Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Now They've Passed It...
we’re allowed to know what’s in it...
If a company offers coverage but requires any full-time employees to pay premiums that amount to more than 9.5 percent of their household income, the coverage is deemed unaffordable, and the employer may have to pay a penalty.
Which means to make rational business choices, your employer will have to know your household income; not just the amount they pay you, their employee. And, of course, the gubbment already knows. everything.
[Donald Berwick, Federal Coordinating Coucil for Comparative Effectivieness [sic]: “We can make a sensible social decision [gonna hear that phrase a lot. a LOT.] and say, ‘Well, at this point, to have access to a particular additional benefit [new drug or medical intervention] is so expensive that our taxpayers have better use for those funds.’ ["our taxpayers”?!? The ones who don’t get to make any of the decisions: just pay for them? (from both ends) Those “OUR taxpayers”??] We make those decisio all the tim. [aprntly, he’s also into ratong ltrs] The decision is not whether or not we will ration care--the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.”
In the same interview, he also said, “The social budget is limited—we have a limited resource pool. It makes terribly good sense to at least know the price of an added benefit, and at some point we might say nationally, regionally, or locally that we wish we could afford it, but we can’t.”
"social budget"—*gah*
"limited resource pool"—isn’t that what Big Insurance said?
"terribly good sense"—in the original meaning of “terrible”
"we wish we could, BUT"—I wonder how they’ll respond to the argument I wish I could continue to pay taxes, BUT you’ve destroyed the economy and the ‘limited resource pool’ is dry.”...
Demented. These people are demented.
Statistics
This page has been viewed 18346189 times
Total Entries: 5718
Total Comments: 4193
Total Trackbacks: 714
Most Recent Entry: 06/14/2011 06:44 am
Most Recent Comment on: 11/27/2011 05:18 pm
{/if}
