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: Lane3 who wrote (40314)	9/28/2015 12:13:08 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

>> This does both. It may level the playing field, although I doubt it. But I really don't see how it will cut costs. Principally, if I understand it, it taxes benefits such has HSAs and flexible spending accounts, which are technically unnecessary. It doesn't seem to me these increase the cost of health care so much as they just provide benefits are probably overkill. If you have a union member with a $30,000 family plan there is a good chance a lot of is made up by stuff that doesn't really contribute to the cost of health care. Now, the leveling of the playing field could happen, but my guess is that the powerful employees will continue to be just as powerful and simply demand that employers suck it up and pay for the whole mess. Penalty, whatever. If they were powerful enough to get the benefits in the first place, well, there you go. Of course, there are hedge fund managers who have the $50,000 plans and they'll just say, "Whatever." I don't know about it. I don't see it as a positive provision given the level of new regulation it has created. As to the number of employees, just guessing, maybe 12-15%. So, that's significant imo. Maybe it isn't that many. UAW, yeah, but pipefitters, I doubt it lol.