• Twitter
  • Facebook
News-Sentinel.com Your Town. Your Voice.
Opening Arguments

Payment plan

Well, here's a shock:

If U.S. health reform efforts lead to higher costs for employers, employees may end up bearing the brunt, according to a new survey.

Employers will not absorb higher costs, choosing instead either to reduce benefits, lower salaries or cut jobs, the survey from professional services firm Towers Perrin said on Thursday.

The one thing government can't mandate is a divorce from reality.


Bob G.
Thu, 09/17/2009 - 8:29am

...Nor will they ever LEGISLATE STUPIDITY.


Thu, 09/17/2009 - 8:34am

We already have the highest health care costs in the world. I'm not sure why the assumption has to be that imitating what other parts of the world are doing will result in higher costs.

tim zank
Thu, 09/17/2009 - 12:41pm

Higher costs to employers for benefits will be covered by one of two things (or both). Either higher costs to the employees for the benefits or higher prices to the consumers of the end product (or both).

In all of recorded history can someone name an enterprise that absorbed increased costs to the point of unprofitability and remained viable?
In the history of the World, have prices for goods and services ever gone down and stayed down?

Does any school in the Nation still teach basic math instead of government math (i.e. 2=2=1)???????

Andrew J.
Thu, 09/17/2009 - 9:54pm

Just a thought:
A Hewlett Packard calculator Model 35, basic add, subtract, multiply and divide functions, sold for $49 in the mid-1970s. Today, I got one with more functions for free from my credit union.

Do you know health care costs (doctors, hospitals, staff) is the only sector of the economy that consistently outpaces inflation, by a large margin, year after year. Why don't we ask a hospital that charges $10,000 for two nights treatment of a staph infection to reign in the exorbitant costs before we blame government for higher costs for health care.


Leo Morris
Fri, 09/18/2009 - 7:42am

Oh, come on. You don't see the tiniest connection between shielding the consumer from the actual costs of health care, first through insurance and then through the government, and exorbitant health care costs? If people got insurance to guarantee purchase of a caculator and the government stepped in for those who couldn't afford the insurance, that HP Model 35 would probably cost about $900.

Fri, 09/18/2009 - 12:43pm

Yes, and if we didn't "shield the consumer from the actual costs of health care" either of two outcomes would happen: only the filthy rich would be able to afford it or we would need a government to dictate price controls on the costs of open heart surgery, IV therapy and bandages.