They're already diverting the responsibility of healthcare to a third party (the insurance company). I don't think that the option would appease.Originally Posted by SoonerBounce
|
|
They're already diverting the responsibility of healthcare to a third party (the insurance company). I don't think that the option would appease.
i don't know what the best solution is....but it can't be what owebama forced on us...
at the rate my insurance is increasing.....it won't be long before i'm priced out of the market....
i will have to keep reducing my coverage as costs go higher....
Wait....I thought you said your rep told you that your rate was going to drop dramatically.
**** no it's not going to appease. It wont appease the left because they would rather die than give options back to the populous. It wont appease the left/right because it might actually take money out of the pockets of the insurance companies.
she said it "might".....but i wouldn't know for sure until my application has been processed......
to get the same coverage i have now....it is considered an upgrade.....so i have to re-apply
but rates are increasing so rapidly......it won't take long before it's back to where it is now....
I don't think it would appease Hobby Lobby, if their argument before the court is actually based in belief.
The ACA has a rate ceiling, I believe, that will slow the increases. Personally, my rates increased at a far greater rate in the early 200s than at any other point.
I've only been on my own insurance for 5 years. The first 3 years I saw about a 10% increase each year. I lot of that was b/c the average age of employee at my company was 50+. Then I changed jobs and had a lot better benefits. During enrollment this year, my premiums did not increase b/c my company decided to pay more. Not sure how much though
Their employees could already do that.. it's their money. I do not see why they would have a problem staying out of the medical world completely.
So now we get to the point in the discussion where we debate whether or not health coverage and other benefits are compensation (like monetary wages) or benevolence.
They should be neither. If they want to implement mandatory health care coverage, they shouldn't tie it to employment. It should not be the employers cross to bear.
They did this as a concession.
I would have been far happier with single payor and tax credits for premiums, but the right killed it.
2 users like SpankyNek's post: OnlyOneOklahoma, Troker
I would rather any money paid for my health insurance or my family's health insurance go into our own health savings account. No limit on how much can be in it . . . healthy folks or folks with a small amount of medical bills should be able to save that money for a "rainy day" so to speak. It should be accessible when needed, but not via traipsing through mountains of red tape to get to it.
Ive quoted this simply to engage you....not to discuss this specific post. First point, there is absolutely NOTHING today that requires an employer to offer health insurance (not health care) to employees today. Each employer has their own reason but nobody is required to do so. Starting in 2014, there is a tax/penalty/fee (whatever you want to call it) that employers of a certain size have to pay if they do not offer insurance that meets certain requirements. Smaller companies that would not be subject to the tax would easily be able to stop offering and send their employees to an exchange/marketplace like you described. One problem is, the Feds were unable to get their exchange up and running by their own self imposed deadline (1/1/2014).
In short, Obamacare has provisions that move people toward what you are describing/wanting. Biggest problem, IMO, the more competition solution is overly simplistic for an very complex issue. Could it make a dent in the problem (access and cost)? Yes. Does it solve everything? Not even close.
Tax shelters are a pretty big public enemy on both sides of the aisle right now. If you are talking post taxed contributions, you can already do this in many different ways.
I'm talking specifically about any employer contributions. IMO, this would alleviate all of the owners of Hobby Lobby issues. IF they contribute to the health insurance of their employees it should all go into one of these accounts and then the employee should be allowed to use it as they need for what they want.
Who is going to pay the premium? You can't use H.S.A. dollars to pay premium.
Is the employer contribution not paid towards a portion of the premium?
Why is an HSA not seen as an escrow account where you could use it to pay the premium?
To discourage abuse of the tax preferred status of an HSA.
I also ****ume so businesses/employees aren't reverse double dipping (hope Im using that correctly). If using a section 125 plan, the employer and employee are already using pre-tax dollars to pay premiums. They don't want you using pre tax funds (HSA) to pay a bill and write it off......just guessing.
Please note that I'm making many generalizations on the HSAs. I don't have one and know next to nothing about their tax shelter status.
I was just commenting that if an employer contributes anything towards the health care costs/insurance costs of their employees that IMO that should go straight to some sort of escrow account that was used to pay the premium and then any related out of pocket costs or whatever. Maybe it should be two separate accounts with different tax implications. I was just thinking that if the money went towards a specific account rather than towards some specific coverage the employer wouldn't get all uptight about whether it covered birth control or the morning after pill. The coverage it would be used for would be completely up to those with access to the account.
I think you are on to something that may be coming down the pike. 2014 and beyond, the govt has set up minimum values of a plan that a business can offer and not be taxed/penalized. Same for cost share (premium Ee's are paying). One way some employers are looking at making it easy on themselves is to essentially give their employees a fixed dollar amount the company is giving them then send them to a private exchange (think Travelocity) to purchase a pre set suite of insurance options. Everyone keeps their pre tax status without running in to ACA taxes while offering greater flexibility of choice for the employee. Not everyone will do this but some certainly are planning on it.
I've never understood why this didn't happen from day 1 . . .
This is the new era of entitlement. When someone refuses to pay for something for someone else, that person says they are being forced into a choice...that choice being either paying for it themselves or not paying for it. What the hell is wrong with people?
Rather then buy birth control would it not be cheaper to just buy them a Sandra Fluke mask?
The following users like this post: Sancho
They grew up in a family without a solid leader where nobody was able to make a decision?
Hobby Lobby is raising their minimum wage for full time employees to $14/hr, part time employees making $9.50.
http://newsok.com/hobby-lobby-hikes-...rticle/3786377
Those ****s.
The following users like this post: oucub23
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote