You live in a town, Lapine, full of people that don't pay any income tax. You seem to like those types of people. You shouldn't be so harsh on Mitt.
I don't understand what this means. The company very well might have been covering their employees extremely well. Government could still increase the costs by taxing the company more heavily to subsidize the individuals that don't work for that company. Ed O.
So basically they weren't giving healthcare to some employees, and now they will have to give it to more.
Can you explain this subsidy? You say that employers who currently offer excellent insurance will pay for employees of currently irresponsible companies, which then won't have to pay for their own employees since the responsible ones will subsidize them? Does this mean that employees won't be forced by the law to buy insurance, which is a big conservative issue?
Wrong. The cost of providing healthcare has gone up, in part, due to the pre-existing condition clause, which insurers are passing on to groups, and groups now have to pass on to consumers.
Why would anybody answer this question, when the only response you'll get is silence or some random non sequitur?
When they answer you, they get the opposite of silence. The argument goes on and on, and gets more trivial as the days wind on.
So I'm making a false assumption that the author is suggesting that some of the employees aren't currently being offered healthcare?
The penalty is less expensive than the cost of providing coverage. I expect to see a lot of smaller companies decide to just pay the penalty and off-load employees to private plans.
