Skip to main content

View Diary: Response to Meteor Blades -- Progressive Health Care Lines in the Sand (32 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  If there's an employer mandate (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Surly Cracker, whaddaya

    wouldn't that prevent this scenario? And aren't mandates still part of the discussion?

    Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth. - FDR

    by Sameer Dossani on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 11:58:00 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Well, my understanding of the mandate (0+ / 0-)

      is that the 8% (on payroll over $500k, less on less) would fulfill the "mandate" portion of the law.

      The argument is that employers could simply cancel insurance and pay the tax, thus forcing their employees to choose alternative plans. The question is disingenuous, since it's not like this is illegal NOW, and it's really more a "gotcha" point when they say "the President says I don't have to change my plan," but I'm wondering whether the bill makes the scenario realistic, or at least what to say to that question.

      Dance like no one is watching with one fist in the air... We are stronger than everything they have taught us that we should fear.

      by Surly Cracker on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 12:02:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I thought (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Surly Cracker

        it was 2% at 500K of payroll, sliding upwards by 2% increments...  I know I was looking at an old factsheet before the final HR3200 (the version i was looking at had the low limit at $250K).

        However, I think the incentives (up to 50% of employer plan costs are deductible) are still in place.

        I believe the intent is to make continuing to offer coverage the best deal for an employer.

        I believe that all the slow phase-ins are still in place as well - which, I think, is a good idea, as it would allow us to gauge whether the limits are right, the incentives are working, and that no one has been able to game the system.

        I guess everyone's got their own blog now.

        by zonk on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 12:08:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  From NYT a week ago (0+ / 0-)

          Most employers would still be required to provide health insurance to workers or pay a new federal tax, but more small businesses could qualify for the exemption, which would be available to businesses with annual payrolls of $500,000 or less, compared with a threshold of $250,000 in the original House bill. The maximum tax rate, 8 percent of wages, would apply to employers with payrolls exceeding $750,000, rather than the original threshold of $400,000.

          So it starts at $500k, with those levels rising to 8% at $750k. That makes more sense. I didn't realize that there was an exemption below $500k payroll, which really makes the whole thing much better with respect to small businesses.

          Dance like no one is watching with one fist in the air... We are stronger than everything they have taught us that we should fear.

          by Surly Cracker on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 12:18:17 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Right (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Surly Cracker

            Again - I'm using the older version of HR 3200 - but there are also incentives for even exempted businesses to participate by offering coverage, as well the Exchange participation option.

            I guess everyone's got their own blog now.

            by zonk on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 12:32:40 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site