The insurance company I used to work stopped offering individual plans. Because of the difference in the way pre-existing conditions are covered between group (covered if you have previous coverage) and individual plans (not covered), I'm guessing we'll see more of this in the future. What is the self employed suppossed to do? (Rhetorical question)

More costs than “Democrats predicted”? They couldn't predict crap because none of them read the bill, including it's “sponsor” Max Baucus, who admitted it was handed to him in whole by liberal operatives. It could have been written by the Russian Mob or Chinese Politburo for all we know, since nowhere is there a published list of the bill's actual authors.

Even “Obamacare” a misnomer since he didn't read the bill either. “Soroscare” or “Chairman MaoCare” might be more appropriate.

Hell the term “care” is a misnomer.
You would likely not see much of it under this monstrosity.

I anticipate that there will be a series of splashy news stories which will unfold over the next few years about large employers dumping their employee health plans due to the expenses imposed on them and their insurance carriers by the health care insurance legislation. In the spirit of full disclosure, my organisation has spent this entire summer debating (led by me since I am the executive responsible for benefits) at the highest levels whether we should drop our health plans covering ~18,000 employees and their dependents (~31,000 insured lives). It's a big decision and it'll take a while longer to reach a final conclusion. But in the long run, our organisation is finding that the costs of health care, between the rate hikes, the “cadillac plan” fines and the various fees and tariffs, are quickly becoming unbearable.

I strongly suspect that a majority of the tainted media will frame their stories as examples of evil corporations (both employers and insurance carriers) screwing over the little guys. They'll do their party-loyalty best to circle the wagons around the administration plan, but at the end of the day, William is right in his conclusion – this move to make private insurance prohibitively expensive is as intentional as it gets.

http://www.atr.org/barney-frank-public-plan-best-route-a3616#

But mind you, even with the public option, the expence of health care isn't going down one jot. The long-term plan is to add the expence onto the public budget and fund it through taxes, meaning of course that tax increases will be needed for this, as well as the burgeoning public debt.

If you don't like how much the feds and your state take from your paycheque every week/2 weeks/month today, you're not going to be happy with your future, both in the near-term and over the long-haul. But a word of caution is needed here – if you're fortunate and hard-working enough to be doing very well, prepare to really take it in the shorts. Mr. Obama has already come down on the side of penalising those who make more than $250k by not extending the Bush-era tax cuts for them. He's a real class warrior, that one. If you think it'll stop with just your income which is taxed at a higher rate, think again. The presumption that at $250k of income, you're a rich person will become the justification for hitting you with a plethora of taxes, fees, fines, penalties and other expenses.

Based on that assessment, I'm predicting very slow job recovery indeed. As you increase the lifetime cost of employment, you'll typically find a corresponding decrease in the number employed. Do the maths, then vote accordingly.

The Democrats intentionally caused costs to go up to force people into a single payer system.

What's happening is as designed.

Exactly. I work for a huge company that has a large contingent of part time employees. Insurance costs more for part timers, so they rarely sign up for it. Now, if just one gets insurance through the Exchange, then the company will have to pay the fine for every singe employee. So, do they take a change of getting fined for over 280,000 employees, while still paying $6k-$12K per year for the full time employees who are given health insurance, or dump the whole thing? Probably dump the whole thing.

This isn't a war on the “rich”, Martin, Obama and the Democrat elite are the rich. Look closer at the provisions of this bill and other recent legislation and it's aimed like a poisoned dagger at the hearts of the middle and entrepreneurial classes.

It's f—ing 1984. The elected government and top executives of bailed-out corporations are the Inner Party. Well-compensated government employees and union goons are the Outer Party. Everybody else is the Proles, and the sooner we're forced into destitution and dependence by the hand of government, the better for them.

“The wealthy are a county's past, the middle class it's future”, Ayn Rand. An upwardly mobile middle class and especially small business owners represent the greatest threat to the entrenched establishment. This is a class war, and a generational war.

I'm convinced that the Democrats would like nothing more than to see the the economic evisceration of the middle-aged, middle class, white worker and business owner. How long before Obamacare and the Perpetual Unemployment Check does to them what Welfare and Medicaid did to the black family in the 1970s?

Step 1) regulate an otherwise efficient industry until it fails to function very well at all.
Step 2) use that inefficiency as proof that the government needs to step in and help.
Step 3) design all intervention in such a way as to appear helpful superficially but actually cause that industry to tank.
Step 4) swoop in with a federal replacement of that industry after it fails, claiming that the free market clearly didn't work and government now needs to provide for the suffering people.
Step 5) repeat until nothing is left.

End result: poverty, statism, loss of freedoms, permanent democrat majority. Ultimately collapse, but they're ok with that.

The scenario you describe fits our analysis very closely, William. Our situation is complicated by the fact that both Medicare and Medicaid revenues are declining and they represent a sizable portion of our income. Couple that with stiff rate hikes and the fear of fines and you've got the makings of a “dump healthcare” movement at the highest levels of the organisation.

In our organisation, the overall long-term position which is gaining the greatest traction revolves around our raising cash compensation by an amount which is significant, but less than the current cost of health care benefits and then letting our employees find their own coverage in the marketplace. Hands washed, deed done, we're done and dusted in two easy-peasy moves.

Wow, no authors. Liberals should learn the story of John Hancock. Or it should be a law that you have to sign your name to the bill you right.

Yup. They intend to do this with many of our freedoms….ie, allow us to keep them, but make it useless/costly to do such, and they provide the govt alternative. Revolution around the corner.

Yeah, I didn't intend my comments to sound like it's just a war on the rich, baoxian. It's clearly a war to expand the reach of government into the most intimate details of our lives. And by the way, I don't consider a person who's making $250k a year rich – they're clearly better off than the $60k/yr person, but rich? Hardly.

Don't take that as a rant against your observations, Martin. I just kept running with that post and realized I had no evidence that any of it was wrong.

We're at a major crossroads which will determine if our future is guided by individualism or collectivism. “I” is definitely the underdog at this stage in the game.

Gee I wonder why our resident trolling dipshits are all over this site but none have happened upon this post yet? I'm sure the “elightened” liberals can explain all of our facts away as rascism and dislike for bambi.

Being seriously loved by somebody gives you strength, even though loving someone seriously gives you courage.