Special Session???

[SQLGeek]

A little side note of what some people may do because they are forced to pay for non-working people. I was listening to talk radio on the way back from Austin the other morning and a caller called in about the bill. He said the company he works for pays on average $3100/month for healthcare for their employees with a profit margin of 12 to 13%. He stated that the company was issuing a memo on Monday that effective June 1 the company would no longer pay for the employees health care cost. Rather, the company would pay the $2000 fine per employee for not providing insurance which would actually double their profit margin. I believe that company will not be the first or last to do that.

I wouldn't be surprised if many companies followed suit and I wouldn't be surprised if that is also expected by those that passed this legislation. It will be the perfect setup to introduce the public option, IMO.

[jackj87]

A little side note of what some people may do because they are forced to pay for non-working people. I was listening to talk radio on the way back from Austin the other morning and a caller called in about the bill. He said the company he works for pays on average $3100/month for healthcare for their employees with a profit margin of 12 to 13%. He stated that the company was issuing a memo on Monday that effective June 1 the company would no longer pay for the employees health care cost. Rather, the company would pay the $2000 fine per employee for not providing insurance which would actually double their profit margin. I believe that company will not be the first or last to do that.

I wouldn't be surprised if many companies followed suit and I wouldn't be surprised if that is also expected by those that passed this legislation. It will be the perfect setup to introduce the public option, IMO.

I cannot agree with you more. It seems that both sides will have dire consequences. Don't pay and get a fine then a public option for the employees. If you do pay for them then the progressives will say how great its working.

[frazzled]

You have the right just take the bus and you won't need insurance to exercise it.

You have the right to disco. You have the right to Party, but you gotta fight for it. If its your party you have the right to cry if you want to, cry if you want to.

[bayouhazard]

A little side note of what some people may do because they are forced to pay for non-working people. I was listening to talk radio on the way back from Austin the other morning and a caller called in about the bill. He said the company he works for pays on average $3100/month for healthcare for their employees with a profit margin of 12 to 13%. He stated that the company was issuing a memo on Monday that effective June 1 the company would no longer pay for the employees health care cost. Rather, the company would pay the $2000 fine per employee for not providing insurance which would actually double their profit margin. I believe that company will not be the first or last to do that.

I wouldn't be surprised if many companies followed suit and I wouldn't be surprised if that is also expected by those that passed this legislation. It will be the perfect setup to introduce the public option, IMO.

Wouldn't it make more sense for a company to arrange for group health insurance but offer no subsidy? The company would incur some administrative costs, but it's probably more cost effective than paying a penalty for each employee.

[frazzled]

A little side note of what some people may do because they are forced to pay for non-working people. I was listening to talk radio on the way back from Austin the other morning and a caller called in about the bill. He said the company he works for pays on average $3100/month for healthcare for their employees with a profit margin of 12 to 13%. He stated that the company was issuing a memo on Monday that effective June 1 the company would no longer pay for the employees health care cost. Rather, the company would pay the $2000 fine per employee for not providing insurance which would actually double their profit margin. I believe that company will not be the first or last to do that.

I wouldn't be surprised if many companies followed suit and I wouldn't be surprised if that is also expected by those that passed this legislation. It will be the perfect setup to introduce the public option, IMO.

Of course, nothing was keeping them from dropping coverage in the first place, so its a bit of a nonsequitor, or more likely, an excuse.

[chabouk]

The car insurance comparison is perfect, and I can't believe it got sidetracked into a "right to travel" discussion.

Here's the comparison: no one is required to purchase liability insurance (or prove financial responsibility as an alternative), unless they want to do one specific thing: drive a motor vehicle on a public road. You can own a car. You can drive a car. You can do neither. You can travel by foot, bicycle, or horseback. You can hire a ride, or beg rides from strangers. None of that requires you to purchase insurance unless you drive a motor vehicle on a public road.

But, what the government has just enacted in the equivalent of requiring you to purchase liability insurance even if you don't own a car, even if you walk everywhere you go, even if you never leave your own house. You must purchase health insurance even if you don't believe in modern medical care and never go to doctors or hospitals. Merely as a condition of existing, you must pay. This is effectively a per capita tax.

The amazing thing is that the liberal left is loudly cheering that the Democrat majority just made it mandatory that all Americans purchase products from Big Business insurance companies.

[driver8]

Yeah I don't know how I got sidetracked on that. I know a lawyer here in town that does that in court. He just throws a bunch of stuff at the wall and hopes something sticks.

[Kythas]

The car insurance comparison is perfect, and I can't believe it got sidetracked into a "right to travel" discussion.

Here's the comparison: no one is required to purchase liability insurance (or prove financial responsibility as an alternative), unless they want to do one specific thing: drive a motor vehicle on a public road. You can own a car. You can drive a car. You can do neither. You can travel by foot, bicycle, or horseback. You can hire a ride, or beg rides from strangers. None of that requires you to purchase insurance unless you drive a motor vehicle on a public road.

But, what the government has just enacted in the equivalent of requiring you to purchase liability insurance even if you don't own a car, even if you walk everywhere you go, even if you never leave your own house. You must purchase health insurance even if you don't believe in modern medical care and never go to doctors or hospitals. Merely as a condition of existing, you must pay. This is effectively a per capita tax.

The amazing thing is that the liberal left is loudly cheering that the Democrat majority just made it mandatory that all Americans purchase products from Big Business insurance companies.

Again, the distinction here is who has the power to require you to purchase anything. Constitutionally, the Federal government has very limited powers. Any power not specifically enumerated in the Constitution is reserved to the States or to the People.

The Federal government doesn't require we purchase car insurance - the State government does, which is within its power to do so.

The Federal government has no Constitutional authority to require we purchase anything. That power is reserved to the several States, per the 10th Amendment.

[bizarrenormality]

Again, the distinction here is who has the power to require you to purchase anything. Constitutionally, the Federal government has very limited powers. Any power not specifically enumerated in the Constitution is reserved to the States or to the People.

It's time for The People to remind the politicians that.

[sjfcontrol]

Again, the distinction here is who has the power to require you to purchase anything. Constitutionally, the Federal government has very limited powers. Any power not specifically enumerated in the Constitution is reserved to the States or to the People.

It's time for The People to remind the politicians that.

They've been reminded -- we've been reminding them for months -- they didn't care.

[bizarrenormality]

It's time for The People to remind the politicians that.

They've been reminded -- we've been reminding them for months -- they didn't care.

Like dealing with other bad guys, there's a force continuum. Words are near one end.

[joe817]

Again, the distinction here is who has the power to require you to purchase anything. Constitutionally, the Federal government has very limited powers. Any power not specifically enumerated in the Constitution is reserved to the States or to the People.

It's time for The People to remind the politicians that.

They've been reminded -- we've been reminding them for months -- they didn't care.

Their final reminder will be election time. And it will be a rude awakening.

[Kythas]

Again, the distinction here is who has the power to require you to purchase anything. Constitutionally, the Federal government has very limited powers. Any power not specifically enumerated in the Constitution is reserved to the States or to the People.

It's time for The People to remind the politicians that.

They've been reminded -- we've been reminding them for months -- they didn't care.

Their final reminder will be election time. And it will be a rude awakening.

They think we'll have forgotten about it by then. In fact, they're banking on it.

[KC5AV]

Again, the distinction here is who has the power to require you to purchase anything. Constitutionally, the Federal government has very limited powers. Any power not specifically enumerated in the Constitution is reserved to the States or to the People.

It's time for The People to remind the politicians that.

They've been reminded -- we've been reminding them for months -- they didn't care.

Their final reminder will be election time. And it will be a rude awakening.

They think we'll have forgotten about it by then. In fact, they're banking on it.

Sadly, they are probably right for the majority of those who vote. We need to do our best to keep it in the public eye until then.

[TxDrifter]

Mark -- I don't know how old you are, but I'm betting I spend more per month on health care insurance than you do.
I spend a FORTUNE to insure myself and may wife.
If (when) this passes, my rates will SKYROCKET.
I will be paying for myself, and a few other people who can't afford it.
Yeah, thanks, Mark. Hope you enjoy the insurance I'm paying for.
Hope you enjoy waiting in line to get your broken arm fixed -- maybe they'll have an opening for you 18 months from now. Or maybe, if you're my age. They'll figure your too old to treat...

Welcome to socialized medicine.

Why cant we do it better? Why are you already quitting before we've begun?
Also isnt it great to have Insurance? Remember when you didnt? Remember what that felt like?
You are allready paying for Medical treatment for people, why do you think it costs more to fix an arm HERE than it does in Canada, or Europe, its not because there is anything magical going on in setting a cast here in America, its because of the bloated mess Hostipals have become due to insurance companies and people not being able to pay.
I got charged 30 dollars for a bottle of asprin, anyone care to explain how thats possible?

that we can do better AND if the Government would have stayed out of it and allowed them to compete as normal, just like they messed up the mortgage system by forcing banks to loan to those that can't afford it, things would be working much better. Working within the bounds of the Constitution (remember it?) and allowing insurance to compete across state lines (interstate commerce is under their domain). Try reading how much all of your treatments and test costs through that insurance and then try offering cash to pay for it. Watch how fast the cost plummets, maybe not as much as a few years ago, but it will. FREEDOM means I should not be forced to pay for someone else's insurance and it is INSURANCE, not health care. Texas has had some success with tort reform and they chose not to model that, but the failed program in MA. If it was about what works, then use what HAS worked rather than trying to force what has failed.

If they would stop stealing my money and giving it to others via the IRS I would have some left to donate to hospital and church programs that are explicitly used to cover people without insurance. Under a free market economy people have the choice to purchase high end cable, expensive cell phones, new cars, fast food, etc. rather than health insurance and that is how it should be. My choice has now been taken from me and that means my freedom has.

This was an interesting read: http://whiskeyandgunpowder.com/healthca ... k-to-cash/ and might help explain why it costs more. Even more of one is "New Deal or Raw Deal". It is downright scary since we are repeating that time in history all over again. I have no love for FDR after reading this and commend Ford Motor Company for fighting the Government boot heel, twice.

Someone else's turn on the soapbox.... LOL