I rather thought the plan cost a LOT of money, and it was nice that he fessed up to the fact instead of pretending like it would be free. If Gephardt weren't running for Prez, it'd be unlikely that his idea would have made the news even if he had proposed it anyway.

I am as leary of extra government administration as you are, Troll. I personally think healthcare is a priority, though, given that we can realistically achieve it. Too bad there are never any movements to get rid of antiquated departments. Be nice if there was a cap on government growth per decade, wouldn't it?

>Where are these small companies going to get the OTHER 40%? By
>increasing the cost of their services and products, that's where.
>And who gets to pay that extra money?

Similar to the arguments about how making 16 hour work days and child labor illegal were going to kill business. One could even argue that by requiring coverage for everyone, it helps level the playing field for businesses when they are competing for quality employees and helps businesses who were already providing coverage compete more fairly in the marketplace. A requirement at the business level doesn't have to be bad for business. Nor did anyone mention anything about employees not picking up a portion of the tab.

For example, as a single woman of child bearing age with no dependants, private health insurance would cost me about $600 a month at the SAME coverage my company plan provides. I pay 38% of my health insurance premium, pre-tax, about $100 per month. My employer pays about $150. Because we are on a group plan, coverage is less than half the price.

I pay $100. None of it is tax deductible.
Employer pays $150, but deducts 30% of it from their taxable income... Let's say they pay 30% income tax (ha!), so in reality their cost is $135, and Uncle Sam picks up $15

Let's say my employer drops coverage. Under the Republican plan, I would fork out $600 a month, all of which is tax deductible. Provided I could afford $600 per month, I wouldn't pax tax on that amount, a savings of about $180. My net cost of healthcare: $420

Under Gephardt's plan, same coverage:
I pay $100 at 38% of the premium
My employer pays $150, but has a tax credit for 60% of it. Their cost: $90, and Uncle Sam picks up $60

Um... sounds like my employer makes out very well under this plan! What will they do with those savings? Give it to investors? Hire more employees? Provide better coverage.

On the surface it looks like the taxpayers would dish out quite a bit more (that's me, remember? In reality, I'm picking up a higher healthcare cost while my employer pays less). But we have to ask ourselves, how much money are the taxpayers going to save in pro-bono but expensive emergency care to uninsured workers who use the emergency room as their only health facility, instead of getting cheap preventative treatment? How many lives will be saved when the emergency rooms aren't clogged up and the ambulance gets redirected to a hospital 20 minutes away?

If mental healthcare is included, how much taxpayer money will be saved by providing counseling to the mentally ill, instead of waiting for the situation to become extreme and they commit a crime (and end up in taxpayer funded prisons) or become institutionalized (in taxpayer funded hospitals)?

What about contagious diseases, spread to everyone, with or without health coverage?

Preventative healthcare SAVES money. The money equation is much more complex than you can get out of a news wire story, and it would depend on the details, of course.

>I do think some kind of universial bacic plan that covers
>catastrophic diseases and basic medical costs should be provided
>though. Such a plan should not pay for cosmetic surgeries like >breast implants, face lifts, and procedures like that though.

I can heartily agree with that, Doug. Question is, how do we get there? Or what can we do to get significantly closer? Because our current situation is pretty horrible when it comes to getting coverage to most of the population.