|
4 registered (TimJ, icetender, jud, 1 invisible),
91
Guests and
40
Spiders online. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
38657 Members
55 Forums
183225 Topics
1649051 Posts
Max Online: 1054 @ 07/29/08 07:31 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
#1749377 - 07/27/12 01:00 PM
Re: Supreme Court upholds individual mandate
[Re: topcat1666]
|
Veteran
 
Registered: 12/02/04
Posts: 1491
Loc: North America
|
I also don't see a grand rush to cut benefits from current employees, except in a few specific cases. But, if the economic situation continues to deteriorate (and I know how much confidance in the economy is shown around here), then new businesses created and older industries in trouble, could remove health care as a perk unless it's mandated at some level. The insurance pools you mentioned are (I believe) for those folks that don't have insurance through their employer, and the National Health Care Legislation will also require that employers make health care available.
Romney believes that it's okay for States to require citizens to purchase Health insurance, but seems to think it's a mistake at the Federal level. Of course, if that trend continued, people who earn high wages or have high income would make sure their residence was in a State that provided fewer services and had lower taxes. While the poor and unemployed would likely seek to move to States that have benifits they can take advantage of. Look at the number of poor and homelss that migrate to the warmer climates, leaving certain State economies to pick up the slack. Sorry, I drifted off into politics . . . . .
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
Moderator: BongPixie, CaliGrower, chrisbennett, Dana Larsen, Fred_the_Plumber, frmrgrl, goodster, jacob, JodieEmery, OCNORML, puff_tuff, stinkweed
|