I don't remember ever saying I believed that number either. Most gov't estimates end up being wildly wrong anyway.
I don't remember ever saying I believed that number either. Most gov't estimates end up being wildly wrong anyway.
Without really do any investigation, my initial thought would be that they finished writing the bill. The earlier numbers were from a preliminary bill that I believe involved eliminating private insurance entirely. This version keeps that intact and is more in line with what Obama campaigned on.
Worst argument ever. You pay for the poor anyway, why not pay more? I pay for a lot of things that go out to the public, this doesn't mean there's a reason to make me pay more. You seem to think that the solution to every problem in this nation is to tax us more. CA is bankrupt because we don't pay enough property taxes. Increase taxes! UHC? Bleh, just tax us more!
I'm glad at least you support a method to get the funds to support your outrageous spending plans. However your reasoning that you pay for a bit of it now and you might as well just pay more is stupid.
Hey, so let's return the Iraq War, and get our money back! Does anyone still have the receipt!?!?
:roll:
If you are not seeing a direct amount deducted from your paycheck, then that is because your employer has already factored that into your compensation. In other words, they are paying you less so that they can provide you with health insurance. Just because the cost is hidden to you does not mean you pay nothing.
cubeless
Diamond Member
- Sep 17, 2001
- 4,295
- 1
- 81
so a company starting now with , 25 employees doesn't pay in, doesn't have private healthcare insurance; company grows beyond 25 and now only has to pay $750 a year and lets their emps go on public plan?
sounds like we'll have the same situation in a few years as the automakers are going through... older companies won't be able to compete... they'll do bankruptcy and all emps will be on public health plan...
i surrender... just do the thing and make everybody on the public plan... this is turning into the pig that's too tasty to eat all at once... or more like chinese water torture...
sounds like we'll have the same situation in a few years as the automakers are going through... older companies won't be able to compete... they'll do bankruptcy and all emps will be on public health plan...
i surrender... just do the thing and make everybody on the public plan... this is turning into the pig that's too tasty to eat all at once... or more like chinese water torture...
That's the same problem I envisioned with this plan, but it seems so obvious that I would sincerely hope it's already been thought of.
This particular bill is supposedly complete (remember this is one of five Senate bills), so hopefully we will have the entire legislation to look at shortly.
I question any budgetary number the government comes up with. Especially any program that doesn't have an automatic termination date. How much was Medicare supposed to cost?
UHC is, plain and simple, a redistribution of wealth. Some of us are okay with that and some of us (including me) are not. The government may be charging businesses more money, but be assured that companies will pass that cost on to their employees and the consumer. This is yet another tax on everybody.
EDIT: I wonder if they'll add an extra 400 pages to the bill two hours before they vote on it?
UHC is, plain and simple, a redistribution of wealth. Some of us are okay with that and some of us (including me) are not. The government may be charging businesses more money, but be assured that companies will pass that cost on to their employees and the consumer. This is yet another tax on everybody.
EDIT: I wonder if they'll add an extra 400 pages to the bill two hours before they vote on it?
halik
Lifer
- Oct 10, 2000
- 25,696
- 1
- 81
The economics of charging employers that do provide health care to pay for people that don't have health care just reeks of FAIL to me. You're in essence putting a disincentive on providing healthcare to your employees.
Also anyone that believes employers won't pass good chunk of the $750/year onto the employees have never taken a single econ class.
EdIt: is the $750 only for full time employees that don't get health care? If so, that would make a lot more sense.
Also anyone that believes employers won't pass good chunk of the $750/year onto the employees have never taken a single econ class.
EdIt: is the $750 only for full time employees that don't get health care? If so, that would make a lot more sense.
Fern
Elite Member
- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 174
- 106
So this new proposal will cost less than half of the previous, yet cover 3 times as many people?
That's hard to accept (and if true rather frightning considering about a week they were proposing a far more expensive plan cover only a fraction of the uninsured).
The article explains the cost saving:
Ummm. I'm pretty sure the last plan also called for a government option to compete with private insurers - explanation is decidely unsatisfactory.
This is apparently the second change resulting in the cost reduction:
{q]Additionally, the revised proposal calls for a $750 annual fee on employers for each full-time worker not offered coverage through their job. The fee would be set at $375 for part-time workers. Companies with fewer than 25 employees would be exempt. The fee was forecast to generate $52 billion over 10 years, money the government would use to help provide subsidies to those who cannot afford insurance.
[/quote]
$52 billion saving over 10 years? That hardly explains this cost reduction at all - insufficient explanation.
Then I noticed this at the bottom of the article:
That looks to me be a total of $1.2 trillion?
Would be nice if the new proposal actualy covers all the uninsured for a fraction of the cost, but because of the above I'm sceptical. And I'm somewhat wary that upon finding the cost of the 'old' proposal was shockingly high and politically unpalatable, they, with sleight of hand, decided to break it into different pieces with individually smaller estimates yet in aggregate still the same old amount.
Fern
That's hard to accept (and if true rather frightning considering about a week they were proposing a far more expensive plan cover only a fraction of the uninsured).
The article explains the cost saving:
Ummm. I'm pretty sure the last plan also called for a government option to compete with private insurers - explanation is decidely unsatisfactory.
This is apparently the second change resulting in the cost reduction:
{q]Additionally, the revised proposal calls for a $750 annual fee on employers for each full-time worker not offered coverage through their job. The fee would be set at $375 for part-time workers. Companies with fewer than 25 employees would be exempt. The fee was forecast to generate $52 billion over 10 years, money the government would use to help provide subsidies to those who cannot afford insurance.
[/quote]
$52 billion saving over 10 years? That hardly explains this cost reduction at all - insufficient explanation.
Then I noticed this at the bottom of the article:
That looks to me be a total of $1.2 trillion?
Would be nice if the new proposal actualy covers all the uninsured for a fraction of the cost, but because of the above I'm sceptical. And I'm somewhat wary that upon finding the cost of the 'old' proposal was shockingly high and politically unpalatable, they, with sleight of hand, decided to break it into different pieces with individually smaller estimates yet in aggregate still the same old amount.
Fern
I believe studies have shown that employer-provided healthcare is paid for by salary. I'm not sure what you are referring to about the paycheck, but are you referring to the premium? Some employers pay for say 100% of the premium so you'll never see the figure on your paycheck, but I'm on a 90/10 plan so yes I do see deductions on my plan. Overall, we're all paying for it by having lower salaries. If employers did not have to mess with insurance we'd all have higher salaries.
Do you really trust any cost estimate from the USA Govt?
I am not that trusting. Why not pick a state and test it just in one state. No need for an all or nothing attemt at getting the cost estimate correct the first time. Any large company would test this in a small control group or a few geographic areas before they wanted to roll out this on such a large scale. If we do not go slowly the govt will kill us all.
I am not that trusting. Why not pick a state and test it just in one state. No need for an all or nothing attemt at getting the cost estimate correct the first time. Any large company would test this in a small control group or a few geographic areas before they wanted to roll out this on such a large scale. If we do not go slowly the govt will kill us all.
Fern
Elite Member
- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 174
- 106
1. You're not going to see it 'coming out of your' paycheck for the simply reason it is a non-taxable fringe benefit.
2. Most employers provide year-end annual statements that show the total 'compensation' you receive, the amount they pay for your insurance is indicated here and added to your salary to provide you a total amount of compensation you are receiving.
3. HI costs for employees is most definately considered an employee cost, and in that way they are paying you 'less' in cash salary. So yes, in a way you are paying for it. The question remains though if the employer were freed from paying your HI would they actually boost your 'take-home' pay.
Fern
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
Wait. Medicaid is over 320 billion a year and some actually believes it would only cost 150 billion for everyone much less 60 billion?
Pull the other one
Pull the other one
Nebor
Lifer
- Jun 24, 2003
- 29,582
- 12
- 76
If they can really make it happen for $60B a year, go for it. That's small potatoes in the scheme of things. And I'm sure most of you are familiar with my stance on this sort of thing.
Anything more than $100B a year is unacceptable though. Seriously, that's the line in my mind between having health care for everyone, and me standing outside an emergency room telling people without insurance to FOAD.
Anything more than $100B a year is unacceptable though. Seriously, that's the line in my mind between having health care for everyone, and me standing outside an emergency room telling people without insurance to FOAD.
Yes, only for full-time (or part-time at $375) employees that do NOT get healthcare from their employer.
As for what you linked Ferm, I caught that too, and I'm honestly not sure what that line means. The way I read it was that $597 billion would be going towards covering the uninsured, and the other $20 billion or so going towards subsidies.
$52 billion saving over 10 years? That hardly explains this cost reduction at all - insufficient explanation.
Then I noticed this at the bottom of the article:
That looks to me be a total of $1.2 trillion?
Would be nice if the new proposal actualy covers all the uninsured for a fraction of the cost, but because of the above I'm sceptical. And I'm somewhat wary that upon finding the cost of the 'old' proposal was shockingly high and politically unpalatable, they, with sleight of hand, decided to break it into different pieces with individually smaller estimates yet in aggregate still the same old amount.
Fern[/quote]
No, the previous estimate most certainly did NOT include the estimates of the effect of the public plan competing with the private plans. Explanation most certainly not unsatisfactory.
In fact, that was the reason I said repeatedly in that other thread that the $1.6 trillion number was ridiculous to make any statements about the health care plan on... specifically because it included all of the costs and none of the savings. Oh and no, you don't add those two numbers together, the smaller is included in the larger.
As previously mentioned in this thread it's very illuminating to see how the CBO numbers that looked bad for this health care plan were trotted out as 'proof' that it was crap, but the revised numbers are now discounted because 'the government can't predict for crap'. Maybe we should rename the 'hostile media phenomenon' the 'hostile CBO phenomenon'. It goes from solid, nonpartisan, and credible to incompetent, inaccurate, and silly all in the span of one budget number revision. Color me shocked.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter