Senator Wyden's "health care plan for all Americans"

[donheff]

Quote from: mykidslovedogs on December 17, 2006, 11:37:00 PM
. . .By the way, I think it's better to annuitize than to pay off your mortgage.....

Well, that does it. I was reading your posts but if that's the way you feel, then you have no credibility. You probably waste dryer sheets too, don't you.

OMG another take on the annuity argument. I have to pursue this one. I have some fixed income assets sitting around waiting to pay off the primary mortgage when DW retires. I never thought of using a fixed SPIA to cover it instead - thereby getting the tax break and the offset in expenses.

Does the math really work MKLD?

 

[lets-retire]

Don't just stay with what you know - join in some other threads.

Yeah most people on here talk about stuff they know nothing about.

 

[mykidslovedogs]

I'm not an investments specialst so you're asking the wrong person. I'm just your average, everyday investor just like anyone else. My career is in the health insurance industry, not in in investment and financial advising industry. If you want to talk finances, you need to talk with my husband, and business partner. He's the one who is Series 6 licensed.

 

[mykidslovedogs]

Are you sure you read Wyden's plan? This is not how it works. Employers pay a charge based upon their revenues and the number of FTE jobs. This charge is pretty small for small employers. See the Lewin report.

There's one more thing I wanted to go over with you, but I was too sleepy last night to get into it...
It seems like the HAA model assumes that the cost of brokers is tangible. Basically, they assume that all commission money is just basically wasted money, so if they eliminate that cost, all the better for Americans, right? However many people really don't understand what brokers do. We don't just simply make a sale, collect our commisison and then sit back and do nothing. We are extremely actively involved in administrative tasks such as taking care of enrollments, terminations, and billing and claim issues. In fact, we act as a surrogate HR department for many of our small employers that we do business with.

My shop employes four people, including myself and my husband. Two of our employees do nothing but service work and administrative tasks. The HAA model does not take into account that the goverment is going to have to pick up on all of those costs. Sure, it says that the goverment will now be the ones doing all enrollments, but I think they are underestimating the costs of keeping track of enrollments, explaining people's coverage to them, etc...as well as keeping track of terminations, sending people their letters of termination and notifications, making sure it is all done properly, etc....not to mention helping out with claims issues. Often times, we prevent the insurance company from having to deal with confused people who don't understand how a claim was paid, and we totally take that burden off of the insurance companies, and we eat that cost as part of our cost of doing business.

Also, Brokers are among the top wage earners in the country. We are some of the few making more than $50,000/year (remember? the one's who subsidize your low income folks?). My shop grosses about $200,000/yr, and after paying our employees and expenses, our family income is around $75,000. If you take away our jobs, you not only force thousands of brokers into unemployment, but also all of their employees as well.

You also create unemployment for all of the sales staff and underwriters at all of the insurance companies. There will be no need for them because of guarantee issue of all coverage. This model does not seem to take into consideration the impact of the unemployment it is going to create.

 

[REWahoo]

Mykids,

I suspect the fact that you and your employees might have to find other work does not generate much sympathy from the hundreds of thousands of workers who have lost their jobs to overseas workers in IT, manufacturing or other industries.

Change is constant and all who fail to adapt to it are setting themselves up for an unpleasant future.

 

[mykidslovedogs]

Mykids,

I suspect the fact that you and your employees might have to find other work does not generate much sympathy from the hundreds of thousands of workers who have lost their jobs to overseas workers in IT, manufacturing or other industries.

Change is constant and all who fail to adapt to it are setting themselves up for an unpleasant future.

Yes, but if you take away the jobs of the TOP wage earners, who is going to subsidize the poor. Remember, the top wage earners are in the minority, so if you take a huge chunk of them, and make them unemployed, who is going to subsidize the poor?

 

[Martha]

Mykids, I feel like I need to take a break from the topic for a while. I do agree with you, and I said that in a prior post, that some people will pay more under the proposed plan. However, it may be a fair tradeoff. We would get universal coverage that lasts for life and is not tied to whether you are working and at what job. If we are not successful at enacting a single payer plan, I would lean toward a plan like Wyden's. If we are not successful at enacting a plan like Wyden's, then maybe we have to have a band aid approach with a national risk pool and sliding fee plans subsidized by the government. But that won't reduce the high admin costs we pay in the US.

I know that you favor HSAs. I like them too for healthy people who are at least middle class who can build up their accounts. But, results have been mixed. Nearly 50% of HSA accounts have not been funded. Those that are funded on average only have $500 in them. I linked to some information on HSAs above. The Kaiser family foundation has also published information on how HSAs do not work for the low income.

In any event, I am taking a break on the topic for the time being.