New Bill Covers 97 Percent Of Americans, Costs $600 Billion

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

WASHINGTON — Democrats on a key Senate Committee outlined a revised and far less costly health care plan Wednesday night that includes a government-run insurance option and an annual fee on employers who do not offer coverage to their workers.

The plan carries a 10-year price tag of slightly over $600 billion, and would lead toward an estimated 97 percent of all Americans having coverage, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

...

The [plan] calls for a government-run health insurance option to compete with private coverage plans.

...

Additionally, the revised proposal calls for a $750 annual fee on employers for each full-time worker not offered coverage through their job. The fee would be set at $375 for part-time workers. Companies with fewer than 25 employees would be exempt. The fee was forecast to generate $52 billion over 10 years, money the government would use to help provide subsidies to those who cannot afford insurance.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/01/t...s_n_224509.html

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Additionally, the revised proposal calls for a $750 annual fee on employers for each full-time worker not offered coverage through their job. The fee would be set at $375 for part-time workers.

What? They propose $750.00 p.a. per not covered employee? What a bargain! My employer shells out roughly $8,500.00 p.a. in premiums for the insurance plan I have. What would be the incentive for my emplotyer to keep paying this high premium if they can get away with paying a petty fee to Uncle Sam instead?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

What would be the incentive for my emplotyer to keep paying this high premium if they can get away with paying a petty fee to Uncle Sam instead?

Retention will never not be an issue, you know.

[AlHayatZween 2]

Additionally, the revised proposal calls for a $750 annual fee on employers for each full-time worker not offered coverage through their job. The fee would be set at $375 for part-time workers.

What? They propose $750.00 p.a. per not covered employee? What a bargain! My employer shells out roughly $8,500.00 p.a. in premiums for the insurance plan I have. What would be the incentive for my emplotyer to keep paying this high premium if they can get away with paying a petty fee to Uncle Sam instead?

good point!

also, what happens to the other 3%?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

also, what happens to the other 3%?

No one likes them.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

What would be the incentive for my emplotyer to keep paying this high premium if they can get away with paying a petty fee to Uncle Sam instead?

Retention will never not be an issue, you know.

True but the math is just not exactly in favor of employers in general continuing to offer health benefits. Rather, they could up the salaries some and offer supplemental insurance to whatever the public option offers. Canada, here we come.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Rather, they could up the salaries some and offer supplemental insurance to whatever the public option offers. Canada, here we come.

Would you object to that?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

also, what happens to the other 3%?

No one likes them.

I'm assuming these are the wealthiest top 3%?

[mawilson 2,133]

Additionally, the revised proposal calls for a $750 annual fee on employers for each full-time worker not offered coverage through their job. The fee would be set at $375 for part-time workers.

What? They propose $750.00 p.a. per not covered employee? What a bargain! My employer shells out roughly $8,500.00 p.a. in premiums for the insurance plan I have. What would be the incentive for my emplotyer to keep paying this high premium if they can get away with paying a petty fee to Uncle Sam instead?

Yeah really, some penalty.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

also, what happens to the other 3%?

No one likes them.

I'm assuming these are the wealthiest top 3%?

Most likely the bottom 3%, who can't even afford the government plan.

[AlHayatZween 2]

also, what happens to the other 3%?

No one likes them.

I'm assuming these are the wealthiest top 3%?

Most likely the bottom 3%, who can't even afford the government plan.

Too poor for the gov plan, but too rich for Medicaid?

Should we just kill this 3% off... ?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

also, what happens to the other 3%?

No one likes them.

I'm assuming these are the wealthiest top 3%?

Most likely the bottom 3%, who can't even afford the government plan.

Too poor for the gov plan, but too rich for Medicaid?

Should we just kill this 3% off... ?

With just the right amount of neglect, they will die off naturally, inshallah.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Rather, they could up the salaries some and offer supplemental insurance to whatever the public option offers. Canada, here we come.

Would you object to that?

Depends on the numbers, doesn't it? So, my employer pays 8K for my health insurance.

If that would change to where I get, say 4K which, along with the premiums I already pay (4K), buys me a public plan insurance and my employer uses 2-3K of the remaining 4K to offer up a supplemental insurance plan (dental, prescription, vision) while shelling out 750 to Uncle Sam for not providing medical coverage, it could be a win for everyone. Note that I'd let my empoyer realize some savings on this as long as I come out even.

If, however, employer decides to merely pay off Uncle Sam and leave me high and dry on purchasing the 8K public plan myself, then I think I'd have an objection or two - and probably my resume out there before long.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

... probably my resume out there before long.

Exactly. Retention will always be an issue for employers.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

... probably my resume out there before long.

Exactly. Retention will always be an issue for employers.

I know. That's why I ain't all that worried.