Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.d ... /911160316

SOMERS — A funny thing happened as IBM began spending more money on health benefits for its employees.

It started to save money.

"That investment has paid off very, very well," said Marianne Defazio, IBM's director of health benefits design and strategy. "In fact, our cost and our employee cost remain lower than companies that we benchmark against."

IBM announced last month that, beginning Jan. 1, it would pay for all of its employees' primary health-care costs. Employees now pay 20 percent of their primary-care premiums and have co-payments. It's the largest U.S. company to make such a move.

.....

I thought this was newsworthy.

Is this at all relevant in the healthcare debate?

Would it make more sense for the US government to pony-up the bucks now rather than have unheatlhy people in this country?

Maybe its just apples and oranges.

Most credit unions have done that for years.

AZGrizFan wrote:Most credit unions have done that for years.

I doubt any company the size of IBM has though.

BTW - I was editing my post when you were typing.

danefan wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:Most credit unions have done that for years.

I doubt any company the size of IBM has though.

BTW - I was editing my post when you were typing.

Based on group size, IBM's cost/employee is most likely significantly lower than any credit union's. They also have a MUCH larger revenue base from which to make this move. CU's after all, ARE not-for-profit.

danefan wrote:http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.d ... /911160316

SOMERS — A funny thing happened as IBM began spending more money on health benefits for its employees.

It started to save money.

"That investment has paid off very, very well," said Marianne Defazio, IBM's director of health benefits design and strategy. "In fact, our cost and our employee cost remain lower than companies that we benchmark against."

IBM announced last month that, beginning Jan. 1, it would pay for all of its employees' primary health-care costs. Employees now pay 20 percent of their primary-care premiums and have co-payments. It's the largest U.S. company to make such a move.

.....

I thought this was newsworthy.

Is this at all relevant in the healthcare debate?

Would it make more sense for the US government to pony-up the bucks now rather than have unheatlhy people in this country?

Maybe its just apples and oranges.

I think it is relevant in that IBM has made a business decision to do this, not the government...

IBM may now determine what is covered...will the government step in once some legislation passes and tell IBM they have to do something different?

It's also relevant in that its further proof that prevention can reduce costs rather than reaction...

I'll also wager that IBM spends some money making sure waste doesn't find it's way into the system...unlike last weeks report about some $47B in waste in Medicaid/Medicare...

Commonwealth of Virginia pays 100% of my preventative healthcare costs (check-ups/physicals, etc...). I love being a state employee!!!!!

I have Blue Cross/Blue Shield's version of an HMO

I pay 400/month employer pays 1200/month

OSBF wrote:I have Blue Cross/Blue Shield's version of an HMO

I pay 400/month employer pays 1200/month

what do you have a soccer team...? $1600 a month is almost $20K a year... you could have a second house for that money

Chizzang wrote:

OSBF wrote:I have Blue Cross/Blue Shield's version of an HMO

I pay 400/month employer pays 1200/month

what do you have a soccer team...? $1600 a month is almost $20K a year... you could have a second house for that money

My group plan, no matter which provider I select, only has 2 options, self only and family. Costs me the same to insure 2 or 20. I do have a choice of about 15 different providers and plans however, they all have different coverages and different premiums.

I'm already paying for 2 houses that I don't live in.

I just took a look at my options for 2010 under the federal government employees open season.

I'll be sticking with Blue Cross/Blue Shield Federal (basic - family option). It's a nationwide fee-for-service plan and it's met our needs well with two small children.

For 2010, I pay $235.98/month and Uncle Sam pays $707.95, for a total of $943.93/month.

http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/rates/ ... fs2010.pdf

At the risk of a hijack, did anyone see this reported yesterday? My wife has a strong history of breast cancer in her family, and gets checked annually. This smells of cost cutting measures on the healthcare debate to me:

A government task force said Monday that most women don't need mammograms in their 40s and should get one every two years starting at 50 — a stunning reversal and a break with the American Cancer Society's long-standing position. What's more, the panel said breast self-exams do no good, and women shouldn't be taught to do them.

The news seemed destined to leave many deeply confused about whose advice to follow.

"I've never had a scare, but isn't it better to be safe than sorry?" asked Beth Rosenthal, 41, sitting in a San Francisco cafe on Monday afternoon with her friend and their small children. "I've heard of a lot of women in their 40s, and even 30s, who've gotten breast cancer. It just doesn't seem right to wait until 50."


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,575371,00.html

ASUG8 wrote:At the risk of a hijack, did anyone see this reported yesterday? My wife has a strong history of breast cancer in her family, and gets checked annually. This smells of cost cutting measures on the healthcare debate to me:

A government task force said Monday that most women don't need mammograms in their 40s and should get one every two years starting at 50 — a stunning reversal and a break with the American Cancer Society's long-standing position. What's more, the panel said breast self-exams do no good, and women shouldn't be taught to do them.

The news seemed destined to leave many deeply confused about whose advice to follow.

"I've never had a scare, but isn't it better to be safe than sorry?" asked Beth Rosenthal, 41, sitting in a San Francisco cafe on Monday afternoon with her friend and their small children. "I've heard of a lot of women in their 40s, and even 30s, who've gotten breast cancer. It just doesn't seem right to wait until 50."


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,575371,00.html

That goes against what we've all been taught for the last 20 years and it flies in the face of preventative maintenance.

Why not have mamograms or prostate exams? Sure it costs a lot up front, but it costs a lot less than treating late stage prostate or breast cancer, doesn't it?

OSBF wrote:

Chizzang wrote:




what do you have a soccer team...? $1600 a month is almost $20K a year... you could have a second house for that money

My group plan, no matter which provider I select, only has 2 options, self only and family. Costs me the same to insure 2 or 20. I do have a choice of about 15 different providers and plans however, they all have different coverages and different premiums.

I'm already paying for 2 houses that I don't live in.

More or less the same thing my dad has, but he only has once choice. He pays $400.12 regardless of how many he has on his insurance. I don't know what the company he works for pays though.