What you and others, who naively support Government run healthcare for reasons that anyone with a modicum of logic cannot begin to fathom, attempt to argue is that it must be BAD if Insurance companies attempt to control costs by negotiating with healthcare professionals on behalf of their insurers and whom may only allow certain levels of care but it is GOOD if faceless Government entities ration care by doing the EXACT same thing.
FACT: You cannot provide 300 million citizens unrestricted health care without some form of cost control and rationing.
FACT: Government controlled programs cannot be stopped, you cannot end them, fire them or even reform them because it is the GOVERNMENT; see Government history with exiting programs like SS, Medicare, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and veterans administration.
FACT: Insurance companies can indeed be FIRED and you can CHOOSE to go elsewhere if there is competition thus maintaining quality as well as cost controls.
I am stunned and confused how any educated intelligent being on this planet with a modicum of honesty can argue FOR Government run programs when there is so much evidence of how massively ill equipped they are to manage ANYTHING, particularly their own budgets.
Yes... which is why you so desperately refuse to ctiticize him for putting gas-guzzling SUVs and trucks on the road.And I find it amusing you claim I will defend Obama regardless, when I have been critical of him...
maybe, maybe not
but it sure appears to be HORRIBLY executed
and EXECUTION is kinda the IMPORTANT part, no?
i mean anyone can sit back in air conditioned offices and CONCEIVE of things, can't they?
according to democrat joe sestak, ms pelosi and pals have only kicked out TWO PERCENT of the money they've promised to dealers who've stuck their necks out based on congress' promises
and FOUR OF FIVE applications have been turned down for either this or that technicality
pelosi is treating car dealers exactly the same way obama treats members of his party---stick your neck out for me, even if you might get your head chopped off
Auto Dealers Paid for Just 2 Percent of 'Clunkers' Claims, Congressman Says - Political News - FOXNews.com
So I suppose it's still an issue, but not as big of one as I previously thought. I had no idea about this HIPAA law so thanks.
Assume that insurance premiums do not drop, and 100% of current premium cost is transferred to the worker's pocket instead of the employer's. Assume also zero opportunities for administrative efficiencies and similar indirect savings. Shifting the tax advantage on insurance premiums from employer to employee, with zero cost reduction, would equate to a transfer of premium cost to labor cost--payrolls would necessarily rise to match. The net compensation of the employee remains the same, the net income of the employer remains the same, and the tax burden remains the same.
The worst case scenario, then, is for zero change in tax burden on businesses (employers) on direct expense alone.
This oversimplification ignores administrative efficiencies, and even ignores the fact that some employees would prefer more disposable income to health insurance from their employer, both of which are indirect benefits of such a reform.
Something that has at worst zero economic impact on businesses and provides greater flexibility and a broader market for health insurance is, even in the worst case, a net positive.