And we see people above applauding this? The stupidity, it burns, it burns.

I’m seeing the same thing with my clients.

So if the health care plan is to require more employee benefits in a more uncertain business climate, there will be fewer employees on everybody’s staff.

First, the businesses will go broke; then the unemployed will go broke; then the local, state, and federal governments will go belly up because there will be inadequate tax revenue.

Jimbo3 on March 9, 2010 at 5:26 PM

OK-well if that’s the language, then a company will just have the option of dumping their ‘offered coverage’ & let their employess live off of a public option AKA govt mandate policy.
Either way- no one is winning.

–I think anyone with over 50 employees pays that, if I’m reading this correctly.

Jimbo3 on March 9, 2010 at 4:52 PM
This is what I don’t understand.

If you’re trying to argue that ObamaCare will not be a burden because companies with over 50 or even 200 employees only have to pay $750 each, you must also admit the fine is a poor incentive to getting people insured in the private sector, correct?

Chuck Schick on March 9, 2010 at 6:10 PM

–I’d be surprised if 95% of companies offering employee health insurance don’t already pay $750 for insurance (before considering employee contributions). So it’s tough for me to see how this is an additional burden in most cases.

To fully grasp the concept we must change the defining points of the program as it is designed, “womb to tomb”. I will not be surprised to hear in the third trimester that through micro surgery a chip is implanted into the embryo so the government can follow you from birth to death.

The middle class made a statement on 11/7/06 and 11/4/08 “if we go down, everyone is going down”. So they elected a radical leftist. They poked us in the eye and we deserved it. Are you happy corporate America & GOP? Not everyone wants to be a freaking entrepreneur. Some folks just want a secure job with good benefits. Darvin Dowdy

November can’t come fast enough. (You know this will be retroactive to 2008…)

Enough! I’ll close first.

“A Democratic aide says a new provision in the health care bill will require businesses to count part-time workers when calculating penalties for failing to provide coverage.”

.
The law of unintended consequences; mass firings of temporary workers.

Medicare and Social Security alone is $46 trillion short over the next 75 years, $3 trillion more than 2008.

ObamaCare is projected to save $131 billion over a decade, and that’s with only 6 years of spending.

$371 billion to stave off the 21% cut in doctor fees paid by Medicare is already in the 2011 budget.

So Obama’s already spent the projected savings from ObamaCare 3 times over.

–I think anyone with over 50 employees pays that, if I’m reading this correctly.

Jimbo3 on March 9, 2010 at 4:52 PM

This is what I don’t understand.

If you’re trying to argue that ObamaCare will not be a burden because companies with over 50 or even 200 employees only have to pay $750 each, you must also admit the fine is a poor incentive to getting people insured in the private sector, correct?

Changes
in ObamaCare will require businesses to count part-time workers for
coverage penalties
…

Here’s the text of the Senate provision:

SEC. 1511. AUTOMATIC ENROLLMENT FOR EMPLOYEES OF
13 LARGE EMPLOYERS.
The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 is amended by
inserting after section 18 (29 U.S.C. 218) the following:
‘‘SEC. 18A. AUTOMATIC ENROLLMENT FOR EMPLOYEES OF
17 LARGE EMPLOYERS.
18 ‘‘In accordance with regulations promulgated by the
19 Secretary, an employer to which this Act applies that has
20 more than 200 full-time employees and that offers employees enrollment in 1 or more health benefits plans shall automatically enroll new full-time employees in one of the plans offered (subject to any waiting period authorized by law)and to continue the enrollment of current employees in any health benefits plan offered through the employer. Any automatic enrollment program shall include adequate notice and the opportunity for an employee to opt out of any coverage the individual or employee were automatically enrolled in. Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede any State law which establishes, implements, or continues in effect any standard or requirement relating to employers in connection with payroll except to the extent that such standard or requirement prevents an employer from instituting the automatic enrollment program under this….

It mandates auto-enrollment in a firm:

Require employers with more than 200
employees to automatically enroll employees
into health insurance plans offered by the
employer. Employees may opt out of coverage.

Chuck Schick on March 9, 2010 at 12:41 PM
–It mandates auto enrollment if the employer offers those plans. That’s different from the usual current situation where employees have to affirmatively elect coverage.

Jimbo3 on March 9, 2010 at 3:01 PM

If that is truly what the bill says, I read this as the company is required to enroll its employess into coverage they offer, but it does not say IF they offer it.
So it can be construed that they MUST offer something & the employee must then be enrolled in it unless they opt out.
My 2 cents.

–Show me proof of my being a liar or stop defaming me.

Jimbo3 on March 9, 2010 at 11:08 AM
If we do that, will you drop off and never post on Hot Air again?

right2bright on March 9, 2010 at 1:48 PM

Yes. But remember the definition of “lie”: to state something that one knows to be false . So an honest mistake or disagreement doesn’t count as a lie.

–It mandates auto enrollment if the employer offers those plans. That’s different from the usual current situation where employees have to affirmatively elect coverage.

Jimbo3 on March 9, 2010 at 3:01 PM
Oh, so what you’re saying is that they get nailed with the $750 per employee as well?

Chuck Schick on March 9, 2010 at 4:02 PM

–I think anyone with over 50 employees pays that, if I’m reading this correctly.

–It mandates auto enrollment if the employer offers those plans. That’s different from the usual current situation where employees have to affirmatively elect coverage.

Jimbo3 on March 9, 2010 at 3:01 PM

Oh, so what you’re saying is that they get nailed with the $750 per employee as well?

Here is the future of medirat ( = medical rations) under SEIU+ UHW+ Comrades Obama and Stern