response 43 of 88:

Nov 18 18:52 UTC 2003

Ah, the "Our constitution provides a minority too much rights -- let's
'fix' it..." approach.  Like Hawaii's.

response 45 of 88:

Nov 19 23:37 UTC 2003

This marriage issue might wind up fixing some other festering
problems in society which have nothing to do with orientation.

Take the cost of benefits (please!).  The cost of employee
benefits has gone up radically for most employers, and most are
looking for ways to reduce costs in any way possible.  The
addition of same-sex couples to the list of people eligible
might be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

Solution:  END BLANKET ELIGIBILITY FOR SPOUSAL BENEFITS.

Sounds radical?  Sure.  But when you consider that most couples
which are not raising children have two incomes (and most of the
rest could), it makes no sense for the employer of one to
subsidize the other.  If you reduce eligibility to couples
which are raising children you accomplish two very worthwhile
things:

1.)  You cut the cost to employers, making insurance more affordable.

2.)  You decrease the subsidies to two-earner couples and increase
     the funding available for children.  Goodness knows we need it.

And with that you neatly get rid of the complaints that good Xtian
people are paying for the benefits of those evil homosexuals (unless
they are raising children, in which case you can play the "kid card"
against the nay-sayers).

response 47 of 88:

Nov 20 02:29 UTC 2003

re:  "#45 (russ): . . . 1.)  You cut the cost to employers, making 
insurance more affordable."

Not exactly, Mr. russ.  The cost may only, in reality, be reallocated.  
Employer A, who may pay for the benefits of employee Mr. X and his wife 
(Mrs. X) may realize a savings if it no longer pays the health care 
coverage cost of Mrs X; however, would not Mrs. X's employer (B), 
now being forced to pay for her health care benefits, suffer a loss of 
equal magnitude?  So that which is more affordable for Employer A would 
become less so for Employer B.  And, if all of the employees of A and 
the employees of B cancel each other out, nothing has been gained or 
lost by either.

response 49 of 88:

Nov 20 17:30 UTC 2003

re:  #48 (polygon):  No, I think the intent and effect would be to 
shift at least some of the cost of health insurance back to the 
recipients.  (.....The response in #47 was to the scenario of a dual 
income family.....)

For example, if a couple has one working and one nonworking spouse, 
they would have to pay something extra (maybe a lot) to cover the 
nonworking spouse.  (....It would be likely that a good portion of the 
current health care costs incurred by the employer would be passed on 
to the employee in the form of wages....)

Sometimes health insurance is cumulative.  (.....The correct term 
is "coordination of benefits," although some policies provide that the 
secondary carrier will kick in only the amount that will bring the 
total coverage by both carriers to the level the secondary carrier 
would pay if it were the sole insurer......)
With Delta Dental, sometimes half the cost of a procedure is paid by 
one spouse's insurance, and the other half by the other spouse's.  With 
only one spouse having health insurance, you'd have a 50% co-pay.

If a couple both work, and both have health insurance via the husband's
company, as klg seems to, perhaps the wife's employer doesn't offer 
health insurance (to people in that job category, say).  Russ wasn't 
suggesting that the wife's employer be "forced" to offer health 
insurance.  Maybe the wife declined her employer's health insurance -- 
that doesn't seem likely.  (.....It is likely!  The spouse frequently 
declines coverage - particularly if one employer offers the employee a 
cash incentive for doing so....)

I think keesan's objection is more salient: given the choice of paying 
for extra health insurance for the spouse who is uncovered by russ's 
proposed rule, I think a great many of them would decide not to spend 
scarce resources on insurance.  Result: more uninsured, more burden on 
costly emergency care, more bankruptcies.   (.....Perhaps people need 
to be reeducated that health insurance is a proper use of scarce 
resources.  They use scare resources for other important (food) and 
less important (fancy stuff) purchases, don't they?......)

Russ is absolutely right that the automatic assumption of spousal 
coverage is grossly unfair to single employees.  (....That is a huge 
assumption.  Some argue that married employees are more productive/more 
loyal than single employees and, therefore, are worth the extra 
cost....)  But getting rid of that automatic coverage would probably 
add many millions more uninsured, and worsen all the associated 
problems. 

Further, there are certain economies of having a whole family covered by
the same health insurance, since oftentimes more than one member is
affected by the same medical problem -- I'm thinking of contagious or
hereditary conditions.  (....We fail to see how having the same company 
pay the providers would have any effect whatsoever upon the treatment.  
Would not that be dependent upon the providers of service 
themselves???....)

The fundamental problem here is that our system in which most people get
health insurance as part of employment is badly flawed.  It's a huge 
drag on economic activity.

If I understood this right, the U.S. steel industry says it pays a 
higher percentage of its revenues for health care than its overseas 
rivals pay in total taxes.  Foreign companies make steel more cheaply 
because they don't have to pay for employee health insurance, even 
though they pay more in taxes.  (Of course, if this is true, it may 
partly reflect that people working in steel mills have high healthcare 
costs.)  (.....Perhaps what is needed is to provide more market 
incentives in the purchase of health care.  Making individuals 
responsible for more of the cost would put the "drag" on prices, 
perhaps making everyone better off!!!......)

response 53 of 88:

Nov 21 17:03 UTC 2003

(Mr. polygon, unlike this poster, probably has had no employment 
experience in employee/union relations.)

response 55 of 88:

Nov 22 03:38 UTC 2003

re #53:  I have.  On BOTH sides.  And it is my firm belief that the 
statement by klg that polygon is laughing at is a huge crock and 
deserves no consideration beyond derisive laughter.

response 57 of 88:

Nov 22 10:21 UTC 2003

Why is it that large numbers of 'health care providers' are leaving that
industry in favor of IT jobs (not exactly booming right about now) and
others?  s/BLI/BLS/  above (sorry).

response 59 of 88:

Nov 22 16:37 UTC 2003

Indeed, while drugs are not cheap, the machinery is very expensive, both to
create and to utilize.

MRI and CAT machines are worth millions.  they are delicate, they are power
hogs, and tehy require specialists both to operate and to read the results.

response 61 of 88:

Nov 22 20:51 UTC 2003

Does a CAT scanner really consume that many resources when run for 20 minutes?
Even a fraction of $3800 worth of electricity is a *lot* of juice to be
passing through a patient.

response 63 of 88:

Nov 22 20:58 UTC 2003

Re 61:  It's not electricity, it's magnetic fields that pass through the
patient.  They need to generate a really strong field; strong enough that
there was an incident where a police officer came into the CAT room in some
facility and his gun was sucked into the gap from several feet/yards away.

response 65 of 88:

Nov 22 23:12 UTC 2003

A huge contributor to the cost of health care is the cost of 
malpractice insurance.  I recently attended a seminar on malpractice 
reform in which it was revealed that over 80% of physicians have 
been sued.  

Another interesting thing that was revealed was that the vast 
majority of patients who suffer injury at the hands of physicians 
don't actually sue.  The point being made was at least in part that 
the vast majority of suits filed have little legitimate basis, but 
the presenter was not so coarse as to actually say that.  What I 
found most revealing in that was that no effort at all was made to 
define injury in the sense being applied.

response 67 of 88:

Nov 23 02:36 UTC 2003

So why avoid metal buttons during CT scans?