Supreme Court upholds ObamaCare.

[hog88]

^^ Yes it does, allot will find it cheaper to pay the "tax" instead of the benifit or just lower the employer contribution to mach the "tax". That would put the entire burden on the employee who would then not get the tax credit because insurance is offered at work.

Face it the ones that will be hurt the most are the lower middle class blue collar families. Yes, most employers with a profesional work force will need to keep it as a recruitment tool.

 

[82_VOL_83]

Romneys plan was that the insurance problem was a decision made at the state level not the federal government level.

The Associated Press: Tax penalty to hit nearly 6M uninsured people

A national mandate and a state mandate are two completely different animals.

Not for a socialist, they are one in the same.

 

[utvolpj]

Does not say there is any incentive to change, if you are already offering.

oh, so what does this part mean?

it will be ludicrous for employers to continue offering coverage for their employees

if there's no incentive then why would it be "ludicrous" for them to continue?

You linked it so now explain it

 

[82_VOL_83]

I do believe you have it wrong.

The mandate is on the individual to have insurance. They can get it through an employer, or buy it singularly, or buy it through a state run pooling mechanism. But, the employer is not required to offer it, nor does the employer pay a tax if he does not.

Are you really that ignorant of the law, it's a double dip by Barry. If you have over 50 employees, you have to offer it or pay a fine. I you as an employee don't get it (i.e. opt out) you have to get it from somewhere or pay a fine. This isn't a tax, Barry said it wasn't. It is a mandate. Call it what you want, (The SCOTUS didn't call it a tax, they just said it was constitutional under the taxation clause), it's a mandate. Que up for those big auto mandates, over weight mandates, eating meat mandates, driving over 50 miles a day mandates.....oh they are just lined up for 2013 and on.

 

[lawgator1]

If you are employed by a large company, in part because it offers health insurance coverage and pays all or a significant part of it, if the employer switches to just paying the penalty, would that make a difference to you as an employee?

In the alternative world, where the ACA was not passed, your employer has even more incentive to stop offering insurance because then he pays nothing.

The adoption of the penalty isn't going to change the behavior of a large employer on offering health care because, if the employer was going to withdraw that benefit, then the presence of the penalty -- which is a fraction of the cost of providing coverage -- will not change that decision.

 

[utvolpj]

If you are employed by a large company, in part because it offers health insurance coverage and pays all or a significant part of it, if the employer switches to just paying the penalty, would that make a difference to you as an employee?

In the alternative world, where the ACA was not passed, your employer has even more incentive to stop offering insurance because then he pays nothing.

The adoption of the penalty isn't going to change the behavior of a large employer on offering health care because, if the employer was going to withdraw that benefit, then the presence of the penalty -- which is a fraction of the cost of providing coverage -- will not change that decision.

that is absolutely wrong. It's currently part of the comp package for companies. They would either need to pay more or lose employees. It's offered because of the limitations an individual has on buying personal health insurance

why else would the article you linked say it was ludicrous?

 

[82_VOL_83]

Paradoxical Quote of The Day From Ben Stein:
"Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove
they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen."
Now add this, "Many of those who refuse, or are unable, to prove they are
citizens will receive free insurance paid for by those who are forced to
buy insurance because they are citizens." This is not funny, but true.

 

[lawgator1]

Oh and hey, guess what?

Romney's Mass plan imposed a penalty on employers who did not offer coverage.

But his started on companies with 11 or more employees. Small business friendly?


Ouch.

 

[Gramps]

paradoxical quote of the day from ben stein:
"fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove
they are insured... But not everyone must prove they are a citizen."
now add this, "many of those who refuse, or are unable, to prove they are
citizens will receive free insurance paid for by those who are forced to
buy insurance because they are citizens." this is not funny, but sad.

fyp

 

[hog88]

Oh and hey, guess what?

Romney's Mass plan imposed a penalty on employers who did not offer coverage.

But his started on companies with 11 or more employees. Small business friendly?


Ouch.

Is MA a country? No it's a state, if the people of a state want this crud, fine. You cannot impose this on the entire country.

TN has handgun carry permits, should New York be forced to have the same? What's the difference?

 

[cd12]

opcorn:I'm still waiting on the is it a tax question to be answered....

 

[utvolpj]

Oh and hey, guess what?

Romney's Mass plan imposed a penalty on employers who did not offer coverage.

But his started on companies with 11 or more employees. Small business friendly?


Ouch.

so because Romney did it that means it's ok? Shouldn't you be applauding this move?

fact is you don't even know what's in the law yet still think it's great and are giving your vote (again) to Obama. Amazing how that works

 

[cd12]

Just curious LG, Is it a tax? Are you against Romney's Mass Plan?