GG Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 There are going to be some mandates. Where would you suggest the money from those mandates go? To pay down the debt? So the same amount of money from fines used to pay down the debt is spent by the government in health care which keeps the debt exactly the same? Where I think the money should go vs where it will end up are totally different things. You're also going under the assumption that the plan will come in on the estimated budget, while every single state that's implemented a plan that resembles the proposed plan is no where near the original estimates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 Where I think the money should go vs where it will end up are totally different things. You're also going under the assumption that the plan will come in on the estimated budget, while every single state that's implemented a plan that resembles the proposed plan is no where near the original estimates. And let's not forget that just about every other plan that has been implemented hasn't come close to where their original estimates or calculations were suppose to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 Did anyone ever consider that as employees this new healthcare policy would give you some power? Think about it: today, companies who provide HC benefits feel free to trim them, raise the price etc and in general toy with their employees because, particularly in a downturn, they know that their employees will take it. Why? Did you ever pay COBRA? Yikes! But if employees know that they can take jobs elsewhere and still obtain reasonably-priced healthcare, they'll be able to move more frequently. So, this actually levels the playing field for employees because it weakens the employer's ability to hold employees hostage for healthcare. The company will actually have to invest in retention through better working conditions etc. Gee. It could even weaken unions' power a little because healthcare is such a big bargaing chip with them. Wingnuts would like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 The average American is an angry idiot and needs to be told what to think by whatever party he/she is affiliated with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 Did anyone ever consider that as employees this new healthcare policy would give you some power? Think about it: today, companies who provide HC benefits feel free to trim them, raise the price etc and in general toy with their employees because, particularly in a downturn, they know that their employees will take it. Why? Did you ever pay COBRA? Yikes! But if employees know that they can take jobs elsewhere and still obtain reasonably-priced healthcare, they'll be able to move more frequently. So, this actually levels the playing field for employees because it weakens the employer's ability to hold employees hostage for healthcare. The company will actually have to invest in retention through better working conditions etc. Gee. It could even weaken unions' power a little because healthcare is such a big bargaing chip with them. Wingnuts would like that. Interesting point.... it may have some more unintended consequences too, allowing the creation of more independent contractors and if so causing more tax head aches for the average worker, which could lead to a simplification of the tax code politically mandated. Will have to think about it some more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 Did anyone ever consider that as employees this new healthcare policy would give you some power? Think about it: today, companies who provide HC benefits feel free to trim them, raise the price etc and in general toy with their employees because, particularly in a downturn, they know that their employees will take it. Why? Did you ever pay COBRA? Yikes! But if employees know that they can take jobs elsewhere and still obtain reasonably-priced healthcare, they'll be able to move more frequently. So, this actually levels the playing field for employees because it weakens the employer's ability to hold employees hostage for healthcare. The company will actually have to invest in retention through better working conditions etc. Gee. It could even weaken unions' power a little because healthcare is such a big bargaing chip with them. Wingnuts would like that. OOOOOOOR it could empower those EEEEVIL corporations even more, allowing them to trim down health benefits so much that people would be better off on the gubmint plan. Just sayin'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 And let's not forget that just about every other plan that has been implemented hasn't come close to where their original estimates or calculations were suppose to be. Unfortunately that's government in general. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 The government is going to help companies that cannot pay with subsidies, if you have less than 25 employees you are not forced to provide health care (this is the basics of the house plans and senate plans). Based on my quick reading of pages 180-192 (and I may be wrong), you are not forced. But you do pay a payroll tax (0% up to 250K, 2% up to 300k, 4% up to 350k, 6% up to 400k, 8% thereafter). This is a new tax (assuming they are not going to do away with the existing medicaire and medacaid payroll taxes). You do get a tax credit of up to 50% of what you pay, reduced by (1) the multiples of 20k your employees make, and (2) the number of employees over 10. More significantly, the 'gold plated insurance plans' stuff has morphed. They deem Highly Compensated Employees anyone whose compensation exceeds 80k, and their taxes do not count for the tax credit. The bottom line is that a small business with a payroll of 400k is going to fork over 32k in new taxes that they didn't have to before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 The bottom line is that a small business with a payroll of 400k is going to fork over 32k in new taxes that they didn't have to before. Simple solution: exploit the labor force. Don't pay 'em as much, reduce payroll tax liability, AND increase profits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 Congress has more important things to do than listen to their constituents Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts