Blogs
Mr. Wilson makes an analysis that should be required reading for every person in America. I believe that including a "Play or Pay" Mandate in any health care reform bill would be catastrophic for America. Why? Because I firmly believe that requiring employers to either provide some level of health insurance or surrender a huge percentage of payroll to the government will result in job losses and lower wages. Many businesses that would be subject to play or pay penalties simply can't afford them. They would be forced to make one of two decisions - lay off some of their employees or lower wages to cover the costs.
There is a lot of confusion over what exactly "Play or Pay" means. It would require companies to pay the government a set amount (Senate Bill) or a percentage of their gross payroll (House Bill) if they don't offer health coverage. This, of course, is a simplification of these very complicated bills, since each bill differs in the penalties and in which employers would be subject to its provisions.
D. Mark Wilson points out that "the three main health care reform bills that Congress is currently debating each include a play or pay employer mandate." Actually, most people believe that there are two main bills under discussion, H.R. 3200, which has been voted out of the House Committee, and the Senate Bill, which was passed by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. There will probably be a third bill, which will come out of the Senate Finance Committee, but as of now, there has been no vote on that bill by the Committee.
Mr. Wilson makes the point that "the play-or-pay mandates in these bills, which require employers to offer health insurance to their workers or pay a tax to the federal government, will affect between 95 million and 105 million workers, and 509,000 to 1.4 million employers, including up to 1 million small businesses." That is a staggering analysis in and of itself, but then Mr. Wilson goes on to say that "the mandates will put 5.2 million low-wage workers at risk of unemployment or reduced working hours."
Our economy simply can't absorb that kind of blow. An already staggering economy would suffer a blow that would take years to recover from, if we could recover at all. Mr. Wilson notes that "the mandates will cost businesses at least $49 billion per year."
The American people have made it clear that they do not want the government to make any decisions involving their health care. Play or Pay is yet another example of why they feel that way. Irresponsible legislation, which the health care bills presently on the table clearly are, need to be discarded. Let's fix what needs to be fixed, help the neediest Americans and leave the 80% of Americans satisfied with their health care alone.
Sources:
Economics of Play-or-Pay Mandates In Health Care Reform Bills, by D. Mark Wilson, The Heritage Foundation, August 28, 2009.
Health Care: Will 'Pay or Play' Chase Employers Away?, by Jeanne Sahadi, CNN Money.com., July 2, 2009
Senate Defines Play or Pay Health Care Mandate, by Kent Hoover, Pittsburgh Business Times, July 10, 2009.
What Can You Do To Help?
Donate: Keep Huck PAC rolling in the fight to raise awareness about the Democrats Health Care Plan and elect more Republicans. We rely solely on small donor donations from individuals. http://huckpac.com/contribute
Tweet this text:
Read Mike Huckabee's blog "The Real Cost of Play or Pay. Bills like the Health Care bills, need to be discarded. http://tinyurl.com/kkschq
Email this text:
Hi, Mike Huckabee has written a blog "The Real Cost of Play or Pay." Read why Governor Huckabee thinks the health care bills presently on the table are irresponsible and should be discarded. http://tinyurl.com/kkschq
Comments 1-34 of 34
- « First
- < Prev
- Next >
- Last »
-
Knight, Brandy
09/08/2009 09:13 PM
At 8:00pm in Alabama I am searching the internet, as I pull up my home page I see an article by the AP; "Fines proposed for going without health insurance." Tell me this isn't so, how can they do this at such a bad time in our country. There are people losing their jobs and they have no means of paying for health insurance, some have jobs that do not bring in enough income to compensate a health plan through even an underwriter. I am mad as you know what about this. I think this is the most outragious thing the President has done yet, and I am scared to see what he has in store for us next. Please tell me what I and my fellow Americans can do to halt this nonsense.
I will be doing an article about this issue on my blog later tonight, because this is just too much. The government forcing us to pay for things we cannot afford, then they are imposing fines up to $3,800. It's nonsense...God Bless, Mike...
Brandy Knight (Alabama)
-
Judge Deborah
09/07/2009 04:32 PM
U.S. Rep. Jean Schmidt told me Sat. at VOA Park that the Fair Tax bill is too small and we couldn't get rid of the IRS code with 130 pages -- we'd need 1,000 pages. Why do we need lawyers' doublespeak? What's hard to understand about, "The IRS and IRS Code are hereby abolished"? (Judge Deborah's proposed 28th Amendment to U.S. Constitution)
-
Copple, Rick
09/06/2009 03:25 AM
One change that I think would be good, would be to increase competition by ditching the delivery method of health insurance being through one's employer. An insurance company has to convince one or two people they're a good deal, then all their employees are automatically on that plan. The employee can't shop around. This limits competition and so increases the cost of health insurance.
Plus, it would eliminate the concern of coverage following a person from job to job. It would be more like auto insurance is now. The companies have to compete for each individual and their family, not a whole company in one swoop.
And that would allow companies to pay that money to their employees so they could buy the insurance. Prices go down due to competition, same money goes further.
For true reform, focus on tort reform, and competition. Then provide tax credits or other basic help for those unable to afford insurance to buy it.
But this pay or play deal will only make matters worse, not better. Many people will end up losing health insurance because their companies released them. How is that going to insure more people?
-
JULIEE 4 HUCKABEE, CA
09/03/2009 11:51 PM
IRS Could Become Health Insurance Watchdog
By Michael Cohn
August 17, 2009The IRS will bear responsibility in making sure that taxpayers have health insurance, and taxing them if they don’t, if some provisions in the legislation now in Congress go through in their present form.
An interesting blog post on a site called Hot Air describes some of the requirements in both the House and Senate HELP Committee versions of the legislation, both of which of course are still a work in progress. However, as the author (identified only as “Legal Insurrection”) points out, there has been relatively little attention given to the IRS’s role in implementing health care reform so far. In the Senate version of the bill, anybody who provides health coverage for another person would have to file a return with the IRS listing the names, addresses, Social Security numbers and coverage period for each person.
In the House version, they would have to furnish the name, address, and taxpayer identification number of the primary insured person, the name of each individual covered under the policy, and the period under which each person was provided coverage. Both versions of the bill allow the Secretary of Health and Human Services to add other reporting requirements.
If a person does not have acceptable health insurance coverage at any time during the tax year, a tax would be imposed under the House bill equal to 2.5 percent of either the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income or the gross income specified under Section 6012(a)(1) of the Tax Code. The Senate version has some differences, including calling the tax a “shared responsibility payment” and giving people a month to go without insurance, with some exemptions allowed.
Presumably the IRS would be able to cross-check income tax returns with health coverage filings and withhold income tax refunds if people cannot prove they have acceptable health coverage, either from an employer or some other source. Effectively the legislation could allow the IRS to get involved in reviewing the health care and coverage information of taxpayers and their dependents for the first time, raising some privacy concerns.
This begs the question of how the IRS is going to determine that someone’s health insurance coverage is adequate or appropriate. For many uninsured people who are forced to buy health insurance or face penalties unless they qualify for subsidies or Medicaid, chances are they’re going to opt for bargain basement coverage that will provide them with some form of insurance for the lowest cost possible. It will be interesting to see how all this plays out and what kind of guidance the IRS would provide if the health reform bill passes, which lately has been looking less and less certain.
Are we going to see traditional insurers and fly-by-night companies rushing out ultra-cheap plans that promise much, but deliver little, in order to allow people to meet the minimum coverage requirements, or are the so-called “public option” or the murky “insurance cooperatives” going to somehow fill the gap? Maybe one day insurance fraud will become a form of tax fraud, even if it’s just to claim one has insurance when the insurance is either fictitious or inadequate in the event of a major medical expense.
-
SarahAnn
09/03/2009 04:34 PM
Maxine,
I agree that 2010 is going to be a wake up call for the Dem's & the so called elite of the Republican party... We need people in Congress that will represent the people... I hope those so called Republicans will quit leaning closer to the left.. They seem to want to be neutral, and do not want to look like christians, hopefully they are changing their minds..Huskers , Juliee & Jill,
Dave Ramsey & John Voight is soo smart, hope people are listening. Especially Gov. Huckabee.......
BTW, I was watching a video about Gov. Huckabee in Israel.. I admire him for a lot of reasons but one reason is him losing the weight.. I feel so guilty when I put something bad in my mouth.. I am a fast food junkie, so feel guilty a lot...lol
But, my main weakness is Coca Cola , Gov. Huckabee was drinking a regular Coca Cola .. You could tell it was hot there and he needed a cold drink.. I was a little surprised that they sold Coke's... I am not puting the Gov. down, just made him a little more human , and I thought it was funny....... -
Ben Dribus
09/03/2009 04:06 PM
Until someone is willing to take on the Big Pharma, Big Insurance, Malpractice Attorney axis, this whole discussion is a waste of time, in my opinion. People talk about the "cost of health care" as if it were some sort of physical quantity like the temperature instead of the aggregate of what those who control the distribution of healthcare can get away with charging. But Congress is about as likely to flout special interests that can fund $100 million ad campaigns as little boys are to wait beside the fireplace and beat up Santa Claus. Does it tell you anything that drug companies with enough spare dollars to fuel an arctic research station or stretch halfway to the moon are spending them not on developing new treatments, but on making a grab to swallow a chunk of taxpayer money big enough to choke Moby Dick?
-
mxnwilson
09/03/2009 10:42 AM
I agree with you guys although I'm probably not as focused on 2012--I suppose it's because I have a horse in the race for Congress in 2010, and I have just learned that he (Rep. Tom Graves) will be one of the speakers in the 9-12 march in Washington, D.C. I can picture it now--a sign saying, "Graves for Congress" lol. (took me a while to see the humor.)
anyway, I think that 2010 is going to be a victorious election for conservatives! IMO, so many people were blinded in 2006 by what was happening in Iraq, and could not see the forest for the trees as they did not realize the danger of a democratic controlled congress or Nancy Pelosi who has already stated that they will not pass a Health Care Reform bill that does not include a public option--I think now she is saying, "unless someone can present a better plan." Maybe we need to email Gov. Huckabee's essay to her! :)
-
JULIEE 4 HUCKABEE, CA
09/02/2009 05:55 PM
Governor Huckabee,
Jon Voight, said on your weekend show that you are "such a comfort". (a great presidential quality!) I couldn't agree more! He also said, "that you should try it again!". I also couldn't agree more!!!
People are speaking! I hope you are listening!!! :-D
Excellent show! Great commentary!
God Bless!
Juliee 4 Huckabee, 2012!
(Huskers, it's great to hear from you!) -
Jill 4 America
09/02/2009 05:45 PM
Waa-hoo .... Huskers!
you have always got the latest on Dave Ramsey. I would say that you have very good taste.
Ramsey again, has the right answer!
Huckabee 2012 -
JULIEE 4 HUCKABEE, CA
09/02/2009 05:41 PM
Our very small practice would be adversely effected under a "Play or Pay Mandate". We would be looking at decreasing our number of employees and/or decreasing our payroll. None of which we would want to do.
If this is what they want to "mandate"; then they need to help employers provide a way that will not harm their small business, or force employees/employers into a Govt. Option.
As Doctor David stated, "something needs to be done". Our govt. needs to focus on ways to decrease the cost of health care (both obvious and hidden) for all Americans. However, I believe that a "total takeover" of our current system is not the answer. It will not only cause an inferior level of health care, but also end up costing tax payers even more than they are already paying!
-
Huskers 4 Huckabee
09/02/2009 02:36 PM
Just listening to Dave Ramsey online. A 'Q' came in from Twitter asking if Dave was in favor of the FairTax. YES!!! After talking of all the great things the FairTax would accomplish, he asked the rhetorical question: Can the FairTax ever get passed? Yes. If someone like Mike Huckabee becomes President! WooHoo!!
-
Robb, Lynn
09/02/2009 01:55 PM
Where there is a tax or penalty there will always be a loophole as long as there are accountants. My neighbor owns quite a few convenience stores and most of his more than 50 employees are part-time and/or minimum wage. All of his stores were held as of 12/31/08 in the name of one corporation. He does not offer a health insurance benefit.
As of June 1, on the advice of his accountant, he transferred ownership of the stores to a corresponding number of LLCs--one per store. Each store has a different registered agent, although they share similar, but not the same, members of their Boards of Directors.
What this effectively did is insure each business has fewer than 10 employees and will thus be exempt from pay or play.
My neighbor explained this at a block party. Several residents, including myself, are also small business owners. The next hour's conversation was how each of us could break up our companies into their component parts each having fewer than 10 employees if necessary.
Personnell administration of multiple units is no more difficult than administration of one, if one of the newly minted LLCs is a "company" set up to handle the personnell administration of the rest of the LLC's.
Whatever one thinks of the ethics of this solution, it is axiomatic that no business owner will behave against his/her own best economic interest. Democrats ignore this fact to their legislative peril.
This would be why we need many, many more small business owners in Congress. Unfortunately, we will not get them until they retire because no small business owner can afford to opt out of several years of the most economically productive time of their lives.
-
Moran, Linda
09/02/2009 08:44 AM
The "Pay or Play" mandate in the "Health Care Reform Bill" simply means this. We are a small construction company in Mid-America that will no longer exsist.
-
yates, mike
09/01/2009 11:44 PM
Hey Mike,
Please support James Lankford for the 5th US Congress District in Oklahoma.
-
Ron and Dottie in Fl
09/01/2009 10:53 PM
To Keen, Brently
09/01/2009 02:26 AMI like your approach to these massive legislative bills. If they were shorter they would not be able to mis-represent the bill.
It appears Medicare, Medicade, and private insurance is full of fat, that hides the fraud and waste. Lets work at trimming the fat from the current Health Care to get it working like a well oiled machine. The current proposal is adding more sludge.
One person made a comment we need to let the Statesmen do their jobs. I am waiting for the real Statesmen to step forward. Give up their automatic pay increases. Do what is right. Speak their own mind. Give up agendas. Represent the people not the lobbyist / not the special interest / not the parties. Be a true Statesman, if that is plausible.
I would like to see more done to prevent problems. One simple suggestion to hire dieticians, nutritionists to look at the ingredients of products we ingest and use on our bodies. Without (special interest and lobbyists) make requests / requirements to remove the harmful / red flagged ingredients from the the products.
If any of the same ingredients / products are currently be settled on out of court. Make it public knowledge. Harmful products should not be protected. Maybe there aren't any!
R24189
-
Alan4Huck
09/01/2009 08:32 PM
Vic Hanzark,
Basically, Obama is gutting Medicare.
$550,000,000,000.00 or 550 Billion taken out from Medicare will for the most part kill most services offered now. Obama is replacing one social service (medicare) with his much bigger one. That is why senior citizens are against Obama's healthcare. They don't trust him and rightly so. Obama's healthcare is depends on rationing and cuts on services. At the same time, there are many loopholes in HR3200 that are there on purpose. Obama's healthcare can draw out of social security if it needs to (pretty much a guarantee they will do so in the near future do to the trillion dollar cost of Obama's healthcare). There are loopholes for illegals, for abortions, and even sex changes. President Obama keeps telling the public that none of these are in the bill, but the liberal politicians also did not want to vote on safeguards to these issues on HR3200. Why? Because they know that once the HC bill passes they can later secretly push through the illegals, abortions, and government controls. HR3200 is the beachhead that once established and passed into law all other kinds of goodies can be added unto it later in secret and rushed through votes in Congress without much knowledge to the public.
-
Johnson, Jeremy
09/01/2009 05:00 PM
Joel Eck,
You hit the nail on the head.
"I think the point here is not 'Here's the better idea!' ..., but rather 'Let's not agree to do ANYTHING just for the fact of being able to say that we did SOMETHING.' That's far and away a major problem with our society today; agreeing to dumb ideas just to say you did SOMETHING."
Exactly. As I've said before, just because you can't find any water, that doesn't mean you should pour gasoline on the fire! We're scolding people for pouring gasoline on the burning house, and they turn around and complain that we're not doing anything. What wonderful logic.
However, there is water to be found. Many Republicans have proposed giving tax deductions or tax credits for private insurance. Health insurance is currently only tax deductible for employers but not individuals, so why not level the playing field and encourage competition?
My family health insurance costs a total of about $18,000, most of which my employer pays for. I'd rather save that inflated cost and buy my own for $6,000. Heck, I'll gladly split the difference with my employer!
Is everyone really so thick as to forget what Republicans were proposing during the 2008 campaign? Of course we're not hearing about it now because the sheer number of Democrats in Congress makes any such proposal incredibly unlikely to get anywhere. That doesn't mean the alternatives don't exist.
Jeremy Johnson
-
Keen, Brently
09/01/2009 04:29 PM
Bob McDonnell's race for Governor of Virginia is an important referendum on failed Democrat policies and displeasure with the direction that Obama and the Democrats are taking the country. A strong win for McDonnell in just two months is so important to send a powerful message to Washington about the mood of the country right now.
The Virginia election is being held THIS YEAR in just two months, we cannot wait until 2010 to begin letting our voices be heard. Bob McDonnell's popularity has been growing steadily and he's been polling ahead of the Democrat incumbent, thanks in large part to the efforts of HuckPAC, but now they are starting to play dirty with an unfair attack on Bob McDonnell.
Read this and send $10 to Bob McDonnell's campaign.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/01/macaca-moment-mc donnell-campaign-dogged-controversy-year-old-thesis/
Just ask yourself if women will benefit more from failed, fiscal irresponsibility, growing government and raising taxes, or from a common sense, practical approach to lowering taxes, reducing the size of government, and bringing jobs and increased prosperity to Virginia?
Let's demand to see what's in the college writings of Obama, his cabinet members (Clinton, Immanuel, etc...) and the 30-40 czars that Obama has appointed, then ask yourself if this 20 year old paper means anything.
The governors race is about jobs, taxes and the economy, Creigh Deeds has failed big-time, and he's aligning himself with Barak Obama whose policies are not only failing they're wrecking havok on the country.
http://www.bobmcdonnell.com/
Don't let Democrats and their lap dog media distract from the real issues. Copy and paste this whole message right now and share this with ten friends via email, facebook or twitter right now!
HuckPac has done a great job of supporting Bob McDonnell's campaign, let's not let the Democrats turn around any of our progress!! Send 10$ to Bob McDonnell's campaign now!
-
Winzeler, Hilda
09/01/2009 11:00 AM
This administration's attack on what they consider the wealthy is EVIL. The Bible clearly states many things on prosperity; one of which that if you follow the commandments of God, you will prosper. God endorses being wealthy if gotten His way. Most employers try to be fair with their employees. I have always gotten more raises when not in a union and all it cost me was hard work.
There are no instructions for a government oppressing the people and taking away their free will to choose! Employers have the jobs! Poor people do not! I do not have insurance and have chosen not to. I have done this for many years. Doctors discount my office visit fees, but the insured patients fees are double mine. This is cheaper for me to do it this way than pay the insurance premiums. (I have lived in divine health for over 25 years as Jesus died for my health.(Is 53:1-5)of course you have to eat healthy) Insurance companies have been one of the main avenues of mortgages for decades. I did multi-million dollar closings where insurance companies loaned the money. So who comes out ahead by govt insured health care? The govt employees who will be given the power they will not know how to handle. Over riding doctors and patients decisions. People who are given power they do not know how to handle become oppressors. -
Eck, Joel
09/01/2009 10:37 AM
I think the point here is not "Here's the better idea!" (I know I don't have one, per se), but rather "Let's not agree to do ANYTHING just for the fact of being able to say that we did SOMETHING." That's far and away a major problem with our society today; agreeing to dumb ideas just to say you did SOMETHING.
I agree, we should be focusing on how to help the folks who don't have insurance, not the folks who already have insurance. These directives just don't fit the bill. Tax incentives, whether directed at businesses which are not currently providing health insurance, or directly to consumers who are actively purchasing their own health insurance aren't a bad idea.
And we cannot let people believe the lie that the government run option that is in HR3200 is not a move to a Single-Payer system. As soon as a cheaper alternative is available (which is the point of the government-run 'option'), companies will migrate to that in droves, just to save themselves on their employer contributions. Once the insurance companies lose a significant portion of their business, they will become LESS able to 'compete' with the government subsidized option. It's a 'soft' move to a single-payer system, and we cannot allow that to happen.
-
Nugent, J
09/01/2009 07:40 AM
I am curious what you would offer as a solution, if you could make the decision, to the health care reform issues. I am definitely a supporter of you and I've been discussing many of these issues with friends and family (some of whom are for the current changes). They have admitted that the changes are not perfect, but have asked what the republican ideas are and why they are not being voiced/heard. I've been hoping to have an answer, but I was curious if you have any specific thoughts. Thanks!
-
Keen, Brently
09/01/2009 02:26 AM
I would like to see a movement by all HuckPAC supported candidates to pledge to read every bill they vote for.
If it takes too long to read, the bill is too long. If you don't know what's in the bill then just vote "no". If we get fewer bills because of that, all the better. Take your time to focus on only the most important ones, and openly debate the merits and demerits of every proposed legislation, before voting on them. It will be to all our benefit if we keep them as short and simple as possible.
America's leadership needs to rebuild trust with the American people. Let's revive the K.I.S.S. principle in politics, and promise to read every piece of legislation.
-
Dominguez, John
09/01/2009 12:36 AM
Mr. Huckabee;
I agree with your comments that the currently proposed health care bill and the pay to play features in particular could result in some near term increasing costs to small business. But what about the rising costs these same businesses are facing because of our currently broken system.
The Obama Health Care Plan is about creating bold long terms solutions to our ailing system. Placing higher priority to getting it right vs the easier approach of appeasing short-term concerns of special interests.
Regretably, we have no viable alternative solution being offered other than doing nothing (status quo). Sadly this era in time will be recognized mostly as a period of weakness, mis-guided partisanship and missed opportunities by our political leaders in general from both sides. Unfortunately for all of us, even sensible moderate politicians like yourself are falling into this painful trap.
JD
-
Dr. David
08/31/2009 10:36 PM
We can't permit the success of the health care system to be measured in terms of the lack of complaints by the individuals in it. Most people don't understand what their health care really costs, or that they are footing the bill for the uninsured with their tax dollars. The value of the health care industry must be measured by total national cost in relation to various measures of national health. From cross cultural comparisons, it is clear that too many are making too much profit at the expense of the taxpayers who are uninformed about the system as a whole.
It may be good politics to say that we should leave alone a system that people are not complaining about today, but if something is not done, the day will come when the people will scream about the fact that their public officials never told them the truth about the bigger picture. Garnering public approval to fix what is wrong before disaster strikes is what statesmanship is all about.
-
Hanzark, Vic
08/31/2009 10:34 PM
I don't understand on this stimulis money that not been spent yet.And now,He ( obama ) wants to take out 500m from medicare an medicaid, and soc.suc. will not get a cost of living raise for the next two years. What this about paying 39$ and 64$ for meals for each federal govmt. employee who on the road on official business according U.S. GEn. Services who set the rates. The old rates were between 31$ &61$. the variation comes from the differing costs-of-living nationwide. ( from Washington calling) I just don't understand.
-
Happel, Kenneth
08/31/2009 10:13 PM
Dear Mike, I am currently a small business owner and have founded both a company that went public and another company that was bought by a Fortune 100 company. I have read both HR3200 and BAI09A84, the HELP committee bill. Both bills clearly try to find a way to monetize employer participation so that the cost of opting out, of employers not providing coverage or individuals not purchasing individual coverage, will cause acquiescence to the bill’s mandate of forcing our complete population to have this coverage. If the rest of the bill actually had any promise of lowering costs, improving healthcare and streamlining human resources administration for both employers and employees, I might not care about pay and play. But they don’t and can’t because they are not designed to. They are designed to be administered. They cannot function without direct interaction between employers and employees or individuals with administrators. The huge costs are caused by this requirement of establishing a national health care administration and then requiring a major yearly investment in time and resources by everyone to the satisfaction of this administrative body.
The Senate bill almost does something smart by starting to go down the road of California Choice, an insurance industry run common risk pool for small businesses. The coverage terms are given by law while the price relates to each insurer’s list of included providers and extras. There is no need for play or pay since the system offers better coverage and lower prices to small businesses than the carriers can offer using their individual risk pools. The only fundamental issue in the CA market is that your agent won’t tell you about CA Choice. He doesn’t get a commission. The whole program is private, there is no administrative system other than the insurance commissioner’s oversight group to qualify each carrier’s version of the plan. The whole point is to stop forcing small employee pools to pay for the risk of being small. When my third company was small, less than 10 people, our head engineer’s wife had advanced and previously diagnosed diabetes. Each employee had to pay $1200 more in premiums per year if her prior condition was to be covered. We all agreed and she was covered. After CA choice the insurance premium per employee was less than the base cost of the previous plan without the wife’s prior condition and that allowed us (the owners) to pay a bit more percentage wise of each employees premiums. -
Benton, Linda
08/31/2009 09:57 PM
I am behind u 100% Mr Huckebee. Why does congress want to destroy America..Don't they see what the are and will be doing to the lower and middle class people. It don't take a rocket scientist to figure it out! I can see what is happening and i am just a plain old country girl from NC..never been really involved in the political issues, but man this thing is so out of control ,just like the stooges that are running it!!I sure wish you had gotten president...I voted for you.
-
Stalder, Bryan
08/31/2009 09:51 PM
Play or Pay is actually one of the few things that I would be willing to compromise with Democrats on, but only if it is done responsibly. Instead of a tax penalty on those who don't offer benefits, why not offer tax INCENTIVES for those that do. And instead of mandating expensive comprehensive plans, why not set the baseline at an employer match for HSAs? If more people are buying private insurance, it will reduce costs, and it will also reduce the amount of people being denied for pre-existing conditions.
I do not support Play or Pay as a primary objective, but I can see it being an important part of comprehensive reform.
-
Honeycutt, Susan
08/31/2009 09:13 PM
I believe prayer can stop this and that is what I am doing. I hope many have learned a lesson about how they vote and the next time will not be swept off thier feet by smooth talk. We are in a pickle.
-
Butler, Sheila
08/31/2009 08:55 PM
Mr. Huckabee,
First, let me tell you I did vote for you this past election, and would do so again in the next if you run.
Second: We are a retired Army family, 20 years and have Tri-Care with my husband receiving 60% of that in VA disability. What would or will happen to our insurance if this bill is passed Pres. Obama wants?I do not get the chance to study the things being bantered around, so if you could give me some answers to what would happen with our insurance, plus, I work outside of the home and do not need Insurance through my work...could I deny it if it was mandated? Thank You
-
Sharp, Brittany
08/31/2009 08:43 PM
I agree. I just don't understand why the whole system needs to be redone. Tax credits would help the very few who do not have health insurance get it. I believe in capitalism and I don't think that the health care plan in debate right now would contribute at all to capitalism. I know people who have went through medical school. It is expensive. No one is going to want to put in all of that effort and risk being covered in too high of student loans if they think that the government is going to start capping pay. None of it makes any sense.
-
McClary, Margaret
08/31/2009 08:34 PM
I believe that HR3200, HR615 and the Senate version HR676 should be squashed completely. I am am one of the 15% that does not have health insurance, but I am working hard to get it on my own. I have never taken a government handout even Medicaid. I don't need the government in my living room any more than they are now. I feel the government getting between physicians and patients is the worst that can happen and only hurt US citizens.
-
Barnett, M.R.
08/31/2009 08:29 PM
thanks for posting this blog! I haven't heard of this but I completely agree ("help the neediest Americans and leave the 80% of Americans satisfied with their health care alone.") and don't know why people can't continue to have health insurance via their jobs. really hope you win next time!
-
Brutus, Lindsey
08/31/2009 08:08 PM
Good essay! What happened to John McCain's campaign proposal of a 5 thousand dollar tax credit for individuals without insurance to purchase it. That would keep the government out of the health care business and would encourage dead-beat people to start filing their taxes to get their tax credit for purchasing insurance.
