While I do think every working American should pay a little something in Federal taxes so they have some skin in the legislative game, raising their taxes was not my point.

What I am trying to point out is that currently many of the “non-payers” are getting insurance which is subsidized by the companies where they currently work.

The problem I have with this legislation is that it is designed to provide a financial incentive for corporations to dump huge numbers of these workers into the government plan. This is going to place an increased burden on the taxpayers beyond that which they are currently are committed.

The insidious aspect of a fine that is based on a percentage of salary, is that it disproportionately impacts lower wage workers. Since insurance is based on the person and not their salary, it is cheaper to provide insurance of higher-earning workers and much cheaper to dump lower-earning workers onto the taxpayer dole.

The fine is 8% of workers salaries for businesses who make over $500K in profit annually. It doesn’t take a CFO to do the math.

Let’s use a cheap plan cost of $3,000/year

If you are an employer who has 50 workers making $30K, the 8% fine is going to be $120K. The cost to provide a $3K policy to all 50 would be $150K. It’s going to be $30K cheaper to dump the 50 workers into the government plan.

If you are an employer who has 50 workers making $60K, the 8% fine is going to be $240K. The cost to provide a $3K policy to all 50 would be $150K. It’s going to be $90K cheaper to provide coverage for the 50 workers rather than pay the fine.

This is why I am concerned. We can’t pay for the entitlement programs we are currently committed to and The House has designed a bill that pushes huge numbers of the insured from company roles to the government roles.

Have you ever read anything I’ve written?

I’ve disliked the fraud that is Ben Chandler for years.

Now he’s Satan incarnate.

Had one of Kentucky’s four conservative reps voted for it, you’d be praising his independent thinking.

Chandler’s no DINO. Very little about him is truly conservative. He’s voted with Pelosi most of the time up there. I don’t see Democrats abandoning him in droves, maybe the ultra-left types that dominate the state’s blogs but not the rank and file voters.

When just under 50% of the US population pays no Federal income taxes, then you would be receiving “free” heath care from the government plan. I would suspect the vast majority of pro public option advocates are expecting the costs to be born by “rich.”

If the internal polling didn’t support my suspicion, I don’t think the class warfare card would have been played so hard by the Democrats.

The irony, is that even Yarmuth admits that this bill is going to do nothing to lower costs, only help reduce the increase.

Just like the Republicans “lowered’ drug costs for seniors through their prescription drug bill pork bill, the current bill will only hide the costs in the government debt.

It’s a shame that potential cost-cutting measures were excluded.

Should we also ban tubal ligations, vasectomies, and, say, elective mastectomies?

As far as your critical thinking goes, I have to question how critical it is when you act as though assaults on women’s bodily autonomy is tantamount to partisan hysteria.

No matter how you cut it, it’s elective surgery. You can jump to conclusions about me throwing women under the bus, but it just isn’t true. Just as the right wing likes to try to enforce their lockstep thinking, it also comes from the left, and either way, I am going to continue with my independent, critical thinking on this and other matters.

I’ve already said I oppose this amendment insofar as private plans. The public option _already_ wasn’t going to provide coverage for abortions.