How can small business owners argue with numbers like this:
Mike Rayome, human resources director for Graphic Packaging in Wausau, said the plan would save his company $4.4 million a year on health coverage for its 800 employees in Wisconsin.
He encouraged businesses across the state to run the numbers to see how the plan would affect their costs. “I was just shocked,” he said, adding, “You have to consider what’s best for the state of Wisconsin and put partisan politics aside.”
I live in the Washington Heights neighborhood of Milwaukee, WI with my wife Jen, our daughter Emerson, and sons Carter and Colton.
I'm the President of The Park People of Milwaukee County, President-elect of the Washington Heights Neighborhood Association, an elected official of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin, a union leader, community organizer and transit advocate who is working to make Milwaukee great again. I've been writing this weblog for nearly ten years ... read more...
That sounds like socialist BS to me!!!
I’d rather pay higher more for health insurance than let the government run it, and a lot of my friends and other biz owners agree with me!
Thanks for your comment and pointing out how some people like yourself oppose something like this for reasons that lie outside the realm of reason and common sense.
If as a business owner, you’d rather pay more for health insurance coverage instead of doing anything proactive about controlling those costs, you won’t need Democrats or the government to make it happen. Chances are it is going to happen when you re-negotiate terms of your insurance coverage with your provider in the next year, no government intervention required.
I like how you dismiss opposing viewpoints as ” [lying] outside the realm of reason and common sense.”
Nice.
Well when the entire argument of the “viewpoint” rests on “sounds like socialist BS to me!”, then yes, I’m going to say that is outside the realm of common sense.
Was hoping to hear what you throught of the plan actually.
His/her point was this …
“I’d rather pay higher more for health insurance than let the government run it”
Not wanting government intervention sounds outside the realm of common sense?!
Was hoping to hear what you throught of the plan actually
Eh.. you probably don’t, but I’ll tell you anyway. :P
Bad because …
1) We will eliminate competition between insurers by having a government “insurance agency” administered by the government.
2) Eliminate incentive for medical practice. Government will set rates for treatments, etc.
3) Covers everybody regardless of age, sex, … weight, laziness, smoker, etc. It will not punish people for living an unhealthy lifestyle.
4) How do we pay for it?? Oh yeah, payroll tax. Good idea, add another tax. Well, we will never be able to fund it fully, but that’s another story (ie increase taxes or decrease coverage).
5) Less choice .. I would have to join an HMO without a PPO option
6) Tax money will go from paying for health care to paying the cost of controlling the cost of health care as new government agencies will be created
7) Government decides what is covered .. so politicians would decide, some based solely on morality, what procedures will be paid for. Think about that little nugget.
8) Government MANDATED. Mandated, Dan … all employers and residents would be required to participate. Unreal that you would think that is a good idea.
You have to realize that “mandated” health care would lower the overall cost of what this state, and you as a tax payer, pay for. Huge amounts of money are spent every year on treating people who let preventible problems turn into chronic ones. I know that you know that preventive care is the best and most efficient way to keep people healthy. And of course I think it’s a good idea that everyone get’s the health care they deserve regardless of socio-economic status! I’m surprised that you’d think otherwise for as long as we’ve known eachother :) And frankly, it’s just the “right” thing to do morally to make sure people are taken care of.
On point 7, it would not be politicians, but more than likely a non partisan committee just like there exsits now for state employees.
6: There already exist government agencies that do exactly what needs to be done. They’d have to be up-staffed, yes, but the overall cost savings is enormous compared to the additional costs.
5: Not true. I have the option for a PPO myself. I also have the choice of three “tiers” of coverage that are suited to different people and price points. The third tier option is a PPO for state employees. The cost is higher naturally, but you can choose whatever doctor you want whereever you want – something that’s also included in the Democratic plan through the same tiering system IIRC.
4: This relates to 8, and yes it would be a tax. But take a look at the post from yesterday about the company with 800 employees that would save millions of dollars per year. Plus no more administrating plans every year, negotiating terms, or any of the headaches that go with it.
3. I know where you’re coming from on this, but people already make those choices and end up in the public health system (usually because they’re uninsured or undersinured) anyways where the cost is much much higher than if they were in a group plan already.
2. This one is complicated, but just remember that this isn’t a health care system like what Europe has.
1. Frankly, what has competition between insurers done in the past 15 years to begin with?? Oh, that’s right – double digit premium increases on a yearly basis with lower benefits. Markets have their places and the health insurance industry isn’t one of them.
On point 7, it would not be politicians, but more than likely a non partisan committee just like there exists now for state employees.
Just like the “non-partisan” elections board. Maybe this time, there would be five Republicans, two Democrats and one independent who would deem abortion a non-coverable procedure. Seem like a good idea to you?
Look – this issue is too complicated to talk about on this comments section. I find myself typing too much and trying to explain too much background.
It is a complicated issue, agreed. But as I’ve said in previous posts and comments, there is already a process for how this is handled for state employees that works very well.