Implications of Mass. Health Insurance Law

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgeeeee the US Bureau of Labor Statistics does a pretty good job.

Good enough that when their numbers are 10-20% off from what people "expect", that its worthwhile to raise or drop the dow 200 points?

Didnt think so.

[Nords]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Outtahere Okay so as I see what Max said about this woman. Hired her as a single healthy person (I'm assuming she was the best candidate for the job) First day of work she shows up, says* she's now pregnant and spotting. Second day of work she doesn't show up because she is now disabled and you have to pay her a years salary to replace her.* Otherwise the rest of your staff will have to pick up the slack for this woman who really never worked a day for you.* If I were the other employees (male or female) I'd be very upset if he didn't do something about her.* *The whole thing smells of scam to me, get hired knowing I'm pregnant and having problems, get said employer to fund the pregnacy.* Now all the good employees that have been there pulling their weight have to do extra?* Yep, I'd be pretty upset. You can bet if someone did that here I'd be calling our lawyer pronto to figure out the least costly way to get rid of her.*

Gosh, how manipulative. Was this woman scheming for a year's salary or just hoping to find a way to pay the hospital bills when she delivered? Instead of seeking a means to support her family, should she stay at home collecting welfare until the kid is old enough for state-subsidized childcare or to be "repossessed" by the govt?

Employees are pretty much at the mercy of the boss when it comes to hiring. They probably didn't get a controlling vote on whether this woman was the best candidate for the job, so it's easy to blame the boss when the hire isn't able to show up and immediately start slaving away being productive. It's easy to criticize a decision that you had no responsibility for. That's human nature.

Presumably a hiring manager would be able to interview enough candidates to feel confident that, no matter what happens tomorrow or in the short term, the employees they hire are the best long-term prospect for the job. If a hiring manager can't arrive at that conclusion then perhaps a part-time or contract hire would've been a better solution. JG was the only manager I knew who was proud of his "hire & fire till I get lucky" system.

But gosh, it's easier to say "My employees would've killed me" than to admit "I didn't try all the other alternatives and I made a bad hire." It might be just a coincidence that Max has a record of misogyny on other discussion boards. Or he might be a crappy hiring manager. But it's easier to blame the scheming, lying, manipulative job candidate who so easily pulled the wool over his eyes and blackmailed him for hush money. And heaven forbid that the business either got temporary help from another division or even rearrange the workload priorities.

But if I was one of the remaining employees, I think I'd be a little nervous about the next time I needed time off for a medical issue. Would I be released & given a year's severance, too? Or would I hope that my employer would understand that this is a temporary problem and support me in my time of need? The company could have supported this woman during her pregnancy-- arguably a temporary issue-- and gained a lifetime of gratitude & hard work from her. Instead they chose to cut her off as quickly as possible, thereby raising their turnover and their employee-hiring costs. There's a reason that Wal-Mart's employee turnover is so high and Costco's is so low, and it has a lot to do with the way the company's management treats their employees-- either as valuable resources or fungible widgets.

Whenever a new guy reported aboard, the rest of the crew would be a little hesitant to invest their time & energy in training & assistance until they could tell whether things would work out. You hated to put all your effort into getting them off to a good start, only to have them turn up with long-lasting medical problems or personal issues. But as a manager you have to expect that this will happen to a certain percentage of your new "hires", and you have to adapt without blaming the consequences on your remaining employees or on some fixed production requirement. If I couldn't do my job for some reason, I knew that I wouldn't be able to blame it on someone's pregnancy.

[Outtahere]

So there's no one out there that wouldn't try something like that? get real. People pull that kind of "manipulation" everyday, it's called playing the system whether it's a goverment program like welfare or an employer trying to run a business.

[cute fuzzy bunny]

In Maxies case, I'd probably go with the incompetence/misogyny as its the most likely culprit.

[youbet]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Outtahere Hired her as a single healthy person (I'm assuming she was the best candidate for the job)

Maritial and pregnancy status are not one of the things we are allowed to ask about when making hiring decisions here in the USA. *If you denied a person employment based on being single or married or being pregnant or not pregnant, you might just be sticking your chin out for a little knuckle sandwich from the EEOC.

However, I haven't hired anyone in over two years (we're laying off ), so perhaps my memory of that is not correct.

[Nords]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Outtahere So there's no one out there that wouldn't try something like that? get real.* *People pull that kind of "manipulation" everyday, it's called playing the system whether it's a goverment program like welfare or an employer trying to run a business.*

Luckily they seem to gravitate toward hiring managers like Max.

He was the one offering the full-time job with the benefits. *If he'd been even a little concerned about the employee he could've gone with a temp, a part-time contract, or even a realignment/elimination of the vacancy's responsibilities. *Let's not ignore the fact that his hiring decision cost the company far more money than the employee would have cost them in medical-insurance premiums.

But it's much easier to blame the employee.

[youbet]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cute Fuzzy Bunny In Maxies case, I'd probably go with the incompetence/misogyny as its the most likely culprit.

Suddenly, I feel enlightened.*

[Outtahere]

Setting aside who had the job opening and who (Max) did the hiring it's pretty hard not to be suspicious given the facts as he presented them. You can be a top notch hiring manager and still one or two will get past you and once they are hired it does cost the company time and money to deal with the fallout. Hiring today is like walking a minefield blindfolded and every mine you step on costs the company (me) money.

[samclem]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maximillion samclem, your own Country's Statistics show a growing Wealthy Class a Growing Poor Class, a Shrinking Middle Class.

First, it may be misleading to speak of "classes" in the US. While there are people who are weaalthy, poor, and comfortabe at any particular time, this is by no means a static situation-people move up and down the scale at a fairly rapid clip. IMO, this is a sign of a healthy system.

Second, since there's no authoritative definition of these "classes" in the US, anything concerning their relative sizes and rates of growth/shrinkage has scant meaning. It sounds like campaign lingo to me--it only takes a second to check . . ..

I'm back.

I didn't do an extensive research pull, but did find this: http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/b...ancesurvey.pdf
*******************************
"The Federal Reserve Board’s Survey of Consumer Finances for 2004 provides insights into changes in
family income and net worth since the 2001 survey. The survey shows that, over the 2001–04 period, the median value of real (inflation-adjusted) family income before taxes continued to trend up, rising
1.6 percent, whereas the mean value fell 2.3 percent. Patterns of change were mixed across demographic groups."
***********************************

A rising median income and a falling mean income is inconsistent with a scenario of the poor getting poorer--it is not happening (at least it wasn't between 2001 and 2004, the most current figures I found)

[JB]

The MA law is misdirected because it puts the burden on companies to provide insurance (or pay a penalty). The law reinforces a model where the states regulate heath insurance and companies' pay for it through group plans.

imo we should:
-regulate at the fed level so that people can purchase insurance and get heath care services in any state. I think there was a bill proposed by some house republicans to do this.
-abandon the group insurance model and decouple health insurance from employment.
-expand medicare so that everyone is covered for basic services.

[Brat]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JB imo we should: -regulate at the fed level so that people can purchase insurance and get heath care services in any state.* I think there was a bill proposed by some house republicans to do this. -abandon the group insurance model and decouple health insurance from employment. -expand medicare so that everyone is covered for basic services.

Won't argue with the basics of your point of view but must we wait for the fed to act to do something

[sgeeeee]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cute Fuzzy Bunny Good enough that when their numbers are 10-20% off from what people "expect", that its worthwhile to raise or drop the dow 200 points? Didnt think so.

But that doesn't make the numbers bull#@t. It makes the response to the numbers irrational.

[Maximillion]

nords et al, there are No Health bills, what she got was a salary to stay home.

She would then receive up to a Years income when the Baby was delivered as this is our maternity/paternity programme.

I ignore the snide comments because as someone who occupide the office on the top floor, that is something that you learn to deal with, but my point for those with open minds is that because you encounter a person who abuses the system, do not blame them all and then discriminate.i

I noticed another thread dealing with the Race Card, hopefully the person treated this as an isolated incident.

Oh nords, you don't like my communication skills, well all my Secretaries dont' work for me anymore, they were the ones responsible for dumbing down my communications and checking spelling etc etc.

Me, I got paid very well to, produce results.

[cute fuzzy bunny]

I guess we can split that hair all day. In my opinion, a number thats taken very seriously that incoporates some estimation/invention/extrapolation that can cause major market movements if its off by a degree thats well within the error range of the extrapolation...is bullshit.

The number is bullshit, and the response is rational because most people dont know the number is bullshit. If everyone knew that a portion of the number was invented, and still took it seriously as anything other than a broad indicator...that'd be irrational.

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Hey maxie...according to your photo your dog is carrying your big red dildo around. Better grab it before it gets teeth marks in it.

Bet, you're Longing for the good Old days when one of The girls kept track of, it...for you;.!

[samclem]

MA governor Mitt Romney explains the genesis of the plan and it's major features. Not hard core analysis of cause and effect, and it does gloss over some issues, but it gives a good overview of the approach they took in crafting it.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110008213

[lets-retire]

With private insurance finally affordable, I proposed that everyone must either purchase a product of their choice or demonstrate that they can pay for their own health care. It's a personal responsibility principle.


I can see it now. Two inmates sitting side by side.
Inmate #1: "What are you in for?"
Inmate #2: "They say I killed someone. You?"
Inmate #1: "They say I don't have health insurance."

[JB]

Quote:

Originally Posted by samclem MA governor Mitt Romney explains the genesis of the plan and it's major features. Not hard core analysis of cause and effect, and it does gloss over some issues, but it gives a good overview of the approach they took in crafting it. http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110008213

Much of this seems OK... like making it easy for people to sign up for Medicaid. However, the more people that get signed up, the more expensive that program gets.

Here's my favorite part: "The solution we came up with was to make private health insurance much more affordable. Insurance reforms now permit policies with higher deductibles, higher copayments, coinsurance, provider networks and fewer mandated benefits like in vitro fertilization--and our insurers have committed to offer products nearly 50% less expensive ."

Then there's the magic of using a money that's funded by assessments on insurance companies and hospitals (plus some fed and state money), and instead of giving it back to those who provided free care, use it as a subsidy.

These are tweaks to the current system and will probably help some poor people get insurance.

[tryan]

Quote:

our insurers have committed to offer products nearly 50% less expensive

Wow ... MA might actually compete with nieghboring states.

As I said earlier ... COBRA when I FIRE'd last year in MA was $1054/mo for a family of 4. NH BC/BS family of 4 ..... $580/mo.

[samclem]

An interesting philosphical point--how did it get to te point that the government would be considering making mandatory that everybody buy a particular service (health insurance)? Is there anything else that the government makes everybody purchase?

- I guess the reasoning is this: The government or others (the insured, hospitals, etc) bear the burden when uninsured folks are provided medical care and don't/can't pay for it. Since this hurts everyone in these groups, we won't allow people not to have insurance.

-- Should an individual be allowed to go without insurance if he/she understands he/she will receive no free/subsidized health care? This is simlar to the laws concerning motorcycle helmets and car seatbelts --if the individual waives the right to subsidized health care in an accident, should they be free to ride around without a seat belt or helmet (regardless of the stupidity of it)?