Health Care Reform & the e-cig (a solution that may upset you at first)

[vapordad]

Denec,

You said in another thread that you didn't want to pay for other people, but in this thread you admit that you are happy to get your services "for free." insurance is a big game of roulette. We all pay in, but only some "win" --actually lose as they need the procedure/medicine/etc. But they win because they get a $100,000 procedure for $1,000.

So, what you are saying is that the other insureds that paid their premiums, paid the other $99,000 and that is okay. (too simplistic, as Lacey U just explained) as the actual procedure may have really cost $60,000, but in order to get $60,000, the different doctors needed to bill almost 70% higher to get knocked down to the amount the ins. company is willing to pay. The great part about that is, if you don't have insurance, the $60,000 procedure costs the individual $100,000 b/c he wasn't insured. Which means bankruptcy, which means taxpayers....

The system is broken.

I too have "great" health care that I pay similar rates to you. My employer pays part of my premium, and I pay the rest. I pay approximately $12,000 a year (pre-tax) that would otherwise be in my salary, because if no employer was forced to pay the insurance premiums of their employees, the competition would pay me higher. Did you know that your benefits at a standard employer are equivalent to between 30 and 70% of your salary. The entire package is what you are getting, so if they don't pay your health, they have to pick it up somewhere, or you'll leave for the competition.

By the way, I'd rather the $12K in my pocket, the company would rather the portion that they don't pay to be added to my pocket, as it would reduce their tax liabilty. Take away the tax liability and yes, the 1950s idea of corps' personhood as stated earlier.

If you did your research Denec, you'd understand that the only reason employer based health care exists is because there was a wage freeze instituted by FDR during the Great Depression, and this was a way to incent labor without increasing their wages.

You have more research to do.

Also, Obama care, although it hasn't been completely shaken out, in the initial rounds of the bill allows you to KEEP your current plan, so stop posturing. You don't know what you are talking about. Further, the only reason your team doesn't want this to pass is the timing, they know it needs to happen, they don't want a democratic regime to get credit. They are the more fiscally responsible party. the arguments you are making are being put in your head by them, and you are falling for it.

Seriously look at all the stuff on your paycheck, and you'll be surprised how little of it goes directly to uncle sam and how much pays for your benefits.

 

[vapordad]

Lacey, I have to read your post when I am in a better frame of mind. From what I gleaned, I appreciate the thought you've put into and research, but I have to go back and read it. Sorry to pick and choose, but you hit the nail on the head with the way the current system needs to inflate pricing, it is mind boggling, and a huge spiral of catch 22s

edit:

I finished it.

I understand the idea of needing skin in the game (paying something), but that is taken care of by the taxes. I appreciate your POV as you have experience with socialized Health Care, and the pitfalls. My rationale is that we have huge overhaul to do in all aspects of the gov't. Properly done, we should be able to get a breakdown annually of where each tax dollar goes--people if we keep saying this can't be accomplished, it won't. They can do it on my real estate tax bill. They should be able to do it on my income tax bill. Then, we could make more informed decisions on our elected officials.

I don't know if I just changed or created a political party, but I know we aren't living in the America of our founding fathers, and I know we can. Status quo isn't the answer, unfortunately. As mom said, the correct road isn't always the easy road.

 

[Surf Monkey]

Seriously look at all the stuff on your paycheck, and you'll be surprised how little of it goes directly to uncle sam and how much pays for your benefits.

Exactly the point I was making.

 

[LaceyUnderall]

Lacey, I have to read your post when I am in a better frame of mind. From what I gleaned, I appreciate the thought you've put into and research, but I have to go back and read it. Sorry to pick and choose, but you hit the nail on the head with the way the current system needs to inflate pricing, it is mind boggling, and a huge spiral of catch 22s

edit:

I finished it.

I understand the idea of needing skin in the game (paying something), but that is taken care of by the taxes. I appreciate your POV as you have experience with socialized Health Care, and the pitfalls. My rationale is that we have huge overhaul to do in all aspects of the gov't. Properly done, we should be able to get a breakdown annually of where each tax dollar goes--people if we keep saying this can't be accomplished, it won't. They can do it on my real estate tax bill. They should be able to do it on my income tax bill. Then, we could make more informed decisions on our elected officials.

I don't know if I just changed or created a political party, but I know we aren't living in the America of our founding fathers, and I know we can. Status quo isn't the answer, unfortunately. As mom said, the correct road isn't always the easy road.

From what I have read of your posts, particularly on this topic today... I would support your party I am one of many lost souls who is begging for a responsible third party that is fundamentally based on compromise... sadly... the American way as presented to us by the Constitution... which by all of my accounts, seems to have been forgotten lately by many.

As for tax dollars vs. paying a monthly fee... It doesn't matter to me... but everyone should pay, regardless of financial situation and as you have noted, through the tax system would definitely work IF and only if there is 100% accountability and reporting to me, the taxpayer.

 

[Surf Monkey]

As for tax dollars vs. paying a monthly fee... It doesn't matter to me... but everyone should pay, regardless of financial situation and as you have noted, through the tax system would definitely work IF and only if there is 100% accountability and reporting to me, the taxpayer.

Exactly. See, the thing is that we're already paying for our health care and the health care of everyone who either has no insurance or has inadequate insurance. Of course because we're paying all that money to private insurance companies, there is NO accountability. The insurers routinely place phantom charges on bills, deny claims, contradict doctors, withhold treatments and so forth... not to mention the fact that we have very little idea where the money is going. The one place we know it's going is into the bank accounts of over paid executives and Wall Street investors. Transparency would be a major benefit to a good reform package.

 

[LaceyUnderall]

Transparency would be a major benefit to a good reform package.

It should be the platform. We are dealing with health and unfortunately, America has turned health into profit which is obviously not working.

I was totally unaware that you could self pay for things and how outrageous it all was until I went a looking.

You know what is really interesting to me: There are SO many different groups right now that have just had it. From underinsured, to ecig users, to gay rights, to civil rights, to you name it. If we could all just get together... holy lord.

It would be a revolution of a serious magnitude.

 

[denec]

Denec,

You said in another thread that you didn't want to pay for other people, but in this thread you admit that you are happy to get your services "for free." Insurance is a big game of roulette. We all pay in, but only some "win" --actually lose as they need the procedure/medicine/etc. But they win because they get a $100,000 procedure for $1,000.

So, what you are saying is that the other insureds that paid their premiums, paid the other $99,000 and that is okay. (too simplistic, as Lacey U just explained) as the actual procedure may have really cost $60,000, but in order to get $60,000, the different doctors needed to bill almost 70% higher to get knocked down to the amount the ins. company is willing to pay. The great part about that is, if you don't have insurance, the $60,000 procedure costs the individual $100,000 b/c he wasn't insured. Which means bankruptcy, which means taxpayers....

The system is broken.

I too have "great" health care that I pay similar rates to you. My employer pays part of my premium, and I pay the rest. I pay approximately $12,000 a year (pre-tax) that would otherwise be in my salary, because if no employer was forced to pay the insurance premiums of their employees, the competition would pay me higher. Did you know that your benefits at a standard employer are equivalent to between 30 and 70% of your salary. The entire package is what you are getting, so if they don't pay your health, they have to pick it up somewhere, or you'll leave for the competition.

By the way, I'd rather the $12K in my pocket, the company would rather the portion that they don't pay to be added to my pocket, as it would reduce their tax liabilty. Take away the tax liability and yes, the 1950s idea of corps' personhood as stated earlier.

If you did your research Denec, you'd understand that the only reason employer based health care exists is because there was a wage freeze instituted by FDR during the Great Depression, and this was a way to incent labor without increasing their wages.

You have more research to do.

Also, Obama care, although it hasn't been completely shaken out, in the initial rounds of the bill allows you to KEEP your current plan, so stop posturing. You don't know what you are talking about. Further, the only reason your team doesn't want this to pass is the timing, they know it needs to happen, they don't want a democratic regime to get credit. They are the more fiscally responsible party. the arguments you are making are being put in your head by them, and you are falling for it.

Seriously look at all the stuff on your paycheck, and you'll be surprised how little of it goes directly to uncle sam and how much pays for your benefits.

if my company did not have to pay for my benefits because there was a public option trust me they would not be giving me more money in my salary...


if you seriously think companies would just take the money and translate the money they pay in premiums into money for employees that is a joke


They would still be paying the same amount as my salary...


Umm if i look at my paycheck and look at how much goes to the government it makes me sick to my stomache...and then if this plan goes through...i will be losing more money out of every single pay check

remember i make 6 figures....so i pay a lot of taxes even though I am not rich i am considered upper middle class...and killed in taxes

and then if obama gets his VAT tax that he wants in order to pay for his obama care on top of all the other taxes he plans on raising, it is just disgusting



and yes i can keep my own care in the beginning but as soon as there is a public option majority of companies will drop it...because why should they pay for it when there will be a public option essentially forcing everyone into a universal health coverage...so no thank you obama, and of course i will not get more money in my pocket just because my company dropped the benefits...

 

[vapordad]

Lacey: ...America has turned health into profit which is obviously not working.

Yes, we shouldn't profit on human life, and we are the last to "get it"


Lacey: ...You know what is really interesting to me: There are SO many different groups right now that have just had it. From underinsured, to ecig users, to gay rights, to civil rights, to you name it. If we could all just get together... holy lord

This is why we either change or face a revolution. It may go the way of revolution, but we need someone to bring the groups together or it will be chaos.

I think the above listed groups all have plenty of cross constituents.

 

[vapordad]

denec, you aren't getting the point. Besides the ability gov't would have to increase the minimum wage if companies weren't in the way, the elimination of an employer based health care and the elimination of corporate taxation would quickly entice foreing competition, and you'd be able to move to another company for much higher pay. This would make the company pay you more. It is a leap of faith, but I belive that no taxes for the company would mean more competition for talent which would translate to higher salary.

It takes awhile to get, but just like reducing tax brackets actually stimulates the economy and increases tax revenue (to an extent) works, it is actually a logical argument.

What might be easier is to ask yourself why you want to keep what you have so badly. Who is telling you that change is bad? It isn't a conspiracy as much as manipulation.

 

[denec]

denec, you aren't getting the point. Besides the ability gov't would have to increase the minimum wage if companies weren't in the way, the elimination of an employer based health care and the elimination of corporate taxation would quickly entice foreing competition, and you'd be able to move to another company for much higher pay. This would make the company pay you more. It is a leap of faith, but I belive that no taxes for the company would mean more competition for talent which would translate to higher salary.

It takes awhile to get, but just like reducing tax brackets actually stimulates the economy and increases tax revenue (to an extent) works, it is actually a logical argument.

What might be easier is to ask yourself why you want to keep what you have so badly. Who is telling you that change is bad? It isn't a conspiracy as much as manipulation.

we do not want this change...so leave us alone and get the federal govt off our backs

that is the bottomline

 

[ladyraj]

Vapordad...I have a real problem with this part:

"Pressure would be huge on smokers, for example, to quit, based on the sheer numbers of health issues associated with them. Therefore, a safer/healthier option would be more admirable than smoking. Harsher laws on tobacco could be passed, but only if the success rate of quitting were higher than the current abysmal levels. If we’re right, and it would seem we are by the number of folks that have quit a long term addiction to cigarettes via the usage of PVs, and our theory is correct that these are healthier for you, we have a very strong argument."

I thought I could count on the ex-smoking e-cigarette crowd to not jump on the bandwagon of smoker abuse as per ASH (also their stance) to further the smoking alternative agenda. I smoke and I use an e-cig...I couldn't sign on to a plan that would invite further abuse of my choices. What next...my Mountain Dew??? Oh silly me..that may happen too.

The harsher fines on tobacco companies IF quitting rates were higher??? Why would there be MORE fines if cessation via the e-cig decreased usage? Wouldn't the companies have less money to pay fines and the loss of income would be detrimental enough I would think...

Just my opinion

 

[Surf Monkey]

if my company did not have to pay for my benefits because there was a public option trust me they would not be giving me more money in my salary...

You keep pushing that talking point... and it keeps being wrong.

A public option isn't going to make your employer drop your health plan, and if they did you'd have grounds to demand a raise. After all, you're paying for your "benefits" with lower wages.

What you keep misunderstanding is this: you're going to pay for health care no matter where the money goes. You'll pay for it by your employer paying you a lower wage and including health care in your benefit package or by buying your own health insurance and paying 100% of your premium with your wages. If there's a public option you'll pay for that too, either by premium, employer "contributions" or taxes. But no matter how you slice it, you're going to pay. All we're talking about here is how you pay. The idea that you're going to pay more under a public option is absurd. The whole point of the reform package is to control costs.

 

[vapordad]

Ladyraj,

I am not stating that I like all aspects of it. I do believe that if we have universal health care, we will be under more scrutiny by our fellow man (even more than we are now) to be a healthier country. I, for one, wish that I never started smoking due to my family history, but I also feel that smokers are trod on, and Tobacco helped found our country. Unfortunately, it might be part of evolution.

Not all of it is likeable, but we need to make sure we continue. I remember when I picked up vaping an argument I had with a family member that said we should just ban tobacco. I was red-faced mad. I don't think we should ban it. I think, however, that like other drugs, it will continue to be scrutinized. It is an unfortunate situation we are in, that we are addicted to a legal drug, but we are addicted to a legal drug. People will judge us. People judge alcoholics, they judge gamblers, they judge overweight folks. It happens.

I hesitate to go into another huge idea of mine, and that is the "anti-war" on drugs. It is based on the fact that users use, so we should legalize it, tax it, and use tax dollars to offer real, funded treatment programs. We would stop wasting money on our criminal prosecution of the users for using. Not to mention free up some jail space for pedophiles, rapists, and murderers, and release that guy smoking a joint at a Phish concert.

 

[ladyraj]

I think what Denec and others are referring to is that part of our earnings is in the form of a benefits package. Thus, if an individual accepts slightly less pay at 85 grand because the employer pays 10 grand of a 15 grand insurance policy...the costs to the employee is 5 grand...the value of earnings plus benefits equals a real salary of 95 grand. If the employer opts for the government option to save money he pays a fee to an agency that will regulated by a board. Thus in essence, the employee has taken a wage decrease for an unknown level of benefit that has yet to be decided and may reflect a decrease in less than premium insurance.

Why should benefits packages that include the best coverage available be possibly downgraded...the senators/legislators aren't doing it, they know better. What say you?

I know I will get flack for this but once you have earned the wages and bennies in a high paying job...no one relishes loosing those hard won options. Some may say there is a choice by the employers and one can keep their old insurance...but if an employer who pays 100 grand to a private insurance group can save money by purchasing government insurance for the employees at 65 grand...they will do it.

I really like this resolution...it seems so reasonable:

http://fleming.house.gov/images/FLEMING HEALTH CARE RESOLUTION.pdf

 

[vapordad]

Ladyraj,

I agree that the current proposed bill is not ideal, thus the giving up the private right for the public right is not optimal. I believe that the understanding on the current proposal is that most companies would keep their insurance plans, and folks like denec won't be affected unless and until he quits or gets laid off or fired (that's when the public option would actually be nice).

However, my thread isn't about the current proposal. I was remiss in not including the resolution you link to, as I think Social Security and Medicare would also be fixed if we forced those governing us to have the same benefits we do. So, thanks for adding that.

My plan only works if it is a single payer option, not a hybrid like being proposed.

 

[ladyraj]

Hey Vapordad, I really do understand your point and I am vested in keeping e-cigs around as well...I just have a hard time in adopting an agenda used by our enemies:

From Banzhaf:

"The proposal was originally crafted by Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), the antismoking organization responsible for a federal ruling which permits higher health insurance premiums for smokers, as well as the ban on cigarette commercials and on smoking in many public places. The concept gained additional support from a just-released study by the prestigious Brookings Institution. www.pr-inside.com/smoker-surcharge-supported-by-brookings-report ..

Smoker Surcharge for Health Care Reform Mulled // Congress May Consider, Featured on MSNBC

Sorry to get side-tracked off topic in my prior post...this is back on track!

 

[Surf Monkey]

I think what Denec and others are referring to is that part of our earnings is in the form of a benefits package. Thus, if an individual accepts slightly less pay at 85 grand because the employer pays 10 grand of a 15 grand insurance policy...the costs to the employee is 5 grand...the value of earnings plus benefits equals a real salary of 95 grand. If the employer opts for the government option to save money he pays a fee to an agency that will regulated by a board. Thus in essence, the employee has taken a wage decrease for an unknown level of benefit that has yet to be decided and may reflect a decrease in less than premium insurance.

An ethical employer would raise wages if they were able to get cheaper health care plans for their employees, either public or otherwise.

I don't see any evidence to support the idea that a public option would represent a decreased level of benefits. At the moment we don't know exactly what the benefits of a public option would look like so it's nothing but speculation.

 

[Kate51]

Agreed, Ladyraj, it is most agreeable! But it's already been dismissed by some with those famous words..."if you like your plan you can keep it" which we all know is a thinly veiled huge deception. The Fed Employees would want nothing to do with a public option. But they don't dare say it openly. Because more public outrage would boil over again. This is getting to ridiculous, this speech tonight is going to be yet another "veiled" attempt to persuade those that are not going to insist on public options to now back those plans so they can hide behind "keeper" idea! Or else! Around we go. I would be so shocked if there will be any back stroking on that, the President is losing his window of opportunity for a surprise attack, or already has totally lost it. Circle the wagons! Never waste a good disaster! But now we know they are 'creating' a disaster of their own, and now their name is on it very clearly. You know, we, the payees kinda messed it up for them. This is Identity Theft Legislative Style. And people are on to them.
With the economy bust what is going to happen to those whose jobs are not now going to keep them covered. I can't imagine the panic they must be feeling. For ten years or more the states can't cover the Medicaid cost rises, how can that be fixed. We surely can't be thinking of shutting that down, but some are certainly. From a budgetary view it may make sense, from the elder consumer view it would be catastrophic. From a Doctor's view it's become unworkable.
People make fun of those who were saying not to let the Feds touch their Medicaid. I know exactly what they mean by that, and it's not a funny or ridiculous thing to say at all. Those that laugh at that need to stop and think about it, it's the bare truth of it that is so amusing. A few months ago I heard a caroonist say that very thing, it was meant as a joke. Ironic, cynical, but not certainly not meant to make them look stupid. He said he made a mistake by drawing it, because some use it as propoganda now. Wake up call.

 

[denec]

I think what Denec and others are referring to is that part of our earnings is in the form of a benefits package. Thus, if an individual accepts slightly less pay at 85 grand because the employer pays 10 grand of a 15 grand insurance policy...the costs to the employee is 5 grand...the value of earnings plus benefits equals a real salary of 95 grand. If the employer opts for the government option to save money he pays a fee to an agency that will regulated by a board. Thus in essence, the employee has taken a wage decrease for an unknown level of benefit that has yet to be decided and may reflect a decrease in less than premium insurance.

Why should benefits packages that include the best coverage available be possibly downgraded...the senators/legislators aren't doing it, they know better. What say you?

I know I will get flack for this but once you have earned the wages and bennies in a high paying job...no one relishes loosing those hard won options. Some may say there is a choice by the employers and one can keep their old insurance...but if an employer who pays 100 grand to a private insurance group can save money by purchasing government insurance for the employees at 65 grand...they will do it.

I really like this resolution...it seems so reasonable:

http://fleming.house.gov/images/FLEMING HEALTH CARE RESOLUTION.pdf

exactly...and i don't even think they will purchase govt insurance..they will just drop insurance all together..and people will have to take the public option on their own

 

[denec]

You keep pushing that talking point... and it keeps being wrong.

A public option isn't going to make your employer drop your health plan, and if they did you'd have grounds to demand a raise. After all, you're paying for your "benefits" with lower wages.

What you keep misunderstanding is this: you're going to pay for health care no matter where the money goes. You'll pay for it by your employer paying you a lower wage and including health care in your benefit package or by buying your own health insurance and paying 100% of your premium with your wages. If there's a public option you'll pay for that too, either by premium, employer "contributions" or taxes. But no matter how you slice it, you're going to pay. All we're talking about here is how you pay. The idea that you're going to pay more under a public option is absurd. The whole point of the reform package is to control costs.

I am lucky to have a job in this economy you think I am going to demand a raise? next thing I know I will be out of a job..I am not stupid

This is why I do not want the federal govt interfering at all...