YewNork
(449 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Sep-05-09 08:50 AM
Original message |
"My employer will stop my health insurance, and just pay the penalty because would be cheaper." |
|
When people throw this argument at me, I calmly reply to them that if this were true then why doesn't their employer stop offering insurance right now? Their employer could do that today and pay no penalty. Zero, zip, nada. That would be even cheaper than paying a penalty. But their employer doesn't do that, do they?
For decades, there has been nothing to legally require employers to offer health insurance, and most don't offer it out of the goodness of their hearts. They offer it because other employers do, and that if they want to attract the best employees they need to offer competitive benefits.
If employers offer health insurance now, when there is no financial penalty for not offering it, what makes people think that once a penalty is enacted that employers will stop offering it, en masse.
|
WCGreen
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Sep-05-09 08:52 AM
Response to Original message |
1. Well, for one, Helath Insurance provided as a benifit is tax deductable to |
|
the business...
I am sure that penalties would not be deductable.
|
ret5hd
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Sep-05-09 09:14 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
4. So you imagine that the tax deductable status of health insurance... |
WCGreen
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Sep-05-09 09:16 AM
Response to Reply #4 |
|
The penalties from not providing health care to employees would not be deductable.
|
stray cat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Sep-05-09 08:54 AM
Response to Original message |
2. My employer pays about 10-15000 per year for me - I guess because otherwise we would leave |
daa
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Sep-05-09 08:54 AM
Response to Original message |
|
drip by drip. First the employees lost retiree care, then family care (employee only), higher copays and higher deductables. It is already worthless.
|
YewNork
(449 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Sep-05-09 11:03 AM
Response to Reply #3 |
7. Yes, but Rush, Sean, and Glenn have all told us that the alternative is socialism, whatever that is. |
|
I just know it's bad, because if they say it's bad then it must be.
Thank God I'll be eligible for good old all-American Medicare some day, instead of that socialism health insurance that Obama wants to give us.
|
Bonhomme Richard
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Sep-05-09 09:57 AM
Response to Original message |
6. They might end up with a better plan. n/t |
sftwrngnr
(15 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Sep-05-09 02:26 PM
Response to Original message |
|
The purpose of the penalty is two fold: 1.) To encourage employers to provide health insurance options for their employees, and 2.) in the event that the employer chooses not to provide health insurance for their employees, the penalty kicks in, and the penalty helps to subsidize the public option which the employees would be eligible for.
|
YewNork
(449 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Sep-05-09 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
9. Although there would be no requirement for them to use the public option. |
|
They could buy insurance from a private insurer if they wanted.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Wed May 01st 2024, 04:29 PM
Response to Original message |