Along with these special interest provisions of the bill some businesses were targeted for increased taxes, such as tanning salons that are getting clobbered with an additional 10% tax to help finance this runaway train as well as a host of others who are being economically clubbed into submission. The cosmetic medical professionals dodged the bullet as the addendum to tax elective cosmetic surgery was pulled from the bill. Kudo's to the lobbying arm of the Screen Actors Guild on getting that stopped. Not surprisingly, the AARP, who you may recall strongly supported Obama last election, will be provided an additional one-billion dollars in Medicaid payments for their lobbying clients. The list of earmarks and addendum to the health care bill goes on and on and we will bring you updates as we learn more and the “hidden” special interest provisions are brought to light.
By the way, didn’t our own Senator Tester campaign on the promise of No, No, and Hell No to any and all earmarks? Why are we the voters giving him a pass on this outright lie? Did not he nickname himself “No Earmarks Ever Tester" during the campaign? I can’t wait to hear his excuse on this one. And if Tester was going to be a Senator whose vote could be purchased like he claimed his former opponent was, why didn’t he stand firm for Montana and likewise bring home 100 million for Montana’s Medicaid program?
Damnation and lies, the Tester way!
Maybe if the Republican Party would have worked on the bill instead of being the NO NO NO NO party we would have gotten a better bill. But the only thing the Republican Party looks out for is big business and the insurance companies. The Republicans sure had no problem with spending money on Bushes wars. But now they cry that we can’t afford heath care. And now they have people like Sarah Palin and Michael Steele in the party. Boy you must be proud of your party now.
ReplyDeleteBusiness Burden, or Boon?
The House-passed health care bill certainly puts new requirements on businesses. The employer mandate, also known as the "pay-or-play" provision, would require employers to provide health insurance for their full-time and even their part-time workers, or pay a penalty amounting to 8 percent of payroll. That would increase costs for many businesses that don’t already cover their workers, or don’t cover all of them.
The mandate doesn’t apply to all businesses: Those with payrolls under $500,000 a year would be completely exempt and employers with payrolls between $500,000 and $750,000 would pay lower penalties than larger businesses. And small businesses would get other help, too. Small firms would be allowed to purchase coverage through a new insurance exchange, pooling risk as large firms can do now. The aim is to put their premium costs more in line with the cheaper prices that large employers pay. The legislation also includes tax credits for businesses with fewer than 25 employees and average wages under $40,000 to help them provide health coverage; the credits could amount to as much as 50 percent of premiums – though they would only be in effect for two years, and we can’t predict whether they would be renewed.
The upshot for employers overall? Some would pay more under the bill – those with payrolls over $500,000 who don’t now offer coverage to their employees being the most obvious example. And some would pay less – particularly small employers who currently provide coverage. They would get cheaper premiums through the exchange, health care experts believe, and some would qualify for a tax credit.
The Lewin Group estimated that the House bill would increase costs on average for businesses that already offer insurance coverage. Their costs would go up an average of $113 per worker for the year, but the effect would vary widely by size of employer. For firms with fewer than 10 workers, the cost per worker would actually drop by $829, for instance. The burden would be highest for firms with between 25 and 100 employees, who would see costs rise by an estimated $412 per worker for the year. Those employers tend to have part-time workers who don’t currently get health benefits that are offered to the firms’ full-time employees, John Sheils, senior vice president of the Lewin Group, told FactCheck.org.
The Lewin Group Features a health care and human services consulting firm with more than 30 years of experience.
There you go 1313; diverting attention from a bad move for the country, back towards the mistakes of the Republicans the past 8 years. If you had bothered to read earlier blogs you may have noticed that we too had been disgusted with the reign over the past Republican years. Does blaming the Republicans make this smelly health care mess any sweeter? I am so sick of hearing the attitudes of people that always want to blame the parties and not the elected officials that are supposed to be representing you and me, the taxpayer. Neither Tester nor Baucus have done that in this debate. Time to find some candidates that will, regardless of party affiliation.
ReplyDeleteJust for our readers information, the Lewin Group cited in 1313's post is a national health care consulting firm based in Falls Church, Virginia, that is wholly owned by the health insurance giant, UnitedHealth Group.
ReplyDeleteThey do have some very interesting data on their website. Give them a read if you would like to learn more. Thanks for pointing them out 1313
You surely didn't expect Tester to keep his campaign promise of no earmarks ever did you? He's in the trough as deep as any old party boy. I noticed that 1313 didn't take offense at the tanning businesses getting singled out for an extra tax. Or no offense taken at the liberal Movie actors getting preferential treatment.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think of the tea party patriots? They are starting to make more sense to me then either the Democrats or Republicans
Interesting report on CNN this morning about the second vote passing. A CNN poll showed that the majority of Americans DO NOT FAVOR this health care bill passing.
ReplyDeleteNo matter what your opinion on this one, it is clear that our elected Representation is not doing what the people want.
Earmarks - look at the defense bill just passed- building planes for the military They DON'T want just to satisfy some votes.. Tester signed his name on that one ALSO.
ReplyDeleteI think Obama ran under a no earmark policy as well..
This bill does not come into effect until the next El presidente election is over... wonder why....
I know where he is>>>>>>>>> he is in the news this morning bragging about all the earmarks the health care bill is giving Montana
ReplyDeleteNo earmarks ever? Dam phony. I won't be voting by party this next election. I will vote NO to all incumbents, both Dem and Rem no matter how good the campaign brochures are
my oh my----I saw Tester in town today...and had to bite my lip!
ReplyDeleteI wanted to comment on health-care, but had already heard an email from him on HIS point of view!
He was here for the funeral and didn't want to impose---but it was tough!!!!
Your just assuming he actually cares what any of us think anyway
ReplyDeleteYet another guy I won't be voting for again. I am beginning to think a person should always vote against the incumbent
ReplyDelete