OT: stealth cuts in tne American stndard of living

While the official numbers appear to show an improvement, albeit a small one, in the per capita median income, these numbers do not capture the entire change in income.

Even if you are not retired, the following will affect you because some one must make up the shortfall as the retired will not stop getting sick just because they have reduced or no coverage.

When your local taxes increase, generally real-estate and sales, this is where large portion will be going. You can also expect to see your health insurance premiums and co-pays again increase as the hospitals try to recover some of the additional no-remibursed costs.

You may also lose a mother or father because of these cut-backs.

But its all in a worth cause -- the quarterly earnings never looked better......

===== from

formatting link

Most employers cutting retiree health care: study

By Kim Dixon 1 hour, 35 minutes ago

CHICAGO (Reuters) - Most U.S. employers are planning to further scale back health benefits offered to retirees, as companies struggle with the upward march in the cost of medical care and weigh increased contributions from government's Medicare program, a survey found.

Ninety-five percent of the mostly Fortune 500 companies polled expect to further restrict their retiree health plans over the next five years, and 14 percent plan to stop providing coverage entirely, the survey of 163 companies by benefits consultants Watson Wyatt found.

Employers have been exiting the retiree health business for a decade-and-a-half, amid rapid inflation in the cost of health care and increasing mobility of workers. But some feared the pace would quicken amid recent changes that boost benefits provided by Medicare, the government's health insurance program for the nation's 43 million elderly and disabled people.

"There is definitely more change in the air now that Medicare Part D has come into play. There are fewer companies that are not planning on doing anything at all," said Cara Jareb, director of retiree medical at Watson Wyatt. "The willingness to eliminate the benefit is clearly increasing."

Changes in the Medicare program include adding prescription drug benefits, known as Medicare Part D. Experts feared that with a richer government benefit, employers would be more likely to stop offering coverage.

About a third of U.S. employers offered current workers retiree coverage in 2005, down from about two-thirds in 1988, according to a recent study by the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation.

According to Standard & Poor's, plans for retiree benefits at S&P

500 companies, excluding pensions, were underfunded by $321 billion, meaning promises to retirees are only 22 percent funded.

EMPLOYERS WEIGH EXITING

About three-quarters of U.S. companies polled are accepting a Medicare subsidy from the government intended to keep employers in the business of helping workers defray health costs when they retire.

But most are skimming the benefits they do offer. A quarter of employers are tightening eligibility for current workers, and a similar amount are offering more expensive plans.

About 40 percent of employers said they believed the best way to solve their retiree health cost problem is to exit it altogether, although most continued to offer benefits because of practical considerations, the study found.

The same amount, about 40 percent, said taking the government subsidy is the best way to keep costs down. Jareb said it showed that even though companies might think exiting the business would help with costs, most are unlikely to do it at this point.

"In essence the numbers indicate that -- whether due to employee relations, benefits philosophy or collective bargaining -- exiting retiree heath is not a viable option for the majority of employers" the study said.

(Additional reporting by Emily Chasan in New York and Joanne Kenen in Washington)

Reply to
F. George McDuffee
Loading thread data ...

formatting link
=====

Reply to
E. Walter Le Roy

Wrongwrongwrong. Red herring that keeps being throw out on the right to distract from the real issue.

Total of ALL lawsuits against medical is less than 5% of gross reciepts...this means that if you said that you can't sue EVER for medical, not matter how agregious, it would only drop costs by about 8% (they have to make a profit on their mistakes).

This is pocket change compared to what the middleman insurance company gets as well as the profit margins on medical supplies and services. A recent study of the new medicare drug plan where the govt can't negotiate pricing vs. the Vetran's administration where you can negotiate drug costs showed that medicare was paying 47% more for the same drugs. Othere studies have shown that the average family would save about $ 9000 per year on medical with a system that didn't have insurance in the middle.

The percent or two for overblown lawsuits is a drop in the bucket which the right keeps telling you is an ocean. Fools fall for it.

Koz

Reply to
Koz

Reply to
E. Walter Le Roy

"E. Walter Le Roy" wrote

That couldn't be further from the truth. We have had a state cap on nonecconomic judgments ("pain & suffering" ) for year now and the premiums doctors pay for malpractice coverage has gone up faster than it did before "tort reform". In fact one insurance company filed an increase 2 weeks after the law was passed. This after the same insurer lobbied the legislature promising that it would lower premiums if tort reform passed.

The 5 companies that write malpractice insurance in Georgia have raised rates steadily for the past 5 years poormouthing about excessive jury awards yet during that same time their reported profits have gone up 1500%.

formatting link

Reply to
Glenn Ashmore

My apologies...I did not mean to phrase it in a way that implied you were a fool. It was a very poor choice of words on my part.

Although I cannot take back my poor discretion of what appeared to be "name calling", I wish to offer my apologies.

Koz

E. Walter Le Roy wrote:

Reply to
Koz

That's exactly right. As usual, the right wing is doing the bidding of the corporations, whose goal is to eliminate the public's right to win money when they are harmed by medical mistakes, which are often horrific. It's not going to save a lot of money for the health care system to "reform torts". What they are really after is for people, hurt for a lifetime by inexcusable mistakes by doctors, to not be able to win monetary awards commensurate with the injuries they suffer. It's a lot like the insurance companies avoiding paying out when a disaster strikes. You pay in forever and when you have a claim they do everything in the book to deny you from getting it. Like making a distinction between water damage and damage from the storm surge when Katrina hit. They play a game on the customer where he's covered until he is damaged and then there is always something that disqualifies his payment. That is what "tort reform" is about, eliminating the expense of paying for people damaged by the medical profession. They've been doing it for a long time and they are really good at it. But there is still one thing in the public's favor and that will be eliminated with "tort reform" Great having a pro business administration isn't it?

Hawke

Reply to
Hawke

I don't have a problem with companies trying to chisel, lie, and cheat us, in the attempt to get unethical and unfair amounts of money from customers. I think we all know that is normal for a capitalist organization designed to make money. What bothers me is when the government gets involved and comes down on the side of the greedy businesses as they work to screw us out of every cent they can get. We can handle your garden variety corrupt business, we deal with them all the time. But when the government teams up with them we haven't got a chance. Since Bush took over business and government have been tag teaming us to death. We need to put a stop to it, not encourage them.

Hawke

Reply to
Hawke

My favorite guy to disagree with...except you pretty much pegged it this time. EXCEPT: I certainly don't consider this administration "Pro-Business", at least not small business. Hell, I can't think of ANY pro-SMALL-business in my lifetime. Especially since small business creates such a large percentage of jobs.

Reply to
Tom Gardner

Bush is more pro business than anyone in a lifetime. He's not particularly helpful to the small businessman, that's true. But there's a good reason for that, they don't make large contributions to political campaigns like the big businesses do. One thing being pro business means is that those who have the money to pay for "access" get what they want from the govenment and those who don't have the money don't. Everything is slanted so that the benefits coming from government go to the businesses who already have an advantage by being big and rich. Small business is lacking in that dept. so they only get the leftovers that come from helping those on top. It's a great system. But only for those at the top.

Hawke

Reply to
Hawke

Heads up f****it..ALL politicians are pro campaign contributions.

Seen Bush get any $10,000 cash contributions from impoverished Buddhist Nuns lately? Or the Chicoms?

Gunner

"The importance of morality is that people behave themselves even if nobody's watching. There are not enough cops and laws to replace personal morality as a means to produce a civilized society. Indeed, the police and criminal justice system are the last desperate line of defense for a civilized society. Unfortunately, too many of us see police, laws and the criminal justice system as society's first line of defense." --Walter Williams

Reply to
Gunner

That the best you can do, f****it?

formatting link

"The importance of morality is that people behave themselves even if nobody's watching. There are not enough cops and laws to replace personal morality as a means to produce a civilized society. Indeed, the police and criminal justice system are the last desperate line of defense for a civilized society. Unfortunately, too many of us see police, laws and the criminal justice system as society's first line of defense." --Walter Williams

Reply to
Gunner

Uh-Oh, I think gunners tooth hurts. It makes him cranky.

Reply to
sittingduck

I don't think that the analogy is apt. When tort reform is brought up, the trial lawyers always mention that negligence must be deterred. Individual doctors don't want the lightning to hit them. Likewise hospitals. So the 5% isn't the full cost.

A good example is when NY State (reacting to the then-new AIDS epidemic) passed a law with big penalties for discarding anything deemed to be dangerous medical waste in ordinary trash, but with no real definition, and no effective way to make dangerous waste into ordinary waste.

The consequence was that medical personnel threw everything remotely medical into the red trashcans, grossly overloading the system for handling such trash, blowing all related budgets. Oops.

Now, most big hospitals have very large (walk-in) autoclaves, and it ought to be possible to sterilize medical waste, turning it back into ordinary trash. But this wasn't done; no idea why, but autoclaves are the standard way to sterilize instruments to be used in surgery, so autoclaving ought to be good enough.

Joe Gwinn

Reply to
Joseph Gwinn

If it walks like a duck, quack likes a duck and has webbed feet....

Oh Im well aware of the health care issue. Being married to a woman with extensive medical issues has given me great insight.

The fact that the emergency rooms are closing down in record numbers because of the hordes of illegal aliens who are using the system for everything from a hangnail to drug overdoses has evidently escaped you. The closest ER from my home, is 42 miles in one direct. The local one having shut their doors because they were overloaded by illegals who didnt pay.

I thought we were talking about medical care?

Odd..when I had my last back scan..the results were faxed to India. In

1995. Clinton was president then..wasnt he?

Snicker..this is a long term Bi-partisan issue as you well know. The problem didnt start in Jan, 2001. Hence the fuctard/libtard critique. Meant only in a good way of course.

Gunner

"The importance of morality is that people behave themselves even if nobody's watching. There are not enough cops and laws to replace personal morality as a means to produce a civilized society. Indeed, the police and criminal justice system are the last desperate line of defense for a civilized society. Unfortunately, too many of us see police, laws and the criminal justice system as society's first line of defense." --Walter Williams

Reply to
Gunner

While the decreasing quality of life is indeed a fact, a political econometric [statistical] analysis indicates *AT MOST * only a slight correlation with political party control in a few areas, and generally none at all.

This appears to be an on-going long-term trend, most likely linked to the depletion of American natural resources, and the rise of foreign industrial competition with the profound loss of domestic high economic value added operations / jobs, which impacts the economy/society on every level.

The most basic factor appears to be the total disconnection of the majority of our policy makers from the real world, most of whom apparently believe that the current world and national socio-economic and political conditions are those they grew up in, i.e. the 1950's and 1960's. The remainder appear to be self-serving opportunists, with which every government/economy/society, no matter its form, appears to be infested.

The history of war profiteering and diversion of funds in the United States goes back to the revolutionary war and the slightly later misapplication of Indian funds supplied under treaty obligation resulting in the deaths of thousands.

The political party/functionary in [nominal] control when "the ship hits the sand" will get the blame, but to what end?

The question is "can anything be done about it?" -- This is the reason I bother to post these OT zingers from time to time. The people in these news groups are extremely smart, with a firm grasp of the way the world actually operates, and if we can't come up with anything, it may be time to sell tickets to watch the train wreck.....

Reply to
F. George McDuffee

Gunner, I normally get into this crap & you are right about the emergency rooms closing down. And I know you are a very good machine tool repair man.

So ask yourself why has BUSH not closed the F-ing borders? Big business want the illegal's for cheap labor & they give big donations, that's why. The Democrats would do the same thing.

My wife runs an AA club & hears what the illegal's tell her. One gal told her she went to the hospital right up the street from us & they said they needed $50.00 to admit her, she said I don't have $50.00. So after a while they said ok. Her bill came to $18,000 & she told my Wife they call & ask when she will pay it. She says "As soon as I win the lottery". Now this gal has a rented house with a swimming pool & works for cash only.

Now our health care is now $20,000 a year Blue Cross, because we have to pay for what they don't.

Reply to
Why

Sad, but I think we are outnumbered , most people only know how to change the channel on the Jerry Springer show...

Could I buy tickets in slow motion for the train wreck?

Reply to
Why

Sigh..I dont know why. And Im pissed as hell over it. Of all the things I AM in agreement with Bush about..this issue rubs me raw.

On the other hand..I know that if the other side gets its way..and does a mass roundup of all illegals and bus's em out of the country..the economy will simply meltdown in a matter far far worse than the Great Depression of '29. Pulling 20 million illegals out of the economy overnight..will destroy us. Complex and complicated as hell..but something MUST be done. Closing the border will give us a bit of breathing room so we can regroup and figure out what next.

Btw...its not Big Business that hires illegals..its Small Business. And they as a group dont have the means to influence Bush & Co financially..so thats a strawdog.

Ayup..which removes many of the options for those of us who are citizens. Ive a $27,000 med bill from 2 yrs ago when I had my heart issue. I asked the minority lady at the aid office about any programs that I could get involved in to make the bill not go away..but get smaller. She very frankly told me I was the wrong race and gender.

So I make monthly payments of whatever I can afford..and will be until I die.

Ayup.

Gunner

"The importance of morality is that people behave themselves even if nobody's watching. There are not enough cops and laws to replace personal morality as a means to produce a civilized society. Indeed, the police and criminal justice system are the last desperate line of defense for a civilized society. Unfortunately, too many of us see police, laws and the criminal justice system as society's first line of defense." --Walter Williams

Reply to
Gunner

Tickets? Son..you are already on the train..sit down, hold on and wait for the crash.

Gunner

"The importance of morality is that people behave themselves even if nobody's watching. There are not enough cops and laws to replace personal morality as a means to produce a civilized society. Indeed, the police and criminal justice system are the last desperate line of defense for a civilized society. Unfortunately, too many of us see police, laws and the criminal justice system as society's first line of defense." --Walter Williams

Reply to
Gunner

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.