Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch
When employers sponsor private insurance, they usually pay a portion of the premiums. If they have the option of offering the national plan, they save that portion. If you were the employer, would you offer expensive private plans or a "free national plan"? It is assumed that the vast majority, if not all, employers will opt for the national plan. Any remaining holdouts might well be forced by competitive costs to eventually do so as well.
|
There would be no "free national plan" as they would pay the 8% tax. The argument, which I believe is a valid argument, is that the cost of coverage under the private plans will increase faster than the government will increase the 8% tax...but the net result would be the same as you have suggested.
So far I'm not that impressed with what the House or Senate has put together. They appear to be adding liabilities without any real reductions in cost. In fact by normalizing the coverage and costs that the plans will have to offer to be considered "qualified" by the State Gateways, they could well drive costs up faster.
That being said, I don't think the major insurance companies are going to be flat lining any time soon. Even under heavy regulation they will be more nimble than any government offered system, and will continue to spend billions to lobby Congress for advantages.
That's not to say the consumer won't suffer.
I'd like to see higher deductibles offered for healthy or younger people, interstate shopping and other elements that will help contain costs.
Obama is getting killed on this issue for one simple reason. His rhetoric and what's coming from the draft legislation don't line up. This is giving the fear mongers free reign to say what ever they want...Same thing happened to Bush over SS.
-spence
Threaded Mode