Can you be more precise about the coercion involved?
Sure. I was specifically referring to the provision regarding making private insurance illegal. Forcing those whose changes in life necessitate obtaining new coverage to a) enter the government plan or b) pay the IRS penalty for not carrying a qualifying plan (catastrophic coverage is evidentially penalized as well even if you had it before the bill) is coercion in my book.
By economic realities of employers, do you mean that it will be cheaper for them to pay into the public fund than provide their own group health insurance? I'd say that for small businesses, probably 15 employees or fewer, you're probably right. But these tend to be the businesses that also don't currently provide any coverage.
I'd say it's true for businesses large and small. For small business it's a means of staying afloat since they will be forced to either pay a fine or pay for government run employee insurance (many will still go under as a result). The first medium and large businesses to adopt the government plans would gain competitive advantage over competitors still paying for their own. Over the course of time the natural tendency would be for the other businesses to follow suit just to remain competitive with the early adopters.
Stu
Previous Topic
Index
