Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
As usual myth maker, your math skills are flawed. And so is your awareness. So I will start with an excerpt from a 1994 paper authored by Robert E. Moffit, PhD. Director of the Center for Health Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation.
In another context, Reinhardt proposes perhaps the best single reform idea to date. He suggests a simple financial disclosure on the part of the nations employers, requiring every employer to put periodically on the pay stub of every worker in America something like the following: We have paid you X thousand dollars in health benefits. This has reduced your wages by X thousand dollars. We would add: Have a nice day!5
http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/13/2/101.full.pdf
I hate the employer mandate, Kerrey said. I think its going to have a counterproductive impact. We dont have any (insured employee) that costs us less than $7,000 (a year), and the fines $2,000. Well dump em off. We wont call it dumping, well say ... Go get it from the exchange.
THUS:
$7,000
-$2,000
$5,000 is the RAISE each employee has a right to demand.
No, you stupid spams**ting lemming.
That 5000 is going to come from somewhere.
That was the point of the entire OP. It's going to push more of it into a general tax based system.
Can you, for once, in your rush to post your stupid assed talking points, just read and comprehend.....for once ?
Why don't you try reading before you emote and blurt out your ignorance? You right wing turds are so obtuse when it comes to understanding how things REALLY work.
From your beloved Heritage Foundation:
He suggests a simple financial disclosure on the part of the nations employers, requiring every employer to put periodically on the pay stub of every worker in America something like the following: We have paid you X thousand dollars in health benefits. This has reduced your wages by X thousand dollars.
Here is the whole section with heading:
A Snare And A Delusion
Employer-based health insurance in this country is the product of wartime economic and tax policy of the 1940s. There is no reason why health reform in the 1990s should be governed by those unique circumstances and outdated tax policies.
Uwe Reinhardt and Alan Krueger tell us that the tax treatment of employment-based health insurance now is sharply regressive. And, Mark Pauly confirms, it contributes to market distortions, high costs, and lack of portability in health insurance. Americans today get tax relief for health insurance on only one condition: that they get it from their employer. This has tied health insurance to the workplace in a way that no other insurance is treated. It means that if we lose or change a job, we lose our health coverage.
Pauly also tells us that employer-based insurance hides the true costs of health care. Thus, there is no normal collision between the forces of supply and demand on even the most basic level. Most workers do not purchase health insurance; it is purchased by somebody else, usually the company. For most workers, it is a free good, an extra, that automatically comes with the job. At least, we live with that comfortable illusion. But, in fact, it is not free at all, and the employer gives us nothing. Because too many people think that the employers contribution is the employers money and not theirs, the consumers perception is distorted (as is the providers), and health spending is not subject to market discipline. Likewise, because too many people still do not understand this reality, hidden taxes through the employer mandate are politically attractive. Such a mandate thus serves as a psychological snare and an economic delusion.
Karen Davis and Cathy Schoen suggest a payroll tax to finance reform, whereby the employer pays 8 percent and the employee pays 2 percent. If one of our tasks is to make the true costs transparent, this suggestion does not help very much.
In his otherwise enlightening paper, Reinhardt calls attention to the virtues of a mandated purchase of health insurance. And he warns that calling an employers mandated purchase a tax comes close to debasing the English language. But, in a similar context, Reinhardt uses the word contribution to describe suspiciously similar functions. Suffice it to say, the campaign for linguistic precision is hardly advanced by using the word contibution to describe the states forcible extraction of citizens money.
In another context, Reinhardt proposes perhaps the best single reform idea to date. He suggests a simple financial disclosure on the part of the nations employers, requiring every employer to put periodically on the pay stub of every worker in America something like the following: We have paid you X thousand dollars in health benefits. This has reduced your wages by X thousand dollars. We would add: Have a nice day!5
More %wise. IDIOT.
No, you stupid spams**ting lemming.
That 5000 is going to come from somewhere.
That was the point of the entire OP. It's going to push more of it into a general tax based system.
Can you, for once, in your rush to post your stupid assed talking points, just read and comprehend.....for once ?
Why don't you try reading before you emote and blurt out your ignorance? You right wing turds are so obtuse when it comes to understanding how things REALLY work.
From your beloved Heritage Foundation:
He suggests a simple financial disclosure on the part of the nations employers, requiring every employer to put periodically on the pay stub of every worker in America something like the following: We have paid you X thousand dollars in health benefits. This has reduced your wages by X thousand dollars.
Here is the whole section with heading:
A Snare And A Delusion
Employer-based health insurance in this country is the product of wartime economic and tax policy of the 1940s. There is no reason why health reform in the 1990s should be governed by those unique circumstances and outdated tax policies.
Uwe Reinhardt and Alan Krueger tell us that the tax treatment of employment-based health insurance now is sharply regressive. And, Mark Pauly confirms, it contributes to market distortions, high costs, and lack of portability in health insurance. Americans today get tax relief for health insurance on only one condition: that they get it from their employer. This has tied health insurance to the workplace in a way that no other insurance is treated. It means that if we lose or change a job, we lose our health coverage.
Pauly also tells us that employer-based insurance hides the true costs of health care. Thus, there is no normal collision between the forces of supply and demand on even the most basic level. Most workers do not purchase health insurance; it is purchased by somebody else, usually the company. For most workers, it is a free good, an extra, that automatically comes with the job. At least, we live with that comfortable illusion. But, in fact, it is not free at all, and the employer gives us nothing. Because too many people think that the employers contribution is the employers money and not theirs, the consumers perception is distorted (as is the providers), and health spending is not subject to market discipline. Likewise, because too many people still do not understand this reality, hidden taxes through the employer mandate are politically attractive. Such a mandate thus serves as a psychological snare and an economic delusion.
Karen Davis and Cathy Schoen suggest a payroll tax to finance reform, whereby the employer pays 8 percent and the employee pays 2 percent. If one of our tasks is to make the true costs transparent, this suggestion does not help very much.
In his otherwise enlightening paper, Reinhardt calls attention to the virtues of a mandated purchase of health insurance. And he warns that calling an employers mandated purchase a tax comes close to debasing the English language. But, in a similar context, Reinhardt uses the word contribution to describe suspiciously similar functions. Suffice it to say, the campaign for linguistic precision is hardly advanced by using the word contibution to describe the states forcible extraction of citizens money.
In another context, Reinhardt proposes perhaps the best single reform idea to date. He suggests a simple financial disclosure on the part of the nations employers, requiring every employer to put periodically on the pay stub of every worker in America something like the following: We have paid you X thousand dollars in health benefits. This has reduced your wages by X thousand dollars. We would add: Have a nice day!5
Hello Stupid Ass.....
7000 is 7000. Paint it any color you want.
You morons a great with your accounting.....somewhere in all of this, there is a debit from the rich in the form of taxes...which will eventually wind up on us.
Why don't you try reading before you emote and blurt out your ignorance? You right wing turds are so obtuse when it comes to understanding how things REALLY work.
From your beloved Heritage Foundation:
He suggests a simple financial disclosure on the part of the nations employers, requiring every employer to put periodically on the pay stub of every worker in America something like the following: We have paid you X thousand dollars in health benefits. This has reduced your wages by X thousand dollars.
Here is the whole section with heading:
A Snare And A Delusion
Employer-based health insurance in this country is the product of wartime economic and tax policy of the 1940s. There is no reason why health reform in the 1990s should be governed by those unique circumstances and outdated tax policies.
Uwe Reinhardt and Alan Krueger tell us that the tax treatment of employment-based health insurance now is sharply regressive. And, Mark Pauly confirms, it contributes to market distortions, high costs, and lack of portability in health insurance. Americans today get tax relief for health insurance on only one condition: that they get it from their employer. This has tied health insurance to the workplace in a way that no other insurance is treated. It means that if we lose or change a job, we lose our health coverage.
Pauly also tells us that employer-based insurance hides the true costs of health care. Thus, there is no normal collision between the forces of supply and demand on even the most basic level. Most workers do not purchase health insurance; it is purchased by somebody else, usually the company. For most workers, it is a free good, an extra, that automatically comes with the job. At least, we live with that comfortable illusion. But, in fact, it is not free at all, and the employer gives us nothing. Because too many people think that the employers contribution is the employers money and not theirs, the consumers perception is distorted (as is the providers), and health spending is not subject to market discipline. Likewise, because too many people still do not understand this reality, hidden taxes through the employer mandate are politically attractive. Such a mandate thus serves as a psychological snare and an economic delusion.
Karen Davis and Cathy Schoen suggest a payroll tax to finance reform, whereby the employer pays 8 percent and the employee pays 2 percent. If one of our tasks is to make the true costs transparent, this suggestion does not help very much.
In his otherwise enlightening paper, Reinhardt calls attention to the virtues of a mandated purchase of health insurance. And he warns that calling an employers mandated purchase a tax comes close to debasing the English language. But, in a similar context, Reinhardt uses the word contribution to describe suspiciously similar functions. Suffice it to say, the campaign for linguistic precision is hardly advanced by using the word contibution to describe the states forcible extraction of citizens money.
In another context, Reinhardt proposes perhaps the best single reform idea to date. He suggests a simple financial disclosure on the part of the nations employers, requiring every employer to put periodically on the pay stub of every worker in America something like the following: We have paid you X thousand dollars in health benefits. This has reduced your wages by X thousand dollars. We would add: Have a nice day!5
Hello Stupid Ass.....
7000 is 7000. Paint it any color you want.
You morons a great with your accounting.....somewhere in all of this, there is a debit from the rich in the form of taxes...which will eventually wind up on us.
Are really THAT stupid? Even your beloved Heritage Foundation says "the employer gives us nothing". It is coming out of OUR wages in the form of healthcare.
Let's run this scenario both ways from the EMPLOYER'S perspective, because that is the ONLY perspective you subservient right wingers can see things.
Employer A continues employee insurance and takes $7,000 out of our wages every year.
Employer B ends employee insurance and takes $2,000 out of our wages every year.
Employee working for B has a right to demand a $5,000 raise.
Why don't you try reading before you emote and blurt out your ignorance? You right wing turds are so obtuse when it comes to understanding how things REALLY work.
From your beloved Heritage Foundation:
He suggests a simple financial disclosure on the part of the nations employers, requiring every employer to put periodically on the pay stub of every worker in America something like the following: We have paid you X thousand dollars in health benefits. This has reduced your wages by X thousand dollars.
Here is the whole section with heading:
A Snare And A Delusion
Employer-based health insurance in this country is the product of wartime economic and tax policy of the 1940s. There is no reason why health reform in the 1990s should be governed by those unique circumstances and outdated tax policies.
Uwe Reinhardt and Alan Krueger tell us that the tax treatment of employment-based health insurance now is sharply regressive. And, Mark Pauly confirms, it contributes to market distortions, high costs, and lack of portability in health insurance. Americans today get tax relief for health insurance on only one condition: that they get it from their employer. This has tied health insurance to the workplace in a way that no other insurance is treated. It means that if we lose or change a job, we lose our health coverage.
Pauly also tells us that employer-based insurance hides the true costs of health care. Thus, there is no normal collision between the forces of supply and demand on even the most basic level. Most workers do not purchase health insurance; it is purchased by somebody else, usually the company. For most workers, it is a free good, an extra, that automatically comes with the job. At least, we live with that comfortable illusion. But, in fact, it is not free at all, and the employer gives us nothing. Because too many people think that the employers contribution is the employers money and not theirs, the consumers perception is distorted (as is the providers), and health spending is not subject to market discipline. Likewise, because too many people still do not understand this reality, hidden taxes through the employer mandate are politically attractive. Such a mandate thus serves as a psychological snare and an economic delusion.
Karen Davis and Cathy Schoen suggest a payroll tax to finance reform, whereby the employer pays 8 percent and the employee pays 2 percent. If one of our tasks is to make the true costs transparent, this suggestion does not help very much.
In his otherwise enlightening paper, Reinhardt calls attention to the virtues of a mandated purchase of health insurance. And he warns that calling an employers mandated purchase a tax comes close to debasing the English language. But, in a similar context, Reinhardt uses the word contribution to describe suspiciously similar functions. Suffice it to say, the campaign for linguistic precision is hardly advanced by using the word contibution to describe the states forcible extraction of citizens money.
In another context, Reinhardt proposes perhaps the best single reform idea to date. He suggests a simple financial disclosure on the part of the nations employers, requiring every employer to put periodically on the pay stub of every worker in America something like the following: We have paid you X thousand dollars in health benefits. This has reduced your wages by X thousand dollars. We would add: Have a nice day!5
Hello Stupid Ass.....
7000 is 7000. Paint it any color you want.
You morons a great with your accounting.....somewhere in all of this, there is a debit from the rich in the form of taxes...which will eventually wind up on us.
Are really THAT stupid? Even your beloved Heritage Foundation says "the employer gives us nothing". It is coming out of OUR wages in the form of healthcare.
Let's run this scenario both ways from the EMPLOYER'S perspective, because that is the ONLY perspective you subservient right wingers can see things.
Employer A continues employee insurance and takes $7,000 out of our wages every year.
Employer B ends employee insurance and takes $2,000 out of our wages every year.
Employee working for B has a right to demand a $5,000 raise.
Hello Stupid Ass.....
7000 is 7000. Paint it any color you want.
You morons a great with your accounting.....somewhere in all of this, there is a debit from the rich in the form of taxes...which will eventually wind up on us.
Are really THAT stupid? Even your beloved Heritage Foundation says "the employer gives us nothing". It is coming out of OUR wages in the form of healthcare.
Let's run this scenario both ways from the EMPLOYER'S perspective, because that is the ONLY perspective you subservient right wingers can see things.
Employer A continues employee insurance and takes $7,000 out of our wages every year.
Employer B ends employee insurance and takes $2,000 out of our wages every year.
Employee working for B has a right to demand a $5,000 raise.
And somebody else is going to pony up the 5000.
Are YOU really that stupid ?
Are really THAT stupid? Even your beloved Heritage Foundation says "the employer gives us nothing". It is coming out of OUR wages in the form of healthcare.
Let's run this scenario both ways from the EMPLOYER'S perspective, because that is the ONLY perspective you subservient right wingers can see things.
Employer A continues employee insurance and takes $7,000 out of our wages every year.
Employer B ends employee insurance and takes $2,000 out of our wages every year.
Employee working for B has a right to demand a $5,000 raise.
And somebody else is going to pony up the 5000.
Are YOU really that stupid ?
WOW, you really need to see a doctor. Your head is empty. What don't you understand about the FACT: "the employer gives us nothing". That $7,000 is coming out of YOUR pay every year.
And somebody else is going to pony up the 5000.
Are YOU really that stupid ?
WOW, you really need to see a doctor. Your head is empty. What don't you understand about the FACT: "the employer gives us nothing". That $7,000 is coming out of YOUR pay every year.
It doesn't come out of your pay. It comes out of money they set aside for insurance cost for employees.
Look, if an employer offers insurance -but you say my wife provides insurance for our family so I don't need that benefit. They don't increase your wages as a result.
I don;t know why you don;t get that??
And somebody else is going to pony up the 5000.
Are YOU really that stupid ?
WOW, you really need to see a doctor. Your head is empty. What don't you understand about the FACT: "the employer gives us nothing". That $7,000 is coming out of YOUR pay every year.
It doesn't come out of your pay. It comes out of money they set aside for insurance cost for employees.
Look, if an employer offers insurance -but you say my wife provides insurance for our family so I don't need that benefit. They don't increase your wages as a result.
I don;t know why you don;t get that??
WOW, you really need to see a doctor. Your head is empty. What don't you understand about the FACT: "the employer gives us nothing". That $7,000 is coming out of YOUR pay every year.
It doesn't come out of your pay. It comes out of money they set aside for insurance cost for employees.
Look, if an employer offers insurance -but you say my wife provides insurance for our family so I don't need that benefit. They don't increase your wages as a result.
I don;t know why you don;t get that??
Money 'set aside'? From WHERE, fairies that drop it down the chimney?? WTF is wrong with you? Of course it come out of your pay. Just because your beloved opulent won't tell you that doesn't change that FACT.
It doesn't come out of your pay. It comes out of money they set aside for insurance cost for employees.
Look, if an employer offers insurance -but you say my wife provides insurance for our family so I don't need that benefit. They don't increase your wages as a result.
I don;t know why you don;t get that??
Money 'set aside'? From WHERE, fairies that drop it down the chimney?? WTF is wrong with you? Of course it come out of your pay. Just because your beloved opulent won't tell you that doesn't change that FACT.
I just explained to you that you will NOT get a bump in pay if you opt out of the insurance benefits provided to you from your employer. Is your head a rock??
Money 'set aside'? From WHERE, fairies that drop it down the chimney?? WTF is wrong with you? Of course it come out of your pay. Just because your beloved opulent won't tell you that doesn't change that FACT.
I just explained to you that you will NOT get a bump in pay if you opt out of the insurance benefits provided to you from your employer. Is your head a rock??
ALL that means is the employer makes more $$$$.
The cost of Joe the employee is wages AND benefits.
Why don't you read what your beloved Heritage Foundation says?
"Most workers do not purchase health insurance; it is purchased by somebody else, usually the company. For most workers, it is a free good, an extra, that automatically comes with the job. At least, we live with that comfortable illusion. But, in fact, it is not free at all, and the employer gives us nothing. Because too many people think that the employers contribution is the employers money and not theirs, the consumers perception is distorted "
So government had no say in healthcare before the ACA was signed?No, gov't making decisions about healthcare = gov't run
gov't deciding what reimbursement for procedures will be = gov't run
gov't deciding ANYTHING about healthcare is justa way to get their foot in the door for full
gov't takeover.
And the next step will be single provider - 100% subsidized by the gov't --- guess what??
SOCIALISM!!!
If you like the idea of the gov't forcing young/healthy people to be taxed/or made to purchase EXPENSIVE insurance to pay for those who aren't so healthy --- drive on, you too can pay 45% of your income to the gov't for the pleasure of screwing you!
Do you understand how insurance works? Just the concept itself?
I'll tell you what. Why don't you tell us what the ideal healthcare system would look like to you, without all that "socialism". How would it work?
Do you?? I have working in the medical field for 22 years.
I'll tell you this - the whole "at least we have a plan" angle is a joke. You plan is to convert America into Western Europe. How is that going for them???
Moron. I do know how to improve health-care - and it doesn't start and end with Obama... I will share more with you in a while, but right now I have to go see a patient.
