Some progress...

[Counts]

I've heard some say that employers that offer insurance might switch to it because of the exchange that's being set up, but haven't seen anything with private.

Bingo!!!!!

It is the Employers that could be preasured to switch..........That being said employers could pick up a differant provider between years now so take that for what it is worth.



I am still wondering about Vision

[R13]

Will there be some small businesses that choose the option in the Exchange? Yes, but the option is left to the employer completely and they aren't forced to do anything by the plan...the only thing "forcing" them to change it, is the outrageous costs..not the gov.

[TheBeast]

Will there be some small businesses that choose the option in the Exchange? Yes, but the option is left to the employer completely and they aren't forced to do anything by the plan...the only thing "forcing" them to change it, is the outrageous costs..not the gov.

What the bill says, pages 167-168, section 401, TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE:

??(a) TAX IMPOSED.?In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of?

(1) the taxpayer?s modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over

(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer. . . .?

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGE:

1. This section amends the Internal Revenue Code.

2. Anyone caught without acceptable coverage and not in the government plan will pay a special tax.

3. The IRS will be a major enforcement mechanism for the plan.



Sounds like "forcing" coverage to me.

[R13]

That was a cherry-picked line from it, I looked at it and read pages before. I'm thinking it has to do with the part of the bill that calls for a tax on individuals with adjusted gross income over $350,000.

[1inStripes]

So whats the feeling about this:

White House appears ready to drop 'public option' - Yahoo! News

[simple man]

What the bill says, pages 167-168, section 401, TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE:

??(a) TAX IMPOSED.?In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of?

(1) the taxpayer?s modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over

(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer. . . .?

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGE:

1. This section amends the Internal Revenue Code.

2. Anyone caught without acceptable coverage and not in the government plan will pay a special tax.

3. The IRS will be a major enforcement mechanism for the plan.



Sounds like "forcing" coverage to me.

Good- that keeps them from raising the prices on larger companies that pay the bills when the small guy files bankruptcy to get out of paying, comes along. We are already paying for ALL the small bizs- they jack the price up every year. The folks that don't have ins fall into this also. The "chicken little business" sky is falling is getting old. Time to carry their share.

[R13]

So whats the feeling about this:

White House appears ready to drop 'public option' - Yahoo! News

I think it's bull**** if it is dropped, I like the public option. The co-ops would be okay, but not what I'd like to see. I'd be pretty ****ed, partisanship screwing us over IMO.

[1inStripes]

So, do you real blame one, or the other, or both?

[R13]

I blame the Republicans for this campaign against it that's made it this huge isse., with no real plan of their own. And if the Dems give in it, I blame them for abandoning the plan. If it comes down to a useless effort, play politics, maybe what Carville suggested.

[1inStripes]

So basically the Pubs done a better job of filibustering than the Dems did backing/supporting their product? What was Carvilles comment?