Just heard some good stuff on the radio..

[Rhylan]

of the 13% of Americans living under the federally decreed "poverty line"...

95% have a refrigerator
86% reported no unfulfilled needs for a doctor in the last year
84% reported no unpaid/late rent or mortgage

I heard it from the guy that's filling in for Rush Limbaugh, so consider the agenda. He did cite a source, I just was too busy to hear it.

Point is... who is defining poverty in Washington DC and who here thinks it's a valid measure?

This also goes back to something else I mentioned in this forum awhile back... that welfare and Medicaid benefits received by qualified individuals don't count when determining whether or not they are above/below the poverty line. SO... politicians cite "poverty rates," rally support for public assistance programs, then cite steady "poverty rates" as justifications for more spending on the same programs.

BAH! It just burns me up.

[dude1394]

How can this be Rhylan?? In the evil USA that doesn't have health care, condemns folks to die in floods and spies on them day and night so that they can be used to create oil for the eeeeevvvvvvillllll oil companies.

Must be right-wing-propaganda, no way it's true.

[Mavdog]

most of the entitlement programs you mention are included.

Income used to compute poverty status:
Money income
Includes earnings, unemployment compensation, workers’ compensation, Social Security, Supplemental Security Income, public assistance, veterans’ payments, survivor benefits, pension or retirement income, interest, dividends, rents, royalties, income from estates, trusts, educational assistance, alimony, child support, assistance from outside the household, and other miscellaneous sources. Noncash benefits (such as food stamps and housing subsidies) do not count.

Before taxes.
Excludes capital gains or losses.
If a person lives with a family, add up the income of all family members. (Non-relatives, such as housemates, do not count.)

http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/povdef.html

in regard to the refrigerator, well, we do have a certain standard of living to uphold...

[Drbio]

I have four refrigerators and one is dedicated to nothing but beer. Am I rich?

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Drbio

I have four refrigerators and one is dedicated to nothing but beer. Am I rich?

You bet you are.. God bless America!!

[Epitome22]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

most of the entitlement programs you mention are included.



http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/povdef.html

in regard to the refrigerator, well, we do have a certain standard of living to uphold...

I for one am shocked that right-wing misinformation would be spread on Rush Limbaugh's show.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Epitome22

I for one am shocked that right-wing misinformation would be spread on Rush Limbaugh's show.

Hmmm...where is the mis-information in Rhylan's post?

[Epitome22]

See Mavdog's post.

[dude1394]

Mavdog I'm assuming was talking about Rhylan's opinion, not what he was quoting was said on the Limbaugh show.

[Epitome22]

Actually you're correct. I mistook Rhylan's words in the bottom section as quoting the program. My bad.

[kg_veteran]

Medicaid, public housing, and food stamps don't count.

Rhylan's point is well-taken.

Most of the "poor" in our country really aren't poor at all.

[Mavdog]

Kinda hard to call "medicaid" as something that should be called "income", after all one doesn't benefit unless one is ill. At best it should be a breakeven, but as there is a person who suffers even that would be quite a stretch...

Are there truly poor people who live in poverty in America today? Absolutely.

[kg_veteran]

It's government-subsidized health insurance. I don't know about you, but most people consider health insurance to be an important part of any employment benefits package.

I never said there weren't any poor people. I said most of those who are considered "poor" by our government really aren't poor.

[Mavdog]

I guess it depends on what level of income that employee is at. the higher the income the more likely they have the health insurance, the lower the income strata the less likely they will be offered any health insurance benefits.

My point is that the use of the medicaid benefits entails the person is ill and needs help.

from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities:
[quote]Private employment-based health insurance coverage fell again in 2004, for the fifth successive year. The share of Americans with job-based coverage stood at 59.8 percent in 2004, significantly less than the share in 2003 (60.4 percent) and in 2000 (63.6 percent). Over the years, the primary cause for the decline in job-based health insurance has been escalating health care costs, which has led some employers to stop offering coverage and many others to shift more costs to employees, making it more difficult for low- and moderate-income workers to afford insurance for themselves or their families. Growth in the cost of job-based health insurance premiums continued in 2004, although the rate of growth eased modestly, falling from 14 percent in 2003 to 11 percent in 2004. [2] While many have noted the difficulties that employers face in paying for health insurance coverage, it is noteworthy that corporate profits rose by 16 percent in 2004, while employment-based health insurance coverage fell.[3]

In addition to reductions in the proportion of people with employment-sponsored insurance coverage, there are signs that private coverage is weakening for those who have coverage. A recent survey found that more than one-third of adults have problems paying medical bills and encounter related problems of access to care. These problems are most severe among the uninsured, but about one-third of those who have insurance also reported having difficulties. Those whose private insurance policies have high deductibles (e.g., greater than $500 per year) or limited benefits (e.g., no prescription drug coverage) are more prone to serious problems with medical bills.[4] Another survey found that the percentage of privately insured people who have problems paying medical bills has risen in recent years and that problems are particularly severe for low-income people with chronic health problems.[5]

[Epitome22]

If anything, the point seems to be backfired.

The 'poor' designated as those falling below the Federal poverty line, are not there because their supposed 'poverty' doesen't take into account cash benefits they recieve from various pensions, social insurance and entitlement programs, they are there in spite of it.

[q]This also goes back to something else I mentioned in this forum awhile back... that welfare and Medicaid benefits received by qualified individuals don't count when determining whether or not they are above/below the poverty line.[/q]

? Isn't this backwards? The poverty line is used to determine whether or not people are eligable for programs like medicaid in the first place.

[Epitome22]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Medicaid, public housing, and food stamps don't count.

Rhylan's point is well-taken.

Most of the "poor" in our country really aren't poor at all.

You have to be 'poor' in the first place to even qualify for these programs.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

I guess it depends on what level of income that employee is at. the higher the income the more likely they have the health insurance, the lower the income strata the less likely they will be offered any health insurance benefits.

Huh? I don't understand this comment. How health insurance is considered has nothing to do with level of income. If I have health insurance, I have it, whether I make $8.00 an hour or $250,000.00 a year. Either way, it's an important part of the benefits package because I don't have to go out and try and provide healthcare for myself (and my family) some other way.

My point is that the use of the medicaid benefits entails the person is ill and needs help.

Well, let's hope that somebody using Medicaid actually goes to a medical provider, yes, but I don't see how that is relevant to how Medicaid should be viewed.

The point I'm trying to make is, there is always this implication that the "poor" are homeless, don't have enough to eat, don't have a place to live, etc. While there ARE some people in America who fit within those parameters, my position is that there aren't nearly as many as we would be led to believe by "poverty" statistics.

Most of the "poor" in America have enough to eat, a roof over their heads, and basic amenities such as electricity, indoor plumbing, a REFRIGERATOR, etc., and some not-so-basic amenities like cable television.

Private employment-based health insurance coverage fell again in 2004, for the fifth successive year. The share of Americans with job-based coverage stood at 59.8 percent in 2004, significantly less than the share in 2003 (60.4 percent) and in 2000 (63.6 percent). Over the years, the primary cause for the decline in job-based health insurance has been escalating health care costs, which has led some employers to stop offering coverage and many others to shift more costs to employees, making it more difficult for low- and moderate-income workers to afford insurance for themselves or their families.

I wonder about these numbers, as they assume that the cause of the reduction in "private employment-based health insurance coverage" (this isn't an overall population number, I take it, since all government employees have health insurance) is employers dropping coverage. Isn't it also possible that people are moving into job fields that involve self-employment or contract labor/work? I know that's the case for me (I became self-employed in the latter part of 2005), and I'm sure I'm included in that statistic, but it's deceptive because my family and I didn't lose health insurance coverage, as this quote seems to imply.


To me, the bottom line is whether there are people out there who can't get HEALTHCARE, not necessarily how many people have health insurance. Those are two very different things. It seems to me that emergency services are available to all and that free clinics are available to most people who don't have health insurance, even if Medicaid isn't.

Those are the statistics I'd like to see. How many people in America can't get access to healthcare at all?

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

To me, the bottom line is whether there are people out there who can't get HEALTHCARE, not necessarily how many people have health insurance. Those are two very different things. It seems to me that emergency services are available to all and that free clinics are available to most people who don't have health insurance, even if Medicaid isn't.

Those are the statistics I'd like to see. How many people in America can't get access to healthcare at all?

I would also submit that employer provided health-care has potentially short-circuited market forces in health-care in general. When an employer provides health care and because of that another entity begins to negotiate prices, fees etc., it takes the profit motive and removes how prices self-correct the services provided.

If I don't have to shop for a doctor, a hospital, a pharmacist, a drug...the costs themselves will not be subjective to market forces.

If folks were forced to find their own health-care several interesting things might happen.

1. They would look for more catastropic care services to reduce prices.
2. They would be able to move much easier from job to job providing them more negotiating power than currently they have.
(This would work as well for personal pensions as well).

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Epitome22

If anything, the point seems to be backfired.

The 'poor' designated as those falling below the Federal poverty line, are not there because their supposed 'poverty' doesen't take into account cash benefits they recieve from various pensions, social insurance and entitlement programs, they are there in spite of it.

No, if we're going to be accurate then things like Medicaid, government housing, food stamps, and other "non-cash" benefits are part of the picture. Otherwise, as I mentioned to Mavdog above, the implication is that the person is at a certain income level and having to make that stretch to cover housing, food, healthcare, etc., when that's not usually the case.

Again, to me, poverty would be a person who doesn't have a place to live or doesn't have enough food to eat -- not a person who can' t afford a second refrigerator.

? Isn't this backwards? The poverty line is used to determine whether or not people are eligable for programs like medicaid in the first place.

You're mixing up a "poverty guideline" (which is used to determine eligibility for government assistance) and "poverty thresholds" which the Census Bureau uses.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by dude1394

I would also submit that employer provided health-care has potentially short-circuited market forces in health-care in general. When an employer provides health care and because of that another entity begins to negotiate prices, fees etc., it takes the profit motive and removes how prices self-correct the services provided.

If I don't have to shop for a doctor, a hospital, a pharmacist, a drug...the costs themselves will not be subjective to market forces.

If folks were forced to find their own health-care several interesting things might happen.

1. They would look for more catastropic care services to reduce prices.
2. They would be able to move much easier from job to job providing them more negotiating power than currently they have.
(This would work as well for personal pensions as well).

Great points, and truthfully this is probably the answer. Let the market loose on the health insurance industry, and suddenly my guess is that prices would indeed plummet.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Huh? I don't understand this comment. How health insurance is considered has nothing to do with level of income. If I have health insurance, I have it, whether I make $8.00 an hour or $250,000.00 a year. Either way, it's an important part of the benefits package because I don't have to go out and try and provide healthcare for myself (and my family) some other way.

the correlation is that most upper income employees are provided the health care benefits, fewer lower income employeees are given that benefit. This is in response to your assertion that "most people consider health insurance to be an important part of any employment benefits package", which is only valid when it pertains to those higher compensation positions. lower wage employees are increasingly not offered any health care benefits.

Well, let's hope that somebody using Medicaid actually goes to a medical provider, yes, but I don't see how that is relevant to how Medicaid should be viewed.

it's hard to quantify it as an "income" or a "benefit" when the person using it is paying with their good health...

The point I'm trying to make is, there is always this implication that the "poor" are homeless, don't have enough to eat, don't have a place to live, etc. While there ARE some people in America who fit within those parameters, my position is that there aren't nearly as many as we would be led to believe by "poverty" statistics.

Most of the "poor" in America have enough to eat, a roof over their heads, and basic amenities such as electricity, indoor plumbing, a REFRIGERATOR, etc., and some not-so-basic amenities like cable television.

there are some who are homeless and don't have enough to eat or a roof over ther heads. Many are what is called the "working poor" as they do have a job, do have a roof over their heads, and generally have enough to eat, but are poor nonetheless.

I wonder about these numbers, as they assume that the cause of the reduction in "private employment-based health insurance coverage" (this isn't an overall population number, I take it, since all government employees have health insurance) is employers dropping coverage. Isn't it also possible that people are moving into job fields that involve self-employment or contract labor/work? I know that's the case for me (I became self-employed in the latter part of 2005), and I'm sure I'm included in that statistic, but it's deceptive because my family and I didn't lose health insurance coverage, as this quote seems to imply.

To me, the bottom line is whether there are people out there who can't get HEALTHCARE, not necessarily how many people have health insurance. Those are two very different things. It seems to me that emergency services are available to all and that free clinics are available to most people who don't have health insurance, even if Medicaid isn't.

Those are the statistics I'd like to see. How many people in America can't get access to healthcare at all?

Anybody in America who is ill CAN get medical attention. It may not be pretty, as they may have to wait for a day to see a physician, and they may not get a very experienced one at that. If they have a condition that needs constant review, or medications, they could very well not get those.

The best scenario is for a person to be able to not only get healthcare when they need to be cured, but to get preventive help so that their chances of getting ill are diminished. That is the most efficient and least costly road to take, and unfortunately the least viable for those without any employee benefit package.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

the correlation is that most upper income employees are provided the health care benefits, fewer lower income employeees are given that benefit. This is in response to your assertion that "most people consider health insurance to be an important part of any employment benefits package", which is only valid when it pertains to those higher compensation positions. lower wage employees are increasingly not offered any health care benefits.

I understand that some lower income employees don't get health insurance. But you would agree with me, wouldn't you, that those that do consider that an important part of their benefits package? I mean, this really isn't very difficult. If one job makes $8.00 per hour and has health insurance for the employee, it is worth more than the job that pays $8.00 per hour but doesn't offer health insurance.

it's hard to quantify it as an "income" or a "benefit" when the person using it is paying with their good health...

This really is a nonsensical thing to say. The only time that health insurance is valuable to ANYONE is when they need medical treatment -- whether it is a government benefit or a private employment benefit. I guess I could argue that a Dell employee's health insurance really shouldn't be considered a "benefit" since he has to pay with his good health, but I suspect I'd get laughed out of here, as you should for your assertion.

there are some who are homeless and don't have enough to eat or a roof over ther heads. Many are what is called the "working poor" as they do have a job, do have a roof over their heads, and generally have enough to eat, but are poor nonetheless.

Which is my point entirely. People get a different picture when they hear the word "poor" than what you just described. And in my mind, how can you be living in poverty when all of your basic human needs (and a bunch of not so basic needs) are met?

Anybody in America who is ill CAN get medical attention. It may not be pretty, as they may have to wait for a day to see a physician, and they may not get a very experienced one at that. If they have a condition that needs constant review, or medications, they could very well not get those.

The best scenario is for a person to be able to not only get healthcare when they need to be cured, but to get preventive help so that their chances of getting ill are diminished. That is the most efficient and least costly road to take, and unfortunately the least viable for those without any employee benefit package.

Preventative care is available through free clinics and the like. I'm not just talking about people with a gunshot wound or pneumonia.

BTW, I'm curious. What is your solution to the problems that you perceive with our system?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

I would also submit that employer provided health-care has potentially short-circuited market forces in health-care in general. When an employer provides health care and because of that another entity begins to negotiate prices, fees etc., it takes the profit motive and removes how prices self-correct the services provided.

If I don't have to shop for a doctor, a hospital, a pharmacist, a drug...the costs themselves will not be subjective to market forces.

If folks were forced to find their own health-care several interesting things might happen.

1. They would look for more catastropic care services to reduce prices.
2. They would be able to move much easier from job to job providing them more negotiating power than currently they have.
(This would work as well for personal pensions as well).

no, there is still the "profit motive" at work and "market forces" placing pressure on the costs. It is the insurer who uses these against the providor of the care or the drugs.

Of course, I sure as heck don't want the "lowest cost provider" to determine who my doctor is going to be!

Do you think that (lets say) CIGNA pays Walgreens a "market price" for the prescription drugs the CIGNA insured person gets from Walgreen? No, it is a prenegotiated price that is less than the "sticker price" of that drug.

Where I work we have a choice of 3 differentr plans, so each employee "shops" the plans to decide which one they want to enroll in. The plans have varied deductibles and benefits, and commensurate costs of the coverage. One can choose to buy the "Cadillac" of coverages and pay for it, or buy a "Chevrolet" and not pay so much.

market forces are at work.

[dude1394]

When was the last time you shopped in the market for health care? never..you have a set of plans setup by bluecross for different plans.

When was the last time you shopped for a cheaper pharmacy for Allegra for example? Not very often I imagine.

When was the last time you shopped for a hospital? Probably not often.

You are talking about pseudo-competition that has been built into the systems by companies trying to cut costs. Not true market forces that are driven by prices. Imo...

[Rhylan]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Medicaid, public housing, and food stamps don't count.

Rhylan's point is well-taken.

Most of the "poor" in our country really aren't poor at all.

Thanks KG... I couldn't remember just what wasn't counted when determining poverty status, but I knew there was some stuff. Bottom line is, if you get free stuff, it should count towards the measurement of whether or not you're below the poverty line.

Not because the poverty line is used to determine eligibility.. obviously that wouldn't make sense, like Epitome said, it'd be backwards. But because poverty rates are political tools.

I would love to hear a politician say, "thanks to welfare, public housing, medicaid, etc, almost every single American has his or her basic needs met. We can stop now. No more new entitlements. Yay. We'll continue to track the success of these programs and get back to asking for more money when more Americans are living in poverty."

Dig?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

I understand that some lower income employees don't get health insurance. But you would agree with me, wouldn't you, that those that do consider that an important part of their benefits package? I mean, this really isn't very difficult. If one job makes $8.00 per hour and has health insurance for the employee, it is worth more than the job that pays $8.00 per hour but doesn't offer health insurance.

yes, those who get coverage more than not do want to continue. what is true is many Americans haven't been given the opportunity to get coverage as a benefit, especially someone who is getting $8/HR. My guess is that there is probably less than 5% of $8/HR emplyees getting ANY healthcare benefits.

This really is a nonsensical thing to say. The only time that health insurance is valuable to ANYONE is when they need medical treatment -- whether it is a government benefit or a private employment benefit. I guess I could argue that a Dell employee's health insurance really shouldn't be considered a "benefit" since he has to pay with his good health, but I suspect I'd get laughed out of here, as you should for your assertion.

My coverage provided several preventive care benefits, from annual check ups to teeth cleaning. Medicaid does not provide for preventive care to any great degree, one needs to be ill to get any help. To ascribe the opportunity to get the minimum of heathcare that medicaid provides as a "benefit" that should be included in one's income is what should get one "laughed out of here".

Which is my point entirely. People get a different picture when they hear the word "poor" than what you just described. And in my mind, how can you be living in poverty when all of your basic human needs (and a bunch of not so basic needs) are met?

this is America! every citizen deserves a refrigerator, a washing machine, and a chicken in every pot!

Preventative care is available through free clinics and the like. I'm not just talking about people with a gunshot wound or pneumonia.

BTW, I'm curious. What is your solution to the problems that you perceive with our system?

Every employee should be provided with healthcare insurance coverage, regardless of if they are full or part time. Hospitals (such as Parkland) should be financed by regional/state/national reimbursements so that their finances aren't locally borne.

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by dude1394

I would also submit that employer provided health-care has potentially short-circuited market forces in health-care in general. When an employer provides health care and because of that another entity begins to negotiate prices, fees etc., it takes the profit motive and removes how prices self-correct the services provided.

If I don't have to shop for a doctor, a hospital, a pharmacist, a drug...the costs themselves will not be subjective to market forces.

If folks were forced to find their own health-care several interesting things might happen.

1. They would look for more catastropic care services to reduce prices.
2. They would be able to move much easier from job to job providing them more negotiating power than currently they have.
(This would work as well for personal pensions as well).

Amen Bother! Good points.

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Great points, and truthfully this is probably the answer. Let the market loose on the health insurance industry, and suddenly my guess is that prices would indeed plummet.

It would be no where NEAR as easy to "Let loose the market" on health care as you imply.

[Rhylan]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

My coverage provided several preventive care benefits, from annual check ups to teeth cleaning. Medicaid does not provide for preventive care to any great degree, one needs to be ill to get any help. To ascribe the opportunity to get the minimum of heathcare that medicaid provides as a "benefit" that should be included in one's income is what should get one "laughed out of here".

That's the type of coverage I get working for IBM. High deductible, emergency/catastrophe coverage fitting of a healthy 25 year old. And it is MOST certainly a benefit that adds to my overall compensation as an employee. Fo sho.

Different types of coverage are available for different costs. Same for spousal/dependent coverage. It's definitely a value-add.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Rhylan

I would love to hear a politician say, "thanks to welfare, public housing, medicaid, etc, almost every single American has his or her basic needs met. We can stop now. No more new entitlements. Yay. We'll continue to track the success of these programs and get back to asking for more money when more Americans are living in poverty."

Dig?

Bingo.

Let's be honest and talk about people that aren't having basic needs met.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

yes, those who get coverage more than not do want to continue. what is true is many Americans haven't been given the opportunity to get coverage as a benefit, especially someone who is getting $8/HR. My guess is that there is probably less than 5% of $8/HR emplyees getting ANY healthcare benefits.

Let's not get hung up on the arbitrary $8.00 per hour figure I picked. My point was that health insurance should be considered a financial benefit to the person receiving it, regardless of whether the government or the employer is picking up the tab.

My coverage provided several preventive care benefits, from annual check ups to teeth cleaning. Medicaid does not provide for preventive care to any great degree, one needs to be ill to get any help. To ascribe the opportunity to get the minimum of heathcare that medicaid provides as a "benefit" that should be included in one's income is what should get one "laughed out of here".

You should check the list of benefits that Medicaid provides in Texas some time. It's quite a bit more extensive than you suggest. I'm not saying that the coverage is as good as the coverage that you (in essence) pay for, but then again, it is free to the beneficiary.

this is America! every citizen deserves a refrigerator, a washing machine, and a chicken in every pot!

Nice FDR reference. At least I think that's what that was.

Every employee should be provided with healthcare insurance coverage, regardless of if they are full or part time. Hospitals (such as Parkland) should be financed by regional/state/national reimbursements so that their finances aren't locally borne.

Okay, that's great in theory, but how do you pay for it? The fact is, requiring employers to provide healthcare insurance coverage to all employees (part or full time) would result in fewer people with jobs. Would you rather the person have a job and no health insurance, or be unemployed?

As for the Parkland example, where are the "regional/state/national" reimbursements (which I assume they aren't now receiving -- I have no idea how Parkland specifically is reimbursed) going to come from?

[dude1394]

Okay, that's great in theory, but how do you pay for it? The fact is, requiring employers to provide healthcare insurance coverage to all employees (part or full time) would result in fewer people with jobs. Would you rather the person have a job and no health insurance, or be unemployed?

You'd probably pay for it with 10% or more unemployment as in europe.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by dude1394

You'd probably pay for it with 10% or more unemployment as in europe.

Exactly.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Let's not get hung up on the arbitrary $8.00 per hour figure I picked. My point was that health insurance should be considered a financial benefit to the person receiving it, regardless of whether the government or the employer is picking up the tab.

I agree with the premise unless the health insurance is only catastrophic in nature. Medicaid is not about any preventive care, nor are there any life or disability provisions, which are in some form typical in private plans. Additionally, most private plans by employers have the employee paying some of the premium.

hould check the list of benefits that Medicaid provides in Texas some time. It's quite a bit more extensive than you suggest. I'm not saying that the coverage is as good as the coverage that you (in essence) pay for, but then again, it is free to the beneficiary.

it's free a long as the person meets the eligibility requirements, which means the person has little income or assets.

Nice FDR reference. At least I think that's what that was.

Herbert Hoover.

Okay, that's great in theory, but how do you pay for it? The fact is, requiring employers to provide healthcare insurance coverage to all employees (part or full time) would result in fewer people with jobs. Would you rather the person have a job and no health insurance, or be unemployed?

Wouldn't you agree that most employers offer the health insurance benefit to their salaried employees? There wouldn't be any change in that segment.

The affect on hourly workers would be minimal. With a large number of participants, the per person cost would decrease and the impact on the bottom line would be less than you assume.

As for the Parkland example, where are the "regional/state/national" reimbursements (which I assume they aren't now receiving -- I have no idea how Parkland specifically is reimbursed) going to come from?

Parland is financed by Dallas County. Residents of other counties who use Parkland and are not able to pay get free medical care courtesy of Dallas taxpayers. It is only equitable for the facility to be paid for by the counties whose residents use it- in this case, Collin, Denton, Ellis etc. The counties have the tax base to pay their fair share of the costs, they just don't do it today.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

it's free a long as the person meets the eligibility requirements, which means the person has little income or assets.

Show me the folks who make too much to qualify for Medicaid and ALSO can't get health care in this country.

Wouldn't you agree that most employers offer the health insurance benefit to their salaried employees? There wouldn't be any change in that segment.

The affect on hourly workers would be minimal. With a large number of participants, the per person cost would decrease and the impact on the bottom line would be less than you assume.

Have you priced it? I know what it costs for my small firm to provide health insurance to each employee, and I can tell you that it's not "minimal". It is a substantial expense. Requiring companies that don't provide it to suddenly start providing it would cause companies to lay people off and/or move to a state where the requirement doesn't exist.

Bottom line, I think your proposed requirement that all employers provide health insurance, to full and part time employees, is unworkable. It ignores two economic realities. First, employers/businesses NEVER bear the burden of a tax (or in this case, a government-mandated expense) -- the end user does. Second, companies will not operate at a loss or minimal profit for very long. They will either move somewhere that they can make a profit, reduce expenses where they are so that they continue to make a profit, or they will cease to do business. None of those bode well for employees, particularly lower wage employees.

Parland is financed by Dallas County. Residents of other counties who use Parkland and are not able to pay get free medical care courtesy of Dallas taxpayers. It is only equitable for the facility to be paid for by the counties whose residents use it- in this case, Collin, Denton, Ellis etc. The counties have the tax base to pay their fair share of the costs, they just don't do it today.

I don't have a problem with that proposal, but you mentioned something about state and federal monies, too.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Show me the folks who make too much to qualify for Medicaid and ALSO can't get health care in this country.

??? Any person can get "health care". that's not the question.

Have you priced it? I know what it costs for my small firm to provide health insurance to each employee, and I can tell you that it's not "minimal". It is a substantial expense. Requiring companies that don't provide it to suddenly start providing it would cause companies to lay people off and/or move to a state where the requirement doesn't exist.

Bottom line, I think your proposed requirement that all employers provide health insurance, to full and part time employees, is unworkable. It ignores two economic realities. First, employers/businesses NEVER bear the burden of a tax (or in this case, a government-mandated expense) -- the end user does. Second, companies will not operate at a loss or minimal profit for very long. They will either move somewhere that they can make a profit, reduce expenses where they are so that they continue to make a profit, or they will cease to do business. None of those bode well for employees, particularly lower wage employees.

the cost depends on the extent of the coverage.

your scenario of companies who will "move somewhere" doesn't apply if it is a national program, rather than state by state as you presume.

yes, there could be an affect on the end user cost. this would partially be made up by better worker productivity, a healthier worker is a more productive worker.

I don't have a problem with that proposal, but you mentioned something about state and federal monies, too.

IMO it needs to be at the least a state wide funding mechanism. A national plan would be possible as well.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

??? Any person can get "health care". that's not the question.

I'm sorry. Then what is the question? To me, it's whether people have access to health care, not whether they have health insurance from their employer.

the cost depends on the extent of the coverage.

Well, duh. But we're not talking about catastrophic coverage, as you've established. We're talking about health insurance that encompasses wellness, or preventative coverage. And that type of coverage constitutes a substantial expense. I doubt you disagree.

your scenario of companies who will "move somewhere" doesn't apply if it is a national program, rather than state by state as you presume.

True, but the other two factors then apply even more heavily. If you're going to force employers to provide coverage, they're going to hire fewer employees, lay off some of the ones they have, and/or shut their doors entirely because they can't afford to provide coverage to their existing employees.

I don't think you realize (or aren't acknowledging) how expensive health insurance coverage is. Let's take the example of the $8.00 per hour worker. At 40 hours per week, that person makes $1,280.00 per month (approximately) before taxes. To put them on a group health insurance plan is going to cost the employer, at a minimum, $200-$300/month. That's roughly a 16-23% increase in the overhead cost for that employee. Require it for all employees, and that's a 16-23% increase for the cost of labor for a small company. I don't think that most of the businesses that aren't offering health insurance are operating on a big enough margin to cover that kind of increased expense, even if they wanted to. And I can guarantee that they won't want to.

yes, there could be an affect on the end user cost. this would partially be made up by better worker productivity, a healthier worker is a more productive worker.

Not could, would. Perhaps you get better worker productivity, but again that's assuming that the worker is ill to the point that it is affecting their productivity AND unable to seek treatment for that illness because of a lack of employer-provided health insurance. I'm not sure those are fair assumptions to make.

IMO it needs to be at the least a state wide funding mechanism. A national plan would be possible as well.

Okay, which gets back to my question. How are you going to pay for it? I know you're a fiscal conservative like I am, so that's what I want to know.

[mcsluggo]

I think it would be suicidal to require all companies to provide health care for their workers. No other country in the world makes such a requirement. As it is, companies like GM and FOrd are finding their health care obligations (along with their pentions) to be gigantic anvils around their necks as they try to compete in a global market where most other firms do NOT have to pay health care costs for their workers. And those are huge companies that can fully capitalize on economies of scale.

An un-funded mandate is CLEARLY not the solution.

However, health care also doesn't easily fit into a standard market solution, either. First off there are too many positive externalities to a healthy population (a positive externality is a benefit from consuming a good that is received by others, above and beyond the benefit the individual that actually consumes the good receives) this means that the marketplace will never supply any where near the socially optimum quantity of the good if left to itself. Also, there is no way we as a society will just turn our back on the really sick omong us-- this means that once people get bad enough, they will get some care. But at that point the cost/benefit ratio of the care is much worse, it is much much more expensive. Also under an insurance system, the consumers (individuals) are seperated fromthe actual payment for health services, which terribly scews the market. But health care is inherantly something that you don't need much when you are most able to pay-- when you are healthy and your earning potential is at its highest, you don't need it, when you are sick and can't earn money, you need it. So a risk spreading (insurance) type system is optimal.

so what is the solution?

[mcsluggo]

On a personal note, I didn't have a job towrd the end of when I was finishing up my dissertation. But I was also on "filing fee" status- which meant that I didn't have to pay for University fees, but wasn't eligible for University benefits any more either. THen my wife got pregnant and had to leave her job.

I ended up paying over $600/month for my health insurance, and it was the single best investment I have ever made in my life. the pregnancy was rough, and my wife was on bedrest inthe hospital until the baby was born 3 months early- a little over 2 pounds. My baby had to stay in the intensive care unit for 2.5 months, was seeing specialists and surgeons every day. I have zero idea how much all that cost. We paid one 15 dollar copay for my wife to check in to the hospital. I'm sure the cost was somewhere in the six figures, the question is just how far up there.

Two quick observations.
1) I didn't have to pay anything of the atual costs (after my premiums had been paid), so was GLAD to capitalize on all the benefits I could find. Damn the costs.
2) If I had to pay it out-of-pocket, it would have broken my finances for life (assuming I could get any credit in the first place, which is a HUGE assumption) but I would have paid it anyhow. How could I not?