87% of Employers Will Reduce Benefits if Obama's BullShit Healthcare Bill Passes

[festeringZit]

87% of Employers to Reduce Benefits if Health Care Reform Increases Costs

By Terry Trippany (Bio | Archive)
September 17, 2009 - 13:38 ET



http://newsbusters.org/blogs/terry-trippany/2009/09/17/87-employers-reduce-benefits-if-health-care-reform-increases-costs

 

[TomGshotput]

"If Health Care Reform Increases Employer Costs"

The reason we need health care reform is because insurance costs and current socialized health care costs are so high

And if they are able to cut the money they spend on employees with no negotiation why haven't they done so already?

 

[TomGshotput]

Also, I'm pretty sure more than 13% of employers offer zero or very close to zero benefits currently. How can that be reduced?

 

[barman]

Cool...another reason to add to my list of Why It's Smart To Be Self-Employed

 

[kingbill]

Single payer health care is one of the major advantages of doing business in Canada. Employers don't have to shell out big bucks to keep their employees healthy. The money they save can be reinvested into their company or taken out as good old fashioned profits.

 

[Coldweather]

If this be true it not be good for the people in my opinion.

 

[mplastered]

Cool...another reason to add to my list of Why It's Smart To Be Self-Employed

Wow, we agree on something. I believe that's twice now.:toast:

 

[mplastered]

Cool...another reason to add to my list of Why It's Smart To Be Self-Employed

Another for my list. Early quit today. Time for some grayhounds on ice. Today is my baby girls 24th. Time to celebrate!!!!Yea, that's me. :toast::drink:

 

[punter]

1 more huge lie posted by zit.

 

[barman]

Another for my list. Early quit today. Time for some grayhounds on ice. Today is my baby girls 24th. Time to celebrate!!!!Yea, that's me. :toast::drink:

Cool....that "List" is always growing and thus been my personal Constitution since the mid 1980s

Just slept about 11 hours following 33 hours up...Now I'm headed out for about five hours lawn/garden $$, after which I begin two days of being Shabbos Goy for my Jewish wife and cousin as they do RH

My own daughter just hit 21 on Sep 2.....Good times

 

[Willie99]

it's very difficult to say exactly how much of what is going to occur, with "accepting reduced profits" being the low man on the totem poll.

there will be widespread cut back in benefits, cuts in compensation, pink slips and price increases to customers. Some combination of these events cannot be avoided.

it's not really rocket science, it's just business sense.

 

[festeringZit]

1 more huge lie posted by zit.

Did the rat come out of his hole?

 

[festeringZit]

1 more huge lie posted by zit.

Notice the dumb bitch doesn't submit any evidence for his claim.

 

[mplastered]

Notice the dumb bitch doesn't submit any evidence for his claim.

Punter just got called a bitch.:hahahahah

 

[punter]

Notice the dumb bitch doesn't submit any evidence for his claim.

Hey you stupid ****, the reason for healthcare reform is to lower cost and to get all of our citizens covered.

It would take someone with your convoluted reasoning to even consider that reducing employers cost would cause them to reduce the benefits they pay for.

 

[punter]

Punter just got called a bitch.:hahahahah

Its a shame that booze kills braincells faster than it wrecks your liver.

 

[Willie99]

Hey you stupid ****, the reason for healthcare reform is to lower cost and to get all of our citizens covered.

It would take someone with your convoluted reasoning to even consider that reducing employers cost would cause them to reduce the benefits they pay for.

of course, not one plan put on the table does that, but it sure does sound purdy.

It would take someone completely lacking in common sense and absolutely no knowledge about government and it's complete lack of efficiency to believe "government can take over health care, create a new and largest bureaucracy in the country, insure 30 to 45 million more people, improve the quality of health care WHILE REDUCING COSTS." Seriously, don't ever talk about convoluted reasoning again. You are banned from using that expression, and I expect barbanman to enforce that ban.

Your homework assignment, name one, just one, any one government program of your choosing that actually reduced the cost of anything. An alternative assignment could be to name a government program that did not cost substantially more than the politicians predicted.

The only way the left can stay in the game is by making irrational arguments like Punter's.

 

[TomGshotput]

of course, not one plan put on the table does that, but it sure does sound purdy

Sadly that is true

So why aren't the people who support the current system backing Obama more solidly?

Why aren't those who voted for him on the chance we could move closer to universal healthcare more upset?

Like everything else, I guess the only real answer is that this has much more to do with the letter next to his name rather than having anything to do with policy or what is best for the country

 

[festeringZit]

Willie talking about Punter:

It would take someone completely lacking in common sense and absolutely no knowledge about government and it's complete lack of efficiency to believe "government can take over health care, create a new and largest bureaucracy in the country, insure 30 to 45 million more people, improve the quality of health care WHILE REDUCING COSTS." Seriously, don't ever talk about convoluted reasoning again. You are banned from using that expression, and I expect barbanman to enforce that ban.

____________________________________________________________________________________

I couldn't have said it any better. The fact that Punter actually believes that the government can reduce inefficiency instead of adding to it, is utterly astounding.

 

[Willie99]

Sadly that is true

So why aren't the people who support the current system backing Obama more solidly?

Why aren't those who voted for him on the chance we could move closer to universal healthcare more upset?

Like everything else, I guess the only real answer is that this has much more to do with the letter next to his name rather than having anything to do with policy or what is best for the country

if we like the current system, why would we support Obama's plans to change it?

I'm all about my fundamental beliefs, and nothing about what party somebody belongs to. Most republicans tend to be closer to my political views than democrats are. I've yet to meet the perfect politician.

Newt is one politician that came closest. I'd take Newt's fiscal conservatism and no nonsense approach, Rudy on law enforcement / national security and Huckabee's personality and baddabing, that be Willie's boy.

BTW: I wouldn't mind Obi Wan Paul slashing wasteful spending, that would be mostly fun to watch.