Supposedly a 20 something working 28 hours a week at Burger King would only pay $60 a month. If you look at the ads the insurance companies put out they'll often mention "coverage starting a only $60 a month." That's for young people but us old farts know how fast the premium rises as you get older.

I would have to look up my premium payments back in the 1980s but since they didn't leave any impression they probably didn't cost much and that company covered alternative care too.

Trader Joe's got rid of their health care benefit and giving the savings to their employees to buy their own healthcare. That's a bold move because as any greedy CEO would tell you the health benefits keep their wage slaves tethered to the company. If Trader Joe's employees want to move on to something else they won't lose their health care.

On 09/26/2013 09:09 AM, Richard J. Williams wrote:

No twenty-something working 28 hours a week at Burger King is going to want to pay $300 or more for medical insurance with a high deductible, out-of-pocket co-pay.

And, they are the least likely to use it. According to what I've read, most young people will not see any value in Obamacare - they will see it as a bad deal.

Not to mention fixing the price - so that younger people pay more to keep the premiums down for the older folks. That's when the real revolution will start.

Go figure.

"The trouble is that loss aversion also militates against buying insurance. Especially if you don't make a lot of money--and many young people don't--writing that premium check is painful if not prohibitive."

'The Young and the Clueless'
Wall Street Journal:
http://online.wsj.com/article/Opinion <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303796404579097192784900688.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion>


On 9/25/2013 2:52 PM, Bhairitu wrote:

I would think up too. My years with Anthem Blue Cross showed they were money grubbing crooks. Just check the salaries of the CEOs of these health insurance companies. They wouldn't have been put out of business with Single Payer because they would still have a market for supplemental insurance as they do now with Medicare.

On 09/25/2013 10:36 AM, Richard J. Williams wrote:

According to what I've read, health insurance is either going to go up or down
for most people on October 1, or go away. Go figure.

If I was a betting man, I'd bet on it going up or away, not down.

'Obama Lied, My Health Plan Died'
Posted by Michelle Malkin:
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-lied-health-plan-died-070000532.html

On 9/25/2013 10:56 AM, Bhairitu wrote:

I listened to a bit of his rant yesterday. The Tea Party element is complaining about being charged for Obamacare by being forced to buy insurance. So why the hell didn't they support Single Payer? Why not have what tax dollars you pay take care of your health care? I'm out of the picture on this one because I'm on Medicare. But perhaps Single Payer should just be Medicare for everybody.

We used to have non-profit health care in this country. Even many of the health insurance companies back in the day were non-profit. But then the "joy boys of capitalism" saw something new to hijack and exploit. And we got screwed.

BTW, speaking of Medicare, I just sold a house that I held title on but it was really paid for by my relatives who lived in it. A few months back when I contacted my accountant for the tax consequences she grimly mentioned the 3.8% Medicare tax. I didn't think that was so bad because I assumed it was only on the capital gains. Nope, it was on the sale price of the house. That doesn't seem right to me and reading up it was one of the items hidden in the health care bill. That's one thing that really may need to be challenged.

On 09/25/2013 12:28 AM, jr_...@yahoo.com wrote:

He's planning to filibuster his way through Congress to get his conservative agenda. If he succeeds, the federal government will be shutdown. By the way, this could also make or break his ambition to be the next president of the US.




Reply via email to