Texsox

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Nov 1, 2013 -> 01:08 PM) OK, I get what you're saying. I guess as I'm looking at it from the standpoint that we are going to spend X on employee benefits and then what we have left in the budget goes to employee salaries, so the amount that you spend on an employee's benefits is independent of their salary. Salary and benefits cannot be separated. Each person you add increases the cost, each employee dropped decreases. Plus not all employees take the benefits. So they must be factored per employee.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 1, 2013 -> 11:54 AM) http://gawker.com/documents-reveal-the-ter...re-g-1456675306 Isn't there a difference between viewers and people who sign up? Isn't it to be expected that people will view the site without buying right away?

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Nov 1, 2013 -> 12:10 PM) I don't necessarily see how everybody paying the same amount benefits the higher paid employees. They are not getting better coverage for their money. A lower prcentage of their compensation goes towards their benefit.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 1, 2013 -> 11:18 AM) That's not an answerable question, as I don't create the plans/salary range/benefit packages where I work. In the system in which I work, everyone pays a portion of the health insurance costs, whith a much higher burden shifted onto the higher paid employees than on the lower. Also, a system designed as you are asking about always benefits the richer employees. And what I am trying to explain, from being the guy that has created plans. There is a maximum amount a company can pay an employee. (In your example it is $60,000 plus a portion of their benefits). That pay includes everything. First there are certain costs that can not be changed. Contributions for Social Security, taxes, etc. Then there are costs that can be changed, salary and benefits. Your employer established a system where they will cover $X of a given employees health insurance. Employees cost the employer money. How much they pay someone is something the company controls. They have options in how they pay. They can pay someone hourly, a salary, they can offer 100% commission, a base salary plus commission, offer a draw against commission, etc. They can offer to pay 100% of their insurance costs, they can pay zero. It's up to them for the most part. Now, if you are the guy hiring a new CEO and you offer a base salary of $9850,000 and explain they pay 100% of their insurance costs of $15,000 annually. They can counter and say they will pay their insurance but they won't take the job for less than $1,000,000. You agree on a $1,000,000. Is the CEO really paying 100% of their insurance if they receive a raise to pay for it? Likewise, you have an employee at Coke earning $50,000 and paying none of their $15,000 insurance policy. Another employee at Pepsi is paying all of their insurance, but earning $65,000. Who has the better deal? Which employee is costing more to their employer? The person at Coke or the person at Pepsi?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 1, 2013 -> 10:45 AM) Again, that's not what we are doing. We are shifting the burden for health benefits on the higher paid employees, we pay more, and it has nothing to do what's left to pay them in salary. In effect, the benefit package the lesser paid employees receive is actually better. Salary works in ranges, if you are a level 10 employee for example, you can make anywhere from 30-60k, which will overlap a level 11 and 12 to a great degree. They aren't paying them less money because their benefits are lower in this case. Why can't you make $65,000 and have all of your insurance paid for?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 1, 2013 -> 09:58 AM) That's not quite how it works, though. We aren't simply shifting cost like that. We aren't giving you 20k in salary and 5k in benefits. We are giving you the same salary, but charging you far less for your benefits, and charging the CEO a lot more. Essentially, we subsidize the employees that are making less, so they have the same coverage as we do. yes it is. There is a cost associated with every employee. When you build a compensation plan ALL costs are included. When their benefits cost more there is less to pay in salary. Think about this, if you have $30,000 to hire an employee, you can't pay him $30,000. Those benefits cost the company something. So subtract the cost of benefits from $30,000 and that is what is available for salary.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 1, 2013 -> 09:54 AM) Nope. There are 10 basic requirements for each healthcare plan in this country. Pregnancy/maternity/newborn care is the only gender-specific one. The "substance abuse" services is sorta bulls*** too. Why should I have to pay more because you chose to do heroin? So they can leave out testicular cancer in policies that are written for women?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 1, 2013 -> 09:51 AM) It is, and I think it's a fair/good idea. How insurance works, I'm not sure you know or not (so don't take this as preaching), is you will come to us, and show us your employment roster...what's the average age of your employees, etc...the premium cost is based on these factors...and the negotiated group cost is then given to your employer. Now, how your employer divides that cost is completely up to them. That said, any employer that charges everyone the same amount of money, IMO, aren't being very nice. If you're CEO is paying the same for healthcare as your janitor, for example...you're CEO is a dick. When you hire someone you are looking at the total cost of their salary plus all benefits. How you want to divide that number is up to the employer. If I want to give you $20,000 in salary and $5,000 in benefits or $21,000 in salary and $4,000 in benefits, doesn't really make a difference. I don't think it means the CEO is a dick. Plus, I was responsible in two companies for compensation plans for the salespeople so I am well aware of the fully loaded cost of employees.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 1, 2013 -> 09:47 AM) Those studies, while often correct, don't really take into consideration that a person living on a more meager means, often isn't "home", but stopping to grab lunch between their first and second low wage job. It's simply not reality to assume in these studies that a person making 14$ an hour is "home" as often as say, I am. My friend, who makes 18$ an hour, often works 12-14 hour days. So, the times he's not working, he sure as hell isn't shopping and then going to home to cook. Again, they looked at meals that did not required cooking or refrigeration.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 1, 2013 -> 09:48 AM) You're right, Gender has been removed as something you can base costs on. My bad (although, I can't really disagree with that). So women are payng for coverage for men illnesses? So it balances. I'll bet insurance companies are sophisticated enough to know that the only man needing OB/GYN services was Arnold Schwartzenager (too lazy to look up the correct spelling).

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 1, 2013 -> 09:43 AM) I've seen it multiple times at multiple companies now. So the company subsidizes to a greater degree the cost for lower paid employees. That is an awesome benefit. Usually where I worked the employee was free, the employee paid for spouse, kids, or family coverage. Everyone paid the same based on the plan you picked. How much the company picked up varied from company to company. One, paid 100% no matter what coverage you needed. We had single employees request a raise because other employees were receiving better benefits.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 1, 2013 -> 09:39 AM) The issue with this, is once again, you end up punishing the very people you're trying to help. Fast food, as sucky/bad as it is, is more affordable than healthy alternatives (by a lot)...so this tax you're charging, you're merely charing to the poor people you're trying to help in the first place. People with means often eat healthier than those without. If they want to truly change this trend, they have to bring the costs of healthy foods down. The average person eating at McDonalds cannot afford to shop at Whole Foods, and if they could, they most likely would. I recently read (and wish I could find) and article that challenged that claim. The main points were cost per calorie and preparing (not necessarily applying heat and cooking) healthy at home meals versus fast food meals. They also showed examples that used dollar menu versus organic, etc. But it is a challenge that involves training our tastebuds, being more involved in food aquisition and preperation.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 1, 2013 -> 09:33 AM) Really? Every employee pays the exact same rate? The CEO making 5 million a year pays the same as the mail clerk making 15/hour? In 40 years I have never been in a plan where the health insurance premiums were basd on income. I have been in disability plans where the benefits and premiums were based on income, but never a health insurance plan.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 1, 2013 -> 09:31 AM) No, it's not totally. But my point was we should be designing a system whereby if you do choose to do those things (smoking, drinking excessively, eating horribly) and develop the known associated illnesses because of it, in general sense, I don't agree that the rest of society should just pick up the tab. We have excise taxes on those types of things, why can't we do the same when it comes to healthcare? In fact, don't we already? Especially with smoking? I'm going to agree with what I believe is jenk's goal here. The way I would do it is by taxing those products and applying the tax towards insurance subsidies. Now that all Americans are required to carry insurance, it could actually work. Prior to this it would not because of the people who never have any intentions of paying for the health services they consumed.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Oct 29, 2013 -> 06:19 PM) If Wendy Davis likes guns, there's a chance she will get elected governor. What will be interesting is the role that Cruuz plays in the Governor's race.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Oct 31, 2013 -> 01:02 PM) Even if the deductible is 10,000$, that's just there to cover catastrophic hospital stay, which could exceed hundreds of thousands in mere days...versus 10,000, which they can pay over time. You do realize that at any hospital, at any time, you can pay down your bill -- interest free -- over a span of years, right? So yes, I expect them to pay it...since they can do so over a span of 5 years at a low low interest rate of nothing. You do know that is not the terms that the hospitals offer, it is what they are stuck with accepting from people that are under insured? And you do realize that interest free loan increases the cost.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 31, 2013 -> 12:53 PM) Why do you always assume i'm an unintelligent boob that can't think for himself and just listens to what Hannity tells me (note: I do NOTE listen to Hannity)? I consider an "everyone pays into the collective pool regardless of how much you take out" system socialistic. The only thing that's missing is the single entity owning everything, but when every entity involved is forced to do something as mandated by the single entity, it's the same thing. And the key is to that system is that 9 out of 10 people will NEVER need to pay the large deductible. You're saving money for those people that don't use it, money that could be better spent on other goods and services. 9 out of 10? Do you have a link somewhere with that? But more interesting how high of a deductable are you wishing for? And do you expect the person to actually pay the deductable if they are in an accident, get ill, etc?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 31, 2013 -> 08:59 AM) Good to see you back as well Cubano. Missed your contributions around these parts. Very interesting to see what you posted about the guys personality, as it really seemed to jibe with his reactions on his press day. Fixed it for you.

Yeah, happy for you Jake and Matt. But I'm really happy that this season is totally over, the Sox are back in first, and the weather is finally cooling off.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 31, 2013 -> 11:46 AM) Obviously this is the disconnect in my thoughts on healthcare and the socialist version. I think if you're 20 or 30 years old, totally healthy, and really only need a check-up once a year, you should be able to buy an incredibly cheap plan with a large deductible for catastrophic stuff. I think it's bogus that someone who doesn't use healthcare is now required to pay a hundred or more dollars a month in order to cover someone else. Have you ever looked at the definition of socialism or do you just parrot what you hear? I find it interesting that there are people that can't handle a hundred dollars a month but could suddenly pay a large deductable.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 31, 2013 -> 10:39 AM) Any? You should have the freedom to shop around for the insurance plan you want. Have you really thought that through? Without minimums you could shop for a plan that does not offer hospitalization, perscriptions, routine care, physical therapy, etc.? It would only cover a chat with a nurse once a year. That would be "insurance" and it would cost $25 annually. Now I understand that would be the dream scenario for conservatives but isn't even close to the goal if the reforms.

QUOTE (robinventura23 @ Oct 27, 2013 -> 10:55 AM) How long until he's referred to as "Stevenson" on here? Todd Steverson Todd Steverson Todd Steverson Todd Steverson Todd Stevenson 5

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 30, 2013 -> 10:22 AM) There is no "fix" to this problem. It's insurance companies being forced to comply with the mandatory minimums of the law. This has nothing to do with the website issues. Which of the mandatory minimums are you against?

The first time I saw anyone mess with a bar's tv was with a wristwatch universal remote circa 1990. I figured that ran it's course during the last century. But everything old is new again. And what's with the cracks about "adults" and how they use their phones?

First off, this has been talked about for years. Plans that do not conform have to be changed. We'll see about increases. My plan dropped this year by a few bucks a month for the same coverage. My dental and vision went up. Seems odd.