#1 2013-08-21 18:42:47
Be careful what you wish for. The University notifies employees this morning that their healthcare benefits are being cut back.
The university of Virginia, March 2010 wrote:
“I am writing on behalf of the University of Virginia Medical Center to indicate our support of the health reform package pending before the House because we believe providing affordable health coverage for more citizens of the Commonwealth is critical.”
The University of Virginia Aug 21, 2013 wrote:
“Ironically, by providing generous benefits, the University becomes exposed to a federal excise tax known as the ‘Cadillac tax,’” Carkeek said.
Effective in 2018, the 40 percent tax would apply to the cost of an individual plan with average premiums per employee topping $10,200, or $27,500 for a family plan.
If the University made no changes to address rising costs or the impact of the Affordable Care Act, employee premiums would have risen a projected 12 percent to 13 percent this year.
Offline
#2 2013-08-21 19:09:48
That's easy to translate, we're cutting costs and here's a convenient excuse. Like we all haven't had that happen to us in the last decade or so...
Offline
#3 2013-08-21 19:24:58
U.Va. is the only state agency that funds its own health plan, rather than participating in a state-operated health plan.
Offline
#4 2013-08-21 20:23:23
Also in the News According To Republicans today: President Barack Obama is to blame for the poor response to hurricane Katrina
Offline
#5 2013-08-21 22:38:21
This has been happening in companies across the country for the last decade at least. Now they have a convenient excuse. And they are going to use it.
Here's a little example which I cannot remember if I have posted here before or not:
Darden Corporation, owners of Olive garden, Red Lobster, Longhorn Steakhouse, and several other restaurant chains was used as the object of a study to see what would happen with the Affordable Care Act. It was found that the increase in cost to Darden would be large, but if they increased the cost of each meal served by only $.11, they could offset the cost completely. 11 whole cents. What did Darden choose to do? Drop healthcare for all part time workers. And they cut all non-management workers to Part time, thus saving the 11 cents per meal they would have had to spend. Yes, it is a lot of money in total, but you and I (If I ever ate in one of those horrible chains) would easily pay for the cost.
So greed outweighed the welfare of the employees. Why? Because employees are expendable. Hell, many corporations take out insurance policies on their employees so if they die, the corporation makes a huge profit off of their death, and the employees families get nothing.
There is a film called "The Corporation" which explains in a very interesting way how corporations work. How they meet all the criteria for psychotic personality disorder. Well worth a watch if you have not seen it.
Offline
#6 2013-08-22 01:34:35
Obamacare is destroying healthcare. I have laid off more people since this has passed than I have my entire 20 plus years in the healthcare field. The scariest part is Taco Bell is producing more and more fake Doritos items on its menu at the very time we need these healthcare workers. I'm really thinking about inventing a "As seen On TV" colon Flowbee for the massive influx of polyps this world is about to witness. Any investors out there?
Last edited by Banjo (2013-08-22 01:35:38)
Offline
#7 2013-08-22 06:37:51
I debated universal health care in high school in 1969 when it was already moldy old news to Harry Truman, not exactly a commie, who flogged the idea hard in 1948. Keep your workforce healthy and productive out of enlightened self interest was my argument, even if you care nothing at all for peasants. I had the facts and figures to prove it. So did Truman.
Y'all know at least some of modest means you wouldn't wish on nasty, brutish, and short. No? Check again in the mirror.
Last edited by choad (2013-08-22 06:44:30)
Offline
#8 2013-08-22 09:04:36
Companies have always offset increases in healthcare costs by raising prices accordingly, and this should be no different. When spread across a large number of customers, as in my example, the increase is minimal. I don't understand the mindset of laying off employees rather than doing what is necessary to keep those employees. I think there is more involved than just healthcare costs, and we just get a convenient excuse. When a company's only motivation is more and more profit, the employees are the first to suffer.
I am very comfortable with the amount I make and have never understood the "must have more" mentality.
Offline
#9 2013-08-22 10:40:46
doesyourpussyhurt wrote:
Companies have always offset increases in healthcare costs by raising prices accordingly, and this should be no different. When spread across a large number of customers, as in my example, the increase is minimal. I don't understand the mindset of laying off employees rather than doing what is necessary to keep those employees. I think there is more involved than just healthcare costs, and we just get a convenient excuse. When a company's only motivation is more and more profit, the employees are the first to suffer.
I am very comfortable with the amount I make and have never understood the "must have more" mentality.
That idea works great if you own a grocery store. You can't raise prices in healthcare to offset losses. Medicare and private insurances pay us what ever the hell they feel like paying.
Offline
#10 2013-08-22 11:00:15
Healthcare costs have been going up, yes. And, companies have adjusted their policies to try to compensate. However, Obamacare is going to be a catastrophe. 75% of the new private industry jobs Obama has been touting are part-time. Why? Because the companies won't need to cover part-time employees under the law. Try as you will to dismiss all this as business as usual, but even the University of Virginia, staunch early supporters of Obamacare, blame the diminished coverage directly on it.
Offline
#11 2013-08-22 12:37:15
Please keep in mind that ObamaCare = RomneyCare.
It's irresponsible and silly to focus this crap on one politician, if they would all stop sucking the lobbyist's dicks for a while we might get a realistic and workable plan. Instead all they focus on is trying not to gag while they deep throat corporate cocks.
Offline
#12 2013-08-22 12:48:10
Emmeran wrote:
Please keep in mind that ObamaCare = RomneyCare.
It's irresponsible and silly to focus this crap on one politician, if they would all stop sucking the lobbyist's dicks for a while we might get a realistic and workable plan. Instead all they focus on is trying not to gag while they deep throat corporate cocks.
There are so many provisions and exceptions in the law and carve outs for special interests that I would say it is less like a cock sucking and more like a bukkake fest. And we are the pivot woman.
Offline
#13 2013-08-22 20:23:44
And who's to blame for the pivotal role you're playing? How about the congresscritters that block a single-payer system?
Offline
#15 2013-08-24 02:01:07
Oh yeah, I forgot to mention this! I just recently spent a week in the hospital, a scar removal, a skin graft and one last resection on my scalp. $1200, total. I can never be charged more than $1500 for medical bills in any given month, so suck on my fat Single Payer.
Offline
#16 2013-08-24 11:25:25
Congress is neatly in the back pocket of the insurance industry among many others. Instead of pushing for a government run healthcare bill which would put the government and therefore the American people in the drivers seat, they made sure that the insurance industry gets their cut too. It's all a game, and no party is without blame.
It would not surprise me at all if the whole thing was a setup from the start. Get Obama's plan passed and give the people someone to blame (the black guy) when all the while the real plan was the screwing of America by a) requiring most people to pay insurance companies for healthcare and b) allowing the corporations to cut hours and thus cut out their responsibilities for healthcare for employees.
I am one of the people considering filing for bankruptcy due to medical bills. As of the beginning of 2012 I had zero debt. Today I am over $140,000 in debt because of a heart attack, and that is with company insurance. The insurance company decided that my heart attack was caused by pre-existing conditions (because apparently plaque building up in your arteries is pre-existing), and they are not willing to pay their share. This will take years to get settled, if it gets settled. In the meantime, I daily get 4 to 6 phone calls asking when I am going to "pay this in full". Your insurance company holds your life and fiscal welfare in their hands. So when people try to tell me how good the current system is, they can suck my asshole. Anyone, insured or not, can end up in the courts from medical problems.
And before anyone decides my eating habits brought this on, guess again. I am 6' 175 lbs. and have been a vegetarian for 20+ years, don't drink alcohol, and haven't smoked including weed (although I am considering rethinking that one), since I was 25. Stress will kill you, and we all have too much of it.
Offline
#17 2013-08-24 12:33:45
It really is wrong for the Medical-Industrial Complex to get everything you've worked for in life. When I was young, I was responsible and began putting aside money for my old age. I had a nice nest egg which showed promise of multiplying into a large clutch. Then Partner™ and I moved, and while I was without health insurance because I was between jobs, I had a detached retina. I had to pay out of pocket. The retina in my other eye detached a year later, and because eye problems were now a "pre-existing condition", I again paid out of pocket. I wound up developing cataracts, and when all was said and done, my nest egg was gone.
Partner™ then developed prostate cancer, and after much treatment, is in remission. I stayed home to take care of him during this time, and the treatment turned him into an old man. My options are to work to pay someone to look after him, stick him in a nasty nursing home, take care of him myself, or be a total bastard and walk away*. I've chosen to care for him myself and we get by on his pension. So my nest egg is gone, and I will be a total parasite on society in my old age. Being responsible didn't pay off because of screwing over by the Medical-Industrial Complex, so fuck American Capitalism!
*Because I live in a "Defense of Marriage" state, I could abandon him with no criminal or civil penalties.
Offline
#18 2013-08-24 13:23:40
fnord wrote:
It really is wrong for the Medical-Industrial Complex to get everything you've worked for in life. When I was young, I was responsible and began putting aside money for my old age. I had a nice nest egg which showed promise of multiplying into a large clutch. Then Partner™ and I moved, and while I was without health insurance because I was between jobs, I had a detached retina. I had to pay out of pocket. The retina in my other eye detached a year later, and because eye problems were now a "pre-existing condition", I again paid out of pocket. I wound up developing cataracts, and when all was said and done, my nest egg was gone.
Partner™ then developed prostate cancer, and after much treatment, is in remission. I stayed home to take care of him during this time, and the treatment turned him into an old man. My options are to work to pay someone to look after him, stick him in a nasty nursing home, take care of him myself, or be a total bastard and walk away*. I've chosen to care for him myself and we get by on his pension. So my nest egg is gone, and I will be a total parasite on society in my old age. Being responsible didn't pay off because of screwing over by the Medical-Industrial Complex, so fuck American Capitalism!
*Because I live in a "Defense of Marriage" state, I could abandon him with no criminal or civil penalties.
The medical profession profiteering on the poor has been around way longer than the United States. This is a time-honored tradition going back centuries. Partner™ was supposed to just go ahead and die, and decrease the surplus population.
Offline
#19 2013-08-24 20:03:33
Baywolfe wrote:
Partner™ was supposed to just go ahead and die, and decrease the surplus population.
Not only that, he was supposed to be fodder for some TV preachers 'wages of homosexual sin' special broadcast. Lives ruined by Sin and Obamacare, anything to keep those donations rolling in.
Offline
