I am not entirely convinced that this idea is not just to raise revenue, but to force communities into government health care more quickly. By taking away the tax break for employers, employers will not be able to provide insurance for employees at a discounted rate. Many middle class society members live paycheck to paycheck and I am sure would not be able to give up one third or half of their paychecks to insurance premiums. The government claims that an incentive for employees would be higher pay. They say that since employers did not have to provide insurance them they could afford to pay the employees better. Talk about a slap in the face, we will pay you seventy-five cents more an hour, but now you have to buy your own insurance for you and your family. How's that for government support! Sounds to me like we do not have a choice anymore, like it or lump it.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Health Care Crisis
As we approach the New Year , it's time for annual insurance review. I can't help but be grateful that my current job pays my health care premiums. Reading this article by Fox News leaves me to wonder just how much my insurance premiums would cost full price, since most jobs provide full-time employees insurance at a discounted rate. "The idea isn't to just raise revenue, economists say, but finally to turn Americans into frugal health care consumers by having them face the full costs of their medical decisions." This quote sends many negative thoughts through my mind. "Frugal" really! I sure hope that the government based health care in place before they "chop" the tax cut employers get now.
I am not entirely convinced that this idea is not just to raise revenue, but to force communities into government health care more quickly. By taking away the tax break for employers, employers will not be able to provide insurance for employees at a discounted rate. Many middle class society members live paycheck to paycheck and I am sure would not be able to give up one third or half of their paychecks to insurance premiums. The government claims that an incentive for employees would be higher pay. They say that since employers did not have to provide insurance them they could afford to pay the employees better. Talk about a slap in the face, we will pay you seventy-five cents more an hour, but now you have to buy your own insurance for you and your family. How's that for government support! Sounds to me like we do not have a choice anymore, like it or lump it.
I am not entirely convinced that this idea is not just to raise revenue, but to force communities into government health care more quickly. By taking away the tax break for employers, employers will not be able to provide insurance for employees at a discounted rate. Many middle class society members live paycheck to paycheck and I am sure would not be able to give up one third or half of their paychecks to insurance premiums. The government claims that an incentive for employees would be higher pay. They say that since employers did not have to provide insurance them they could afford to pay the employees better. Talk about a slap in the face, we will pay you seventy-five cents more an hour, but now you have to buy your own insurance for you and your family. How's that for government support! Sounds to me like we do not have a choice anymore, like it or lump it.
Friday, November 12, 2010
The Liberty Tree: Austin's poorest spend 45% of income on electricit...
The Liberty Tree: Austin's poorest spend 45% of income on electricit...
This posting has definitely caught my attention! As a newcomer to the homeowner society, I had no idea just how expensive utility bills could run. So I was not surprised to hear that Austin's poorest population spends on average forty-five percent of their income on the electric bill. It truly amazes me that that could or is almost half of somebody's salary. I cannot help but wonder if gas would be cheaper to run certain appliances compared to electricity. As I tried to do some investigation to whether there was truth or tale about gas being cheaper than electric, I came across CenterPoint Energy site. This site provides a calculator to provide you with information to what is the better option. However, since CenterPoint Energy is a natural gas company I imagine that there is some bias to their calculations.
For being Austin's prominent newspaper (Austin American Statesman), I am rather disappointed that there was no statistical information provided. I would like to know where that data came from and was the information obtained as a random sample. I find that to be a pretty modest statement "Austin's poorest" to be publishing without the reasoning behind the rest of the story. The information that was provided does not sooth the curious mind, but instead leaves many unanswered questions! Like many other fellow Americans, I want to see the proof behind something before I am willing to believe it! However, if it is true, then maybe the power companies could do something about their increasingly high rates.
This posting has definitely caught my attention! As a newcomer to the homeowner society, I had no idea just how expensive utility bills could run. So I was not surprised to hear that Austin's poorest population spends on average forty-five percent of their income on the electric bill. It truly amazes me that that could or is almost half of somebody's salary. I cannot help but wonder if gas would be cheaper to run certain appliances compared to electricity. As I tried to do some investigation to whether there was truth or tale about gas being cheaper than electric, I came across CenterPoint Energy site. This site provides a calculator to provide you with information to what is the better option. However, since CenterPoint Energy is a natural gas company I imagine that there is some bias to their calculations.
For being Austin's prominent newspaper (Austin American Statesman), I am rather disappointed that there was no statistical information provided. I would like to know where that data came from and was the information obtained as a random sample. I find that to be a pretty modest statement "Austin's poorest" to be publishing without the reasoning behind the rest of the story. The information that was provided does not sooth the curious mind, but instead leaves many unanswered questions! Like many other fellow Americans, I want to see the proof behind something before I am willing to believe it! However, if it is true, then maybe the power companies could do something about their increasingly high rates.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)