Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
One other comment - Obama is NOT starting a "government run health program"; he's expanding insurance coverage. Very few countries actually have the government running the service (the UK works this way). The Canadian system is single-payer socialized insurance; the Germans use a mandatory sick-fund system; the French have a hybrid system of compulsory basic insurance and optional private top-up.
Even if the US did go single payer, which is highly unlikely, the infrastructure is all in place. Doctors and hospitals would continue to operate; it would be the insurance and payment end which would change. Obama isn't even doing that; he's only expanding the ways in which privately provided insurance is purchased. It's a Band-Aid fix, really, because it doesn't change the basic problem.
You seem to be under the impression that small business's will be forced to offer insurance programs. They aren't. Those who currently offer insurance programs will obviously be helped out by this as the 50% tax credit will greatly reduce their costs. Those that don't offer the insurance will have the option to enter the program and get the tax credit, because of the way it will be streamlined the costs will likely be less than it is now, so your figures of a $1,000 a month cost might be inflated. If it still doesn't make financial sense to offer the plan, you don't have to.
If you choose not to offer anything you still wind up in better shape than offering nothing now. This is because your employee will have more options available to them, as a result they will have better insurance than they currently have, will likely be healthier as a result. Also fact of the matter is current health care plans (even with the tax credit on the HMo's) are very expensive and very hard for someone making $40,000 to afford. Having the Obama plan in place (even if your business doesn't participate in it) makes things a bit better for you because it opens up the window to a larger employee pool because the insurance worry would be alliviated somewhat for someone looking for a job. Someone might not look for a job that pays $40,000 when the employer doesn't pay insurance because are still going to have the high HMO costs that will have to come out of their pocket, but might look at that $40,000 job the employer doesn't pay insurance for because their out ot pocket premimum's would be cheaper under the government plans than currently getting their own through an HMO
Anyway this is getting off topic quite a bit, but as I said before I don't see anyway Obama doesn't win LI and win it by a significant margin.
Many small business people on LI feel the same as I -- Obama is bad for us.
As for health insurance, our premium is $16K per year. I rounded down to $12K for simplicity of numbers. But if we looked at this from what Obama's site reads "$2,500 less per year" That brings me to $13,500.00 per family level employee. If they contribute 25%, I am responsible for $10,125.00 and if I am lucky, I will qualify got the max refundable tax credit of $5,062.50. I go from paying nothing to paying $5,062.50 per employee.
Obama didn't say what will become of small business which drop their insurance. Will I be forced to take on a human resources position in order to handle the government plan for my employees? He doesn't touch on any of that.
He did write that large business without insurance will see a higher payroll tax which will be passed on to whom? You and me.
If a potential employee comes to me and his main concern is "What's in it for me" as opposed to "This is what I can bring to you" he will be shown the door.
Again I ask, have you ever navigated the government run Medicare or Medicaid?
Obama hasn't answered:
1) HOW MUCH WILL IT COST TO IMPLEMENT A NEW PLAN FROM THE GROUND UP, SOUP TO NUTS?
2) HOW ARE WE PAYING FOR/FUNDING THIS?
3) WHAT WILL IT COST TO GET UP AND RUNNING?
One other comment - Obama is NOT starting a "government run health program"; he's expanding insurance coverage. Very few countries actually have the government running the service (the UK works this way). The Canadian system is single-payer socialized insurance; the Germans use a mandatory sick-fund system; the French have a hybrid system of compulsory basic insurance and optional private top-up.
Even if the US did go single payer, which is highly unlikely, the infrastructure is all in place. Doctors and hospitals would continue to operate; it would be the insurance and payment end which would change. Obama isn't even doing that; he's only expanding the ways in which privately provided insurance is purchased. It's a Band-Aid fix, really, because it doesn't change the basic problem.
It was my understanding that Canadians pay for their insurance through taxation and employers. I have to dig up the message from a Canadian friend in which she explained it to me.
You know what's 'great' about the Canadian system? Cheap drugs -- that is it. People get to wait longer for tests. This past June I needed an MRI and received the test within 4 days. In Canada, I would have waited 3 months. When dealing with groups of people with chronic conditions (elderly people being a good example) there is a pool of resources for them. They don't have the same access our elderly have. For example in Canada, if you have a lot of COPD patients, there will be longer waits. There are fewer doctors per capita in Canada and more nurse practitioners.
The initial investment to even get a new health plan department up and running is unimaginable. How many levels of staffing, management and administration would this require being a government entity, computers, legal advisors, boards, telephones, salaries, benefits, security, office space, etc. is this going to require?
They have enough problems with Medicare, Medicaid, Malpractice insurance, and drug costs -- FIX WHAT IS BROKEN FIRST -- before starting something else.
Many small business people on LI feel the same as I -- Obama is bad for us.
As for health insurance, our premium is $16K per year. I rounded down to $12K for simplicity of numbers. But if we looked at this from what Obama's site reads "$2,500 less per year" That brings me to $13,500.00 per family level employee. If they contribute 25%, I am responsible for $10,125.00 and if I am lucky, I will qualify got the max refundable tax credit of $5,062.50. I go from paying nothing to paying $5,062.50 per employee.
Obama didn't say what will become of small business which drop their insurance. Will I be forced to take on a human resources position in order to handle the government plan for my employees? He doesn't touch on any of that.
He did write that large business without insurance will see a higher payroll tax which will be passed on to whom? You and me.
If a potential employee comes to me and his main concern is "What's in it for me" as opposed to "This is what I can bring to you" he will be shown the door.
Again I ask, have you ever navigated the government run Medicare or Medicaid?
Obama hasn't answered:
1) HOW MUCH WILL IT COST TO IMPLEMENT A NEW PLAN FROM THE GROUND UP, SOUP TO NUTS?
2) HOW ARE WE PAYING FOR/FUNDING THIS?
3) WHAT WILL IT COST TO GET UP AND RUNNING?
If you don't choose to opt in, nothing will happen to you, its as simple as that. Obama's isn't mandating any coverage for small Businesses, what he is doing is offering a plan to alleviate the astronomical costs involved for small business's that do offer health insurance and to cut the costs for those small business' that currently do not offer health insurance in order to make it more affordable for those who wish to offer health insurance, but can't. He isn't forcing you as a small business to do anything, he is simply providing more options than exist now.
Also as far as the employee asking what they can do for you as opposed to what you can do for them, All employers look for that and all employees should have that attitude. However, that doesn't change the fact most people can't afford to pay for their own healthcare on $40,000 and that limits the potential employee pool. Even if you don't offer the health crae plan, your employee pool will be opened up a bit as the concerns over the ability to afford health care costs (or get health care period) that exist now won't be there. Not to mention as we get more coverage, more pre-ventitive care we become a healthier nation, fewer people will get sick, which will entail help bring down costs.
As far as how this is going to be paid for. Well going back to the tax rates under Clinton for those making over $250,000 as well as not spending $10 billion a month in Iraq will free some $$ up. Fact of the matter is the system we have now is a complete and utter disaster and needs to ber overhauled. But again its not going to impact you as a small business in the least bit. if it makes financial sense for you to participate in it you do, if not you don't no penalty to you. The inclination otherwise is simply false.
Anyway this thread was generally suppose to be about the Bradley effect and how the election will play out on Long Island. We proabbly should move back to the topic, so if you would like to discuss this further it would probably be better if you pm me.
If you don't choose to opt in, nothing will happen to you, its as simple as that. Obama's isn't mandating any coverage for small Businesses, what he is doing is offering a plan to alleviate the astronomical costs involved for small business's that do offer health insurance and to cut the costs for those small business' that currently do not offer health insurance in order to make it more affordable for those who wish to offer health insurance, but can't. He isn't forcing you as a small business to do anything, he is simply providing more options than exist now.
Also as far as the employee asking what they can do for you as opposed to what you can do for them, All employers look for that and all employees should have that attitude. However, that doesn't change the fact most people can't afford to pay for their own healthcare on $40,000 and that limits the potential employee pool. Even if you don't offer the health crae plan, your employee pool will be opened up a bit as the concerns over the ability to afford health care costs (or get health care period) that exist now won't be there. Not to mention as we get more coverage, more pre-ventitive care we become a healthier nation, fewer people will get sick, which will entail help bring down costs.
As far as how this is going to be paid for. Well going back to the tax rates under Clinton for those making over $250,000 as well as not spending $10 billion a month in Iraq will free some $$ up. Fact of the matter is the system we have now is a complete and utter disaster and needs to ber overhauled. But again its not going to impact you as a small business in the least bit. if it makes financial sense for you to participate in it you do, if not you don't no penalty to you. The inclination otherwise is simply false.
Anyway this thread was generally suppose to be about the Bradley effect and how the election will play out on Long Island. We proabbly should move back to the topic, so if you would like to discuss this further it would probably be better if you pm me.
My final response as far as this goes so that the thread can go back to the topic -- Bradley effect. Before I do, I would like to thank you for the civil exchange of thoughts. We might not agree, but I appreciate the fact that you can respect my opposing view as I respect yours.
Eveything Obama at this point is theory and speculation. There is nothing tangible in place. He might be providing more options, as you believe based upon what he has written, but is not implemented. Anything can be look good on paper. It's when you have to put the plan into action that the unanticipated glitches arise that must be addressed. Addressing them can alter the initial plan and bring about cost overruns.
An architect can hand me a detailed set of blueprints. The construction looks good on paper, but in the field we learn that certain things he has drawn can not be built or will not tie in properly with the existing structure. Revisions must be made which hold up the process as well as winding up costing the homeowner more money.
Did you read the pdf I linked on the earlier post? In it Obama mentions healthy environments. Part of the health care dollars used to create healthy environments will go toward the construction of sidewalks. Sidewalks? Tell that to the mother whose child has CF and is in the hospital for the umpteenth time that year, the asthmatic who needs a new nebulizer, the cancer patient who is undergoing radiation. I can appreciate preventative medicine, but sidewalks are the domain of the local government, not a federal health plan. I suppose they will divert health money toward infrastructure since we need roads to get to the doctor?
Does anyone honestly believe that any politician is going to keep his promises about changing tax rates for the rich only? Does anyone honestly believe that Obama will keep this at $250K and over? Once more these are words without anything concrete to back them up. People earning over a certain amount are usually fairly savvy when it comes to taking deductions in order to minimize their tax exposure. Given Obama and his friends fall into the over $250K category, do you think he is going to let himself bleed out to the IRS, or do you think he is going to shelter his money as best as possible?
The numbers he bandies about look great to Joe Jones in East Farmtown, NE where the cost of living, housing, etc. is far less than on LI. Someone making $85K out there is living well; someone making that here isn't living large.
Who really believes that if Obama is elected (provided the Bradley effect doesn't kick in) he will pull the troops from Iraq immediately? Absolutely not. We will continue to bleed out troops and money in the sand pit for years. (Shades of LBJ?) You can't count on using money which you do not have. If we're paying for Iraq, you can't pay for health care at the same time. Where do you get the money from until such a time that the troops are fully out of Iraq?
Remember that Obama is for reinstating the draft which will continue to feed the military machine on a more regular basis. (Should the draft be implemented) Training, outfitting, and housing recruits cost $. Then there's that question: why start a draft of you are withdrawing troops? We don't need more troops if they are no longer in Iran. Are they going to Pakistan? Obama came out and mentioned that in one of the debates. Did you ever get the feeling the US will be stuck in the middle east for a very long time?
The bottom line is that it costs money to implement new programs. The additional funds have to come from somewhere -- the American taxpayer or more loans from China which is merely passing more debt onto future generations.
As for the Bradley effect, I believe most LIers are comfortable revealing their political leanings and are generally more open-minded, especially those who are the younger, post baby boomer generations. IMHO the Bradley effect will certainly not be an issue here with white voters. I know plenty of people who agree with Obama's policys and plenty who don't. The ones who do not (such as myself) won't vote for him because of policy, not race.
I'm still reading up to compare and contrast both plans. The main reason why I view McCain's plan as the more egregious of the two is that he wants to tax employer provided health care benefits. Just to elaborate on the point I made previously: the current estimates are that 20 million people would lose their employer provided health care if McCain tax's benefits, which he will attempt to offset by providing a grossly insufficient tax credit: $2500 per individual/$5000 per family. Never mind that the average cost of a family halth care plan is over $12000(over $5000 for individuals). That means that these tax credits would cover less than half the cost of health insurance premiums, meaning employers would have less incentive to cover their empoyees. The number of uninsured would increase significantly from it's current sum of 47 million.
In layman's terms, if your health benefits are worth $12k, that means you will pay taxes on an extra $12k in income per year. Keep in mind that this is coming from a guy whose key campaign message is that he will lower taxes and his opponent will increase them. McCain's health care tax plan is the most significant tax increase being proposed by either candidate. Obama's tax plan just amounts to making the tax structure more equitable, lowering taxes for the middle class and rolling back the tax cuts for the wealthy to what they were under Bill Clinton(which is an increase from 36% to 39%).
Treating employer health benefits as taxable income is a HUGE tax increase, not a minor one, as it's estimated to result in $1 trillion in revenue from 09-2013.
McCain makes no provision to regulate the insurers, forcing them to cover all comers at "community" rates that don't discriminate against the people who need health insurance most. Obama does!
The way to analyze policies is to determine if they will result in a net positive for most people, or only for a few, but that's a difference in ideology between the left and the right.
Quick note: Obama is not reinstating the draft. That's a rumor being spread on wingnut websites, and if that's a concern, then I can't fathom why you would support McCain, as he has the more hawkish stance on foreign policy of the two. There's a much greater chance of you or your loved one being deployed if he becomes president.
Smash - I saw the poll on News 12, but I think it was taken before the fall of Lehman Brothers.
Doing more reading, Obama supports having women register with the Selective Service while McCain does not. Obama supports women in the field, McCain does not.
My final response as far as this goes so that the thread can go back to the topic -- Bradley effect. Before I do, I would like to thank you for the civil exchange of thoughts. We might not agree, but I appreciate the fact that you can respect my opposing view as I respect yours.
Eveything Obama at this point is theory and speculation. There is nothing tangible in place. He might be providing more options, as you believe based upon what he has written, but is not implemented. Anything can be look good on paper. It's when you have to put the plan into action that the unanticipated glitches arise that must be addressed. Addressing them can alter the initial plan and bring about cost overruns.
An architect can hand me a detailed set of blueprints. The construction looks good on paper, but in the field we learn that certain things he has drawn can not be built or will not tie in properly with the existing structure. Revisions must be made which hold up the process as well as winding up costing the homeowner more money.
Did you read the pdf I linked on the earlier post? In it Obama mentions healthy environments. Part of the health care dollars used to create healthy environments will go toward the construction of sidewalks. Sidewalks? Tell that to the mother whose child has CF and is in the hospital for the umpteenth time that year, the asthmatic who needs a new nebulizer, the cancer patient who is undergoing radiation. I can appreciate preventative medicine, but sidewalks are the domain of the local government, not a federal health plan. I suppose they will divert health money toward infrastructure since we need roads to get to the doctor?
Does anyone honestly believe that any politician is going to keep his promises about changing tax rates for the rich only? Does anyone honestly believe that Obama will keep this at $250K and over? Once more these are words without anything concrete to back them up. People earning over a certain amount are usually fairly savvy when it comes to taking deductions in order to minimize their tax exposure. Given Obama and his friends fall into the over $250K category, do you think he is going to let himself bleed out to the IRS, or do you think he is going to shelter his money as best as possible?
The numbers he bandies about look great to Joe Jones in East Farmtown, NE where the cost of living, housing, etc. is far less than on LI. Someone making $85K out there is living well; someone making that here isn't living large.
Who really believes that if Obama is elected (provided the Bradley effect doesn't kick in) he will pull the troops from Iraq immediately? Absolutely not. We will continue to bleed out troops and money in the sand pit for years. (Shades of LBJ?) You can't count on using money which you do not have. If we're paying for Iraq, you can't pay for health care at the same time. Where do you get the money from until such a time that the troops are fully out of Iraq?
Remember that Obama is for reinstating the draft which will continue to feed the military machine on a more regular basis. (Should the draft be implemented) Training, outfitting, and housing recruits cost $. Then there's that question: why start a draft of you are withdrawing troops? We don't need more troops if they are no longer in Iran. Are they going to Pakistan? Obama came out and mentioned that in one of the debates. Did you ever get the feeling the US will be stuck in the middle east for a very long time?
The bottom line is that it costs money to implement new programs. The additional funds have to come from somewhere -- the American taxpayer or more loans from China which is merely passing more debt onto future generations.
As for the Bradley effect, I believe most LIers are comfortable revealing their political leanings and are generally more open-minded, especially those who are the younger, post baby boomer generations. IMHO the Bradley effect will certainly not be an issue here with white voters. I know plenty of people who agree with Obama's policys and plenty who don't. The ones who do not (such as myself) won't vote for him because of policy, not race.
I have no clue where you heard Obama is for the draft, that is simply incorrect. As far as the tax policies, to say that he wil raise taxes on those who make less than $250,000 is simply false and no evidence exists to back it up. What he has proposed is to bring the rates back up to the Clinton levels on those making over $250,000. No he will raise this or that, its over $250,000 and that is that.
As far as Iraq goes, no one is suggesting that we will pull everyone out right away under obama. However, we will at least have some standard, some goal put in place, and some start to get us out of Iraq, which is something we haven't seen from McCain. Also his plan calls for more Iraqi involvement in the funding for the reconstruction due to the enormous surpluses they are running over there. We will obviously still be paying quite a bit of $$ over there, but it will likely be less than what we are doing now and less than under a McCain administration. Seann does a goo job in explaining McCain's healthcare point.
In regards to the whole sidewalks thing, one of themain themes of his plan (beyond more coverage) is getting more pre ventitive care. trying to stop things from becoming a problem before they do, (the whole healthy enviironents thing) The sidewalk thing comes into play in regards to preventing injuries to kids who get hurt as a result of playing in the street because of no sidewalks. The less kids in the hospital for injuries that could be prevented the better.
I'm still reading up to compare and contrast both plans. The main reason why I view McCain's plan as the more egregious of the two is that he wants to tax employer provided health care benefits. Just to elaborate on the point I made previously: the current estimates are that 20 million people would lose their employer provided health care if McCain tax's benefits, which he will attempt to offset by providing a grossly insufficient tax credit: $2500 per individual/$5000 per family. Never mind that the average cost of a family halth care plan is over $12000(over $5000 for individuals). That means that these tax credits would cover less than half the cost of health insurance premiums, meaning employers would have less incentive to cover their empoyees. The number of uninsured would increase significantly from it's current sum of 47 million.
In layman's terms, if your health benefits are worth $12k, that means you will pay taxes on an extra $12k in income per year. Keep in mind that this is coming from a guy whose key campaign message is that he will lower taxes and his opponent will increase them. McCain's health care tax plan is the most significant tax increase being proposed by either candidate. Obama's tax plan just amounts to making the tax structure more equitable, lowering taxes for the middle class and rolling back the tax cuts for the wealthy to what they were under Bill Clinton(which is an increase from 36% to 39%).
Treating employer health benefits as taxable income is a HUGE tax increase, not a minor one, as it's estimated to result in $1 trillion in revenue from 09-2013.
McCain makes no provision to regulate the insurers, forcing them to cover all comers at "community" rates that don't discriminate against the people who need health insurance most. Obama does!
The way to analyze policies is to determine if they will result in a net positive for most people, or only for a few, but that's a difference in ideology between the left and the right.
Quick note: Obama is not reinstating the draft. That's a rumor being spread on wingnut websites, and if that's a concern, then I can't fathom why you would support McCain, as he has the more hawkish stance on foreign policy of the two. There's a much greater chance of you or your loved one being deployed if he becomes president.
Smash - I saw the poll on News 12, but I think it was taken before the fall of Lehman Brothers.
Could that possibly be the Long island breakdown of the Sienna poll?? I remember awhile back Sienna had a poll out which only showed Obama up by 5 in NY, which was utterly ridiculous. sienna by the way has a bad polling track record, had Kerry up only 6 in 04. Now I don't know if its the same poll or not, but considering Long island's recent political changes I think the Newsday poll was far more accurate than the poll you were referring to.
In regards to the whole sidewalks thing, one of themain themes of his plan (beyond more coverage) is getting more pre ventitive care. trying to stop things from becoming a problem before they do, (the whole healthy enviironents thing) The sidewalk thing comes into play in regards to preventing injuries to kids who get hurt as a result of playing in the street because of no sidewalks. The less kids in the hospital for injuries that could be prevented the better.
Do you really think kids are going to play on the sidewalks?? Let's get real, please!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.