Listening
Gold Member
- Aug 27, 2011
- 14,989
- 1,650
- 260
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 There is no reason why health reform in the 1990s should be governed by those unique circumstances and outdated tax policies.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
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.