[Lisa GT]

"The Obama proposal includes a new requirement that employers either provide coverage to their employees or pay the government a set proportion of their payroll to provide it."

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/29/us...63d&ei=5087%0A

One of the partners here just informed me that if this were to pass and be implemented, that it would shut down the firm, they wouldn't be able to do it.

A while back they looked at getting a group health insurance plan, but even a group plan was going to be more than most of the people here would be willing or able to participate in so it didn't work out. One attorney here even had his wife go back to work after having a baby just so they could get on her health insurance benefits.

Is anybody else getting any kind of indications of what might happen from their employers?

[Bluffing024]

You're mistaken, Obama can do no wrong!

[04DarkShadowGT]

We are ****ed either way so really what does it matter.

I pay my own insurance and its only $180 a month and I am self employed. I really find it hard to believe that people cant afford $400 for a family insurance plan but yet can afford $600+ car payments.

Peoples priorities and lack of sens is why our econmy is screwed. People love credit and buying things they cant afford.

[mustangphil]

I'm for social health care.

[Bluffing024]

She loses her job one way. It isn't about her not being able to afford insurance, it's Obama's plan that will shut down her company.

Originally Posted by mustangphil

I'm for social health care.

Move.

[DarkFireGT]

I think with employers being required to provide health care, affordable health care would have to be made available. This would not go through without that. Don't go packing your desk just yet.

[Bluffing024]

Let's just hope the corrupt IL senator doesn't make it to the White House!

[Lisa GT]

Thats the kicker. I have health insurance coverage through Durden's employer group plan. It wouldn't even apply to me but it still jeopardizes my position.

[Lisa GT]

Originally Posted by DarkFireGT

I think with employers being required to provide health care, affordable health care would have to be made available. This would not go through without that. Don't go packing your desk just yet.

Oh, I'm not packing up my desk, but I hope you're thinking right. Does it not worry you that the government is going to be determining what 'affordable' is? I'm hearing all kinds of proposals, but not in any specific detail and mostly what I'm not hearing is the projected dollar amounts. It's pretty scary that we're not hearing any commitment. For instance:

"Obama advisers said the smallest businesses would be exempt from this requirement. The advisers said that those business might have under 15 employees, but that no number has been set."

"Might" doesn't cut it. By the time it's all said and done, that "might" might go from 15 to 5, or even 2.

[blown65]

Group Health at our work for a family of four is 800 bucks a month with perscriptions.

I dont recall what single was but its right around 300 a month.

[DarkFireGT]

I hope I'm right, too. But, it's just like car insurance. If you own a car, you have to have insurance, thus, the insurance companies have to make it affordable. Heck, I pay $30/mo for my winter beater for liability, and I have a DUI on record. I think we'll see health care costs go way down with either contender.

The problem that I have with McCain's, the way I understand it, is that it's a tax break. First of all, we all know that a break doesn't give you $5000. It takes $5000 off your taxable income. It hopefully puts you in a lower bracket so your tax liability is less and you get more back. But it may make a difference in your liability, it may not. This means that you have to have the money up front for the premium. There's 3 categories that people will fall into with this:
1) The least amount of people: Can afford it and will purchase their insurance
2) Tied with 3: Can afford it but won't buy it, instead blowing the money on things they don't really need because that's how Americans are.
3) Tied with 2: Can't afford it.

That's just my take on it. But if you leave it to people to purchase it on their own, even if you give them a break at the end of the year, the majority won't, for one reason or another. Health insurance is more important than car insurance, IMO. And having car insurance is the law. But, it's not free. And I don't think health insurance should be free, if you're employed. However, it should be very affordable, readily available, and coordinated through your employer. People are just too lazy to set it up, and honestly, too many options are a bad thing. When I'm selling to someone, I give them 2 or 3 options. I don't give them every available option, because they won't be able to make up their mind. I have 2 insurance choices at work. Both are extremely affordable and comparing the plans side to side, it was easy for me to decide. That's how it should be for everyone. McCain's plan does not address any of those concerns.

*Edit* And I just found out McCain's plan is a $2500 tax credit, with $5k for families. He fails to mention that. In fact, and I could be wrong, but I could almost swear I remember him saying for every man, woman, and child.

[GT40XStang9]

Lisa, I don't think there are any dollar amounts to these mandates yet. So as far as your employer making these claims, it could just be a scare tactic. Why? Not sure.

[Therian]

Didn't Obama speak of subsidies towards this, also?

[rbohm]

Originally Posted by Therian

Didn't Obama speak of subsidies towards this, also?

obama speaks of a lot of things. if you dont like something he says, wait a couple of days, he will say something else about the same subject. of course if he gets into office, all bets are off then and we can only hope for a republican majority in one of the houses of congress. preferably the senate.

[DarkFireGT]

Originally Posted by rbohm

obama speaks of a lot of things. if you dont like something he says, wait a couple of days, he will say something else about the same subject. of course if he gets into office, all bets are off then and we can only hope for a republican majority in one of the houses of congress. preferably the senate.

Oh come on. That's any politician. They both have flip flopped on issues, and voted completely against several things that they now stand for in their campaign. Of course they're trying to get elected, but times and situations change as well. I love generalizations like a certain party being in an office can fix something. It's not the party, it's the person and their immediate staff. Republican, democrat, independent.... They're all individuals with their own thoughts, ideas, and agendas.

But this one hasn't been moved to the fight club, so lets keep talking about the health plans and keep from bashing either side, k? Plenty of threads in fight club for that.

[Lisa GT]

Originally Posted by GT40XStang9

Lisa, I don't think there are any dollar amounts to these mandates yet. So as far as your employer making these claims, it could just be a scare tactic. Why? Not sure.

Well, as I stated, we've tried implementing a group policy at my office before. The issue was that the employees who were not attorneys with the higher salaries (paralegals, receptionist, clerks) did not want to pay what their share would have been. In my case, I already have better coverage under Durden's benefits. Sadly, of the support personnel in the office, I think I'm the only one who has coverage other than a couple who have TLC (Medicaid). One of those is a single parent with two kids, and the other is a grandmother with custody of her grandchild and a disabled husband who requires dialysis as he's rejecting a donor kidney. Some really could not afford it, even with the company paying a portion.

We are not a high profile law firm. We're not the biggest names in town, and we don't charge the highest retainers. Our office is not a quick check revolving door and we reject frivolous suits and nuisance value claims. We take cases that require work and we pride ourselves on securing the best possible outcome for our clients. As such, we don't make the kind of money the bigger, high case turnover firms do.

Often money gets tight. The senior partner has on occasion written a check to the firm out of his own personal checking account so he could give us Christmas bonuses or meet payroll. Knowing what I know about my bosses, I don't believe it's bullcrap or a scare tactic. There's no reason for that. I am the senior paralegal there, and I am like family to the firm's partners, particularly the senior partner. Durden was his karate instructor many years back, and there is a long established personal relationship built on respect and trust. The senior partner was my friend prior to my employment, and the job was offered to me with no solicitation on my part. We are friends, there is no deception or manipulation. The company simply will not be able to continue to operate in the black if they are required to provide health insurance coverage under duress and with the threat of fines/penalties.

From my perspective, this is an 'in your face', real life application of Obama's plan which if implemented is likely to cost me my job. Honestly, if I lose my job, I'll still eat and have shelter. I'm not sure I can say the same for everybody who works at my office. Does it worry me? Hell yeah.

[DarkFireGT]

I still don't understand how they can say they would have to close, when no one has even seen preliminary numbers yet. On top of that, it sounds like your firm would not be affected, due to it's size. Your employer sounds like they'd fall under the 50% tax credit if they did offer the insurance. Like I said, take everything with a grain of salt right now. With both plans. Which ever person wins, there will be so many revisions and such before any of them are even considered for going into the books.

[Blackie Lawless]

I for one am all for universal healthcare. It works just fine in other countries, but for whatever reason our government can't put it together... they can however put together a bible long bill in order to pass a $700 BILLION bail out...

[DarkFireGT]

Originally Posted by Blackie Lawless

I for one am all for universal healthcare. It works just fine in other countries, but for whatever reason our government can't put it together... they can however put together a bible long bill in order to pass a $840 BILLION bail out...

Fixt. And, agreed.

[jikelly]

Originally Posted by Bluffing024

You're mistaken, Obama can do no wrong!

Not true.

[jikelly]

Originally Posted by 04DarkShadowGT

We are ****ed either way so really what does it matter.

I pay my own insurance and its only $180 a month and I am self employed. I really find it hard to believe that people cant afford $400 for a family insurance plan but yet can afford $600+ car payments.

Peoples priorities and lack of sens is why our econmy is screwed. People love credit and buying things they cant afford.

You need a car to get to work. Sure you need health care too, but that's more of a what if type thing. People can just say they'll be careful and save that money.

[jikelly]

Originally Posted by Lisa GT

Oh, I'm not packing up my desk, but I hope you're thinking right. Does it not worry you that the government is going to be determining what 'affordable' is? I'm hearing all kinds of proposals, but not in any specific detail and mostly what I'm not hearing is the projected dollar amounts. It's pretty scary that we're not hearing any commitment. For instance:

"Obama advisers said the smallest businesses would be exempt from this requirement. The advisers said that those business might have under 15 employees, but that no number has been set."

"Might" doesn't cut it. By the time it's all said and done, that "might" might go from 15 to 5, or even 2.

It is going to be expensive as hell. (I mean for the country)

They have not told us the numbers probably because we are going to balk at the true costs.

I am for the gov (us taxpayers) providing some sort of basic healthcare coverage or insurance for everyone. Still, without seeing Obama's numbers and the details of his plan I don't know what to think about it. It sounds great, but who knows if considering the economy and military involvements I don't know if we can afford to do anything about it or not.

I agree with McCain in that gov spending must be cut. I also agree with Obama that we have to examine the current tax structure and that we are all going to have to make sacrifices. That's before we introduce a new gov health care plan. Deficit spending is going to put a hurting on us.

[strtrcr50]

Originally Posted by Blackie Lawless

I for one am all for universal healthcare. It works just fine in other countries, but for whatever reason our government can't put it together... they can however put together a bible long bill in order to pass a $700 BILLION bail out...

I pay $45 a week for an excellent health care program. Prescription, eye, doctor, emergency room, etc.. I have a $15 deductible when I go to the doctor's office. In my experience, I'd say the current system works fine and why would I have to also pay for someone else?

Why Universal Health Care Keeps Failing
January 30th, 2008 · 12:50 pm

The Wall Street Journal has an interesting piece on the failure of California’s attempt at universal health care and what it means for the rest of the nation. It is interesting to see how many of these plans have failed to pass or ended up being scrapped due to cost overruns. If universal health care was such a great thing and so economically compelling, it’s hard to see why so many states would be having such a hard time making it work. The reason why is simple: universal health care doesn’t actually work in the real world:

Like collapses in Illinois, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, this one crumpled because of the costs, which are always much higher than anticipated. The truth teller was state Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, who thought to ask about the price tag of a major new entitlement amid what’s already a $14.5 billion budget shortfall.

An independent analysis confirmed the plan would be far more expensive than proponents admitted. Even under the most favorable assumptions, spending would outpace revenue by $354 million after two years, and likely $3.9 billion or more. “A situation that I thought was bad,” Mr. Perata noted, “in fact was worse.”

This reveals that liberal health-care politics is increasingly the art of the impossible: You can’t make coverage “universal” while at the same time keeping costs in check — at least without prohibitive tax increases. Lowering cost and increasing access, in other words, are separate and irreconcilable issues.

Universal health care has a basic and fatal flaw, you can’t simultaneously reduce the cost of a service and increase access to it. If you have universal access, you have to find a way of paying for people to get that access, which raises costs. If you want to keep costs down you can only economize so far before you have to restrict access. Universal health care is a bit like a perpetual motion machine—it would be wonderful in theory, but it can’t actually exist in reality.

What inevitably ends up happening is that governments cut costs first—which requires them to cut off access. This is how Britain’s NHS and the Canadian system work. You end up either waiting in line or having a government bureaucrat deny your request for treatment. That’s why the healthcare systems in those countries are having such trouble managing costs without drastically cutting back on services—and why both are more and more turning to private agencies to provide services they cannot.

The failure of the California plan isn’t a shock—people support universal health care in theory, but when confronted with the fact that there’s no such thing as “free” health care most people balk at the price. A further sign that the support for universal care is theoretical comes from evidence that most Americans are satisfied with their current health care coverage. When confronted with a plan that forces people to change their coverage—and not necessarily for the better—it’s not surprising that the theoretical support for universal coverage ends up losing to the desire not to lose what people already have.

Universal health care is not the only solution, and already there are better solutions out there. In fact, of all the possible solutions, universal health care is almost certainly the least advantageous. Corporations love it because it passes on the costs to the federal government—turning it into a corporate welfare transfer payment. Bureaucrats love it because it gives them more power, as it would with politicians. However, it’s hard to see where the groundswell of demand for universal health care really is. If there was such a groundswell, a liberal state like California wouldn’t be balking at the price.

The failure of California’s initiative demonstrates why universal health care simply doesn’t work. The laws of economics and human behavior go against it, and those factors can’t be legislated away. You can’t square the circle of trying to simultaneously lower costs and increase access without throwing a ton of money at the problem and continuing to throw more and more money at it until the system collapses. If even California legislators can learn that principle, hopefully Congress can as well.

Jay Reding.com — Why Universal Health Care Keeps Failing

[Powerboss]

Originally Posted by Blackie Lawless

I for one am all for universal healthcare. It works just fine in other countries, ...

Are you kidding?

It's only "fine" if you enjoy rationing, shortages, and waiting lists.

[DarkFireGT]

Originally Posted by jikelly

You need a car to get to work. Sure you need health care too, but that's more of a what if type thing. People can just say they'll be careful and save that money.

There are public transportation systems. And of course, you don't have to have a $600/month car payment. You have to live to be able to drive the car and get to work. Which is more important? Driving or living?