QuakerOats;507188 wrote:http://www.nrn.com/article/anxiety-grows-over-health-care-reform?ad=operations&utm_source=MagnetMail&utm_medium=email&[email protected]&utm_content=NRN-News-AssociationAM-10-04-10&utm_campaign=Anxiety%20grows%20over%20health%20care%20reform

It's not just restaurants. It's every small business owner. I was just talking to an old boss of mine yesterday (who employs about 10 people), and they're just exasperated getting changes started. Not to mention they are dreading having to raise the costs of their product which will surely cost them customers, which in turn will be nearly impossible to replace.

But as long as a massive government can petulantly impose its will, it will continue to sacrifice the pawns so that it can make pretty speeches in order to keep its spokespeople.

CenterBHSFan;507300 wrote: But as long as a massive government can petulantly impose its will, it will continue to sacrifice the pawns so that it can make pretty speeches in order to keep its spokespeople.

Well stated. Most employers spend more time with regulation compliance, taxes, and trial attorneys, than they do making and selling their products. And some people wonder why we get whipped by foreign competition, and capital flows offshore.

ptown_trojans_1;501397 wrote:I'd like to know how the R's expect to overturn it, especially in the Senate? Also, how do you override a probable veto?

Only way to override a veto is with a 2/3 vote...

QuakerOats;507188 wrote:http://www.nrn.com/article/anxiety-grows-over-health-care-reform?ad=operations&utm_source=MagnetMail&utm_medium=email&[email protected]&utm_content=NRN-News-AssociationAM-10-04-10&utm_campaign=Anxiety%20grows%20over%20health%20care%20reform

Great quote from that article:

In the People Report survey, 73 percent of respondents said they would consider dropping health care coverage for employees and pay the fine for non-compliance if that proved to be a less expensive option.

“I don’t think that is going to be as easy as it sounds,” Doolin said. “There is a lot of regulation involved. But some fairly large companies are absolutely looking at that option. That clearly is going to be the unintended consequence of this legislation.”

I'm not so sure that that would be an unintended consequence. More people without health insurance = more people who need the public option.

QuakerOats;507842 wrote:Well stated. Most employers spend more time with regulation compliance, taxes, and trial attorneys, than they do making and selling their products. And some people wonder why we get whipped by foreign competition, and capital flows offshore.

Chalk that up to "Liberalism always generates the exact opposite of its stated intent".

Even 1 in 4 dems want obamaKare repealed:

http://thehill.com/house-polls/the-hill-anga-poll-week-1/122851-distaste-for-healthcare-law-crosses-party-lines

GOP Pledges To Repeal Healthcare Law.
The Financial Times (10/6, Kirchgaessner, subscription required) reports that just before Congress voted on health reform in March, President Barack Obama assured Democratic lawmakers that supporting the measure was the "smart thing to do politically," but now, less than a month before the midterms, Republicans have vowed to repeal the healthcare law, and only a handful of Democratic candidates are campaigning on the fact that they voted for it. The Times says that while Democrats are in an unenviable position, Republicans also have reason to be concerned, because only a slight majority of independent voters supports repealing the law, and those who do expect the GOP to take action if they win the House and Senate. Yet, it may be virtually impossible to repeal the healthcare law while Obama is president.

Then repeal block by block.

The only way it gets repealed anytime soon is if the Supreme Court tosses it out as unconstitutional. Otherwise, it will have to be taken apart brick by brick as CenterBHS states.

Or....our economy completely folds and collapses and there isn't any money left of any value. At that point, free health care will be the last thing on anyone's agenda.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69D5CO20101014

The Department of Justice is now suing Blue Cross Blue Shield for alleged price fixing and anti-trust violations.

It looks as if health insurers are going to find themselves under attack from the regime as a means of deflecting the blame for the failure of Obamacare on others.

The nonprofit Blue Cross plan in Michigan covers more than nine times as many Michigan residents as its next-largest commercial competitor and more than 60 percent of the state's commercially insured population, the government said.

In light of the company's market share, Michigan hospitals could be hard pressed to operate without access to Blue Cross customers.

The insurer included language in its hospital contracts assuring it of favorable pricing. Borrowing a term from international relations, the provisions are known as "most favored nations" clauses.

Such clauses are not inherently illegal, but the government says Blue Cross's use of them went too far.

Blue Cross's contracts have caused many hospitals to raise prices for rival insurers, the government alleged. The clauses have made it difficult for other insurers to compete, deterring them from entering Michigan markets "and preserving Blue Cross's leading market position," according to the federal lawsuit.

Blue Cross defended the contracts, saying they are "a vital part" of the insurer's mission to provide health care at a reasonable cost.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/18/AR2010101805585.html

IggyPride00;524898 wrote:It looks as if health insurers are going to find themselves under attack from the regime as a means of deflecting the blame for the failure of Obamacare on others.

It's my belief this is exactly what was intended by those that rammed this through. You can't have single payer with all of these insurance companies still around, so how do they get rid of them? The answer is to have them price themselves out of existence. The government must be seen as riding the white horse coming in to save the day for Americans from these eeeevil satanic insurance carriers. It's easier to sell when you have a crisis....and you know what Rahm said about a good crisis.

Here's my take on what could happen:

Somehow, and this is a real stretch, Republicans manage to override a Presidential veto and repeal the health care legislation.

End of story. Nothing gets proposed and health care reform goes back to being the 600 lb. gorilla in the room that nobody wants to deal with.

stlouiedipalma;525021 wrote:Here's my take on what could happen:

Somehow, and this is a real stretch, Republicans manage to override a Presidential veto and repeal the health care legislation.

End of story. Nothing gets proposed and health care reform goes back to being the 600 lb. gorilla in the room that nobody wants to deal with.

I think most people truly want and would readily accept a bill that truly reforms. This bill doesn't.
So, what do YOU suggest?

In other end of the world news today, I just got our company health insurance renewal quote today. We have a 13% increase. This is the lowest it has been in 10 years.

No, that's impossible. Obamacare will raise your premiums drastically. All the time everytime.

I Wear Pants;544013 wrote:No, that's impossible. Obamacare will raise your premiums drastically. All the time everytime.

"Yes, Obamacare will lower your premiums in some cases"

Sincerely,

The broken clock that's right twice a day

jhay78;544221 wrote:"Yes, Obamacare will lower your premiums in some cases"

Sincerely,

The broken clock that's right twice a day

FTW

More Small Businesses to offer health insurance.

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304879604575582642946850052.html

BGFalcons82;509229 wrote:The only way it gets repealed anytime soon is if the Supreme Court tosses it out as unconstitutional. Otherwise, it will have to be taken apart brick by brick as CenterBHS states.

Or....our economy completely folds and collapses and there isn't any money left of any value. At that point, free health care will be the last thing on anyone's agenda.

It won't be declared unconstitutional, at leas if Scalia is consistent with his position in Gonzales v. Raich

QuakerOats;507842 wrote:Well stated. Most employers spend more time with regulation compliance, taxes, and trial attorneys, than they do making and selling their products. And some people wonder why we get whipped by foreign competition, and capital flows offshore.

Absolutely not true and mindless political rhetoric to the level of a radical tripped out hippie liberal.

BoatShoes;544317 wrote:More Small Businesses to offer health insurance.

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304879604575582642946850052.html

This seems like a good thing.

Quick, someone conservative tell me how it's going to be the end of us all.

Employers should not be in the health or life insurance business. I would even include pension plans as well. They should do what they do best, manufacturing a good or providing a service to their customers. One of the main reasons these issues are in the hands of employers today is because of acts of the federal government.

Employer benefit plans proliferated in the 1940's. Government imposed wage freezes on employers during WWII accelerated the spread of employer provided health care. Employers unable by law to attract workers by paying more, instead were allowed to improve their benefit packages by adding health care. Today it is the expected norm.

The big question is how to transition health and life insurance, or any necessary benefit, out of the employers hands. Many in the federal government are seeking to monopolize any such transaction into the hands of the feds. I would argue the constitutionality of federal power in these issues but I will leave that for another day.

We need to find a way to transfer these liabilities into the individual's hands. Where the individual has the power to shop for benefits that best meets his needs. But the individual would have to be justly compensated by the employer for the cost of these liabilities for the service that they were providing via a large increase in wages.

Good luck trying to get that to happen.

I Wear Pants;544572 wrote:Good luck trying to get that to happen.

Oh I know. Radical change from established norms is not easy. Power is not easily rested from the establishment and granted to the individual. History has proven such. The question is what I stated the right objective?

BoatShoes;544326 wrote:Absolutely not true and mindless political rhetoric to the level of a radical tripped out hippie liberal.

Absolutely it is true ........... many of us are living proof.

BoatShoes;544317 wrote:More Small Businesses to offer health insurance.

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304879604575582642946850052.html

Originally Posted by QuakerOats
Well stated. Most employers spend more time with regulation compliance, taxes, and trial attorneys, than they do making and selling their products. And some people wonder why we get whipped by foreign competition, and capital flows offshore.

BoatShoes;544326 wrote:Absolutely not true and mindless political rhetoric to the level of a radical tripped out hippie liberal.

QuakerOats;544913 wrote:Absolutely it is true ........... many of us are living proof.

It's true alright. From the WSJ article posted by BoatShoes:

Small-business employers have been among the hardest-hit by double-digit premium increases, which health insurers blame in part on the cost of complying with new coverage mandates in the law, like allowing children to stay on a parent's plan until their 26th birthday.

They also are facing extra tax paperwork under the law, and the National Federation of Independent Business has joined 20 states that have sued to overturn the law.

The opposition by small businesses to the health law is a frustrating development for Democrats who had hoped to translate their signature legislative achievement into gains in this week's midterm elections.