is not just expensive, but impossible to find. Any existing condition, slight hypertension, whatever, will be cause for rejection. Almost anybody over the age of 40 will have something in their medical history that the insurance companies will use as a reason.

When I was self-employed I applied to Blue Cross. They said, "sure we'll cover your wife and kids but you can take a hike. We won't cover you at any price."

Thanks a lot. As far as I'm concerned the health insurance industry is a blot on our society. Socialism or not, I think they should all be run out of business.

Mikey, you're kinda ignoring a central point...no one is entitled to health care insurance. An insurer has no obligation to insure anyone who applies. As well, insurance works on the basis of risk. It's foolish for an insurer to offer insurance to an individual it knows, based on a health examination, will take out more in claims that he will pay in premiums. Insurance works on insuring against the risk of a claim. The examples you cited have high risk factors. Having your application for insurance approved, rejected, or charged a higher premium is precisely how the insurance industry should work. And it work that way if the government wasn't constantly interfering by mandating specific coverage level, prohibiting charging some subscribers a higher rate than others, etc.

Your real complaint is that there are people that are too expensive to insure because they're unhealthy or have pre-existing conditions. That sucks, but that's life. This is why the government, in the safety net sort fo way, should be subsidizing catastrophic insurance coverage rather than nationalizing one-seventh of the economy and fundamentally altering the health insurance industry.

[Van]

I'll never stop enjoying the "Pie!" quip, especially when it's accompanined by "Yay!"

Coming from mvscal, of all people, that shit will never fail to make me laugh.

mvscal, being all Happy & Shiny and stuff....

[JMak]

So back to the topic title. If health care costs are really destroying small businesses, how is Prez Hussein's plan to tax private insurance plans going to help?

In Oblah-blah's mind only the rich have employer-sponsored/subsidized health care insurance. Hence, it's all part of his philosophy that rich/wealthy must pay even more so that Oblah-blah can have his little health care empire.

I wonder what happens when the rich folks disappear? You know, like in Maryland where the number of millionaire taxpayers fell significantly from last year after imposing higher taxes??

[Mikey]

Your real complaint is that there are people that are too expensive to insure because they're unhealthy or have pre-existing conditions.

Not exactly.

I understand the insurance companies' desire to cover only those with low risk.

However health insurance works on the basis of pooled risk. Younger people pay what might be considered more than their fair share of the pool because they have a lower statistical risk. This goes to cover the older people and others in the pool who present a statistically higher risk. The thing that makes this fair in the long run is that the younger people who started out paying more than their fair share grow older and then they are paying less than what their relative risk would dictate. It evens out in the long run.

The thing that makes it unfair is when a person who spent 20 or 30 years in the pool overpaying for their relative risk suddenly finds himself outside the pool and is not allowed back in. He has essentially pre-paid for his higher risk years but is now buttfucked in the face by the system. And the insurance company wins coming and going.

This is the biggest argument for a single payer system, or at least a nationally pooled risk.

[JMak]

Not exactly.

I understand the insurance companies' desire to cover only those with low risk.

You don't understand anything then. I'm not sure why you're compelled to argue on the basis of reading the mnds of insurers. Insurers will provide coverage if you're willing to pay their premiums. There are fewer instances of insurers simply saying take a walk.

However health insurance works on the basis of pooled risk. Younger people pay what might be considered more than their fair share of the pool because they have a lower statistical risk. This goes to cover the older people and others in the pool who present a statistically higher risk. The thing that makes this fair in the long run is that the younger people who started out paying more than their fair share grow older and then they are paying less than what their relative risk would dictate. It evens out in the long run.

And the sky is blue...okay.

The thing that makes it unfair is when a person who spent 20 or 30 years in the pool overpaying for their relative risk suddenly finds himself outside the pool and is not allowed back in. He has essentially pre-paid for his higher risk years but is now buttfucked in the face by the system. And the insurance company wins coming and going.

a) life is a rough business.
b) why treat this like a game where there's a winner and loser? The insured paid to hedge against risk of sickness, injury, etc.
c) he didn't get screwed by the insurance system. He got screwed by the government regulations that initiated and continued a health care insurance system tied directly to employment.

I'm not sure why Democrats and liberals see only a single-payer system as the only available alternative to employer-subsidized health care insurance. It makes no rational sense.

This is the biggest argument for a single payer system, or at least a nationally pooled risk.

No it's not. It's an argument to shift away from employer-tied health care insurance. Because, remember, he's out of insurance because he is no longer employed.

[Derron]

It makes me laugh every time I hear some dumb bastard complain because his company is making him pay $60 a month for health insurance when it used to be $30, and he just got a 100% increase. If people really knew what they were paying for health insurance, a lot of this shit would stop immediately.

What the fuck are you talking about ?


Sincerely,

All Government workers.

[Mikey]

Jmak has an interesting idea, though not expressed. What if the federales passed a law that prohibited employers from offering health insurance as a benefit incident to employment? Then everyone would have to get into a private insurance plan or risk financial ruin. The problem with employer paid plans is that someone else is, again, paying for it (i.e., the employer). If you make the users pay their own way, then they have an interest in the cost.

It makes me laugh every time I hear some dumb bastard complain because his company is making him pay $60 a month for health insurance when it used to be $30, and he just got a 100% increase. If people really knew what they were paying for health insurance, a lot of this shit would stop immediately.

That's why the high deductible HSA plan makes a lot of sense. Then you really know what the costs are and you have a choice of how to spend your money.

[Trampis]

$270 a month, thats what Premera Blue Cross wants to charge me to have health insurance witha $1000 deductible, no dental or vision starting July 1. I renew on a yearly basis on July 1. I farm for a living and must send proof to them i do so once a year.

So heres the rundown of where my costs for heath Insurance have gone to just insure me and no one else. BTW Ill be 39 in September. Ive never had surgery, cancer or anything major.
08 -$237
07-202.55
06-185.86
05-158.72
04-138.55(Increased my deductible)
03-165.25
02-156.43
01-131.43
96-00- On ex-wifes companies plan(free)
95- $91<<<<<THAT WAS COOL!
94 and before, cant remember or on parents plan.

Im going in later this week to talk to my insurance agent to see if i cant reduce my costs somehow.

Just called my agent and we're going to go with a $5000 deductible and lower my cost from the proposed$260/month to $130/ month. Again, Im in decent shape, 39 y.o. male on NO prescriptions. Chiropractor visits are my only deal.

[Left Seater]

Chiropractor visits are my only deal.

So do you go to a mall or the supermarket for those visits. :D


In all seriousness, use whatever gets you thru the day but keep an eye open. The trainer for the hockey team I work for went to a two day seminar and now does all the adjustments for all of our players. Two days!!

[smackaholic]

Damn, mikey, we'll make a knuckle dragging, extra chromosome having, neanderthal neo con out of your fat hippy ass yet!!!!

HSAs have been pimped by the republicans for years now.

ANd jmak makes a very good point that having something as critical as health insurance be paid for and controlled by an employer is pretty fukking dumb.

If my employer gave me the option of a couple thousand dollar deductible plan and paid me the difference, I'd be all over it.

If I was boss, this is how we'd roll.

Consuela shows up in the ER for whatever, we treat serious shit that can't wait and we escort her and her 9 kids to the airport and she's on the next flight to TJ.

Poor folks with nothing get treated through medicaid at gubmint run hospitals. These gubmint run hospitals would be staffed by students, welfare moms, volunteers and as few paid gubmint ermployees as possible, since those fukks vote democrat. A big cost saving would be realized by the "go fukk your self in the ass sideways" tort policy. You wanna sue a doctor for something, then you can pay for it, asshole. Charity cases should not be able to sue someone who is providing them a service without fee.

The rest of us can pick the health insurance policy of our choice. You want a quadruple bypass for a 10 dollar co-pay? Fine. Just don't bitch about the $700 a month premiums.

Those diagnosed with chronic illness and the elderly would have subsidized plans, but, if some lonely old granny decides she can go down to the white paying folks hospital every day for a hangnail, she will be classified as a malingerer and sent to the gubmint joint will Consuela.

And of course, we adopt the british tort system yesterday. Loser pays costs. No jury trials.

[Wolfman]

And of course, we adopt the British tort system yesterday. Loser pays costs. No jury trials.
We can dream can't we ? At the same time we can go back to a world where lawyers, doctors, and pharmaceuticals only advertised in trade journals.
You gotta wonder why anybody in their right mind would want to take up OB/GYN or anesthesiology--let alone get in the business of making baby furniture ??

[Dr_Phibes]

So back to the topic title. If health care costs are really destroying small businesses, how is Prez Hussein's plan to tax private insurance plans going to help?

If I understand what he's trying to do correctly, he'll destroy the private insurance companies/independent plans altogether by undercutting them and driving their customers into government arms.
Instead of having thousands of middleman micro-systems under the national umbrella, there will be one streamlined system.

I don't see any other way it could work. If existing socialised programmes are any sort of model, US healthcare cost could be drivin down by a third simply by wiping out all the insurance companies. If he wants to work a government plan alongside private on a long term basis, he'll only make a bad situation worse.

[smackaholic]

[.... there will be one streamlined system.

I laughed.