Are You Losing Your Health Coverage?

English: President Barack Obama's signature on...

I had a conversation with a liberal a few months ago about Obamacare. I kept asking for him to explain how we’d pay for it, he kept telling me how he was excited a lot of underprivileged people would now have health care. I never got an answer and, needless to say, the “debate” went nowhere.

Well, under the guise of “redistribution of wealth“, it now looks like we’ll have a brand new group of underprivileged folks – those who have worked hard to have health care, and will soon have it stripped from them. Read on…

Nearly 150 million Americans now rely on company-provided healthcare benefits, and the price of those benefits has doubled in the past decade. The average cost to a large company of covering an employee with a family is now $15,745 a year, and could soar to $20,000+ by 2016.

Under the (Un)Affordable Care Act, employers with more than 50 workers will eventually have to pay a fine of $2,000 for each employee if they don't provide coverage, but many could decide simply to pay the fine rather than pay for employees' coverage, according to The Economist.

I Need a Doctor

So much for President Obama's promise that "if you like your healthcare plan, you can keep your healthcare plan."

A 2011 survey found that 30 percent of employers would "definitely or probably" drop coverage after 2014. This was later seen as extreme, and subsequently reduced to closer to 10%. But, 10% is still a lot of businesses.

Another survey also found that more than 45 percent of companies with fewer than 500 workers are considering adopting a "defined contribution" healthcare scheme, whereby employees receive a fixed sum to spend on health insurance rather than company-provided coverage.

Defined contribution plans make employers' costs more predictable and employees more conscious of costs. But the danger, The Economist observes, is that employees will "delay seeking essential treatment for fear of the bill," which "could leave companies with a sicker, less productive workforce."

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2013 WallyDay.com
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Previous Post
Politics Rants and Raves

John Kerry Must Be Worth It, I Guess

Next Post
Miscellany

Russian Meteor

Comments

    • Alpine junkie
    • January 2, 2014
    Reply

    What Is The Actual Difference Between Marxists And Progressives? Both support redistribution of wealth and massive government. What is the difference, because I fail to see much.
    @ rejected, if I’m so dumb and you’re so smart, why did you fail to answer the question and explain the difference, instead of just calling me names?

    View Comment
    1. Reply

      The spelling is different. Progressives are simply Marxists in denial.

      View Comment
    • Blue88seashell
    • January 3, 2014
    Reply

    What Was Ayn Rand’s Opinion On The Distribution Of Wealth? I know the quote she said on the redistribution of wealth she has stated, but did she prefer the rich to hold a large amount of money like today, or did she prefer to have everyone be about equal but still have some inequality. Obviously she didn’t want everyone to have an equal amount of money.
    As in the distribution of wealth in America, not the world.

    View Comment
    1. Reply

      As someone who has quoted and used Rand’s work for 40 years, I can say that she would have thought the “distribution” of wealth ought to be in the hands of those who honestly earned it, be they a minimum wage fast food worker or a Wall Street executive. Heirs to money did not bother her, so long as they used the inherited wealth in just as productive a fashion as anyone who had to earn their living.

      Distribution in Rand’s sense of the word has nothing to do with government decisions. It has only to do with employers distributing it fairly, equitably, ethically. Crony capitalism is deplorable, and antithetical to laissez faire.

      At Hank Reardon’s trial, in Atlas Shrugged, for being rich, the judges asked:
      “”Are we to understand that if the public deems it necessary to curtail your profits, you do not recognise its right to do so?”
      “Why, yes, I do. The public may curtail my profits any time it wishes – by refusing to buy my product.”
      “We are speaking of … other methods.”
      “Any other method of curtailing profits is the method of looters – and I recognise it as such.”

      Later he states his case for ethics in capitalism, after this statement from a judge:
      “The eldest judge leaned forward across the table and his voice became suavely derisive: “You speak as if you were fighting for some sort of principle, Mr. Rearden, but what you’re actually fighting for is only your property, isn’t it?”
      “Yes, of course. I am fighting for my property. Do you know the kind of principle that represents?”
      “You pose as a champion of freedom, but it’s only the freedom to make money that you’re after.”
      “Yes, of course. All I want is the freedom to make money. Do you know what that freedom implies?”
      “Surely, Mr. Rearden, you wouldn’t want your attitude to be misunderstood. You wouldn’t want to give support to the widespread impression that you are a man devoid of social conscience, who feels no concern for the welfare of his fellows and works for nothing but his own profit.”
      “I work for nothing but my own profit. I earn it.”
      There was a gasp, not of indignation, but of astonishment, in the crowd behind him and silence from the judges he faced. He went on calmly:
      “No, I do not want my attitude to be misunderstood. I shall be glad to state it for the record. I am in full agreement with the facts of everything said about me in the newspapers – with the facts, but not with the evaluation. I work for nothing but my own profit – which I make by selling a product they need to men who are willing and able to buy it. I do not produce it for their benefit at the expense of mine, and they do not buy it for my benefit at the expense of theirs; I do not sacrifice my interests to them nor do they sacrifice theirs to me; we deal as equals by mutual consent to mutual advantage – and I am proud of every penny that I have earned in this manner. I am rich and I am proud of every penny I own. I made my money by my own effort, in free exchange and through the voluntary consent of every man I dealt with – voluntary consent of those who employed me when I started, the voluntary consent of those who work for me now, the voluntary consent of those who buy my product. I shall answer all the questions you are afraid to ask me openly. Do I wish to pay my workers more than their services are worth to me? I do not. Do I wish to sell my product for less than my customers are willing to pay me? I do not. Do I wish to sell it at a loss or give it away? I do not. If this is evil, do whatever you please about me, according to whatever standards you hold. These are mine. I am earning my own living, as every honest man must. I refuse to accept as guilt the fact of my own existence and the fact that I must work in order to support it.”
      http://bheemboy.blogspot.com/2007/12/hank-rearden-his-trial.html

      That, and only that, describes the proper “distribution” of wealth. You may of course give your wealth away, but that is an entirely different discussion.

      View Comment
    • I teabagged 0bama
    • January 20, 2014
    Reply

    What Do You Think Of 0bama’s Plans For A Fairness Czar And Redistribution Czar? Fairness in TV and radio, to be sure everyone gets a fair dose of leftist propaganda
    And a redistribution of wealth czar. Maybe he can get Joe the plumber to take that job.

    View Comment
    1. Reply

      I have not heard of that ,,, yet until now. It does not surprise me. He wants his goobermental control policy to press forward, and there is no better way to insulate himself then to have a drone do it for him. Obama just steps aside and lets the crap fall on someone else.

      This obuma has got to go in 2012

      View Comment
    • No Pinheads
    • January 21, 2014
    Reply

    Why Does Obama Run From The Simple Question About Him Being A Marxist? Redistribution of wealth is MARXISM, why can’t Obama be a man and admit it?

    View Comment
    1. Reply

      If Obama openly admitted to being [even partially] Marxist, he would loose all but the most radical wing of his supporters.

      As long as the media is more focused on important issues like the cost of Palin’s clothing, then Obama will not have to answer any direct questioning.

      For all those people on here that say that “Redistribution” is merely a lie perpetuated by McCain:

      Here is Obama saying IN HIS OWN WORDS that he believes the Courts should “radically redefine the constitution” to account for proper “redistribution of wealth”.

      His words, not mine. Obama supporters are either in favor of his philosophies or they are believing in a lie.

      View Comment
    • Anonymous
    • January 22, 2014
    Reply

    Does The Redistribution Of Wealth Progressive Tax System And Welfare In Anyway Help Consumer Spending And Help? Does the redistribution of wealth progressive tax system and welfare in anyway help consumer spending and help the economy ?

    View Comment
    1. Reply

      Nope..after a while the rich pack up their marbles, tire of your game and leave…then everyone is equally poor and miserable…

      View Comment
    • CHARITY G
    • February 4, 2014
    Reply

    Obama’s Tax Plan . . . Wealth Redistribution Of Fair Game? If you believe it’s fair . . . what differentiates his policy from government sanctioned mandatory wealth redistribution? Why not re-proportion the existing budget? Thanks.

    View Comment
    1. Reply

      Redistribution is not fair in any manner.

      Think of it this way: Person A works hard 40 hours a week and gets $100. Person B works little for 10 hours and gets $25. It costs $50 to live on, so the govenment gives Person B $25 extra. To pay for this thay take $25 from Person A leaving him with $75. Person A shrugs it off as a fair tax. Now Person C also worked as hard as Person A, but see’s he could work a forth as hard and still have enough to live, so now his income drops from $100 to $25 and the government gives them $25. Where do they get it? They take it from Person A under the excuss that he is earning too much profit and only needs $50. Now here comes Person D and E, coming to the same conclusion as Person C. Now where can the government get its money to distribute it fairly? They rais the taxes again. Now everybody is getting $40, $10 below what it takes to live on.

      That’s Socialism 101. 102 says that Person A wouldn’t continue to make $100 for 40 hours of work, he’d make only $75 and have to work 50 hours. Not going to do that math, but it suck for the people, busines and the governent.

      If you leave the profits in the hands of the people earning them here’s what happens: Person A keep his $100 and buys more things. Person B realizes he should work harder and does, gicing him $100 to buy more things. Person C works 50 and earns $125, giving him even more. Person D works 60, gets the attention of his boss and gets promoted, now working 40 hours for $200. Person E feels under apreciated and goes to another company to earn $110 for 40 hours. All of them go out to buy things, prompting Person X to higher Person Y and Z to accomodate the extra business.

      That’s Capitalism 101. 102 says that we create new ways of saving the planes and disposing our waste and that was fromusing the oil rather than restricting it and commerse.

      But I digress.

      Basically, redistribution is detrimental to an economy. You can help the needy and all that, but try to help them help themselves rather than handing things to them on a platter.

      View Comment
    • President Obama
    • February 14, 2014
    Reply

    Why Some Americans Oppose Redistribution Of Wealth? We in North Korea enjoy redistribution of wealth.
    We received 5,000,000 bushel of rice in humanitarian aid.
    Our dear leader instead of hoarding the rice, distributed this enormous wealth fairly and evenly.
    Every family received 7 1/2 bowls of rice.

    View Comment
      • Admin
      • February 14, 2014
      Reply

      This is the land of the Free not the land of conformity. The reason that the redistribution of wealth is a bad thing is because in an economy such as the USA’s it causes there to be a winner and a loser in terms of people who receive both ends of the redistribution, one side gets money taken from it, while the other receives it. In a free market economy there is no loser, one side pays for a good which they believe was worth a little more to them than what they payed, while the seller received more money off of selling the product than it was worth for him to keep it.

      View Comment
    • Chewy Ivan 2
    • March 15, 2014
    Reply

    How Does Capitalism Work Without Wealth Redistribution? How does a capitalist economy function without some way of replensishing the supply of capital to the consumer base? Wages and benefits count as ‘wealth redistribution,’ but how does a free market capitalist society ensure that enough wealth is redistributed to ensure consumer activity does not stagnate? If the “job creators” aren’t doing a sufficient job in this area, should government play a role?

    View Comment
    1. Reply

      Finally a honest thought, a real discussion about ideas, thank you for this.

      First, no one is saying a focused, well run, state safety net won’t be there for people in need. We just don’t want politicians to use it to buy votes from the poor. We,(small government capitalists) also want the federal central government out of it, they take $.75 cents on the dollar and trickle “rule laden parcels” of money back to the states, where it is even further wasted. Town and State politics is bad enough , we don’t need the feds making it even more costly. The goal is to help those in need, not to support unions, and get people elected. OR help corporations like GE or Bank of America.

      Now, with that said, a capitalist system that works WITHOUT CRONYISM, redistributes wealth based on quality and desire, and real world success. Those who do it better, rise up, those who do not, feel the pain. NOW that is the key, a system that stops all pain by giving away rewards without work, disrupts the market forces that reward excellence and punish failure. This punishment is doled out by the consumer, the person who is spending his hard earned money has a vested interest in demanding a fair price, and high quality.

      Their is no system that can stop a bad employee from being fired, or a poorly managed small business from dying and no way to stop the pain of poor decision making, without hurting the more important person in the scenario, The Consumer.

      Here is my favorite way to look at this.

      The socialist system puts the worker first, attempts to protect him by taking away the pain of failure and guaranteeing his success with government. Not considering the consumer, and the pain he suffers from poor products and services.

      Capitalism puts the consumer first, if you suck, you lose my business, so work hard, be smart, or I go somewhere else, this makes the workers life harder.

      We are all both workers first and then consumers, putting the worker first collapses the system, while putting the consumer first forces the system to evolve and grow.

      Capitalism always puts the consumer in the power seat, and we are all consumers expecting excellence when we spend.

      To the final part of your question, “the supply of capital” how do we have enough wealth to go around and why is there so little now?

      Socialism, or a worker protected society, slows the pressure on production, increases the cost of goods and services because it lowers production rates and increases wages to the worker without demanding more quality or volume.

      Capitalism, or a consumer driven society, allows rewards to the finest producers, and inspires more people to create and compete, thus more production, better quality, more consumer participation, and more wealth for all.

      If only one person plants corn, we all need to put up with high cost and poor quality corn, if 10 crops are planted, we all have corn and only the guy who grew crappy corn won’t sell his and go out of business. Mother nature will decide who is good and who is bad.

      View Comment
    • Falisha
    • March 19, 2014
    Reply

    Does Jesus Preach Redistribution Of Wealth In The Bible? Let me say there was no U.S. government is the Bible so obvious it does not say it exactly but then again, there’s nothing in the Bible about abortion either. I’m not saying I’m for it and this is not being tied to any politician. Ive just lately been asking questions about how Jesus Christ would be viewed today, so the questions is …would Jesus Christ be viewed as a “socialist” by republicans today?

    Acts 4:32-35
    “Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common. 33With great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. 34There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. 35They laid it at the apostles??? feet, and it was — distributed —- to each as any had need.”

    Luke 3:11
    “And he would answer and say to them, ???The man who has two tunics is to share with him who has none; and he who has food is to do likewise.???

    James 2:15-16
    “If a man or woman is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, ???Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,??? and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that?”

    And republicans are probably going to say, that’s talking about how individuals should live, not the government. Okay, well shouldn’t the same thing apply to a woman’s choice? The government shouldn’t be able to have any say so over what a woman does with her body based on the Bible, right? This is only if you feel that the words of Christ in the Bible only apply to what individuals do and not the government. If you feel this is a Christian nation, and the words of the Bible should apply to everyone …then if we followed the word’s of Christ, would it be considered “socialism” to republicans?
    First off, no one is doing anything at gun point. You paid taxes under Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush again. Second, I see most of you didn’t read the whole thing. Read the bottom. No it was mandatory if you wanted to be a Christian. Same as committing adultery is a choice but not Christian. Murder is a choice but not Christian.
    Okay well then no one is answering my question. If it’s an individual choice and not a country based on Christianity then shouldn’t the same apply to a woman’s right to choose?

    View Comment
    1. Reply

      Yes. Because the redistribution of wealth that occurs today is through taxes. All taxes are redistribution of wealth, and Christ said “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s” when asked about taxes.

      And, yes, the Republicans will use the voluntary nature of what the people back then did to argue against taxes, but the truth is that both issues are covered – taxes and charity at a much higher level than any of them are willing to even think about.

      View Comment
    • CHARITY G
    • April 12, 2014
    Reply

    Obama’s Tax Plan . . . Wealth Redistribution Of Fair Game? If you believe it’s fair . . . what differentiates his policy from government sanctioned mandatory wealth redistribution? Why not re-proportion the existing budget? Thanks.

    View Comment
    1. Reply

      Redistribution is not fair in any manner.

      Think of it this way: Person A works hard 40 hours a week and gets $100. Person B works little for 10 hours and gets $25. It costs $50 to live on, so the govenment gives Person B $25 extra. To pay for this thay take $25 from Person A leaving him with $75. Person A shrugs it off as a fair tax. Now Person C also worked as hard as Person A, but see’s he could work a forth as hard and still have enough to live, so now his income drops from $100 to $25 and the government gives them $25. Where do they get it? They take it from Person A under the excuss that he is earning too much profit and only needs $50. Now here comes Person D and E, coming to the same conclusion as Person C. Now where can the government get its money to distribute it fairly? They rais the taxes again. Now everybody is getting $40, $10 below what it takes to live on.

      That’s Socialism 101. 102 says that Person A wouldn’t continue to make $100 for 40 hours of work, he’d make only $75 and have to work 50 hours. Not going to do that math, but it suck for the people, busines and the governent.

      If you leave the profits in the hands of the people earning them here’s what happens: Person A keep his $100 and buys more things. Person B realizes he should work harder and does, gicing him $100 to buy more things. Person C works 50 and earns $125, giving him even more. Person D works 60, gets the attention of his boss and gets promoted, now working 40 hours for $200. Person E feels under apreciated and goes to another company to earn $110 for 40 hours. All of them go out to buy things, prompting Person X to higher Person Y and Z to accomodate the extra business.

      That’s Capitalism 101. 102 says that we create new ways of saving the planes and disposing our waste and that was fromusing the oil rather than restricting it and commerse.

      But I digress.

      Basically, redistribution is detrimental to an economy. You can help the needy and all that, but try to help them help themselves rather than handing things to them on a platter.

      View Comment
    • Byron_oneil
    • May 16, 2014
    Reply

    What Is O’bamas Plan For Redistribution Of The Wealth? I recently asked this question and no one could seem to answer, everyone just had snide remarks about socialism and how our country will fail. Is this an indication of how uninformed we American’s are? No one has any response to indicate any “plan”, just mindless regurgitaion of what they have heard O’Riley or Savage say. Please, I would really like to know, I must have missed somthing when O’bama stated he will redistribute the wealth.

    View Comment
    1. Reply

      Yesterday’s Chicago Tribune carries this “letter” from one A. Hart of Forest Park :

      On my way to lunch recently, I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read “Vote Obama; I need the money.” I laughed. In a restaurant my server had on an “Obama 08” tie. Again I laughed. Just imagine the coincidence. When the bill came, I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Barack-Obama-redistribution-of-wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need--the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight. I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I’ve decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful. At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment, I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient deserved money more. I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application.

      ___________________

      I spoke to another attorney today, while negotiating out a case, and he mentioned to me that Obama’s and Socialists’ greatest flaw is that Socialism takes away the RIGHT to FAIL. That sounds odd, but its true.

      In Socialism, no one has to suffer, no one is denied any benefit given by the benevolence of a liberal politician.

      My colleague reminded me of my trial on Monday. He said, if you knew you couldn’t lose, would you be studying all weekend long, reading the law, depositions, drafting briefs, etc.?

      Of course, I’d rather be watching the Bulldog Gater game, but instead, I know I can fail, so I’m going to be studying like crazy.

      Well, when we lose the RIGHT TO FAIL, then we all lose the RIGHT to Succeed. Which means, we all become mediocre. And trust me, most of you liberals that opine away on this board, are . . . well, medicocre. So an Obama President might not raise you up, but it will lower some of us, down to where you are at.

      Shared misery, the Obama way. Lowering the highest common denominator to the lowest of the low. Socialism, who needs success.

      View Comment
    • Kilroy
    • May 23, 2014
    Reply

    Do You Believe In Redistribution Of Wealth? Then why haven’t Commissar Pelosi, Gruppen-fuhrer Reid, and President Hussein sent you any of their personal fortunes? After all, they worked for it and you’re entitled to it.

    View Comment
    1. Reply

      Liberals only give OTHER people’s money away, never their own.

      No, I do NOT believe in the redistribution of wealth.

      View Comment
    • Shyann
    • May 29, 2014
    Reply

    Redistribution Of Wealth? If all the liberals in this country really want redistribution of wealth, why don’t they just give all their money to the government and let them redistribute it, instead of forcing the rest of the country to join in their socialistic views?

    View Comment
    1. Reply

      Because they want the rich to redistribute their wealth not themselves. Just look at Obama’s tax plan he plans to increase tax on the rich.

      View Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: