T1B

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Maryland auto shop owner Brian England offers health care coverage to his 18 employees, including part-time staff. He calls it "the right thing to do," and besides, he knows taking care of his employees makes good business sense.

Brian England, president of British American Auto Care, catches up on paperwork at the office.

But every year his insurance premium costs rise another 10 or 20 percent, and England worries about the day when the fees will overwhelm him. After payroll and rent, health care is his largest business expense.

"A business down the road could have their labor rate $5 cheaper than us because that's how much it costs for us to provide health care," England said, referring to the hourly rates his business and competitors might offer customers.

Of the 46 million Americans living without health care, an outsized majority -- about 60 percent -- work for small businesses, according to the nonprofit Employee Benefit Research Institute. Owners of those businesses say Congress needs to find a solution to an increasingly costly problem -- but they disagree about how to get it right.

For England, shopping for policies and finding a way to afford to offer the benefits has become a yearly headache.

"I'm in the business to do auto repair," England said. "I'm not in the business of trying to find out how to provide health coverage and how to get the right sort of plan.... And it's not easy."

David Guernsey, who employs 170 people at his office supply business in Virginia, has struggled with the same rising costs to cover his employees -- some years, premiums have gone up 25 percent.

His small company can't hope to compete with the benefits much larger companies can afford to offer their employees.

"Their premiums are dramatically lower than ours are," Guernsey said. "They have leverage over the health care industry to be able to drive their premiums down, and yet we have to be able to compete with those folks. So it increasingly becomes a major competitive issue for us."

Guernsey said that, occasionally, job seekers have complained that they're looking for a plan with more extensive coverage than Guernsey's provides, but he called the plan "pretty good, pretty competitive" and said no one has ever turned down a job offer in hopes of getting better benefits elsewhere.

Both Guernsey and England agree the problem of ballooning costs must be fixed, and they expect the government to take some role in addressing health care costs.

Guernsey is skeptical of too much government involvement, and worries a mandate for employers to offer coverage could push up his premiums.

"If the requirement were such that the kind of coverage we offer were dramatically different, dramatically more comprehensive, and the cost accordingly would go up significantly -- then that would be a problem," he said.

Instead, he's hoping small businesses can pool their coverage with larger businesses in order to drive down prices.

England, however, said he would like to see a government health care plan and an emphasis on preventative care. He said a government plan would force insurance companies to offer competitive rates.

"I think once we get to doing that and everybody has insurance and we start to push it with the preventative care and community care, that's going to drive down the prices," England said.


Taking preventative steps is, after all, something he's learned through his work.

"We've preached preventative care to customers with cars for 31 years," England said. "So if we know it works with cars, we know it works with people, we all know that. It's just a matter of everybody getting onto the plan."

This is why we need a single payer system. Cause then, it will be "free" and all those small bidness folks will end up abulously wealthy!!!



Since it looks as if we are headed to some sort of gubmint system anyway, I might back it if it had the following provisions...

1. Tort reform. We need it badly. And we need to get away from jury trials on such matters. I don't care if it takes a fuggen constitutional amendment for that part. It has been proven that there are far too many stupid people to make such a system work. Part of this must be going to a british type of system where the loser pays costs.

2. Return to it being insurance, rather than "healthcare coverage". This means it works like every other insurace plan under the sun. It covers unforseen catastrophic stuff. I wouldn't have a problem with regularly scheduled preventive maintenance stuff being covered as well, but, until people understand that it will cost them something to bring little johnny to the doc for a runny nose, costs will continue to spiral out of control.

No surprise suckaholic can't see past the end of his penis.

No surprise you can only see the end of yours.

So, what's your take on the original thread topic. I suppose your all for "free" healthcare.

Screw_Michigan wrote:No surprise suckaholic can't see past the end of his penis.

Hell, as problems go, that sure ain't a bad one to have.

Van wrote:

Screw_Michigan wrote:No surprise suckaholic can't see past the end of his penis.

Hell, as problems go, that sure ain't a bad one to have.

Depends on the ultimate limiting factor...the penis or the eyes.

For some reason, and I should probably have my head examined for it, I was giving smackie the wide strike zone benefit of the doubt there.

mvscal wrote:Yes, of course. The Federal Government will deliver health care far more cheaply and efficiently than the private sector. Good plan.



And the half-witted, affirmative action monkey clacks on...

and what the fuck is your solution?

$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.

Onions wrote:WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Instead, he's hoping small businesses can pool their coverage with larger businesses in order to drive down prices.

And who is standing in the way of this common sense reform?

England, however, said he would like to see a government health care plan and an emphasis on preventative care. He said a government plan would force insurance companies to offer competitive rates.

No, he would like to see all of the studies that demonstrate that preventative medicine is not a cure-all for rising health care costs.

Onions wrote:and what the fuck is your solution?

We could do away with the 1500 separate state and federal regulations regulating health care insurance. We could eliminate shall issue mandates, eliminate regulations bannin out-of-state insurers from offering insurance to residents, and permit small businesses to pool.

What's yours? A massive Medicare program which has already demonstrated that it cannot contain costs?

Trampis wrote:$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.

Good luck. The problem in your situation is that you're the victim of govt regs that requires insurers to include coverage, for example, for diabetics, in all policies no matter that an individual does not have diabetes (that's a state of MI reg here). You could shop around for insurance but the state govts generally prohibit out-of-state insurers from selling insurance in state where they do not have offices.

JMak wrote:

Onions wrote:and what the fuck is your solution?

We could do away with the 1500 separate state and federal regulations regulating health care insurance. We could eliminate shall issue mandates, eliminate regulations bannin out-of-state insurers from offering insurance to residents, and permit small businesses to pool.

What's yours? A massive Medicare program which has already demonstrated that it cannot contain costs?

healthcare is a human right. everyone should be covered and it should be law. we are all in the same pool

Jsc, the problem with our entire health care system is perfectly exemplified in the fact that the billing on your surgery came to a hundred grand. It's borderline criminal....

Van wrote:Jsc, the problem with our entire health care system is perfectly exemplified in the fact that the billing on your surgery came to a hundred grand. It's borderline criminal....

no it isn't. it's just the nature of the marketplace. we went to school for a long time which means we deserve to live like kings.

sin,

overpaid doctors

Onions wrote:

Van wrote:Jsc, the problem with our entire health care system is perfectly exemplified in the fact that the billing on your surgery came to a hundred grand. It's borderline criminal....

no it isn't. it's just the nature of the marketplace. we went to school for a long time which means we deserve to live like kings.

sin,

overpaid doctors

You really are an ignorant douche, you know that.

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

smackaholic wrote:

Onions wrote:

Van wrote:Jsc, the problem with our entire health care system is perfectly exemplified in the fact that the billing on your surgery came to a hundred grand. It's borderline criminal....

no it isn't. it's just the nature of the marketplace. we went to school for a long time which means we deserve to live like kings.

sin,

overpaid doctors

You really are an ignorant douche, you know that.

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

I'll partially agree with that. But the drug companies also share the blame as well.

smackaholic wrote:

Onions wrote:

Van wrote:Jsc, the problem with our entire health care system is perfectly exemplified in the fact that the billing on your surgery came to a hundred grand. It's borderline criminal....

no it isn't. it's just the nature of the marketplace. we went to school for a long time which means we deserve to live like kings.

sin,

overpaid doctors

You really are an ignorant douche, you know that.

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

so it is the lawyers to blame for jsc's enormous medical bill?

Onions wrote:
so it is the lawyers to blame for jsc's enormous medical bill?

A decent chunk of it, yes. A major expense for doctors and hospitals is malpractice insurance.

Do you think doctors should work for the same money as a bus driver?

no but they should not make exponentially more

mvscal wrote:

Onions wrote:healthcare is a human right.

No, it isn't. Never has been. Never will be. Never should be.

actually, it is.

sin,

every developed country except the USA

Onions wrote: so it is the lawyers to blame for jsc's enormous medical bill?

Jsc is to blame for his bill.

Rub some fucking dirt on it next time you chronically sick broken dicked excuse of a human trainwreck.

Or just go ahead and abort yourself, you fucking pussy.

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?

R-Jack wrote: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?

Van wrote: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.

smackaholic wrote: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.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

smackaholic wrote: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?

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

smackaholic wrote: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.

I see.

Healthcare costs were under control until the stock market imploded?

Terry, even though I generally disagree with you, politically, I thought you were a reasonably intelligent person. If you believe that bullshit you just spouted you go right straight to the head of the dumbfukk line. That is quite possibly the stupidest fukking thing anybody has ever said on this board.

Insurance companies are involved in this mess, but, not because of excess profits. They are involved because they are part of the machine that allows the malpractice scam to exist. Take big insurance companies out of the equation and the blood sucking leeches would have to find honest work.

This is a big part of the reason socialized medicine countries have lower costs. The other part is their rationing of expensive care.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

Van wrote: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.

Jsc wrote:A year ago, I could not walk without falling down

Hmmm, I don't recall anyone named "Chip" playing QB for LSU last season.



Anyway, since you're here, explain to me this deal WW has with you. Why's he so pissed at you?

Jsc810 wrote:
A year ago, I could not walk without falling down.

Sounds like what we were shooting for every Friday and Saturday night in college.

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, 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.

This is why IF we get the gubmint involved, it should be as a single payer for routine scheduled maintenance and catastrophic events. ALL other care would be billed to the patient. End of story.

I would also provide a full tax credit to those that decide, thanks but no thanks, uncle sambo, I'll take my chances with the evil private sector insurance companies.

This way everybody gets "free healthcare" if they chose it or they have the option to stay with a traditional private insurance plan. That insurance would be cheaper since the part of the bill that goes to uninsured dead beats would no longer be necessary. Of course tort reform would also have to be part of the equation.

Van wrote:

Jsc wrote:A year ago, I could not walk without falling down

Hmmm, I don't recall anyone named "Chip" playing QB for LSU last season.



Anyway, since you're here, explain to me this deal WW has with you. Why's he so pissed at you?

JSC has achieved (and earned more) in a week than Whitey brings home before taxes in a year. Bitter fucktard is Whitey's middle name.

S_M, fine, but Jsc is hardly unique here in out-earning WW. When 88 was talking about working less so that he could dip under Obama's $250K per annum tax cutoff limit WW didn't suddenly go on some crazy hate campaign against 88. Lefty clearly also makes a lot more money than WW, and WW doesn't have an unkind word for the guy.

It's gotta be something else. Somewhere along the line Jsc must've said something about WW's daughter, or maybe it's JSC's pro-choice stance?

Thing is, WW's been teeing off on Jsc from well before Jsc's pro-choice statements of a week or two ago. He's teeing off on the guy like he has a genuine hatred for the guy, which is just damn hard to fathom, considering it's Jsc we're talking about here. Hating Jsc would be like hating Python, or MuchoBulls.

Some people are just plain likeable. They're just decent people, and they go out of their way to never offend anybody. Jsc is one of those people, and usually so is WW.

It's just a little weird.

WW? Your thoughts?

Van wrote: maybe it's JSC's pro-choice stance?

JSC has made his pro-choice stance known a few times and I think WW, more than anyone, has taken great offense to how JSC compares an embryo to an acorn or some bullshit like that.. unlike most of who otherwise find Chip a decent guy, WW probably should never be allowed within 2 states of JSC.

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

But he's such a well meaning and downright cheerful and pleasant devil.

Onions wrote:healthcare is a human right. everyone should be covered and it should be law. we are all in the same pool

Clever argument. I mean if arguments were simply about making unconditional statements and no obligation to use logic, you'd be the Plato of our time, moron.

actually, it is.

sin,

every developed country except the USA

Sure, lets emulate Britain and Canada where patients wait months for critical treatments for cancer and dialysis. Lets ration health care. 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!

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

smackaholic wrote: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.

I'm not sure how this works...how do insurance companies that insure patients raise rates for doctors? What "rates" are those?

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

Two good examples, but arguing that the system needs to be reformed is like arguing that the Detroit Tigers need a bullpen. Of course it does. 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.

Smackaholic nails it on rationing. Obama's a friggin jerkoff liar if he thinks we're dumb enough to believe that he can both cut out $300 billion from medicare while simultaneously expanding coverage and not have to raise taxes and ration care.