Welcome to ASFN Fan Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
I tuned in about 13 minutes late because I was on a call at work, but I will say that I was impressed from what I heard. I particularly like the idea behind the health care tax breaks, though I don't think $7500 is quite enough - it should be $12.5K - $15K for families and probably $9K for individuals. Ideally, a family with insurance would not be taxed on their first $37K, or so.
There already is a tax break for health care of sorts. The Medical Savings Plan where you buy a policy with a large deductible, enroll in a plan and can then deposit 1/12th of your annual deductible into the plan per month tax free. You take the money out to pay your deductible if needed. This works really well for those who do not spend much on health care.
We need more innovative ideas like these to help people. But more than anything somebody needs to address the skyrocketing costs of health care before nobody outside of the 30% tax bracket can afford it.
__________________
5-11 with 'em. 5-11 without 'em.
We need more innovative ideas like these to help people. But more than anything somebody needs to address the skyrocketing costs of health care before nobody outside of the 30% tax bracket can afford it.
Agreed. HSAs are okay, but I think we need to have a mechanism in place that morereadily meets the needs of our "instant gratification" society. Costs need to tangibly come down for the consumer somehow. Its the "somehow" that I struggle with.
__________________ America cannot have an empire abroad and a Republic at home.
Agreed. HSAs are okay, but I think we need to have a mechanism in place that morereadily meets the needs of our "instant gratification" society. Costs need to tangibly come down for the consumer somehow. Its the "somehow" that I struggle with.
Without a doubt. Controlling costs in health care is really tough. The Doctors lobby is very strong and if an insurance carrier or employer tries to implent policies to hold down costs they're accused of being callous "grave robbers". When you are seriously ill or injured shopping around for the best price is not going to be a top priority and of course there is the problem of how to make sure that everyone has access to the best available health care no matter their economic situation.
Another problem with National Health Insurance is that health insurance is a benefit used by employers to help retain quality employees. How do you protect that if you go to a National plan or force all employers to offer the same coverage?
__________________
5-11 with 'em. 5-11 without 'em.
Another problem with National Health Insurance is that health insurance is a benefit used by employers to help retain quality employees. How do you protect that if you go to a National plan or force all employers to offer the same coverage?
I don't see that as being too much of a hurdle. There are lots of creative benefits a company can offer...child care, health-club memberships, education (non-traditional/non-job related; ie guitar lessons or painting), etc...
Those dollars spent on healtch care can just be shifted to other employee retention/attraction packages.
__________________ America cannot have an empire abroad and a Republic at home.
I don't see that as being too much of a hurdle. There are lots of creative benefits a company can offer...child care, health-club memberships, education (non-traditional/non-job related; ie guitar lessons or painting), etc...
Those dollars spent on healtch care can just be shifted to other employee retention/attraction packages.
Yes, but it is harder to find a benefit that fits everyone and where you can outperform your competitors like with health care.
__________________
5-11 with 'em. 5-11 without 'em.
Yes, but it is harder to find a benefit that fits everyone and where you can outperform your competitors like with health care.
Well, it's harder in the sense that you need to think out of the box and it's not a system already in place.
During the tech boom I worked at a high-tech PR agency that offered what they called a "live long and prosper" bene package. You had great health care coverage, and annual dollars to spend on fitness, outdoor activities and relaxation. You could put the money towards vacation, gym memberships...really anything you could rationalize as fitting into the categories.
They did that bacause technology PR hacks were in in high demand--they did it to retain and attract employees (...then the bubble burst and they became slave-drivers, but that's another story).
My point being, companies will just have to think outside the box. It doesn't have to be a "one-size fits all" if you offer flexibility to the employees as to how the money is spent.
__________________ America cannot have an empire abroad and a Republic at home.
My point being, companies will just have to think outside the box. It doesn't have to be a "one-size fits all" if you offer flexibility to the employees as to how the money is spent.
I think that works ok with better educated employees but those things aren't of major importance for many blue collar workers. In construction which is my area employees are only interested in three things, more money per hour, a company truck, and their health insurance.
But thinking outside the box maybe deer leases and company bass boats would be a good idea.
__________________
5-11 with 'em. 5-11 without 'em.
If it were that simple there never would have been any group health plans used as employee benefits.
The original concept was that by using volume purchasing of groups employers could provide coverage for ee's at less cost and enroll some individuals, who for health reasons, could not qualify for coverage on their own. So the benefit to employees was greater than an equivilant increase in pay.
I would imagine that with the implementation of a National plan the increase in taxes on businesses to pay for the NP would leave many employers without the money to give ee's a pay increase equal to what they had been spending on health insurance.
Without those funds employers will really have to get creative to make up the lost impact on employee retention. One way could be to increase paid time off, if you could figure out how to offset the lost production, which many Americans are starting to value more than a pay raise. That works really well for my business because technology has drastically increased the productivity of my ee's.
One thing that will probably happen with a National Plan in place is that larger private companies would begin to offer supplements to the NP and employers could use that as an incentive to retain employees. Similar to the "Medicare Supplements" that are offered now.
I still like deer leases and company bass boats best though.
__________________
5-11 with 'em. 5-11 without 'em.
I tuned in about 13 minutes late because I was on a call at work, but I will say that I was impressed from what I heard. I particularly like the idea behind the health care tax breaks, though I don't think $7500 is quite enough - it should be $12.5K - $15K for families and probably $9K for individuals. Ideally, a family with insurance would not be taxed on their first $37K, or so. <--This idea was completely forgotten about.
He did make an effort to reach across the aisle, but I wonder how much of this is lip service. I hope his idea of bi-partisanship isn't the Dem Congress making all the concessions and compromises to the WH. That is what history suggests, but hopefully he does wish to mend fences. <--EXACTLY as I predicted! Who's gonna gve me credit on this?
One thing I will note is that this speech would have been more relevant if the past 6 years of Congress were Dems and the incoming Congress were Reps. Why? Because of all the things he cited with what has been wrong with the budget and earmarks and all other kinds of things. It's not like he was too hamstrung over the past 6 years to push the initiatives he outlined tonight. He has had carte blanche and he could have gotten whatever he wanted through Congress all this time. <--Another spot on truthitude.
When he spoke about spending people's money wisely and the Federal Government's thirst for spending (or however he termed it), I almost swallowed my tongue! It's HIS spending that got us where we are yet he did not acknowledge that nor apologize for it. <--Another idea ignored.
I appreciate the acknowledgement of global climate change and the need to reduce our dependency on foreign oil. His reasons for the need to reduce that dependency were spot on (hostile regimes, manipulating markets, etc...). I question whether 20% is enough of a reduction, but it's definitely an idea to a step in the right direction ('idea' because I don't exactly see how he would put that in motion). <--I wish something were done about this.
Acknowledging global crises such as Darfur and AIDS in Africa and Belarus and all the other hot spots was definitely positive. I hope we can as a nation have an impact on major humanitarian issues and I hope the commitment to that is legitimate. <--Why worry about Darfur and global Aids crises when we can beat the drums of war at Iran?
Investing in R&D for alternative and clean fuel sources is an EXCELLENT idea. What the pro-oil people fail to realize is that this is a market that they can pioneer! Why not shift company focus from strictly being an oil company to the more broader idea of being an energy company? Think about it - Exxon-Mobil Energy Co, for example. However, if they don't take the lead, it opens up a whole new segment, no, a whole new industry that will provide vast numbers of jobs for our economy. I hope they do set in motion a way to reduce roadblocks to these technological developments and to help subsidize this burgeoning industry. <--Instead of spearheading this, he goes to the ME and begs the oil barrons for price mercy. Pathetic.
I won't get into the Iraq segment of his speech, but I will acknowledge that he outlined his thought process adequately. I just don't see how 150K troops is going to do now what it couldn't back in November 2005, especially considering how much worse the conditions are now compared to then. If he really was going to defy everyone in the world and actually escalate the war, he should have gone balls out and sent an additional 200K+ servicepeople over. Instead, he defies everyone and sends, honestly, a negligible amount of troops. <--Violence is down over the past several months, but summertime was particularly bloody. We'll see how this plays out over the next few months as alSadr's cease-fire is lifted and the battle rages anew. I tend to believe the cease-fire has more to do with the reduction in violence than the pittance of a surge.
dreamcastrocks--My Hero!!
Linear Mode
