its funny how folks think health insurance is somehow a profit center for a company (outside of insurance companies) - anyone self insuring is focused on keep costs lower for the employer and employee - I have not seen one company explain in their quarterly profit releases how much they improved their bottom line by profiting from their healthcare self insurance plan - as matter of fact you can see lots of companies talking about how healthcare costs are hurting profitability of the company
Health Insurance Enrollment
- Thread starter AANOTOK
- Start date
-
- Tags
- what raise?
bob@las-AA
Veteran
WeAAsles said:
I'vee viewed an article similar to that, tells me nothing to what the other Bob is preaching. That is effect AA pays nothing and is possibly making money from the money withheld from our checks.
bob@las-AA
Veteran
jcw said:
@BobOwens, this is the point I'm trying to make.
WeAAsles
Veteran
- Oct 20, 2007
- 23,539
- 5,263
Victor R. Fuchs is the Henry J. Kaiser Jr. Professor Emeritus in the Departments of Economics and Health Research and Policy at Stanford University.
One reason for the more expensive mix in the U.S. is it produces more income for drug manufacturers, specialist physicians, and others who have considerable influence on policy. Second, some patients prefer the more expensive mix, just as some prefer to shop at Whole Foods rather than Walmart. Third, some workers mistakenly believe that employers pay for their healthcare and that more expensive means better care. Health economists believe that the premiums for employer-sponsored insurance come out of potential wages. Similarly, the extra money the government spends for health could be used for education, infrastructure, the environment, and other public investment, but these alternatives are not readily apparent or agreed upon. Does the more expensive mix result in better health outcomes? There are no definitive studies to answer this question. Superficially, it appears that the systems in the other countries are more effective because their life expectancy is higher. But their advantage may be attributable to non-medical factors such as significantly lower poverty rates.
A second important reason for higher healthcare spending in the U.S. is higher prices for inputs such as drugs and the services of specialist physicians. The prices of branded prescription drugs in the U.S. are, on average, about double those in other countries. The fees of specialist physicians are typically two to three times as high as in other countries. The lower prices and fees abroad are achieved by negotiation and controls by governments who typically pay for about 75 percent of all medical care. Government in the U.S. pays about 50 percent, which would still confer considerable bargaining power, but the government is kept from exerting it by legislation and a Congress sensitive to interest-group lobbying.
The third and last important reason for higher spending in the U.S. is high administrative costs of insurance. This includes private insurance which covers more than half the insured population. Each year scores of insurance companies must estimate appropriate premiums for plans they wish to sell to several million employers plus 20 to 30 million individuals. In addition, hospitals, clinics, and individual physicians incur substantial costs in billing for each test, visit, and procedure regardless of whether they are covered by private or public insurance or self-pay. Many of our peer countries have lower administrative costs through more coordination, standardization, and in some countries a single national system or several regional healthcare-insurance systems, even when the provision of care is primarily a private-sector responsibility.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/07/why-do-other-rich-nations-spend-so-much-less-on-healthcare/374576/
One reason for the more expensive mix in the U.S. is it produces more income for drug manufacturers, specialist physicians, and others who have considerable influence on policy. Second, some patients prefer the more expensive mix, just as some prefer to shop at Whole Foods rather than Walmart. Third, some workers mistakenly believe that employers pay for their healthcare and that more expensive means better care. Health economists believe that the premiums for employer-sponsored insurance come out of potential wages. Similarly, the extra money the government spends for health could be used for education, infrastructure, the environment, and other public investment, but these alternatives are not readily apparent or agreed upon. Does the more expensive mix result in better health outcomes? There are no definitive studies to answer this question. Superficially, it appears that the systems in the other countries are more effective because their life expectancy is higher. But their advantage may be attributable to non-medical factors such as significantly lower poverty rates.
A second important reason for higher healthcare spending in the U.S. is higher prices for inputs such as drugs and the services of specialist physicians. The prices of branded prescription drugs in the U.S. are, on average, about double those in other countries. The fees of specialist physicians are typically two to three times as high as in other countries. The lower prices and fees abroad are achieved by negotiation and controls by governments who typically pay for about 75 percent of all medical care. Government in the U.S. pays about 50 percent, which would still confer considerable bargaining power, but the government is kept from exerting it by legislation and a Congress sensitive to interest-group lobbying.
The third and last important reason for higher spending in the U.S. is high administrative costs of insurance. This includes private insurance which covers more than half the insured population. Each year scores of insurance companies must estimate appropriate premiums for plans they wish to sell to several million employers plus 20 to 30 million individuals. In addition, hospitals, clinics, and individual physicians incur substantial costs in billing for each test, visit, and procedure regardless of whether they are covered by private or public insurance or self-pay. Many of our peer countries have lower administrative costs through more coordination, standardization, and in some countries a single national system or several regional healthcare-insurance systems, even when the provision of care is primarily a private-sector responsibility.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/07/why-do-other-rich-nations-spend-so-much-less-on-healthcare/374576/
WeAAsles
Veteran
- Oct 20, 2007
- 23,539
- 5,263
Sorry but I doubt that there are many companies that are publicly traded that are too concerned about the healthcare costs to their employees, rather than the interests of their shareholders to create capital wealth.jcw said:
Wellness programs may be a necessity for us as a nation though since we are obviously a very gluttonous one. According to the WHO, 74% of Americans are either overweight or obese. But I don't believe for one minute that companies are initiating programs because they care about US. America is only about one thing, $$$$$$$$
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesity_in_the_United_States
WeAAsles
Veteran
- Oct 20, 2007
- 23,539
- 5,263
WeAAsles said:
Not sure I can follow the point the HC costs are not important - HC costs are major expenses for companies hence they are always trying to find ways to minimize the expense - however many many companies have wellness programs to reduce HC costs
Last I checked there are people trying to get into America every day - it's not the horrible place people make it out to be - it's good to have profit motive otherwise you have communism - try out Russia or China
If you don't like your total compensation, then hire more effective negotiators to claim a bigger share of the pie from the company. If your current crappy negotiators have proven again and again that they're not up to the task (like the TWU's history demonstrates), then fire them and hire different negotiators.
US East pilots are currently paid between 70% and 80% more than they were prior to the merger. For US A330 captains, the increase in hourly rates is 78%. What's the TWU's performance for its mechanics since 2012? How much more are you guys making per hour? Anything near 80%?
You guys can do what you want, but if I belonged to your crappy union, I'd spend more energy trying to increase my hourly rates by 80% than I'd waste worrying about the amount of my contribution for my health insurance premiums.
US East pilots are currently paid between 70% and 80% more than they were prior to the merger. For US A330 captains, the increase in hourly rates is 78%. What's the TWU's performance for its mechanics since 2012? How much more are you guys making per hour? Anything near 80%?
You guys can do what you want, but if I belonged to your crappy union, I'd spend more energy trying to increase my hourly rates by 80% than I'd waste worrying about the amount of my contribution for my health insurance premiums.
WeAAsles
Veteran
- Oct 20, 2007
- 23,539
- 5,263
Oh look. There you are again. One of the OLD management guys that got kicked to the curb after those horrible Unions gave the company away to that evil Parker guy.FWAAA said:
So much hatred and vitriol? What's wrong? Many of your friends not been able to land back on their feet?
It's ok. They will someday.
Where did you see any claim of profit? I was pretty clear, the company lied when they said they pay 80% of Total costs.jcw said:
AA clearly did profit off the Supplemental medical plan, which they sold under the guise of boosting retiree medical from $50k to $300k. The Supplemental also raised the lifetime cap of regular medical, but nobody really cared about that, guys in their 30s were told if they wanted the retiree medical they had to buy the supplemental then and continue till they retired, but when they trashed the plan they claimed it was a term plan. IIRC when they threw everyone out and shut it down there was an $80 million surplus in the plan which they kept. In order to avoid paying taxes those funds were set aside to pay other obligations, such as medical for current retirees. Some also was set aside to cover those who had already retired.
Now as far as this, the company, on an individual basis makes money off those who use less in medical than what they paid for the coverage, just like an insurance company does, those people help offset those who use more in medical than they pay for coverage, but when the company says they spent say $400 million on Health Benefits they do not reveal how much of that $400 million came from the general fund and how much was actually provided by the employees through the premiums they charge the employees.
If AA has 100,000 people in the plan paying $4000/year then the first $400,000,000 in medical really didn't cost them a dime out of operations revenue, the employees funded that. If in this case AA spent less than $400 million that year then they made money which I assume (pure guess) the government would allow them to keep in a fund for future shortfalls. Lets say they only spent $350 million, all of which came from their employees, AA would still say that THEY spent $350 million on employee medical expenses. In reality they used the employees money to do it.
In 2011, AA had approximately 66,000 employees and spent about $544 million on employee health care:Bob Owens said:
Brief in support of 1113 motion, page 63 (page 71 of .pdf file)
AA was self-insured as to some of its insurance plans:
Brief in support of 1113 motion, note 45, page 62 (page 70 of .pdf file)
$544 million (AA's 2011 out of pocket cost above and beyond the employee contributions) was equal to an average of $8,242 per employee.
These numbers are interesting.FWAAA said:
I get what Bob is trying to say, but these numbers pretty much shoot that argument down.
My question is this:
We pay a certain amount per check towards our coverage.
In my case the amount adds up to roughly $2000 for the year.
Is that $2k 20% of the total amount of premium due for coverage with AA paying the other 80%?
Or, is that $2k 100% of the premium due for coverage?
If it is 100% of the premium due for coverage then Bob's point still needs to be considered because many employees pay the premium and just visit the doctor once a year, or less and create very little cost to the company if they are healthy with little or no issues.
There's something else that's been nagging at me.
When you buy car insurance, drivers with excellent driving records pay less.
When you buy life insurance, your premium is variable depending on what kind of lifestyle you have.
If you are a smoker, you will pay roughly 4 times more for life insurance than a non smoker.
Maybe it's time to make health insurance premiums more based on life style and life choices which have a direct effect on the amount of medical costs each individual generates.
Just some food for thought.
Of course they do, just like they say $15hr minimum wage will hurt their profits, just like pensions for workers (but not executives) hurt their profits, just like environmental regulations hurt their profits, in fact anything that takes money out of their pockets hurt their profits. But the fact is most of these people who are complaining are richer than ever before thanks to being more profitable than ever before. They are insatiably greedy.jcw said:
No AA is self insured, they do pay a fee to have companies manage the claims.Traymark said:
AA claims that they pay 80% of the Total cost, its simply not true, they pay 80% of the claim submitted subject to a variety of conditions, such as ;
-whether or not they consider the charge covered, if the Doctor that AA sent you to prescribes treatment that AA considers experimental or simply decides they dont pay for it you pay 100%.
-whether or not they agree with the amount charged, lets say your doctor charged you $100 fpr a proceedure, AA says they should have only charged you $500, AA only pays 80% of the $500 or $400 instead of $800, you have to pay the rest. In other words you would be paying 60% not 80%. Many of their rates are based on charges in the cheapest areas of the country, so if you live in NY or LAX every submission is a battle.
-That you used a doctor in their plan
Once again, AA is self insured, the money you pay goes to American Airlines, not an Insurance company. What you dont use AA uses to pay for what others use. But you are funding it and AA uses your money as part of their claim. AA pays much much less than companies that buy insurance coverage for their employees, thats another part of the big lie. Look at FWAAA numbers. AA brought in around $25billion in 2011 and spent $550 million on Health Benefits. Health benefits consumed less than .002 % of AA's revenue. Most companies spend much more than that, especially smaller companies that are not big enough to be self insured. So when AA says "compared to other companies our size" they are misleading people. Larger companies pay less per person than smaller companies generally.
So you are going to force workers to work night shift then charge them more for insurance because of the negative health effects night shift causes? Please, don't give them any ideas.
