A different view on government run health care
@thegreatdebater (7316)
United States
November 13, 2009 6:15pm CST
Some of you know that I am salesman, and I talk to many small business, and medium size business owners in the Great Lakes area. I was out with my boss yesterday talking to some of our customers, and my boss (who just got word this week that our health insurance was going up 37%) wanted to meet some customers, but also see what their health insurance increases were looking like. My boss is also a far right wing republican who hates Obama with a passion. We made 15 calls yesterday, and talked to 5 owners who shared with us their own health care stories (the increases varied from 25% to 68%). One of the interesting things was when one of our customers showed us a trade publican that actually promoted the government health care. It gave examples of the fines that companies would have to pay to opt out of offering their employees health care. The customer that showed us this said that his company would save $47,500 a year by paying this fine. He said that he changed his mind on this when he was reading this article which stated that it would save the average waste management company $20,000 a year.
If this health care bill would save your employer money and give you simular coverage, would you approve of it?
1 person likes this
3 responses
@sierras236 (2739)
• United States
14 Nov 09
Two problems with your argument. First, is there is no stated (i.e. written) guarantee that an employee's health care will be similar to what they have now. Second, instead of sharing the health care costs as in most plans, the burden would be placed only on the employee. Thus, the potential exists for the employee to pay more out of pocket costs. Giving them less take home pay. (There is also no guarantee that the government premiums will be any cheaper that what exists now.)
Another thing to consider is what is going to happen with taxes. Canada and England have tax rates of over 40% and in some cases over 50%. Add in the state taxes and you are looking at far less profit even with the savings in health care and just paying the fine figured in. I think New York is headed toward 50% and California is not far behind.
1 person likes this
@sierras236 (2739)
• United States
14 Nov 09
First of all, higher taxes affect the price of everything from how much rent costs to operating costs to running the lights. Right now, states are raising property taxes, which means paying more in rent for the small business owner. That is just the tip of the iceberg of costs increases that are either happening now or are coming down the line. With all the spending the government is doing, is not a matter of if taxes go, it is a matter of when and how much.
The Government is the number one waster of money. It also has the most rampant fraud in the Medicaid and Medicare systems. Yet, absolutely nothing is being done to combat this particular problem. So, to think that the government can deal with future fraud is laughable at best. In the private industry, there is at least an incentive to reduce fraud.
Sure some people are sticking around, but there is currently a mass exodus happening in the states of New York and California. It is funny that you mentioned Rush because he left the state of New York because the taxes were to high. More enterprising business owners are moving their operations to cheaper states. Is it any wonder that California has one of the highest unemployment rates in the country or that the Democratic incumbent in New Jersey got voted out because he raised property taxes?
The small business owner must take into consideration all costs associated to the business not just one. So while he maybe be able to cut the cost of health care out of his budget, he still has to figure in the rising cost of doing business. Of course, this is where the math gets a little fuzzy because there aren't any concrete numbers yet and every business is different. Looking at the overall picture, the real question would have to be would the savings in health care be more, less, or equal to the rising costs of everything else?
Not everyone can afford a really good accountant to find the loopholes or the tax credits in the system. In fact, the people who really can't afford the expenditure, the small business owners, may be getting shafted on this.
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
14 Nov 09
"Is it any wonder that California has one of the highest unemployment rates in the country or that the Democratic incumbent in New Jersey got voted out because he raised property taxes?"
My brother has lived in New Jersey for years and the way he tells it is the property taxes went way up when a REPUBLICAN Governor bragged about cutting state income taxes but failed to tell the "rest of the story".
Annie
1 person likes this
@thegreatdebater (7316)
• United States
15 Nov 09
"First of all, higher taxes affect the price of everything from how much rent costs to operating costs to running the lights. Right now, states are raising property taxes, which means paying more in rent for the small business owner. That is just the tip of the iceberg of costs increases that are either happening now or are coming down the line. With all the spending the government is doing, is not a matter of if taxes go, it is a matter of when and how much."
Sierras, do you really understand taxes? When it comes to property taxes, the tax is assesed by the value of the property, so if the value goes down, then the tax amount goes down.
This is part of the stupidity of the republican party. They want to lower taxes on businesses, so they will hire more. The problem with that THEORY is you have to make a profit to pay taxes, and very few companies are making a profit so very few are actually paying taxes.
"The Government is the number one waster of money. It also has the most rampant fraud in the Medicaid and Medicare systems. Yet, absolutely nothing is being done to combat this particular problem. So, to think that the government can deal with future fraud is laughable at best. In the private industry, there is at least an incentive to reduce fraud."
There is alot of fraud in the system, but the problem isn't the system it is the punishment for the fraud. You will get more time for stealing from a 7/11 than stealing from Medicare or Medicaid. There was a story on 60 minutes about about a guy who committed fraud and only got 7 years in jail for it. If you increase the punishment, then you will decrease the fraud.
"Sure some people are sticking around, but there is currently a mass exodus happening in the states of New York and California. It is funny that you mentioned Rush because he left the state of New York because the taxes were to high. More enterprising business owners are moving their operations to cheaper states. Is it any wonder that California has one of the highest unemployment rates in the country or that the Democratic incumbent in New Jersey got voted out because he raised property taxes?"
Sorry Sierras, but I am sure that Rush left New York for Florida because of their divorce laws (the most lax in the country, and Rush LOVES the "babs"). When it comes to taxes we all knew that the spending during the Bush years was going to have to be paid for. It makes me laugh so much when I hear republicans blaming Obama for the bail out of the banks, when Bush was the one that pushed this plan.
"The small business owner must take into consideration all costs associated to the business not just one. So while he maybe be able to cut the cost of health care out of his budget, he still has to figure in the rising cost of doing business. Of course, this is where the math gets a little fuzzy because there aren't any concrete numbers yet and every business is different. Looking at the overall picture, the real question would have to be would the savings in health care be more, less, or equal to the rising costs of everything else?"
I have some simple math for you Sierras: The increase in medical coverage this year will be $12,479 this next year, and the over all savings from the government plan would be $38,942 according to his accountant. Even my five year old can see that it would be in his best interest to go with the government plan.
"Not everyone can afford a really good accountant to find the loopholes or the tax credits in the system. In fact, the people who really can't afford the expenditure, the small business owners, may be getting shafted on this"
How many small business owners do you deal with everyday? I deal with atleast 5, and I can tell you right now that most of them talk to their accountant often, and they are one of their highest expenditure, but their most effective.
1 person likes this
@Koriana (302)
• United States
15 Nov 09
it sounds like you are just shuffling the money around.....this time, let's shift the bulk of it to the employees and taxpayers. don't think it's gonna do any good, since the main crutch of the problem is that the healthcare is just too overpriced....we, the people, we the businesses, we the taxpayers...just can't afford it, it won't matter how you shift it around!!!
the actual costs of it has to come down....
and most of that cost is coming from the admistration branches of these giant corporate insurance companies and healthcare providers that really do little to actually serve the patients, they are just shuffling things around also.
1 person likes this
@thegreatdebater (7316)
• United States
15 Nov 09
You are correct about shifting the cost, but that is what corporations are competing against globally. Companies around the world don't have to pay for their health care, it is picked up by the government. To put it in context: Take GM or GE, both pay over $1 Billion for health care every year. Do you think that that money could help keep them in business?
I agree that health care is way to expensive, but there are a lot of reason for that. One is competition, in many states there is only ONE insurance company, and in other states the insurance companies write the laws for insurance and cook them so that their company is the only one they can use. But, competition isn't the only problem, the state with the most competition has the low number of people who have insurance. I agree that health insurance companies are useless, and I agree that we need to change health care in this country.
@Koriana (302)
• United States
16 Nov 09
okay, the gov't pays for our overpriced healthcare system relieving the businesses of that burden. so, well, the gov't gets the money to pay for this through taxation, from individuals and businesses. only now, it costs even more because we are paying a bunch of gov't employess to run the gov't program. the individuals, because they are facing a higher tax rate, need higher wages, the businesses, faced with higher wages and taxes, need higher prices for their goods and services, which leads to the people and businesses buying the goods and services needing higher wages......
it's just the money suffle...the cost has to go down!!!
the insurance industry, quite frankly is like a giant tapeworm that has attached itself to the healthcare industry, sucking in more and more cash for the priveledge of playing the middle man between the patient and the doctor, same with the gov't involvement.
@MysticTomatoes (1053)
• United States
17 Mar 10
Agreeing with the first poster - "government" run healthcare is a cluster eff as it is. Look at the system Canada and England have in place. They pay taxes out the wazoo every day and their healthcare sucks. They have to wait months for procedures and appointments that are not deemed emergency. Their wait times in their EDs aren't any better than ours.
If large companys can pay a fine of $50K a year to get out from under having to pay millions in health care costs, they are all going to dump health care plans like hot potatoes, leaving the workers like us out in the cold.