It seems to me that companies with less than 50 employees are financially incented to drop group insurance because they can budget their taxes for not providing coverage and the employee (and family) is better off with the larger federal subsidy, about 17,000 for a family with $30,000 of annual income.

I believe when CBO scored the bill, they assumed that no small employer would drop insurance so they have drastically underestimated the federal cost due to the change in behavior of dropping coverage. Am I correct about this?

If I am correct, is there a way for Hewitt or some other like firm to rescore the bill assuming a lot of small employers will drop coverage? I would think that the federal cost would sky-rocket and scare some in congress enough that they would not support the bill(s)now being considered.

Thanks,
Arnie

Obama isn’t trying to “save” our healthcare system, he is trying to replace it and there is no better or faster way to do this than by increasing the rate of failure to require it to have to be replaced.

Obama has always said he supports a single pay system that the rest of the World has, which provides better care for less and seeks to make this happen simply by increasing amounts the government spends and forcing cuts that adversely effect all other government programs. It is a shrewd yet effective way to gain a place in history, but he fails to realize that in doing this he will end up historically in a place that isn’t one of glory.

What he fails to realize is that healthcare isn’t a financial process, but is one of highly trained and experienced people applying skills. We have half the number of physicians and other providers that other countries do and as the “boomer generation” TV show pointed out, the largest numbers of these providers come from that era. When and if providing care becomes simply a financial matter, how many of the majority of providers who do not have financial need will “stay the course” and continue to practice in a government run program that satisfies no one. And if the supply of providers isn’t maintained, how do we “produce” millions of trained and experienced people to replace them?

Obama or someone close to him or his administration will eventually realize that destroying a flawed system to replace it with one that has no chance of success will not advance care in our country. If not soon, it will be a known commodity before the next Presidential election. And when it does, where will he spend the rest of his years?

P.S. I am, and have been for many years, and unaffiliated voter who votes regularly.

(See my Forbes.com blog post titled, “No Small Ambitions: The social abyss beyond the president’s health care summit” by following this URL: http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/01/health-care-summit-obama-opinions-columnists-richard-a-epstein.html)

I suggest that the Rep have a press conference and hold up 6 of their ideas (as stated in the summit) and ask the Dems to pick out 6 of their most critical items from the Senat/House bills. Together they can write acceptable bipartisan legislation. The theme might be 6+6=Bipartianship

The restated idea of starting over with a blank sheet did not resonate well as an alternative. The same thing coul have been accomplished with a specific offer of equal ideas being hashed out as a bipartisan initiative.

There is another option which I have read and I am starting tho think is very likely. A “bait and switch” by the Senate Dems on the House Dems. Step #1 in this particular reconciliation is for the House to pass the (already-passed) Senate bill. Then the House starts their shenanigans with a second bill which effectively amends the first bill. This second bill then has to pass the Senate, and _that_ is the bill that would be done with “budget reconciliation.”

The Senate, after the House votes on bill #1, could just say, “Yay! We passed the perfect health care plan. All done!” and totally ignore the second bill. That hangs the House Dems out to dry, but it is also much prettier for the Senate. No Biden overriding the parliamentarian, no drawn out, ugly amendment process, no abuse of the Byrd rule.

To prevent this con, Obama would have to commit not to sign bill #1 unless and until bill #2 also passes, which I don’t think he will do, or at least I’m not sure he would be believed even if he did.

However, a twenty-person firm might have only one or two people who earn over $90K. The administrative costs, per beneficiary, of employer-based benefits will surely explode, making it more expensive.