It was later edited, but I think the bit where the thread diverges from your summary is
> - Companies will continue to offer the health plan they currently offer
I think the GP (GGP?) reading was that the current health plans would have to change; they can't duplicate the state mandatory coverage. (But they can build on top of it).
So theoretically a $1k/mo plan paid by the employer might turn into a $400/mo plan for extra coverage, and the baseline would cost $600/mo and that part would be taken over by the state. Best-case they can streamline that portion and decrease the cost through economy of scale; worst-case you have 2x the operating costs for two different insurance plans and the quality goes down because of the duplication and billing uncertainty for providers. (I'd hope that the bit covered by the state would be good enough for many people to have as their only coverage though).
>>>> Person complaining about how his previous state-run health care system was awful
>>> Person replying that your current plan will still be there, no one will force you to take the state run plan
>> Person commenting on how funding for the bill will kill it
> Response that funding will come from the money that companies were paying on health plans.
So if everything in this one thread is true, then
- Companies will continue to offer the health plan they currently offer
- The state will provide a single payer health plan
- The money that companies currently pay on health plans will pay for both of those, with no increase in cost to the employee
Clearly that's not realistic.