Nobody should go broke because they are sick. It’s not right. All you crybaby critics need to experience that scenario before you criticize something that can acually do some good for people. If the crybaby critics still don’t get it maybe we will see a bunch of people give up medicare and social security when their time comes…..
Nobody should go broke because they are sick. It’s not right. All you crybaby critics need to experience that scenario before you criticize something that can acually do some good for people. If the crybaby critics still don’t get it maybe we will see a bunch of people give up medicare and social security when their time comes…..
The same people crying about the current “out of control spending” where NOT complaining when the prior administration took a budget surplus into oblivion? Where is the logic?
This bill is patently unconstitutional. There is no constitutional authority for government imposition of purchasing requirements – among other items in the bill. Of course the House under “Stretch” would not concern itself with such a minor speedbump. After all, it’s only a founding document and has been shredded already.
Of course it isn’t constitutional but constitutional or not, I can sum up this mess in one word: B.O.H.I.C.A. If this thing passes be prepared to get reamed on a regular basis good & hard.
re: constitutionality of “government imposition of purchasing requirements”
I suppose the first response would be that there is no purchasing imposition. Rather, a new tax was implemented which many Americans will be able to avoid by purchasing coverage.
Congress does have the power to encourage or discourage certain activities via taxation.
So I don’t think they are saying “buy coverage or go to jail.” They are saying “pay this new tax which has exceptions.”
Sorry Guys – its not an issue of constitutionality
By the way – I think the industry has brought it on itself. At least there is a provision to compete across state lines. What are we afraid of a little competition?
Matt, what constitution are you reading? No where in my copy does it say Congress has the power to minipulate us through taxiation. Mis-information such as this, is what has enabled the IRS to dominate our lives and control our property.
And yes they are saying buy this or go to jail. That is their primary leverage at this point. I am sure this will morph into stealing our property once they get their hooks set.
I am an insurance agent able to sell life and health. Does a large grocer like Wegmans qualify as small or large? Is it one entity or many? Does the company need to provide coverage for part time workers? WIll under-employed students out of college be taxed 2.5%? Can young people be re-added back to the parents policy? Is there Health Care “portability” in this bill? There are so many questions with answers not in English form………
All I hear are cries about the constution and the imposition of taxes..Whaaaaa! The good news is we are moving in a direction…there is movement. If those with opposing viewpoints would offer a substantive alternative, or better yet, if the health insurance industry as a whole would have offered an alternative (they had the initial warning back in 1993-94), then this could have been avoided. Government is doing what it is designed to do, address the needs of the people. And to those that think there is no need, take you head out of you backsides.
Also, to any of you8 that actually sell life and health products, shame on you if you fail to recognize the real need that exists in our country.
I am a broker, proud of what I do, and while there are asepcts of this bill that causes me to seek additional information, any version was going to fail to please everyone. C’mon Senate…make it happen!
Yeah, I agree. If anyone has read my other posts regarding the healthcare debate, I have been advocating ethics the whole way. We wouldn’t be facing this monster bill had the insurance companies been ethical as far as dropping insured’s from thier policies after an illness and try to claim it as a pre-existing condition. What a load.
People – use your brains!!!!! WE CANNOT AFFORD THE GOVERNMENT TAKING OVER OUR HEALTH CARE. We are trillions of dollars in debt, unemployment is 10.2%, the dollar is collapsing internationally as a result of this administrations out of control spending, and now, the government wants to take over the single most personal aspect of your lives? Dear God in heaven, use your brain!!!
How is the government “taking over” when they already own Medicare, Medicaide or the V.A. The government has owned this for years and it works…well. We still have our freedoms regardless.
Try telling seniors that you’re going to strip them of their Medicare coverage and see what kind of response you’ll get?
Cost is a huge issue and MUST be delt with. But to say that “the government wants to take over the single most personal aspect of your lives?” is a bit of a stretch.
Again, Obama is not in office forever and will be replaced in 4 or 8 years. So how does he and his administration benefit after he is out of office?
Not to be too insulting, but that’s one of the dumbest arguements I have heard. It’s like a child saying that someone else did it so it’s ok. Bush did it so we are ok with even more debt? If you didn’t hear Conservatives complain about Bush and the runaway spending you weren’t paying attention. The prior adminstration’s actions are no excuse for completely ruining our future with even worse runaway spending. Poor logic.
For As Bill Says, does anyone care about having a job and working for a living? Seems to me like there is a population who likes to get the handout or should I say free service, while the people that do pay taxes get the shaft. These same people who are paying taxes now have to fear their job because the government is not interested in common sense legislation to resolving issues. This legislation is just to create more problems and more debut we working americans will be responsible to pay back. Please lets look at the big picture because I sure do not want to see are country on a path to a 3rd world country in matter of years.
For the comments made regarding past administration, what is the current administration doing to stop the defeict spending allow the market place to create jobs. So for this administration has no plan to solve this issue. Hope everyone likes being unemployed.
No need to get republican/democrat – conservative/liberal here. Our government economic woes and deficit are as much due to reduced revenues as they are about runaway spending. It was under Clinton that we passed laws that allowed an AIG to invent the uncontrolled high risk CDS market. Us insurance professionals should know we need regulators to keep insurance companies from over extending. And it was under Bush that they pushed the spending to a new high – along with conservatives that didn’t scream loud enough and “blind eyed” republicans that gave him a blank check. We need to start this healthcare reform now – regardless of your political leanings. And don’t get so exercised yet – we have a senate bill to come yet – and a compromise comittee before any of this becomes law. Much will change.
Hey! Read the plan. 1990 pages + 40 pages amendments. See pgs 90-95. This will cost you big time! 17% of gross annual income IF you make less than $44,000. 20% of gross income IF you make more than $102K. AND, if (when!) your plan’s contract changes (i.e., annual rates, deds., copay, etc) you are then REQUIRED to sign up for the government plan. Still think this is a good deal?
When government slippery slope goes vertical David Boaz
is executive vice president of the Cato Institute and the author of “Libertarianism: A Primer and the Politics of Freedom”
Libertarians often warn about the slippery slope of government intervention:
Let the government run the schools, and it may end up teaching your children values that offend you. Let the government have new powers to fight terrorism, and it may use those extraordinary powers in the pursuit of ordinary crimes. Let the federal government give the states money for highways, and it may eventually use its money to impose its own rules on the states.
In the Obama era, the slippery slope has gone vertical. Instead of “eventually,” the feared extensions of government power come immediately.
When President Obama decided to convert George W. Bush’s bailout of General Motors Corp. and Chrysler L.L.C. into effective government ownership, critics warned that this could lead to political intrusion into the management of automobile companies, with decisions being made for political instead of economic reasons. The companies would get less efficient. The government might try to preserve jobs or engage in political grandstanding rather than build sound companies that serve consumers – eventually.
But there was no “eventually” about it. Before he had even secured government control, Obama fired the chief executive officer of General Motors. He decided what the ownership structure of the companies should be. He insisted that the companies build “clean cars” rather than cars that consumers want to buy. And as soon as a deal was concluded, members of Congress started trying to block the closing of inefficient dealerships and to require the companies to buy their palladium in Montana, use unionized trucking companies, remove mercury from scrapped cars, and so on. Politics reared its ugly head in the first moments of government control.
Now we have the federal government’s unprecedented intrusions into executive-pay decisions at seven bailed-out banks and automobile companies. The Obama administration’s “pay czar,” unlike most of the so-called White House czars, has an appalling amount of real power. He “has sole discretion to set compensation for the top 25 employees of each of those companies,” and his decisions “won’t be subject to appeal,” according to recent articles in the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal, respectively. I was appalled when he used that autocratic power to make such sweeping cuts in executive pay.
True, these executives were running their companies with taxpayers’ money. Live by the bailout, die by the bailout. If you don’t want to make a government salary, don’t take government money. It’s a bad idea for government to attach strings to its funding, to use its money to impose an agenda, but the reality is that it does. Maybe it’s a good lesson for other executives: Don’t take government money.
But what about the slippery slope? Well, it went totally vertical. On the very day that the government czar announced that he would cut the pay of companies that received taxpayer bailouts, the Federal Reserve announced that it would start regulating compensation at the thousands of banks that it regulates, as well as American subsidiaries of non-U.S. financial companies. Some state regulators said they planned to issue similar requirements for state-regulated banks not covered by the Fed plan.
All of this is being done without any legitimate power under the Constitution, and much of it without even the authorization of Congress. Congress refused to bail out the auto companies, so Bush did it on his own authority. Congress never authorized the Federal Reserve to regulate the pay of bank employees.
This is not a slippery slope. This is falling off a cliff. As one news story pointed out: “The restrictions were the latest in more than a year’s worth of government intervention in matters once considered inviolable aspects of the country’s free-market economy and represent a signal moment in the history of the American economic experiment.”
Sometimes it’s hard to make a case for slippery slopes, because you’re trying to oppose an immediate benefit by warning of a future cost. Not this time.
If you put a frog in lukewarm water, and then gradually turn up the temperature to boiling, the frog won’t sense the danger, and will eventually be cooked to death, or so the metaphor goes. Throw a frog into boiling water, and it will jump out immediately, rather than be scalded.
People tend to react the same way to new demands by the government. If new powers and restrictions are introduced gradually, they’ll get used to each one so that the next one seems no big deal.
In this case, we’re being tossed into boiling water. It’s time for Americans of left, right, and center to say that this is not the economic system we want. If you still have warm feelings toward Obama and his good intentions, ask yourself this: Will you feel comfortable one day when the appointees of President Romney or President Palin are exercising unconstitutional, unauthorized, unreviewable authority to restructure the economy the way they see fit?
A Petition from the Producers of Health Insurance, Medical Equipment, Drugs, Diagnostic and Surgical Procedures, Physical Therapy, and, Generally, of Everything Connected with Healthcare.
To the Members of the US Congress and Senate.
Ladies and Gentlemen:
You are on the wrong road. You embrace defective theories in which government produces abundance and low prices. You concern yourselves mainly with the fate of the consumer, but without knowledge as to how we in the private sector can attend to his needs. You wish to free him from lack of private competition, that is, to create a competitive market for healthcare through government intervention.
We come to offer you an admirable opportunity, because our — what shall we call it? — our theory? No, nothing is more offensive to those in power than the idea that theoretical laws might supersede state legislation. To put it in terms you can understand, we shall say, then, our personal interests — our personal interests, along with those of the consumer, are at stake.
We face the intolerable competition of a rival, placed, it would seem, in a condition so far superior to ours that our future is questionable. This rival can flood the healthcare market with health services at an incredibly low marginal cost. The moment he shows himself, our trade leaves us — all consumers are compelled to pay for his services, even those who still buy from us.
Given that consumers must pay this rival even if they reject his services, our industry faces potential stagnation. This rival, whose influence on the industry is already as broad as sunlight, is waging war mercilessly against us, and we suspect he is being stirred up by perfidious ex-Soviets, particularly because socialists have always sought our destruction.
You are this rival.
What we pray for is that you may decline passing additional laws requiring consumers to pay for healthcare through taxation. We trust that you will not regard our request as a satire, or refuse it without at least first hearing the reasons that we have to urge in its support.
First, if you impose taxpayer-funded healthcare, this will place consumers in a position where they must choose between paying for our services and opting for your “free” healthcare. As we have already noted, you have the power to tax. Citizens pay for your services whether they want them or not.
“We cannot compete against you in markets because you exert control over our entry into markets.”
Second, the sad irony is that your so-called free public services are not only costly, they typically cost more than what could be provided privately. We in the private sector must survive by keeping costs low relative to revenue. You do not face this burden.
The power to tax enables you to bear high costs, or rather to shift such costs onto citizen taxpayers. Your bureaucracies are bloated and inflexible. You waste money on special-interest payoffs. You have failed to adequately fund existing entitlements, like Social Security and Medicare.
There are also serious issues with the quality of many of your services. Consumers are forced to pay direct and indirect taxes to fund public schools, even those schools that are dismal failures. Many consumers struggle to pay both taxes and private tuition.
Can you offer assurance that your proposed “competition” against our industry will not be equally ruinous? Why should we expect to survive competition against a rival with the power to tax? Why should our customers expect to remain sovereign as consumers in a government-dominated healthcare industry?
We foresee your objections, but there is not a single one of the things you object to that you have not caused yourself. Healthcare costs are rising, but you have imposed greater costs: through regulations that increase administrative costs, through licensing laws and other restrictions on private competition, and through frivolous and fraudulent malpractice lawsuits.
You may respond that we do not have much to lose at all, because the consumer will bear the expense. We have our answer ready:
It is true that you have often sacrificed the interests of the consumer when they are opposed to those of the producer. Many of us contribute to your campaigns specifically to gain influence over policies that affect us. Your power can work to our advantage. But the expense of lobbying for political privileges in our deeply politicized industry is itself a burden. Despite all there is to gain in winning your favor, we as an industry can easily expend as much in lobbying costs as there is for any of us to gain. See Mises.org for more on this.
To put it simply, your proposal to act as a mere rival lacks plausibility. We cannot compete against you in markets because you exert control over our entry into markets. Furthermore, you possess market-independent funding sources — the power to tax.
Your past record of sacrificing the consumer’s interests casts doubt upon your stated goal of reducing costs for him. Many of us have benefited from a partnership with you in the past, but rivalry against you is futile. Given that you seem to be engaged in deceit, we cannot trust you.
You are on the wrong track. You may believe yourselves to be in a position of limitless power to reshape society, but this is not true. Economic laws exist, and we, as producers, want to use them for profit.
Your stated goal of assuming greater control over the economy for the purpose of improving consumer welfare is not credible or even logical. It is impossible to define the economic interests of consumers collectively. Again, see Mises.org for more on this. You generally do not try to serve consumers in the first place. We do not trust you, and neither should anyone else.
D.W. MacKenzie teaches economics at the Coast Guard Academy. (The contents of this paper do not reflect official views of The U.S. Coast Guard Academy.) Send him mail See D.W. MacKenzie’s article archive by googling.
Intimidated Americans Claim Not To Know Hasan’s Motives Dennis Prager
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
One reads and hears with increasing disbelief and anger that we don’t know the motive or motives of Nidal Malik Hasan, the Army major who fired over 100 shots at his fellow American soldiers in order to murder and maim as many as possible. Hasan ended up allegedly murdering 13 people, but government and Army spokesmen and the mainstream media claim they just can’t figure out why he did this. They are, however, certain that it was not an act of terrorism.
Sunday’s New York Times “Week in Review” article about Nidal Hasan was titled “When Soldiers Snap.” The gist of the article was that Maj. Hasan had snapped — even though he had never been in combat. He snapped in advance. Just two sentences in the article were devoted to the possibility that his motives were in any way relatable to his Muslim faith.
As Chris Matthews put it, “it’s unclear if religion was a factor in this shooting.” To Matthews, not only was it unclear if Hasan’s Islamic faith was “the” factor, it was unclear if it was even “a” factor.
Likewise, on NPR, Tom Gjelten offered the novel explanation that Hasan, who has never been in combat, may have suffered from “pre-traumatic stress disorder” because he anticipated having traumatic distress. “Was he an example,” Gjelten seriously asked, “of these soldiers who are literally freaked out by what they are likely to face when they are deployed?”
And on Fox News, Geraldo Rivera, said, “I don’t know what motivates him … as far as I know … he’s a sociopath; he’s a criminal. He could have had a toothache and gone off because of that.”
The deaths and maiming at Fort Hood are heartbreaking and angering. But ultimately far more injurious to America than the act of evil that caused those deaths and injuries is the massive self-deception American society engages in out of fear of being called bigoted, racist or “Islamaphobic.”
Any American who is not prepared to lie to himself has reason to believe that Hasan’s religious views were prominent, if not exclusive, factors for why he slaughtered fellow American soldiers. The motives appear as clear as any could be.
Chuck Medley, Fort Hood’s director of Emergency Services, told Reuters that Hasan yelled “Allahu Akbar” — the Arabic incantation of “Allah is the greatest” yelled by Islamic terrorists before they slaughter people — just before the shooting,
Dr. Val Finnell told The Associated Press that he and other classmates participating in a 2007-2008 master’s program with Hasan at the Uniformed Services University had complained about his comments, including that the war on terror was “a war against Islam.”
Another classmate told the AP that he complained to five officers and two civilian faculty members at the university. He also wrote to Pentagon officials that fear in the military of being seen as politically incorrect prevented an “intellectually honest discussion of Islamic ideology” in the ranks.
Other classmates who participated in a 2007-2008 master’s program at a military college said they, too, had complained to superiors about Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan’s anti-American views, which included his giving a presentation that justified suicide bombing and telling classmates that Islamic law trumped the U.S. Constitution.
And ABC News now reports that Hasan had attempted to contact al-Qaida.
It is a given that the vast majority of American Muslims are loyal Americans. But that’s not the only given.
It is equally a given that a certain percentage of Muslims in and outside of the military are Islamists who want Americans dead and America Muslim.
It does the majority of Muslims no favor to deny the existence of the minority. And Muslim Americans do themselves no favor by denying it. Unfortunately, Muslims are theoretically represented by groups like CAIR whose values are correctly seen by most Americans as suspect.
Americans are worried by the fact that there are Muslim Americans whose beliefs compel them to murder non-Muslim Americans. But what is even more worrisome is that American Muslim groups (and their supporters on the left) deny this.
Yes, change the letter c to the letter n and it spells demonrats. Here, soak up some more info you commie libs.
Counting the Cost Ed Feulner
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Elections have consequences. But sometimes we have to wait a bit to learn what they are.
Recall Barack Obama’s historic election. He glided into office last year, bringing along an increased Democratic majority in the House of Representatives and a seemingly filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.
How did he win? In part by promising to restore fiscal sanity.
“Obama also believes that after eight years of reckless fiscal policies that squandered historic surpluses and added $4 trillion to the deficit, it is vital for candidates to put forward specific ideas on how they will pay for their proposals.” So read the “comprehensive tax plan” posted on barackobama.com.
According to that plan, Obama would “reduce the deficit” both today and in the years ahead. Once elected, though, the president sketched out a budget that tripled the present deficit and would create a tide of red ink as far as the eye can see.
Obama also vowed to open up the lawmaking process. On health care reform, for example, he declared, “we’ll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies.”
But reality hasn’t matched the rhetoric.
Health care reform remains secret. As best anyone can tell, the Senate’s version was written by Majority Leader Harry Reid, possibly with input from the White House and liberal activists. It’s impossible to say when a final bill will appear or what it will cost, but $1 trillion seems a low “guesstimate.”
The process in the House has been just as confusing. After months of closed-door talks, Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently appeared with a 1,990 page bill. Now that that bill has passed (in haste), we’ll spend months and years learning about little provisions sprinkled throughout it that nobody had time to read before the vote. So much for discussion and transparency.
And health reform isn’t the only multi-trillion dollar bill being crafted under cover of darkness. Sens. Barbara Boxer and John Kerry have drafted a cap-and-trade bill that would supposedly combat global warming.
Last week, Boxer made a mockery of the supposed new era of transparency by passing the bill out of the Environment and Public Works committee she chairs even though no Republican senators were on hand and even though the Environmental Protection Agency hadn’t yet issued a detailed report on how much the bill could cost.
Global warming is perhaps the issue where it’s most important for the president to make good on his promises of transparency. A government-mandated transformation of the way America produces and uses energy is no small matter. Even if EPA had delivered an extensive cost analysis, the agency has its biases. A second (and third and fourth) opinion on the cost of this bill would be particularly valuable, especially from a source outside the federal government.
When Heritage examined an earlier version of cap-and trade, we found it would increase energy costs for an average household by $436 in 2012, and that costs would keep climbing to $1,241 in 2035. Electricity costs would go up 90 percent by 2035, gasoline by 58 percent, and natural gas by 55 percent. The cumulative higher energy costs over two decades for a family of four would be nearly $20,000.
And that says nothing of the one million jobs we estimated would be lost under the bill — even if it delivered on its promise to create new, “green” jobs. The Senate bill would likely ring up similar costs.
Which brings us back to the point that elections have consequences. Having had a year to weigh President Obama’s policies against Candidate Obama’s promises, voters have found his actions wanting.
This year they opted for more conservative candidates in New Jersey and Virginia’s gubernatorial races. If the president doesn’t start keeping his promises, the 2010 midterms may bring more of the same.
Getting back to the constitutionality, the language in the preamble about “promote the general welfare” only provides the framework for what follows, which actually spells out the specific powers of the various branches of teh federal government. As the constitution states, those powers not specifically assigned to the federal government are reserved for the states and ultimately, the people. Unfortunately, our federal government ignores this whole concept and has grasped more and more power over time and we’ve all let them do it.
The fact that the federal deficit increased during the Bush years does not excuse the increase we have seen under the current administration – more than all prior administrations combined! Sorry, but two wrongs don’t make a right.
As for this bill, it is nothing more than another power grab. One of our esteemed leaders said, “never let a crisis go to waste”, and that has become the mantra of the current government. This will be the prevailing concept as we see more and more of our individual rights taken from us through this bill, cap and trade and so on.
One commentor here mentioned the government soon taking our property. Well, everytime they tax us more, they do just that and as has been written in books about our freedoms, freedom will be compromised and ultimately taken away once government violates the principle of individual property ownership, which is the track we are on.
To those who opine that the opposition to this bill have not offered an alternative are simply repeating what many of its supporters are saying and that is patently false. All alternatives that have been proposed have been smacked down in favor of the government takeover. As for copmetition with private industry-how can private industry compete with a government that can print money and tax people to make up for losses? That’s really no difference than an insurer increasing premiums ecept that the government can hide it more easily.
True that people can end up in bankruptcy following a serious disease, so maybe the real government plan should only be to help them along much like unemployment insurance helps people out of work until they get back on their feet.
Medicare and its allied programs (VA system, etc.) are certainly government-run plans and look how they are run. There’s no incentive to keep costs under control or weed out abuse and faud because the government can simply hike costs and taxes to make up the difference and/or push the costs off via deficit spending onto future generations. If, as Obama said, they can fund the plan by weeding out abuse and fraud from medicare, why hasn’t this been done all along? Well, once again, it’s because there has been no incentive to do so and who believes they will actually do that after healthcare reform is instituted?
Alas, this healthcare bill does not reform healthcare-it substitutes one costly system with another, but it has been sold as a solution to the problem. Well, it will create a bigger and more expensive problem for all of us and still not guarantee that all those millions of people who are uninsured will be insured.
We are traveling down a dangerious road for our country by following this path to a more socialistic system. No matter how noble the idea of protecting everyone is, as the saying goes, someday you’ll run out of other people’s money. When that happens, the government will simply print more, but no one will be there to earn it, so it will therefore not be worth the paper it’s on and no other country will want it. That’s when our country collapses
To paraphrase T. Jefferson: A gov’t that has the power to give to you anything, also has the power to take from you everything.
Paraphrasing B. Franklin, in response to a question about what if the citizens of the fledging democracy voted to have the gov’t take from the most productive to give to the less productive, replied, ‘Those that seek such security over freedom will end up with neither.’
An ancient Greek philosopher wrote that all democracies contain within them the seeds of their own destruction, because, eventually, those who don’t have what they want will vote in a gov’t to take from others to give to them. This, he added, will result in civil strife, because exalting the least productive over the most productive will impoverish all and doom such a democracy to oblivion.
To quote the Roman gov’t official, writer, and philosopher Tacitus, “The more corrupt a gov’t, the more it legislates.”
Definition of a liberal: Someone who’s willing to give away everything that he or she doesn’t own.
Yep. Any when employers are required to pay a minimum of 72.5% for the employee’s coverage, and 65% of the employee’s family’s coverage, guess who will pay for that? Less salary due to “increased” benefits, and fewer jobs, so we’ll have to do more for less! What a great deal for everyone! Remember — employer’s/companies must make a profit to remain in business, so when certain expenses rise, enought increase in sales is required to maintain status quo, or other expenses must be cut (jobs?). Good luck to you all — I retire in two years!
Small employers identified as $500,000 and greater in payroll may be mandated to support 72.5% of single premium & 67% of family medical premium. This ruling puts more pressure on a smaller employer to PROVIDE medical insurance at the same rate as small employers with $500,000 in payroll. Therefore, any small employer (regardless of the amt of p/r) will have to provide med benefits to retain employees. Once again, small employers are disregarded and further economically pressured to survive.
Of course, big corps are pushing for this, because it benefits them at the expense of small businesses and working people. It’s a joke, another power grab by the DemonRats. (Yes, change to letter ‘n’ the letter ‘c’ and what does it spell?)
why does everyone continue to blame the health care INSURANCE carriers. the carriers must keep premiums in line with claims. i blame the health care PROVIDERS!!!!! money grubbing selfish thieves!!!!!
Nobody should go broke because they are sick. It’s not right. All you crybaby critics need to experience that scenario before you criticize something that can acually do some good for people. If the crybaby critics still don’t get it maybe we will see a bunch of people give up medicare and social security when their time comes…..
Nobody should go broke because they are sick. It’s not right. All you crybaby critics need to experience that scenario before you criticize something that can acually do some good for people. If the crybaby critics still don’t get it maybe we will see a bunch of people give up medicare and social security when their time comes…..
The same people crying about the current “out of control spending” where NOT complaining when the prior administration took a budget surplus into oblivion? Where is the logic?
This bill is patently unconstitutional. There is no constitutional authority for government imposition of purchasing requirements – among other items in the bill. Of course the House under “Stretch” would not concern itself with such a minor speedbump. After all, it’s only a founding document and has been shredded already.
Of course it isn’t constitutional but constitutional or not, I can sum up this mess in one word: B.O.H.I.C.A. If this thing passes be prepared to get reamed on a regular basis good & hard.
WAAAHHH!!!!!Boo hoo…Call the Supreme Court. They’re still on your side.
re: constitutionality of “government imposition of purchasing requirements”
I suppose the first response would be that there is no purchasing imposition. Rather, a new tax was implemented which many Americans will be able to avoid by purchasing coverage.
Congress does have the power to encourage or discourage certain activities via taxation.
So I don’t think they are saying “buy coverage or go to jail.” They are saying “pay this new tax which has exceptions.”
Sorry Guys – its not an issue of constitutionality
By the way – I think the industry has brought it on itself. At least there is a provision to compete across state lines. What are we afraid of a little competition?
Matt, what constitution are you reading? No where in my copy does it say Congress has the power to minipulate us through taxiation. Mis-information such as this, is what has enabled the IRS to dominate our lives and control our property.
And yes they are saying buy this or go to jail. That is their primary leverage at this point. I am sure this will morph into stealing our property once they get their hooks set.
The doctors in the Rose Garden all had to wear white coats the other day. I suppose that the House should now be required to wear brown shirts.
I am an insurance agent able to sell life and health. Does a large grocer like Wegmans qualify as small or large? Is it one entity or many? Does the company need to provide coverage for part time workers? WIll under-employed students out of college be taxed 2.5%? Can young people be re-added back to the parents policy? Is there Health Care “portability” in this bill? There are so many questions with answers not in English form………
check the Preamble to the Constitution…something about “promote the general welfare”…
I am all for promoting just not mandating. Why the rush. Our legislators don’t fully understand this bill and until they do don’t impose it on me.
All I hear are cries about the constution and the imposition of taxes..Whaaaaa! The good news is we are moving in a direction…there is movement. If those with opposing viewpoints would offer a substantive alternative, or better yet, if the health insurance industry as a whole would have offered an alternative (they had the initial warning back in 1993-94), then this could have been avoided. Government is doing what it is designed to do, address the needs of the people. And to those that think there is no need, take you head out of you backsides.
Also, to any of you8 that actually sell life and health products, shame on you if you fail to recognize the real need that exists in our country.
I am a broker, proud of what I do, and while there are asepcts of this bill that causes me to seek additional information, any version was going to fail to please everyone. C’mon Senate…make it happen!
Yeah, I agree. If anyone has read my other posts regarding the healthcare debate, I have been advocating ethics the whole way. We wouldn’t be facing this monster bill had the insurance companies been ethical as far as dropping insured’s from thier policies after an illness and try to claim it as a pre-existing condition. What a load.
People – use your brains!!!!! WE CANNOT AFFORD THE GOVERNMENT TAKING OVER OUR HEALTH CARE. We are trillions of dollars in debt, unemployment is 10.2%, the dollar is collapsing internationally as a result of this administrations out of control spending, and now, the government wants to take over the single most personal aspect of your lives? Dear God in heaven, use your brain!!!
How is the government “taking over” when they already own Medicare, Medicaide or the V.A. The government has owned this for years and it works…well. We still have our freedoms regardless.
Try telling seniors that you’re going to strip them of their Medicare coverage and see what kind of response you’ll get?
Cost is a huge issue and MUST be delt with. But to say that “the government wants to take over the single most personal aspect of your lives?” is a bit of a stretch.
Again, Obama is not in office forever and will be replaced in 4 or 8 years. So how does he and his administration benefit after he is out of office?
Not to be too insulting, but that’s one of the dumbest arguements I have heard. It’s like a child saying that someone else did it so it’s ok. Bush did it so we are ok with even more debt? If you didn’t hear Conservatives complain about Bush and the runaway spending you weren’t paying attention. The prior adminstration’s actions are no excuse for completely ruining our future with even worse runaway spending. Poor logic.
For As Bill Says, does anyone care about having a job and working for a living? Seems to me like there is a population who likes to get the handout or should I say free service, while the people that do pay taxes get the shaft. These same people who are paying taxes now have to fear their job because the government is not interested in common sense legislation to resolving issues. This legislation is just to create more problems and more debut we working americans will be responsible to pay back. Please lets look at the big picture because I sure do not want to see are country on a path to a 3rd world country in matter of years.
For the comments made regarding past administration, what is the current administration doing to stop the defeict spending allow the market place to create jobs. So for this administration has no plan to solve this issue. Hope everyone likes being unemployed.
No need to get republican/democrat – conservative/liberal here. Our government economic woes and deficit are as much due to reduced revenues as they are about runaway spending. It was under Clinton that we passed laws that allowed an AIG to invent the uncontrolled high risk CDS market. Us insurance professionals should know we need regulators to keep insurance companies from over extending. And it was under Bush that they pushed the spending to a new high – along with conservatives that didn’t scream loud enough and “blind eyed” republicans that gave him a blank check. We need to start this healthcare reform now – regardless of your political leanings. And don’t get so exercised yet – we have a senate bill to come yet – and a compromise comittee before any of this becomes law. Much will change.
Hey! Read the plan. 1990 pages + 40 pages amendments. See pgs 90-95. This will cost you big time! 17% of gross annual income IF you make less than $44,000. 20% of gross income IF you make more than $102K. AND, if (when!) your plan’s contract changes (i.e., annual rates, deds., copay, etc) you are then REQUIRED to sign up for the government plan. Still think this is a good deal?
When government slippery slope goes vertical David Boaz
is executive vice president of the Cato Institute and the author of “Libertarianism: A Primer and the Politics of Freedom”
Libertarians often warn about the slippery slope of government intervention:
Let the government run the schools, and it may end up teaching your children values that offend you. Let the government have new powers to fight terrorism, and it may use those extraordinary powers in the pursuit of ordinary crimes. Let the federal government give the states money for highways, and it may eventually use its money to impose its own rules on the states.
In the Obama era, the slippery slope has gone vertical. Instead of “eventually,” the feared extensions of government power come immediately.
When President Obama decided to convert George W. Bush’s bailout of General Motors Corp. and Chrysler L.L.C. into effective government ownership, critics warned that this could lead to political intrusion into the management of automobile companies, with decisions being made for political instead of economic reasons. The companies would get less efficient. The government might try to preserve jobs or engage in political grandstanding rather than build sound companies that serve consumers – eventually.
But there was no “eventually” about it. Before he had even secured government control, Obama fired the chief executive officer of General Motors. He decided what the ownership structure of the companies should be. He insisted that the companies build “clean cars” rather than cars that consumers want to buy. And as soon as a deal was concluded, members of Congress started trying to block the closing of inefficient dealerships and to require the companies to buy their palladium in Montana, use unionized trucking companies, remove mercury from scrapped cars, and so on. Politics reared its ugly head in the first moments of government control.
Now we have the federal government’s unprecedented intrusions into executive-pay decisions at seven bailed-out banks and automobile companies. The Obama administration’s “pay czar,” unlike most of the so-called White House czars, has an appalling amount of real power. He “has sole discretion to set compensation for the top 25 employees of each of those companies,” and his decisions “won’t be subject to appeal,” according to recent articles in the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal, respectively. I was appalled when he used that autocratic power to make such sweeping cuts in executive pay.
True, these executives were running their companies with taxpayers’ money. Live by the bailout, die by the bailout. If you don’t want to make a government salary, don’t take government money. It’s a bad idea for government to attach strings to its funding, to use its money to impose an agenda, but the reality is that it does. Maybe it’s a good lesson for other executives: Don’t take government money.
But what about the slippery slope? Well, it went totally vertical. On the very day that the government czar announced that he would cut the pay of companies that received taxpayer bailouts, the Federal Reserve announced that it would start regulating compensation at the thousands of banks that it regulates, as well as American subsidiaries of non-U.S. financial companies. Some state regulators said they planned to issue similar requirements for state-regulated banks not covered by the Fed plan.
All of this is being done without any legitimate power under the Constitution, and much of it without even the authorization of Congress. Congress refused to bail out the auto companies, so Bush did it on his own authority. Congress never authorized the Federal Reserve to regulate the pay of bank employees.
This is not a slippery slope. This is falling off a cliff. As one news story pointed out: “The restrictions were the latest in more than a year’s worth of government intervention in matters once considered inviolable aspects of the country’s free-market economy and represent a signal moment in the history of the American economic experiment.”
Sometimes it’s hard to make a case for slippery slopes, because you’re trying to oppose an immediate benefit by warning of a future cost. Not this time.
If you put a frog in lukewarm water, and then gradually turn up the temperature to boiling, the frog won’t sense the danger, and will eventually be cooked to death, or so the metaphor goes. Throw a frog into boiling water, and it will jump out immediately, rather than be scalded.
People tend to react the same way to new demands by the government. If new powers and restrictions are introduced gradually, they’ll get used to each one so that the next one seems no big deal.
In this case, we’re being tossed into boiling water. It’s time for Americans of left, right, and center to say that this is not the economic system we want. If you still have warm feelings toward Obama and his good intentions, ask yourself this: Will you feel comfortable one day when the appointees of President Romney or President Palin are exercising unconstitutional, unauthorized, unreviewable authority to restructure the economy the way they see fit?
A Petition from the Producers of Health Insurance, Medical Equipment, Drugs, Diagnostic and Surgical Procedures, Physical Therapy, and, Generally, of Everything Connected with Healthcare.
To the Members of the US Congress and Senate.
Ladies and Gentlemen:
You are on the wrong road. You embrace defective theories in which government produces abundance and low prices. You concern yourselves mainly with the fate of the consumer, but without knowledge as to how we in the private sector can attend to his needs. You wish to free him from lack of private competition, that is, to create a competitive market for healthcare through government intervention.
We come to offer you an admirable opportunity, because our — what shall we call it? — our theory? No, nothing is more offensive to those in power than the idea that theoretical laws might supersede state legislation. To put it in terms you can understand, we shall say, then, our personal interests — our personal interests, along with those of the consumer, are at stake.
We face the intolerable competition of a rival, placed, it would seem, in a condition so far superior to ours that our future is questionable. This rival can flood the healthcare market with health services at an incredibly low marginal cost. The moment he shows himself, our trade leaves us — all consumers are compelled to pay for his services, even those who still buy from us.
Given that consumers must pay this rival even if they reject his services, our industry faces potential stagnation. This rival, whose influence on the industry is already as broad as sunlight, is waging war mercilessly against us, and we suspect he is being stirred up by perfidious ex-Soviets, particularly because socialists have always sought our destruction.
You are this rival.
What we pray for is that you may decline passing additional laws requiring consumers to pay for healthcare through taxation. We trust that you will not regard our request as a satire, or refuse it without at least first hearing the reasons that we have to urge in its support.
First, if you impose taxpayer-funded healthcare, this will place consumers in a position where they must choose between paying for our services and opting for your “free” healthcare. As we have already noted, you have the power to tax. Citizens pay for your services whether they want them or not.
“We cannot compete against you in markets because you exert control over our entry into markets.”
Second, the sad irony is that your so-called free public services are not only costly, they typically cost more than what could be provided privately. We in the private sector must survive by keeping costs low relative to revenue. You do not face this burden.
The power to tax enables you to bear high costs, or rather to shift such costs onto citizen taxpayers. Your bureaucracies are bloated and inflexible. You waste money on special-interest payoffs. You have failed to adequately fund existing entitlements, like Social Security and Medicare.
There are also serious issues with the quality of many of your services. Consumers are forced to pay direct and indirect taxes to fund public schools, even those schools that are dismal failures. Many consumers struggle to pay both taxes and private tuition.
Can you offer assurance that your proposed “competition” against our industry will not be equally ruinous? Why should we expect to survive competition against a rival with the power to tax? Why should our customers expect to remain sovereign as consumers in a government-dominated healthcare industry?
We foresee your objections, but there is not a single one of the things you object to that you have not caused yourself. Healthcare costs are rising, but you have imposed greater costs: through regulations that increase administrative costs, through licensing laws and other restrictions on private competition, and through frivolous and fraudulent malpractice lawsuits.
You may respond that we do not have much to lose at all, because the consumer will bear the expense. We have our answer ready:
It is true that you have often sacrificed the interests of the consumer when they are opposed to those of the producer. Many of us contribute to your campaigns specifically to gain influence over policies that affect us. Your power can work to our advantage. But the expense of lobbying for political privileges in our deeply politicized industry is itself a burden. Despite all there is to gain in winning your favor, we as an industry can easily expend as much in lobbying costs as there is for any of us to gain. See Mises.org for more on this.
To put it simply, your proposal to act as a mere rival lacks plausibility. We cannot compete against you in markets because you exert control over our entry into markets. Furthermore, you possess market-independent funding sources — the power to tax.
Your past record of sacrificing the consumer’s interests casts doubt upon your stated goal of reducing costs for him. Many of us have benefited from a partnership with you in the past, but rivalry against you is futile. Given that you seem to be engaged in deceit, we cannot trust you.
You are on the wrong track. You may believe yourselves to be in a position of limitless power to reshape society, but this is not true. Economic laws exist, and we, as producers, want to use them for profit.
Your stated goal of assuming greater control over the economy for the purpose of improving consumer welfare is not credible or even logical. It is impossible to define the economic interests of consumers collectively. Again, see Mises.org for more on this. You generally do not try to serve consumers in the first place. We do not trust you, and neither should anyone else.
D.W. MacKenzie teaches economics at the Coast Guard Academy. (The contents of this paper do not reflect official views of The U.S. Coast Guard Academy.) Send him mail See D.W. MacKenzie’s article archive by googling.
Intimidated Americans Claim Not To Know Hasan’s Motives Dennis Prager
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
One reads and hears with increasing disbelief and anger that we don’t know the motive or motives of Nidal Malik Hasan, the Army major who fired over 100 shots at his fellow American soldiers in order to murder and maim as many as possible. Hasan ended up allegedly murdering 13 people, but government and Army spokesmen and the mainstream media claim they just can’t figure out why he did this. They are, however, certain that it was not an act of terrorism.
Sunday’s New York Times “Week in Review” article about Nidal Hasan was titled “When Soldiers Snap.” The gist of the article was that Maj. Hasan had snapped — even though he had never been in combat. He snapped in advance. Just two sentences in the article were devoted to the possibility that his motives were in any way relatable to his Muslim faith.
As Chris Matthews put it, “it’s unclear if religion was a factor in this shooting.” To Matthews, not only was it unclear if Hasan’s Islamic faith was “the” factor, it was unclear if it was even “a” factor.
Likewise, on NPR, Tom Gjelten offered the novel explanation that Hasan, who has never been in combat, may have suffered from “pre-traumatic stress disorder” because he anticipated having traumatic distress. “Was he an example,” Gjelten seriously asked, “of these soldiers who are literally freaked out by what they are likely to face when they are deployed?”
And on Fox News, Geraldo Rivera, said, “I don’t know what motivates him … as far as I know … he’s a sociopath; he’s a criminal. He could have had a toothache and gone off because of that.”
The deaths and maiming at Fort Hood are heartbreaking and angering. But ultimately far more injurious to America than the act of evil that caused those deaths and injuries is the massive self-deception American society engages in out of fear of being called bigoted, racist or “Islamaphobic.”
Any American who is not prepared to lie to himself has reason to believe that Hasan’s religious views were prominent, if not exclusive, factors for why he slaughtered fellow American soldiers. The motives appear as clear as any could be.
Chuck Medley, Fort Hood’s director of Emergency Services, told Reuters that Hasan yelled “Allahu Akbar” — the Arabic incantation of “Allah is the greatest” yelled by Islamic terrorists before they slaughter people — just before the shooting,
Dr. Val Finnell told The Associated Press that he and other classmates participating in a 2007-2008 master’s program with Hasan at the Uniformed Services University had complained about his comments, including that the war on terror was “a war against Islam.”
Another classmate told the AP that he complained to five officers and two civilian faculty members at the university. He also wrote to Pentagon officials that fear in the military of being seen as politically incorrect prevented an “intellectually honest discussion of Islamic ideology” in the ranks.
Other classmates who participated in a 2007-2008 master’s program at a military college said they, too, had complained to superiors about Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan’s anti-American views, which included his giving a presentation that justified suicide bombing and telling classmates that Islamic law trumped the U.S. Constitution.
And ABC News now reports that Hasan had attempted to contact al-Qaida.
It is a given that the vast majority of American Muslims are loyal Americans. But that’s not the only given.
It is equally a given that a certain percentage of Muslims in and outside of the military are Islamists who want Americans dead and America Muslim.
It does the majority of Muslims no favor to deny the existence of the minority. And Muslim Americans do themselves no favor by denying it. Unfortunately, Muslims are theoretically represented by groups like CAIR whose values are correctly seen by most Americans as suspect.
Americans are worried by the fact that there are Muslim Americans whose beliefs compel them to murder non-Muslim Americans. But what is even more worrisome is that American Muslim groups (and their supporters on the left) deny this.
Yes, change the letter c to the letter n and it spells demonrats. Here, soak up some more info you commie libs.
Counting the Cost Ed Feulner
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Elections have consequences. But sometimes we have to wait a bit to learn what they are.
Recall Barack Obama’s historic election. He glided into office last year, bringing along an increased Democratic majority in the House of Representatives and a seemingly filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.
How did he win? In part by promising to restore fiscal sanity.
“Obama also believes that after eight years of reckless fiscal policies that squandered historic surpluses and added $4 trillion to the deficit, it is vital for candidates to put forward specific ideas on how they will pay for their proposals.” So read the “comprehensive tax plan” posted on barackobama.com.
According to that plan, Obama would “reduce the deficit” both today and in the years ahead. Once elected, though, the president sketched out a budget that tripled the present deficit and would create a tide of red ink as far as the eye can see.
Obama also vowed to open up the lawmaking process. On health care reform, for example, he declared, “we’ll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies.”
But reality hasn’t matched the rhetoric.
Health care reform remains secret. As best anyone can tell, the Senate’s version was written by Majority Leader Harry Reid, possibly with input from the White House and liberal activists. It’s impossible to say when a final bill will appear or what it will cost, but $1 trillion seems a low “guesstimate.”
The process in the House has been just as confusing. After months of closed-door talks, Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently appeared with a 1,990 page bill. Now that that bill has passed (in haste), we’ll spend months and years learning about little provisions sprinkled throughout it that nobody had time to read before the vote. So much for discussion and transparency.
And health reform isn’t the only multi-trillion dollar bill being crafted under cover of darkness. Sens. Barbara Boxer and John Kerry have drafted a cap-and-trade bill that would supposedly combat global warming.
Last week, Boxer made a mockery of the supposed new era of transparency by passing the bill out of the Environment and Public Works committee she chairs even though no Republican senators were on hand and even though the Environmental Protection Agency hadn’t yet issued a detailed report on how much the bill could cost.
Global warming is perhaps the issue where it’s most important for the president to make good on his promises of transparency. A government-mandated transformation of the way America produces and uses energy is no small matter. Even if EPA had delivered an extensive cost analysis, the agency has its biases. A second (and third and fourth) opinion on the cost of this bill would be particularly valuable, especially from a source outside the federal government.
When Heritage examined an earlier version of cap-and trade, we found it would increase energy costs for an average household by $436 in 2012, and that costs would keep climbing to $1,241 in 2035. Electricity costs would go up 90 percent by 2035, gasoline by 58 percent, and natural gas by 55 percent. The cumulative higher energy costs over two decades for a family of four would be nearly $20,000.
And that says nothing of the one million jobs we estimated would be lost under the bill — even if it delivered on its promise to create new, “green” jobs. The Senate bill would likely ring up similar costs.
Which brings us back to the point that elections have consequences. Having had a year to weigh President Obama’s policies against Candidate Obama’s promises, voters have found his actions wanting.
This year they opted for more conservative candidates in New Jersey and Virginia’s gubernatorial races. If the president doesn’t start keeping his promises, the 2010 midterms may bring more of the same.
Getting back to the constitutionality, the language in the preamble about “promote the general welfare” only provides the framework for what follows, which actually spells out the specific powers of the various branches of teh federal government. As the constitution states, those powers not specifically assigned to the federal government are reserved for the states and ultimately, the people. Unfortunately, our federal government ignores this whole concept and has grasped more and more power over time and we’ve all let them do it.
The fact that the federal deficit increased during the Bush years does not excuse the increase we have seen under the current administration – more than all prior administrations combined! Sorry, but two wrongs don’t make a right.
As for this bill, it is nothing more than another power grab. One of our esteemed leaders said, “never let a crisis go to waste”, and that has become the mantra of the current government. This will be the prevailing concept as we see more and more of our individual rights taken from us through this bill, cap and trade and so on.
One commentor here mentioned the government soon taking our property. Well, everytime they tax us more, they do just that and as has been written in books about our freedoms, freedom will be compromised and ultimately taken away once government violates the principle of individual property ownership, which is the track we are on.
To those who opine that the opposition to this bill have not offered an alternative are simply repeating what many of its supporters are saying and that is patently false. All alternatives that have been proposed have been smacked down in favor of the government takeover. As for copmetition with private industry-how can private industry compete with a government that can print money and tax people to make up for losses? That’s really no difference than an insurer increasing premiums ecept that the government can hide it more easily.
True that people can end up in bankruptcy following a serious disease, so maybe the real government plan should only be to help them along much like unemployment insurance helps people out of work until they get back on their feet.
Medicare and its allied programs (VA system, etc.) are certainly government-run plans and look how they are run. There’s no incentive to keep costs under control or weed out abuse and faud because the government can simply hike costs and taxes to make up the difference and/or push the costs off via deficit spending onto future generations. If, as Obama said, they can fund the plan by weeding out abuse and fraud from medicare, why hasn’t this been done all along? Well, once again, it’s because there has been no incentive to do so and who believes they will actually do that after healthcare reform is instituted?
Alas, this healthcare bill does not reform healthcare-it substitutes one costly system with another, but it has been sold as a solution to the problem. Well, it will create a bigger and more expensive problem for all of us and still not guarantee that all those millions of people who are uninsured will be insured.
We are traveling down a dangerious road for our country by following this path to a more socialistic system. No matter how noble the idea of protecting everyone is, as the saying goes, someday you’ll run out of other people’s money. When that happens, the government will simply print more, but no one will be there to earn it, so it will therefore not be worth the paper it’s on and no other country will want it. That’s when our country collapses
To paraphrase T. Jefferson: A gov’t that has the power to give to you anything, also has the power to take from you everything.
Paraphrasing B. Franklin, in response to a question about what if the citizens of the fledging democracy voted to have the gov’t take from the most productive to give to the less productive, replied, ‘Those that seek such security over freedom will end up with neither.’
An ancient Greek philosopher wrote that all democracies contain within them the seeds of their own destruction, because, eventually, those who don’t have what they want will vote in a gov’t to take from others to give to them. This, he added, will result in civil strife, because exalting the least productive over the most productive will impoverish all and doom such a democracy to oblivion.
To quote the Roman gov’t official, writer, and philosopher Tacitus, “The more corrupt a gov’t, the more it legislates.”
Definition of a liberal: Someone who’s willing to give away everything that he or she doesn’t own.
Yep. Any when employers are required to pay a minimum of 72.5% for the employee’s coverage, and 65% of the employee’s family’s coverage, guess who will pay for that? Less salary due to “increased” benefits, and fewer jobs, so we’ll have to do more for less! What a great deal for everyone! Remember — employer’s/companies must make a profit to remain in business, so when certain expenses rise, enought increase in sales is required to maintain status quo, or other expenses must be cut (jobs?). Good luck to you all — I retire in two years!
Small employers identified as $500,000 and greater in payroll may be mandated to support 72.5% of single premium & 67% of family medical premium. This ruling puts more pressure on a smaller employer to PROVIDE medical insurance at the same rate as small employers with $500,000 in payroll. Therefore, any small employer (regardless of the amt of p/r) will have to provide med benefits to retain employees. Once again, small employers are disregarded and further economically pressured to survive.
Of course, big corps are pushing for this, because it benefits them at the expense of small businesses and working people. It’s a joke, another power grab by the DemonRats. (Yes, change to letter ‘n’ the letter ‘c’ and what does it spell?)
why does everyone continue to blame the health care INSURANCE carriers. the carriers must keep premiums in line with claims. i blame the health care PROVIDERS!!!!! money grubbing selfish thieves!!!!!