Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (10282)	10/8/2009 2:19:58 PM
From: Peter Dierks	1 Recommendation Respond to of 42652

Among other problems: If that sounds too good to be true, it’s because it would be, for the vast majority of workers, at least as the Baucus plan is currently written. All but the smallest employers would be required to offer qualifying coverage to their full-time workers to avoid hefty taxes, and the employees would have no choice but to take what is offered to avoid paying a penalty tax themselves. The“firewall” thus prevents workers from exiting employer-based plans for the exchanges. I can tell you that employers would work to keep the number of full time employees down. There are millions of Americans who are currently employed full time at one job who would eventually have more than one part time job to maintain their current income. Penalties can be expected for employers converting full time jobs to multiple part time jobs. This addresses current positions. Anyone who has a brain knows that jobs and departments are not static. New departments and new facilities that might replace the work being done at old facilities would most likely be staffed largely by part time people. The outshoot is that it would be a bonanza for staffing companies as they evolved to provide the benefit free workers.