My progressive friends are in favor of health care, damn the cost. Many don't own small businesses. - WSJ: Hundreds of Waivers From Rules Are Given
A 11-21-09 post entitled "Business Sours on Overhaul as Legislation Veers to Left" provided in part:
My law office provides health insurance for our employees. Many, many small businesses do not. It is expensive, very expensive. Although my office has fewer than 50 workers and thus would be exempt under the Senate bill, a $750 annual fine hardly has me shacking in my boots considering my firm pays $900 or so a month per employee for an employee's health insurance.
The post was updated in part in a 3-13-2010 post entitled "Employers plan to shift more health-care costs to workers, survey reports," that provided in part:
In the proposed legislation the $750 has changed. In my case so has the "$900 or so." I just reviewed the figures the other day, and the most expensive employee -- not an attorney -- was costing $1,096. Small wonder for the reasons behind the remainder of this post.
Several months ago the $1,096 went to $1,296.
Obama's (OK, Peloski and Company's) health care bill did little to reward efficient providers and reform inefficient ones. It also treated Americans as if we should believe in the tooth fairy, and although adding another entitlement with an ever increasing deficit, sought to convince us that the legislation would actually lower the deficit because in America there is still something called a free lunch and we can add covereage for 32 million Americans and reduce the deficit in the process, although who doubts that the legislation will add billions to the federal deficit or grits aren't groceries.
The following is from The Wall Street Journal:
Hundreds of employers have received federal waivers from a new requirement in the health-care overhaul law.
Government figures show that 733 applicants, mainly employers and union-affiliated insurers, received an exemption from a requirement that puts their plans on the hook for up to $750,000 in eligible medical bills for each covered worker this year. Most of those plans now have reimbursement limits that are a fraction of that amount.
The concern is that without such waivers, employers could raise premiums so high it would be unaffordable for workers, or they would simply drop coverage altogether.
Republicans say the high number of union workers receiving waivers seems contradictory, given that organized labor was among the most vocal supporters of the health overhaul.
Galen Munroe, spokesman for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, said these plans "may not be equipped to handle the current annual maximum of $750,000. These waivers can act as a bridge to 2014, when additional options will be available."
My law office provides health insurance for our employees. Many, many small businesses do not. It is expensive, very expensive. Although my office has fewer than 50 workers and thus would be exempt under the Senate bill, a $750 annual fine hardly has me shacking in my boots considering my firm pays $900 or so a month per employee for an employee's health insurance.
The post was updated in part in a 3-13-2010 post entitled "Employers plan to shift more health-care costs to workers, survey reports," that provided in part:
In the proposed legislation the $750 has changed. In my case so has the "$900 or so." I just reviewed the figures the other day, and the most expensive employee -- not an attorney -- was costing $1,096. Small wonder for the reasons behind the remainder of this post.
Several months ago the $1,096 went to $1,296.
Obama's (OK, Peloski and Company's) health care bill did little to reward efficient providers and reform inefficient ones. It also treated Americans as if we should believe in the tooth fairy, and although adding another entitlement with an ever increasing deficit, sought to convince us that the legislation would actually lower the deficit because in America there is still something called a free lunch and we can add covereage for 32 million Americans and reduce the deficit in the process, although who doubts that the legislation will add billions to the federal deficit or grits aren't groceries.
The following is from The Wall Street Journal:
Hundreds of employers have received federal waivers from a new requirement in the health-care overhaul law.
Government figures show that 733 applicants, mainly employers and union-affiliated insurers, received an exemption from a requirement that puts their plans on the hook for up to $750,000 in eligible medical bills for each covered worker this year. Most of those plans now have reimbursement limits that are a fraction of that amount.
The concern is that without such waivers, employers could raise premiums so high it would be unaffordable for workers, or they would simply drop coverage altogether.
Republicans say the high number of union workers receiving waivers seems contradictory, given that organized labor was among the most vocal supporters of the health overhaul.
Galen Munroe, spokesman for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, said these plans "may not be equipped to handle the current annual maximum of $750,000. These waivers can act as a bridge to 2014, when additional options will be available."
posted by Sid Cottingham | 8:45 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home