Companies Could Pay Fines, Cut Hours to Avoid Obamacare

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Jedi Knight, Feb 19, 2013.

  1. Jedi Knight

    Jedi Knight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2009
    Messages:
    4,934
    Likes Received:
    45
  2. Oldtimer

    Oldtimer
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2011
    Messages:
    1,934
    Likes Received:
    0
    This was discussed at length prior to passage of the bill. Far too many chose not to listen, when opponents tried to stress this point.

    Why?

    Because the ultimate goal of this administration is to force everyone, except Congress members, into some form of birth-to-death Medicare under direct control of Uncle Sam.
     
  3. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53

    Companies exist to make money. If they do not make money they cease to exist. That is an economic fact. Obama and his leftist handlers are not ignorant of this economic fact. Obamacare is just one means in their intent to convert this Republic into a third world Marxist state!
     
  4. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,287
    Likes Received:
    780
    Liberals believe that comapnies make plenty of money and they just need to make a little less so that employees can have more. And if the companies are not willing to give a little more to their employees (according to the extreme liberal left ideas) then they will use the force of the government to make them do it because that is what is just socially.


    All the above is wrong, but that is what they believe.
     
  5. Baptist in Richmond

    Baptist in Richmond
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    5,075
    Likes Received:
    4
    Let's not forget who originally wrote Obamacare, Revmitchell.

    Hope all is well, still praying for you and your ministry,
    BiR
     
  6. FollowTheWay

    FollowTheWay
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2013
    Messages:
    467
    Likes Received:
    4
    Companies have been cutting benefits for years. This is simply part of the decimation of the middle class by the 1%.
     
  7. Oldtimer

    Oldtimer
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2011
    Messages:
    1,934
    Likes Received:
    0
    Welcome to BB.

    Have you studied the history of companies including health care insurance as a part of their benefits package? Ever wonder why group insurance is a "standard" benefit offered by many companies and personal auto insurance isn't? (Exceptions, noted.)

    IMO, group insurance, in an employer/employee relationship shouldn't exist. It should have ended with the end of WWII. That business expense deductible for tax purposes is one of the causes of the problems we have today.

    FWIW, there's nothing simple about it. There are many factors that have nothing to do with the 1% claim, so often made by liberals. Also, FWIW, I worked as a group insurance administrator and saw exactly what happened to the companies profit margin when insurance rates began to skyrocket in the late 80's and 90's. There's not much room for absorbing costs with the net profit margin is only 4 cents on the dollar of sales.

    Right now I'm working on the premise that you haven't taken the time, yet, to research this subject in great detail. Therefore, I urge you to dig into the history of business (employer's) involvement with health insurance. To dig into the history of the government becoming involved through the implementation of Medicare in 1965 (if memory serves). And, with that, the government's "liberal" desire to follow the lead of other countries with government control of health care.

    There's so much more to this subject than the rich 1%.
     
  8. Baptist in Richmond

    Baptist in Richmond
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    5,075
    Likes Received:
    4
    I would take it a step further. The profit motive needs to be eliminated from healthcare. They are either providing a service or making a profit. It is painfully obvious that the two are mutually exclusive.

    Regards,
    BiR
     
  9. Oldtimer

    Oldtimer
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2011
    Messages:
    1,934
    Likes Received:
    0
    Good Point!

    An example of one of the many reasons why health care premiums are so high today.

    Many insurance companies heavily invested their profits in the high tech market before the dot.com bubble burst in the mid 90's. Lost their shirts, so to speak. How to recoup loses? Raise premiums in order to have enough funds remaining to cover claims.

    Rather than holding premiums paid in trust to cover future claims, greed for more profit took over with risky investments. As with any business venture, the customer always picks up the tab.
     
  10. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,083
    Likes Received:
    218
    However a major problem could eat up all previous profits.

    So we let the government handle all health insurance - just like Social Security - oops bad example.

    Bottom line - we live in a capitalistic society - where profits are the reason to have a business. Even "non-profits" have to have a profit to pay the salaries of workers and other upkeep.
     
  11. Baptist in Richmond

    Baptist in Richmond
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    5,075
    Likes Received:
    4
    Great points.

    Hope all is well,
    BiR
     
  12. Baptist in Richmond

    Baptist in Richmond
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    5,075
    Likes Received:
    4
    So, if I understand you correctly, our "capitalistic society" justifies making profits at the expense of others? At what point does it stop? Does that mean it is completely justifiable to appoint private "death panels" (as Palin et al. called them) to manage risk, preserve future cash inflows and evaluate options for those who pay to be insured? After all, we can't be throwing good money after bad in a "capitalistic society," can we? That sounds a bit Ayn Randian to me.

    If you are a proponent of profits above all else, I guess I can see why you would write what you did. If that is the case, at what point do profits become a subordinate factor? Or is that even possible in your opinion?

    Oh, and by the way, Social Security would have worked had the government not siphoned the money being paid into the system to use for other nonrelated projects. As much as I hate to admit it: Al Gore was right about this subject - and the "lockbox." Unfortunately for us, all that cash sitting around was a temptation too hard to resist, huh?

    Regards,
    BiR
     
  13. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,287
    Likes Received:
    780
    Sure we could take profits out of health care. We could also take profits out of housing. After all doesn't everyone deserve a house? We could also take profits out of food. After all doesn't everyone deserve food?

    It is easy to try to blame profits for everything. But that is neither true nor helpful. Of course when it comes to health care costs we could ignore the over use of insurance as a cause. We could ignore fraud and frivolous lawsuits as a cause. Especially if we are already anti-profit and anti-capitalism. Socialism ignores what it wants and emphasizes everything it wants to push its unbalanced agenda.
     
  14. Jedi Knight

    Jedi Knight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2009
    Messages:
    4,934
    Likes Received:
    45
    Yes indeed if governmet is so good at running other things like Social S....relax!:rolleyes:
     
  15. Oldtimer

    Oldtimer
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2011
    Messages:
    1,934
    Likes Received:
    0
    BiR, my friend, I'm afraid that we no longer have a true "capitalistic society".

    Profits are always at the expense of others. You can't get away from that, regardless who's running the show.

    In a free enterprize system, if you manufacture a widget, I make the decision to buy it from you at the price you set or walk away. I may buy the same type widget from your competitor across the street because his version is a better value. It may be lower priced. It may be of higher quality for the same price. It may be that he also includes 3 widget accessories that you don't sell with yours. Either way, you or your competitor is going to make a profit off of me. If either of you operate at a loss, you'll have to close the business when your pockets are empty. If either of you has zero profits (sales less expense = zero), there's nothing left for capital improvements, additional benefits for employees, R&D to improve existing product line, etc & etc.

    You and your competitor will keep profits at an acceptable level for each business. Each has to do so, because I'll still be looking for the best value each time I need to buy another widget. Competition in the marketplace is what keeps "profits" in check. Interference in healthy competition results in unhealthy or hefty profits depending who's the receipient of the interference.

    Comparing health insurance companies and auto insurance companies, one major difference is government regulation (interference), government tax incentives to business, massive group insurance plans covering thousands of individuals under a group policy, and more.

    There's nothing wrong with insurance companies making a profit. While you make widgets, they provide a service. When I buy from either of you, either will make a profit off my purchase. I'm not an expert in either health or auto insurance, so please correct me if I'm wrong in what I'm about to say.

    Generally, the vast majority of auto insurance policies are written as contracts between a company and an individual for coverage. State government maintains some control over insurance companies operating within the state. Generally, the vast majority of health insurance policies are written as contracts between two companies (insurance co. and a business.) Again state control. The difference is there is very little competition between health insurance companies at the individual consumer level.

    If health insurance providers had to compete on a level playing field with individual consumers, we'd have a much different story today. If Acme Ins. wants to include death panels as a provision of their coverage, John Q Public has the option of rejecting Acme Ins and taking his premium dollars elsewhere. If Susie Q Public wants health insurance coverage for cosmetic surgery for vanity reasons, she can spend her dollars thusly. If Grandma doesn't want that coverage she doesn't purchase insurance from Acme.

    John, Susie, and Grandma, all three will provide profit to insurance companies. However, in this "mess" (polite word) today, Grandma cannot avoid that death panel policy. Her only hope is that she is still profitable enough to justify her continued existence. Keep in mind that Uncle Sam is replacing the free enterprize system because he found support for his so-called loophole in the commerce clause of the Constitution.

    (sigh)
     
  16. Baptist in Richmond

    Baptist in Richmond
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    5,075
    Likes Received:
    4
    That's all well and good, but you really didn't address any of my points.
    I didn't mention anything about the items you list above, most notably the whole housing issue.

    Bottom line: as far as healthcare is concerned - you are either providing a sevice or you are making a profit. Again, what if the cost to keep someone alive will cut into the profits of a company? For example, let's say that an insurance company has 2,500 insured people who have life-threatening illness X. Now, suppose that X can be cured, but at a cost of $300,000 per person. Do you really think the profit motive will not be a major factor in determining whether or not this procedure will be covered - if not THE major factor? What if someone is recently insured and it turns out the person had X prior to being insured? Do you think the company is going to pay? Moreover, do you think it will be a panel of physicians that will determine whether or not it will be covered?

    As far as the "over use of insurance," you DO realize that one of the main causes for bankruptcy in the US is healthcare, right?

    Regards, thanks for responding - look forward to your reply,
    BiR
     
  17. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,287
    Likes Received:
    780
    No it is not an either or thing.

    So who is this happening too? By the way costs of patient care will be considered under Obamacare as well. So how do you see government control improving anything?



    One has absolutely nothing to do with the other.

    Regards, thanks for responding - look forward to your reply,
    BiR[/QUOTE]
     
  18. Baptist in Richmond

    Baptist in Richmond
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    5,075
    Likes Received:
    4
    Sorry, but yes it is. Making a profit and providing a service are mutually exclusive.

    Did you even bother to read through my scenario?

    I don't recall ever writing this - please show me where I did.
    [It would be nice to have a direct response to this one, Revmitchell]

    This is where you and I fundamentally disagree. It has everything "to do with the other." Let's go back to what you posted:

    If there indeed was a problem with "the over use of insurance" then healthcare shouldn't be such a prevalent cause of bankruptcy. I did a little reading, and it appears that some believe (a 2010 Harvard University study in this particular case) that bankruptcy is the LEADING cause of bankruptcy.

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/pf_article_109143.html
    http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jun2009/db2009064_666715.htm

    How is that possible if "the over use of insurance" is an issue? In other words, if we are all using insurance too much, how in the world did healthcare costs become one of the highest causes (if not the highest) for bankruptcy?

    Looking forward to your reply.

    Regards,
    BiR
     
  19. Baptist in Richmond

    Baptist in Richmond
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    5,075
    Likes Received:
    4
    Great post, OT!
    I just refuse to believe that we could put a man on the moon with computers that were not as sophisticated as the Mac I am using right now to type this, but cannot figure out this whole healthcare mess.

    If there is a profit motive, it will always overrule providing a service....always. Just like gravity! Corporations have a duty to make as much money as they possibly can and maximize revenue. You can almost make the statement that they have a duty to the stockholders to make as much money as possible. It's like the scenario I gave in an earlier post: profits will always come first.

    Regards, hope your weekend was as great as mine,
    BiR
     
  20. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,894
    Likes Received:
    294
    Another good example is cost shifting.

    With the government forcing physicians and hospitals to lose money to treat patients covered by Medicare and Medicaid, those providers simply shifted the losses to people with insurance, increasing their premiums.
     

Share This Page

Loading...