This might be a good thing even though it is completely unexpected. I have been an advocate of individual health plans over employer sponsored for years. Maybe the law of unintended consequences will work in our favor for a change.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.../articles/227797.php

quote One Third Of Employers Will Drop Health Insurance In 2014, McKinsey Quarterly 07 Jun 2011 When the US health care reform legislation comes into full force in 2014, about one third of employers will definitely or probably stop offering health insurance coverage to their workers, consulting company McKinsey wrote in a study involving over 1,300 companies from various industries and sizes. The report authors believe that move the away from employer-provided health insurance will be considerably greater than politicians had envisaged. They predict a massive restructuring of health benefits sponsored by employers. More than half of all companies that are very well informed about the health reform law are expected to do away with health coverage for their employees, the report explained. These figures contrast with a Congressional Budget Office estimate of approximately 7% of current employees who have employer-sponsored health plans needing to switch over to subsidized-exchange policies. Even if employers compensated the employees who lost their health coverage with more pay or some other benefits, companies will find that they would still be better off financially, the report revealed. Although employers fear their workers will leave if they lose their employer-sponsored health coverage benefits, MicKinsey believes they will still stay. According to this new study, over 85% would stay. In this rapidly changing environment, the authors stress, companies have to rapidly evaluate the implications of health care reform on their benefit and workforce strategies. They have to accurately estimate what risks and opportunities are brought about by reform. The authors wrote: "US health care reform sets in motion the largest change in employer-provided health benefits in the post-World War II era." Some industries are constrained by collective-bargaining agreements and other factors. However, the majority will seek out value-creating options between two extremes - making no alterations to the current health coverage offerings and dropping them completely. Increasing the number of part-time workers - rather than completely dropping ESI (employer-sponsored insurance), companies may choose to cover just part of their labor-force, without violating the reform which does not allow them to discriminate according to employee income. They could take on more part-time workers - these people do not have to have health insurance coverage. Written by Christian Nordqvist Copyright: Medical News Today

Is it not true that under Obamacare, companies over 50 in size will be required to provide health insurance?

quote Originally posted by 1985FieroGT: Is it not true that under Obamacare, companies over 50 in size will be required to provide health insurance?

Or are they getting one of Obama's waivers? Sounds like special treatment from the liberals again....

.

[This message has been edited by Pyrthian (edited 06-08-2011).]

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: no doubt. the insurance based system is stupid, and needs to be allowed to collapse. stop making it OK to be a fat diabetic allergic weenie. make people pay for THEIR OWN health. and buying insurance does NOT do that. once people actually pay for their health - I would expect most health care costs will drop. ALOT. even today, if you go to the doctor, and say you got no coverage - you suddenly get much lower costs. funny how that works.

And God is the older population over medicated!
I know at least a dozen 60ish folks who are taking a dozen or more meds per day.

Probably the one single thing that can be done to fix our medical system is to legally allow hospitals and care providers (including ambulances and mobile trauma centers) to turn away people who can't pay. That was the case for the first century and a half of this country. Another good thing would be to eliminate taxpayer-funded public hospitals. Hospitals should be corporations run for profit for their shareholders, not taxpayer-funded indigent care centers. Make medical debt non-dischargeable through bankruptcy, like student debt is now, and people will start being more responsible about seeking care and taking care of themselves. If you can't pay, you can't play.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: Probably the one single thing that can be done to fix our medical system is to legally allow hospitals and care providers (including ambulances and mobile trauma centers) to turn away people who can't pay. That was the case for the first century and a half of this country. Another good thing would be to eliminate taxpayer-funded public hospitals. Hospitals should be corporations run for profit for their shareholders, not taxpayer-funded indigent care centers. Make medical debt non-dischargeable through bankruptcy, like student debt is now, and people will start being more responsible about seeking care and taking care of themselves. If you can't pay, you can't play.

Liberals tend to believe in evolution, right? It stands to reason that you would also believe the weak should die to contribute to strengthening the species.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: Probably the one single thing that can be done to fix our medical system is to legally allow hospitals and care providers (including ambulances and mobile trauma centers) to turn away people who can't pay. That was the case for the first century and a half of this country. Another good thing would be to eliminate taxpayer-funded public hospitals. Hospitals should be corporations run for profit for their shareholders, not taxpayer-funded indigent care centers. Make medical debt non-dischargeable through bankruptcy, like student debt is now, and people will start being more responsible about seeking care and taking care of themselves. If you can't pay, you can't play.

I had a wart removed when I was 20.. it was $25 bucks. Now I am 35, and the same procedure is over 3 times as much cost to me.

So when your plan goes into effect, will then Doctors and Hospitals can finally return their rates to something affordable as well? Instead of quadruple what it used to cost?.. First you will have to get most of them to stop bitching about malpractice insurance costs.. good luck on that. They'd keep prices high even if every patient paid in full and on time. Will they get to keep skyrocketing costs on top of the fact that they can now (under your plan) refuse service to those who immediately cant afford it? How would your plan remedy this?

I have insurance and I STILL can't afford a medical procedure I need.. I guess I should just get busy and die from complications of it and not burden the poor medical community with my low-earning power and its consequences of possible debt. Personally, I am considering dropping the $300/month coverage and just take my chances, it does me no good anyways unless I get cancer or into a major car wreck.. otherwise I pay for all procedures under $2500 each year completely out of pocket. I have been sick and hurt plenty of times, and the money comes out of my pocket not from my useless policy. If I had not paid into it, I could be over $20,000 richer right now since 2003, of which I have been to the doctor 6 times for sinus infections and two skin problems in that period and it would have cost me $480 total out of pocket at the most with no insurance.

How about a partial insurance refund for those who dont use it, like auto policiy "good driver" discounts? I think that can help bridge the gap.. but honestly, until you include how insurance effects the costs and patients, respectfully, I dont believe you have not examined the problem from all angles or thoughtfully enough.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Liberals tend to believe in evolution, right? It stands to reason that you would also believe the weak should die to contribute to strengthening the species.

Scientists tend to believe that the Theory of Evolution as proposed by Darwin and as supported by tens of thousands of peer-reviewed scientific papers over several centuries is the best theory going at the moment. Are all scientists liberals? That's funny, and not very likely, because it means that all conservatives are anti-science. As to the second part of your statement, that's just your opinion based on your skewed understand of everything outside your head (and most everything inside it too, IMHO. )

[This message has been edited by JazzMan (edited 06-10-2011).]