Pages: 1
| Posted: 11 Jan 2011 18:26 | |
|
Registered User Currently Offline Join Date: Nov 2010 |
Posts: 6 Reputation: 1 User Rank: 1 - Seedling 
|
|
I've talked to some owners who are waiting to see how things "shake out" with the Health Care law. Others say while the law does expand access, it will make things more expensive for the business owner.
DO you provide health care for employees. Why or Why not? |
|
| Posted: 12 Jan 2011 18:22 Last Edited By: Clem | |
|
Registered User Currently Offline Join Date: Jan 2011 |
Posts: 798 Reputation: 43 User Rank: 10 - Blossom 
|
|
Without getting too political here, if you notice the number of corporations that are severely curtailing or even eliminating health care benefits in anticipation of the new system's requirements, the conventional wisdom is that it will be cheaper for companies to pay the annual per-employee fines that will be assessed by IRS for non-compliance than it will be to comply!
With the Republicans now in control of the House, which is where all spending bills must originate to fund federal programs, there wouldn't seem to be much chance of the "Obamacare" program surviving. Without funding, all of its many complicated parts...oversight agencies, enforcement, administration, etc...will be gutted and unable to function. So repeal is not necessary; if the GOP truly wants to eliminate the new system, all they need to do is not allow any funding bills out of committee. I'd wait a few months and see what happens in D. C. before jumping to any rash decisions. Clem |
|
| Posted: 28 Mar 2012 18:08 | |
|
Registered User Currently Offline Join Date: Jan 2012 |
Posts: 47 Reputation: 4 User Rank: 1 - Seedling
|
| Any comments on this over a year later? | |
| Posted: 29 Mar 2012 15:33 | |
|
Registered User Currently Offline Join Date: Jan 2011 |
Posts: 798 Reputation: 43 User Rank: 10 - Blossom
|
|
No point at this point...the Supreme Court will decide by the end of July whether the "individual mandate" is constitutional...the administration claims this provision is crucial to the plan's success, so if it's struck down, the law will have to be drastically changed, if not scrapped altogether...and then there's the elections in November, when the occupants of the White House and Congress may change dramatically. So we'll have to wait and see.
Clem |
|
| Posted: 30 Mar 2012 02:34 | |
|
Registered User Currently Offline Join Date: Jan 2011 |
Posts: 798 Reputation: 43 User Rank: 10 - Blossom
|
|
But the bottom line really is this: what's the point of creating a whole new system just to insure maybe 20,000,000 people who don't currently have health insurance and actually WANT IT? Congress could simply grow a set and propose a tax to fund this small group's coverage under Medicaid or another already-existing program.
But that would be politically unpopular, wouldn't it? And it wouldn't achieve the real goal of single-payer at some point in the not-too-distant future. Clem |
|
| Posted: 30 Mar 2012 17:26 | |
|
Registered User Currently Offline Join Date: Jan 2011 |
Posts: 102 Reputation: 5 User Rank: 3 - Plant 
|
| From what I understand, these uninsured people go to non-profit hospitals for their care. These hospitals are obligated by their status to supply that care for them at no charge. The burden of that cost is passed onto the rest of us who have health insurance. This seems to be a method of actually getting some of the cost off of the backs of those of us who are paying...something that should line up with what you normally seem to mandate, right? | |
| Posted: 31 Mar 2012 14:54 | |
|
Registered User Currently Offline Join Date: Jan 2011 |
Posts: 798 Reputation: 43 User Rank: 10 - Blossom
|
|
Many uninsured people DON'T GO to hospitals or doctors (the vast majority of the uninsured in question are young people who feel their money needs to be spent on other things at this time...like repayment of student loans, apartment rent, car payments, etc.), or they pay out-of-pocket when they do. The 20,000,000 who may be needy and can't pay for their own care should just be added to Medicaid until their situations permit them an affordable alternative (e.g., they get jobs with benefits). That would be MUCH cheaper and less disruptive to the other 280,000,000 people in the country who prefer the current system of health insurance. I'm all about individual liberty, not perks for special interest groups.
Clem |
|
| Posted: 31 Mar 2012 15:17 | |
|
Registered User Currently Offline Join Date: Jan 2011 |
Posts: 798 Reputation: 43 User Rank: 10 - Blossom
|
|
And let's not forget that there are very few "gold-plated" private insurance plans these days that do not require high deductibles and co-pays, so the "benefits" for the vast majority of people who don't run to the doctor every week or so are just not there unless a catastrophic illness or injury happens. And even then, they're still on the hook for thousands in out-of-pocket bills that they cannot afford to pay before the insurance takes over. None of that will change with Obamacare.
Clem |
|
Pages: 1
Interiorscape.com is sponsored by NewPro Containers 
RSS 2.0 Atom 1.0
