Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / General / January 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Bush: American companies should stop paying for employee health care

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
sgtbob - 14 Jan 2006 18:23 GMT
Bush's new health plan: American companies should stop paying for
employee health care  
by Caren Bohan, Reuters News Agency
Jan. 12, 2006

President George W. Bush will propose ways to rein in the surging cost
of U.S. health care this year as an important focus of his economic
strategy, a White House spokesman said on Thursday.

Trent Duffy, traveling in the Gulf Coast region with Bush, said the
president's initiative would include new tax breaks for Americans who
buy health insurance on their own.

The goal was to level the playing field between individual health
plans and insurance provided to workers by their companies, for which
employees and firms get tax deductions, he said.

The administration also wants to expand the use of health-savings
accounts, which allow workers to set aside money tax free to pay
health costs, Duffy said.

Such accounts are designed to be compatible with so-called
high-deductible health insurance plans, in which consumers assume more
out-of-pocket costs for routine medical expenses while having coverage
against catastrophic illnesses.

Duffy was confirming a report in the Wall Street Journal that Bush
would make health care cost reduction a focus in his economic agenda
for 2006.

The president alluded to his plans during a question and answer
session in Louisville, KY on Wednesday when he said: "We need a more
consumer-driven pricing mechanism in health care in order to be able
to properly deal with the inflation you're talking about."

Duffy said: "The president talked about health-care affordability as a
major challenge that we have to confront for a host of reasons."

He said the administration believed encouraging individuals to buy
health insurance would spur more competition than in the current
system, which relies heavily on employer-provided health benefits.

Duffy said one of the reasons health-insurance costs were so high was
that "third parties" -- meaning employers -- assume the bulk of the
costs so there was little incentive for consumers to shop around to
save money.

Duffy said that as part of the health costs initiative, the
administration would seek to tamp down medical malpractice lawsuits --
one of Bush's long-sought goals.

Bush's health-care steps are expected to be among the themes in his
State of the Union address later this month.

The president's effort last year to push a broad revamp of Social
Security proved unpopular and ultimately languished in Congress. The
administration had considered putting forth a broad plan to revise the
tax-code as one of its economic initiatives for this year but
officials have decided to delay that effort amid concerns it could
prove controversial too.

Among other economic initiatives Bush will press this year are his
drive to make his tax cuts permanent and an attempt to garner more
support for free trade.
Clark W. Griswold, Jr. - 14 Jan 2006 22:27 GMT
>President George W. Bush will propose ways to rein in the surging cost
>of U.S. health care this year as an important focus of his economic
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>plans and insurance provided to workers by their companies, for which
>employees and firms get tax deductions, he said.

Fantastic. Employer paid health care is a relic from WW II price controls and is
a large contributor to the increases in cost in today's health care.

If people were able to use the money their employer spends on them directly, a
lot of pricing pressure would be placed on the providers.

Of course, those who think "someone else" should be paying for their health care
won't see it that way.....
Rich Greenberg - 14 Jan 2006 22:52 GMT
>Of course, those who think "someone else" should be paying for their health care
>won't see it that way.....

Such as most liberals.

Signature

Rich Greenberg Marietta, GA, USA richgr atsign panix.com    + 1 770 321 6507
Eastern time.  N6LRT  I speak for myself & my dogs only.   VM'er since CP-67
Canines:Val, Red & Shasta (RIP),Red, husky                   Owner:Chinook-L
Atlanta Siberian Husky Rescue. www.panix.com/~richgr/  Asst Owner:Sibernet-L

Robert - 14 Jan 2006 23:55 GMT
> >Of course, those who think "someone else" should be paying for their health care
> >won't see it that way.....
>
> Such as most liberals.

You mean all Canadians.
Kurt Ullman - 15 Jan 2006 12:01 GMT
>> >Of course, those who think "someone else" should be paying for their
>health care
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
>You mean all Canadians.

    Same thing..
anon - 15 Jan 2006 01:57 GMT
> If people were able to use the money their employer spends on them directly, a
> lot of pricing pressure would be placed on the providers.

do you truly believe we would get that money the mployer spends on us now?
I'd
guess most people end up worse... and that deduction might be useless if
they don't
fix the creeping AMT.
Clark W. Griswold, Jr. - 15 Jan 2006 05:38 GMT
>do you truly believe we would get that money the employer spends on us now?
>I'd guess most people end up worse...

Employers will do whatever it takes to keep competitive and remain in business.
There's no rule right now that requires employers to provide health care
benefits - they do it to attract and retain employees. (Well, except in the
Peoples Republic of Maryland.)

>and that deduction might be useless if they don't fix the creeping AMT.

AMT is mostly hitting people on the east and west coast. Coincidentally - those
tend to be the states that enact social programs that are very expensive, and
that tend to have large, expensive governments.

While it wasn't the original intent, all the AMT does now is make sure that
people living with less expensive government don't have to subsidize those
expensive states.
Kurt Ullman - 15 Jan 2006 12:01 GMT
>> If people were able to use the money their employer spends on them
>directly, a
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>they don't
>fix the creeping AMT.
      Of course they would for the most part. It isn't like what they pay now
for health care is such a big secret. Besides many have already taken that
route via cafeteria plans, defined contribution instead of defined benefit
plans, etc. etc. ets.
lenny fackler - 16 Jan 2006 20:05 GMT
> Bush's new health plan: American companies should stop paying for
> employee health care
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
> consumer-driven pricing mechanism in health care in order to be able
> to properly deal with the inflation you're talking about."

It is in the best interest for employers who provide health benefits to
shop for the best plan at the lowest cost so it already is a consumer
driven process.  A company with dozens, or hundreds or thousands of
employees certainly has more bargaining power than an individual.  I
fail to see how transferring this process to individuals would lower
insurance costs.
This is a purely ideological scheme.
Again, as with just about everything else this president has pushed,
he's being dishonest about the rationale.

> Duffy said: "The president talked about health-care affordability as a
> major challenge that we have to confront for a host of reasons."
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
> drive to make his tax cuts permanent and an attempt to garner more
> support for free trade.
Kurt Ullman - 17 Jan 2006 12:01 GMT
tion a focus in his economic agenda

>It is in the best interest for employers who provide health benefits to
>shop for the best plan at the lowest cost so it already is a consumer
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>insurance costs.
>This is a purely ideological scheme.
  But the consumer isn't THE consumer which is most of the problem. For years
the employers have been doing exactly what you suggest, looking for the lowest
prices. This results in PPOs, HMOs and other things. Thus what is best for the
employer isn't often best for the actual consumer of MEDICAL (as opposed to
insurance) services.
    Transferring this process to the individual would allow the individual to
decide what they want and what they want to pay for.
       Also, currently less than 20% of all expenditures for health care
(including the premium itself) comes out of your and mine pockets. When
something is subsidized to such a great extent, it is inevitable that demand
and prices rise. Putting this back into the hands of the individual might
actually make a difference,

>Again, as with just about everything else this president has pushed,
>he's being dishonest about the rationale.
     Again, as with everything else this president ha
s pushed, the opposition flunks the Econ 101 aspects of the situation.
lenny fackler - 17 Jan 2006 14:47 GMT
> tion a focus in his economic agenda
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> the employers have been doing exactly what you suggest, looking for the lowest
> prices. This results in PPOs, HMOs and other things.

And what do you think individuals would do when the full premium is
coming out of their pocket?

Thus what is best for the
> employer isn't often best for the actual consumer of MEDICAL (as opposed to
> insurance) services. Transferring this process to the individual would allow the individual to
> decide what they want and what they want to pay for.

Some employers do a better job than others at looking out for their
employees.
If your employers insurance is not satisfactory and they don't respond
to the needs of their workers individuals have a choice of finding a
different employer or opting out and getting insured on their own.
Sounds like free market in action to me.

>         Also, currently less than 20% of all expenditures for health care
> (including the premium itself) comes out of your and mine pockets. When
> something is subsidized to such a great extent, it is inevitable that demand
> and prices rise. Putting this back into the hands of the individual might
> actually make a difference,

It comes out of our pocket one way or another.  If my employer didn't
subsidize my premiums they could pay me more.  Fine.  The question is
would it cost more or less if our employers shop for group policies or
if we shop individually.  I don't understand how discouraging group
policies would drive prices down.

> >Again, as with just about everything else this president has pushed,
> >he's being dishonest about the rationale.
>       Again, as with everything else this president ha
> s pushed, the opposition flunks the Econ 101 aspects of the situation.

Give me an example of individual pps type insurance resulting in lower
cost and higher quality.  The countries with the best overall health
care indicators have nationalized or hybrid socialized systems and
their costs per individual are much lower.
Idealized notions of a free market health care systems are not Econ
101, more like neocon 101.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.