Board Thread:Watercooler 2.0/@comment-6198648-20130228045108/@comment-6209322-20130718211500

Couple of things about that article:

"[quote] The new premium rates do not affect a majority of New Yorkers, who receive insurance through their employers, only those who must purchase it on their own.  [/quote]"

1.) The cost to people buying insurance on their own does indeed go down for them (as the artical states), and that is a good thing.

2.) The cost to people insured by their employers is not changed, and nowhere in the article (at least after my quick read through) was anything mentioned about adjusting the estimations to account for all of the people who will likely loose their coverage as business opt to pay the government fine rather than insure their employees.

3.) My primary concern and reason for opposition of universal healthcare (at least, from a fiscal angle) is NOT that the poor will pay more for premiums, but that the U.S. Government will pay a part of the insurance, making the cost seem less than it is.  Not only does this apperant alieviation of the cost encourage insurance companies to incease the cost of their policies, knowing that the government and not the people will pay the increase, but, with our current debt (and, more importantly, the deficit) problem, I'm not in support of the funding levels for existing programs, let alone increasing funding to existing programs, let alone adding additional expensive programs to our national monetary obligations.