Canadian Healthcare from a Canadian...

[MTK]

Originally Posted by jsarno

The point was to show what McDonalds offers. I was told by Matty that McD. has poor coverage, that link shows they have good coverage. Failing to see your point here.
I never said I had a site that shows how great McD's coverage is, just that because they are a big company they can offer good coverage. I proved my point with the link.

You didn't prove anything. What are the limits on those coverages? What are the co-pays? What does the employee pay out of pocket per pay period for these benefits? Are they available to all employees?

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

The thing is, the issue of affordable health care isn't limited to those who put entertainment before health. Try being diabetic and trying to find affordable health care. Not every business provides a company health care plan, and those who do provide it charge double the amount that yours charges you for family coverage. For instance, family coverage for my place of business is over $300 a pay period.

While I disagree with a government based health care plan, I do believe families should be able to have their choice of affordable private insurance.

And to add, I also believe individuals who are born with diseases such as diabetes or other diseases shouldn't be penalized because of their reliance medication to stay alive.

I am assuming a 2 pay period month, meaning you pay over $600 a month???? If that's the case, you need to seek private healthcare for a better quote. You might be able to get it cheaper than your company is providing.

I think the only way to actually fix these issues is to do away with insurances altogether. Have the gov. step in and drop the prices for surgeries etc. If there were companies fighting for our business the prices would be a lot less. There is no one out there to say "$300k for a 5 hour operation...are you kidding?" For some reason it's acceptable. Why should a routine doctor visit cost $150??? All for them to barely touch you, maybe give you a prescription (which costs even more money) and take your money.

Sorry to say, but the way the system is, it is fair for you to pay that much because you use it a whole lot more.
I NEVER go to the doctor, so why should I have to pay extra? I know it sucks for you, it REALLY sucks, but why should someone that is healthy pay the same amount than someone that is not?

I'd like to see a system kind of like property taxes. You have to pay once or twice a year, and you pay according to how much you use. So if you have a lot of prescriptions and you visit the doctor constantly, then you pay more. If not, then you pay nothing or very little.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

You didn't prove anything. What are the limits on those coverages? What are the co-pays? What does the employee pay out of pocket per pay period for these benefits? Are they available to all employees?

Well, I doubt we will know the cost unless someone here actually works for them to enlighten us.
However you said:
I'd be willing to be the coverage is pretty shitty and not cheap.

It's not shitty. Point proven with link. Do I need to spell EVERYTHING out for you? They offer good benefits.

About the cost, I have no way of knowing that, and to me, it doesn't matter. You either get it, or you don't. It's offered, and it's up to them if they want to get it. If they choose not to, that doesn't mean I should pay it for them which is what this thread has turned into.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Are they available to all employees?

What kind of question is that? How many employers do you know that don't offer their benefits to their employees? If they are full timers, they are offered it.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by jsarno

Well, I doubt we will know the cost unless someone here actually works for them to enlighten us.
However you said:
I'd be willing to be the coverage is pretty shitty and not cheap.

It's not shitty. Point proven with link. Do I need to spell EVERYTHING out for you? They offer good benefits.

About the cost, I have no way of knowing that, and to me, it doesn't matter. You either get it, or you don't. It's offered, and it's up to them if they want to get it. If they choose not to, that doesn't mean I should pay it for them which is what this thread has turned into.

How can you tell they are good benefits without knowing what the limits are, how much the co-pays are, and how much the out of pocket cost is?

Cost might not matter to you, but I guarantee cost really matters if you're making $8 an hour.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by jsarno

What kind of question is that? How many employers do you know that don't offer their benefits to their employees? If they are full timers, they are offered it.

Not necessarily.

I worked at McDonalds when I was a teenager and back then they only offered health coverage to managers.

I can't believe we're talking about whether McDonald's offers quality health care. Here's another link to check out:

Friendly's slashes health benefits for 454 workers - The Boston Globe

Limited plans have become controversial in recent years as the debate over providing adequate health coverage has intensified and companies search for ways to control costs. They are favored by large chains that offer low-wage jobs, including Wal-Mart Stores, McDonald's Corp., and Lowe's Cos. About 1 million Americans are covered by such policies, according to a recent Kaiser study.

Explain away this one. It's funny, I keep seeing Wal-Mart and McDonald's being lumped together, yet you think there are no problems with McDonald's, but you agree there are problems with Wal-Mart.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

How can you tell they are good benefits without knowing what the limits are, how much the co-pays are, and how much the out of pocket cost is?

Cost might not matter to you, but I guarantee cost really matters if you're making $8 an hour.

I think you're missing my point on the cost issue.
Sure it matters to everyone, but you need to make a choice, either to accept or not. If you CHOOSE not accept it, then that's your choice. You need to find a way to afford it or you go without...plain and simple. This whole argument started with my saying, even a burger flipper at McDonalds is offered insurance. People that don't have it choose not to have it. I'd be willing to bet those that don't have the insurance at work have cable and other luxuries though. So we are supposed to pay for their insurance cause they choose to spend their money elsewhere...I don't think so.

[jsarno]

I'd be willing to bet that the bleeding hearts on here, if given the opportunity to put money where their mouth is, would not pay for someone else.
If Warpath decided to sponsor a family that can't afford the $600+ for insurance on a monthly basis, how many would actually pay? Or does it just sound better to argue for it and not come through? Every one of you complaining about it here maybe you should cancel some of your luxuries (like internet) and give it to those "less fortunate".

LOL...hell will freeze over before that happens.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by jsarno

I think you're missing my point on the cost issue.
Sure it matters to everyone, but you need to make a choice, either to accept or not. If you CHOOSE not accept it, then that's your choice. You need to find a way to afford it or you go without...plain and simple. This whole argument started with my saying, even a burger flipper at McDonalds is offered insurance. People that don't have it choose not to have it. I'd be willing to bet those that don't have the insurance at work have cable and other luxuries though. So we are supposed to pay for their insurance cause they choose to spend their money elsewhere...I don't think so.

I think there's a fundamental problem with having to decide whether health coverage is worth it or not. For lower paying jobs, people have to make that choice and that's what I have a problem with. And the coverage they get isn't even that great. Shouldn't they be entitled to quality coverage that is affordable in comparison to how much they make?

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

I think there's a fundamental problem with having to decide whether health coverage is worth it or not. For lower paying jobs, people have to make that choice and that's what I have a problem with. And the coverage they get isn't even that great. Shouldn't they be entitled to quality coverage that is affordable in comparison to how much they make?

I won't argue whether that is a fundamental flaw or not. It is. But we all do it. You can't band-aid one area and hope it all fixes itself. Why is it OK to have a $300k 5 hour surgery? Why is it OK to pay $150 for a simple doctor visit? The entire system is flawed to it's core, so unless we are talking about how to fix this core, it's a moot point.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by jsarno

I'd be willing to bet that the bleeding hearts on here, if given the opportunity to put money where their mouth is, would not pay for someone else.
If Warpath decided to sponsor a family that can't afford the $600+ for insurance on a monthly basis, how many would actually pay? Or does it just sound better to argue for it and not come through? Every one of you complaining about it here maybe you should cancel some of your luxuries (like internet) and give it to those "less fortunate".

LOL...hell will freeze over before that happens.

Let's talk about something a little more realistic. Obviously I couldn't afford to pay someone else's insurance at $600/month. But I do give generously when I can and I'm always be willing to give more for worthy causes.

[mheisig]

Originally Posted by dmek25

people that cannot afford health care live a life of hope. the hope that nothing happens to them or a family member. to a hard working family that just cant make it, to begrudge them something that might be able to give them a little pleasure in an otherwise sucky life is ridiculous

Officially the most asinine thing I've read this week.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by mheisig

Officially the most asinine thing I've read this week.

I think what he said makes sense. If you think that's the most asinine thing on the board this week you haven't been reading very much.

[mheisig]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

I think what he said makes sense. If you think that's the most asinine thing on the board this week you haven't been reading very much.

No, I stand by my statement. And that includes a lot of reading in general this week, not just The Warpath.

Hell, I've heard arguments that the 'Skins will beat the Pats 50-3 that are more cogent.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Let's talk about something a little more realistic. Obviously I couldn't afford to pay someone else's insurance at $600/month. But I do give generously when I can and I'm always be willing to give more for worthy causes.

I said warpath, not you. There are a good at least 10 people that agree with you...that would be about $60 per month for each.

Now let's talk about medicare...there are a TON of people on medicare that can physically work, but aren't, and they are taking away from those that physically can't. Why do we not have a police system for this...these people are sucking off our system.
I'd be much more inclined to jump on board with all these ideas if it wasn't abused the way it is.
I'd be willing to help a WWII vet that can't work in heartbeat, but not so much the woman that has 5 kids from 5 fathers. It's too easy to cheat the system, and there is no one validating it.