Universal Healthcare! Come on U.S. Get with it.

[Calm2Chaos]

Employer sponsored health care is disappearing fast in this country. http://www.allhealth.org/sourcebook2004/pdfs/chapter2.pdf#search='employer%20provided%20health%20insurance%20disappearing'


It will no longer be the norm. As a business owner myself, I can tell you purchasing health insurance coverage for my 40 + employees is one of the biggest overheads I have. If I did not feel morally obligated, I would not keep offering it. As for keeping employees, it only keeps the older ones who realize the value of insrance coverage. I had two young employees leave to make $1.25 more an hour with a competitor (who did not provide insurance coverage and thus could offer a higher salary.)

But the younger work force is going to take salary over benefits, at least for the time being. But as they get older there values and needs will change. And hopefully there desire to enter a more stabile position within the workforce. Do you offer health insurance right away or is there some length of probationary time like a year before they are eligible. Maybe offering healthcare after years of service would be a way to lower cost. Would seem that those that are willing to stick with you and not jump around are worth the money. Kids however would seem more willing to go were the buck is. There invincible and can never die so they don't need insurance. LOL
Course I could be completely wrong since I never ran my own business. So forgive me if I am off base.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

Eli Lilly and Comapny uses a temp agency for college grads. that majored in chemistry. Only very few get hired on permanent

I never said NONE do. I said MOST don't.

And temp workers are for temp work. If the companies needs are fluctuating and changing constantly then maybe there is less needs for a permanent employee. Training is fluid and is different on a daily basis. So the needs for a trained workforce varies.

There a Pharmacuetical company. So that is what there needs are. But I will bet you there is a whole lot more full time then temp employees.

This probably gives them the ability to have a person in and evaluate them over a longer period of time before they are offered full time employment. Seems like a fair way to work it out. No pressure of making a decision on employment without ever really seeing how they operate. It is used as a prelude to permanent employment is my bet

 

[UtahBill]

For realitively unskilled help in smal companies they use a temp service. But then again you know this going in. If your looking for benefits then don't work temp help. However MOST companies do not use tewmps for there skilled or semi skilled positions. And MOST medium or large companies don't use temp workers for anything other then Brief temp work, or covering ful time employess vacation time. Why does it matter what I pay for insurance? I pay for it and it ain't cheap. But it's also not driving m e out of house and home either.

I am not sure either of us can speak for most companies.
The one I just retired from uses them a lot in the IT and communications department, even to the extent of hiring some to do the work of lazy and/or incompetent employees that management is for some reason afraid to fire. Several of the temps have been there for over 5 years, a few for almost 10. A few of those recently threatened to quit unless they got rolled into permanent employment status and given benefits, and the company caved, and rightly so. The temps were doing nearly all the work while the "permies" were sitting on their butts. The department would have been unable to keep things running without them. Things are not what they used to be, and I am glad that I could retire when I did. My younger friends who still work there are anxious about what their retirement will be like, as the company is making noises about not being able to fund medical benefits for those retirees who are not yet eligible for medicare.

 

[TimmyBoy]

I am not sure either of us can speak for most companies.
The one I just retired from uses them a lot in the IT and communications department, even to the extent of hiring some to do the work of lazy and/or incompetent employees that management is for some reason afraid to fire. Several of the temps have been there for over 5 years, a few for almost 10. A few of those recently threatened to quit unless they got rolled into permanent employment status and given benefits, and the company caved, and rightly so. The temps were doing nearly all the work while the "permies" were sitting on their butts. The department would have been unable to keep things running without them. Things are not what they used to be, and I am glad that I could retire when I did. My younger friends who still work there are anxious about what their retirement will be like, as the company is making noises about not being able to fund medical benefits for those retirees who are not yet eligible for medicare.

That's when you start looking to start your own company. I would love to start my own company one of these days, probably something to do with the video gaming industry. Be a Third Party Developer or something.

 

[bandaidwoman]

Do you offer health insurance right away or is there some length of probationary time like a year before they are eligible. .

six months

 

[alphieb]

I never said NONE do. I said MOST don't.

And temp workers are for temp work. If the companies needs are fluctuating and changing constantly then maybe there is less needs for a permanent employee. Training is fluid and is different on a daily basis. So the needs for a trained workforce varies.

There a Pharmacuetical company. So that is what there needs are. But I will bet you there is a whole lot more full time then temp employees.

This probably gives them the ability to have a person in and evaluate them over a longer period of time before they are offered full time employment. Seems like a fair way to work it out. No pressure of making a decision on employment without ever really seeing how they operate. It is used as a prelude to permanent employment is my bet

Toyota.....the factory in my community does the same thing as ELI Lilly.
Also nurses find work through Nursing staffing agencies with no benefits, because they pay over $30.00 an hour. What would happen if there is a major health crisis? We need raise taxes to decrease premiums.

 

[128shot]

One reason why there is so much incentive (and for the same reason why there is so much cost in healthcare, partly, among other things like the AMA and such), is because Pharm. companies can get patents on their drugs!


They can't in Canada, or many other places, but in the USA they can, and they make piles of money, and I do mean piles.



Is this ethical? Yes and no. It does provide HUGE incentive to find miracle drugs, and sorta no because they are charging out the ass for it, and its expensive.





As for long term healthcare costs, I best you figure out your finances, its a have vs have nots kinda thing..

 

[alphieb]

One reason why there is so much incentive (and for the same reason why there is so much cost in healthcare, partly, among other things like the AMA and such), is because Pharm. companies can get patents on their drugs!


They can't in Canada, or many other places, but in the USA they can, and they make piles of money, and I do mean piles.



Is this ethical? Yes and no. It does provide HUGE incentive to find miracle drugs, and sorta no because they are charging out the ass for it, and its expensive.





As for long term healthcare costs, I best you figure out your finances, its a have vs have nots kinda thing..

PHARM. CO. HAVE TO PAY FOR THEIR ADVERTISING.

 

[128shot]

PHARM. CO. HAVE TO PAY FOR THEIR ADVERTISING.

and?



they're probably making at least 10x more than they pay in advertising.

 

[alphieb]

and?



they're probably making at least 10x more than they pay in advertising.

YOUR PROBABLY RIGHT.....I DON'T SEE WHY THEY SHOULD HAVE TO ADVERTISE ANYWAY. IT IS UP THE THE MD TO PRESCRIP. ITS NOT LIKE WE CAN BUY THE PRODUCT OVER THE COUNTER.

 

[128shot]

YOUR PROBABLY RIGHT.....I DON'T SEE WHY THEY SHOULD HAVE TO ADVERTISE ANYWAY. IT IS UP THE THE MD TO PRESCRIP. ITS NOT LIKE WE CAN BUY THE PRODUCT OVER THE COUNTER.

Caps lock..



for one thing, the Pharm companies are trying progressively harder to get their drugs (many are safe mind you, this isn't a giant conspiracy to kill us all) straight to OTC


Mostly drugs such as birth control and the like.

 

[alphieb]

Bullsht......

Healthcare costs rise as do everything else, employers are going to pass some of this off to you.

Of course this is nothing compared to what your going to pay with universal health care. Not to mention the sharp reduction in quality and response time. I really don't see the benfits of universal healthcare for the working class that have benefits already. Unless were talking about higher taxes and worse treatment... Sounds like a plan to me...

The working class have health care benefits? Depends on the definition of "working class." If you mean UAW GM employee, I guess you are right. That won't last long, GM will be in Chapter 11 in 12 months. On the other hand, if you mean a X generation HS graduate earning $10/hr with a family plan premium of 450/mth, me thinks "they" will prosper. I note IL passed a statute yesterday whereby family of 4 pays 140/mth for 2>kids for insurance. Of course, IL will go belly up in 2 yrs cause cannot controll concomitant costs.

 

[UtahBill]

Seems that only the rich and the most highly valued employees, or the upper class, will have good health care in the future, the rich because they can afford it without insurance, and the highly valued employees because their employers are afraid of losing them, and will subsidize their insurance. They tend to forget that without the lower paid employees, there is no business. But the ratio of CEO pay to front line employee pay just gets bigger and bigger and bigger.
But medical care is only one issue, housing costs is another that will further separate the classes. The cities near me are building little houses on tiny 1/10th lots for "teachers, police, nurses, and firefighters", and even those start at over $240,000 for a bit under 1200 square feet.
Eventually, the lower valued employees, or lower classes, will be reduced to living as little more than serfs to the high and mighty upper classes.
Once it gets bad enough, the rich will have to hire armed guards to feel safe in their homes, but will wake up one day to find that their guards are angry about the injustices as well.
It could happen. All it takes is more selfishness and greed among the already rich who feel insecure unless they are richer than the rich people next door.

 

[Kelzie]

One reason why there is so much incentive (and for the same reason why there is so much cost in healthcare, partly, among other things like the AMA and such), is because Pharm. companies can get patents on their drugs!


They can't in Canada, or many other places, but in the USA they can, and they make piles of money, and I do mean piles.



Is this ethical? Yes and no. It does provide HUGE incentive to find miracle drugs, and sorta no because they are charging out the ass for it, and its expensive.





As for long term healthcare costs, I best you figure out your finances, its a have vs have nots kinda thing..

That's not exactly true. Both France and Germany are huge pioneers in medical research.

 

[Hornburger]

If we put caps on the amount of money awarded in medical malpractice suits, then doctors, hospitals, etc. will be MUCH more affordable. The reason why they cost so much now is that they have to make up for money lost in these HUGE malpractice suits. If we reform tort law, then the price of doctors and hospitals will go way down.

Of course, if we put caps on the amount juries can award then you can have someone that doesn't get as much money as they need. But I think it is for the overall good and health of society to put caps on the system.

 

[UtahBill]

.

Of course, if we put caps on the amount juries can award then you can have someone that doesn't get as much money as they need. .

Perhaps, but I think that damages paid should always be at least what a wronged patient needs, especially if it involves long term care due to a doctors error. It is when a sum far larger than what is needed that the courts and juries are messing up. I think the trend is reversing already, anyway. The day of getting millions for relatively minor mistakes is most likely gone. The media has done a good job of reporting the stupidity of some juries, and rightly so.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

I pay 33% in taxes. I have health insurance. I see the doctor I choose when I choose to see him. I don't wait for appointments, or have to get on a list to see a specialist. Canada pays upwards of 48% in taxes.. And thats for a country of only 35,000,000. I just don't believe it would be a viable solution in the US

Well my comparision if you had the time to read was with Sweden. And yes Sweden have much higher taxes then USA because we have a bigger welfare system and because how you measue the taxlevel (see last in post). Also if you had read my old post you would have seen that the diffrence in public funding (taxes) of healthcare between Sweden and USA is:

As percent of GDP + 1,2 % Sweden 7,8 % USA 6,6 %

Then it comes to funding per capita: -289 dollar Sweden 2213 US $ ppp USA 2593 US $ ppp

And at the same time you pay alot more of your own money for healthinsurance and other medical costs in the USA.

You can see for yourself: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,23..._1_1_1,00.html

But you have to count out the numbers yourself, but that is not that hard.

(In USA you give taxreliefs to the lowincome people that make the total tax lower and in Sweden we got more grants to the lowincome that makes total tax higher even if cost and effect are similare of those to actions)

Hope this is ok mods, because really liked to point out the facts from my old post because they are relevant for this thread.

 

[UtahBill]

I fail to see how Universal health care will preclude continued research and development of new drugs. Perhaps someone has a link to support that?

The drug companies are out to make a profit, and will continue to do so, but perhaps part of their future profit can be in the form of lower expenses. Surely all the advertising they are doing could be eliminated. Let the doctors decide which medicine is best for the patient, not the patient based on what they saw on TV.

And if they can charge Americans X amount of dollars, they can charge foreign companies the same. That is another question that needs to be addressed. Why do they sell at lower prices to other countries, if they really want to make the big bucks? Or could it be that other countries have their own drug companies with competing products?

 

[Bergslagstroll]

I like the concept of universal health care, but it would kill initiative to create new medicines. The way Canada and I'm assuming (though I may be wrong) most other countries afford universal health care is price controls on medicine, and thus would kill the amount of profit coming from creating medicine, and thus would at the very least decrease the call to create new medicines.
What strikes me most from this thing is how unfair the whole situation is. Other nations can afford to do universal health care, namely because the large pharmaceudical companies are here, and they can afford all of these other nations having national health care by jacking up the prices here, and so we can't have universal health care because it would stifle innovation, yet we have to pay for England, France, Australia, etc.'s health care. I think we should file a complaint with the WTO.

Well the big problem with the production of new drugs is not that we outside USA get it cheap. No the problems is much bigger even if you look behind the fact that today drugcompanies is more likely to create drugs that help few americans with mild sickness then drugs that could save houndred of thousands of lifes in the developing worlds.

Like for example:
That one asstement is that cost for the ineffeciancy from patent monopolies is as big as the entire cost for developing new drugs.
Another problem is that drugcompanies spend as much on marketing as they spend on developing new drugs.
A third problem is that most of the reachers is going into creating duplicate drugs without any great improvments.

http://www.cepr.net/publications/patents_what_are_the_issues.htm

 

[Calm2Chaos]

six months

Go to 12 months. Reward those that are willing to stick with you, and not those that are just job jumping. Course I don't know what you do so you may have heavy turn over naturally

 

[Calm2Chaos]

Toyota.....the factory in my community does the same thing as ELI Lilly.
Also nurses find work through Nursing staffing agencies with no benefits, because they pay over $30.00 an hour. What would happen if there is a major health crisis? We need raise taxes to decrease premiums.

So your saying that you can't find permenant work. Or they go after the temp work because it pays better?

 

[Calm2Chaos]

The working class have health care benefits? Depends on the definition of "working class." If you mean UAW GM employee, I guess you are right. That won't last long, GM will be in Chapter 11 in 12 months. On the other hand, if you mean a X generation HS graduate earning $10/hr with a family plan premium of 450/mth, me thinks "they" will prosper. I note IL passed a statute yesterday whereby family of 4 pays 140/mth for 2>kids for insurance. Of course, IL will go belly up in 2 yrs cause cannot controll concomitant costs.

Your talking about kids working at Mcdonalds and not a career. If your making 10 bux an hour and trying to raise a family you have a lot more problems then just healthcare.

I still don't see the incentives for me to want to move to universal healthcare? It's going to cost me more money and i am willing to bet reduce the services and quality I already receive

 

[Calm2Chaos]

If we put caps on the amount of money awarded in medical malpractice suits, then doctors, hospitals, etc. will be MUCH more affordable. The reason why they cost so much now is that they have to make up for money lost in these HUGE malpractice suits. If we reform tort law, then the price of doctors and hospitals will go way down.

Of course, if we put caps on the amount juries can award then you can have someone that doesn't get as much money as they need. But I think it is for the overall good and health of society to put caps on the system.

Not to mention the fact that it greatly lessens the impact on the doctor. If they know there is no sever monetary recourse it would seem there is a lot less deterent for screwing up or double checking what happening. Tort reform is needed to a degree. But I think the bigger reform is needed within or court system. Judges need to have the balls to throw out the bullshit cases that flood the courts and sap the medical community. I feel no sorrow for the insurance companies, there whores.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Your talking about kids working at Mcdonalds and not a career. If your making 10 bux an hour and trying to raise a family you have a lot more problems then just healthcare.

I still don't see the incentives for me to want to move to universal healthcare? It's going to cost me more money and i am willing to bet reduce the services and quality I already receive

Well USA has the most expensive health care in the world as I already mention (or atleast more then most countries with public health care) so if your country isn't totally screwed up most people (except the rich) should benefit from it. If you belongs to the rich why complain you will still have a great life (if you know can get that from money).

 

[Calm2Chaos]

Well USA has the most expensive health care in the world as I already mention (or atleast more then most countries with public health care) so if your country isn't totally screwed up most people (except the rich) should benefit from it. If you belongs to the rich why complain you will still have a great life (if you know can get that from money).

So I benefit by paying more and getting less.. Yeppers thats brilliant. Explain to me how exactly I benefit? Your clueless when trying to drive home a point using examples of a few million people when comparing to the most industrialized capitolist countries in the world with a population of almost 300,000,000... What benefits does the comon man see that there not seeing now? I am still waiting for what is in it for the common working guy whos putting in his 40-60 hours a week?