Employer provided health care was originally a competitive differentiator between companies competing for employees in the '50's. Roosevelt considered making it part of the New Deal social compact but could never figure out how to explain it to voters. Today employer provided health care has been a disaster for some companies (General Motors for instance) and for many employees who find that spiraling costs are just making it impossible for them to even get coverage. The system is broken and it needs to be fixed. That's not to say that the current proposals are the answer. I think we need to look beyond measures like CORBA, which aren't cost effective. Roosevelt's failure and a few spectacular corporate errors argue that we should try again. Other countries seem to manage with varying degrees of success, with better outcomes and better cost structures. Why is it that we can't?

Margaret (Maggie) DeCan - Vice-President of Human Resources
swalden@hbham.com

So yeah, it's not a matter of cost or effectiveness, but sheer political lunacy.

@skizsrodt: "I'll bet the guy who fired him can't get insurance due to his pre-existing condition of not having a heart."

I know it's terrible and completely inappropriate to the tone of the discussion, but I heartily laughed at that. Nice one.

Listen, I have no love for private insurers, but the problems I have with them don't hold a candle to the epic, total, and utter FAIL of the government.

The War Labor Board put restrictions on wages, such that employers could really only use fringe benefits like health insurance to attract employees.

Also, at that point, from the perspective of some unions, it seemed safer and more efficient to negotiate with individual businesses rather than with the entire government on healthcare options.

Toss in things like the rabidly anti-national healthcare AMA of the time ("OHNO! SOCIALIZMS!") and universal or public option coverage was out of the question, even though certain people like.. you know, Truman, wanted it.

@supercereal: As an addendum, your post is a backhanded insult to RyanAEH. Given that I do General Surgery, and support reform, I have something to say to you and anybody else that insults people when discussing the healthcare situation:

Stop.

Please, stop.

You're only polarizing the opponents further. They're going to (and some already do) oppose it for no other reason than that they hate so many of the supporters. I'm actually seeing this quite a bit amongst my patients.

If you really care about health care reform, then start providing education. Provide information about the topic at hand- always quote your sources- be patient, kind, and thoughtful. Try, for a little while, to be nice. Any nasty thing the opposition might say is more than likely because they're either preparing for a nasty response or have already received one.

We can do this, if we do it right. We really can help everybody. I try and help patients every day to the best of my ability, as do so many other healthcare professionals. Please, help us too.

This may surprise and shock you, but there are many people in the world who do not value money first and foremost in their lives. Us folks who can manage to value things other than money are more attracted by work environment of a specific job, the goals of the organization, and whether or not we like the work. If a non profit offers a good workplace, goals I agree with, and interesting work the salary would not dissuade me.

The non profit job market is way more competitive than the for profit market right now, so apparently there are plenty of people who don't mind the lower salary.

Cite please.

Unfortunately you don't actually know what socialism is, if you believe Marx has anything to do with socialism. I'd suggest that you use your time on the internet to actually learn something, rather than repeating talking point or Googling quotes you can use as an appeal to authority.

@supercereal: You can't deny that many, many Americans view it as a politicized topic, as you state. You can't claim ignorance of that fact. icruise is also well aware of this, as we appear to all be here. Thus, he knew full well that by posting it, so long as there were at least some of "the vast majority of Americans", he was politicizing the topic.

Just because YOU don't find it politicized, and just because I don't find it politicized, does not mean that others also think the same way.

If you can think about people other than yourself, and what their perceptions and feelings are, then yes, it can very well be a politicized topic.

But I couldn't disagree more with what you've written about fixes to the system. I don't think we can wait while 50 different states fix their worker's compensation claims handling.

The US is the only first-world country which doesn't have universal healthcare for its citizens. Why? What is so unique about our country's citizens that we don't need health insurance for everyone? Other countries have citizens who are injured on the job, who are unable to work, who need to see a doctor when they don't have an income. All those countries manage to put in place a safety net for their citizens. Why can't we?

I don't think that changing each of our 50 states' worker's compensation claims handling will fix this problem. That still leaves tens of millions of Americans who don't have health insurance. That's a piecemeal, fragmented and inadequate fix. I think our system needs fixing on a national level.

In the particular case of this shooting victim, if we had a system in place of universal healthcare, he would have access to medical care through health insurance even though he was terminated from his job. He wouldn't have to worry about paying a huge amount in healthcare premiums for his family from whatever he was able to eventually collect from unemployment insurance or SSD. His employer's healthcare premiums wouldn't rise astronomically because one of their employees had a huge medical bill, forcing them to consider terminating certain employees or finding other insurance coverage. (I've read a lot of stories lately about how insurance companies try to get companies to terminate their group coverage by increasing their premiums by 100% or more.)

Also, people here have made the point that this shooting victim would be eligible for Medicare if he received SSD. A person on SSD is eligible for Medicare after THREE YEARS. Probably not going to help this man, is it? Since his COBRA coverage only runs for 18 months... assuming he can afford to pay the premiums.

Our country doesn't have a safety net. It's a safety SIEVE. This man had a job, had healthcare insurance and was injured on the job. And now he and his family are facing financial ruin and loss of access to healthcare (when he needs it most) because he got injured at work.

Sure, he can go and sue his employer and others to make him and his family "whole" but that will take years if not decades. Assuming he could find a lawyer to take his case on contingency. Assuming that if he were to prevail, there would be assets to recover. Assuming that those he sued wouldn't appeal any decision against them and drag things out ad infinitum.

Our system needs a complete overhaul -- we needed it decades ago. If it were up to me, we'd have single payer insurance like Canada has, like the Medicare we haven for seniors, and people would be able to purchase insurance policies to cover what single-payer insurance doesn't cover.

People in this group have said they're going to give up buying this company's product because of how they have treated their employee. I wish they could divert some of that money to this shooting victim, but that would probably end up working against him and benefiting his ex-employer in some way I haven't thought of.

Surely, if you think everyone should pay out of pocket for preventative care, don't you also agree that the providers need to decide whether the price of their services ought to be the premium price paid by the out-of-pocket uninsured or the discounted amount insurance companies get for the same services? I'm tired of being soaked so BCBS can get a deal.

Then these BCBS companies decided to change their nonprofit status and become for-profit. Horizon BCBS of New Jersey became the latest to do this.

I don't know if they've all changed to for-profit companies now, but I wouldn't be surprised.

Also, its not nazis. They are communist or socialist. Nazis were more fascists.

@MRFFF: From what I can tell up in Canada here, everyone who wants our healthcare plan is a nazi, eh? Seriously, there's an awful lot to be said for the type of healthcare we have...when my son was born, the first two things he got were his birth certificate and his OHIP card (Ontario Health Insurance Plan). Employed or unemployed, for the rest of his life, when he walks into a hospital or doctor's office sick, they'll treat him without ever asking how he's going to pay for it. All this death panel nonsense and people waiting in giant waiting list stuff is garbage. It actually makes things better for the system, since doctors aren't bogged down with how much tests cost before giving them, etc. Does the guy need the test? Then he gets it. If you have to wait for a bit in a waiting room, its an acceptable trade-off in a triage system. High priority cases go first. The big issue with the system is it's expensive....REALLY expensive. But americans CAN pay for it, and even without raising taxes. Just cut part of the pentagon's budget for the next couple years until you get your finances sorted out. Yeah right...

Well, I guess it is quite easy to be so naive, and will be sobering to realize the truth after the fact. No matter what system you (or anyone else) thinks will be put in place... 'all citizens' will never share equally in anything, much less in paying the costs of health care. Many people work in the U.S. and do not pay taxes. Many people do not work and receive benefits for which they have never paid a share of the costs to create and continue.

Are we so poorly educated as a nation that the lessons of the past are lost in less than 200 years?
"Democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." - Thomas Jefferson

A utopian dream may include all citizens sharing equally in the cost of health care such that noone is left out, all receive equal and timely care, and costs are minimized. It cannot be realized just as certainly as every socialist experiment has thus far failed to prove Marx anything but a disillusioned madman.

In an era when serious non-treatable communicable disease is rampant in our environment, and contagions can and do travel across the world in a day, healthcare for everybody everywhere in the world needs to be a priority, just as food, water, shelter and education for everybody everywhere needs to be a priority.

I happen to support a Mandatory Insurance policy, with a government-run provider for when you can't afford private insurance. But even then, it only works if the government legislates away the profits for either healthcare providers or insurance providers.

It does no one any good to have a system based on how much you can bilk the payee of the premiums. Private enterprise in public responsibilities is bad. That's why we don't have it for MOST other public operations and why it works just fine for government employees and former government employees.

It shouldn't take months or years to qualify for SS disability; but universal healthcare isn't the answer to that problem. Getting to the root of the SS problem and fixing that is the answer.

Same with the workman's comp. issue. Universtal healthcare isn't going to fix any of the issues with that system; same as above, fixing the issues with workman's comp. is what needs to happen.

Because this guy and all the rest of us make up that "government or society as a whole." With out each of us, there are none of us.

@Daveinva: Yes trust the American majority that voted for change. This is a prime reason that the Dems are in power right now. Where were the needed changes over the last 8 years. Oh thats right rich people could afford their insurance after those tax cuts.

The ignorant masses who keep on mixing up healthcare with health insurance are the ones who need help. Health insurance is NOT the same as healthcare, which is part of the problem with this issue. God forbid we have to pay for health services rendered. Everyone should have to pay out of pocket for those stupid office visits for sniffles and a 100.4° "fever". Insurance should be what it was designed for in the first place - to insure against a catastrophic illness or disease.

Ponder this. The much-hated HMO insurance concept was created by the government, namely Ted Kennedy.

Anyone have the CEO or presidents e-mail so I can let them know that I will be avoiding their products?

So, where we're at right now is pretty much the result of government intervention in the system. Given that, I think it's at least an understandable perspective that "let the government fix it, and all will be well" is, well, not such a great idea unless it's carefully thought through. Treating it like a political ping-pong ball is precisely the right way to foul everything up yet again.

Disability insurance, on the other hand, would continue some percentage of his salary if he is considered disabled.

If he is disabled, the issue is not the medical costs (there may not be any substantial medical costs), the issue is that he cannot work.

We don't know if he had short-term or long term disability coverage (sounds like he did not).

If he cannot return to work, and either the employer does not offer, or he did not sign up for, long term disability coverage, the employer has no requirement to continue to pay his salary....their general modus operandi is that they pay workers to work.

If the employer were negligent in some way, this might be different, but there is no information to tell us that the company did anything wrong with respect to preventing an armed robbery from taking place.

While it may sound cold hearted and mean, employers do not pay a salary forever to every person who is disabled by a workplace injury, that's what disability insurance is for. There may be some cases where it may be 'the right thing to do', but when push comes to shove, companies do only what they are legally obligated to do, not the 'right thing'.

Social Security disability is the 'public option' that is there for those who cannot afford, or did not sign up for, long term disability insurance from their employer.

The current system is therefore directly a result of government policies. If the government hadn't imposed the wage caps, companies would have been free to raise wages to attract new employees rather than resorting to offering health insurance to get around those caps. Moreover, if Congress hadn't changed the tax code, this system, which doesn't work very well, wouldn't have become so entrenched.

No suspect in the shooting has been arrested. So this employee can't file a civil claim against him.

And assuming the shooter WAS known, how much do you really think the shooting victim would be able to collect were he to prevail in a civil action? The shooter was ROBBING A STORE. Something tells me he's not made of money.

As for the employer angle: worker's compensation was originally instituted so that workers who were injured on the job didn't have to sue their employers for negligence. It's a trade-off. Workers lose their ability to sue their employers in exchange for this insurance.

Now ... if I know about the subsidy, how is it that everyone else who knows so much more about COBRA than I do, apparently don't?

What good is a safety net if it only catches you the last foot of a 100-foot fall?

My next-door neighbor's claim was denied and not only was she quite disabled and unable to WALK (much less WORK), she had doctor's statements and medical records out the wahzoo. (I helped her with the task of filing a claim, so I know of what I speak.)

Eventually her claim was approved but it took about TWO YEARS! Two years without income.

How long could you last for without any income whatsoever, Esquire99? Without health insurance?

Do you have anything to offer besides "shit happens", Esquire99? And how "I can't expect the government" blahblahblah...? Oh, and the part about this guy having the court system available to him... have you sued anyone lately? Do you have any idea how long THAT takes? (Assuming that he has access to a lawyer to take his case, mind you.)

I was asking why this guy was no longer getting worker's comp (you know...THE SAFETY NET) when clearly he is still disabled and under doctors' care. Can an employer just decide to terminate worker's comp on their own?

Other countries manage to have a rather effective safety net for those people who aren't able to work due to disabilities... so yes, Esquire99, I CAN AND DO expect our government's safety net to work better than it does.

Could we hear from someone who actually KNOWS something about the process and could answer the questions I posed rather than offer self-serving platitudes like Esquire99?

I can tell by your screen name that you are very proud of your law degree. Good for you. I have one too. When you have to rely on a lawsuit for an issue like this it is clear that the system is broken. Throwing lawyers into the mix makes a bad situation worse.

As it is clearly a worker's compensation issue where the employee was injured on the job, I hope he has retained an attorney specializing in these kinds of corporate shenanigans. Honey Baked Hams needs to be held in-check of it's responsibility to their employee.

On another note, I will no longer do business with Honey Baked Hams if this is the way that they treat their employees who are injured on-the-job and need their healthcare benefits more than ever. Their hams are indeed very good. But their not worth this much to me.

Can an employer limit the amount of time that an employee is covered by worker's compensation? If an employee is injured on the job and is disabled from working for a year, can the employer really say, "Oh, well we're only going to cover you for six months"?

This kind of story just makes me sick. Sick for this poor employee who DID NOTHING WRONG, who has suffered tremendously due to a work-related injury (shot during a robbery) and now is facing financial devastation because of it.

We need a better safety net in this country for employees. Worker's compensation and Social Security was supposed to be that safety net. And look how well it's serving this unfortunate man... not at all.

Sticking with a job you dislike is weighing the benefits of something against the bad of it. That's like saying people stay with jobs they ate becasue the pay is so good. Yea, it happens...and a lot of time the pay is good because the job sucks.

Um yes you are. If we could trust Americans to do the right thing, there would be no such thing as uninsured and insurance companies would not put profits over peoples lives.

Lets discuss your claims.

"I am trusted to purchase my own car insurance, life insurance, mortgage insurance, homeowner's insurance, renter's insurance, pet insurance, etc., but someone thinks that I shouldn't have the right to buy my own *health* insurance?"

First off no one said you can not choose your own health insurance in the proposed system. Want to pay a private insurer, then fine, but if you can not afford to pay the extra money then the Government will make sure you dont go uninsured, treatment of which is THE NUMBER ONE drain on our current healthcare system because in the US no uninsured person is allowed to be turned away from emergency treatment.

Second of many states actually make it MANDATORY you purchase many of the insurances you put up there. So the government is already telling you you need it.

"All of the above companies compete across state lines. They all have functioning markets. Consumers get plenty of information about all of them, all without any "co-ops" present. If you don't like the price you're paying, switch providers, there's competition. If you don't like the coverage you're getting, switch providers, there's competition."

No they dont. Except for a few big insurance companies many DONT compete across state lines, and often the difference between one company is measured in pennies not dollars. And for many people there is no such thing as a choice, they are required to take one possibly expensive provider and thats it. You are grossly making up shit in this one calling into question if you in fact know anything you are talking about.

"Somehow this eminently successful and intuitive concept works in EVERY OTHER SECTOR of private insurance, but when it comes to *health* insurance, consumers-- natch, *citizens*-- aren't trusted to manage it for themselves, but instead should turn it all over to the same government that is demonstrably incapable of managing Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the Veteran's Administration healthcare system, the Post Office, the housing market and lately the automotive and financial sectors of our economy."

Um no it doesnt. If it did people would have life insurance, car insurance, etc.

Do you REALIZE how many people have uninsured houses? Uninsured cars? Even in states where they require you to have insurance? ?We are talking Millions here. So no the system DOESNT work for other insurances either. It just not nearly as imperative to fix atm as health insurance is.

And while you feel smug in your claim that the Government cant run said programs, you dont even know that the Post Office ISNT government run, its only government connection is the Postmaster General for the US is appointed by the government. The USPS is actually ran by a board and doesn't even receive government funding.

And that being said ALL of those programs are highly successful, dont equate a few problems to horrible government mismanagement.

"There is TREMENDOUS need of reform. I just don't see how any of it demands more government intrusion into our pocketbooks, livelihood, and in this case, our very lives."

Yet I am sure you are a Republican, so you had no problem throwing away thousands of lives for the last 8 years.

"Trust Americans to do the right thing-- we're not children."

No I think the town halls have proven we are exactly that. Children. And its about time that half of this nation pulls its head out of its ass.

But when we become ill, as the great majority of us will (the other will die sudden deaths) we all want absolutely everything done, no matter the cost, no matter whether the intervention works (is cost effective).

Furthermore, we simply can't bear to allow those without coverage to go without care. Thus the access we provide everyone to emergency room care--the most expensive least efficient care possible. Touted by non other than Rush what's his name as the american way to provide care for all.

There's something terribly wrong here.

Let's tie our insurance to *individuals*-- not employers, not the government.

I am trusted to purchase my own car insurance, life insurance, mortgage insurance, homeowner's insurance, renter's insurance, pet insurance, etc., but someone thinks that I shouldn't have the right to buy my own *health* insurance?

All of the above companies compete across state lines. They all have functioning markets. Consumers get plenty of information about all of them, all without any "co-ops" present. If you don't like the price you're paying, switch providers, there's competition. If you don't like the coverage you're getting, switch providers, there's competition.

Somehow this eminently successful and intuitive concept works in EVERY OTHER SECTOR of private insurance, but when it comes to *health* insurance, consumers-- natch, *citizens*-- aren't trusted to manage it for themselves, but instead should turn it all over to the same government that is demonstrably incapable of managing Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the Veteran's Administration healthcare system, the Post Office, the housing market and lately the automotive and financial sectors of our economy.

There is TREMENDOUS need of reform. I just don't see how any of it demands more government intrusion into our pocketbooks, livelihood, and in this case, our very lives.

Trust Americans to do the right thing-- we're not children.

We should call this for what it is, a shitty move by a corporation that should be mocked and ridiculed publicly until they reverse course (which already appears to be occurring according to the story). Not some kind of indictment of the U.S. healthcare system.

If he goes on SSI like Honeybake wants, he'll qualify for Medicade. While it's not an ideal situation, he does have a safety net.

Health care reform NOW. This may be the most important consumer issue there is. Best Buy sucks, capitalism first health care kills.

Ever since they became a big name I've had their ham every Xmas or Thanksgiving. Almost without fail somebody would bring some Honeybaked Ham. I'm actually starting to get sick of the stuff anyway, and we're hosting Thanksgiving this year. I'm looking forward to having a good reason to tell the guests not to bring Honeybaked Ham.

The company acting like they did him a favor that he could now qualify for SSD? Never mind that SSD is running 1-3 YEARS before people can even get a review. SSD rejects about 60% of the claims they receive. No they are not all bogus claims either.

If Michael Moore wants to do another documentary he needs to do it on how screwed people are if they fall ill and can't work or end up left hanging by WC.

"We are a value-serving company," DeCan said in a statement. "We do the right thing and serve others. We couldn't feel any worse for Rich, and we would do anything we could for him."

Anything? How about letting him keep his job!

Full medical benefits are provided to employees entitled to worker's compensation benefits, with no time or monetary limits. The employer selects the physician who will provide care.

That means that he should receive full benefits, without being cut off.

This guy should find a good worker comp lawyer.

I guess Maggie DeCan is a typical republican and just wants to push the expenses onto the government.
This is pathetic for a company to fire someone under these circumstances.

Do you know how much I get in unemployment each month? Try $1300. Do you know how much my rent is? $650. So... Combine my rent and my COBRA, and ... oh, wow. Look at that! That's what I have in unemployment each month! Guess I can stop eating now, I can stop paying for the internet and applying to jobs, I can stop putting gas in my car, I can also stop paying for electric to keep me from getting heatstroke in the summer and freezing in winter!

Y'know, because it's SO easy to afford COBRA with the ARRA discount!

So this guy is going to be living off of Social Security disability, which is a pita to get in the first place, is supposed to have enough money coming in to pay all his bills, plus his hospital bills, and COBRA?

The $1500 is almost certainly the COBRA cost, and frankly it sounds low. When I was offered COBRA it was $1600/mo for just *me*. No family.

COBRA lets you stay on the group plan without interruption but you have to pay the full cost--both your contribution and what your employer used to cover. At least that's how it was with my former employer. You're also not allowed to downgrade your coverage to save money. It's all or nothing.

The family would be better served finding private insurance. It's much cheaper, but the initial deductions (and hence the out of pocket costs) will be higher. Faced with that choice I opted to go without insurance for a time. Fortunately I found another job... 18 months later.

Health insurance is broken. I can't believe people don't see that.

@PsiCop:

I think termination is an exemption for continuing health coverage under COBRA. There are a long list of exemptions and exclusions so dont quote me.

@JulesNoctambule: Me too, esp. for the Thanksgiving and Christmas holiday's coming up

I thought worker's compensation had to make you whole? Isn't there some requirement that they keep paying for his treatment until he's all healed?

This crap is why I have a strict policy of total compliance with robbers. You want the money in the till? Let me get you a bag. Oh, the narcotics in the safe, too? Here's the keys. You want some help with all that oxycodone?

The holidays are coming up, let us show our dissappointment with Honey Baked Ham's actions with our wallets.

@dorianh49: Zing! I know it's rude and insensitive for me to laugh at that but hey, I just woke up!

Too many people think healthcare reform = public option. Which would fail miserably.

But hey, at least we don't live in a socialist country.

In fact, you did mean to. I have zero problem with that, except you lied when you started by saying you didn't mean to.

Thats not cool. Even taking a bullet for a company these days doesn't entitle you to ethical treatment. This makes me sad, and hopefully honeybaked ham goes out of business for this. I'll bet the guy who fired him can't get insurance due to his pre-existing codition of not having a heart. Fucker.

I'd be so much happier working elsewhere, but I need my insurance desperately. I don't know how a clause hasn't dumped me from insurance- I knock on wood. I think working for an ENORMOUS entity keeps the insurance companies interested in keeping the ENTITY happy, which means not dumping people off.

PS - no more HoneyBaked Ham for me!

It doesn't matter if you're for or against the public option...loopholes like this need to be addressed, it's KILLING hard-working people.

Of course, to the company he's just a drain on resources, so making sure they can get away with not doing their part after he was shot on the job is priority #1. I hope their decision gets plenty of publicity.

As for healthcare reform, I know so many people that are sooo afraid of it. Sheeples.

@icruise:

What you dont find 1500$ outragous for healthcare that may or may not deny your claim??? You sir are a cancer in this countrys... bla bla Yea I agree with you man it is nuts. I love how i'm covered by my company for 100%, i dont pay anything for it, but to get my wife on would be 1040$ a month. God forbid we have a child because then its over 1800$/month then!