Health Care Reform: Now Half the Price?

LMAO..keep this article on top I like a BIG laugh in the mornings LMAO

Anyone else catch the per FULL TIME worker catch clause? Looks like the standard work week for most of us will become 39 hours if this legislation passes. Golly wiggle Sen. Kennedy, only $611 billion over the next ten years. I'm still wondering how useful healthcare insurance will be for people who can't afford to pay premiums, much less co-payments and deductibles. Gotta face the facts. Unless it's simply welfare money covering the charges, those who need medical attention but don't have insurance now won't be financially prepared to participate. The trouble word is "insurance". It's a for profit industry. Always has been and always will be. Insurance makes healthcare more expensive. The only product they peddle is fear, just like our government.

"Looks like the standard work week for most of us will become 39 hours if this legislation passes."

Actually, I saw on the news this morning that RIGHT NOW the average work week in the USA is only 33 hours, due to employers cutting back employees hours due to the current crappy economy. It's the lowest it's been in decades.....

SeaRamblerOne; How's this recession affecting the bait and tackle business?

Actually I think qnything over 32 hours is usually considered fulltime but yea, if I was en employer and had 27 on payroll, 2 of you are going. And if I have 24 on payroll, hiring stops. I'll bring in 2 at half time hours instead. This of course assumes you aren't already supplying health care but if you are, then it's not part of the problem they're trying to fix. All I see here is a reason not to hire more people (i.e. ... fewer jobs).

Does anybody else think $750 per year (as opposed to several thousand - my company pays an average of $420/mo for it's employees) is a no brainer for companies? What a phony bit of politicking!

EMPEROR O'BABBLE : Keep your hands off my employer paid insurance !

Only $611 billion?? does anyone actually believe this number is accurate? This is just for show so the Congress and get this shoved through. And say "look at us we cut the bill by 50% and took out all the waste". Yeah, right!

Market-based policies are more cost effective for the government - and therefore the taxpayers- than publicly funded healthcare. According to the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, January 2005, if every uninsured individual was covered by a government program such as Medicaid, the cost to the federal and state governments is approximately $2000 each. If, however, low-income and modest-income Americans could purchase their own health insurance by utilizing a $1000 tax credit, the federal government would save 50% of that money. With over 45 million uninsured Americans, that savings would be substantial indeed.

Market-based insurance would not only be more affordable health coverage, it would also provide consumers with more choice. Because savings come from a tax credit, the option to choose insurance companies, policies and doctors is left to the person who purchases the insurance, not a group of politicians. Health insurance needs vary widely from one individual to the next and having the ability to choose the options that work best for an individual's circumstances is fundamental to quality health care.

Another point - The 97% of Americans that will be able to now have healthcare coverage - Is that the same as the 95% of American workers who would receive tax relief ???

Several different market-based solutions could help low and modest-income individuals and families find affordable health coverage. Tax credits, tax deductions, health savings accounts and high-risk pools are all market-based options to make affordable medical insurance a reality for uninsured people who are working, but cannot afford medical insurance.

Tax credits allow people to keep more of their income on a monthly basis in their pay so the can purchase coverage. Because tax credits enable people to make their own choices of providers, plans and doctors, they are considered to be a preferred market-based solution for affordable health coverage.

Tax credits enable working people to pay for their own health insurance without having to fall back on Medicare or other government health programs. Because a tax credit would cost only half the amount of Medicare per individual, the burden on all taxpayers is also reduced, saving everyone money.
Private health insurance can be affordable health coverage for every working American. By working with market-based solutions, health care reform can be a workable solution to the millions of Americans living in fear of a medical crisis because they have no medical insurance.

Yes, this is a no brainer. The business decision is pretty simple. If I have 24 employees and I don't provide health care, I am currently paying $0. If the proposed plan goes through and I remain status quo, I am still paying $0. If business growth drives the need for and additional body, I would need to increase gross margin by > $18750 to justify the hire. Also, this fee would very likely be tax deductable and as such would have an even smaller impact on the decision whether to hire. My point here is that the argument that this legislation would stymie small business growth is without foundation. When businesses of this size expand they are generally propelled by significant market demands. The small business is actually getting off cheap. My company pays for 60% of my health plan which equates to $6200/year.

And according to the bill it will be illegal for any individual not be covered by insurance...how does this affect those who are undocumented workers?

one of Obama's promises was
health care for those who don't
have it. That's why he was elected.

{Republicans are, by and large, opposed to so-called "employer mandates,"}

But at the same time they are opposed to public plans and everyone knows it's much more expensive to get individual policies. So if not employer-based, why not public-based?

I work for a very large employer and my total premium, of which I pay 22%, is only $465/month for a superb plan that would cost me at least $800/month if I got it individually.

And note that large chains can move into a neighborhood and knock ma and pa shops out of business because they can hire min. wage workers and pay no benefits. I guess the GOP figures Ma and Pa shouldn't be so greedy as to expect to give themselves health insurance and a decent wage.

Is anyone else here tired of hearing that tax cuts are the solution to all our woes? Many of our suppliers are small businesses and those who offer catastrophic health care usually costing around $2400-3600/year with the employee having the option to set-up a savings plan to cover the $2400-$3600 annual deductables. Insurance companies need some form of pressure to keep cost under control while proving coverage to everyone. To date, the best solution I have heard is the public option.

The other side of this debate has to do with the exorbitant cost of health care. This side of the equation is partially solved by having near universal coverage for all americans, however, waste, fraud, malpractice insurance and health care related law suits also require fixing.

this will do nothing for those of us who do work 40 hours/week and don't have employee plans with small businesses with less than 25 employees!!!!
Or for those subcontractors out there who work for others and don't have access to plans other than expensive private plans.
Watch a lot of companies label employees as subs.

The Republicans could have tackled some kind of healthcare reform before now, but they didn't. Now they don't like what the Democrats are doing. I'm not an Obama supporter, and I certainly don't like the spendulous bill and the bail-outs. I think there is something to the argument that Obama wants to take the country in a Socialist direction, and I don't like it.

Still, I think Republicans should accept the fact that the reason we have Obama is because they had the WH for eight years, and they governed badly. In the past 8 years, I never heard a Republican Congressman speak about reforming healthcare. Now they're up in arms over Obama's plan? That's pretty hypocritical.

I was forced into retirement (my company gave me a choice - be fired or retire), and now I don't have healthcare. I'm not yet eligible for Social Security or Medicare. I can't get coverage on my own because I have diabetes and asthma - no one is going to insure me. My only hope is to get another job for a few years, and I've tried.

I've sent out 75+ applications/resumes and gotten exactly ONE interview. Unfortunately, I didn't get the job. Let the Republicans offer a solution to my problem, and I'll listen. Otherwise, I support Obama's plan. At least he recognizes that people need healthcare. The Republicans don't, or they don't care.

The Massachusetts Health Care cost have risen 700% over the original advertised cost. This thing is already a bull in a china shop, just wait till it gets loose in our homes and businesses. The government is hell bent on control and not interested in supporting the business or the people.
All this slick spin and cutesy little wording like exchanges, public plan, gateways, Commonwealth Connector, and others is way to force a compromise so the government can control all of us. Once the bull is inside how can we get it out of our lives? I thought the government was to support the people and not interfere or compete with us. They want to sell insurance and get rid of the hard working American independent insurance agents by throwing together so flim flam exchange\gateway nonsense. The government can roll business, doctors, hospitals, agents, and the American public by changing laws and running up large bill like Massachusetts Health Care.

How about free health care for the honest guy in so many businesses that doesn't believe in using illegals to gain a competitive advantage! I can't even remotely charge per hour what I made 10 years ago and everywhere I go it is illegals doing the work. Great plan. What next, health care for illegals?