Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Tully: Baucus legislation 'a disaster for the middle class'

Health Care Baucus Legislation 2009

  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

#1 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 22 September 2009 - 04:57 PM

I'm not going to try to do a chop job on it. You can read it here. Basically, since employers will pay no more than $400 per employee per year for dumping them into the exchange, if you have employer-provided health insurance there's a good chance you'll lose it. Plus, you may get a stealth tax increase. Possibly a huge one. This is because while employers may initially give raises to compensate for the lost insurance benefits, those raises aren't tax-deductible like insurance benefits and will thus be taxed.

(Tully, at one point says that when it comes to the fine on the employer, the $400/employee fine will always be less than paying the subsidies for its low-income employees. I don't think this is necessarily true, but it makes little difference to his examples. We know that the maximum fine on the employer for dropping coverage is $400/employee.)

Tully previously analyzed the House's version of the legislation and identified those who effectively get their pay axed and those who come out ahead.

Enjoy your change.
"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#2 Nick

Nick

    ...

  • Islander
  • 7,130 posts

Posted 22 September 2009 - 05:02 PM

Easy fix:  allow "before tax" dollars to be used in the exchange, or make income used to purchase healthcare tax-exempt.  I'd prefer the former (less withheld), but would settle for the latter.

#3 scherzo

scherzo

    I know things

  • Islander
  • 3,388 posts

Posted 22 September 2009 - 07:18 PM

View PostPalisade, on Sep 22 2009, 05:57 PM, said:

I'm not going to try to do a chop job on it. You can read it here. Basically, since employers will pay no more than $400 per employee per year for dumping them into the exchange, if you have employer-provided health insurance there's a good chance you'll lose it. Plus, you may get a stealth tax increase. Possibly a huge one. This is because while employers may initially give raises to compensate for the lost insurance benefits, those raises aren't tax-deductible like insurance benefits and will thus be taxed.

(Tully, at one point says that when it comes to the fine on the employer, the $400/employee fine will always be less than paying the subsidies for its low-income employees. I don't think this is necessarily true, but it makes little difference to his examples. We know that the maximum fine on the employer for dropping coverage is $400/employee.)

Tully previously analyzed the House's version of the legislation and identified those who effectively get their pay axed and those who come out ahead.

Enjoy your change.
I've heard this case made against obamacare before. If it turns out to be anything close to true, the employed masses who were perfectly happy with their insurance will be none too pleased with the fed rocking their world. But it is a perfect microcosm of the socialist aesthetic at work. Leveling the playing field by spreading the misery around. Screw the change, I'd like a full refund please...
"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."    -Ronald Reagan, October 27 1964
Posted Image

#4 Nittany Lioness

Nittany Lioness

    Craving a little perspective.

  • Islander
  • 3,537 posts

Posted 24 September 2009 - 06:49 AM

Well, of course.  This scenario has been predicted before.  I've voiced this worry over and over again.

There is starting to be rumblings that a mandate would be challenged in court.  And as I've asked before, :bored:
I'm puzzled by how the gov't thinks it can require private companies to offer a perk on penalty of fine.
We're circling the looking glass, people.

Anyway - Hey, why is the word "exchange" being used?  I don't understand exactly what is meant by that.  What precisely is being exhanged, and by whom?

I'm cold Howard.jpg




Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Health Care, Baucus Legislation, 2009

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users