ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[jj3044]

B. You are very, very seriously underestimating the roadblocks Blue Cross, in particular puts up. I suspect if you have any experience with them, it is with their Highmark plan.. not Keystone, not Select Blue or any of the other lower options they offer. I have had all and can assure you there is a BIG difference.. and I am someone who actually got them to pay things they have denied initially. BUT.. it took me an average of 3 months PER COMPLAINT for over 2 years. It ended because our insurance ended. The only visits not questioned were for me, when I was pregnant.

AND.. before you start saying "isolated example".. that experience led me to do a more than a little investigating and questioning. Every doctor to whom I spoke mentioned similar experiences. They all saw repeated denials of claims --for reasons that always varied. Sometimes "the wrong code" was used -- even though the code was the one the office as given by the company. Sometimes the company would just claim the item was "not covered".. Remember that the literature you get from the company is not the legal contract.. and generally there is some kind of notation that this "explanation of benefits" -- or whatever is "not legally binding".

Out of curiosity, was the plan you are talking about through an employer plan, or an individual plan purchased directly from the insurer? There are many plans a company can purchase and the coverage varies dramatically. Just like car insurance... if you pay extra for comprehensive for your car and you drive it off a bridge, the insurance company will pick up the replacement cost (less the deductible). If you only have liability, then they won't, because you didn't pay for that level of coverage. If a service was expressly stated as covered in your EOB, and they didn't cover that service, I hope you had a lawyer look at the case, because that certainly doesn't sound like something that can be done within the same plan year legally.

[PLAYER57832]

B. You are very, very seriously underestimating the roadblocks Blue Cross, in particular puts up. I suspect if you have any experience with them, it is with their Highmark plan.. not Keystone, not Select Blue or any of the other lower options they offer. I have had all and can assure you there is a BIG difference.. and I am someone who actually got them to pay things they have denied initially. BUT.. it took me an average of 3 months PER COMPLAINT for over 2 years. It ended because our insurance ended. The only visits not questioned were for me, when I was pregnant.

AND.. before you start saying "isolated example".. that experience led me to do a more than a little investigating and questioning. Every doctor to whom I spoke mentioned similar experiences. They all saw repeated denials of claims --for reasons that always varied. Sometimes "the wrong code" was used -- even though the code was the one the office as given by the company. Sometimes the company would just claim the item was "not covered".. Remember that the literature you get from the company is not the legal contract.. and generally there is some kind of notation that this "explanation of benefits" -- or whatever is "not legally binding".

Out of curiosity, was the plan you are talking about through an employer plan, or an individual plan purchased directly from the insurer? There are many plans a company can purchase and the coverage varies dramatically. Just like car insurance... if you pay extra for comprehensive for your car and you drive it off a bridge, the insurance company will pick up the replacement cost (less the deductible). If you only have liability, then they won't, because you didn't pay for that level of coverage. If a service was expressly stated as covered in your EOB, and they didn't cover that service, I hope you had a lawyer look at the case, because that certainly doesn't sound like something that can be done within the same plan year legally.

The problem is that insurance company contracts are so complex you NEED an attorney just to understand them.. and even if you think you understand when you enroll, they can change them.

Per the rest... no attorney can help because there is nothing illegal about what I said. Everything I experienced was put down to "simple error". That was my point. And, the dollar amounts I am referring to are small, generally less than $100, sometimes less than $10.00 But think about this, if Blue Cross manages to "error" just $1 a year from every subscriber... it amounts to millions!

[Night Strike]

A. Yes, there likely is a "legal reason" why the person's coverage was denied. BUT.. you have to understand how very heavily things are weighted in favor of the insurance companies. They offer contracts and by using the coverage, people "give agreement" to follow... EXCEPT, the contracts are full of more legaleze than credit agreements, AND the truth is most people just don't have any other choice. Few companies offer any choice any more. The US government and very large companies are about the only exceptions. So, the "choice" and "agreement" is you have no insurance or you just take what is offered... and then wind up finding out you paid for something and are getting nothing, sometimes long after the fact.

Do you realize that basically all of that is due to governmental regulations? It's the government that forces simple loans and deals to include pages and pages of fine print. It's the government that bans insurance companies from selling policies across state lines. It's the government that forces people to rely on an employer for health insurance, when every other form of insurance if available on an individual marketplace. Employers can't afford to offer more than one health insurance choice because of the massive amounts of paperwork and regulations involved in each plan.

[Woodruff]

A. Yes, there likely is a "legal reason" why the person's coverage was denied. BUT.. you have to understand how very heavily things are weighted in favor of the insurance companies. They offer contracts and by using the coverage, people "give agreement" to follow... EXCEPT, the contracts are full of more legaleze than credit agreements, AND the truth is most people just don't have any other choice. Few companies offer any choice any more. The US government and very large companies are about the only exceptions. So, the "choice" and "agreement" is you have no insurance or you just take what is offered... and then wind up finding out you paid for something and are getting nothing, sometimes long after the fact.

Do you realize that basically all of that is due to governmental regulations? It's the government that forces simple loans and deals to include pages and pages of fine print. It's the government that bans insurance companies from selling policies across state lines. It's the government that forces people to rely on an employer for health insurance, when every other form of insurance if available on an individual marketplace. Employers can't afford to offer more than one health insurance choice because of the massive amounts of paperwork and regulations involved in each plan.

So it's the government's fault that the insurance companies intentionally f*ck people over? Wow...learn something new every day.

[PLAYER57832]

A. Yes, there likely is a "legal reason" why the person's coverage was denied. BUT.. you have to understand how very heavily things are weighted in favor of the insurance companies. They offer contracts and by using the coverage, people "give agreement" to follow... EXCEPT, the contracts are full of more legaleze than credit agreements, AND the truth is most people just don't have any other choice. Few companies offer any choice any more. The US government and very large companies are about the only exceptions. So, the "choice" and "agreement" is you have no insurance or you just take what is offered... and then wind up finding out you paid for something and are getting nothing, sometimes long after the fact.

Do you realize that basically all of that is due to governmental regulations?

Baloney. Its so they can make shareholder profits... and whether than means people stay sick or not is irrelevant.

No government regulation requires companies to print out contracts few can understand.. and then put out clear literature that they ultimately refuse to stand by. They may require them to stand by anything they print UNLESS there is a disclaimer, but they could just go ahead and print what their real policies are in plain English.. except they won't.

[thegreekdog]

For insurance, I pay approximately $200 a month for myself, my wife, and my son. My work probably pays an additional $200 a month although I've never checked (nor do I care). I pay approximatley 10% (give or take) in out-of-pocket costs. It varies greatly, so it's hard to tell. I also pay taxes that go to other peoples' healthcare. I'm not sure what dollar amount that is of my total income or tax payments (or how much of my sales taxes or excise taxes go to pay for other peoples' healthcare).

I tend to think I pay a lot of money for health insurance.

LOL--- There is a VERY good chance that your families's coverage exceeds $1000 a month, particularly if you have a child with any type of disability or suspected "issue".

Your figures are WAY off base... and you should care, if you are going to be honest and make intelligent decisions about this issue.

The standard used to be that a company would pay 2/3, though there was always a wide range, some employers paying all and some paying less... or, of course providing no insurance subsidy at all.

Let's call it $3,000 a year for insurance plus $3,000 a year out of pocket ($6,000 total). Twenty-two percent of my federal taxes would be approximately $7,000.

So I pay approximately $13,000 for my healthcare and the healthcare of others.

MOST of the people who's insurance you are paying are children and the elderly. Not working individuals.

In most states, it is very difficult for adults to get Medicaid, particularly if they work anywhere at all.

Okay. I'm not sure where you're getting my figures from. Do you have access to my employer's health insurance system, my healthcare receipts, and my tax returns?

[PLAYER57832]

For insurance, I pay approximately $200 a month for myself, my wife, and my son. My work probably pays an additional $200 a month although I've never checked (nor do I care). I pay approximatley 10% (give or take) in out-of-pocket costs. It varies greatly, so it's hard to tell. I also pay taxes that go to other peoples' healthcare. I'm not sure what dollar amount that is of my total income or tax payments (or how much of my sales taxes or excise taxes go to pay for other peoples' healthcare).

I tend to think I pay a lot of money for health insurance.

LOL--- There is a VERY good chance that your families's coverage exceeds $1000 a month, particularly if you have a child with any type of disability or suspected "issue".

Your figures are WAY off base... and you should care, if you are going to be honest and make intelligent decisions about this issue.

The standard used to be that a company would pay 2/3, though there was always a wide range, some employers paying all and some paying less... or, of course providing no insurance subsidy at all.

Let's call it $3,000 a year for insurance plus $3,000 a year out of pocket ($6,000 total). Twenty-two percent of my federal taxes would be approximately $7,000.

So I pay approximately $13,000 for my healthcare and the healthcare of others.

MOST of the people who's insurance you are paying are children and the elderly. Not working individuals.

In most states, it is very difficult for adults to get Medicaid, particularly if they work anywhere at all.

Okay. I'm not sure where you're getting my figures from. Do you have access to my employer's health insurance system, my healthcare receipts, and my tax returns?

This is based on the standard rates for insurance for families, and some comments you have made in CC regarding insurance. (you have insurance, you just had a child, live in NJ, but work in PA and have dismissed talk of high deductables) Note, though, that the roughly $1000 figure was for very high deductable/high copayment plans. Just from things you have said in discussion, I suspect you have a better policy, which means your real costs are much higher than that.

Here is one source. http://meps.ahrq.gov/mepsweb/data_files ... tat330.pdf

One note.. you WILL find mention of much lower "average premiums", but you have to be careful. The lower figures often refer to just the employee contribution or an average of what people pay out of pocket that might include some individual pay policies (note employer funded, that is). ALSO.. as I noted, the deductables matter.


And statistics on who benefits from Medicaid.
http://fullymyelinated.wordpress.com/20 ... -medicaid/

(except I forgot the disabled in my above comment)

[Night Strike]

This is precisely how Obamacare was designed to harm the economy:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/os-darden-part-time-workers-20121007,0,1505128.story

[PLAYER57832]

This is precisely how Obamacare was designed to harm the economy:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/os-darden-part-time-workers-20121007,0,1505128.story

hmmm.. couldn't POSSIBLY be a political ploy, now, could it.

I worked under several anti-discrimination mandates. Strange how "difficult" it is to find qualified workers who are women or black, or any minority... when you just don't want to do so. On the other hand, plenty of managers who wanted to had no trouble. Guess which managers are doing better now?

The problem with this scenario is that Darden, etc already were required to provide insurance to fulltime employees... and standard practice for that industry and most is to just not hire fulltime workers to avoid not just healthcare, but other employee costs. Since they face no penalties, we have millions of people who work part-time.. the very same people Romney referred to as "takers". See, funny how it all comes about.

The bottom line is that employers need to pay workers FIRST, not pay stock dividends first.. but the law doesn't require that, almost requires the exact opposite. THAT is why the top 1% have gained, the rest of us keep sinking. Obamacare is not really a big player in that, despite all the rhetoric. The big players are off shore investments and lack of responsibility at the topmost. They can take all the taxbreaks they want, not owe society a dime...and jump ship with whatever money they wish, then turn around and talk about how the rest of us are just abusers and users and lazy.

[Night Strike]

Actually, I believe businesses DO pay workers first. In fact, it's even ludicrous to think that they don't. Maybe if we stopped having a government that piled regulation over regulation and mandate over mandate on businesses, those businesses would be able to run based on the goods or services they provide.

And this is NOT a political ploy: it's the REALITY of what businesses all over the country are having to consider in order to afford the massive taxation decreed by the Obama administration.

[PLAYER57832]

Actually, I believe businesses DO pay workers first. In fact, it's even ludicrous to think that they don't

They have to pay wages first, yes.. that is mandated, but they don't have to hire anyone. They don't have to hire anyone fulltime, if they can hire 4 part-timers, they can pay minimum wage or just above... and they can turn around and pay stockholders more than the wages an entire restaurant or series of restaurants make.

And what happens? We have more part-time workers who still have to pay for childcare.. often fulltime childcare, because your hours are not set.. but unless you are well below the poverty line, you don't get childcare for part-time work, definitely don't get fulltime childcare for part-time work, even if you spend the extra hours looking for work or other useful endeavors.

So, you wind up with mostly younger people and a few single moms who have relatives or such to help take care of the kids. (one of the dirty secrets to why so many women make far, far less than men).

Anyway... it goes on and on. The bottom line is that no, these places do not put paying workers at the forefront. Workers are little more than living machines who unfortunately have to eat, can get hurt, and other inconvenient matters.

Maybe if we stopped having a government that piled regulation over regulation and mandate over mandate on businesses, those businesses would be able to run based on the goods or services they provide.

That worked so well in the 1920's....

[Woodruff]

This is precisely how Obamacare was designed to harm the economy:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/os-darden-part-time-workers-20121007,0,1505128.story

You believe ObamaCare was designed to harm the economy? As in intent?

[Night Strike]

Maybe if we stopped having a government that piled regulation over regulation and mandate over mandate on businesses, those businesses would be able to run based on the goods or services they provide.

That worked so well in the 1920's....

And the tons of governmental regulations are working today?


By the way, how is your story relevant? It's the businesses job to pay the employees the amount those employees agree to work for. If a person doesn't like their pay or their hours, they will find another job. If they don't have the skills to get another job, it's not the employers role to pay them more simply because the employee can't do something else. You do not get a job and pay out of pity.

[Night Strike]

This is precisely how Obamacare was designed to harm the economy:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/os-darden-part-time-workers-20121007,0,1505128.story

You believe ObamaCare was designed to harm the economy? As in intent?

Well, it was actually designed to increase the power of the federal government over the private sector, so harming the economy is a natural outcome.

[Symmetry]

Maybe if we stopped having a government that piled regulation over regulation and mandate over mandate on businesses, those businesses would be able to run based on the goods or services they provide.

That worked so well in the 1920's....

And the tons of governmental regulations are working today?


By the way, how is your story relevant? It's the businesses job to pay the employees the amount those employees agree to work for. If a person doesn't like their pay or their hours, they will find another job. If they don't have the skills to get another job, it's not the employers role to pay them more simply because the employee can't do something else. You do not get a job and pay out of pity.

I suppose you could try and order medicine from China. There's less regulation there, and it's cheaper.

Of course, it's occasionally ineffective, and occasionally poison.

And that's kind of a bummer.

Still, if it, or the illness, doesn't kill you, you can recommend it to friends!

[Woodruff]

Maybe if we stopped having a government that piled regulation over regulation and mandate over mandate on businesses, those businesses would be able to run based on the goods or services they provide.

That worked so well in the 1920's....

And the tons of governmental regulations are working today?


By the way, how is your story relevant? It's the businesses job to pay the employees the amount those employees agree to work for. If a person doesn't like their pay or their hours, they will find another job. If they don't have the skills to get another job, it's not the employers role to pay them more simply because the employee can't do something else. You do not get a job and pay out of pity.

I suppose you could try and order medicine from China. There's less regulation there, and it's cheaper.

Of course, it's occasionally ineffective, and occasionally poison.

And that's kind of a bummer.

Still, if it, or the illness, doesn't kill you, you can recommend it to friends!

Ah, but you see...that's no problem. Why? Because the rich folks who are pulling Night Strike's strings don't have to worry about that borderline medicine...they can afford the good stuff.

[Night Strike]

Maybe if we stopped having a government that piled regulation over regulation and mandate over mandate on businesses, those businesses would be able to run based on the goods or services they provide.

That worked so well in the 1920's....

And the tons of governmental regulations are working today?


By the way, how is your story relevant? It's the businesses job to pay the employees the amount those employees agree to work for. If a person doesn't like their pay or their hours, they will find another job. If they don't have the skills to get another job, it's not the employers role to pay them more simply because the employee can't do something else. You do not get a job and pay out of pity.

I suppose you could try and order medicine from China. There's less regulation there, and it's cheaper.

Of course, it's occasionally ineffective, and occasionally poison.

And that's kind of a bummer.

Still, if it, or the illness, doesn't kill you, you can recommend it to friends!

We've added thousands of pages of regulations under the Obama administration. Were tons of people dying from a lack of regulations before his administration and are now no longer dying because of those regulations? Your assumption is that every single governmental program and regulation is good, beneficial, and necessary with absolutely no negative consequences on the private sector. As we continue to see on a daily basis as Obamacare and other regulations are complied with by the private sector, the private sector sees massive economic downsides. How is that conducive to a successful economy?

[Symmetry]

Maybe if we stopped having a government that piled regulation over regulation and mandate over mandate on businesses, those businesses would be able to run based on the goods or services they provide.

That worked so well in the 1920's....

And the tons of governmental regulations are working today?


By the way, how is your story relevant? It's the businesses job to pay the employees the amount those employees agree to work for. If a person doesn't like their pay or their hours, they will find another job. If they don't have the skills to get another job, it's not the employers role to pay them more simply because the employee can't do something else. You do not get a job and pay out of pity.

I suppose you could try and order medicine from China. There's less regulation there, and it's cheaper.

Of course, it's occasionally ineffective, and occasionally poison.

And that's kind of a bummer.

Still, if it, or the illness, doesn't kill you, you can recommend it to friends!

We've added thousands of pages of regulations under the Obama administration. Were tons of people dying from a lack of regulations before his administration and are now no longer dying because of those regulations? Your assumption is that every single governmental program and regulation is good, beneficial, and necessary with absolutely no negative consequences on the private sector. As we continue to see on a daily basis as Obamacare and other regulations are complied with by the private sector, the private sector sees massive economic downsides. How is that conducive to a successful economy?

Incorrect- your assumption was that regulation is bad. I did not say that every regulation is good.

Regulation is good. Sure, it hinders businesses making a profit. Same as any other type of law hinders people from doing whatever the hell they want. Hence laws are a good idea.

Simple stuff.

[Night Strike]

Incorrect- your assumption was that regulation is bad. I did not say that every regulation is good.

Regulation is good. Sure, it hinders businesses making a profit. Same as any other type of law hinders people from doing whatever the hell they want. Hence laws are a good idea.

Simple stuff.

Regulation should be assumed to be bad unless it can be specifically demonstrated that it is absolutely necessary and is passed by Congress instead of a bureaucrat. Governmental intervention should be an absolute minimum, not approaching a maximum.

[PLAYER57832]

Maybe if we stopped having a government that piled regulation over regulation and mandate over mandate on businesses, those businesses would be able to run based on the goods or services they provide.

That worked so well in the 1920's....

And the tons of governmental regulations are working today?

Its not so simple. Some regulations are bad, but you just keep crying "limit government" as if it were some great panacea.. like your above statement where you try to claim that the reason businesses are not doing better is too much regulation.

The facts are that business, big corporate businesses, are actually doing quite well. That is why the 1% you hear about are doing so well. Its just the rest of America, including many smaller businesses, that are not doing so well.

By the way, how is your story relevant? It's the businesses job to pay the employees the amount those employees agree to work for. If a person doesn't like their pay or their hours, they will find another job. If they don't have the skills to get another job, it's not the employers role to pay them more simply because the employee can't do something else. You do not get a job and pay out of pity.

You made the statement that employers pay their workers, not stockholders. When employers are not really paying people what those people need to survive, then those jobs are not adding to the economy, it is a deficit. Paying stockholders so you can cut wages of employees..and then turning around and complaining because too many of your tax dollars are going to support things like the childcare subsidies your workers need in order to work for you.. is exactly what the Republicans have been cheering for some time now.

Anwyay, the point is that healthcare is currently part of employee pay. Deciding to just hire part-timers becuase you "cannot afford to pay more" is legitimate when the business is going under. Darden is not. Even then, at some point.. businesses that cannot afford to pay their real expenses don't need to stay in business. Paying employees a real wage, even if what they are doing doesn't "seem" "worthwhile" is part of the real expenses of business. We have had too much of this back-handed corporate subsidies masquerading as entitlements for the lower class. No one WANTS to work for less than it takes them to live on, but they have to take what they can get. Businesses need to bear the burden of their real expenses, not other taxpayer and not the workers... particulary not so company executives can take home huge salaries and authorize huge dividends.

As long as healthcare is mandated compensation, it is part of that package. What we REALLY need is a universal, aka "socialized" medicine program, but you have proven yourself incapable of even understanding what that really might mean.

[PLAYER57832]

Incorrect- your assumption was that regulation is bad. I did not say that every regulation is good.

Regulation is good. Sure, it hinders businesses making a profit. Same as any other type of law hinders people from doing whatever the hell they want. Hence laws are a good idea.

Simple stuff.

Regulation should be assumed to be bad unless it can be specifically demonstrated that it is absolutely necessary and is passed by Congress instead of a bureaucrat. Governmental intervention should be an absolute minimum, not approaching a maximum.

The problem is that your definition of what is not absolutely necessary excludes a lot of knowledge about how the world really works.

[Symmetry]

Incorrect- your assumption was that regulation is bad. I did not say that every regulation is good.

Regulation is good. Sure, it hinders businesses making a profit. Same as any other type of law hinders people from doing whatever the hell they want. Hence laws are a good idea.

Simple stuff.

Regulation should be assumed to be bad unless it can be specifically demonstrated that it is absolutely necessary and is passed by Congress instead of a bureaucrat. Governmental intervention should be an absolute minimum, not approaching a maximum.

I do understand your take on over-regulation, but I simply can't accept your general opposition to regulation as a principal. A grudging acceptance for an absolute minimum, as opposed to a maximum (I really don't know what you mean by that), seems unreasonable.

I'm also of the general opinion that medical professionals are best placed to make decisions on medical regulations. I don't see many good reasons for politicos to be voting on areas far far beyond their expertise.

[Woodruff]

Incorrect- your assumption was that regulation is bad. I did not say that every regulation is good.

Regulation is good. Sure, it hinders businesses making a profit. Same as any other type of law hinders people from doing whatever the hell they want. Hence laws are a good idea.

Simple stuff.

Regulation should be assumed to be bad unless it can be specifically demonstrated that it is absolutely necessary and is passed by Congress instead of a bureaucrat. Governmental intervention should be an absolute minimum, not approaching a maximum.

I do understand your take on over-regulation, but I simply can't accept your general opposition to regulation as a principal. A grudging acceptance for an absolute minimum, as opposed to a maximum (I really don't know what you mean by that), seems unreasonable.

I'm also of the general opinion that medical professionals are best placed to make decisions on medical regulations. I don't see many good reasons for politicos to be voting on areas far far beyond their expertise.

Night Strike believes it's a good thing we have individuals on the House Science Committee that don't understand basic science.

[Symmetry]

Incorrect- your assumption was that regulation is bad. I did not say that every regulation is good.

Regulation is good. Sure, it hinders businesses making a profit. Same as any other type of law hinders people from doing whatever the hell they want. Hence laws are a good idea.

Simple stuff.

Regulation should be assumed to be bad unless it can be specifically demonstrated that it is absolutely necessary and is passed by Congress instead of a bureaucrat. Governmental intervention should be an absolute minimum, not approaching a maximum.

I do understand your take on over-regulation, but I simply can't accept your general opposition to regulation as a principal. A grudging acceptance for an absolute minimum, as opposed to a maximum (I really don't know what you mean by that), seems unreasonable.

I'm also of the general opinion that medical professionals are best placed to make decisions on medical regulations. I don't see many good reasons for politicos to be voting on areas far far beyond their expertise.

Night Strike believes it's a good thing we have individuals on the House Science Committee that don't understand basic science.

I know he does, bless his heart.

[Night Strike]

The facts are that business, big corporate businesses, are actually doing quite well. That is why the 1% you hear about are doing so well. Its just the rest of America, including many smaller businesses, that are not doing so well.

Which is the exact reason why regulations have to be cut. Thank you for making my point for me. Regulations are written so they either directly benefit the big businesses or indirectly because the big businesses already have the lawyers and manpower to comply with those regulations. Furthermore, higher regulations make it harder for new businesses to enter the marketplace, which just allows those that already exist to become even more powerful. And this is all because the government decides they have to get involved in every facet of the marketplace instead of letting it run.

By the way, how is your story relevant? It's the businesses job to pay the employees the amount those employees agree to work for. If a person doesn't like their pay or their hours, they will find another job. If they don't have the skills to get another job, it's not the employers role to pay them more simply because the employee can't do something else. You do not get a job and pay out of pity.

You made the statement that employers pay their workers, not stockholders. When employers are not really paying people what those people need to survive, then those jobs are not adding to the economy, it is a deficit. Paying stockholders so you can cut wages of employees..and then turning around and complaining because too many of your tax dollars are going to support things like the childcare subsidies your workers need in order to work for you.. is exactly what the Republicans have been cheering for some time now.

Anwyay, the point is that healthcare is currently part of employee pay. Deciding to just hire part-timers becuase you "cannot afford to pay more" is legitimate when the business is going under. Darden is not. Even then, at some point.. businesses that cannot afford to pay their real expenses don't need to stay in business. Paying employees a real wage, even if what they are doing doesn't "seem" "worthwhile" is part of the real expenses of business. We have had too much of this back-handed corporate subsidies masquerading as entitlements for the lower class. No one WANTS to work for less than it takes them to live on, but they have to take what they can get. Businesses need to bear the burden of their real expenses, not other taxpayer and not the workers... particulary not so company executives can take home huge salaries and authorize huge dividends.

As long as healthcare is mandated compensation, it is part of that package. What we REALLY need is a universal, aka "socialized" medicine program, but you have proven yourself incapable of even understanding what that really might mean.

Who defines what a "real wage" is? Shouldn't it be the employer's role to define what they "real wages" are of the jobs they provide? A job is not charity! You do not deserve whatever you want to be paid if you do not provide a skill to that company worthy of that level of pay. It would be great if everybody could get paid a minimum of $20 per hour, but not every job is worth that much money to the company. That's reality, not the fictional world you want us to live in.

And by the way, I've been all for the government to stop providing endless welfare to people because then people will demand they get more pay from their employer, but you refuse to support any cuts to welfare. Perpetual welfare (aka, government) provides these cover-ups to employers who don't pay high wages, but you demand the government keeps handing out money.