My better half, an experienced facilities manager, is very savvy at making situations work for large groups of peolple. She brainstormed this whole health care legislation, and came up with the following results. Please feel free to post responses, as we would like further input. When I read it, I immediately began to think about those corporations like Wal-Mart, et al, that have large pharmacies. Some have staffed nurses.
It also made me wonder: is this why some of these corporations seem to be indifferent to health care legislation passage? Our local Wal-Mart has ALREADY prepared to offer health services for walk-ins, 6+ months ago. Worker's Compensation, legal counsel costs can be substantially reduced as well. These companies already have staffed lawyers! Anyways, here's her thought:
My first sense of this HealthCare debacle is what if?? What if we don’t win in court against its unconstitutionality? What if we don’t elect enough Congress seats to overturn and appeal it? What if we don’t have the majority in Congress to defund it? Like I said that’s my first sense. My second sense kicks in and tells me that it’s time to think about the loopholes in the bill and how to circumvent this ridiculous piece of legislation. I haven’t had an opportunity to read the entire bill, but I don’t think Liberal Congress did either. They spent their entire time pushing it and not comprehending it. Yes, lawyers poured through it. Probably only on the legalities that opposition could bring forth.
I think about the big companies. Those that will lose the most. Those that will have to pay Millions in penalties and/or healthcare to fund this bill. The scare that we will lose the companies that we have here that are still hanging on. All the people they will have to lay off in order to stay in business. I expect many will be thinking outside the box on this.
Then it comes to me. These large companies should bypass the mandate all together. They are large enough that they could provide a doctor in their facility on call during working hours for their employees. I have seen this work first hand wherein large companies provided on site daycare for their employees. Legislation states that they need to comply that they are providing healthcare for their employees. Well no one says (at least I haven’t seen it) that they can’t provide their own healthcare. Rather than paying enormous insurance premiums and Million $ penalties it would make sense to me as a cost saving alternative. Staff a doctor, Staff a nurse, utilize some space in your facility for in house health care. Many basic services that you and I get regularly from our doctor could be provided here. Regular checkups, physicals, diagnostics. Think of the possibilities. As an employer I would rather pay a Doctor $200K a year and a nurse 50K a year than pay penalties or insurance. Rather create your own type of healthcare. Something new. It could be done!!! Set up a full diagnostic center. You can write off the staffing of the health clinic just as you would any employee.
The equipment ordered although expensive can be depreciated. Blood Testing, Mammograms, X-rays, Well Woman visits, even children’s vaccinations and school physicals could all be offered to the employees and their families. I think this could only be viewed as a win win situation. Productivity would be increased because employees are not taking off of work for doctor visits. They merely could go to the clinic for treatments. Companies could probably reduce the number of sick days they allot employees because they can now use the facility. I know! I used to have to take personal and sick days just for annual doctor appointments. I would guess about 80% of all doctor visits could be handled through this clinic. Of course the company would need to provide hospitalization for procedures and emergencies but that would be much less than providing a full package.
I would think a company would rather take all the deductions themselves, offer their employees the opportunity of not missing work and avoid paying any penalties to the government. Yes the possibility of a lawsuit always exists. But the cost of malpractice insurance can still be factored in well under the 1M$ mark for the first year. My doctor has a sign out front before you enter that he does not have malpractice insurance. Maybe this would be something for them to explore.
Now many of you are saying that this allows the government to win and we are feeding the fascist movement. Believe me you are doing the exact opposite. This health care legislation has never been about health insurance. This has been about government control and taking what they can from big business. They are licking their chops at all the revenue they will be taking in from businesses. How many Caterpillar’s and Verizon’s are out there??? Many of them and many millions of money to come from them right into the coffers of the government. Better to beat them at their own game. Allow the company to offer a service, keep their employees at work, keep their employee moral up and keep their employees working than to fund government health care for everyone who is not.
2 comments:
Some companies already do have "in house" medical plans. Most of them are hospitals.
I remember that they are mentioned in at least of of the bills. (I can't remember if it was the house or senate bill, or both.) They were grandfathering them freedom to continue the practice as long as it met certain conditions. Also the companies who had "in house" medical, had to open the entirety of the compainies books to the government oversight authority if requested. The odds were stated that most would rather give up the practice, and provide regular insurance, than to bother with money and time consuming audits.
The idea that they wouldn't have insurance and could just have a sign... I doubt that will fly under federal regulation.
Whatever a company decides, it needs to move now, because it has to be grandfathered in, (If that remained in the bill.)
I would have to do some research, as I have not had to deal with corporate law as it is applied to publicly held corporations for a long time, but I seem to remember a law that prohibits activities of this nature if the business' involved are very disparate in their product lines, Ie Caterpillar they build heavy construction equipment and engines. therefore for them to establish a inter-corporate health care provider they would have to co-mingle funds from one division to another, for purposes not related to their line of business. This practice is frowned upon by the SEC and IRS, as it used to be used as a tax dodge.
Also a more detailed cost benefit analysis would have to be done. As well as provisions for catastrophic illness coverage, eg major medical, which would be beyond the scope of a in house clinic. All in all it is just my experienced hunch that it would be a wash as far as costs go.
If I understand the current situation, it is not the currently employed folks that are the major cause of the $100mill expenses claimed by these companies, it is from the increased cost to their pension provided health care benefits to retirees. I guess you can see where this going to go, the companies will be forced to drop this coverage and the retirees will be forced into the government run scam.
Post a Comment