Companies are dropping health coverage for spouses to cut costs

Parent Cafe
221

<p>I don’t know. I really don’t. My son is so upset right now because he doesn’t make enough to take the next steps he wants to take, and since the first of the year, his paycheck has shrunk instead of gone up. The Soc Security increase, his health insurance premium went up and his train pass cost went up. </p>

<p>I worked with pensions for a number of years. Many of our clients were small business owners, very successful ones making high salaries. A large part of my job was to design plans that gave them huge tax cuts, put a lot of pension money away for the owners and as little as possible for everyone else in the firm. They loved offering part time and job share positions because if they could get employees working under 1000 hours a year, then they didn’t have to cover them. And the moms jumped right on the band wagon because so many wanted jobs like that so they could also stay home with their kids a goodly part of the time and/or participate in a lot of school activities, be more involved which a full time job would not permit. it’s an old trick to keep employee hours down so that they don’t get benefits. I just spoke to a woman who has 3 part time jobs in order to get 45 hours of work in a week. The job she has at Transportation with the school district has several employees all part time. Why do you think that is? While some of the public employees are accruing pensions that are 100% of pay, these folks are accruing nada as they are part time. For shame, shame, shame!@!</p>

<p>But then DH’s uncle owned an icecream shop. Under 10 employees, He did not make much. His employees less. Didn’t have health insurance, couldn’t pay minimum wage, still went broke after struggling with it for 5-6 years. </p>

<p>But the clients I serviced in pensions, generally made over a quarter miilion dollars in personal pay and they still did not want to give squat to their employees.</p>

<p>Whether that small retail chain is more like my former clients or like my DH’s uncle, I don’t know. Whether ACA is going to net out a plus or minus when fully implemented, I don’t know. With any such change there will be those who will lose out from the way things were. </p>

<p>Even the matter of those who make over $X paying more taxes, does not necessarily mean more net money for the Treasury and a good thing over all. Those used to livng on high income but not of tremendous wealth are often living at the edge of such salaries, and when new fixed expenses enter the scene, something gets cut. When the manicures, vacations, household help, spending are cut, there are those who were making money off those expenditures who are not in that income range who lose out. That trickle down effect is more like a flood when it’s bad stuff coming down the pike.</p>

222

<p>LasMas, our old friend, and former college class mate has come up with a lot of great drugs that have made a difference. There was a time he worked for the government in his research but the a lot of this research has gone private to for profit pharmaceudical companies. And for him, it happened in the nick of time, because he was going to leave research if it did not. He wanted more money. He wanted to make what his classmates and those he perceived as his peers were making, and since he had the brains, wherewithal, and opportunities to do so, he was going to do it, even though his talents and interests were in the chemistries. That the drugs when still under patent cost what they do here in this country is, in part because, he is so paid, and the company that runs all of this make what they do and find it is worthwhile to continue this. There are not doing this for humanitarian or charitable purposes, though there is a streak of that, just a streak, in there. Friend loves the type of work, but not enough to do it for less money than he can make elsewhere as he got older, married and wanted house, family, car and nice things. </p>

<p>Though the drugs are given out to those who most show need them on a no cost basis (not really much of that as those who don’t have the resources are not likely to get around to even having it prescribed) my friend has no interest in cutting the cost to my friend with the epileptic daughter. Why? She can afford to pay. Her family resources are such that she can afford it. Why should the researcher have to lower his standard of living so that someone like her can live better than he does? He has absolutely no sympathy. Go move to Canada, if it’s so much better and get the drug at that price. As far as he is concerned, he sees no mass exodus there to get better health care, just cheaper prices and not many are moving there to permanently live, nor are those top grade researchers like him about to move there, which he would have done had the possibilities of such research been better in those early days, and if things would be better for him now. So as far as he is concerned, the drug and future ones will be developed here rather than in Canada because of our system that so many here complain about, but do not move to the locale that is so much better. If the system there is so much better for the epileptic girl, and if health care is of such importance to this family, that is clearly able enough to make such a move, make a life for themselves across the border, why haven’t they moved there? </p>

<p>So that is the other side of the argument.</p>

<p>Having the same choices, I am still here too.</p>

223

<p>

</p>

<p>Canada does have immigration restrictions.</p>

224

<p>

</p>

<p>So it’s the government’s fault that a wealthy corporation refuses to play fair with its employees and carelessly fobs off those health care costs on everyone else? You think taxpayers should keep paying for those employees to get health care?</p>

<p>See, here’s the thing: One way or another, health care gets paid for. If that person’s employer isn’t paying for it, then that working poor person is going to go on Medicaid, which means you and I and everyone else who pays federal and state taxes is paying for it. Or, if they don’t qualify for Medicaid, they get massive bills which they never pay, which means everyone who can afford health care or health insurance gets their costs inflated so the hospitals can make up for the uncollectable, written-off costs of caring for the low-income uninsured.</p>

225

<p>GREED is the reason our system is out of control. Many companies CAN afford to cover their workers, but in this politically charged atmosphere it is now OK to say “it’s hurting my business” even when, in many cases, the companies will do just fine by offering healthcare benefits. And they might even get positive support (in the media and from customers) for saying such things. Yes, some companies are smart and use good benefits to attract top employers, but it’s seller’s market for labor right now and they don’t have to. They will get decent employers either way, in most cases.</p>

<p>Read what cptofthehouse says: “Why should the researcher have to lower his standard of living so that someone like her can live better than he does?” The researcher is not a bad person. He is just selfish. It’s human nature. Others who work in research are more altruistic in their goals. But the researcher is not alone in wanting things for himself and seeing others as a barrier to having them.</p>

226

<p>Actually-most people over 65 hate Medicare but realize it’s better than nothing. Straight Medicare has a lot of out of pocket expenses, especially prescription coverage. People oppose a national health plan because the costs are going to be unaffordable for all. Do you want to double, at least, your current taxes to pay for a national health plan, that will, in time, decrease the quality of care EVERYONE gets, along with eliminating the motivation for better and more effective treatments. The ACA goes a long way to ensure people have insurance. Also, less than 15% of the nation doesn’t have health insurance. The problem is NOT as widespread as the media sensationalist like to portray. Of those 15%, over half of them have access to insurance plans and choose not to take them. Of the remaining half, about half of them won’t qualify for any plan under the ACA anyway…without going political, feel free to google this…</p>

<p>Heck, you can’t even get support for the ACA and requiring all people have insurance-taking it all the way to the supreme court—you really think people want a national health plan? The only ones that really do have never experienced a national health plan.</p>

<p>Just one example-I was researching a surgery I may have. Here I got an appointment within a week to discuss the surgery and have testing done. I could have the surgery in as little as a couple days after that. During my research I came across several blogs of people having the same surgery from all over the world. The reports from those people in countries that have a national health plan show waiting for the initial appointment for 6-9 MONTHS, and then another 9 months to a YEAR before they can get scheduled for the surgery. That is a LONG time to wait and a LOT can change in that time disqualifying you for the surgery… Is that what you really want so you don’t have to pay $20 co-pay at the dr’s office?</p>

227

<p>“The only ones that really do have never experienced a national health plan.” That is SO untrue. Most Canadians, Europeans love their national plans and can’t understand the insanity of the US non plans and situation. </p>

<p>The issues are more complex than that.</p>

228

<p>Despite being an unabashed supporter of all things liberal I do not feel any kind of single payer has a chance in the USA because the reasons that people get sick, attitudes, and the complex social underpinnings of the country simply work against such a system. (How’s that for a single sentence paragraph?)</p>

<p>In English, this means that we are expected to work far more than our colleagues in Europe, be far more stressed out, and thus engage in habits that are not really conducive to a healthy outcome. Rain or shine my German buddies are out the door at 5 pm, rarely or never on weekends, and out and about walking or biking while we’re trying to save the whales working our 60 hours a week.</p>

<p>They are far less obese than we are but also less stressed, their social net is in place with few holes, and from what I could tell in my many trips there, seemed a lot happier than us. Healthier, too, despite eating heavier foods than we do…</p>

<p>Then there’s the expectation of no consequences from obesity or stress, or the belief in pills and potions to make us good again regardless…</p>

<p>I can’t generalize from a bunch of trips to Europe or by growing up there but as long as these conditions and attitudes remain in the USA we will continue to be where we are…</p>

229

<p>

</p>

<p>That is absolutely untrue. Having experienced the systems in both the U.S. and Canada, including treatment and care for a child with a life-threatening illness, we chose to return to Canada when we were at the point in our careers and family life to make the permanent choice. Universal healthcare wasn’t the only reason, but it was near the top of the list.There are very few Canadians who would trade what they have for the system in the U.S.</p>

230

<p>We too have friends and relatives who have chosen to gain dual citizenship and reside in countries with good nationalized health care. And FWIW, they could ALL afford top notch private plans here.</p>

231

<p>

</p>

<p>15% of 313 million is 50 million. That’s 50 million people without health insurance. I don’t know about you, but I always thought 50 million was a pretty big number. Hand-wave if you want.</p>

<p>The fact that every other Western democracy on the planet has some form of national health care system - all of which are wildly popular - would tend to suggest that lots of people find those programs to be the best solution to a difficult problem.</p>

<p>Or are you suggesting that if only we “unskewed the polls,” we’d find that French, German, British, Canadian, Belgian, etc. people all are begging and pleading their political leaders to shut down their national health care systems and replace it with an American-style hodgepodge?</p>

232

<p>The number of uninsured Americans is equal to the combined populations of Kentucky, Oregon, Oklahoma, Connecticut, Iowa, Mississippi, Arkansas, Kansas, Utah, Nevada, New Mexico, Nebraska, West Virginia, Idaho, Hawaii, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Montana, Delaware, South Dakota, Alaska, North Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming.</p>

<p>But I guess that’s nobody important.</p>

233

<p>

</p>

<p>No, people who expect him to accept smaller salary and sacrifice his standard of living so that they could get cheaper drugs are selfish. Those of you who want to argue otherwise, please go ahead and ask for smaller wages so that the customers of whatever your employer is producing can enjoy cheaper product.</p>

<p>I always wondered why is it OK for people to demand higher minimum wages but not OK for a person to demand wages commensurate with their talents and skills?</p>

234

<p>

</p>

<p>How many of them choose not to buy insurance? At the company my husband owns, half of the eligible people choose not to buy insurance. We are covering half of the costs, yet they choose not to buy.</p>

235

<p>

</p>

<p>Some percentage of them, certainly. And that’s not fair to everyone else, who will likely end up indirectly paying for their care if they become seriously ill or injured and rack up enormous medical bills that never get paid.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Now they’ll either have to buy the insurance, or pay the IRS penalty. If some of them don’t make enough money to reasonably afford the insurance contribution, they’ll receive a subsidy to help with that.</p>

<p>The entire point of a universal national health care system is to ensure that everyone contributes their fair share. I would prefer a single-payer system paid for through direct taxation, but we’ve got what we’ve got.</p>

<p>“ObamaCare” was designed by the Heritage Foundation and first implemented by Mitt Romney. It’s a compromise and we’ll see how it works. Massachusetts seems to be doing fine with it.</p>

236

<p>Polarscribe,</p>

<p>this is the first time you and I agree on something.</p>

237

<p>

</p>

<p>How is it that every other developed country in the world manages to insure all of their citizens at less than half the cost we currently pay, with better outcomes? This is not an unsolvable problem.</p>

238

<p>The problem is that ACA is a National Health INSURANCE plan, not a national health CARE plan. All those other countries have national health CARE. We certainly have to do something, I’m just not sure this is the way to do it. Forcing people to get health insurance does NOT ensure they get health care.</p>

239

<p>

</p>

<p>Not only that, their government cost of medical care is about 7% of GDP, similar percentage as in the US. Obviously, their private cost of medical care is much less than in the US (probably around 3% of GDP, versus about 10% of GDP in the US).</p>

<p>PPACA does not really solve this problem, but it does not cause it either – US medical care was consuming a much higher percentage of GDP than medical care in other rich countries before PPACA.</p>

240

<p>“The problem is that ACA is a National Health INSURANCE plan, not a national health CARE plan. All those other countries have national health CARE.”</p>

<p>Not true. Look at Switzerland, for instance. [Healthcare</a> in Switzerland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Switzerland]Healthcare”>Healthcare in Switzerland - Wikipedia)</p>

<p>Or the Netherlands. [Healthcare</a> in the Netherlands - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_the_Netherlands]Healthcare”>Healthcare in the Netherlands - Wikipedia)</p>

<p>There are many countries which have a system much more like ACA than what they have in the UK (NHS) or Canada. </p>

<p>The difference between the US and the rest of the developed world is that they act like grown ups when it comes to matters such as this and “we” act like whiny little children. </p>

<p>“Actually-most people over 65 hate Medicare but realize it’s better than nothing.”</p>

<p>That is not true. </p>

<p>“Medicare is rated highly by those who use it. Fifty-one percent of seniors, most of whom are covered by Medicare, rate their health insurance coverage as “excellent.” This is a significantly higher proportion than the 32% of insured Americans under the age of 65 who give their health insurance an “excellent” rating (KFF, August 2009).” </p>

<p>[MMS:</a> Error](<a href=“http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1107184]MMS:”>http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1107184)</p>