"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/u...em&ex=1180584000&en=5cfaca388aac563d&ei=5087 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?
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.
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. Move.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
