Universal Health Care...

[akoff 0]

Just signed check for 87k to health inssurance company...I can't wait till it is free!!I am going to have to look into the cost of not offering health and letting them get the public option. even with the fine it may be cheaper!! Does anyone know what the cost per employee is for not offering?

[LongLiveYorke 38]

I am going to have to look into the cost of not offering health and letting them get the public option. even with the fine it may be cheaper!! Does anyone know what the cost per employee is for not offering?

$0

[akoff 0]

$0

for some reason i would be willing to bet this is incorrect

[strategy 4]

did you say you have 250 employees? the $87k, that's for what time period?

[El Guapo 8]

did you say you have 250 employees? the $87k, that's for what time period?

If he has 250 employees, it can't be less than a month.

[hblask 1]

Just signed check for 87k to health inssurance company...I can't wait till it is free!!I am going to have to look into the cost of not offering health and letting them get the public option. even with the fine it may be cheaper!! Does anyone know what the cost per employee is for not offering?

The fine is $2000 per employee for anyone with more than 50 employees if even one of them is on any form of government medical assistance. And that includes the employees who have insurance through a spouse, insurance through the government, or any other type of insurance. You are fined for them anyway, even if they sign something that says they are not interested in getting insurance from you.

[LincolnK 1]

I haven't been keeping up here lately, but I came across this and thought it might spur some discussion.http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/09/27/...in6905221.shtml

The latest is Provenge, a first-of-a-kind therapy approved in April. It costs $93,000 and adds four months' survival, on average, for men with incurable prostate tumors.

Personally if I have the option of paying $93,000 of my own money for another 4 months at 80 years old (guy in the story is 80), I'm just going to let it go and let my family use it for something worthwhile. If it was my private health insurance willing to pay for it, I still don't think I would do it on principle. It seems like an awful waste of money, and I bet those 4 months aren't going to be much fun anyway.Are there any supporters of government-run health care here who would like the share their thoughts on this? Specifically, is this something that should be an option at tax-payer expense? If not, why? What kind of metric do you use to determine if a treatment provides enough value for the cost? Where do you draw the line for this sort of thing?

[Balloon guy 158]

I haven't been keeping up here lately, but I came across this and thought it might spur some discussion.http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/09/27/...in6905221.shtmlPersonally if I have the option of paying $93,000 of my own money for another 4 months at 80 years old (guy in the story is 80), I'm just going to let it go and let my family use it for something worthwhile. If it was my private health insurance willing to pay for it, I still don't think I would do it on principle. It seems like an awful waste of money, and I bet those 4 months aren't going to be much fun anyway.Are there any supporters of government-run health care here who would like the share their thoughts on this? Specifically, is this something that should be an option at tax-payer expense? If not, why? What kind of metric do you use to determine if a treatment provides enough value for the cost? Where do you draw the line for this sort of thing?

The current ruling political party will get to choose the current conditions to be met, after a quick check on the patient's latest political voting record and monetary contributions.Then they will make an informed decision and inform the doctors what the right type of care will be allowed.So when your political party is in power, ride motorcycles and eat fatty foods, you'll be fine.Just get ready to flip flop on abortion every time the congress changes sides.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

The fine is $2000 per employee for anyone with more than 50 employees if even one of them is on any form of government medical assistance. And that includes the employees who have insurance through a spouse, insurance through the government, or any other type of insurance. You are fined for them anyway, even if they sign something that says they are not interested in getting insurance from you.

This doesn't go into effect until 4 years from now.

[akoff 0]

did you say you have 250 employees? the $87k, that's for what time period?

105 and it was for the month.

The fine is $2000 per employee for anyone with more than 50 employees if even one of them is on any form of government medical assistance. And that includes the employees who have insurance through a spouse, insurance through the government, or any other type of insurance. You are fined for them anyway, even if they sign something that says they are not interested in getting insurance from you.

so for fines of 210k i can save 1.044M in preminums....or I can add 830K to my bottom line....hmm. I may have to consider this. I honstly can't believe it is accurate. Accounting comes in 2 weeks to review 3rd quarter, we'll have to talk.So in theory i could purchase "cadillac heath care" for my family through a different company that has say two employees (myself and my partner) and keep the rest as profits??? I may have to take back all of those things i have said and felt about Democrats!! They really are looking after me! But as i have said a millon times Democrats hurt the people who vote them into office the worst!!

[85suited 0]

105 and it was for the month.so for fines of 210k i can save 1.044M in preminums....or I can add 830K to my bottom line....hmm. I may have to consider this. I honstly can't believe it is accurate. Accounting comes in 2 weeks to review 3rd quarter, we'll have to talk.So in theory i could purchase "cadillac heath care" for my family through a different company that has say two employees (myself and my partner) and keep the rest as profits??? I may have to take back all of those things i have said and felt about Democrats!! They really are looking after me! But as i have said a millon times Democrats hurt the people who vote them into office the worst!!

They want you to drop your employees into the govt plan.... it is the first step toward single payer for all

[akoff 0]

They want you to drop your employees into the govt plan.... it is the first step toward single payer for all

yea i know...i actually thought of that as i was typing, however, saving 70k per month is a number that makes me pay attention!! if i didn't have kids maybe i wouldn't care. I will say as long as my competition doesn't crush me on it i will almost certainly stay with it. The real problem is most of my competitors have less then 50 people....actually damn near all of them. That could force a reconsideration to stay viable as a business. Time will tell.Back to hating Democrats...that feels better...

[dapokerbum 0]

yea i know...i actually thought of that as i was typing, however, saving 70k per month is a number that makes me pay attention!! if i didn't have kids maybe i wouldn't care. I will say as long as my competition doesn't crush me on it i will almost certainly stay with it. The real problem is most of my competitors have less then 50 people....actually damn near all of them. That could force a reconsideration to stay viable as a business. Time will tell.Back to hating Democrats...that feels better...

Could you somehow break your business into three seperate businesses each with 35 employees? Or is there some legal jargon about doing that. Seems for some businesses it might be easier to do it that way. Not real sure what you do, so i'm not sure even how viable that would be. Then you could not pay for the health insurance AND not pay the fine. Win Win?

[hblask 1]

Obamacare is starting to work its magicThe Principal Financial Group announced on Thursday that it planned to stop selling health insurance, another sign of upheaval emerging among insurers as the new federal health law starts to take effect.American healthcare reformTom Grill | Photographer's Choice RF | Getty ImagesThe company, based in Iowa, provides coverage to about 840,000 people who receive their insurance through an employer.Principal’s decision closely tracks moves by other insurers that have indicated in recent weeks that they plan to drop out of certain segments of the market, like the business of selling child-only policies. State regulators say some insurance companies are already threatening to leave particular markets because of the new law. And some regulators in states like Maine and Iowa have asked the Obama administration to give insurers more time to comply with some of the new rules.“What you’re seeing is the beginning of some serious math and some posturing,” said Len Nichols, a health economist and policy expert at George Mason University. While some insurers, like Principal, are choosing to leave the business rather than make the necessary investments to stay, others may be simply trying to delay some of the new rules or overturn them, he said.

[akoff 0]

Could you somehow break your business into three seperate businesses each with 35 employees? Or is there some legal jargon about doing that. Seems for some businesses it might be easier to do it that way. Not real sure what you do, so i'm not sure even how viable that would be. Then you could not pay for the health insurance AND not pay the fine. Win Win?

don't know. part of the bueaty of our system is you don't fully understand why it is set up the way it is. I own or am partners in 8 or 10 differnet businesses. They own property, run business on property and create an umbrella of an organization. Why? taxes i guess, liability i am sure, because scum bag lawyers and accountants need to make a buck...highly possible. Bottom line is only one has over 50 and i am sure there would be a tremendous cost into splitting it up. That doesn't mean it won't be looked into, just that i would expect it to be painful process with some downside that I am not aware of.

[antistuff 0]

I haven't been keeping up here lately, but I came across this and thought it might spur some discussion.http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/09/27/...in6905221.shtmlPersonally if I have the option of paying $93,000 of my own money for another 4 months at 80 years old (guy in the story is 80), I'm just going to let it go and let my family use it for something worthwhile. If it was my private health insurance willing to pay for it, I still don't think I would do it on principle. It seems like an awful waste of money, and I bet those 4 months aren't going to be much fun anyway.Are there any supporters of government-run health care here who would like the share their thoughts on this? Specifically, is this something that should be an option at tax-payer expense? If not, why? What kind of metric do you use to determine if a treatment provides enough value for the cost? Where do you draw the line for this sort of thing?

lol liar.

[All_In 0]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11502938"The US healthcare system is to blame for declines in the country's life expectancy ranking...""They note the countries to which the US is compared - Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK - all provide universal healthcare coverage."Yet another example of how the US-style healthcare is broken. How much proof do u guys need???

[CaneBrain 95]

Americans penchant for stuffing themselves full of cupcakes and fried oreos is 1000000000x more to blame for our life expectancy issues than our lack of universal healthcare.Feel free not to stop by every month or so and waste our time.

[El Guapo 8]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11502938"The US healthcare system is to blame for declines in the country's life expectancy ranking...""They note the countries to which the US is compared - Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK - all provide universal healthcare coverage."Yet another example of how the US-style healthcare is broken. How much proof do u guys need???

Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you? Do you just go around looking for articles that paint the US in a bad light. That article literally said nothing. It was just a bunch of random quotes. There was not one fact or figure in that article.

[CaneBrain 95]

Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you? Do you just go around looking for articles that paint the US in a bad light. That article literally said nothing. It was just a bunch of random quotes. There was not one fact or figure in that article.

wow that was the worst article ever. A study suggests! Well, hot damn.I love that they "considered" that everyone getting fatter and exercising less could play a role. Ya think?

[Balloon guy 158]

Not for nothing but there are currently more obese people in China then there are people in America.

[CaneBrain 95]

Not for nothing but there are currently more obese people in China then there are people in America.

per capita, though?I find that hard to believe.

[Balloon guy 158]

Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you? Do you just go around looking for articles that paint the US in a bad light. That article literally said nothing. It was just a bunch of random quotes. There was not one fact or figure in that article.

What you said^^^^^^^

Seriously, what the hell is wrong with the US? Why are there so many articles that paint the US in a bad light?That article literally said it perfectly. In just a bunch of random quotes. There was so much fact or figure in that article.

What He heard^^^^^^

[Balloon guy 158]

per capita, though?I find that hard to believe.

Facts have always been a problem for you....

[El Guapo 8]

Facts have always been a problem for you....

And tests. Don't forget tests.