Common Sense vs. the CBO on ObamaCare
From: BigGovernment.com
Both the House and Senate versions of the healthcare reform bill would require employers above a certain size to provide health insurance for their workers or face some sort of penalty. The House bill that passed last month would require employers to pay an 8% additional payroll tax for not insuring their workers. The Senate bill now under consideration is much less punitive, requiring employers who do not provide insurance to pay a $750 annual fee per full-time worker, but only if one or more of their employees receive a government subsidy in the insurance exchange.
Quite a difference between the two bills. By way of example, take an employee earning $50,000 per year. Under the House bill, an employer who did not provide insurance would be required to pay an additional tax of $4,000 to the federal government. Compared to only $750 under the Senate bill – a difference of more than 500%.
Now consider whether it would make more sense financially for the employer to provide insurance or pay the penalty. In our example above, under the House bill it would probably be close to a break-even if the employer is providing coverage only for the employee. According to the most recent data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the average monthly insurance premium for private industry employers across all worker categories was $317.63. Or just over $3800 annualized (compared to the $4,000 penalty). However, it would be quite a bit more expensive if the employer was providing family coverage (BLS data: $737.68/mo – $8850/yr).
Obviously under the Senate bill it would be far less expensive for the employer to just pay the $750 penalty rather than provide the insurance.
SEIU: Building a New American Health Care Empire?
From: BigGovernment.com
Most average Americans know little about the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). Some know them as the people in purple shirts that beat up attendees at the town halls this summer. Some equate them to ACORN, or to the Obama administration. While there is some truth to all of the above, there is for certain one title that every voting American should be bestowing upon SEIU, and that is the title of “special interest”.
From 2000 to current, SEIU has spent at least $187,500,000 through combined lobbying, PAC and 527s group donations and expenses on candidates and policy issues – nearly 100% of which went to Democrats and to liberal policy initiatives. Much has been focused on influencing universal health care, as well as other indirectly related health legislation, such as public nutrition, food safety, research, and environmental health – all part of SEIU’s supposed plan for Building a New American Health Care System. Because, in their words, they “will not stop until every man, woman and child has quality, affordable care they can count on.”
So really…why is SEIU so invested in health care?
Because health care is the lifeblood of SEIU. In January of 2007, SEIU announced it would combine over 30 of its local unions to form a National Health Care Division. Years of organizing independent workers, such as home child care and foster care providers, home health aides, and nutritionists had led SEIU to discover untapped potential in what it deemed “health care workers”. With three divisions – Health Care, Public Services and Property Services – SEIU’s members are nurses, dieticians, lab techs, nursing home & home care workers, and child care providers. Others are janitors, cafeteria workers, and other service workers in state/public facilities like hospitals, schools and stadiums. SEIU has made health a key driver to creating these jobs. And they know the best way to protect their lifeblood is to entrench themselves into the legislative / policy-making process on a more permanent level. While two million members in SEIU is impressive, apparently they don’t feel it’s enough to build an empire. So if you’re SEIU, how do you create and maintain even more health care jobs?
CWNews Posted Comments