1 in 8 employer insurance plans getting axed under Obamacare

Yeah, it's so funny it was decided by the courts and has been the basis of law since about 1819...

I think you have the expansion of "necessary and proper" to include the merely convenient confused with the expansion of general welfare to include individual welfare. The first did happen in 1819, but the second was closer to 1936 after the coup of the court, the "Switch in Time That Saved Nine", had been accomplished by FDR and Congress. Darn that history, it just can't be revised fast and far enough to support the regressive distortions no matter how much they try.

There was no coup...But thanks for playing. "Must be the Printsmith Revisionist History Channel again."

Come now LJ, coup is an apt descriptor. Coup d'etat derives from the latin colaphus - blow with a fist, cuff, box on ear. A coup is defined as a sudden appropriation of power or leadership. The threat issued to the Supreme Court by FDR and Congress to either stop overturning their legislation or suffer the consequences of having additional judges seated who would prevent their legislation from being overturned clearly qualifies.

No really? That's where it comes from? Who knew?

There was no coup...But thanks for playing.

The "Switch in Time That Saved Nine" wasn't a sudden appropriation of power by FDR and Congress? Really? I gotta check out the color of the sky in that world of yours - the blue one in mine must pale by comparison.

As an employer, we just received a 8% increase in our healthcare insurance and it was about half due to coming regulations. No emotion just fact. We studied the the healthcare bill and its ramifications and it would be cheaper to not offer Blue Cross/Blue Shield and pay the penalty and tell our 250 employees to get government care. That in part is where the 1 in 8 employers may not offer insurance comes from. At the very least we will hold hiring to control costs and be evaluating the effect on the cost of coming REFORM.

The Bear wrote: As an employer, we just received a 8% increase in our healthcare insurance and it was about half due to coming regulations. No emotion just fact. We studied the the healthcare bill and its ramifications and it would be cheaper to not offer Blue Cross/Blue Shield and pay the penalty and tell our 250 employees to get government care. That in part is where the 1 in 8 employers may not offer insurance comes from. At the very least we will hold hiring to control costs and be evaluating the effect on the cost of coming REFORM.

What government care are you referring to? Do your employees qualify for Medicare or Medicaid or VA care?

I'm sure he meant "exchange" as opposed to care Dog.

The Bear wrote: We studied the the healthcare bill and its ramifications and it would be cheaper to not offer Blue Cross/Blue Shield and pay the penalty and tell our 250 employees to get government care. That in part is where the 1 in 8 employers may not offer insurance comes from. At the very least we will hold hiring to control costs and be evaluating the effect on the cost of coming REFORM.

And this was precisely the scenario hoped for by the Democrats when they passed the bill Bear. They figured if they set the penalty low enough, many employers would do precisely this and thus help them make their case for single payer later on. As Obama said, you can't get the nation to single payer in a single step, it has to be forced upon the nation gradually, step by step, just as the seizure of power by the federal government has been done. We all know that ObamaCare is simply the first step towards what the statists hope to saddle the nation with eventually.

PrintSmith wrote: And this was precisely the scenario hoped for by the Democrats when they passed the bill Bear. They figured if they set the penalty low enough, many employers would do precisely this and thus help them make their case for single payer later on.

I don't know if I agree that this was by design, although it may have been. But frankly if it has the effect of divorcing healthcare from employment, in the long run I think that's a good thing. You can hate "single payer" and still see the benefits of healtchare that is not linked to one's employment, can you not, PS?