Right, because progressive taxation is the same thing as or implies Marxism. I wonder, do liberals on this board do things like this?
I read some guy a few days ago who said Marx was like a doctor in the very early days of medicine, he had enough information and imagination to correctly identify the disease, but no clue as to how to cure it.
Of course he was wrong, pioneers usually are. They buy too much ammo and die of diphtheria. Just because he was wrong about how to achieve economic justice doesn’t mean economic justice itself is wrong.
That’s the national average for bronze plans available through the Fed managed sites. The national average for Gold (30 year old individual) is $4,032 and the average cap on out-of-pocket is about $4,000.
There’s a lot of variability, so if you’re in this bucket it definitely pays to shop.
I think when the employer mandate hits there will be a another round of upset people. I don’t know what the costs are going to look like, but for many companies there will be a hell of a financial incentive to drop coverage, slightly increase compensation and let their employees fend for themselves.
Why?
If employers are giving coverage now when there is no penalty to stop, why would they stop giving coverage when there will be a penalty to stop?
That’s not as bad as it looks as it comes out to $333 a month. Which is well in range of what individual plans were before ACA. In my state (NY), individual plans dropped about 20%. But that because our individual market was already pretty screwed up.
Not to mention employers will be giving up a powerful employee retention incentive. Employers in industries that customarily offer health insurance will find themselves left with the dregs of the applicants if they drop health insurance. Those employers cannot afford to leave employees to “fend for themselves”
I’m really confused–do you think that you’re giving me new information here, to tell me that “enough” is a subjective, not an objective, term? Or do you think that, upon realizing that it’s subjective, I’ll subjectively decide it’s a bad thing?
Or they could go down almost continuously. Still too much. Still too much. Still too much. How is this a point you’re making?
Since the Bush tax cuts were reversed for the wealthy, we’re back to Clinton-era levels. Plus ACA has some new taxes for the rich. I’m not sure what else you would want. The Buffet tax? Okay, there’s a little more money, but not enough to really do anything.
At this point, I’m just not sure what Democrats think they are asking for. They want more money, but for what? And how much do they need? It seems like they are pursuing higher taxes as a way of taking money away from people as an end rather than a means.
We’re in a deficit.
Would you rather pay $4,000/year/employee or $2,000/year/employee? If you run the kind of business where your people are fungible, it’s a tough call. You’re not going to save $2,000/person, but you will get rid of one hell of a headache if you can manage the personnel disruption this would cause. You’re talking at least $100,000 a year savings for the smaller companies. When you’re looking at a few hundred employees, that’s going to be quite a bit of money straight to the bottom line.
Is that all it is, all you don’t get? Well, shit, clear that up right now! They want to spend it on people. Here. Now. Us.
Glad to help.
Can you cite that the after the ACA insurance will cost twice what it would have without it?
What are you talking about? The penalty for not insuring FTEs is $2,000. Are you saying that I’m playing fast and loose with the premiums? Do you want to name a lower premium? Go ahead, pick a lower number. It’s easy to see that the premium for the lowest tier, individual is in the $3,000 range. Unless you think you can get compliant insurance for around $2,000/person you’re wasting your time - I can always save money.
And this doesn’t even include the motivation to move enough employees to part-time so that you don’t meet the FTE thresholds. If you have fungible employees and you’re not already mostly part-time, you probably will be after all is said and done.
You’re having trouble understanding the issue.
Visualize this:
You’re Joe the CEO of Widgettech. You have employees you’re currently offering insurance.
There is no law currently requiring you to do this.
The mandate passes. You are now penalized for $2000 if you don’t provide insurance.
Why would you, Joe the CEO of Widgettech, stop providing insurance, when you were providing it when there was no penalty?
You are saying that they are spending X to give insurance to their workers now. But once not giving insurance incurs a penalty, they will stop spending X and pay a penalty of Y.
That makes no sense. The penalty doesn’t hurt them in the least. Widgettech is already providing insurance.
The trouble is, I think, is that this goofy argument has been bouncing around RW media so long you think it makes sense. It doesn’t. If a company is currently providing insurance, it makes no sense for them to stop once they incur a penalty for not providing it. **Because they could stop providing it now, and pay no penalty at all. **
The go from spending X and getting a good incentive for workers to work for them, to spending Y and getting no incentive. They’re already willing to spend X, because they’re currently spending X when they don’t have to.
You really don’t know what Democrats are asking for? Have you not been paying attention? If you’re serious, let me know, but that’s some rather staggering ignorance, easily fixed with a bit of Googling.
If, instead, you meant what progressives are asking for, or even what I’m asking for, that’s a totally different question, and a lot more reasonable to ask.
This market will be transformed when the mandate takes effect. Fungible employees (I’m using this as short hand for fairly low pay) can get subsidized health insurance on their own. And they may even pay less out of pocket if they do. Using the subsidy calculator at Kaiser for instance, if you’re paying someone $36,000/yr and it’s a family of four, they could get a Silver policy for $1,500/yr after the subsidy. If I’m providing insurance, it’s going to cost them around $2,700/yr and me twice that (assuming the same policy).
Believe it or not, most employers do care about their employee’s circumstance. Pre-ACA, getting individual policies with any sort of precondition was expensive and, in some case, not practical. Also pre-ACA, getting a group policy that offered a modicum of protection wasn’t that expensive and the more employees you had and the younger their average age, the cheaper it was. We’re moving out of that world.
So I guess you consider Newsweek, the Kaiser Foundation, NYT and countless other mainstream sources all RW media. And I guess the reports of major employers converting positions to part-time and/or cutting hours has been a vast right wing conspiracy.
What I should have said was that I don’t know what progressives really want because what they say they want doesn’t match up with the paltry revenue they plan to raise to pay for it. So either they want a lot less, or they have secret tax increases on the middle class they aren’t telling us about.
Why do you think companies offer insurance without being forced to? Prior to Obamacare being a thing it was often difficult and expensive for a person to buy insurance that wasn’t tied to their employment - I know NH is an expensive market, but it was over $230/mo for a single person to get private insurance with a high deductible as recently as 2012. Since this has been the case for a long time, employers who offer health insurance are more attractive than those who don’t, which means employers who want to attract better workers have used it as an enticement. But now an individual can often get a reasonably priced (well, to them, after subsidies) policy on their own through the new market, so offering insurance isn’t as big a deal to someone considering a workplace. If it’s not going to draw better workers, and if people might be just as happy if they offer them a relatively small bump in pay that’ll cover all or most of the cost to the worker to get their own policy, why wouldn’t they? If an employer is currently paying 16k to insure their worker and his family, and they could instead pay the employee 5k more to cover their costs for an silver Obamacare plan for a family of 4 after subsidy and a 2k penalty, they’d still come out quite a bit ahead.
Without meaning to, you hit the nail on the head. Progressive taxation is precisely Marxism. Here are the 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto:
Speaking of election results, one thing that hasn’t been discussed is that the Republicans now control more governorships and state legislatures than they have since the 1920s.
And RCP reports that there are now 31 GOP governors compared to 17 Democratic governors.