Obama Made Sure Health Care was Cut to Workers

[rocknrod]

On Tuesday, the Congressional Budget Office said the government health care bill will cost taxpayers $115 billion more than what I voted against in March. The bill now costs over $1 trillion.

But there is more bad news for employees. Four major U.S. employers (AT&T, Verizon, Deere and Caterpillar) are considering dumping the health care coverage they provide to their workers in exchange for paying penalty fees to the government. These companies currently offer health benefits to over 2.3 million employees. That is like cutting off health care for the entire city of Houston.

Non-partisan experts have predicted for months that millions of employees will lose their health insurance as a result of the new law. Just last month, the Administration’s own Medicare actuaries released their analysis of the legislation warning that 16 million Americans will lose employer-provided health insurance.

How is this happening? The way the new law is written it is much cheaper for many employers to pay the tax penalty than it is to offer health insurance to their employees. For example, AT&T spent $4.7 billion on medical costs but would have been taxed a much lower amount ($600 million) for not offering their 1.2 million employees, retirees, and their dependents’ health care benefits – a savings of $4.1 billion for the company.

Hows that for change?
Dumping Coverage for Employees Saves Money?

[wolfhunter]

This is exactly what Rush, Beck, et al. said would probably happen.

[mojo]

and it is exactly what BO wants to happen so he can get them on a "government sponsored" program and control it from what will be cradle to grave.

[fuhr52]

What's all this hoopla about health care, it's going to be free isn't it?

[6shootercarry]

Another gift from the minds of socialists.. Oh wait... No minds just one mind and rhetoric... Bleat like sheep and like it... "Ummm Yummy green grass" says the master...



This is what I thought would come also. I can see many companies opting for the tax hit to save a few bucks or passing the incurred costs to the employees. Capitalism is alive and well... I guess since we have this law now, all people will have to be covered by someone. And the cost will continue to increase...

Peace...

[Conservative Wife & Mom]

Why should this come as any surprise? Can anyone name ONE...just ONE...government sponsored program that is cost effective, isn't running over budget, isn't in danger of needing a bailout, isn't mired in bureaucratic red tape and regulations and isn't a financial burden on the taxpayers of this nation?

[fuhr52]

Oh, but Obama wasn't in charge. That's why they are broke. Obama will fix everything, at least he said he would.

[Charles Cooper]

Conservative Wife & Mom:

Can you name ONE...just ONE...private sponsored program that is cost effective, isn't running over budget, isn't in danger of needing a bailout, isn't mired in bureaucratic red tape and regulations and isn't a financial burden on this nation?

[utimmer43]

Conservative Wife & Mom:

Can you name ONE...just ONE...private sponsored program that is cost effective, isn't running over budget, isn't in danger of needing a bailout, isn't mired in bureaucratic red tape and regulations and isn't a financial burden on this nation?

First, define "private sponsored program". If you mean the private sector in general, the bureaucracy and regulations part of this question don't even apply, because those are imposed by the government. And that is where the problem starts. Companies begin implementing cost-ineffective policies just to comply with the regulation, end up running over budget, and then the government has the nerve to come in and bail them out while scolding them for swimming in red ink.

[Charles Cooper]

First, define "private sponsored program".

I'm way to lazy to do that, Tim.