Health Care Reform - Striking a balance between the political divide

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 04:03 PM
link   
I'm not going to get into why our politicians refuse to do the right thing...I think these reasons are clear they are paid for in one way or another. What I want to address in this thread are alternative ways of restructuring our health care system that is a win/win for all of Americans. Please stick to the topic at hand of designing your version of the health care system. Alternatively you may comment on my proposal. I don't want to get into whats right or wrong, simply put if you have to rework our health care plan how would you do it?

The General Welfare clause of the constitution allows government to dictate certain basic services that benefit all. In my opinion, medicare hasn't benefited all. As one must qualify before receiving the benefit. My proposal is as follows:

BASIC MINIMUM COVERAGE


  • ALL treatment for accidental injuries are covered by this plan
  • ALL visits to the doctor and diagnosis of illness are covered by this plan
  • ALL medication is covered under this plan
  • Elective Surgery and surgery for advanced treatment for disease is not covered under this plan; unless covered by additional elective insurance provided by private insurance. These electives would include abortion procedures.


Private insurance companies may administer this plan providing the basic coverage is met. This plan sets a standard for an industry on an acceptable level of insurance. The government plan will remain as a check on private insurance.

Insurance companies are no longer allowed to cover the same person more than once. That coverage should comply at a minimum with this plan. Once covered by this plan, auto insurance injuries, injuries resulting from occupational hazard, injuries occurring on the property of another are covered by that coverage.

Lawsuits can no longer have claims for medical damages, and may only include damages for negligence, and punitive damages.

Employers are required to enroll employee in BASIC MINIMUM COVERAGE plan voluntarily; however, in order to qualify for the plan they must enroll their entire workforce and eligible dependants. Employers pay this cost.

Employers electing to enroll entire workforce under the plan will no longer have to contribute to FICA, nor pay taxes on the employment of the covered worker, nor pay into unemployment insurance or worker compensation programs.

FICA system and SSI system overhaul. Payments by the employee to FICA and SSI will become guaranteed unemployment insurance. This will result in shutting down the current unemployment system as all those that contribute to unemployment insurance will have a guarantee insurance payment in case of loss of work for any reason. Even if you quit you may collect what is justly yours. Employee Unemployment Insurance depending on contribution levels while employed will result in automatic unemployment benefits, including educational retraining assistance and cost of living based on your levels of contribution. Untapped resources can be used for elective surgery and end of life care. Additionally, these funds are used to continue coverage of the basic minimum coverage plan unless you elect not to.

Employers would also benefit from enrolling workforce under this plan as taxes and contributions would be reduced. Employees checks will become larger as they no longer have to pay for their insurance, and this will create a stimulus in spending or savings.


[edit on 8-8-2009 by ExPostFacto]




posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Let's make the first ATS sponsored alternative health care reform bill. Chime in when you are ready to contribute versus complain about the current bill. There is a middle ground between all ideas on this issue. Think and maybe we can do something productive.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ExPostFacto

Employers are required to enroll employee in BASIC MINIMUM COVERAGE plan voluntarily; however, in order to qualify for the plan they must enroll their entire workforce and eligible dependants. Employers pay this cost.


A few questions. First you say required, then voluntarily. Which one did you mean? And when employers are required to pay for everyone's insurance how many of those employers do you think are going to keep all of their employees instead of firing some to lower their costs?


Employers electing to enroll entire workforce under the plan will no longer have to contribute to FICA, nor pay taxes on the employment of the covered worker, nor pay into unemployment insurance or worker compensation programs.


If this were to happen, who is getting charged higher taxes to cover the lost funds? Where will the money for social security come from? Where will the money for unemployment and workers compensation come from?


Even if you quit you may collect what is justly yours. Employee Unemployment Insurance depending on contribution levels while employed will result in automatic unemployment benefits, including educational retraining assistance and cost of living based on your levels of contribution. Untapped resources can be used for elective surgery and end of life care. Additionally, these funds are used to continue coverage of the basic minimum coverage plan unless you elect not to.


Where will all these funds be coming from if the employers aren't paying into unemployment and we aren't paying into Social Security anymore? Someone who works at a job for a year and then quits or gets fired isn't going to have put enough into their own special unemployment account to cover retraining, elective surgery or end of life care unless they were making quite a bit at that job or having quite a bit taken out of their paychecks.


Employers would also benefit from enrolling workforce under this plan as taxes and contributions would be reduced. Employees checks will become larger as they no longer have to pay for their insurance, and this will create a stimulus in spending or savings.


Again I have to ask, and I'm really not trying to be a pain here I swear, why would employers keep all of their employees and cover the entire cost of their insurance instead of firing some to lower their costs? If employees are going to be paying into a private unemployment account that's going to be big enough to cover educational expenses how are they going to be receiving more per paycheck?



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 05:28 PM
link   
Excellent questions this is what I am looking for. Please alter my plan if you believe there is a better solution. Figure out another way that balances things out and I'll support it.



A few questions. First you say required, then voluntarily. Which one did you mean? And when employers are required to pay for everyone's insurance how many of those employers do you think are going to keep all of their employees instead of firing some to lower their costs?


Great questions. I meant to mean that the option to enroll the employees was voluntary but the requirement to enroll all of the employees was mandatory. I'm not sure I'm knowledgeable to answer whether or not employers would get rid of people to simply not have to pay an extra few hundred dollars a month. I'm sure some would.


If this were to happen, who is getting charged higher taxes to cover the lost funds? Where will the money for social security come from? Where will the money for unemployment and workers compensation come from?


Social Security would have to be altered to include disability, unemployment, and what is now considered COBRA. The employee would have voluntary ability to contribute and receive benefit from it. Currently, employers pay half of your SSI and FICA contributions. Under this plan the employee would pay for the amount of coverage they want.


Where will all these funds be coming from if the employers aren't paying into unemployment and we aren't paying into Social Security anymore? Someone who works at a job for a year and then quits or gets fired isn't going to have put enough into their own special unemployment account to cover retraining, elective surgery or end of life care unless they were making quite a bit at that job or having quite a bit taken out of their paychecks.


Agreed. These funds would have to be built up and a problem arises for employees that just enter the workforce and are laid off but haven't contributed yet. I believe there could be an answer to this that would solve this issue though. Not sure what.


Again I have to ask, and I'm really not trying to be a pain here I swear, why would employers keep all of their employees and cover the entire cost of their insurance instead of firing some to lower their costs? If employees are going to be paying into a private unemployment account that's going to be big enough to cover educational expenses how are they going to be receiving more per paycheck?


The answer to this is that it would be a voluntary contribution that an employee could alter the amount of contribution to the fund. Again, I'm not sure an employer would fire someone they needed as they have rewards for keeping those employees, and those employees won't have the same liability they once had.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 05:59 PM
link   
First and foremost. There has to be tort reform. We need to put in a looser pays law in effect. Dr's. and hospitals get sued all the time ,for stupid reasons. They always have to bear the court costs and lawyer fees for both sides. If you have a credible case you stand a good chance of winning it. If its not credible you must pay all the costs. That is only fair.

They need to suspend medicine patents on older drugs. The Pharma companies have a habit of changing the formula or melding two drugs together so they can be repatented. Medicine costs are astronomical and for what reason? Generics are available at about 20% below name brand medicine. that is still way to high. Generic meds should be held at 20% above actual manufacture cost. That would be fair.

They need to consider restricting emergency room visits,to emergent situations only. Heart attack,stroke,auto accidents,traumatic amputations etc. People coming to the ER with cronic problems such as,tooth aches,head aches,back aches,arthritis etc. Should be turned away,for the most part these people are drug seekers,and flood an already overloaded system.

Then if they are really serious about health care. Start funding and putting in place free government run clinics. Provide health care for anyone who steps thru the door. If they need extraordinary care ship them to a hospital on the Government dime. Develop a work/pay system for those uninsured to cover their medicial costs.

These are my ideas.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 06:15 PM
link   

First and foremost. There has to be tort reform. We need to put in a looser pays law in effect. Dr's. and hospitals get sued all the time ,for stupid reasons. They always have to bear the court costs and lawyer fees for both sides. If you have a credible case you stand a good chance of winning it. If its not credible you must pay all the costs. That is only fair.


As a student of the law I agree. Tort reform has already occurred that provides relief from lawsuits that have no merit. I would like to see all lawsuit of a medical malpractice nature go through an arbitration process before being submitted to a legal process.


They need to suspend medicine patents on older drugs. The Pharma companies have a habit of changing the formula or melding two drugs together so they can be repatented. Medicine costs are astronomical and for what reason? Generics are available at about 20% below name brand medicine. that is still way to high. Generic meds should be held at 20% above actual manufacture cost. That would be fair.


Agreed. The constitution prohibits extensions of patents forever. Our founders knew that once an idea was patented it became community property after so long. To extend patents forever gives the military-industrial complex the power.


They need to consider restricting emergency room visits,to emergent situations only. Heart attack,stroke,auto accidents,traumatic amputations etc. People coming to the ER with cronic problems such as,tooth aches,head aches,back aches,arthritis etc. Should be turned away,for the most part these people are drug seekers,and flood an already overloaded system.


Agreed. Something would have to take it's place though that is open 24 hours a day. Those little clinics, would suffice. How would you propose to keep these open? Or, would you just let it be known that they won't be open?


Then if they are really serious about health care. Start funding and putting in place free government run clinics. Provide health care for anyone who steps thru the door. If they need extraordinary care ship them to a hospital on the Government dime. Develop a work/pay system for those uninsured to cover their medicial costs.


I am not opposed to a sliding scale insurance program. In fact, many doctors have tried this only to be shut down by their local governments as engaging in unfair business practices. Any ideas on how to get around this?



These are my ideas.


And excellent constructive ideas they are. Keep them coming.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 06:49 PM
link   
I think true healthcare reform MUST include putting the brakes on BIG PHARMA asap. They are the biggest enemy of the public welfare I can think of....

Healthcare NEEDS to be run much like the police & firefighters are......we do NOT have to give the cops access to our bank accounts for them to arrest burglers, and I do not see WHY healthcare would require access to peoples bank accounts because you need a hernia operation.
I wonder if in Norway or London they give access to their bank accounts to the medical profession?? anybody know?? I doubt it, but I could be wrong...

I dont care how OLD a person is, if some type of medical procedure would improve the quality of the life they live, then for heck sakes DO IT......instead of age as the determining factor why not the state of health & lifestyle choice be the factor.....
Like in a case of a 30 something person who is bedridden because of obesity, they should NOT be given a heart transplant to prolong the life they do not care enough about to live healthy. The people who bring food to such a person SHOULD be held accountable. I think lifestyle choices like that should be a mitigating factor in getting procedures or not....

Alcoholics shouldn't be given liver transplants.....but a very healthy 98 year old SHOULD be given any procedure or medicine needed.
Well geez......I guess if medicine is doled out to people in the manner I am saying then smokers could not get help for lung & breathing problems....
I guess if you QUIT smoking & drinking then it would be ok......I dont know.....I am not someone who could come up with a national healthcare plan alone, so maybe most my thoughts on the matter are ludicrous.

I am a proponent of governmental healthcare, but I think the way Mr Obama is going is FAR TO invasive, and is not putting the stops on big pharma enough.
There should be laws against ANY government official accepting ANY type of gift or payment from any pharmaceutical company, and thats a fact.

Drug companies should NOT be able to advertise to the public thats just insane!! All the hypochondriacs see these commercials and jump on the bandwagon just as BigPharma had planned. A Dr should decide what medicines are needed, not the individual who see's happy puppys and rainbows on TV and decides they NEED that pill for themselves too.




[edit on 9-8-2009 by theRiverGoddess]



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 07:17 PM
link   


I think true healthcare reform MUST include putting the brakes on BIG PHARMA asap.

They are the biggest enemy of the public welfare I can think of....
There should be laws against ANY government official accepting ANY type of gift or payment from any pharmaceutical company, and thats a fact.

Drug companies should NOT be able to advertise to the public thats just insane!! All the hypochondriacs see these commercials and jump on the bandwagon just as BigPharma had planned. A Dr should decide what medicines are needed, not the individual who see's happy puppys and rainbows on TV and decides they NEED that pill for themselves too.


To this I agree. Advertising drugs seems like we need to look at limiting it the advertisements in journals of medicine or something of that nature.

To your point of the obese person receiving some operation, or the smoker with lung cancer...this is why the plan I propose above specifically left out the major type coverage. If you want to live an unhealthy lifestyle and you want medical treatment you should find a private insurance plan and pay for it. Injuries are a different matter entirely. You break your arm, that should be covered as far as I'm concerned.

Good points. I'm compiling all the information in this thread that makes sense. Maybe we can build a model government plan with a little work.



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 12:03 AM
link   
This is my first real post to ATS, after lurking for years. I have been visiting ATS for as long as I have because of the type of individual I believed visited this site. This individual is a self made individual, one who is self motivating and self striving. Determined to make the best of their lives because it is their life, and to do so without interference from some bureaucrat in Washington. The information on ATS is staggering in volume and stunning in complexity as well as being completely at odds with the ideas, philosophies and motivations being taught today in our schools, and seen in our media. I believed that the people who visited this board understood that all was not as it seemed, and that given the underlying theme of tighter and tighter government control over every aspect of our lives any further encroachment of liberty was unwelcome and to be resisted at all costs.
I faultily made the assumption that these people found the idea of enforced slavery to be as repugnant as I did, that the right to my life by no means gave me a right to demand something from your life. And that given the history of the US government for one and many other governments as a given group, the idea of entrusting something as important as the very right to the care of our lives, to this agency was frightening at best and murderous at worst. That the individuals on this board valued self sufficiency, and self reliance, that they understood that sometimes individuals failed, and when they did it could hurt, a lot. Sometimes to the point of death, and though tragic, the failure of one individual to utilize critical thinking and self sufficiency in no way was cause for guilt or remorse by another. The individual I imagined visiting this board I saw as someone who saw through the lies and distortions of the press, and the government, and saw that the whole philosophy of sacrifice was a lie, and the real reason for our existence was indeed to exist, and to live our lives as best we saw fit.
Now I see a thread championing the involvement of the same government responsible for things like the Tuskegee syphilis experiments, the failed cash for clunkers, the destructive crap and trade bill, forced and undisclosed radiation experiments, forced sterilizations, The Pellagra incident, infecting prisoners in Chicago with malaria to study the disease, Mustard gas experiments on US soldiers, Project Paperclip, MKULTRA, spraying of biological agents over American cities, intentional release of Yellow Fever carrying Mosquitoes near residential areas, ad naseum. Can you really believe that a compromise with evil ever achieves good? That the loss of more liberties somehow in the end will result in more freedom? That the use of other peoples money is in any way whatsoever morally or philosophically justified, especially when we see how that use of money over the long term has just been used for greater and greater injustice? That the imposition of injustice on some is in some way justified for the benefit of many?
The solution to the Healthcare issue is simple. First of all people need to become responsible for their own lives, and for the failures they have. Secondly all the bureaucratic red tape needs to be removed and doctors, need to be held accountable for malpractice, while reforming what malpractice actually is. Drug costs are so high in this country, the once freest country because other socialized countries get them for cheaper than market price so we pay through the nose to ensure these companies stay in business. Health insurance should be looked at by individuals and determined the necessity of that, insurance once used to be for catastrophic injury and sickness, not a sniffle visit to the doc. Stop paying for insurance and use that money to put into a savings account for a rainy day. Real reform requires a good hard look at the fundamental philosophic principle of sacrifice, and a return to responsibility. responsibility for our own lives.



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 12:17 AM
link   
reply to post by gaborn415
 


Good thoughts and welcome to ATS. Do you think that the way the monetary system is designed that all people get the same fair access to health care? You bring up some excellent points about how to drive the prices down. Our tax dollars go to fund drug research, yet we don't get free drugs. I'm thinking that those that make only a certain amount of income will never be able to afford health care. In a sense, it's like a status thing, and almost feels like a way to divide us. Those people that can't afford the insurance will show up at hospitals and get free treatment anyway driving up the cost of everyone's insurance.

If I'm understanding you correctly, you want to see the government do what it should do by monitoring fraud against the people, versus regulating the doctors to death? Governments role was designed to assist in protecting citizens from fraud, but all it has done was regulate to the point it can't monitor the businesses. You are saying simplify the regulations and hold them all accountable?



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 12:50 AM
link   
Thank you for seeing I wasn't just trying to cause a big ruckus.
Indeed as a start that's a good way to envision it. Any reduction of government intervention in individual liberties is the start of reform. Exactly as you stated Gov has gotten way too involved in regulating what is a drug and what isn't, who can take what drug for what and when, and how doctors run their own businesses. So long as the doctors aren't doing something dangerous, whether they have a computer system or not shouldn't be an issue. If the doctor does something to hurt someone then they are to be investigated, penalized, found not guilty whatever, but dictating as the FDA did that only drugs can cure diseases has destroyed a huge scope of cures for ailments and further caused rises in pricing for health services. That one simple change could undo mounds of costs and restrictions. for instance rather than giving you a pill, because obesity, choleterol, blood pressure etc is a disease and only a pill can cure it the doctor would be well within his rights, and doing the patient a far better service by simply saying no, get some exercise you fatty. Furthermore the idea that you can't smoke dope for nausea because you might get high is ridiculous, as the prescription drugs for anxiety, pain and many other ailments get you higher than you ever could by smoking a weed. ( I am simply making a point here in regards to healthcare, not advocating legalization as sole idea, simply as an example).The insistence on the infallibility of vaccines, and the governments role in aquiring, and distributing them is ludicrous. If the vaccine manufacturer gets it wrong and you die, too bad the manufacturer is protected from all wrong doing. Remove all this unnessecary regulation, and finagling and return to individuals contracting services based on value.
As far as your question regarding the monetary system, any health care reform which doesn't take into account the absolute travesty which is the Federal Reserve is doomed to failure. In essence I was trying to point out that health care reform needs to be a small part of a much wider reform movement as nothing happens in a vacuum. If you attempt to reform healthcare to a individualist system, and ignore the debt based money system, and the worship of sacrifice for the greater good as codified by all the "services" provided by the federal government it is doomed to failure. Reform on any real and fundamental basis requires a deep and searching look at the causes of the problem, wherever they may lead, not further application of the same philosophically failed approaches of the past 100 years.
People need to be allowed to fail, in all aspects of life, money, healthcare, jobs, divorce, drug addiction etc. And then they need to hurt through it and learn from their mistakes, companies most of all. Robbing the American taxpayer to ensure the continued existence of failed institutions like BoA, GMC and the rest is simply postponing the inevitable and ensuring that inevitable ending is even worse than before.
Most members of this board I feel understand that the show isn't real, there are always unseen and unreported causes, kickbacks, and conditions to every event, this healthcare reform bill is no exception. Looking at the problem as though the application of the failed and dangerous idea of sacrifice will fix it in any way, however small is playing by their rules. We need individual responsibility and freedom, in all aspects of our life, healthcare is simply a microcosm of the failures of government to do anything remotely helpful.
Finally why do people elect these jerks in the first place, they want something for "free", our insistence that taxing joe to pay for jim's pool needs to go and a real return to the actual law that is the constitution needs to ensue. Without that, or at least a start on that it will only get worse, and the current slide will continue.



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 12:55 AM
link   
As a fast aside, I will follow this thread as best I can, however I am leaving any area where internet service is readily available for a week for my vacation tommorrow. So if I'm quiet it's simply because I'm stranded
.



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 01:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by gaborn415
As far as your question regarding the monetary system, any health care reform which doesn't take into account the absolute travesty which is the Federal Reserve is doomed to failure. In essence I was trying to point out that health care reform needs to be a small part of a much wider reform movement as nothing happens in a vacuum. If you attempt to reform healthcare to a individualist system, and ignore the debt based money system, and the worship of sacrifice for the greater good as codified by all the "services" provided by the federal government it is doomed to failure. Reform on any real and fundamental basis requires a deep and searching look at the causes of the problem, wherever they may lead, not further application of the same philosophically failed approaches of the past 100 years.
People need to be allowed to fail, in all aspects of life, money, healthcare, jobs, divorce, drug addiction etc. And then they need to hurt through it and learn from their mistakes, companies most of all. Robbing the American taxpayer to ensure the continued existence of failed institutions like BoA, GMC and the rest is simply postponing the inevitable and ensuring that inevitable ending is even worse than before.
Most members of this board I feel understand that the show isn't real, there are always unseen and unreported causes, kickbacks, and conditions to every event, this healthcare reform bill is no exception. Looking at the problem as though the application of the failed and dangerous idea of sacrifice will fix it in any way, however small is playing by their rules. We need individual responsibility and freedom, in all aspects of our life, healthcare is simply a microcosm of the failures of government to do anything remotely helpful.


I agree with you that the system and structures need to be allowed to fail. But, we as a nation should be smart enough to recognize it's collapse and transition into a new way so that we don't leave ourselves in a bad predicament. The plan I proposed is designed within the current system; however, I'm in agreement with you that the entire pyramid scheme needs to be reworked that is more advantageous to ALL people of the nation versus a few that have the ability to influence laws. Health care is one tumor, and our nation has cancer. Yet we focus on that one tumor in hopes that will cure the disease. I look forward to any other revelations or insight you may have.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 01:46 PM
link   
I would still like to hear more ideas. Anyone out there with a mind to analyze a different way versus complain about the direction health care is headed?



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by ExPostFacto
 


Well let me start here.
We have Medicare and Medicaid for the retired and poor in America. But wait that’s right Medicare will be bankrupt in 2019.
So if that is the case, which the govt. asserts it is, where is the money for the Health Care Reform supposed to come from? And why can’t it go to fund these programs?
If the problem is the working poor that do not qualify for these programs then why not just include them.
I do Not believe that an employer alone should bear the total cost of health insurance, but it should be on a cost share basis with the employee.
I have also seen where the govt. is saying that a part of the problem is with pre-existing conditions not being covered. If that is the case then it is Insurance Reform that we need.
There should be No such clause. Also if my doctor say’s something is Medically necessary (within the scope of common medical practice) the Insurance company should have to cover it, no more of this “denying the claim.” including new procedures that have proven to be effective.

And Malpractice, where to start.
First awards should Only be for Actual medical costs and Actual loss of wages. If the injured person can no longer work at his current profession then Actual cost of retraining for a job in the same income bracket.
The cost of medications is insane, and I do not know what the answer is there. I do know that I have had to resort to purchasing medications from Canada for $158.including shipping, for a thirty day supply while the cost here in the U.S.( For the exact same medication from the same company in the same bottle) was $409.

While I agree that there are areas in the health care System that need to be reformed, I do Not think that the current proposed legislation is what America wants or needs.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iseekthetruth!!!!!!!!
reply to post by ExPostFacto
 


I do Not believe that an employer alone should bear the total cost of health insurance, but it should be on a cost share basis with the employee.
I have also seen where the govt. is saying that a part of the problem is with pre-existing conditions not being covered. If that is the case then it is Insurance Reform that we need.


I agree with all your points. A question about the above though: Would you be okay with offsetting the tax burden of a company to provide coverage for their employees? The plan I had written above included a clause that states once covered by the health plan an employer wouldn't have to pay for liability insurance on their workers for work time injuries.

Thank you for responding...and I can see we have some very good minds here that are well reasoned. Also, it is looking like Obama is altering the plan, or clarifying it better for congress and it is coming out to look more and more like this plan above.

I will be consolidating all this information, to see if we can find a balance point in between all the issues.



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ExPostFacto

Originally posted by Iseekthetruth!!!!!!!!
reply to post by ExPostFacto
 


I do Not believe that an employer alone should bear the total cost of health insurance, but it should be on a cost share basis with the employee.
I have also seen where the govt. is saying that a part of the problem is with pre-existing conditions not being covered. If that is the case then it is Insurance Reform that we need.


I agree with all your points. A question about the above though: Would you be okay with offsetting the tax burden of a company to provide coverage for their employees? The plan I had written above included a clause that states once covered by the health plan an employer wouldn't have to pay for liability insurance on their workers for work time injuries.



Well I can go with the tax breaks for businesses providing Health Insurance to their employees.
But I believe that they should still have to pay the workers comp. since it’s existence is for the Protection of the worker's job (an employer cannot fire an employee simply because they are injured) and for the Continuation of the worker's pay while the worker is injured.



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iseekthetruth!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by ExPostFacto

Originally posted by Iseekthetruth!!!!!!!!
reply to post by ExPostFacto
 


I do Not believe that an employer alone should bear the total cost of health insurance, but it should be on a cost share basis with the employee.
I have also seen where the govt. is saying that a part of the problem is with pre-existing conditions not being covered. If that is the case then it is Insurance Reform that we need.


I agree with all your points. A question about the above though: Would you be okay with offsetting the tax burden of a company to provide coverage for their employees? The plan I had written above included a clause that states once covered by the health plan an employer wouldn't have to pay for liability insurance on their workers for work time injuries.



Well I can go with the tax breaks for businesses providing Health Insurance to their employees.
But I believe that they should still have to pay the workers comp. since it’s existence is for the Protection of the worker's job (an employer cannot fire an employee simply because they are injured) and for the Continuation of the worker's pay while the worker is injured.


If any one thinks that auto or workers comp insurance cost will go down if everyone is covered for medical under a national healthcare plan.

Think again auto and workers comp is where the insurance companies will make up on the profit's they will lose on any national health insurance program.
They will just let the national health care pay for the medical and pocket the money.



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 09:11 PM
link   
If any one thinks that auto or workers comp insurance cost will go down if everyone is covered for medical under a national healthcare plan.

Think again auto and workers comp is where the insurance companies will make up on the profit's they will lose on any national health insurance program.
They will just let the national health care pay for the medical and pocket the money.



Hummmmmm You must be an auto worker, because they are the Only people I know that think that is the Only job in the U.S.

Workman's comp is for All jobs, not just auto industry.
And yes they would still have to pick up any out of pocket expenses an injured worker would incure do to the injury.
Workman's comp is "Insurance paid by your employer" for on the job injury's to protect himself and his employees.
besides the fact that as I stated before it is also to protect the worker from losing his/her job and to protect his/her wages while injured.



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Iseekthetruth!!!!!!!!
 


Yes. So if a plan covers all injuries no matter where you are when the injuries happen why have the employer cover an additional insurance for that?





new topics
top topics
 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join