Does the Baucus plan calls for wealth transfer from employees to employers and requires them to buy

[TheKentuckian]

insurance they may not be able to afford to use?

Am I reading this correctly? The picture I'm getting from Mad Max's bill is that obviously individuals are required by law to carry health insurance, some will get subsidies that are in the lower income ranges, employers have no mandate but have incentives to encourage employers not to drop coverage but if they do then the employee is still on the hook to provide themselves with coverage.

Hasn't Baucus set up a ton of people that have their insurance paid for either in part or fully to potentially get robbed of that hidden effective income without recourse to recover those now evaporated wages? Doesn't the tax on on the top level plans create strong incentives for the insurance companies to reduce benefits while encouraging employers to chose less expensive and therefore less comprehensive plans?

Doesn't that squeeze play also slowly steal value from working stiffs who have spent the last 20 years trading pay for quality insurance?

The way this is structured it very much appears that the Baucus plan will with one fell swoop, depress wages by stealing the value of employer contributions without requiring the dollars be refunded to the employee while it over time will create insurance plans that are less comprehensive?

Then the next big issue that I see that isn't being discussed is that we are looking at saddling lower income people with mandated insurance that looks like it will only cover around 70% of costs. Won't this naturally result in lower income folks being forced to pay (or the government if they cannot) for plans that will still leave so much uncovered that they may as well have nothing. People that are earning 20k pre-tax just don't have the resources to handle higher co-pays and 30% of their bills. The people with the least money need the best coverage, plans with minimal co-pays and the highest possible levels of coverage.

Basic coverage for low income people seems like a sham. I'd think the higher your income the more you'd be able to handle paying more but we're designing a plan that makes those with the least on the hook for the most out of their stretched budgets. I thought this was exactly why so many higher income people go with a catastrophic policies and favor the medical savings accounts so much because they can afford to pay for what they use.

[TheKentuckian]

1. No thoughts, feedback, or clarification? I'd think this stuff is important (nt)

[cliffordu]

2. Good questions. I'll K&R.