Description: Health Care Bill - ksl.com - Business leaders sign health care 'bill of rights' ? ? ? News KSLclips TV Radio Sports Movies iUtah Classifieds More Home Local U.S. World Weather Traffic Lifestyle Biz/Finance Sci/Tech Health Religion GuestLoginDec 16th, 2008 powered by? ksl web keyword Business leaders sign health care 'bill of rights' Utah business leaders want individuals to take more charge of their health care, and they are pushing for a new reform plan to do it. September 23rd, 2008 @ 6:25pm By Mary Richards and Richard Piatt ? Post a message >> 91 Click Here to read more about the ksl.com's comment guidelines >> ditto :+6 (show comment) The reform plan would shift healthcare responsibilities from employers to individuals. Report Commentby Ordinary guy @ 12:20pm - Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 I have a feeling that the other face on the head is saying, we are going to quit providing benefits and let employees pay for it out of their own pocket. ditto :+3 (show comment) Exactly, Report Commentby budwa @ 12:31pm - Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 with shifting responsibility for health care to individuals, you can bet they will be shifting the cost of health care to individuals. ditto :+7 (show comment) (No Subject) Report Commentby Mr_neo @ 12:37pm - Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 How about if the story actually told us what the thing says, rather than how great a few people think it is going to be? ditto :+4 (show comment) Of course they will Report Commentby Josh R. @ 1:12pm - Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 that's what the story said. I think that if the money actually goes to the employees than this is a great idea, but how many companies will give all of that money to the employee? Also, will employees still be eligible for group health plans? If not, than even with the extra money they won't be able to afford coverage. ditto :+5 (show comment) Tax implications Report Commentby Dorkorama @ 3:55pm - Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 The health benefits costs are currently tax exempt to employers. If they "shift" the responsibility to employees and pay us more to get our own health insurance, that additional pay will be subject to income taxes, etc. Changes like this need to be more comprehensive to account for side effects like this. Several years ago, the DMV changed our auto fees from property tax to an age-based fee. Property taxes were/are deductible from income tax but the new fee isn't. When I mentioned this fact to my state rep, he was clueless about the impact that the change made. ditto :+3 (show comment) The Salt Lake Chamber and immigration reform Report Commentby Utah 101 @ 8:10pm - Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 The Salt Lake Chamber was one of the biggest opponents to Utah’s illegal immigration reform during the last legislative session and now they want to shift health care costs from employer sponsored to employee sponsored – if they really wanted to reduce the costs of health care they would have supported illegal immigration reform, but what it appears they want is lower costs, both in wages and benefits, for business. Employees be damned. ditto :+7 (show comment) I have a feeling Report Commentby U Can't Handle The Truth @ 12:36pm - Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 you're right... I love that they're trying to sell off as if they're benefiting the average citizen rather than trying to put more money in their pockets. Now Utah's "conservative" businesses want to enlist the government in order to stick it to the employee rather than try to fix the flawed health plans they negotiated. The World Health Organization ranks the US as 37th in health care, is this new plan going to make it better or worse? Thanks again out of touch Utah Legislators. One more thing, I liked the dramatic touch of doing it at the foot of the capital, in front of news cameras for a huge audience 23 people. ditto :+6 (show comment) this plan sounds like McCains plan Report Commentby Serenity_May @ 1:07pm - Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 I would encourage people to read up on this the way they propose the individuals be a part of the decision is to bump us into the non-group insurance which is often costly and covers less. ditto :+1 (show comment) (No Subject) Report Commentby Josh R. @ 1:16pm - Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 Exactly, if employees are not able to get on group plans than they are going to pay much more. So even if you take that $400-500/month and give it to them, they will still have a hard time affording coverage. I am a small business owner and I can't afford to pay health insurance premiums for my employees so I just give them a little extra on each pay check. Unless you have over 25 or 50 employees (different limits for different insurance companies) than you don't qualify for group rates and everyone gets rated the same as the least healthy person. So if you have all young healthy employees and 1 older person with health issues, everyone is going to pay more. ditto :+1 (show comment) well good for you giving them extra money.... Report Commentby Serenity_May @ 1:20pm - Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 But I wouldn't put it past my company (250 employees) to stop offering health insurance and then also gypping me the $8000 a year they just started saving per employee. I do not like this plan it makes it easier for insurance companies to keep the rates high and the companies a way to get out of providing health insurance. ditto :+1 (show comment) (No Subject) Report Commentby Josh R. @ 1:25pm - Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 That would be my biggest concern, that the extra money doesn't go to the employees. But at the same time, health insurance is a 'benefit' it's not something an employer has to provide. If the market gets much worse than benefits will probably be some of the first things to go. You have to think about this, would you rather have a job and no health insurance, or keep your job for another 6-12 months with health insurance until your employer goes bankrupt. I know that sucks and sounds harsh but businesses do what they have to do to stay in business and make a profit for the investors. I know some people don't like the investors but if it wasn't for them your employer might not even be around. split vote :0 (show comment) Well jeeze... Report Commentby Serenity_May @ 1:35pm - Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 Maybe if the government got off its fat butt and worked on a real solution then maybe companies wouldn't be in such bad situations. If I get hurt bad and I have no insurance but a job what difference will it make if I can't work and now have thousands of dollars in debt from the hospital. Go bankrupt and end up on welfare either way. How many people will this force into using the already crowded ERs? How many children will be forced into the CHIP program? This is not a real solution this will put a huge burden on not only the state but us as well. ditto :+1 (show comment) (No Subject) Report Commentby Josh R. @ 1:42pm - Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 I don't know enough about this to have an opinion either way, I'm just trying to think through the pros and cons. As far as getting injured, I think that everyone with family or bills should have accident and disability insurance, like Aflac, for those instances. I know people say they can't afford that but if you (not you specifically, but everyone) are really worried about that you will find a way. If the government didn't have the entitlement programs in place that it has than people would be forced to find a way to take care of themselves. If welfare wasnt' around and you were injured, I bet you would find a new job pretty quickly. Or you would turn to family, friends, church, charity, somewhere besides the government and tax dollars for help. (show comment) ha ha ha Report Commentby StupidPplShldntBreed @ 2:36pm - Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 *dies laughing* HUGE audience of 23 people ditto :+1 (show comment) For those who want to be more informed Report Commentby holdasmile @ 2:05pm - Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 There are a couple of books I have been reading on this very subject. I highly recommend them they are Current Controversies, Healthcare, the book editor is Jan Grover and the publisher is Thomson. The other book is Opposing Viewpoints, Health Care, James Torr is the book editor. These book series for both of these books is aimed at addressing the controversial issues and presenting articles from both sides. It just lets you have more information so you can decide what you think is best, since most controversial issues are decided on the majorities values. Anyway, the plan they are trying to implement is talked about quite frequently and has some major benefits to the individual. It takes the profit out of the insurance industry and puts responsibility in the arms of the patient and not some third party that has no idea what is going on. It also makes it more affordable, not less. I know many people will probably try to disagree with something I have written, and I am sorry if somehow you took offense. I do not and did not mean any. Just informing. ditto :+4 (show comment) (No Subject) Report Commentby Pudgy @ 4:50pm - Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 I'm offended that you would want us to be more informed. HOW DARE YOU! Seriously though, "takes the profit out of the insurance industry" sounds just like "government health care", which is a terrible idea, looking at just how well the government administers anything. I'd rather see my insurance company making a profit while efficiently managing my policy. ditto :+7 (show comment) Employer supplied health care costs can't keep going up Report Commentby CT @ 4:06pm - Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 without something bad happening. I am an employer who supplies 45 Utahan's with their health insurance. I have been absorbing 15% to 30% cost increases nearly every year. I have willingly done this for many years. The economy has been devastating to my business this year. I am facing another 28% cost increase this year. I may not be able to continue providing the same level health care for my employees. I am considering substantially increasing my employees deductibles and eliminating or at least substantially reducing the drug benefits. Something must be done. I am certainly not the only company who is having difficulty making this commitment to my employees. I do not like socialism in any way shape or form. I do not support the Democrats Canadian style health care. I do support putting more of the responsibility in the hands of the health care recipients (the employees). They need to be more responsible for curtailing the costs of their health care usage. That is the problem we have now. Everybody goes to the Dr. for every sniffle or sore throat. Often the Dr. says nothing more than take two aspirin and call me in a couple of days if it does not get better. We all want the newest (and I might add the most expensive) drugs. Even though the generics might work just as well. People are willing to take an extremely expensive prescription medication to reduce the duration of the flue a couple of days. This all costs money. Lots of it. If people were to be required to pay a larger percentage of their individual health care usage, they will be better shoppers. They might even shop for lower cost drugs and shop for lower priced Dr's. Just because a Dr. charges less doesn't mean he is not a goo Dr. As long as we all have insurance that pays for anything and everything, we all want the best and more of it. This cycle has got to stop or the system will be bankrupt. disagree :-1 (show comment) Insightful input, however - Report Commentby Utah 101 @ 8:18pm - Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 The reason health care costs are going up is not because employees need "..to be more responsible for curtailing the costs of their health care usage". Its because not everyone has health care, and those who don't have health care use emergency services rather than preventive care services thus driving up the cost on all health related services. If the Salt Lake Chamber and employer’s were serious about reducing health care costs they would have supported Utah’s illegal immigration reform. This appears to me as a way to reduce wages and benefits all while blaming the employees who make business owners successful. ditto :+1 (show comment) That't not true Report Commentby I am always right so don't argue @ 9:11pm - Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 When an illegal, or anyone for that matter uses the emergency and can't pay their bills, the insurance companies don't all chip in to cover it. The government helps pay those bills. Getting rid of illegals is something we need to focus on but it won't affect the cost of your insurance. ditto :+4 (show comment) Respectfully disagree – Report Commentby Utah 101 @ 9:25pm - Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 When a business, any business, has a debt that will never get paid that business writes that invoice off on their taxes as an expense, in turn the business must increase the price of other services to continue making a profit. This increased cost of general health care is then passed on to those who do pay their bills, in this case it’s the insurance companies and the folks they insure. If you increase the cost of health care to insurance companies, in turn they increase the cost of premiums. There is a direct correlation of health care costs and insurance premiums, and people who don’t pay their bills drive up cost. It’s actually a double edged sword, as it also decreases the amount of taxes collected from this business, because that invoice was written off as an expense, and in turn the folks who do pay taxes (your insurance company and you) are forced to make up that loss of tax revenue. disagree :-1 (show comment) Here is the language of what they sighend today.. According to a flyer they where handing out at the there little meetin... Report Commentby Codger @ 4:56pm - Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 To solve the health care crisis in the United States, there are certain rights that should be guaranteed to all. They are as follows: 1. Universal Coverage Everyone has a right to quality health care, regardless of financial standing. The government must insure that no American is denied needed health care services because of inability to pay. 2. Cost Control Health care should be affordable to all who need it. The government must see that health care costs are brought under control. 3. Prescription Drug Coverage Everyone has a right to affordable prescription drugs. The government must insure that every American has prescription drug coverage. No one should be forced to choose whether or not to buy needed prescribed medicine based on how much money they have. split vote :0 (show comment) Nothing like putting a bandage on a gaping wound. Report Commentby Dan B. @ 8:19pm - Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 It would be nice if “law makers” would attempt to fix the problem rather than make it larger. Why is the cost of insurance so high? Because people who pay their bills foot the bill of those who do not. Health care is astronomical for those who are actually paying for it. Companies, employees and upstanding citizens who pay their own medical bills are paying for the leaches of society. Employers who offer health care coverage or at least the option to belong to group health care THANK YOU! For some it may take YEARS to pay off their medical bills, but they still pay them. If the illegal immigrants had to pay for the doctor and hospital stay associated with having a child born and the free car seat they walk out of the hospital with...If the polygamists had to pay for the weeks and months and intensive care costs and operations their inbreeding creates...If the drug addicts had to pay for their drug addicted, messed up forever, endless surgery and care needed children...If people on CHIP would go to the doctor instead of the ER...the cost of medical care would be significantly reduced. If everyone had to pay for the services they ask, prices would decrease overall. Everyone seems to want the government to fix everything. Why take responsibility for our own actions? Why not let the next guy pay for everything? Welcome to socialist USA. Many other countries with socialized medicine such as Germany and Canada are getting out because the system does NOT work! Troll away...I know, I know "I don't have a job that offers health care coverage so I get everything for free." Try getting a better education...even that is free for you...then you can do something about your situation. split vote :0 (show comment) Where in the Constitution Report Commentby I am always right so don't argue @ 9:14pm - Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 does it say that universal health care is a right? It doesn't and it's not the governments responsibility to pay for your health care! Get a real job and you'll be able to afford it. If you have a job and can't afford it than get a second job. My tax dollars shouldn't be used to pay your medical bills. ditto :+2 (show comment) Follow the money Report Commentby Mott @ 7:03am - Wed Sep 24th, 2008 This action is meant to achieve one thing and one thing only, benefit to the company. Uninsured Utahns arent important to these people. If companies can shift their responsibility from themselves to their employees then those companies stand to save BOATLOADS of cash in the end. And do you think those companies will take the money they spend on insurance and put that in your paycheck? dream on. Be prepared for a future where your pay wont go up and suddenly you will have to buy your own healthcare. Empowering the individual? My arse. Id rather be socialized. (show comment) And Report Commentby Elphaba @ 8:12am - Wed Sep 24th, 2008 They won't increase salaries to make up the difference. Unless REAL reform happens soon (and I don't call this reform at all) Only the wealthy and the very poor will have any health insurance. The wealthy will be able to afford it, or not need it, and the poor will have medicaid. The middle class won't be able to afford any of it. My high risk pregnancy/my child's NICU stay cost nearly $300,000. Most of that was covered by insurance. The rest we paid with monthly payments. (show comment) Busimen are the most conservative politically. Report Commentby garebob @ 10:13am - Wed Sep 24th, 2008 You can bet that with all the influence these businesses have on our state representatives they'll get what they want even if it is bad for the people. ditto :+5 (show comment) clever Report Commentby UtahDaze @ 12:22pm - Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 I like how they are twisting this. - "We want people to have a part in the decision-making process" - They are making it sound like they are giving us more freedoms and that this will all be for our benefit. Here's the reality: This was formed by Business presidents and CEOs. Health care is getting so expensive that it is breaking these businesses bank accounts in a struggling economy. So, they put the 'responsibility' in our hands and is "giving us part in the decision-making process", basically saying, it should break our bank instead of theirs. Nice. insightful :+1 (show comment) (No Subject) Report Commentby Josh R. @ 1:19pm - Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 I totally agree with you, but maybe there's a small chance that this will lower the cost of health insurance. If these big companies aren't paying the premiums anymore than people will shop around. When insurance companies start losing business they might be forced to lower their premiums in order to compete. That's probably just wishful thinking, but I wanted to throw an alternative idea out there. ditto :+2 (show comment) but between now and when the insurance companies start to compete... Report Commentby Serenity_May @ 1:22pm - Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 what are the rest of us going to do how will many Utahans afford health insurance while the big companies just get more rich? ditto :+2 (show comment) I'm not saying this is the best thing Report Commentby Josh R. @ 1:27pm - Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 I'm just saying that these businesses are probably doing what they have to do to stay alive. It sucks but if they go bankrupt because of health insurance premiums than 1000's of people will lose their jobs. That would be much worse. ditto :+1 (show comment) Utah daze Report Commentby StupidPplShldntBreed @ 3:01pm - Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 I would only ammend your statement as follows: Health care is getting so expensive that it is breaking these businesses bank accounts in a struggling economy, WITHOUT GIVING UP THEIR LARGE BONUSES, VACATIONS, BOATS, ETC... ditto :+2 (show comment) Fits the rest of whats happening to our economy and country Report Commentby Freeyourmind @ 12:27pm - Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 Socialized mortgages Socialized insurance Socialized investments Socialized health care ditto :+3 (show comment) I love Rush too Report Commentby Josh R. @ 1:21pm - Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 but you need to put a little bit of thought into the stuff that comes out of your mouth. How can this be socialized health care if you are taking over for yourself. They didn't say that they were shifting responsibility to the government, they said they want to shift the responsibility to the employees. Freeyourmind, that's ironic that you use that as your name but you don't allow yourself to think on your own. (show comment) Why did the article say Report Commentby U Can't Handle The Truth @ 1:24pm - Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 that the legislature was going to be involved? ditto :+1 (show comment) I don't know Report Commentby Josh R. @ 1:31pm - Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 but here's an idea. Maybe the businesses are running this past the legislators (sp?) to make sure that everything they're doing is legal. Imagine how mad employees are going to be when they find out they're not getting health insurance from work anymore. You can bet that some elected officials will be getting phone calls. That's just my opinion though. The article doesn't really give a lot of details but it did say this "Terry Buckner, president and CEO of the Buckner group, says this reform plan will put citizens more in charge of their health care. " If employees can still qualify for group health plans and they get to have more control over it than this is a great idea. If employers don't give all of the money being spent on healt insurance back to the employees than this plan sucks. But we have to remember that health insurance isn't gauranteed, it's a benefit. split vote :0 (show comment) (No Subject) Report Commentby Shenanigans @ 1:42pm - Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 The Buckner Group deals alot with Health Savings Accounts so this is a smart move for him. Get more companies to choose high deductible health plans that are coupled with HSAs and voila! More business for that company. I agree with you completely. If the companies don't pay some of the funds back to the employee its pretty messed up. A business could potentially save TONS by switching to the plan Mr Buckner is proposing so as an incentive to pick the plan I'd hope they'd pass the savings on to the employee but I wouldn't hold my breath for all companies to do that. split vote :0 (show comment) Because most people, Report Commentby Freeyourmind @ 1:38pm - Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 Wont know how to obtain or wont be able to afford health care on their own, there fore creating a need for government to step in and take over that responsibility as well. Maybe YOU are the one who needs a lesson on thinking a bit before spouting off. What does Rush have to do with anything? Or is that what youve been sniffing! ditto :+4 (show comment) I think we can agree Report Commentby Josh R. @ 1:45pm - Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 that the government has no business in providing health insurance for people. I think there are some circumstances where people really need help but there need to be limitations and the government should never help until families, friends, churches and charities are all tapped out. (show comment) :) Report Commentby Freeyourmind @ 3:05pm - Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 I Agree. More and more these days it seems everything is running itself into the ground and our gov. (us as tax payers) are left footing the bill. Frustrating to say the least. ditto :+1 (show comment) Health Care.........YUCK!!!!! Report Commentby Maxx @ 12:30pm - Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 If our health care was not a comodity on wall street...it would be more affordable. Health care should not be in the business of making large profits. All the profits should be put back into the system to keep the costs down. split vote :0 (show comment) If you really believe that Report Commentby Josh R. @ 1:38pm - Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 than you have to fix a lot more than just the health care system. - You're going to have to convince doctors to take less pay. - You're going to have to convince pharmacuetical (sp?) companies and their sales reps to make less money. - You're going to have to convince all of America to stop suing their Dr. every time something doesn't go exactly right otherwise the Dr. needs to make more money. - You're going to have to convince the universities to charge less money so that the Dr's don't have such big student loans which require the higher salary to pay off. - You're going to have to fix the medicare/medicade system and convince those people that aren't even paying for insurance that they don't need to take their kid to the hospital for every runny nose. You're going to have to get all of the illegal immigrants to stop going to the emergency room where doctors have to work on them (sorry to bring up illegal immigration). There's probably a myriad of other things that factor into the cost of health care as well. insightful :+3 (show comment) Mr Ordinary and Utah Daze Report Commentby Shenanigans @ 12:40pm - Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 What they are talking about here is switching over to offering high deductible health plans instead of traditional insurance. Traditional insurance premiums go up at about 14% each year so many companies aren't able to offer benefits because of that. Premiums for a high deducitble health plan go up at roughly 4% each year so it is much cheaper for them go with the HDHP. Its also cheaper for the employee. Monthly premiums for a High Deductible Health plan are generally about 1/3 the cost of a traditional health plan. So although you have a higher deductible, your savings in premiums makes up for it. With those savings you can open a Health Savings Account. An HSA, or Health Savings Account, is a triple-tax benefited account developed in 2003 and put into play in 2004. All contributions into the HSA are either pre-tax contributions or can be written off when filing taxes, all interest is earned tax free, and all the money you take out for a medical expense isn't subject to taxes either. High deductible health plans are also known as catastrophic health plans. The employee or individual pays for the smaller, routine doctor visits and then if something major does happen, heaven forbid, they are still covered by insurance. Its also known as a Consumer-Driven Health plan. Most people have no clue how much a doctor visit costs. They know that all they have to pay is a $20 co-pay and they're done. We have no clue how much our health care costs us so many people don't worry about eating smart, exercising regularly, etc because all they have to worry about is a $20 co-pay if they get sick. This plan would make people pay for those visits out of their pocket or HSA which will encourage them to start living a healthier lifestyle. The plan won't be right for everyone but for many people it will save alot of money and some can even be making money with the HSA. I recommend looking more into it. Your local financial institution most likely has an HSA program already in place. I know America First Credit Union and Mountain America Credit Union both have them. (show comment) Hey Shenanigans... Report Commentby U Can't Handle The Truth @ 1:22pm - Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 How do you know so much about this plan and where can that info be found? (show comment) U can't Handle the Truth Report Commentby Shenanigans @ 1:33pm - Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 I heard about it a little over a year ago. This plan is being stressed by alot of Republicans so I just looked up all the info I could on it. I talked to a few different insurance carriers about cost differences between traditional insurance and a HDHP. Then I went to www.irs.gov and searched under HSA, then hsafinder.com, and just kept finding more and more info that way. I mentioned that America First Credit Union has an HSA program in my other post and they have a really cool tool on their site. It allows people to compare their traditional health plan they currently have with a high deductible health plan, plug in the premium differences, you customize it to show how many times you go to the doctor, etc, and it will show you which plan is better for you and how much you'd save either way. that helped me too cuz I am a visual learner. (show comment) Do yo know... Report Commentby U Can't Handle The Truth @ 1:45pm - Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 what employers are planning to do with the money they are currently spending on health insurance? Because I only pay about 30% of my premiums anyway and if that is the cost of a high deductible plan then I am worse off because I would then have to fund my own HSA... However, if employers are going to give us what they were contributing then it's possible I'd be better off depending on the year i.e. sick kids, maternity, unforseen surgeries etc. etc. etc... (show comment) Ideally Report Commentby Shenanigans @ 2:01pm - Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 this is what should happen if I understand the plan correctly. Currently, for example, your company pays $560 and you would pay $240 for your plan each month. What they SHOULD do is keep that the same. So your premium would be roughly 1/3 of that so the company would pay $190 and you'd pay $80. From there ideally they would say, if you choose this plan we will also throw in an incentive of $100 a month or so to choose that plan. That would still save the company $270 a month and they would be funding your HSA as well. So you'd pull the same amount out each month still, that $240 but this time only $80 goes to the insurance company and the extra $160 plus the $100 incentive plan from the company would go into an HSA tax free. But they should still pay 70% of your premium if they are currently doing that. (show comment) Sounds good good so far... Report Commentby U Can't Handle The Truth @ 2:24pm - Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 Were you by chance at the "Bill of rights signing"? Clearly you've done a lot of leg work, I have not so I hope you don't mind if I ask another question... That scenario puts $3120 in a HSA, is it possible to get a HDHP with the HD part being $3120 for a family at a cost of $270 per month? Also here is that America First Calculator you mentioned... http://americafirstmembers.vtoolkit.com/appToolkit/app/proposalCenter/proposalView770.cfm?dashboardKey=123 (show comment) I wish Report Commentby Shenanigans @ 3:07pm - Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 I would've been there but couldn't with work. I'm curious to hear more about their proposal. Ask all of the questions you want, i just hope I have the answers for them. Its possible to find premiums that cheap but it might not be a good plan. I usually go to ehealthinsurance.com to give me a rough idea of what the prices will be around and then give an insurance agent a call to see how much lower they can go for me. Also, alot of the HDHPs will count all preventive care( so yearly doctor visits, check-ups for both guys and girls) as first-dollar, so you don't have to pay a thing for them. Most of the plans I've looked at are 0% co-insurance so my deductible is also my out of pocket maximum. Once I hit that number...i don't pay a thing the rest of the year. (show comment) ... Report Commentby U Can't Handle The Truth @ 3:50pm - Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 Thanks for the information... (show comment) HSAs aren't perfect. Report Commentby Brad P. @ 11:37pm - Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 I loved the theory of HSAs. And tried really hard to make it work. It didn't. Maternity plans aren't included in any HSAs. I looked everywhere, and couldn't find any. I could add some supplemental maternity plan into it, but then the cost of an HSA with maternity was more than simple (and really good) insurance through IHC Select Health. So I went the sensible route, dropped HSAs, and went with Select Health. (show comment) Brad Report Commentby Shenanigans @ 9:32am - Wed Sep 24th, 2008 They're not going to be perfect for everyone and if anyone ever tried to sell you a plan and said so they were lying to you. There ARE some HDHPs that do cover maternity though, you just have to look in the right place. I would suggest talking to either a benefits broker or the actual insurance company and they would be able to find one for you. Also, Select Health has HSA-compatible plans so you could still keep their great coverage if you wanted. Removed By Moderator Report Commentby P.O. @ 12:47pm - Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 (show comment) ..... Report Commentby Shenanigans @ 12:54pm - Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 I'm not disagreeing but when it comes to this article and healthcare I'd have to say nay. Its either quit offering benefits all together because they can't afford the traditional premiums or switch over to a cheaper alternative, a high-deductible health plan that puts the consumer or employee in charge. There's no way a business can keep paying 14% premium increases each year. The entire health care system is to blame. We are the greatest country in the world with horrible health care. Why you ask? Its the new, expensive technoligies, the number of malpractice suits, the complete unawareness of how much we health care actually costs, etc. Don't blame the business leaders because they're hurting just as bad as everyone else. funny :+1 (show comment) hey P O Report Commentby Phatty D @ 12:55pm - Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 tell us how you really feel? :) split vote :0 (show comment) i don't know about the rest of you but Report Commentby Derrick T. @ 1:24pm - Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 I am broke. I can't afford the huge deductible to begin with. I can't even afford the ammo for my gun to shoot myself with. I asked uncle sam for some money but he told me he already gave it to the major companies in the bailout plan. ditto :+1 (show comment) yup yup Report Commentby Serenity_May @ 1:27pm - Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 not to mention the business that will drop insurance all together stating the employees can buy and choose better insurance... I don't know about you but I only pay 1/3 of the premiums for my insurance my company pays the rest. Will they give me a raise if they drop the insurance, NO. funny :+1 (show comment) (No Subject) Report Commentby Pudgy @ 4:52pm - Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 It's free to throw yourself off a building. (show comment) Its illegal to attempt to kill yourself - Report Commentby Utah 101 @ 8:45pm - Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 I'm not sure what they charge you with if you're successful. ditto :+3 (show comment) Health Insurance Report Commentby tinkerbell44 @ 2:12pm - Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 Lets keep giving the non-american & non working people the free health insurance, but lets make sure us americans that work hard for a living pay for high insurance. ditto :+2 (show comment) Don't have insurance now. Report Commentby catzladygold @ 2:29pm - Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 I don't have insurance as I was laid off and took a temp position so no insurance. I have medical issues as having cancer 8 years ago for one. Call for private insurance and it costs more than my house payment. Are they going to make it affordable for the pre-existing conditions? (show comment) I'd be surprised if you can even get insurance on your own Report Commentby Josh R. @ 2:50pm - Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 You might be able to get in the insurance pool, but I bet most carriers aren't going to take you on an individual plan. (show comment) own insurance Report Commentby catzladygold @ 3:11pm - Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 On the last quote I got, I commented to the agent that in order to pay for insurance premimiums before the deductibles I would have to go live in a small storage unit as that is all I would be able to afford..........they didn't get it and wanted to sign me up. I would love to have medical insurance again that is affordable for the below middle class group. (show comment) your income level has less to do with it than your cancer Report Commentby I am always right so don't argue @ 9:18pm - Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 if you didn't have cancer in the past you would be able to get insurance for much less. For the average person they can get insurance for $500-800/month. That's a part time job. If you are really concerned about your family than get a part time job and buy insurance. Don't expect the government to provide it for you. And don't complain about being below middle class. You can make your life whatever you want it to be. (show comment) income vs cancer Report Commentby catzladygold @ 11:18pm - Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 I only have to support myself now and I already work a full time job with OT and a part time job so I am working 7 days a week. I only have the internet as my luxury. The affordable health plans do not even cover what RX's I have that are offered thru temp employers, it is cheaper to price check and match. I don't acually get sick much but if I do then I get help from the Medical Center I go to based on income level. I do not take the 2nd preventive stage cancer drug as it is about $240/mo. I also make too much for any type of help since my children are now adults. By the way what type of part time job makes the %500-800 a month? (show comment) I agree. Report Commentby Elphaba @ 8:38am - Wed Sep 24th, 2008 I'm sure I could not get private health insurance if I tried. My husband has a very minor pre-existing condition which has zero effect on his health today, but he was denied. I have depression which is well managed on medications. This would disqualify me. Our child was born premature and had a blood transfusion. I'm fairly certain she would be denied. IF we could get a private plan, I'm sure our premiums would be sky high. TG for an employer sponsored group plan. (show comment) Huge Problem Report Commentby Shenanigans @ 3:18pm - Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 They better create a law to fix this problem because it is ridiculous. Cancer is becoming so prevalent that we will have huges masses of people that have gone thru hell and back and now can't get insurance coverage. On top of that, there is new technology out that can show all of the illnesses that a newborn will have or could have throughout his life. An insurance company could take that info and stop these children from ever having insurance. Something needs to change fast. (show comment) ..... Report Commentby Shenanigans @ 3:28pm - Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 Before someone else comments on my error....apparently there is a new law out banning genetic descrimination. (show comment) (No Subject) Report Commentby Shenanigans @ 3:35pm - Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 *discrimination*....must be time to go home (show comment) I've only Report Commentby Elphaba @ 8:41am - Wed Sep 24th, 2008 heard this is a proposed plan, not that anything passed. I believe some states passed a law preventing this, but I don't think Utah has and I don't think there has been anything done on the federal level, which is where this needs to be done. I mean if you have a genetic predisposition to something and you are in a state which protects you, you are fine. But if you want to move to the neighboring state for a better job, you can't because you won't be able to get health insurance. (show comment) Just a little something I found on it. Report Commentby Shenanigans @ 9:56am - Wed Sep 24th, 2008 The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008, also referred to as GINA, is a new federal law that protects Americans from being treated unfairly because of differences in their DNA that may affect their health. The new law prevents discrimination from health insurers and employers. The President signed the act into federal law on May 21, 2008. The parts of the law relating to health insurers will take effect by May 2009, and those relating to employers will take effect by November 2009. Before the federal law was passed, many states had passed laws against genetic discrimination. The degree of protection from these laws varies widely among the different states. The federal law sets a minimum standard of protection that must be met in all states. It does not weaken the protections provided by any state law. ditto :+1 (show comment) My question is Report Commentby StupidPplShldntBreed @ 2:35pm - Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 I agree with the posts about employers pushing for not paying our health insurance premiums anymore (I wish the article had more specifics than, "encouraging individuals to take responsibility for their care"), but what financial advantage will the provide to the already "raping the country" health insurance providers? If we're all paying for individual insurance, no more group discounts!!! (show comment) IT'LL NEVER WORK! Report Commentby Wake-up-and-smell-the-coffee @ 3:29pm - Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want control and you want choice, then you have to pay for it yourself. If you expect others to pay the bill, or any part of it, you cannot and WILL NOT have full discretion or choice. Whether in a traditional private insurance plan or in a nationalized health care program, whoever ends up paying the majority of the bill, will also end up with the majority of the choices and responsibility in the decision-making process. It cannot be any other way and it will not be any other way, no matter how much you want it, or despite what any poltician promises you. The only way you get full freedom choice and full discretion in the decisions is if YOU pay 100% of the costs. (show comment) Great in theory - Report Commentby Utah 101 @ 8:40pm - Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 If you theory were true employers would have health care providers and insurance companies by the short hairs as they pay almost all health care costs. In reality (and unfortunately) the folks who have the most modifiable influence on the future costs of health care are the uninsured. They are the ones who use emergency rooms because they can’t get an appointment to see a doctor and emergency rooms can’t deny services. They are the ones who don’t have preventative doctor visits (for the same reason) and in turn have to visit the emergency room. Providing preventative health services to the uninsured would have the greatest effect on the cost of future health care. The real question is how is that done without having some sort of nationalized health care program? Note: I state “modifiable influence on the future costs of health care” this is because, the group who has the largest impact on the cost of care, are terminally ill. I was at a national governor’s forum about a year ago and the following statistic astounded me – on average, 65% of all health care costs a person will incur, happen in the last 90 days of life. And personally I have no idea how that issue should or could be resolved. (show comment) And personally I have no idea how that issue should or could be resolved. Report Commentby dukeofgibbon @ 11:04pm - Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 Morphine. ditto :+1 (show comment) This Stinks.... Report Commentby dolphin1956 @ 4:02pm - Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 Put all the responsibility on the person not the employer-as usual!!! If more employers were held responsible for medical incurance for their employee then maybe more people would have health insurance. It's sad when people can't go to a doctor when they are sick becaue they will get sent to collections and then have wages garnished. Utah is the worst state for medical insurance. ditto :+2 (show comment) (No Subject) Report Commentby ubwind @ 4:51pm - Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 Within the past year I have been denied individual health insurance by pretty much all of the major companies. I don't go to the Dr's office for every little thing, in fact I avoid it as much as possible. The reason for denial was a previous maternity issue that couldn't be helped. If they do this and don't change the rules for insurance companies a lot of people will be denied health insurance, because under the group plans they can't refuse you...individual, they will deny you for anything. And yes, I know insurance companies are there to make money, but if that's the truth then I don't want to hear any more about how concerned the government is that so many people are uninsured. ditto :+3 (show comment) (No Subject) Report Commentby Pudgy @ 4:58pm - Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 I know this message won't get read because it's so far down the page... but I just have to point out that the REAL problem with health care isn't insurance; it's the out of control costs for health care. Hospitals, doctors, clinics, etc, are charging enormous amounts for simple things. This is the real problem. Now then, why do they charge so much? Because too many people don't pay their bills, for one, and because malpractice insurance is so expensive the doctors have to cover that overhead. Now then, what to do about deadbeats that don't pay a bill? Can't do much, except lower the friggin cost of health care so it's affordable again. Seems we're stuck in a catch-22. And what to do about malpractice insurance? Kill all the lawyers. Or turn them into doctors... or astronauts. And while I'm on my soapbox, can I just point out the stupidity of a system that allows insurance companies to decide how much they'll pay on a bill, which the hospital will just forgive the unpaid portion, but doesn't give the same allowance to someone who wants to pay the bill without using insurance? That is ridiculous. (show comment) "Kill all the lawyers" Report Commentby Utah 101 @ 9:38pm - Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 “Or turn them into"......how about fertilizer? ditto :+1 (show comment) Rob the Poor to Feed the Rich Report Commentby Tom A. @ 8:05pm - Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 Like any other "reform" of the last 15 years in Utah, this will cost the average person more and the wealthy less. If anyone believes these business leaders or thier health care "bill of rights" intend to make health care more affordable and accessable, you haven't been paying attention the last couple of weeks. The greed is good crowd is going to get billions of dollars in reward for ruining the US economy and here at home, they are going to take away the few benefits you have left and call it "reform." Of course, we wont know what kind of reform we will really get clobberd with until three minutes to midnight on the last day of next years legislature. We vote em in, we deserve what we get. (show comment) The real solution, (I know this won't happen) Report Commentby sideng @ 8:27pm - Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 is to get the insurance companies and the lawyers out of the health care business entirely. If we just stop trying to become "instant millionaires" by suing the doctor for every little error, then he won't have to pay a quarter million a year for malpractice insurance which he passes on to you. He can then lower his prices enough that you can actually afford a doctor visit without insurance! Imagine that. People with health insurance tend to want to get their "money's worth" so they go to the doctor or emergency room for every little sniffle. The Doctor then feels that, for liability reasons, he needs to run EVERY expensive test under the sun to diagnose the sniffle or he might get sued. In short, until we all accept the risks and responsibilities that go along with them, nothing will change. In the meantime, the HSA is probably the best way to go because it is YOUR money you spend for a Dr. visit and it makes you stop to think if you really need it. With a HSA, the employer gives most of the money to you instead of the insurance company and you are covered for catastrophic events only. ditto :+2 (show comment) We can't get insurance completely out of it Report Commentby I am always right so don't argue @ 9:20pm - Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 what happens when you have a catastrophy? My father in law just spent 3 weeks in the hospital and now has a $50,000 bill. He could never pay back that much on his own. I agree that the insurance companies need some more regulation, but we can't get rid of them all together, people would go bankrupt. (show comment) If it wasn't Report Commentby sideng @ 5:14pm - Wed Sep 24th, 2008 for the existing bureaucracy, the bill might have been only $5000, not ten times as much, which was my original point. Also, with a HSK, everything is paid 100 percent after you reach a threshold amount, $2500 - $3500 approx. You are expected to keep the HSK funded at this level yourself. (show comment) tort reform Report Commentby dukeofgibbon @ 10:59pm - Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 A large part of insurance and doctor premiums go towards malpractice insurance. We need to limit the maximum payout of a lawsuit to say $250,000. If the life lost was worth more than that, they should have had life insurance. Let's put the burden of proof on the person filing the lawsuit, just like the prosecution in a criminal case. Make them prove negligence beyond a reasonable doubt, not just simple accusation. Also, make it easy for hospitals to counter sue for expenses when they can prove the suit was frivolous. I also think the ambulance chaser lawyer practice of "I only get paid if you win" should be disbarred. I think you're going to see the eradication of the top tier plan, in favor of one that requires a co-pay for every patient request for care. It balances discouraging hypocondriacs while encouraging preventative care. I waited 24 hours with an enflamed appendix before I went to the doctor. My appendix ruptured on the operating table. Had I gotten there any later, I would have been in the hospital for a week. I hesitated going to the doctor becuase of the high deductible health plan, but the insurance company would have paid the price for that decision since I passed the max out of pocket threshold after the first day. ditto :+2 (show comment) Bottom line ya'll know what this means right? Report Commentby Billy_Jack @ 9:28pm - Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 It is going to cost us more money despite their fancy double speak. I for one am truly disgusted by this. ditto :+2 (show comment) Isn't this the same group - Report Commentby Cache Kid @ 9:45pm - Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 That killed immigration reform this year, along with the LDS church? What are they complaining about? They don't pay health care for their illegal workforce anyway. ditto :+2 (show comment) Pointless at the state level Report Commentby dukeofgibbon @ 10:40pm - Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 This reform needs to happen, but at the federal level. The problem is our overseers in congress decided to transfer the tax break of medical expenses from individuals to businesses. This transfer made private health care unaffordable for the individual and created the beuracratic HMO. Companies don't want to be responsible for health care, it costs overhead to manage and they can never satisfy everyone. They only do it because it is value added due to the tax break. By providing health care, companies take risks by getting into employees protected personal lives, namely smoking and obesity. Without employer health care, there wouldn't be a temptation to turn away fat smoker job applicants. I think I could find a better plan on the free market than I am provided, and having people search for value with their own money would create better choices. The problem is people with pre-existing conditions would pay a premium that reflected the cost of their care. Ultimately health care is a means to mitigate risk among many people, not to distribute the known expenses of a select few. Insurance companies would probably refuse to cover those expenses, but I'd love to hear a way to pay for those people without unjustly burdening the healthy. (Those burdens make many young people take the risk of no insurance) Socializing health care is not the answer. I did the math, I am having a worst case year with an apendectomy and knee reconstruction surgery on a high deductible insurance plan (I wanted a health savings account, thanks for the restrictions Mr Hatch). I will be out of pocket $4,000 once all the bills roll in for the year. If I lived in England, I would pay more than $4,500 every year for socialized medicine. I believe I got better care than I would in a UK free clinic. National health care means the efficiency of the Post Office, with the cost accounting of the Pentagon, and the compassion of the IRS. ditto :+2 (show comment) Business has always furnished Insurance Report Commentby Red neck @ 12:44am - Wed Sep 24th, 2008 This is to make up for the low wages Do you hear where they will raise the amount of pay for the employees? No, The reason for Business paying was to have a healthy work force. Everything that used to work has been killed. This is just more greed (show comment) Since when is it the responsibility of Report Commentby Givem Heaven @ 6:24am - Wed Sep 24th, 2008 the government to provide health care? Bad idea at a bad time from a greedy government with no end of mischief it will create for the people. ditto :+2 (show comment) Bottom Line......................... Report Commentby dutchman @ 6:35am - Wed Sep 24th, 2008 It's a WIN-WIN for the greedy Insurance Companies. ditto :+1 (show comment) BILL OF RIGHTS for Report Commentby MyOpinion4U @ 6:42am - Wed Sep 24th, 2008 all the business's to come together as one and SAVE MONEY, not necessarily better for the individual. the package seems pretty, BUT need more information on the CONTENTS or what has not been included. VOTE STILL OUT. usually when government and business work together it means the LITTLE GUY is about to GET IT AGAIN and i dont mean something nice either. SO DO BEWARE ditto :+1 (show comment) I take issue with this statement from the article. Report Commentby Elphaba @ 8:47am - Wed Sep 24th, 2008 One by one, a group of business Presidents and CEOs representing 500,000 Utahns signed their name to a bill of rights for Utah health system reform. They DON'T represent 500,000 Utahns. They EMPLOY them. They are responsible to their share holders and the bottom line, NOT to the average Utahn. Supposedly, the elected Representatives, Senators, and the Governor actually REPRESENT the people of Utah. I think they forget that though. Please note that KSL strives to be a family-friendly web site, so please keep the language clean when you add your comments. We reserve the right to accept or reject any message. Thanks. You are not logged in. You must be logged in to post a comment. The Fine Print:By submitting any content for posting you acknowledge and agree to the following: KSL may, in its sole discretion, accept, reject, censor, modify, or remove any posting without your consent and for any reason or no reason. You are solely responsible for the content you submit. You will not post content that (1) violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party, (2) is libelous, defamatory, obscene, or abusive, (3) violates a third party's right to privacy, or (4) is otherwise unlawful, distasteful, or inappropriate. With respect to any content that you submit, you grant to KSL an irrevocable, perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, fully assignable license to use, reproduce, modify, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, sublicense, perform and display such content, in whole or in part, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed. KSL expressly disclaims all liability for the content or use of any material posted on any forum at the Site. If you choose to rely on any such content for any reason, you do so at your own risk. Click here for the ksl.com Privacy Statement 1. Man meets burglars at the door with a gun 2. Six years after charges were dropped, ... 3. UDOT responds to complaints about ... 4. Driver slams into truck while talking on ... 5. Fla. police close books on '81 Walsh ... 1. Driver slams into truck while talking on ... 2. UDOT responds to complaints about ... 3. 3 residents injured in home invasion 4. Parents voice concerns about charter ... 5. Utah guard Luka Drca suspended for 2 games | News | KSLclips | TV | Radio | Sports | Movies | iUtah | Classifieds | More | Online Education | Jobs | Advertise | Contact Us | KSL Television & Radio, Salt Lake City UT ??????Terms of Use??????Bonneville's Values??????EEO Public File Report??????DTV Quarterly Activity ??????A Division of Bonneville International ??m14 KSL's public inspection files, including the Children's Television Programming Reports, are available for viewing during regular office hours at the KSL Broadcast House.

1 Ratings:

Last updated on Tue Dec 09 00:00:00 -0500 2008