Healthcare, retirement benefits and revised government accounting

I question the line in the article about virtually none of the governments offering these benefits have looked at the long term cost impact of these benefits. I've spent the last six and half years working with employers (public and private) on analyzing their increasing healthcare costs and unless my clients happen to be outliers, they are very concerned and are aware of the growing bill for these benefits.

That's why we have seen the average cost share paid by employees for healthcare rise from about 15% in the late 90's to about 35% currently. I'm sure there are some that have ignored the problem but I think the Times are exaggerating their point by saying "virtually none" of them have looked into the problem.

 

While government bodies can pass the costs on to the taxpayers, just like corporations you will see them drop promised benefits. It doesn't seem right that a promised benefit which is really one reason people choose to work at a place can later be taken away.Coporations didn't put away money for retiree health care or pensions for that matter and are now declaring bankrupcy to avoid paying. Governments don't want to raise taxes so a lot of them will cut promised benefits.

 

Kinda blows the whole "managed care = cost savings" argument, doesn't it?

 

We need nationalised healthcare. I know that every free market Reep will gasp at such a suggestion but if we are to compete with other nations in trade and not bankrupt our government this is the only solution, IMHO.

And before people start pointing out the problems and failings of other countries' healthcare systems, I'd like to remind everyone that this is the US of A. We pride ourselves on hard work and ingenuity. With a little American know how we can build an efficient, effective system that will be the envy of the world.

 

The only reason nationalised healthcare has gone nowhere in this country is because the pharmaceutical and insurance companies throw massive amounts of money at politicians to maintain the status quo.

To my mind, we'll never have national healthcare until we have real campaign finance laws.

 

Yep, it's easy. Simply require every pol who receives a contribution to post is on their website within 24 hours. Nothing more than that. Then all we have to do is follow the money and we know who is buying whom and for what reason.

Campaign Finance laws, a la McCain/Feingold, only bought us 527s, and we know how wonderful those turned out.

 

You mean so the same folks who "manage" SSI can get us a similar return on our health care investment, er, I mean, insurance?

 

A local talk show host, who is also a major financial wizard with Wachovia Securities, has been saying for months that businesses and government agencies from United Airlines to city governments, need to come clean on the benefits they have offered. IOW, the benefits are NOT going to be there. He postulates there may be less than 60% of promised benefits that will actually be paid. Much of this is due to terrible investment decisions on the part of managers who were not qualified to make those decisions.

 

The only ROI you get from healthcare is happy, healthy workers. I suppose you could measure that in terms of productivity gained, but that's about it.

The profit model for healthcare has done nothing but increase costs and explode the number of uninsured. We could scarcely do worse under a federalized plan.

 

Between Healthcare promises and pension funds for workers, many a company.... and retired worker are in for a rude awakening.

Paul

 

Whether you pay premiums or taxes, you still must have someone making the decisions. You still have to pay doctors for services. Are they to expect a major cut in pay in order to reduce costs?

 

Exactly.

 

OASDI has a 1% overhead cost. OASDI isn't an investment program. OASDI is a successful government program. If Bushco hadn't created a $10 trillion downturn in our government's fiscal health the Social Security argument would never have happened.

 

We've been down this road before. It doesn't matter what you call it, we all have to pay for the cost of healthcare. Your rip on Bush has nothing to do with the fact that the ROI is lousy. Why does anyone think that socialized medicine will be any better, or even the same but cheaper, if the government manages it? The government has no history of being able to deliver on this kind of promise.

 

If the standard of care weren't becoming more and more expensive then we could afford to keep these people insured. However the standard always rises to the level of money available. Who here would be willing to limit these employees' level of care to what it is today? That's the crux of the problem. No one (at least not a majority) are willing to limit the growth in the quality of healthcare.

 

We need Super-Hillary to save the day on the health care debacle in this country.

 

One of the biggest obstacles to nationalized health care is the US's general unwillingness to get serious about smoking cessation. The next big step then is to tax them to fund the program.

 

Yep, I agree. Except I have no confidence the money would stay in the program. Also if you increase the tax to raise money to encourage people to quit smoking, you will wind up with a program that is self-defeating.

And let's add alcohol consumption, that is right behind tobacco in terms of health costs.

STDs are also about voluntary actions that run up the cost of health care.

Those are the top 3. Do that and the cost would go down for all. I'm serious...but none of it will happen.

 

Compaines amd city governments do have to be honest in what they do offer to their members. Some of the problems with health insurance plasn is that they often cover things that may not be needed by the customer. Small things like that snowball into much bigger costs in the long run.

Universial health care is not the answer. Such a program would require massive infusions of money that just simply isn't avaliable. You would also have to decide which level of government runs it. Would it be the federal level or the state level? What gets covered and by how much?

Everyone thinks that there is a solution but there isn't.

 

Are you drunk?

 

I'm realistic.