quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne




we will send you the bill!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

Just one flaw with his argument, and it hinges on the part you bolded.

The proposed MANDATORY costs to employers is at best going to offset the savings that they would realize if the current bills go through. Therefore, there will be no realized cost savings for employers, and it can be argued that it will cost even more to hire new people.

I would also point out that the way the current proposals are structured, it encourages businesses not to have more than 49 employees on the payroll, so there goes the idea of small business growth providing those extra jobs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomImus

A.) Is this 250K to 400K news jobs per year or saved jobs per year to replace the doctors who take up a different line of work after the government nationalizes health care?

B.) You forgot your obligatory reconciliation comment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brain

I don't see mandatory in bold anywhere so I don't know what you're talking about.  And like doing nothing is not going to cost anything?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

Just one flaw with his argument, and it hinges on the part you bolded.

The proposed MANDATORY costs to employers is at best going to offset the savings that they would realize if the current bills go through. Therefore, there will be no realized cost savings for employers, and it can be argued that it will cost even more to hire new people.

I would also point out that the way the current proposals are structured, it encourages businesses not to have more than 49 employees on the payroll, so there goes the idea of small business growth providing those extra jobs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brain

Do I have to post the link which says passing healthcare with the public option will reduce the budget deficit???

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne




we will send you the bill!

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

I don't get it. The idea is that if businesses pay less for health care, they will have more money and will spend it hiring.

1. What if they spend it on something else?  Big bonuses to top execs, for example?
2. What was the money going to that is now spent on health care? Presumably to employ people at the HMOs...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brain

I don't see mandatory in bold anywhere so I don't know what you're talking about.  And like doing nothing is not going to cost anything?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

Just one flaw with his argument, and it hinges on the part you bolded.

The proposed MANDATORY costs to employers is at best going to offset the savings that they would realize if the current bills go through. Therefore, there will be no realized cost savings for employers, and it can be argued that it will cost even more to hire new people.

I would also point out that the way the current proposals are structured, it encourages businesses not to have more than 49 employees on the payroll, so there goes the idea of small business growth providing those extra jobs.

I capped mandatory to put emphasis on the fact that the health care proposals in congress and at the white house include mandatory costs to employers. Even under your ideal situation (medical costs come down or are frozen because of the legislation), the mandates to pay for that coverage by an employer will create the exact same thing that is suggested is preventing them from hiring now (additional costs for health care). Now remember this is going to be on average an additional (according to the proposal put out yesterday) $2000 per employee per year, then add in the new taxes required to pay for this and the other spending bills, and tell me how this inspires an employer to expand?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

I don't get it. The idea is that if businesses pay less for health care, they will have more money and will spend it hiring.

1. What if they spend it on something else?  Big bonuses to top execs, for example?
2. What was the money going to that is now spent on health care? Presumably to employ people at the HMOs...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brain

I don't agree that it's going to cost the exact same amount or more. I don't agree because I will give you this example in the auto industry. Ford Motor Company manufactures cars in Canada and so does General Motors by the way, but they do it because they have cheaper health care costs in Canada. And Canada is using a progressive health care system which costs less and covers everyone.  I would call the Canadian system single-payer because the government pays and uses its negotiating power to bring down costs.

Ford Motor Company has a lot more than 49 employees working at that plant where they make F150s in Oakville. All I know is if they do it right it's going to cost less.  George Bush and Republicans complain about how government doesn't work and then they got elected for eight years and proved it, thank God those days are over. I'm confident if Democrats do this right it will employ a lot of people that need jobs and save a lot of money just like it does everywhere else in the world, Germany, Japan, Canada, Britain and I could go on and on and on. I'm just not buying it that it won't work.

 

 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brain

I don't see mandatory in bold anywhere so I don't know what you're talking about.  And like doing nothing is not going to cost anything?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

Just one flaw with his argument, and it hinges on the part you bolded.

The proposed MANDATORY costs to employers is at best going to offset the savings that they would realize if the current bills go through. Therefore, there will be no realized cost savings for employers, and it can be argued that it will cost even more to hire new people.

I would also point out that the way the current proposals are structured, it encourages businesses not to have more than 49 employees on the payroll, so there goes the idea of small business growth providing those extra jobs.

I capped mandatory to put emphasis on the fact that the health care proposals in congress and at the white house include mandatory costs to employers. Even under your ideal situation (medical costs come down or are frozen because of the legislation), the mandates to pay for that coverage by an employer will create the exact same thing that is suggested is preventing them from hiring now (additional costs for health care). Now remember this is going to be on average an additional (according to the proposal put out yesterday) $2000 per employee per year, then add in the new taxes required to pay for this and the other spending bills, and tell me how this inspires an employer to expand?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

Do I need ot remind anyone that private deduction would do the same thing and at least offer a teenee bit more control over your care et al?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brain

Do I have to post the link which says passing healthcare with the public option will reduce the budget deficit???

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne




we will send you the bill!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

I don't get it. The idea is that if businesses pay less for health care, they will have more money and will spend it hiring.

1. What if they spend it on something else?  Big bonuses to top execs, for example?
2. What was the money going to that is now spent on health care? Presumably to employ people at the HMOs...

Steven,

First, it is only an assumption that the current proposals would bring down the cost of health care, I would argue that the document put out yesterday admits that it won't (hence the phased out exemptions to help defray the expected increase in costs).

Second, none of the benefits seem to be scheduled to kick in for at least 3 years and most are outward from there. Meaning, that even if we assume that those benefits will bring down the cost of health care, it won't be for at least 3 or more years.

Finally, many of the tax hikes and other fees kick in immediately. Therefore, the cost of doing business is going to go up, the cost of hiring people is going to go up, and at best some relief may or may not come in years down the road. I could be wrong and they could be counting the number of new jobs that govt is going to create with these new agencies, but that is far from private employers being encouraged to go on a hiring spree.

Know what I mean?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne



Besides brain, how in your own words will it bring down the deficit?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brain

I don't know why you guys are fighting this, except to say you are brainwashed by ideology just as I was 10 years ago.  I have become pragmatic and I go with what works. Other countries have proven this works because it covers everyone and it costs less. You can think up all the silly reasons you want to say how it won't work. But the evidence is all over the world with other industrialized countries that cover all their citizens with decent health care and it doesn't matter if you're rich or poor, everyone is treated the same. What a lot of people are forgetting is that they are one layoff away and one serious illness away from going bankrupt with health care costs.

Take Dick Cheney for example, that bastard has had five heart attacks as well as 5 deferments.  The son of a bitch had another heart attack recently and of course he is a 'socialist' because he is using government health care, the same healthcare Republicans like him don't want you to have.

I would love to see that slimeball for ideological reasons say that he's not a socialist and he doesn't want 'government health care' and pay for his bloody care himself.  

Unfortunately, Dick Cheney can afford to pay for his own health care but just remember that the average middle-class person who loses their job can't.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

Do I need ot remind anyone that private deduction would do the same thing and at least offer a teenee bit more control over your care et al?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brain

Do I have to post the link which says passing healthcare with the public option will reduce the budget deficit???

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne




we will send you the bill!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brain

Why don't you open your eyes to the fact that it works in 100% of the other countries all around the world and stop wasting time coming up with stupid reasons that it won't work?   Not just you but all you people.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

I don't get it. The idea is that if businesses pay less for health care, they will have more money and will spend it hiring.

1. What if they spend it on something else?  Big bonuses to top execs, for example?
2. What was the money going to that is now spent on health care? Presumably to employ people at the HMOs...

Steven,

First, it is only an assumption that the current proposals would bring down the cost of health care, I would argue that the document put out yesterday admits that it won't (hence the phased out exemptions to help defray the expected increase in costs).

Second, none of the benefits seem to be scheduled to kick in for at least 3 years and most are outward from there. Meaning, that even if we assume that those benefits will bring down the cost of health care, it won't be for at least 3 or more years.

Finally, many of the tax hikes and other fees kick in immediately. Therefore, the cost of doing business is going to go up, the cost of hiring people is going to go up, and at best some relief may or may not come in years down the road. I could be wrong and they could be counting the number of new jobs that govt is going to create with these new agencies, but that is far from private employers being encouraged to go on a hiring spree.

Know what I mean?