You know the only reason we have employers that provide insurance today is because during the depression they would not allow them to raise wages. Instead they let them add benefits. I would rather have a higher wage and let me chose who I get my insurance with. Let me be able to buy insurance in other states and make it more competitive.
Originally Posted by Artist Formally Known As
I think we'd all be better off if people started forming opinions based on reality and what can be done, rather than impossible hypothetical rationalizations. Would I be for an increase in my salary to afford health insurance for me and my family? I suppose that would be fine, but do I believe it would bring costs down? No way in hell. Larger companies are able to insure their employees for much less than any single person can. The reason for that is because they are buying in bulk...the more people, the better the rate. This is fairly common knowledge, and is the root purpose of the insurance exchanges in the healthcare bill. Without these pools of buyers, the cost would, and will be SIGNIFICANTLY more.
Tell me Artist, what kind of a health insurance policy can someone making minimum wage afford today? The current minimum wage is $7.25 an hour. Full time, that's $15,080 a year, or $1256 a month. Figure 15% in taxes and that equals about $1068. My mortgage alone is more than that! The truth is that with an average premium of $183 on a policy that has a $3000 yearly deductible is more than half this country living at or below poverty level can afford.
http://news.ehealthinsurance.com/pr/...ce-218305.aspx
Hence, without a mandate, you're just making the problem worse, not better. The simple fact is the cost of healthcare is either going to be the government's problem (ie. you and me as taxpayers), or shifted to the employer's and individual's burden (ie. Obamacare). So take your pick, so long as it's not some fairy tale of a plan where every person is allocated additional income to buy, or not buy health insurance at their choosing. Fact is we've already tried the "incentive" approach though plans like the Health Coverage Tax Credit, and the mess has still gotten worse. By the way, this so-called "burden" is not such a burden as you and other's are trying to make it out to be. Even now, 35% and as of 2014, 50% of eligible employer-paid premiums can be applied as a tax credit under the Health Care Tax Credit for Small Businesses plan.
F you do realize that if a company has less than 50 employees he does not have to provide health insurance and instead the burden is on the employee and if he can't afford it the government will fine the employee.
Originally Posted by Artist Formally Known As
Not exactly. If a business does not provide insurance and if at least one employee receives federal insurance subsidies in the exchange, the business will pay $2,000 per employee (minus the first 30). Example: a business with 50 employees, two of whom are subsidized, would pay $40,000 = $2,000 x (50 – 30).
To qualify for subsidies, an employee must meet two criteria. First, his or her household income must be less than 400% of the federal poverty level ($89,400 for a family of four in 2011). Second, the employee’s portion of the insurance premium must exceed 9.5% of household income. ($8493 if you're at the 400% level).
Sorry, but I am still no buying the "small businesses are not hiring because of Obamacare" argument. Besides the thought of small business not hiring based on a law that may or may not become effective two years from now, it's nothing but Koch brother's propaganda and Republican sound bytes to make you think repealing Obamacare is the answer. It's not. If that's not enough for you, the statistics don't show it either. In the last 33 months, small businesses have added 2.6 million jobs to our economy. A number that is outpacing the same time frame while recovering from the the 2001 recession.
Let me simplify that for the slow kids at the back of the room. Under Obama, small business has added 2.6 million jobs in the last 33 months. This is in contrast to the same time frame, 33 months after the 2001 recession under Bush, only 1.8 million jobs were added and subsequently lost and then some ( a serious understatement) by the end of his second term. Does anyone here honestly think Romney can outpace Bush or Obama on job creation during his first hypothetical 33 months in office? If so, please make me a large monetary wager.
http://www.businessweek.com/articles...-than-we-think
They must not be too worried about healthcare for their employees after all.