A Total Crock
Since the New York Times has pretty much become the official media outlet of this administration, I presume that this article represents a new trial balloon in selling government health care. The pitch this time -- its good for small businesses! (via Maggies Farm)
President Obama, in his Saturday radio address, said the Democrats' health insurance overhaul would help small businesses and stimulate the economy by providing relief from "the crushing costs of health care "” costs that have forced too many small businesses to cut benefits, shed jobs, or shut their doors for good."....
The House speaker, Nancy Pelosi of California, said the sharp rise in premiums for small businesses offered the latest evidence that Congress must act swiftly on health care legislation.
"This underlines the urgent need for health insurance reform, including a public option," she said in an interview. "We need to have competition for the insurance companies to keep premiums down."
I am only now getting through the 1500 pages of this bill (putting me ahead of Ms. Pelosi in reading it, I am sure), but the last House bill would have been a disaster for my company, increasing taxes on wages by up to 8% and imposing a record-keeping burden that was just horrific.
The NYT and the Democrats are apparently trying to set up a mini-class war within bussinesses, snidely saying these companies have more negotiating leverage. Sure. But what they have even more of is the leverage to shape federal legislation to their benefit. However worse a deal my company may get in free insurance markets due to being small is nothing compared to how much worse of a deal we will get from Congress by being small.
If they really wanted to cut costs for small businesses, they would strip out all the national and state coverage mandates for things like aromatherapy that raise costs so much and let me shop for insurance across state lines. That would be real competition. Unfortunately, all Pelosi means by competition is throwing Amtrak into the mix to compete with the airlines. Yeah, that will do the trick.
Brandybuck:
Oh you evil capitalist you! You would deny aromatherapy to your employees! Oh the huge manatee!
October 25, 2009, 10:38 amAllen:
Just feel like this one needs to be repeated :
The NYT and the Democrats are apparently trying to set up a mini-class war within bussinesses, snidely saying these companies have more negotiating leverage. Sure. But what they have even more of is the leverage to shape federal legislation to their benefit. However worse a deal my company may get in free insurance markets due to being small is nothing compared to how much worse of a deal we will get from Congress by being small.
October 25, 2009, 11:34 amDavid Zetland:
Here's how to lower the burden on businesses: end the tax deduction for businesses, let them roll that compensation into salary and then let employees buy their own insurance: http://aguanomics.com/2009/08/few-more-thoughts-on-health-care.html
October 25, 2009, 2:39 pmMethinks:
So, they increase minimum wage and unemployment benefits and then tell you they're "slashing costs" by pretending to make health coverage less expensive.
These people are too stupid to have real jobs, yet they are brimming with enough hubris to make them believe everyone else is even more stupid. Of course, to be fair, they've been hanging out with democrats....
October 26, 2009, 6:07 amLink:
When I first saw this meme -- health care reform will help small business -- I laughed out loud. You can create an incentive for small business owners to dump employees into the public option, but then these same business owners will have to pay for the public option on their personal income tax forms. with even less control over the costs.
For months I've thought Obama & Co were having a laugh at our expense -- now I'm leaning to the surprising conclusion that there's a lot of supposedly smart people in this Administration that don't understand how the private sector actually works -- unless it's the likes of Goldman Sachs and General Electric. It's not just Obama -- Larry Summers has spent too much time swimming in aggregate data. As Bugs Bunny would say ... "What a maroon!"
We're heading to some odd combination of Peron's Argentina and Japan's MITI. But both Peron and MITI started their programs from a position of fiscal strength. Obama & Co forget that someone has to pay the bills, and that we're already federally fiscally overextended. The truly wealthy and the CEO of General Electric needn't worry -- at least not to start -- but small business owners will get crushed from the looming disconnect of federal revenues and federal expenditures.
Continued high employment will be a telling number.
I just learned that "Obamu" is a new slang word among Japanese youth. It means to blindly surge ahead. obamu: (v.) To ignore inexpedient and inconvenient facts or realities, think “Yes we can, Yes we can,†and proceed with optimism using those facts as an inspiration (literally, as fuel).
October 26, 2009, 7:15 amJane:
All of you better get the anti-depressants ready for the next four years. It's gonna be rough. I hope you get through it. You're starting to sound like Sean Hannity. I feel bad for the guy.
October 26, 2009, 7:19 amDr. T:
"... I’m leaning to the surprising conclusion that there’s a lot of supposedly smart people in this Administration that don’t understand how the private sector actually works..."
I draw a different conclusion. Obama is causing the private sector economy to fail so he can convert us to a socialist-fascist hybrid economy. Every business will be government owned (socialism) or government controlled (fascism). Obama has made great progress: our governments comprise 30% of the economy; the federal government owns a good chunk of the auto business, the mortgage business, and the banking and investment businesses; and the federal government soon will control a much bigger chunk of the health care sector. If Obama enacts his plans for Cap-and-Trade, AmeriService, wealth taxes, bigger subsidies to agribusiness (increasing their dependency on the government), and more interference with trade and tariffs, then he'll achieve his goal of destroying our economy by 2112. He'll campaign for re-election based on the need for a strong leader to oversee the nation's economic rescue by the federal government. (CBS reporter in 2112: "Obama had to destroy the economy to save it. We must look to him for guidance during these troubled times.")
October 26, 2009, 3:56 pmLink:
I meant "Continued high unemployment will be a telling number." An obvious error on my part.
Unemployment is a number that resonates politically. I hope our media can gain sophistication parsing the basic unemployment number deeper.
October 26, 2009, 4:41 pmDr. T:
I draw a different conclusion. I believe Obama wants the private sector fail so he can convert us to a socialist-fascist hybrid economy. Every business will be either government owned (socialism) or government controlled (fascism). Obama's made great progress: our governments account for 30% of the economy; the federal government owns a good chunk of the auto business, the mortgage business, and the banking and investment businesses; and the federal government soon will control a much bigger chunk of the health care business. If Obama enacts his future plans for AmeriService, wealth taxes, bigger subsidies to agribusiness (more dependency upon government), and more interference with trade and tariffs, then he'll achieve his goal of destroying our economy by 2112. He'll campaign for re-election based on the need for a strong leader to oversee the federal government takeover of the collapsed economy.
October 26, 2009, 4:53 pmspiro:
Link,
what's even MORE awesome is that the current administration will keep on trotting out "hey, it takes time to clean up the other guy's mess. Be Patient!"
...and too many people will still buy it.
October 27, 2009, 4:40 pm