The Emergancy spending for "Teachers and Firemen"

[Greenbeard]

We are going to see literally millions of Americans lose their employer based Coverage because it will be cheaper in nearly EVERY case for the company to pay the fines than to provide coverage.

Let's say I pay Employee X $40,000 in wages and $10,000 in health benefits for a total compensation of $50,000. If I don't provide to my employees--including Employee X--I'll pay a $2,000 penalty for Employee X a few years down the road.

So what are you suggesting is cheaper here? To give Employee X a 20% pay cut by wiping out his benefits and not raising his wages at all to compensate? I don't know how to break it to you, but slashing compensation by 20% is always cheaper than not doing that (the existence of the fine will in fact make it slightly less profitable since doing so then only saves you $8,000 and not $10,000).

You think no employer has ever had the revelation "hey, if I compensated my employees less, that would be cheaper"?

Furthermore I am asserting that that was the Goal of this bill all along. Obama told us long ago in that Interview. I am not going to dig it up now. But Basically what he said was he wants single payer, but we can not go right to that, so we have to Takes steps, and This IMO was one of them. Crash the private health insurance market and give people only 1 choice left. Then single payer sails through congress. That IMO is his plan, and was his plan all along. Which is why I think this Bill is such a dishonest piece of Garbage.

Single-payer is not the opposite of an employer-based insurance system. It's the opposite of a multi-payer system. It's perfectly possible to have a private, multi-payer market that's disconnected from employment status (that would greatly enhance portability of insurance plans, in fact)--in fact we will have a pretty good marketplace for that in every state in a few years.

 

[saveliberty]

This is not an emergency. Emergencies happen without notice, are unforeseen and usually are unavoidable.

It can only be viewed as an emergency by:

A. Democrats who recognize their position this fall.
B. Anyone in Congress who thought the bailout would work.
C. Local governments that didn't plan for this.

 

[Charles_Main]

We are going to see literally millions of Americans lose their employer based Coverage because it will be cheaper in nearly EVERY case for the company to pay the fines than to provide coverage.

Let's say I pay Employee X $40,000 in wages and $10,000 in health benefits for a total compensation of $50,000. If I don't provide to my employees--including Employee X--I'll pay a $2,000 penalty for Employee X a few years down the road.

So what are you suggesting is cheaper here? To give Employee X a 20% pay cut by wiping out his benefits and not raising his wages at all to compensate? I don't know how to break it to you, but slashing compensation by 20% is always cheaper than not doing that (the existence of the fine will in fact make it slightly less profitable since doing so then only saves you $8,000 and not $10,000).

You think no employer has ever had the revelation "hey, if I compensated my employees less, that would be cheaper"?

Furthermore I am asserting that that was the Goal of this bill all along. Obama told us long ago in that Interview. I am not going to dig it up now. But Basically what he said was he wants single payer, but we can not go right to that, so we have to Takes steps, and This IMO was one of them. Crash the private health insurance market and give people only 1 choice left. Then single payer sails through congress. That IMO is his plan, and was his plan all along. Which is why I think this Bill is such a dishonest piece of Garbage.

Single-payer is not the opposite of an employer-based insurance system. It's the opposite of a multi-payer system. It's perfectly possible to have a private, multi-payer market that's disconnected from employment status (that would greatly enhance portability of insurance plans, in fact)--in fact we will have a pretty good marketplace for that in every state in a few years.

First off they do not pay on the first 40 Employees so for many businesses with 41 to say 80 Employees. It is going to be cheaper. Not to mention Many Company will cut their employee roles to get to a number of Employees which is better suiting to playing this new system. Those they can not cut they will cut their hours to below 30 so they do not count.

This law is going to hurt in so many ways it is hard to start talking about them.

The math you put out is nice, and all but it does not begin to take into account all the factors that are going to play into this.

Oh and what are you saying that company's wont drop peoples coverage? Why? Where are there employees going to go? there are no jobs. Of course their companies will drop their Insurance coverage and in the case of Smaller companies many of them will see real savings for doing it. I have seen reports from Several Company's now who say their Premiums to cover their employees are set to go up by nearly 50% and they can not afford that. Were not talking about Big Businesses here. Companies with several Hundred or Thousands of Employees are not where they real problem will be. It will be with the Medium sized businesses with just the right amount of Employees that the Fact that they do not pay on the first 40 Employees if they are fined can make it Very Much Cheaper not to offer insurance.

Both these medium sized businesses and Big ones will cut employee hours to below 30 though. TO avoid giving insurance one employees the do not currently offer it to. It is simply and not a well thought out law. It Fails to address the real issues with any real backbone. It is going to cost Much more than they claimed. It has already Caused Insurance priced to sky rocket, and has not even gone into effect yet. It is not going to reduce cost. All it is going to do is transfer a lot of the cost to the government, and Lead to rationing.

 

[Samson]

Congressional Republicans need to go to the mattresses .

Good Luck with that..........

 

[hortysir]

"supplemental money"

Who in the hell has "supplemental" any-damned-thing?

 

[saveliberty]

I would imagine companies in the 100 employee range will just reorganize. I'd make separate corporations with 40 or less in each under a joint operating agreement.

 

[frazzledgear]

So the Dems claim they need 10 Billion to keep Teachers and Firemen from being laid off.

The Truth is those are just 2 examples of who could be laid off if the States can not meet their budgets. The States would decide who to cut. Likely many of the cuts would be bureaucrats not Teachers and fire men.

What this bill is about is rewarding the Public Sector Unions before the Mid terms. Rewarding the very pool they pull from for their Campaign workers and supporters.

So what it is really is a 10 Billion dollar re-elect congressional Democrats Bill.

Oh with 13 BILLION MORE for Failing state Medicare Budgets. Notice how they tack on some for Failing Medicare Budgets on every bill they pass lately. That is because they do not want you to focus on how FUCKED Medicare/Caid is at every level. It is bleeding money, and the Health Care so far is making things worse not better. Cost are going up across the board, and more people are eligible. States that were already knee deep in Debt from Social Spending programs have been Mandated to spend more.

Epic FAIL FAIL FAIL

Claiming that police, firemen and teachers are first in line to be laid off is a typical liberal PLOY to keep taxpayers on the hook and reduce their complaints about getting totally hosed for the bill. All state budgets are jammed pack full of bullshit discretionary spending that anyone with common sense would realize should be first on the chopping block. But doing that would meet with taxpayer approval. NEVER FORGET liberals believe people are for the most part STUPID COWS to be manipulated and led around by their nose, willing to swallow whatever they are told. So liberals avoid making the obvious cuts and instead insist it is vital and critical services that must be cut FIRST. Oh sure when I'm running short on funds I always cut off my electricity so I can keep my entertainment budget at its max. THAT is how liberals are manipulating the public -just ignore all the discretionary and unimportant spending that could be cut from the budget in order to put up those who provide critical or necessary services. And the reason they do is to try and keep more people from complaining about getting hit with ever higher taxes. Oh gee, don't you WANT to pay higher taxes so we don't have to lay off police and firemen? While ignoring the fact we could avoid paying higher taxes and keep police and firemen by cutting funds for building a museum dedicated to the 230 different kinds of boll weevils. Putting up police and firemen instead of that is BLATANT liberal manipulation of the public and indisputable evidence of just how stupid they really do believe people in general to be. The left believes the public exists to be their cows.

Government union workers which have soaked taxpayers for out of control and unsustainable pensions are for the most part strong Democrat supporters -and why not, they benefit tremendously by being allowed to exist as parasites on everyone else. The average salary of a government union employee is now $124,000 and a pension that pays an average of 80% of that salary. The comparable job in the private sector is $68,000. So government pay is WAY out of line with the private sector. For the healthiest balance government employees should be making slightly less than they would in the private sector because government is not a business -it pays its employees by taking the money from the workers in the private sector. Paying government employees so far out of line with what that comparable job would pay in the private sector is truly an OBSCENITY. And in the private sector, the comparable job does NOT come with a lifelong pension!

It now requires 11 employees in the private sector to support ONE government union employee from the time that person is hired until the day he dies. In some places like California, that ratio is 15 private sector employees to state government union employees. And now private sector unions are demanding taxpayers be put on the hook to fund THEIR pension plans as well because even there it requires 8 working union members to pay for the lifelong pension of a single retired union member.

It doesn't take rocket science to realize that unions -both private and particularly government unions -are running a pyramid scheme. The whole thing is a house of cards and guess who they will all demand foot the bill for it? And guess which party will do all it can to hose taxpayers for it? Gee, that kind of unsustainable pyramid scheme worked out so well for the Greeks -who took to rioting in the streets when reality smacked them between the eyes.

 

[Samson]

So the Dems claim they need 10 Billion to keep Teachers and Firemen from being laid off.

The Truth is those are just 2 examples of who could be laid off if the States can not meet their budgets. The States would decide who to cut. Likely many of the cuts would be bureaucrats not Teachers and fire men.

What this bill is about is rewarding the Public Sector Unions before the Mid terms. Rewarding the very pool they pull from for their Campaign workers and supporters.

So what it is really is a 10 Billion dollar re-elect congressional Democrats Bill.

Oh with 13 BILLION MORE for Failing state Medicare Budgets. Notice how they tack on some for Failing Medicare Budgets on every bill they pass lately. That is because they do not want you to focus on how FUCKED Medicare/Caid is at every level. It is bleeding money, and the Health Care so far is making things worse not better. Cost are going up across the board, and more people are eligible. States that were already knee deep in Debt from Social Spending programs have been Mandated to spend more.

Epic FAIL FAIL FAIL

Claiming that police, firemen and teachers are first in line to be laid off is a typical liberal PLOY to keep taxpayers on the hook and reduce their complaints about getting totally hosed for the bill. All state budgets are jammed pack full of bullshit discretionary spending that anyone with common sense would realize should be first on the chopping block. .....

It doesn't take rocket science to realize that unions -both private and particularly government unions -are running a pyramid scheme. The whole thing is a house of cards and guess who they will all demand foot the bill for it? And guess which party will do all it can to hose taxpayers for it? Gee, that kind of unsustainable pyramid scheme worked out so well for the Greeks -who took to rioting in the streets when reality smacked them between the eyes.

 

[KissMy]

We are going to see literally millions of Americans lose their employer based Coverage because it will be cheaper in nearly EVERY case for the company to pay the fines than to provide coverage.

Let's say I pay Employee X $40,000 in wages and $10,000 in health benefits for a total compensation of $50,000. If I don't provide to my employees--including Employee X--I'll pay a $2,000 penalty for Employee X a few years down the road.

So what are you suggesting is cheaper here? To give Employee X a 20% pay cut by wiping out his benefits and not raising his wages at all to compensate? I don't know how to break it to you, but slashing compensation by 20% is always cheaper than not doing that (the existence of the fine will in fact make it slightly less profitable since doing so then only saves you $8,000 and not $10,000).

You think no employer has ever had the revelation "hey, if I compensated my employees less, that would be cheaper"?

Furthermore I am asserting that that was the Goal of this bill all along. Obama told us long ago in that Interview. I am not going to dig it up now. But Basically what he said was he wants single payer, but we can not go right to that, so we have to Takes steps, and This IMO was one of them. Crash the private health insurance market and give people only 1 choice left. Then single payer sails through congress. That IMO is his plan, and was his plan all along. Which is why I think this Bill is such a dishonest piece of Garbage.

Single-payer is not the opposite of an employer-based insurance system. It's the opposite of a multi-payer system. It's perfectly possible to have a private, multi-payer market that's disconnected from employment status (that would greatly enhance portability of insurance plans, in fact)--in fact we will have a pretty good marketplace for that in every state in a few years.

First off they do not pay on the first 40 Employees so for many businesses with 41 to say 80 Employees. It is going to be cheaper. Not to mention Many Company will cut their employee roles to get to a number of Employees which is better suiting to playing this new system. Those they can not cut they will cut their hours to below 30 so they do not count.

This law is going to hurt in so many ways it is hard to start talking about them.

The math you put out is nice, and all but it does not begin to take into account all the factors that are going to play into this.

Oh and what are you saying that company's wont drop peoples coverage? Why? Where are there employees going to go? there are no jobs. Of course their companies will drop their Insurance coverage and in the case of Smaller companies many of them will see real savings for doing it. I have seen reports from Several Company's now who say their Premiums to cover their employees are set to go up by nearly 50% and they can not afford that. Were not talking about Big Businesses here. Companies with several Hundred or Thousands of Employees are not where they real problem will be. It will be with the Medium sized businesses with just the right amount of Employees that the Fact that they do not pay on the first 40 Employees if they are fined can make it Very Much Cheaper not to offer insurance.

Both these medium sized businesses and Big ones will cut employee hours to below 30 though. TO avoid giving insurance one employees the do not currently offer it to. It is simply and not a well thought out law. It Fails to address the real issues with any real backbone. It is going to cost Much more than they claimed. It has already Caused Insurance priced to sky rocket, and has not even gone into effect yet. It is not going to reduce cost. All it is going to do is transfer a lot of the cost to the government, and Lead to rationing.

I was thinking this same thing when the health-care bill was to impose an 8% healthcare tax per employee for companies with 50 or more employees & only a 2% healthcare tax on companies under 50 employees. I imagined Wal-Mart would make each store its own company with 50 or fewer employees.

 

[Terral]

Hi Charles:

So the Dems claim they need 10 Billion to keep Teachers and Firemen from being laid off.

The Truth is those are just 2 examples of who could be laid off if the States can not meet their budgets. The States would decide who to cut. Likely many of the cuts would be bureaucrats not Teachers and fire men.

Let's tell the truth about what is really going on here:

1. The U.S. Economy was wired for implosion on September 18, 2008, when Paulson and Bernanke brought their three-page list of demands to Congress.

2. The U.S. Economy imploded in March of 2009, when the markets bottomed out.

3. The only reason the U.S. Economy has sputtered back to some kind of life is because of all the bailout/stimulus money that is now running dry.

4. The real causes of the U.S. Economic Collapse are:

A. Worker Displacement from:

1. Too many Guest Worker Programs (23) that bring 1.5 MILLION Foreign Nationals into the USA.
2. NAFTA Offshoring of the U.S. Manufacturing Base.
3. Outsourcing of Service Sector Jobs overseas.
4. 20 to 30 Million Illegal Aliens displacing U.S. Workers from the local job markets.

Displaced workers cannot make their house payments, which created the Foreclosure/Bankruptcy Crisis. Displaced workers cannot afford to pay their taxes, which means the local tax base is destroyed and that is where the money for teacher's and firefighter's paychecks originate.

Now the idiots in Washington D.C. want to print up more FED dollars to pay off the Teacher's Union and the Firefighter's Union in states with the most Illegal Aliens, when those idiots carry Sanctuary City Policies. The responsible States are supposed to bail out the idiot states that allow all the Outsourcing and all the Guest Workers and all the goddamned Illegal Aliens to come in and steal identities and JOBS from American Workers.

This is just another move to hide the fact that the USA is DOOMED (Top Ten Reasons) ...

GL,

Terral

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's called "maintenance of effort" and is the feds' way of saying this is supplementary money and is not intended to replace state funds. The money is intended to increase the total state budget for education, not allow the state to use federal money in place of its own.

If State X gets $350 million for its education budget and responds by reducing its state education allocations by $350 million, nothing has changed. Except now the feds are on the hook for money the state itself would've been spending. That would've been a useless exercise.

Why is the federal government giving any money to anyone for education, or to support local firemen and police? It is not the business of the federal government to worry about state budgets in the first place. I am pretty sure that I can make a very sound Constitutional argument for the sepration of powers between the states and federal government.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I assume that had maintenance of effort provisions not be included, when states drew down education spending by roughly the amount of their federal award and ended up firing the same amount of teachers they were going to, you'd be bitching about that, too. "Why didn't they see this coming?!"

You would first have to convince me that they are actually going to fire those teachers. They go through this every year, and always end up soaking someone for more money to not fire the teachers, this year it is the feds.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

State that have been run by Progressives and have massive deficits that require Washington to close need to go bankrupt.

Would that be every state, except Arkansas, Montana, and North Dakota (I'm not counting Alaska, since federal dollars generally play a huge role in their state's budget situation)?

Funny, I actually think of Brian Schweitzer and Mike Beebe as being fairly progressive.

Funny, Texas has never before faced a budget shortfall and not adjusted spending to cover it, and, because of the provisions in the federal bill, they will have to do the same again this year, without the federal money, because they are constitutionally prohibited from promising to spend money that they do not have. Exactly how is this going to help them?

 

[boedicca]

Taxpayers are being blackmailed with police, fire fighters, and school teachers as the hostages. There are tons of programs and overhead staff that can be cut at the state and local level - but the few things taxpayers might value are exploited as body shields for those that are just waste and trough feeders.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

We are going to see literally millions of Americans lose their employer based Coverage because it will be cheaper in nearly EVERY case for the company to pay the fines than to provide coverage.

Let's say I pay Employee X $40,000 in wages and $10,000 in health benefits for a total compensation of $50,000. If I don't provide to my employees--including Employee X--I'll pay a $2,000 penalty for Employee X a few years down the road.

So what are you suggesting is cheaper here? To give Employee X a 20% pay cut by wiping out his benefits and not raising his wages at all to compensate? I don't know how to break it to you, but slashing compensation by 20% is always cheaper than not doing that (the existence of the fine will in fact make it slightly less profitable since doing so then only saves you $8,000 and not $10,000).

You think no employer has ever had the revelation "hey, if I compensated my employees less, that would be cheaper"?

Furthermore I am asserting that that was the Goal of this bill all along. Obama told us long ago in that Interview. I am not going to dig it up now. But Basically what he said was he wants single payer, but we can not go right to that, so we have to Takes steps, and This IMO was one of them. Crash the private health insurance market and give people only 1 choice left. Then single payer sails through congress. That IMO is his plan, and was his plan all along. Which is why I think this Bill is such a dishonest piece of Garbage.

Single-payer is not the opposite of an employer-based insurance system. It's the opposite of a multi-payer system. It's perfectly possible to have a private, multi-payer market that's disconnected from employment status (that would greatly enhance portability of insurance plans, in fact)--in fact we will have a pretty good marketplace for that in every state in a few years.

Is this how Democrats think? What about all the other provisions in the new law that increase the costs to employers, like the new 1099 provision that requires businesses to separately report all transactions in excess of $600? Or the loss of the tax incentive to employees to get health care through an employer? Those extra costs that are imposed on a business have to come out of something, and dropping employee based health care, which amounts to a lot more than you claim here, is a good place to start, especially since the businesses can also point out to the employees that it will save them money also.

You cannot just look at one thing and claim that it alone has little or no impact. businesses do not make decisions in isolation, they make them based on balancing all the factors involved. That is the difference between a government and a business, the business has to make money based on everything that happens, including decisions the government makes. A government gets to think that if something is good the negative impact is not something to worry about.

 

[boedicca]

Greenbeard is an economic illiterate. Single payer will not replace in anything like a marketplace. The actual result will be more like Soviet Style Bread Lines.

 

[The T]

Taxpayers are being blackmailed with police, fire fighters, and school teachers as the hostages. There are tons of programs and overhead staff that can be cut at the state and local level - but the few things taxpayers might value are exploited as body shields for those that are just waste and trough feeders.

And you will notice that those entities are all UNION entities. It's a scam...a payback from the Statists to keep alive their union buddies.


When will those in the union membership come to understand that they are too being taken for a ride and thier so-called leaders are fattening themselves up on the dues they collectg...while they fight to keep their jobs? When will they learn that they have become nothing but expendable pawns of the 'fat cats' they claim to loathe?

 

[Wry Catcher]

So the Dems claim they need 10 Billion to keep Teachers and Firemen from being laid off.

The Truth is those are just 2 examples of who could be laid off if the States can not meet their budgets. The States would decide who to cut. Likely many of the cuts would be bureaucrats not Teachers and fire men.

What this bill is about is rewarding the Public Sector Unions before the Mid terms. Rewarding the very pool they pull from for their Campaign workers and supporters.

So what it is really is a 10 Billion dollar re-elect congressional Democrats Bill.

Oh with 13 BILLION MORE for Failing state Medicare Budgets. Notice how they tack on some for Failing Medicare Budgets on every bill they pass lately. That is because they do not want you to focus on how FUCKED Medicare/Caid is at every level. It is bleeding money, and the Health Care so far is making things worse not better. Cost are going up across the board, and more people are eligible. States that were already knee deep in Debt from Social Spending programs have been Mandated to spend more.

Epic FAIL FAIL FAIL

You're either willfully ignorant or stupid. btw, we spent $10 Billion a month for years in Iraq - what did we accomplish?