View Single Post
Old 04-08-2008, 03:16 PM   #494 (permalink)
DanS.
Administrator
 
DanS.'s Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 9,772
My Mood:
Thanks: 279
Thanked 592 Times in 433 Posts
Nominated 11 Times in 5 Posts
TOTW/F/M Award(s): 0
DanS. is a jewel in the roughDanS. is a jewel in the roughDanS. is a jewel in the rough
Quote:
Originally Posted by PursuitOfHappinessParty View Post
With UHC, I'd prefer the costs to be spread amongst the people. To give incentives and spread the costs to include businesses is convulted. It retains, IMO, an unneccessary loop in the whole affair that not only leads to more possibilities of graft, but a whole new industry of paperwork. The employees pay everywhere, and corporations and companies that wish to use incentives to retain or acquire employees will have to do so thru wages. These wage increases in defacto ARE the company paying for their employee's UHC. Smaller companies will have to compete as the market share allows, like the good ole days.
The reason it matters...is because the way the costs are imparted onto the individual...it also still offers the choice of participating or not....it also doesn't levy a huge burden on the government....
DanS. is online now   Top Reply With Quote