Vegas Free-for-All - I had a delightful conversation with a health Insurance company rep this morning

I had a delightful conversation with a health Insurance company rep this morning

forkushV

Apr 1, 2014
11:53am

Quote

Originally posted by: jatki99
Of course it's fair, you're crying sour grapes, plain and simple. The folks getting those perks"have more" those working for hourly wages "have less".Soo..the haves vs the have nots.Sour grapes

EDIT I was answering forky. You (nugget) snuck one in on me, sorry. I was trying to circumvent keeping the mile long quote chain going.

So just who are you responding to? Maybe you should stay off the internets if it's too complicated for you.

We BOTH complained ONLY about the tax free nature of the perks.

Boilerman

Apr 1, 2014
11:26pm

Block User

You and I pay for uninsured emergency rooms visits. I'm surprised that you don't know my commonly stated position on such things as uninsured emergency room visit. I've stated on this thread that Americans should be responsible for themselves. It should be no shoes, no shirt, no service............or in this case no insurance, no cash, no medicine.

Yep, it's harsh. The reality is, however, that we are going broke and once America is bankrupt (and it'll happen), there will be far more poor, and far less medicine than we have today.

50 years from now there will be no free medicine except from private charity. There will be little social security. Medicare and medicade will be virtually non-existent. There will be very high unemployment and poverty. This will be be caused because of our deficit spending today. Obamacare is one more thing that we can not afford.

Quote

Originally posted by: pjstroh

Quote
Originally posted by: Boilerman
PJ, please explain where the $8000 in savings for Bro Ogden come from and who's is paying for it.

Quote
Originally posted by: pjstroh
Your brother is part of a collectively insured group.... so his medical costs are covered by the collectively insured. Thats how insurance works.

The uninsured fall outside of this equation. They aren't covered but they get emergency treatment anyway. So Boiler, here's the million dollar question(s): Who do you think pays for those uninsured emergency visits? And is having a larger number of those people better for your premiums? If you figure out the answer be sure to forward it to Gov Pence.

Quote
Originally posted by: Boilerman
PJ, I respectfully disagree. The insurance companies know that my sister-in-law is a high risk cancer survivor, and they used to charge my bro lots of extra money to cover the risk of future huge medical costs.

That risk (and inherit expenses) has now been transferred to you and me. And then friendly old Obama and friends were nice enough to double down on this wealth transfer, and gave my nice brother Big Lar a subsidy.

Trasferring risk does not eliminate risk.

The CBO already answered your question...and their answer says the math benefits deficit reduction.

You haven't answered my question.

Boilerman

Apr 1, 2014
11:35pm

Block User

You and I know there will be nothing but increased deficits due to Obamacare.

Quote

Originally posted by: pjstroh

Quote
Originally posted by: Boilerman
PJ, please explain where the $8000 in savings for Bro Ogden come from and who's is paying for it.

Quote
Originally posted by: pjstroh
Your brother is part of a collectively insured group.... so his medical costs are covered by the collectively insured. Thats how insurance works.

The uninsured fall outside of this equation. They aren't covered but they get emergency treatment anyway. So Boiler, here's the million dollar question(s): Who do you think pays for those uninsured emergency visits? And is having a larger number of those people better for your premiums? If you figure out the answer be sure to forward it to Gov Pence.

Quote
Originally posted by: Boilerman
PJ, I respectfully disagree. The insurance companies know that my sister-in-law is a high risk cancer survivor, and they used to charge my bro lots of extra money to cover the risk of future huge medical costs.

That risk (and inherit expenses) has now been transferred to you and me. And then friendly old Obama and friends were nice enough to double down on this wealth transfer, and gave my nice brother Big Lar a subsidy.

Trasferring risk does not eliminate risk.

The CBO already answered your question...and their answer says the math benefits deficit reduction.

You haven't answered my question.

Boilerman

Apr 1, 2014
11:39pm

Block User

I don't believe I said that no one would sign up. I have for years called it another wealth redistribution program, and that it would cost far more than promised............because history tells ut that it always happens that way with government.

Quote

Originally posted by: pjstroh

Quote
Originally posted by: Chilcoot

Wow!

I dont get it. Our resident conservatives told us nobody would sign up...and then (gulp!) the government would have to bail out insurance companies....and costs were going to fly through the roof !

Does this mean I can stop digging my apocalypse bunker now?

hoops2

Apr 1, 2014
11:48pm

Block User

"The pre-existing provision of Obamacare is saving you $200,000 to $500,000, according to what you stated before, right?"

If there are to many people like maliber in the plan, the insurer will have to raise rates.

While obama can quote exactly how many people signed up, he is unable to tell us the age demos,how many people have paid and how many were previously insured.

Are they counting as signed up people who checked the box to sign up later?

I find it amazing that so many people signed up over the weekend, when the website was down for hours at a time.

It is ironic he made this announcement on April Fools Day

Boilerman

Apr 1, 2014
11:51pm

Block User

The expenses increase the corporate taxable income for the company, thus the company pays more taxes, which Liberals love.

Quote

Originally posted by: forkushV

Quote
Originally posted by: jatki99
Quote
Originally posted by: nuggetboy
Quote
Originally posted by: hoops2
"Too many execs getting away with minimal salaries but gobs of untaxed benefits that contribute to their massive wealth"

Such as?

The list is endless depending on the corporation.
Even small businesses have many of these "perks" they give to their managers.
I have several members of my family that work for large corporations and some smaller ones (three are accountants). I am always amazed at what they tell me their company either pays for or they can bill off to the company. In some cases, their "benefits" or "billing offs" exceed their actual salaries (which aren't too shabby).

Corporate retreats
Use of company property (condo's, lake houses,etc. - they can be rented for next to nothing for private use)
One company owns a compound in Belize. They execs use it for "planning sessions' every six months. Families come along of course, just have to pay air fare.
Corporate/company car (don't have to buy your own)
Health club membership
Country club membership
Entertainment expenses, both for home and outside
Use of corporate sky box in stadium
Clothing allowance
Cell phone/mobile devices and accounts

The list goes on. The individual does not have to spend their own money for these things therefore keeping their wealth intact. The typical blue collar or labor worker does not get these benefits and must spend his/her own money on cell phones, vacations, cars, car insurance, car registration, event tickets, etc...
A company car alone, with all the operational expenses covered, is equal to more than a minimum wage employee earns in a year. No taxes paid on it.

So is there something wrong that? Is there something wrong with a successful career that starts to include some perks?...

I agree!

But when a fast-food worker earns a dollar an hour raise, it's taxed. When executives earn much much more than that in perks and fringe benefits, sometimes it isn't taxed. Fair? No, it's class warfare.

Boilerman

Apr 1, 2014
11:54pm

Block User

How about a flat tax from the first dollar earned by every American? Everybody pays the same percentage tax, and everybody pays more on a tax increase and pays less on a tax decrease.

Such benifits would be fully taxable, although that's a problem. How much of a country club membership is used for work, and how much for business?

Quote

Originally posted by: nuggetboy

Quote
Originally posted by: jatki99
Quote
Originally posted by: nuggetboy
Quote
Originally posted by: hoops2
"Too many execs getting away with minimal salaries but gobs of untaxed benefits that contribute to their massive wealth"

Such as?

The list is endless depending on the corporation.
Even small businesses have many of these "perks" they give to their managers.
I have several members of my family that work for large corporations and some smaller ones (three are accountants). I am always amazed at what they tell me their company either pays for or they can bill off to the company. In some cases, their "benefits" or "billing offs" exceed their actual salaries (which aren't too shabby).

Corporate retreats
Use of company property (condo's, lake houses,etc. - they can be rented for next to nothing for private use)
One company owns a compound in Belize. They execs use it for "planning sessions' every six months. Families come along of course, just have to pay air fare.
Corporate/company car (don't have to buy your own)
Health club membership
Country club membership
Entertainment expenses, both for home and outside
Use of corporate sky box in stadium
Clothing allowance
Cell phone/mobile devices and accounts

The list goes on. The individual does not have to spend their own money for these things therefore keeping their wealth intact. The typical blue collar or labor worker does not get these benefits and must spend his/her own money on cell phones, vacations, cars, car insurance, car registration, event tickets, etc...
A company car alone, with all the operational expenses covered, is equal to more than a minimum wage employee earns in a year. No taxes paid on it.

So is there something wrong that? Is there something wrong with a successful career that starts to include some perks? Anyone that thinks that there is , is simply crying sour grapes about the haves vs have-nots. My wife has had a very successful career, some in a corp atmosphere some in non corp. but all have been very successful and with a few small perks. None however have included some of the ones listed and we don't begrudge anyone any of those, why should we? Good for them. We feel pretty blessed about everything we do have especially after the last 5 yrs. with only one income on top off everything else taht we've been through.

Jak,
I agree with you in part and do not begrudge their success. I just want them to pay their fair share. These people may deserve these benefits, but why does a person earning 200k with 60k in benefits only pay taxes on the 200k? get those benefits if you can and you deserve them, just pay taxes on them. Again, it is all about taxing income and not wealth. We need to base our tax system on wealth. It would be impossible to properly calculate the actual "income" from many of these benefits. just tax wealth.

pjstroh

Apr 1, 2014
11:57pm

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: hoops2
"The pre-existing provision of Obamacare is saving you $200,000 to $500,000, according to what you stated before, right?"

If there are to many people like maliber in the plan, the insurer will have to raise rates.

While obama can quote exactly how many people signed up, he is unable to tell us the age demos,how many people have paid and how many were previously insured.

Are they counting as signed up people who checked the box to sign up later?

I find it amazing that so many people signed up over the weekend, when the website was down for hours at a time.

It is ironic he made this announcement on April Fools Day

You can judge the success of the law simply by counting the number of times Hoops changes the goal posts for measuring its success. I think we're over 100 times now.

Boilerman

Apr 1, 2014
11:57pm

Block User

How about my comfortably retired brother. He's saving $8000 a year since his wife is considered high risk (cancer survivor). We'll find that lots of those signed up are sick and old and expensive.

Quote

forkushV

Apr 2, 2014
12:07am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: Boilerman
50 years from now there will be no free medicine except from private charity. There will be little social security. Medicare and medicade will be virtually non-existent. There will be very high unemployment and poverty...

Yeah, that'll teach America for not listening to you!

Since you've finally realized that Obamacare is here to stay, that means your Denial Stage* is over, and you're moving into the Anger Stage. malibber is a bit more evolved than you; he's already reached Depression.

*Kubler-Ross Five Stages of Grief

«‹36 ›»

Already a LVA subscriber?
To continue reading, choose an option below:

Diamond Membership

$3 per month

Unlimited access to LVA website

Exclusive subscriber-only content

Limited Member Rewards Online

Join Now

Platinum Membership

$50 per year

Unlimited access to LVA website

Exclusive subscriber-only content

Exclusive Member Rewards Book

Join Now