Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government Medicine Politics

Obamacare Employer Mandate Delayed Until After Congressional Elections 600

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the chocolate-ration-increased dept.
theodp writes "If you hoped your employer would finally provide health insurance in 2014, take two aspirin and call your doctor in the morning — the morning of January 1st, 2015. The Obama administration will delay a crucial provision of its signature health-care law until 2015, giving businesses an extra year to comply with a requirement that they provide their workers with insurance. The government will postpone enforcement of the so-called employer mandate until 2015, after the congressional elections, the administration said Tuesday. Under the provision, companies with 50 or more workers face a fine of as much as $3,000 per employee if they don't offer affordable insurance."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Obamacare Employer Mandate Delayed Until After Congressional Elections

Comments Filter:
  • by FooAtWFU (699187) on Wednesday July 03, 2013 @08:58AM (#44175177) Homepage
    More regulatory uncertainty! Yay!
    • by Enry (630) <enry.wayga@net> on Wednesday July 03, 2013 @09:01AM (#44175205) Journal

      Not sure where the uncertainty is. Says right there - January 1, 2015.

      Not that having the elections matter about implementation. Obama isn't going to let a veto go through, and even if the Senate flips, there's going to be no way that there's enough votes to override a veto. Obamacare is here, get used to it.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 03, 2013 @09:15AM (#44175355)

        Not sure where the uncertainty is. Says right there - January 1, 2015.

        Right. Just like it said the deadline was this year, before...

        • by ggraham412 (1492023) on Wednesday July 03, 2013 @09:47AM (#44175793)
          Oceania has always been at war with East Asia.
      • by cayenne8 (626475) on Wednesday July 03, 2013 @09:30AM (#44175549) Homepage Journal
        I dunno if it is that so much as, the sentiment is growing against obamacare in the US as more of it is coming to be implemented, and more people are seeing it for the steaming pile that it is....and how much this will cost the people is the bottom line.

        I think the Dems/Admin want to keep obamacare implementation out of the news by doing this, so as to not risk their congress critters that may be coming up for election.

        The law had some good parts to it...the sections pertaining to pre-existing conditions is good, and I suppose that letting kids stay on their parents insurance till in their 20's "may" be good, although I think most normal "kids" should be well out on their own and supporting themselves by the time they are 20-21.

        But obamacare when it comes into full swing, is going to raise the $$$ of healthcare quite a bit on the young and healthy. It penalizes people that previously had really good benefits at work, making them too $$ for the employers to continue to offer.

        This is what comes from "we have to pass the law first to see what's in it...".

        • by sjames (1099) on Wednesday July 03, 2013 @09:51AM (#44175851) Homepage

          The problem is that the people wanted socialized medicine and we got an insurance scam. Of course the correct name for this is Romneycare since it closely resembles what Romney implemented in Ma., but that wouldn't have made for a good fight betreen the R's and the D's.

          The real problem is that healthcare costs too much in the first place. You can't just insurance that away. What we really need is for the federal government to tell the whole crooked industry, "Just one more $2 ahh stick or $8 tylenol and we nationalize the whole damned thing!".

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by jamesborr (876769)
            But you have to remember that a significant "influencer" on the democratic side of the legislation was the trial lawyers guild (hence no tort reform in the bill). If we truly "nationalize" the industry, you end up either throwing the trial lawyers under the bus, which would probably be the best case for the taxpayer, but not good for a significant source of democratic campaign cash -OR- you have the trial lawyers going after the government directly for malpractice payouts. The former might actually be a p
          • by Petron (1771156) on Wednesday July 03, 2013 @11:21AM (#44176971)

            People were being sold socialized medicine... but many didn't want it.

            I would much prefer transparency in medicine, insurance, and allow insurance to be purchased across state lines.

          • by Bartles (1198017)
            Yes healthcare does cost too much. I'm sure further separating the consumer from the supplier, and adding an additional middleman with access to a bottomless pit of taxpayer money will make it less expensive. That's always a recipe for success.
            • by sjames (1099)

              Except that everywhere in the first world that has been done has cheaper and more effective healthcare than the U.S.

              So empirical evidence suggests it *IS* a recipe for success.

          • by HeckRuler (1369601) on Wednesday July 03, 2013 @02:45PM (#44180049)

            This. I can't stress enough that this is the ringing bell of truth.

            Our healthcare system has to change. That's for sure. Obama promised a lot. But by the time the econopocalypse creeped back from doomsday levels, what he proposed was not healthcare reform, but health insurance reform.

            (Which, hey, is also desperately needed. This bullshit with pre-existing conditions and the ways that health insurance companies absolutely screw people over and kill them has to stop. There are some really good measures in the bill that would fix some of the more glaring issues. )

            But it doesn't address the root of the problem. Tack on "medical" to anything and the price jumps a factor of 10x to 100x. And all the places that buy medial equipment, or hire medical staff, or hand out sterilized medical two by fours for therapeutic beatings are spending "other people's money". There's absolutely no consideration about the cost of this stuff. Indeed, the worry that they'd be sued for using the $2 syringe instead of the $25 syringe makes them prefer the expensive option. And the fact that they earn a percentage of the total cost of the transaction doesn't hurt.

        • by MightyMartian (840721) on Wednesday July 03, 2013 @10:59AM (#44176719) Journal

          The reason it's a steaming pile of shit is because you Americans are so afraid of the word "socialism" that you will implement the most ghastly, awkard and expensive medical systems simply because you're afraid that Jesus will puke in his cornflakes if you simply go to a universal system.

      • by OakDragon (885217) on Wednesday July 03, 2013 @09:39AM (#44175691) Journal

        Not sure where the uncertainty is. Says right there - January 1, 2015.

        Well what was it a week ago?

      • Not sure where the uncertainty is. Says right there - January 1, 2015.

        Not that having the elections matter about implementation. Obama isn't going to let a veto go through, and even if the Senate flips, there's going to be no way that there's enough votes to override a veto. Obamacare is here, get used to it.

        I'm not so sure about that. The policymakers knew upfront the ruinous act would cost them elections, so they put off the effects two years. Now they still don't want to do the damage they knew the bill would cause, because they care about this election's results as well. So as long as the elections are contested, they might keep putting off full implementation of Obamacare, rather than pay the price at the polls. They like their seats more than they want full implementation of the Affordable (snicker) Care Act. This happens to align with the interests of the nation.

      • Not sure where the uncertainty is. Says right there - January 1, 2015.

        And yesterday it said January 1, 2014. Who knows what it'll say tomorrow?

    • by cod3r_ (2031620) on Wednesday July 03, 2013 @09:21AM (#44175425)
      Maybe they did realize that during this tough economic time (that will probably go on forever since we only consume and don't actually produce anything) it might be a bad thing to force businesses to offer health insurance that is rapidly rising.. Our company only employees 22 people and we provide health insurance that costs us somewhere in the neighborhood of 75k/year.. Having gone up about 20% since obama care passed.
      • by jeffmeden (135043) on Wednesday July 03, 2013 @09:32AM (#44175561) Homepage Journal

        Maybe they did realize that during this tough economic time (that will probably go on forever since we only consume and don't actually produce anything) it might be a bad thing to force businesses to offer health insurance that is rapidly rising..

        Our company only employees 22 people and we provide health insurance that costs us somewhere in the neighborhood of 75k/year.. Having gone up about 20% since obama care passed.

        $3400 a person for health care is pretty f'ing cheap. Most employers spend 8,000 to 10,000 per employee (not including what the employee contributes out of their salary).

        • as an older worker and one who is a contractor (so I'm 'conveniently' left out of the group discounts and plans) I'm paying close to $1k each month out of pocket!

          all I ask for is to be part of a group discount plan were we have power and safety in numbers. when you apply for individual plans, they ask a million very personal questions and you can still get a very high rate if you were unlucky enough to have a health problem.

          otoh, when part of a group plan, you don't have to do the questionairre. and you b

      • by Mitreya (579078)

        Maybe they did realize that during this tough economic time ... it might be a bad thing to force businesses to offer health insurance that is rapidly rising

        I am not necessarily arguing which one is better, but are you saying that keeping individual employees responsible for health insurance expenses during tough economic time is fine and dandy?

        It's not like Obamacare is a new expense that did not exist before -- someone is paying the health insurance cost (or is living without health insurance) at all times. Some of the costs may not have a $ sign attached to them (people waiting for health to deteriorate to emergency room status), but these costs are still t

      • by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) on Wednesday July 03, 2013 @09:58AM (#44175935)

        Having gone up about 20% since obama care passed.

        And how much did it go up in the years before obamacare was passed?
        Sounds like we were seeing double-digit inflation in health care insurance costs most years in the decade prior to obamacare's passage.

        http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2009-09-15-insurance-costs_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip [usatoday.com]

        Seems like the rate of inflation in health care insurance is slowing to a historically low level of 4.5%:
        http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2013/07/02/5-easy-ways-to-reduce-your-health-care-costs/ [foxbusiness.com]

        YMMV, but nationwide the trend is getting better not worse.

        • by Magius_AR (198796)

          And how much did it go up in the years before obamacare was passed?

          How is that relevant? Healthcare costs are (and have always been) the pressing issue in this country. If the bill failed to address said escalating costs in any positive way, I'd still call it a failure (i.e. lack of change is equivalent to failure).

          Seems like the rate of inflation in health care insurance is slowing to a historically low level of 4.5%:.......YMMV, but nationwide the trend is getting better not worse.

          Slowing or relocating?

        • by cod3r_ (2031620)
          Actually went up 20% from the start, but we do it on a yearly basis. So now that we are renewing it is going up another 25% and they said plan on another 30% next year. We are shopping all the coverages to minimize the damage, but it's the insurance people who are blaming Obama care.. It's probably just BS and how insurance companies are all in on the idea of milking it because people don't know exactly what Obama care is.. For the short term it has increased costs significantly.
      • by ntsucks (22132)

        Our 11 person firm had our policy cancelled due to ACA and we were forced to choose a different one for 30% more per year. Does anyone in Washington know who really creates jobs in this country? HINT: its not companies with more than 50 employees.

      • by tgd (2822)

        Maybe they did realize that during this tough economic time (that will probably go on forever since we only consume and don't actually produce anything) it might be a bad thing to force businesses to offer health insurance that is rapidly rising..

        Our company only employees 22 people and we provide health insurance that costs us somewhere in the neighborhood of 75k/year.. Having gone up about 20% since obama care passed.

        So you're implying (although we all know its incorrect) that the rate of increase was less the two years prior to "Obama care"?

        If you want to be accurate and not cherry pick numbers to support an obvious political bias, you should provide accurate numbers to provide contect:

        What was the rate of increase the years prior to "Obamacare"?

        What is your total payroll cost per employee?

        If your average salary is $50k, then your all-up costs per employee are probably around $70k with payroll and unemployment taxes, c

  • well well well (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 03, 2013 @09:03AM (#44175225)

    And political expediency wins again

    The question to ask is why would they want to delay implementation until after mid terms?

  • pay the fine (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 03, 2013 @09:05AM (#44175261)

    How many employers will just pay the fine. 3k per year per employee is less than a heathcare plan

    • Parent should be modded up. The way the story summary was written you would think that health care is without cost to the employee if it is provided by the employer. It is not. That is money lost from a paycheck. That is additional cost which can make a company less competitive (and result in layoffs).

      There is no such thing as free healthcare. Somebody pays - either through lower wages, fewer jobs or higher taxes. Funny how the more government has tried to "fix" healthcare the more expensive it has be

      • Re:pay the fine (Score:4, Insightful)

        by SJHillman (1966756) on Wednesday July 03, 2013 @09:35AM (#44175619)

        I pay about $65/wk ($3380/yr) into my employer healthcare. They pay about 3 times that ($10140/yr). Multiply that by the roughly 450 employees on the plan and it's the single greatest expense they have after employee salaries and taxes.

        Personally, I'd much rather take that $13500 (my cost plus theirs) in my paycheck so I could shop around for my own insurance. The employer offered plan includes tons of crap for women and children that don't apply to me, while omitting many things that would be a huge help to me such as hearing aids.

        • Re:pay the fine (Score:5, Insightful)

          by jeffmeden (135043) on Wednesday July 03, 2013 @10:09AM (#44176069) Homepage Journal

          I pay about $65/wk ($3380/yr) into my employer healthcare. They pay about 3 times that ($10140/yr). Multiply that by the roughly 450 employees on the plan and it's the single greatest expense they have after employee salaries and taxes.

          Personally, I'd much rather take that $13500 (my cost plus theirs) in my paycheck so I could shop around for my own insurance. The employer offered plan includes tons of crap for women and children that don't apply to me, while omitting many things that would be a huge help to me such as hearing aids.

          Making health insurance/care portable would go a LONG way to making the entire system more competitive and the customers a lot happier, but the system (legally, financially, and historically) is basically set up to make sure that the cash flow for the insurance companies remains reliable (and growing). Do you expect an industry with a grip on about 1.5 trillion dollars of spending annually to just give it up? Hah.

        • Re:pay the fine (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Hatta (162192) on Wednesday July 03, 2013 @11:15AM (#44176889) Journal

          Personally, I'd much rather take that $13500 (my cost plus theirs) in my paycheck so I could shop around for my own insurance.

          You might prefer that, but what about your coworkers with health problems? Who is going to sell them insurance at a price they can afford if you're not helping with the cost?

          The employer offered plan includes tons of crap for women and children that don't apply to me

          Right, and if you don't help pay for the things that don't apply to you, the burden is entirely on those who need them. That defeats the entire purpose of insurance, spreading risk by sharing costs.

    • by MightyYar (622222)

      No, it isn't. First of all, the fine for offering no health care whatsoever is $2000. If the employer offers crappy healthcare and employees instead elect for their own plan from the new exchanges, then the employer is fined $3000 per employee who opts for the exchange plan. You can get weak coverage for around $600/worker that would satisfy the $2000 fine. If a bunch of your workers start to opt for exchange plans, then you might need to consider upping your plan to avoid the $3000 penalty.

    • by punker (320575) on Wednesday July 03, 2013 @09:53AM (#44175875)

      They don't have to pay the fine, or provide insurance. They just make their employees part timers.

      I've seen some anecdotal evidence of this (from waitstaff at a couple different restaurants, security guards at my parking deck, blog posts). Unskilled labor positions (i.e. the people that were targeted to receive this benefit) are just having their hours cut to 30 hours/week because part time employees are not subject to the insurance requirement. With current employment trends, it's easy to hire some extra part timers to fill the gap. It's a non-issue for skilled laborers, because most already receive employer provided insurance.

      The real problem here is this law was intended to require a benefit (i.e. minimum compensation) for people who do not generally receive it already. So now, not only will they not get insurance, but they're also facing a 25% cut in income.

  • by Temkin (112574) on Wednesday July 03, 2013 @09:05AM (#44175263)

    Conveniently after the mid-term elections, where frustration with this trainwreck might reflect badly on those in power... One Turkish professor said "He talks like the president of the ACLU, and governs like Dick Cheney."

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anne_Nonymous (313852)

      Dare to Hope, Prepare to be Disappointed

    • by Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) on Wednesday July 03, 2013 @09:25AM (#44175465) Journal

      "5 Year Plans" are nothing new, where the hard choices are put off until after the next election, where they probably won't happen anyway. Or pushed into the next guy's term, same thing.

      That's why I laughed at all these deficit reduction "negotiations". Let's increase taxes now. In exchange, we agree to cut spending in 3 years.

      Which. Won't. Happen.

      It's a lie for domestic consumption. It's been going on for a hundred years.

    • "Chicago style politics" has to be one of the most over-used, exaggerated phrases I've heard in the past few years. (Second only to "socialist", especially when applied to a president whose policies are absolutely, certainly NOT socialist)
  • by msauve (701917) on Wednesday July 03, 2013 @09:05AM (#44175265)
    Is this delay specifically authorized by the law, or is the Obama administration simply going to fail to uphold a law they pushed to get passed?
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      It not a matter of Obama holding up his end... It is more about the republican governors who would rather derail the affordable health care act by stonewalling the creation of insurance exchanges in their state despite the federal government's willingness to pay for it. The irony being that the exchange idea was the republicans' idea to introduce a free market element to universal health care. Like most things involving republicans it is either filibustered, procedural traps, sabotaging legislation with bad

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by mrego (912393)
        Wrong! States had a choice, take money/accept federal controls/create exchanges OR let the feds create exchanges. Both are valid, allowable choices. Hence no derailing, no stonewalling. The real irony is that many states had great health care plans for low income people, but had to close them down thanks to Obamacare. Too bad the Democrats wanted to create a bloated, byzantine, idiotic plan and pass it through chicanery and corrupt bribes on their own ("deeming" it passed, "corn husker kickback", etc.
        • Wrong! States had a choice, take money/accept federal controls/create exchanges OR let the feds create exchanges.

          You forgot the third choice that was created with the SCOTUS ruling over the constitutionality of ACA (NFIB v Medicaid) that gave the states the right to refuse to expand Medicaid. This allows the states to continue to deny health insurance to the poor and most republican governors have taken that option.

          It's one of many of those details I was talking about...

    • That was my first impression. That they were shirking the law. How can the president just refuse to enact or perform on a law? It is the freaking executive branch--besides military that is like their only job!

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by mrego (912393)
        They didn't want to enforce DOMA (formerly the law of the land), and Immigration laws either. It is called selective enforcement.
        • by msauve (701917)
          It's a violation of the Oath of Office.

          I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

          - Article II, Section 1.

          He's usurping the Constitution by illegally spying on US citizens, and by failing to perform his primary duty - to execute the law as required.

          ...he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed...

          - Article II, Section 3.

        • by sycodon (149926) on Wednesday July 03, 2013 @10:13AM (#44176103)

          It's called dereliction of duty.

  • Sure, business gets a reprieve but the rest of us still get the shaft by having to pay for our neighbor's healthcare despite them smoking a pack a week.

    Nothing like having to spend money on something useless because the government tells us we have to do so.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      It has been pretty well established that your smoking neighbor has lower lifetime healthcare costs than someone who is healthy. They tend not to live long enough to get the really expensive things to treat.

    • business gets a reprieve but the rest of us still get the shaft by having to pay for our neighbor's healthcare despite them smoking a pack a week

      A pack a week? That's so little that the effect will be negligible. You're better off if your neighbor smokes a pack or two per day, as the lifetime medical costs of smokers is lower. In fact a good way to reduce overall healthcare costs would be to hand out free cigarettes. If you want to burden the system, live to be a 100.

      Nothing like having to spend money on something useless because the government tells us we have to do so.

      So you're never going to get seriously ill or have an accident? And if you do, and don't have insurance, do you pinky swear not to accept any medical care that you can't pay for out-of-

  • Are people's illnesses also going to be delayed until January 1, 2015 if their employer has fewer than 50 employees? The mandate that people have to buy insurance is the bad part of the law. Having employers provide insurance was the upside.

    The Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot with this illegal delay in implementation of this part of the law.

    • Wait, you thought that they care about people? They care about what keeps them in Washington, evidenced by delaying the massive political meltdown that was 6 months away, 9 months before the next midterm election.

      This is the worst kind of politics - shoving through a bad law that people increasingly don't like; and then delaying the enforcement of the law until the political backlash won't matter, leaving the people that the law would have helped twisting in the wind.

      So go ahead and re-elect those Senators

    • The Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot with this illegal delay in implementation of this part of the law.

      Only if you believe the implementation of the law isn't going to tank the economy.

      Which is what the Democrats are afraid will happen.

  • by BillCable (1464383) on Wednesday July 03, 2013 @09:23AM (#44175441)
    So at this point companies DON'T have to provide you insurance, but you MUST carry insurance. So all those people who would have been covered if the business deadline wasn't pushed back will be forced to buy their own insurance on the individual market. Either that or pay the "tax." This is a recipe for real disaster.
  • More complicated (Score:4, Insightful)

    by necro81 (917438) on Wednesday July 03, 2013 @09:25AM (#44175461) Journal
    While there is probably a political angle to the decision, the reason for the delay is more prosaic:

    Under the new law, companies with more than 50 employees must provide their workers with health insurance.* Those companies that do not comply are levied a per-employee tax penalty. Employees that do not receive coverage through their employer can purchase insurance on the open market, and low- and middle-income workers can avail themselves to government subsidies to purchase coverage. In other words, the government is attempting, through the tax code, to recoup the employee's health care subsidy from the employer.

    In order to carry out the employer mandate, the Treasury Department needs to know which companies are opting out and also which employees are subsequently utilizing government subsidies for healthcare. This is a technical challenge that the IRS (the Tax Man) has determined they won't have ready in time for the Jan 1, 2014 deadline. Businesses, too, have complained that their duty and mechanism for reporting who they are covering with insurance is difficult and onerous. So the decision has been made to push back the deadline.

    Because the whole mechanism is linked to taxes, it is difficult to push the deadline back by, say, six months, because it would be tough to figure out how to pro-rate both the subsidy and the penalty. Most health insurance contracts (employer-provided or otherwise) run from Jan 1 to Dec 31, anyway. So, they pushed the effective date back to the next tax / health insurance / calendar year.

    Yes, the new deadline occurs after the 2014 elections. But considering there are national elections every two years in the United States, pushing any deadline back by one year yields a 50/50 chance of passing over an election year. Would pushing it back just six months be any better, how about two years?

    * For those, both outside and inside the U.S., who are wondering why health insurance is a benefit attached to a person's job, rather than a social benefit from the government (like in most other countries) or something each person seeks on the open market (like automobile insurance), the answer is: "it's complicated." It isn't the result of any particular plan, that's for damn sure; but rather the long meandering course of history. Those who are curious should read Paul Starr's [wikipedia.org] book The Social Transformation of American Medicine [google.com]. The Affordable Care Act follows the path of having health insurance as a workplace benefit mostly because that is how most people in the U.S. already get it.
    • by Hatta (162192)

      This is a technical challenge that the IRS (the Tax Man) has determined they won't have ready in time for the Jan 1, 2014 deadline. Businesses, too, have complained that their duty and mechanism for reporting who they are covering with insurance is difficult and onerous. So the decision has been made to push back the deadline.

      Bullshit. They knew this deadline was coming since 2010, they had plenty of time to implement the required software and chose to delay. They should all be hit with the full force of

    • by argStyopa (232550) on Wednesday July 03, 2013 @12:17PM (#44177715) Journal

      ^the above is a very long, circuitous way to say:

      "We wanted it passed theoretically, so we voted for it; but we didn't really have a fucking clue about how it would actually be implemented and are only actually reading the bill now, and so need more time to study/figure out how to apply this catastrophic mess to the real world.

      Signed,
      Congress"

  • by RivenAleem (1590553) on Wednesday July 03, 2013 @09:57AM (#44175923)

    How can any employer think that workers w/o health insurance work better than those who do? Most governments have figured out that the tax from cigarettes does not outweigh the cost to the economy of a sick worker, hence they are trying to get as many people to quit as possible. Health insurance is the same, the cost to keep workers healthy is worth it to have better workers. It also encourages the worker to stay with the company. The number of times I've heard of people moving job because where they were going had health insurance has to be some indication of it's worth to the employer.

  • by tlambert (566799) on Wednesday July 03, 2013 @10:39AM (#44176401)

    I have a friend who has a company which has 53 full time employees.

    He's been investigating how he can get rid of 5 of them, or at least convert them to part time, to escape this mandate.

    Stair step functions have always been a problem when designing things like commission structures, and so on. If I make 6% commission on sales up to $10,000 a day, and 5% commission for sales of $20,000 a day or higher, then I get 6 cents on a dollar if I sell $10,000 or less and 5 cents on a dollar if I sell more. So if I sell $10,000, I get $600, but if I sell $10,001, I get $500.05; I don't break even until $12,000 in sales, where I make $600 again, and I don't start making money again until I start selling $12,001 ($600.05). You can be damn well sure that you aren't going to have any of your sales staff turning in total sales amounts between $10,001/day and $12,000/day, and if they are unable to get close to, but just under, the next point at which there's another stair, you can be damn sure there will be customers hearing "We're out of stock today, but we have a shipment coming in first thing tomorrow, I'll call you".

    This whole "keep the insurance industry in business" welfare program for insurance companies this was a bad idea; if we are going to nationalize healthcare, we really should have gone single-payer and been done with it.

    • by Politburo (640618)
      This seems like a misunderstanding similar to how people misunderstand how tax rates work. A properly designed system would be 6% up to $10,000 and then 5% on sales from $10,000-$20,000.

All life evolves by the differential survival of replicating entities. -- Dawkins

Working...