The democrats have one plan. Get something on the books no matter how good or bad. Rush it thru before the 2010 elections where its possible that they would no longer have the votes to get a bill thru congress. Consequences be damned.

Nothing is free but they are going to do everything they can to make you think that it is free. That it will pay for itself or that by taxing the rich we can pay for it.

You know we prolly can tax the rich and pay for it…

One question though…what about the other 1.7 trillion dollars in deficits they are going to run next year? Who do we tax to pay for that??

The most you can conclude from this is that it’s an example of liberal policy which fails to anticipate unintended consequences of government mandates on the business sector. Quite often liberals appear to have little or no knowledge of running a business (I love the George McGovern reference in the NYT link) and this becomes evident in policies which assume a zero sum game. In the current example of extension of COBRA rules, the assumption is that this benefits employees who get laid off but it fails to anticipate that employers will probably MAKE hiring and firing decisions based on the cost of the new policy- and in the end that’s going to make it harder for laid off employees to find new jobs.

I suppose its possible that a general unease about what is coming down the pike with healthcare reform might have a similar chilling effect on employment, but Heritage really didn’t make that case effectively. In terms of anticipated direct costs to employers, I would think that the general outlook for businesses is mostly positive. The downside of that of course is that many employers will stop offering private insurance coverage and the number of people who will ‘choose’ the public plan will be much higher than the WH predicts- making single payer, nationalized healthcare a reality before long. I think that’s a negative, but I don’t see where it would be viewed as a negative for the bottom line of businesses if they’re able to get healthcare costs off their books altogether.

Not health care costs, but cost to produce autos are cheaper in Canada.

The Canadian system isn’t costing them jobs as far as the automotive industry. Most cars built in North America come from Ontario Canada, not Ohio or Michigan. One reason is the cost to build there is less because of single payer or socialized medicine. Japan and the EU also have this advantage. Guess who supported the Cliton plan in 1994, the Big Three auto execs.

Struggling to find some kind of meaningful message from this Rudi.

And also while you’re at it, show some documentation that would prove health care costs will lower if it’s a nationalized system.

Oh – and show too how it won’t hurt the lower income or middle income individuals.

And you may also want to look at why Canadians are opting for additional private insurance.

Up next: Democratic Underground objectively reviews the Bush presidency.

On a serious note, I think the problem is that the idea of the businesses providing HC for employees is a relic from the time when there were wage controls – the employers had to attract prospective workers somehow and HC providing was the avenue of choice. After the wage controls went away the HC system was let, vestigial and sluggish. Revamping the system like Obama wants to might unsaddle employers of a lot of financial difficulties.

There must be a balanced imposed between employers and employees in the case of lay-offs. In the UK young people who worked hard in schools to move up the economical ladder are kept out of the job market by the nepotism and power advantage of the employers, resulting in businesses without meritocracy and lower social mobility. In Sweden, OTOH, young people have very high unemployment numbers due to the “first in, first out” rule that discourages many employers. In the same sense that not all people in the US will be laid off fairly, not all will really deserve unemployment benefits that saddle their ex-employers with extra costs either. This balance is an economic and not an ideological concern. There will be accumulated problems if one defaults to a position.

“Conclusion: Obama will happily ‘reform’ and ’stimulate’ you to death.”

That… That sounds a bit erotic, somehow.