Posted on 10/25/2009 2:14:47 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
WASHINGTON (AP) - Businesses would not be required to provide health insurance under legislation being readied for Senate debate, but large firms would owe significant penalties if any worker needed government subsidies to buy coverage on their own, according to Democratic officials familiar with talks on the bill.
For firms with more than 50 employees, the fee could be as high as $750 multiplied by the total size of the work force if only a few workers needed federal aid, these officials said. That is a more stringent penalty than in a bill that recently cleared the Senate Finance Committee, which said companies should face penalties on a per-employee basis.
These officials also said individuals would generally be required to purchase affordable insurance if it were available, and face penalties if they defied the requirement.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
And how much, per employee, is providing health care costing these “big companies”?
I suspect that, by design, it will be cheaper to pay the fine then buy the health care.
Reading the article now, wondering if the fee is per month, year or what?
I cannot fathom why NO ONE is challenging the Constitutionality of this travesty. Granted, I believe that Medicare, Social Security, and a lot of other Federal programs are also un-Constitutional, but this one absolutely stinks to high heaven. Plus, we have the arrogant ignorance of Steny Hoyer telling us that the ‘general welfare’ clause give the Congress the authority to do ANYTHING it believes to be in the best interest of the people.
Surely we are headed to a day of reckoning. It’s time to take back the country.
“large firms would owe significant penalties if any worker needed government subsidies to buy coverage on their own, according to Democratic officials familiar with talks on the bill.”
So - if a worker can’t afford the required health insurance, her employer will have to pay a fine? Because they didn’t pay her enough to buy health insurance? Is that what I’m reading here?
“So - if a worker can’t afford the required health insurance, her employer will have to pay a fine? Because they didn’t pay her enough to buy health insurance? Is that what I’m reading here?”
This will tank a lot of businesses.
It certainly will.
“I cannot fathom why NO ONE is challenging the Constitutionality of this travesty.”
Simply because no one has ever had any luck with that approach when it comes to large programs. I’m not saying that it shouldn’t be tried, I’m just saying that needs to be a fall-back.
After all, arguing the meaning of the Constitution with Democrats is futile.
I wonder how all the 20 to 30-yr old mushbrain liberals are going to like being forced to purchase, with their own money, health insurance that they may not even need if they're healthy and lead healthy lifestyles. It's like being penalized for eating and living the right way, while your hard earned money or taxes go to fund those that do not. I wonder if any of them will "get it" (what we've been against all along re: big government) finally.
“I wonder how all the 20 to 30-yr old mushbrain liberals are going to like being forced to purchase”
Right now, they just think this is going to be a free entitlement.
I see the dems still think the Constitution mandates healthcare payments. Go to hell congress.
Nobody is challenging it, because though the court’s loose interpretation of the commerce clause and the equal protection clause, the federal government is free to do anything it wants.
Challenging the Constitutionality of a law is done by lawsuits and/or criminal trials after the law is passed. Arguments that this is unconstitutional have been made already.
It has to be law before the courts will rule on constitutional grounds. Now why the congresscritters don’t do more, I can’t answer.
That would seem to be what they are saying. This would be a development where employers may want a government option. How could a company like McDonalds pay enough for health insurance for minimum wage employees.
Right. They couldn’t. They might not be able to provide insurance at all. So there’s our public option, I guess.
Have you noticed that the Obamaites call it a “Public” option while others correctly call it a “Government” Option?
the same way people still call government schools public schools...
To be fair "public" schools have at least the veneer of public control what with elected school boards and all. The "government" option of Obamacare would be raw unbridled government control.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.