Interesting that a post in which I stated "I almost entirely agree Gerry" prompts such discussion. Here are my responses.
Discussion of illegal immigrants is a diversion. Yes, they were subsidized 30 years ago, 5 years ago, this year, and will be next year next year with or without Obamacare. The border is more secure than it ever has been. Maybe there will be some real reform.
It does not solve the problem of 12 million illegals who will still be visiting the emergency rooms, and will not be covered by Obamacare. We need to solve that problem with immigration reform.
No, they are not a core cost. Only about 4%, which is about double the malpractice related costs.
I'm not entirely sure that the emergency room visits are at the core of the rising cost of health care. Have you found numbers on that Henry?
Yep, it all depends on income level. $29,327 and under for a family of four.
There will also be a lot of this coverage that is subsidized. As I recall, families of four, will be eligible for subsidy up to a substantial income limit.
All costs get passed onto consumers. Not just taxes. In this case, the medical device industry, the drug companies, and the insurance industry will have new excise taxes. Only some in the medical device industry have mad a big deal out of this. Others realize that the potential losses would be offset by more sales to newly insured people.
Yet, historically, tax on a product/service has been passed onto the consumer.
Never said it would. I’ll stand by my statement. You can play the rationing card all you want. I know it is part of the playbook. Someone has to pay for medical care bills, now and will have to in the future. We spend far more on it than any other country bar none. 17% of our GDP.
Not totally sure this works in all scenarios. In the UK, cheapest of all is to not replace an old person's hip at all ... and that often is the option that the old person is left with.
I appreciate the 20 questions routine. Clearly, we have different opinions about this issue. The fact remains that a very strong case can be made that the largest employer in the US run by the family that has a net worth equal to that of the bottom 30 percent of all Americans combined has a substantial number of employees dependent on the government. This externalizes a bunch of the companies costs to us. You apparently think it s all the fault of the workers. I suggest that the company has some responsibility too. In your previous post you also stated: ““Owners of a business, whether corporate or individual, set a profit margin, and when costs increase they raise the price of their product or go out of business.“ Never said there was anything wrong with profit but the fiscal conservative in me takes issue with the fact that the rest of us are subsidizing it. You clearly believe that there is a right to make a certain profit margin, but apparently think that there is no associated responsibility to employee compensation. You seem to advocate a race to the bottom for wages and benefits. I disagree with this approach and think it is bad for the middle class and the economy overall.
That would mean that 80% of them do have health insurance. If we consider that many of those employees may be part-time, then that doesn't appear to be too bad, on the face of it.
-How would that compare to the amount Walmart pays in taxes each year? I don't know. Just wondering.
-That is not surprising since most of the jobs are probably low-skill, low-paying jobs ... but those may be the only jobs available to those employees.
-Could they get a better job somewhere else?
-Is there a reason for that?
-Do we know whether these people working for Walmart would be receiving benefits if they worked somewhere else in a job for which they are qualified? Would everyone be better off if Walmart didn't employ so many people? Would it cost more to provide benefits to these workers if they were not working for Walmart?
-Is Walmart to blame for having available many low-skill jobs?
- Why is it essentially wrong for Walmart to make a profit if they do so by providing a fair exchange of product and/or service for those who wish to purchase those products/services? Do other similar retailers provide better benefits and wages? There are probably some retired people that are benefiting from their early investments in Walmart stock, placing less burden on social services because they have such income from that investment.
Could these Walmart employees find better jobs elsewhere?
Isn't Walmart free to earn as much as it can legally earn? If we don't approve of them, we can shop elsewhere.
The public can voice its disapproval by buying less pizza from Papa John, and more from Pizza Hut ... or others.
The number of people being subsidized is not going to change much. We all pay for the care of the uninsured now. The new system will require people to buy private health insurance, a republican idea. Search “obamacare waiver myth” to get a bit more balanced view on waiver situation. Fox news may have overplayed this one (hard to believe, I know). Yes, if you pay more than $27,500 for insurance premiums after 2018, there will be a tax. John Roberts approves.
We're going to be subsidizing everyone's employees through Obamacare ... except those who got waivers. Certain groups of people will continue to enjoy luxury benefits because they will not be fined for those luxury plans. Not knowing all that have received waivers, and for what reasons, it may be that some of those with waivers will be allowed to provide less than the benefits prescribed by Obamacare.
To me it seems ludicrous that people would be fined for paying their own pre-tax income for a better plan than the minimum plan. The govt should be delighted that those individuals will be making no demands on the overall system and are not in need of any subsidies. Aren't they already paying their fair share by paying for their own good coverage?