Putting things in Perspective

[boedicca]

I'd like Flopper to explain how ObamaCare reduces costs.

 

[Thinman]

According to the CBO, the new healthcare law will cost a trillion dollars over the next 10 yrs. or about 100 billion a year. Those are pretty big numbers but let’s put it in perspective. The federal budget is 3.5 trillion dollars or 3,500 billion dollars. The cost of the new healthcare law will only add about 2.85% to federal spending, all of which is covered by increases in taxes and cost cuts. Fox News, the unofficial voice of the Republican Party continues to report that the new healthcare bill, will bankrupt the country. Would anyone like to explain just how this law is going to bankrupt the country?

With this kind of track record?




Medicare (hospital insurance). In 1965, as Congress considered legislation to establish a national Medicare program, the House Ways and Means Committee estimated that the hospital insurance portion of the program, Part A, would cost about $9 billion annually by 1990.v Actual Part A spending in 1990 was $67 billion. The actuary who provided the original cost estimates acknowledged in 1994 that, even after conservatively discounting for the unexpectedly high inflation rates of the early ‘70s and other factors, “the actual [Part A] experience was 165% higher than the estimate.”

Medicare (entire program). In 1967, the House Ways and Means Committee predicted that the new Medicare program, launched the previous year, would cost about $12 billion in 1990. Actual Medicare spending in 1990 was $110 billion—off by nearly a factor of 10.

Medicaid DSH program. In 1987, Congress estimated that Medicaid’s disproportionate share hospital (DSH) payments—which states use to provide relief to hospitals that serve especially large numbers of Medicaid and uninsured patients—would cost less than $1 billion in 1992. The actual cost that year was a staggering $17 billion. Among other things, federal lawmakers had failed to detect loopholes in the legislation that enabled states to draw significantly more money from the federal treasury than they would otherwise have been entitled to claim under the program’s traditional 50-50 funding scheme.

Medicare home care benefit. When Congress debated changes to Medicare’s home care benefit in 1988, the projected 1993 cost of the benefit was $4 billion. The actual 1993 cost was more than twice that amount, $10 billion.

Medicare catastrophic coverage benefit. In 1988, Congress added a catastrophic coverage benefit to Medicare, to take effect in 1990. In July 1989, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) doubled its cost estimate for the program, for the four-year period 1990-1993, from $5.7 billion to $11.8 billion. CBO explained that it had received newer data showing it had significantly under-estimated prescription drug cost growth, and it warned Congress that even this revised estimate might be too low. This was a principal reason Congress repealed the program before it could take effect.

SCHIP. In 1997, Congress established the State Children’s Health Insurance Program as a capped grant program to states, and appropriated $40 billion to be doled out to states over 10 years at a rate of roughly $5 billion per year, once implemented. In each year, some states exceeded their allotments, requiring shifts of funds from other states that had not done so. By 2006, unspent reserves from prior years were nearly exhausted. To avert mass disenrollments, Congress decided to appropriate an additional $283 million in FY 2006 and an additional $650 million in FY 2007.

http://jec.senate.gov/republicans/p...orm_Cost_Estimates_Reliable__July_31_2009.pdf

What could possibly go wrong?

A good write-up, however if you are trying to draw a parallel between the healthcare bill and Medicare, there is a big difference. Medicare was designed strictly as a benefit for seniors with little or no effort to control the cost. It was a give away program like social security.

Much of the healthcare bill is aimed at reducing cost. If the healthcare industry had not priced themselves out of the reach of millions of Americans, then there would have been no healthcare bill.

Average net profits for health care insurance companies is 3.6%. Health care insurance companies are not the problem. They are just taking the hit for increased costs in the medical field. Doctors, hospitals, drug companies and medical device manufacturers are all contributing to the increased costs.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Because the estimates don't include the vast amount of costs that are mandated for businesses and states to absorb. And as history has proven, the actual figures will dwarf these cooked numbers.

SS & Medicare are already forecasted to be $37T in the whole. Interest rates on the Federal Debt are rising. The country is technically insolvent. We should be cutting spending - not adding to it.

Social Security and Medicare cost will rise with or without the healthcare bill. The healthcare bill actual reduces the rate of increase in Medicare spending from a 4% annually to 2%.

It is a pure supposition to state that the cost to business will rise due to the healthcare bill. Healthcare premiums should come down not go up. The size of the insurance pools will increase reducing costs. Tax credits will be available to small businesses.

Medicaid costs will rise but there are big offsets. Most importantly having healthcare for 30 million plus people means heart disease, diabetes, and other diseases can be treated in physician's offices instead of emergency rooms and hospitals. This will reduce Medicaid costs.

The most important point in the whole debate is that increased access to healthcare for millions of Americans will mean a healthier and more productive America. Unfortunately, there is no way to put a dollar figure on these savings. Yes, this is a supposition but a logical one.

How much is this wonderful tax credit? If it is not 100% of the cost of the employee's health insurance, or no more than $2000/employee (the amount of the fine for not providing coverage) less than the cost of a plan, then the employer is better off letting the employee pick up the tab.

Let's see, here in Florida the cost of my last insurance plan for a family is over $1200/month. That comes to roughly $14,400 per year. Now, how much of a credit is the employer going to get? I don't know the answer to that, but do you think it is going to be $12,000/year? I highly doubt that... so, if it is say $5000/year for each employee covered, my employer is better off paying the $2,000/employee and letting me buy my own. But, hell, the employer of less than 50 employees doesn't even have to worry about the $2000/employee penalty so why on earth would such an employer spring for $14,400/employee when he doesn't have to? And now that every employee is going to have to have insurance regardless of whether or not the employer covers it, the employer isn't going to do it out of the goodness of his heart. Maybe he'll raise your salary a couple grand a year because his costs are lower, but don't think it will cover the cost of health insurance.

I'm screwed!

Immie

I'm not sure what problem you have with the bill - there was no law in place before mandating that you got coverage from your employer. If you do have coverage from your employer, why would Obama's bill change that? If you don't - are you complaining that Obama's bill doesn't do enough?

 

[Flopper]

Much of the healthcare bill is aimed at reducing cost. If the healthcare industry had not priced themselves out of the reach of millions of Americans, then there would have been no healthcare bill.

How does it reduce costs?

There are a number places where the bill will reduce cost. Both individuals and small companies will be able to included themselves with others in large insurance pools. This spreads the risk thus reducing cost. Anyone who buys insurance knows large companies can get lower premiums than small companies. The 44 billion dollar giveaway to insurers offering Mediadvantage policies will be eliminated. The Medicare cost increases that are now 4% a year will be reduced to 2%. There is some oversight on health insurance premium increases. Providing access to healthcare to millions of people will allow health problems to be treated in doctors offices instead of hospitals and emergency rooms. There is lot more.

 

[rightwinger]

It will bankrupt the country because it SOCIALISM

Spending money on wars only helps the economy

Spending money on the American People can only bankrupt it

It will bankrupt the country because it's stupid to spend more than you bring in. Obama is, apparently, not the Messiah. He cannot turn water into wine and he cannot keep spending money he doesn't have.

You do know there is no Santa Clause, right? Cuz you sound like a 5 year old who 'wants, wants, wants'. Daddy can't afford it. Go without.

Daddy couldn't afford to conduct two wars

Daddy couldn't afford to hand out massive tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans

Daddy couldn't afford to hand out $600 to every American

 

[The Rabbi]

Social Security and Medicare cost will rise with or without the healthcare bill. The healthcare bill actual reduces the rate of increase in Medicare spending from a 4% annually to 2%.

It is a pure supposition to state that the cost to business will rise due to the healthcare bill. Healthcare premiums should come down not go up. The size of the insurance pools will increase reducing costs. Tax credits will be available to small businesses.

Medicaid costs will rise but there are big offsets. Most importantly having healthcare for 30 million plus people means heart disease, diabetes, and other diseases can be treated in physician's offices instead of emergency rooms and hospitals. This will reduce Medicaid costs.

The most important point in the whole debate is that increased access to healthcare for millions of Americans will mean a healthier and more productive America. Unfortunately, there is no way to put a dollar figure on these savings. Yes, this is a supposition but a logical one.

How much is this wonderful tax credit? If it is not 100% of the cost of the employee's health insurance, or no more than $2000/employee (the amount of the fine for not providing coverage) less than the cost of a plan, then the employer is better off letting the employee pick up the tab.

Let's see, here in Florida the cost of my last insurance plan for a family is over $1200/month. That comes to roughly $14,400 per year. Now, how much of a credit is the employer going to get? I don't know the answer to that, but do you think it is going to be $12,000/year? I highly doubt that... so, if it is say $5000/year for each employee covered, my employer is better off paying the $2,000/employee and letting me buy my own. But, hell, the employer of less than 50 employees doesn't even have to worry about the $2000/employee penalty so why on earth would such an employer spring for $14,400/employee when he doesn't have to? And now that every employee is going to have to have insurance regardless of whether or not the employer covers it, the employer isn't going to do it out of the goodness of his heart. Maybe he'll raise your salary a couple grand a year because his costs are lower, but don't think it will cover the cost of health insurance.

I'm screwed!

Immie

I'm not sure what problem you have with the bill - there was no law in place before mandating that you got coverage from your employer. If you do have coverage from your employer, why would Obama's bill change that? If you don't - are you complaining that Obama's bill doesn't do enough?

Employers commonly provide coverage as the premiums were deductible as expense. Now the company has an incentive not to provide coverage and simply toss the employee on to the public system and pay the fine, which will be less than the premium as a cost saving. Additionally at least 3 major companies have announced restatements of earnings to account for the new mandate.
So the bill has done the opposite of what Obama said it would do.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Much of the healthcare bill is aimed at reducing cost. If the healthcare industry had not priced themselves out of the reach of millions of Americans, then there would have been no healthcare bill.

How does it reduce costs?

There are a number places where the bill will reduce cost. Both individuals and small companies will be able to included themselves with others in large insurance pools. This spreads the risk thus reducing cost. Anyone who buys insurance knows large companies can get lower premiums than small companies. The 44 billion dollar giveaway to insurers offering Mediadvantage policies will be eliminated. The Medicare cost increases that are now 4% a year will be reduced to 2%. There is some oversight on health insurance premium increases. Providing access to healthcare to millions of people will allow health problems to be treated in doctors offices instead of hospitals and emergency rooms. There is lot more.

How many jobs will be lost do to this maneuver?

 

[boedicca]

There are a number places where the bill will reduce cost. Both individuals and small companies will be able to included themselves with others in large insurance pools. This spreads the risk thus reducing cost. Anyone who buys insurance knows large companies can get lower premiums than small companies.

Pricing is not cost. How does adding 31M people to the system reduce costs?

The 44 billion dollar giveaway to insurers offering Mediadvantage policies will be eliminated.

How does this lower the cost of prescription drugs?

The Medicare cost increases that are now 4% a year will be reduced to 2%. There is some oversight on health insurance premium increases.

Again - you are citing price controls, not the costs of providing medical care. These are also just government goals. As demonstrated earlier in the thread, such estimate are always wrong and the costs of the programs exceed the estimates used to game the CBO scores.

Providing access to healthcare to millions of people will allow health problems to be treated in doctors offices instead of hospitals and emergency rooms. There is lot more.

How does increasing the Demand for doctor visits lower health care costs? More doctor visits will cost more.

 

[DE3]

As an aside, why not use the fucking 'PayGo' Bill they all wanted to pass but don't want to actually use. Fucking politicians.

This bill/law does go by the PayGo rules. It is paid for.

 

[Immanuel]

Social Security and Medicare cost will rise with or without the healthcare bill. The healthcare bill actual reduces the rate of increase in Medicare spending from a 4% annually to 2%.

It is a pure supposition to state that the cost to business will rise due to the healthcare bill. Healthcare premiums should come down not go up. The size of the insurance pools will increase reducing costs. Tax credits will be available to small businesses.

Medicaid costs will rise but there are big offsets. Most importantly having healthcare for 30 million plus people means heart disease, diabetes, and other diseases can be treated in physician's offices instead of emergency rooms and hospitals. This will reduce Medicaid costs.

The most important point in the whole debate is that increased access to healthcare for millions of Americans will mean a healthier and more productive America. Unfortunately, there is no way to put a dollar figure on these savings. Yes, this is a supposition but a logical one.

How much is this wonderful tax credit? If it is not 100% of the cost of the employee's health insurance, or no more than $2000/employee (the amount of the fine for not providing coverage) less than the cost of a plan, then the employer is better off letting the employee pick up the tab.

Let's see, here in Florida the cost of my last insurance plan for a family is over $1200/month. That comes to roughly $14,400 per year. Now, how much of a credit is the employer going to get? I don't know the answer to that, but do you think it is going to be $12,000/year? I highly doubt that... so, if it is say $5000/year for each employee covered, my employer is better off paying the $2,000/employee and letting me buy my own. But, hell, the employer of less than 50 employees doesn't even have to worry about the $2000/employee penalty so why on earth would such an employer spring for $14,400/employee when he doesn't have to? And now that every employee is going to have to have insurance regardless of whether or not the employer covers it, the employer isn't going to do it out of the goodness of his heart. Maybe he'll raise your salary a couple grand a year because his costs are lower, but don't think it will cover the cost of health insurance.

I'm screwed!

Immie

I'm not sure what problem you have with the bill - there was no law in place before mandating that you got coverage from your employer. If you do have coverage from your employer, why would Obama's bill change that? If you don't - are you complaining that Obama's bill doesn't do enough?

One of the reasons employers provide health insurance benefits is because employees cannot get it on their own. Obama's bill just wiped that reason off the slate.

Also, because of costs, more and more businesses are having no choice but to eliminate that benefit. It happens to be a very big reason that I lost my job in January.

Obama's bill just gave companies an excuse to eliminate it all together.

Immie

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

There are a number places where the bill will reduce cost. Both individuals and small companies will be able to included themselves with others in large insurance pools. This spreads the risk thus reducing cost. Anyone who buys insurance knows large companies can get lower premiums than small companies.

Pricing is not cost. How does adding 31M people to the system reduce costs?

The 44 billion dollar giveaway to insurers offering Mediadvantage policies will be eliminated.

How does this lower the cost of prescription drugs?

The Medicare cost increases that are now 4% a year will be reduced to 2%. There is some oversight on health insurance premium increases.

Again - you are citing price controls, not the costs of providing medical care. These are also just government goals. As demonstrated earlier in the thread, such estimate are always wrong and the costs of the programs exceed the estimates used to game the CBO scores.

Providing access to healthcare to millions of people will allow health problems to be treated in doctors offices instead of hospitals and emergency rooms. There is lot more.

How does increasing the Demand for doctor visits lower health care costs? More doctor visits will cost more.

[/IMG]

 

[theDoctorisIn]

How much is this wonderful tax credit? If it is not 100% of the cost of the employee's health insurance, or no more than $2000/employee (the amount of the fine for not providing coverage) less than the cost of a plan, then the employer is better off letting the employee pick up the tab.

Let's see, here in Florida the cost of my last insurance plan for a family is over $1200/month. That comes to roughly $14,400 per year. Now, how much of a credit is the employer going to get? I don't know the answer to that, but do you think it is going to be $12,000/year? I highly doubt that... so, if it is say $5000/year for each employee covered, my employer is better off paying the $2,000/employee and letting me buy my own. But, hell, the employer of less than 50 employees doesn't even have to worry about the $2000/employee penalty so why on earth would such an employer spring for $14,400/employee when he doesn't have to? And now that every employee is going to have to have insurance regardless of whether or not the employer covers it, the employer isn't going to do it out of the goodness of his heart. Maybe he'll raise your salary a couple grand a year because his costs are lower, but don't think it will cover the cost of health insurance.

I'm screwed!

Immie

I'm not sure what problem you have with the bill - there was no law in place before mandating that you got coverage from your employer. If you do have coverage from your employer, why would Obama's bill change that? If you don't - are you complaining that Obama's bill doesn't do enough?

One of the reasons employers provide health insurance benefits is because employees cannot get it on their own. Obama's bill just wiped that reason off the slate.

Also, because of costs, more and more businesses are having no choice but to eliminate that benefit. It happens to be a very big reason that I lost my job in January.

Obama's bill just gave companies an excuse to eliminate it all together.

Immie

How? Before this bill, the significant reason that people couldn't get health insurance on their own was the cost. This bill did very little to address the cost. Your claim that the bill gives companies an "excuse" not to cover workers is speculation at best. Also, you seem to be claiming that companies give health insurance benefits out of the kindness of their hearts - which is retarded. Also, Obama's bill added a penalty to NOT covering employees - a penalty that wasn't there before.

 

[Flopper]

I would think just about every company in the healthcare industry is going be hiring. With 30 million more customers, there is going to be more jobs in the industry.

I doubt that a 3% increase in the capital gains tax is going dampen investments. Small businesses laying people off rather than accepting tax credits to provide health insurance seems very unlikely. On balance, I think there will be a net gain in employment due to healthcare bill.

However, if the Republicans continue to be a non-participant in the legislative process the Bush tax cuts are going to expire and that will cost jobs.

 

[The Rabbi]

I'm not sure what problem you have with the bill - there was no law in place before mandating that you got coverage from your employer. If you do have coverage from your employer, why would Obama's bill change that? If you don't - are you complaining that Obama's bill doesn't do enough?

One of the reasons employers provide health insurance benefits is because employees cannot get it on their own. Obama's bill just wiped that reason off the slate.

Also, because of costs, more and more businesses are having no choice but to eliminate that benefit. It happens to be a very big reason that I lost my job in January.

Obama's bill just gave companies an excuse to eliminate it all together.

Immie

How? Before this bill, the significant reason that people couldn't get health insurance on their own was the cost. This bill did very little to address the cost. Your claim that the bill gives companies an "excuse" not to cover workers is speculation at best. Also, you seem to be claiming that companies give health insurance benefits out of the kindness of their hearts - which is retarded. Also, Obama's bill added a penalty to NOT covering employees - a penalty that wasn't there before.

Missing much?
No. The bill provides a way for employers to slough off the rising cost of health insurance on the gov't. Companies are already taking hits to their earnings just because the law is in place. The penalty is less than the cost of providing insurance. Ergo, they will pay the penalty and not offer the insurance. This throws people into a system where they will have significantly less choice about their health care than previously.

 

[boedicca]

In the case of ObamaCare, pricing and costs are distorted. Bureaucrats in the 159 new agencies will set prices without regard to the cost structure. Consumers will be shielded from true costs, thus distorting demand upward. Artificially low prices will drive many suppliers out of business as they are forced to provide products or services at a loss - leading to the inevitable rationing.

But this was the goal all along.

 

[The Rabbi]

In the case of ObamaCare, pricing and costs are distorted. Bureaucrats in the 159 new agencies will set prices without regard to the cost structure. Consumers will be shielded from true costs, thus distorting demand upward. Artificially low prices will drive many suppliers out of business as they are forced to provide products or services at a loss - leading to the inevitable rationing.

But this was the goal all along.

Bingo.
The next step to "fix" the soon-to-be broken system will be further government involvement, leading to single payer.

 

[Immanuel]

I'm not sure what problem you have with the bill - there was no law in place before mandating that you got coverage from your employer. If you do have coverage from your employer, why would Obama's bill change that? If you don't - are you complaining that Obama's bill doesn't do enough?

One of the reasons employers provide health insurance benefits is because employees cannot get it on their own. Obama's bill just wiped that reason off the slate.

Also, because of costs, more and more businesses are having no choice but to eliminate that benefit. It happens to be a very big reason that I lost my job in January.

Obama's bill just gave companies an excuse to eliminate it all together.

Immie

How? Before this bill, the significant reason that people couldn't get health insurance on their own was the cost. This bill did very little to address the cost. Your claim that the bill gives companies an "excuse" not to cover workers is speculation at best. Also, you seem to be claiming that companies give health insurance benefits out of the kindness of their hearts - which is retarded. Also, Obama's bill added a penalty to NOT covering employees - a penalty that wasn't there before.

In case you don't realize it, the penalty does not come close to the cost of providing health insurance to its employees. Not even close. With the mandate... every employee is going to have to become insured. Meaning they are not going to have the choice of not taking the insurance coverage. Meaning that if employers do offer health insurance benefits their costs are going to skyrocket. To avoid the penalty they also have to cover at least 60%. That is going to make the cost prohibitive.

Most small businesses are not going to have a choice but to drop coverage completely and pay the penalties and for small businesses of less than 50 employees, they don't even have to worry about the penalties.

Companies have been giving benefits because it has been expected of them. To attract employees they offer the benefit. However, they know that a lot of employees do not take the benefit. Now, employees are not going to have a choice. Where I was working before we had approximately 50% of our staff who did not take health insurance for various reasons usually because they didn't want to pay their portion of the expense. Under this bill that 50% will become more like 95% or more considering that there are a few who will use their spouse's coverage because everyone will have to have coverage. My employer covered about 70% of my costs. Under this bill he can only possibly drop that to 60% to avoid paying the fine. I'm telling you, he was losing his business as it was, now you want to increase the costs (by making him cover 100% of his employees) including part time employees? He simply can't do it. He will have no choice but to stop paying all insurance for everyone.

Since he has less than 50 employees he does not even need to worry about the penalty. He would be a fool to continue to maintain coverage.

By the way, thank you for pointing out that this bill does little to address the costs. The way many proponents are presenting this, one would think health care was going to be free. It isn't.

Immie

 

[theDoctorisIn]

One of the reasons employers provide health insurance benefits is because employees cannot get it on their own. Obama's bill just wiped that reason off the slate.

Also, because of costs, more and more businesses are having no choice but to eliminate that benefit. It happens to be a very big reason that I lost my job in January.

Obama's bill just gave companies an excuse to eliminate it all together.

Immie

How? Before this bill, the significant reason that people couldn't get health insurance on their own was the cost. This bill did very little to address the cost. Your claim that the bill gives companies an "excuse" not to cover workers is speculation at best. Also, you seem to be claiming that companies give health insurance benefits out of the kindness of their hearts - which is retarded. Also, Obama's bill added a penalty to NOT covering employees - a penalty that wasn't there before.

Missing much?
No. The bill provides a way for employers to slough off the rising cost of health insurance on the gov't.

How? Explain please.

Companies are already taking hits to their earnings just because the law is in place.

What law are you talking about?

The penalty is less than the cost of providing insurance. Ergo, they will pay the penalty and not offer the insurance. This throws people into a system where they will have significantly less choice about their health care than previously.

How will that be any different than the way it is right now? Right now, there is NO penalty. Why will adding a penalty cause companies to drop insurance?

 

[Flopper]

As an aside, why not use the fucking 'PayGo' Bill they all wanted to pass but don't want to actually use. Fucking politicians.

This bill/law does go by the PayGo rules. It is paid for.

I can only answer a couple of these:

How does increasing the Demand for doctor visits lower health care costs? More doctor visits will cost more.
The cost to go to the doctor is not determined by supply and demand. It is determined by the amount that the insurance company or Medicare will pay for the visit. This is determined by
contract.

One of the reasons employers provide health insurance benefits is because employees cannot get it on their own. Obama's bill just wiped that reason off the slate. Now there will be a better reason. They will have to by law.

Also, because of costs, more and more businesses are having no choice but to eliminate that benefit. It happens to be a very big reason that I lost my job in January. This is the main reason why the healthcare bill came about, to lower the cost of health insurance.

Again - you are citing price controls No, Medicare will be limiting the increase in payments, not what the supplier will charge.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

One of the reasons employers provide health insurance benefits is because employees cannot get it on their own. Obama's bill just wiped that reason off the slate.

Also, because of costs, more and more businesses are having no choice but to eliminate that benefit. It happens to be a very big reason that I lost my job in January.

Obama's bill just gave companies an excuse to eliminate it all together.

Immie

How? Before this bill, the significant reason that people couldn't get health insurance on their own was the cost. This bill did very little to address the cost. Your claim that the bill gives companies an "excuse" not to cover workers is speculation at best. Also, you seem to be claiming that companies give health insurance benefits out of the kindness of their hearts - which is retarded. Also, Obama's bill added a penalty to NOT covering employees - a penalty that wasn't there before.

In case you don't realize it, the penalty does not come close to the cost of providing health insurance to its employees. Not even close. With the mandate... every employee is going to have to become insured. Meaning they are not going to have the choice of not taking the insurance coverage. Meaning that if employers do offer health insurance benefits their costs are going to skyrocket. To avoid the penalty they also have to cover at least 60%. That is going to make the cost prohibitive.

Most small businesses are not going to have a choice but to drop coverage completely and pay the penalties and for small businesses of less than 50 employees, they don't even have to worry about the penalties.

Companies have been giving benefits because it has been expected of them. To attract employees they offer the benefit. However, they know that a lot of employees do not take the benefit. Now, employees are not going to have a choice. Where I was working before we had approximately 50% of our staff who did not take health insurance for various reasons usually because they didn't want to pay their portion of the expense. Under this bill that 50% will become more like 95% or more considering that there are a few who will use their spouse's coverage because everyone will have to have coverage. My employer covered about 70% of my costs. Under this bill he can only possibly drop that to 60% to avoid paying the fine. I'm telling you, he was losing his business as it was, now you want to increase the costs (by making him cover 100% of his employees) including part time employees? He simply can't do it. He will have no choice but to stop paying all insurance for everyone.

Since he has less than 50 employees he does not even need to worry about the penalty. He would be a fool to continue to maintain coverage.

By the way, thank you for pointing out that this bill does little to address the costs. The way many proponents are presenting this, one would think health care was going to be free. It isn't.

Immie

Don't get me wrong, I don't like this bill at all. I'm just sick of people claiming that this bill is "Socialism" and will destroy America. This bill does almost nothing to address the health insurance problem in this country - it's a status quo bill, not a revolutionary one.

I believe we'll also have to wait and see how the bill affects costs and employer coverage. I know that you've got your opinion of how it will end up - but I'm not sure I agree with you. We'll just have to wait and see in 2014 or whenever it actually goes into effect.