InterviewSolution
Saved Bookmarks
InterviewSolution
| 1. |
Solve : health care reform passes in US? |
|
Answer» I don't understand fully the risks/rumors of government "taking over" the health care system, but this will certainly make it easier for me to find a job in the IT industry, because I won't have to worry whether or not the hiring company offers medical benefits for my family, and I won't have to worry about loosing insurance just because I change JOBS, either. Some companies from what I understand, even if they do offer health benifets, won't except the EMPLOYEE's family member if they have pre-existing conditions. Shoot, even if you do have decent health insurance, now it's illegal for insurance companies to increase your cost just because you get sick, from what I gather. I don't know how the health care system works in Canada, but in the US, private insurance companies indirectly control the lives of people because people can't afford to loose there health insurance, in a lot of cases. In an interesting twist, here in Canada there is the "public" option. and in an even more interesting twist, it's NOT free, and it's mandatory. (At least in BC). They have absolutely no competition so they just send bills to everybody in the province. So It's actually kind of the opposite here, except it doesn't matter wether we pay or not we still have coverage, since, you know, we're paying for it already through taxes. its sad that one party did not vote for something that everyone should have as a right health care , we are lucky in Britain our's is free for everything/everywhere and there are very few complaint's against it , but there is talk that in the next budget the overall amount is going to be cut Anyone who thinks this is Free health care is kidding themselves bigtime... EEVIAC you should know that if you're a Resident of Cali...Free? I didn't actually mean that. I was putting emphasis on the freedom people are going to have in general, having another option besides being at the mercy of private insurance companies. What ever I have to pay, I'm sure I'll be able to live with it. However, before the bill kicks in, I'll still have to make sure the company I apply for offers health coverage. But later if I have to change jobs, there will be more freedom when looking for jobs since I wont have to worry whether that new job has benefits. I find that liberating, at the least. One thing I don't understand though, is that the bill "extends" insurance to "32 million" Americans who don't have coverage. What about the other 270 million + Americans? What if they need public option eventually like others? How many people will this bill actually benefit? Follow the money...there you will find the answers. Quote from: patio on March 22, 2010, 04:10:41 PM Follow the money...there you will find the answers. from what they are saying over here , everyone can use itHealth insurance should never have been tied to the employer. One of the reasons "old" folks have trouble finding employment is employers don't want to incur the higher insurance premiums (for the perceived greater health risk). Additionally, employers hire "temp" or "part-time" help to avoid the requirement to provide full benefits of which health insurance is a large expense. This leaves many people under employed or working several part-time jobs. (Actually, not being an employer, I'm not sure about this.) Your insurance, if you want any, should be independent of the employer. This would eliminate "health" as an obstacle to changing jobs. It would permit the employer to focus on their "core" business and it would return more privacy and freedom back to the potential employee. It will be interesting to see what the "constitutional" challenges are... If the insurance is "mandatory", can an American citizen be forced to seek employment simply to pay the "health" tax (mandatory insurance premiums). Will America purge the "street" people (homeless, vagrants) from their cities (jail them) on the pretext that they failed to secure or buy the "mandatory" health insurance? What America needs is NOT universal health insurance coverage. What they need is a return to "affordable" health care. People should pay "cash" for most of their health care needs (or work something out with the DOCTOR). You should only carry "major medical" insurance for the really big stuff. By minimizing the number of people in the medical treatment and payment "food chain" there's more accountability. The "insertion" of health insurance into this chain has "increased" the cost of health care and opened the door to fraud, waste, and abuse; not to mention the loss of "medical" privacy. And no, I don't know what's in the health care bill. I doubt that anyone does... Quote from: dahlarbear on March 26, 2010, 05:05:20 PM
indeed Quote If the insurance is "mandatory", can an American citizen be forced to seek employment s I think I agree, however I'm just glad something was finally done. I've never had to worry about health insurance until recently, and thinking about finding an entry level position, that offers reasonable health coverage seems difficult at the least. And even if you do find that job, what if you want to move? Life is harder than it has seemed for so many years, which I am just learning.What I'm waiting to see is how much this will cost individuals. I'm not an insurance or HR expert, but I've been somewhat involved in the process. What a lot of people don't know is that in large companies ($1B+ in sales, or 10,000+ employees, and should be getting good discounts, the average insurance cost per employee is around $600 per month, of which the employer typically pays somewhere from half to two thirds of the cost. I haven't heard of what individuals will be forced to pay under the new plan, but I'm willing to bet it's going to be a lot higher than anyone expects. Quote And no, I don't know what's in the health care bill. I doubt that anyone does... Most qualified statemrnt in this thread... |
|