1 in 8 employer insurance plans getting axed under Obamacare

The whole idea was to separate it so people could freely move between jobs, cities, counties, states, etc., without suddenly starting over with a waiting period for "pre-existing conditions"... Your coverage moves with you...

Of course, that is anathema to the Righties... Anything that promotes freedom for consumers, and a possible drop in corporate profits can't be good...

PrintSmith wrote: 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.

I don't know what he meant by government care, that is why I asked him. Exchanges are merely clearing houses for finding the best policy for small businesses and individuals.

It must be great to be so prescient that only you are able to discern the "scenario hoped for by the Democrats", because it sounds like just more demagoguery with no facts to support it. And of course President Obama has never said anything about forcing single payer on the nation gradually step by step, just as the seizure of power by the federal government has done. Just another lie by conservatives.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7p_mUwzoYcc

Come now Dog, there are too many Democrats on the record as wanting single payer and getting there over time for you to have a prayer of pretending otherwise.

AspenValley wrote:

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?

Absolutely AV, which is why I supported McCain in his desire to move the tax deduction for health insurance away from businesses to individuals and have consistently advocated for the ability to sell insurance across state lines without having a laundry list of mandatory coverage inclusions tacked on by each individual state. I think that health insurance should be sold on the same basis that auto insurance and life insurance currently are. I think that a 10 or 20 year policy with a fixed premium, akin to term life insurance, is a fabulous idea for health insurance as well. I think that the individual policy should be the norm, not the exception because that directly ties the insured to their risk, the deductible that they choose, the coverage they wish to purchase and their history regarding how often their choices result in the insurance company having to pay a claim.

Government has no business driving up the cost of insurance by tacking on mandatory coverages that require insurance companies to pay from the first dollar of care. That isn't insurance, that is a pre-paid health policy. It's akin to having my auto insurance be required to pay for the majority of the cost of every oil change, every brake job and every new set of tires I purchase for my car. Would my auto insurance be much more expensive under such a scenario? You bet it would. It would also drive up the cost of those services since my participation in the cost would be greatly diminished. I likely would no longer change the oil in the car myself, at my expense, if I could go to the Grease Monkey down the block and pay a fraction of the cost and have my insurance company pick up the rest. I would also be more inclined to change the oil more often since I could get it done every 3 months or 3,000 miles for a lot less money than I used to pay when I paid for 100% of the cost, which would also tend to increase the cost of the insurance because now there was more utilization that the insurance company has to pick up the majority of the cost for. The various Grease Monkey type facilities would also no longer have to worry about competing for my business based on cost because my cost is fixed. I would also likely insist on the more expensive 100% synthetic oil and the premium filter because, heck, it isn't costing me any more, right?

The problems with the cost of health care and health insurance are the result of government intrusion into the marketplace. As with the current problem with the deficit, you don't fix the problem by doing more of what caused the problem to begin with, which is precisely what power and control hungry wannabe national government in DC is most famous for - making the problem they created worse than it was by taking more control in order to fix the problem they created to begin with.

PrintSmith wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7p_mUwzoYcc

Come now Dog, there are too many Democrats on the record as wanting single payer and getting there over time for you to have a prayer of pretending otherwise.

So where is the clip that has President Obama discussing forcing single payer on the nation gradually step by step, just as the seizure of power by the federal government has done. Just another lie by conservatives.

Something the Dog Said wrote:

PrintSmith wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7p_mUwzoYcc

Come now Dog, there are too many Democrats on the record as wanting single payer and getting there over time for you to have a prayer of pretending otherwise.

So where is the clip that has President Obama discussing forcing single payer on the nation gradually step by step, just as the seizure of power by the federal government has done. Just another lie by conservatives.

[youtube:tj42zovj][/youtube:tj42zovj]

Very first one Dog - from 2003 when he was a state senator talking to the unions. All for a single payer system, but you can't do it immediately, have to get control of the government first and do it gradually. Thanks, by the way, for the silent affirmation that single payer is what Democrats want and that the so called public option was to be the first step in that journey to single payer.

There is a reason they call themselves Democrats - they want a democracy, not a republic. There is a reason that Democrats such as Obama continually refer to our democracy and never to our republic. I believe it was Van Jones who said, and I'm paraphrasing here, that he was willing to shed the radical appearance to achieve the radical goals. That describes our current executive to a 'T'. He hasn't shed his desire for single payer, nor have the rest of the statists - many of them here proclaim as much quite openly in fact. You all know that you can't take the system we have to a single payer in a single step, if you tried the nation would toss you out on your ear. So, the question then becomes how can the current system be taken down in a manner that will result in the people asking for the outcome they have desired all along. Step by step is how. Obama is no different from the radicals like Van Jones that he has surrounded himself with since being elected as the executive. He too is willing to shed the appearance to achieve the end goal - by hook or by crook, as the debate surrounding the passage of ObamaCare clearly showed - never lose sight of the goal.

Have you noticed that Boehner hasn't been bribing anyone to get his debt limit plan through the legislature? Have you noticed the absolute lack of necessity in bribing people, or threatening them, to tow the party line or else they will lose funding for a pet project, or gain funding for a pet project, or lose their seat on a committee as practiced by former Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid as they attempted to cram their agenda through Congress during the last session?

PrintSmith....have you been into the happy juice again? Whatever you're drinking...it must be absolutely mind numbing. Boehner had to browbeat, cajole, threaten, beg and finally give the tea party what they wanted. And what did he accomplish? Absolutely nothing. There is no honor is getting a deal that can never be law. There is no victory in failing to achieve what you set out to accomplish....a bipartisan compromise that could become law. Poor Boehner...he is a BIG loser in all this.