I am grateful that the employer through whom my own family receives their health insurance is ethical enough to plan for the eventuality of the passage of the health care bill and to let their employees know what that decision is while they have an opportunity to do something about it.
I am, however, curious about how many other businesses have made that decision. If your employer hasn't mentioned it, you may want to ask if your company will continue to provide health coverage. It's a reasonable question. You need the information to plan for your future.
If your employer will be dropping your coverage, you might just want to contact your senator and let them know that you like your coverage and in order for you to keep it, they have to vote "No".
If you do ask, Would you be kind enough to let me know what answers you received? I don't want personal information or the names of employers unless you care to share that info, but I would like to know where you are, (your state) and the number of people employed by your company, if you have it.
"And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages. " Luke 3:14
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
9 comments:
I think it's most important to keep in mind the long term effects of government health care on benefit packages currently offered by employers/privately obtained health coverage. It isn't a matter of "if", but "when."
Certainly many companies (most I should think) aren't going to drop their programs immediately on passage of government health care. After all, the so called 'health care bill' isn't an end in itself, it is intended only as a means to an end.
Besides the fact that government takeover of health care is blatantly unconstitutional, which is, in and of itself, justification enough for non-participation in the scheme, it will ulitmately ruin health care as we know it, and eventually all privately acquired health care will simply disappear IF this monstrous bill is allowed to go forward unchecked.
From the employer's perspective, it's not simply going to be a matter of economics ("it's just not cost effective anymore to provide a health care option" based decision), though that will certainly play a role in their decision making, but also a matter of government regulating employer provided health coverage out of existence. Sometimes it just ain't worth all the hassle (not to mention the danger) of having to comply with every little micro-managed point that the government stipulates when it "occupies a field," and "intends a complete ouster."
What we're going to be hearing for a while, though, is how we 'paranoid', knee-jerk, backward-looking types were all wrong about what government health care portended for the future; how that employees are still covered under their pre-existing plans, how that private health care insurance is still available to people who choose, and/or can afford that option, and so on and so forth. But that's all just another part of the ultimate scheme. The leftist-communists will seize upon every opportunity to show how right they were/how wrong we were until all is ultimately lost.
Federal takeover of health care MUST be stopped at ALL costs. I don't personally think it can be stopped at this point at the national level. Thus it falls to the States and to the People to stop it through State level nullification laws (my personal preference would have been preemptive nullification laws, but whatever). It is the only possible peaceful solution left us, so far as I can tell. Other than, of course, simply refusing to participate on an individual level, which I fully intend to do. But, then, how will the government respond?
Terry,
I think you are correct in most of your points.
I am hoping that you are incorrect in your speculation that the folks in DC are useless at this point. (Although, I attended a local political meeting last night and your sentiment was shared.)
"What we're going to be hearing for a while, though, is how we 'paranoid', knee-jerk, backward-looking types were all wrong about what government health care portended for the future; how that employees are still covered under their pre-existing plans,..." That's why I'm curious now. If it could be shown that employers are planning to drop that coverage before the vote, that might be enough to derail that line of propaganda before it is started.
I think that we have a short window here in which to mobilize more people to contact their Senators. It is not an outrageous question to ask one's employer. It's something for which responsible people would want to have a plan.
And I really am curious as to how many employers will drop health coverage, if that decision has already been made, if it's been shared with employees and how many small businesses who have never offered coverage to their employees will simply go out of business if they are forced to pay their profit margin to the government.
(As a side note, I am slowly and frustratedly managing to post in the small moments of connectivity while my ISP continues to work on the problem, which I have been told is only affecting my connection. Please have patience if I don't answer posts in a timely manner.)
My health coverage will be dropped.
I'm in Wisconsin-about 70 employess in WI and some in other states.
Working for the city, we are sure our coverage will go to the federal plan, since the cities have vast budget problems and would want/need to comply.
Terry, you say the states could reject or nullify the federal health insurance laws. Is that really possible? I also wondered if a private citizen or business could challenge the unconstitutional move to TAKE OVER private sector health care and FORCE all citizens to buy it - in the courts. Please, is this possible?
Thanks for stopping by Jill.
I think that the difficulty with the states attempting to nullify the legislation through state sovereignty was set when Mr. Lincoln refused to allow the southern states to secede. Because of Mr. Lincoln's actions in going to war to keep those states in the union, the argument goes that the states are no longer voluntary members of the union, but subject to the authority of the federal government whether they will or not. If you read the debates on the Constitution you will see that the will of the people was to be regarded as supreme, then the states, then the federal government.
I think an individual citizen can challenge the Constitutionality of new laws in a court. In fact some folks went to DC recently to do just that with the recently signed into law hate crimes legislation. They challenged the law with a carefully worded statement and then they read parts of the Bible that could be considered hate speech under that law and said arrest me first.
I think, that you must be able to show that you have been harmed by the change in the law in order to have standing. (That's why they wanted to be arrested-to give them the standing by which to challenge the law.) I'm not by any means an expert, but that's my understanding at present.
As for the original topic of this post, pass it on to your friends and family, liberal and conservative.
I can't imagine any responsible adult not wanting to know the answer to that question and it's not unreasonable to expect your employer to provide that answer so that you can make appropriate arrangements for yourself and your family.
Jill,
Yes, it's possible. Though I'm not saying it'll be easy. But then again, what worth having ever was ... easily obtained?
I wrote an email to Rep. Charles Key Saturday morning asking him whether the Okla. legislature was working on a nullification bill aimed at 'federal health care' specifically. He wrote me back several hours later explaining that the bill is already written, and will be taken up in January, 2010. In a follow-up email he wrote that several other nullification bills are also currently being written by the Okla. legislature. Charles Key, by the way, is considered by most to be the founder of the modern Tenth Amendment movement.
Anyway, as I said above, I fully intend to refuse to participate in the federal health care scheme as a matter of principle. If and when the Okla. legislature passes our nullification bill per 'federal health care,' I'll be acting by authority of the State of Oklahoma, which I consider superior to the federal government in any event. I'm happy to know that I've got the Oklahoma legislature backing me up, if you know what I mean...
Over at American Thinker, it was suggested that all who don't want to participate in the government run plan should be willing to go to prison. If enough folks would do that, it could choke the government's prison system, at least that was the logic of the article at AT. There is a considerable appeal to this.
The big concern, the really big concern with this comes when you look back at times such as the early days of Soviet Russia. They did not hesitate to murder millions upon millions who did not toe the line. I have no reason to think that our American communists will be any different from the Russian communists. A communist is a communist. They would happily kill us all and consider it problem solving.
Well, it would do more than just choke the government's prison system. Can you imagine the numbers of people who would be left destitute if their primary providers were thrown into prison for non-compliance on government health care?
Terry, unfortunately leaving all of those people destitute would play right into the hands of the communists who what people to be utterly dependent on the government for every crust of bread. I am much afraid that this could be exactly within their plans, to kill of many resisters and impoverish those who remain. It fits the paradigm.
Post a Comment