October 26, 2009
Senate On Verge of Health Care Plan That Will Dramatically Increase Number of Unemployed Low-Income Workers
Democrats in the Senate should call this precisely what it is—the Screw The Poor Compromise:
Details of the legislation could change, but its broad outlines are becoming clear. Employers with more than 50 workers wouldn't be required to provide health insurance, but they would face fines of up to $750 per employee if even part of their work force received a government subsidy to buy health insurance, this person said. A bill passed by the Senate Finance Committee had a lower fine of up to $400 per employee.The bill to be brought to the Senate floor would create a new public health-insurance plan, but would give states the choice of opting out of participating in it, a proposal that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada backed last week.
Translated into English, what this means is that employers will have to pay far more in payroll taxes, meaning they will have far less money to actually hire workers. Like always, it will be those employees on the lower end of the scale—typically minorities—that will be the most greatly affected by the change, and when I say "affected" I mean like Jody Foster was affected in The Accused.
Phillip Klein at The American Spectator notes the disaster in the making:
The major problem with this disastrous proposal should be obvious to anybody with an inkling of understanding of economics. If you make it more costly for businesses to higher lower-income workers, they won't hire as many. Simply put, if the federal government set out to create a program designed to increase the unemployment rate among the working poor, it would be hard to come up with anything better than this.
There is a reason Reagan warned that the scariest words in our language are "I'm from the government and I'm here to help," and the health care proposals being offered by Democrats are a perfect example of the unintended consequences of massive, complicated bills that Congress votes upon without even making an attempt to understand them.
The libtards have had enough with this "bipartisan" BS. They're going to go it alone - with perhaps a Snowe or two - and ram their multi-trillion dollar healthscare bill down our throats. It will happen quickly; probably using the nuclear option in the Senate, and will be hailed as the greatest advancement in the history of mankind by the greatest president in America's history.
It's a done deal, boys and girls....and it's just the beginning. There are LOTS of other very costly goodies waiting in the wings. We ain't seen nothin yet.
Posted by: Dell at October 26, 2009 03:41 PMI disagree with you on one point in a major way. I think they know precisely what this portion of the bill will do, and most of the rest of it. We might not know, conservative members might not know, but Democrats know. It behooves them to have a lot of unemployed poor people. It is their trademark. Being able to legislate them is their most enjoyable moments.
My guess is that they have a legion of 'faithful' with enough legal knowledge to put these bills together in weeks or even days to their ends. They have very precise criteria under which they work and they offer a very exact idea of what these laws, codes, and such will do, probably in a general outline sheet, through charts, or some other simple manner of reporting (congress critters don't do calculus).
Posted by: Doom at October 26, 2009 07:16 PMlook at it this way:
which is cheaper? taking a standard $400 or $750 hit on each of my employees that would qualify for the subsidy, because not all of them do, and continuing to carry health care, or simply eliminating health care, and its administration costs from my bottom line, and only getting hit for the proportion that get me fined.
unless i'm missing something, it looks like eliminating health coverage is better for me in the long run. no price changes, no forms to fill out, etc..... its a brilliant move on their part to help companies to improve their efficiency.
Posted by: redc1c4 at October 27, 2009 10:07 AMredc1c4,
I see your point, but you do understand that this will take people out of good plans and put them into a really bad plan, don't you? From the employers stand, sure, if money is the bottom line, at least until they have a lot of untreated sick people working for them, or sidelined. But a conscientious employer would have to see this for what it is. And understand this is another assurance that compliance will be all but mandated. Perhaps I am merely too old to get all this, of course.
It is a funnel from private to public insurance. Now, that might not effect you immediately as owner or high enough on the chain to still get private insurance. That is, until that business model is no longer supportable and you will end up with what your employees get by attrition. Still, a dollar is a dollar I suppose.
Posted by: Doom at October 28, 2009 02:50 AMThis Catch 22 In Proposed Health Bills Not Covered by Press:
Millions of families cannot afford to pay both forced health insurance and their home mortgage or rent and will have to pay Opt-Out Penalties, money that could have used for medical expenses. Many Americans stuck in this Catch 22 position will not be considered poor for federal assistance to pay their health insurance premium. Middle class home buyers may have to pay-Opt Penalties to reduce their annual expenses in order to qualify for a home mortgage. The collateral economic damage forced health insurance costs and Opt-Out Penalties will cause has not been address by either Congress or the press.
Ross Wolf makes a very cogent point, which means that it's sure to be ignored and/or glossed over by the Obama Media.
Posted by: Tully at October 28, 2009 02:36 PMxxdcc
Posted by: dogtraining at October 28, 2009 09:23 PM
