Administration doesn't want companies telling people layoffs are due to Obamacare

[Clementine]

Okay, the left will jump in and say that it's just a rule to stop companies from laying off to avoid Obamacare costs. The truth is that many companies simply cannot survive because of Obamacare and they've been honest in telling employees that the law caused them to pare down.

Now companies have to swear to the IRS that Obamacare costs are not the reason they are laying people off or they face more fines. So, even though Obamacare is the actual cause and many small businesses have no choice, the new rule prevents them from being honest about how Obamacare is seriously hurting small businesses. They will have to either make up a lie to tell employees or tell the truth and suffer even more.

How many will be honest about it now? A lot less, I'm sure. But the administration is tired of hearing story after story about how Obama's signature legislation is killing the middle class, so they are forcing them to lie about it. Since some in the liberal media have grown tired of defending the indefensible, they have to cut the info off at the source and stop the media from having something to report to begin with.

Even though most companies aren't just trying to save money by laying people off and are doing it out of necessity so all their employees don't wind up at the unemployment office, they will be forced to swear that the layoffs are for another reason.

It's just a way to shut them up and stop the public from realizing just how bad Obamacare is for the middle class. If any of the Dems understood the private sector and how small businesses are barely surviving, they would know that Obamacare is delivering one hell of a blow to already hurting companies.

Yes, Obamacare is the sole reason that millions have lost their jobs. The CBO report showed how detrimental the law is and why millions more will be lost. The Obama administration just found a way to keep the truth from being told. They would prefer that voters remain as ignorant as possible as the midterms approach.

Thought Police: Firms must swear ObamaCare not a factor in firings | Fox News

 

[The T]

MORE tyranny unleashed. Anyone NOT surprised? How many on the left will defend it?

 

[Mac1958]

.

I'm still very much hoping that this story isn't true. This would cross a serious line. Inexcusable.

Does anyone know if this has been disproven?

.

 

[Intense]

It's nice to want things. It's nice to be King too, and have the Press constantly kissing up to you. I kind of get the impression that the solution to Obama's problems is more control, and then more control, at least until he can have targets painted on those rascally dissidents. If he just wasn't such an offense to sound reason, I'd feel better about him.

 

[Intense]

MORE tyranny unleashed. Anyone NOT surprised? How many on the left will defend it?

Only the trained seals' that's probably about 14%. Don't be fooled. Have more faith in Humanity.

 

[Desperado]

This is going a step too far......
It will definitely backfire on the Democrats and cost them at least the Senate.
The next few years are going to be interesting to say the least.

 

[The T]

MORE tyranny unleashed. Anyone NOT surprised? How many on the left will defend it?

Only the trained seals' that's probably about 14%. Don't be fooled. Have more faith in Humanity.

Most times I do...but it's at times hard listening and reading the unwashed moochers defend their Unconstitutional KING.

 

[History]

Isn't there a thread on this topic open already??

Regardless, this is a power grab.. You can't tell businesses when then can and can't hire people. They decide that for themselves in a free country..

 

[Howey]

.

I'm still very much hoping that this story isn't true. This would cross a serious line. Inexcusable.

Does anyone know if this has been disproven?

.

Of course isn't true.

Conservative Media Bravely Defend Businesses' Right To Skirt Legal Obligations By Firing Workers | Blog | Media Matters for America

On February 10 the IRS announced that it would delay the health insurance employer mandate for medium-sized businesses employing between 50 and 99 people until 2016. Smaller businesses -- those with 49 employees or fewer -- are not required to provide all workers with health insurance. To prevent employers from simply firing workers in order to avoid the obligation to provide health coverage in the next couple years, the IRS included a safeguard: If these businesses fire workers, they must show they did so for "bona fide business reasons" in order to be eligible for the delayed mandate.

In other words, as Washington Post's Wonkblog explained, "'It's simply so they don't game the system,' one senior administration official told reporters on a phone call this afternoon. 'They have to certify they're not doing that and not dropping their coverage.'"

There's much more at the link.

 

[SwimExpert]

I find it really difficult to believe that there are any substantial number of layoffs because of Obamacare. The increased costs of health coverage benefits is being passed along to the employees. Any company with half a clue will be doing so. At worst, there may be a handful of companies that are trying to reduce their workforce below 50 employees, in order to avoid the law applying to them, and thus be able to avoid having to offer benefits in the first place. But any companies doing so are only going to be laying off one or two people at most. If you have 60 employees and you lay off 11 of them, it's not going to make a lot of sense to cut nearly 20% of your productivity just to avoid having to offer your employees health benefits. The loss of revenue would be a harder hit. And the effect on morale could be extremely negative.

 

[Howey]

I really do wish these right wing idiots would quit watching FOX News and start thinking for themselves.

It's becoming embarrassing.

 

[Mac1958]

.

I'm still very much hoping that this story isn't true. This would cross a serious line. Inexcusable.

Does anyone know if this has been disproven?

.

Of course isn't true.

Conservative Media Bravely Defend Businesses' Right To Skirt Legal Obligations By Firing Workers | Blog | Media Matters for America

On February 10 the IRS announced that it would delay the health insurance employer mandate for medium-sized businesses employing between 50 and 99 people until 2016. Smaller businesses -- those with 49 employees or fewer -- are not required to provide all workers with health insurance. To prevent employers from simply firing workers in order to avoid the obligation to provide health coverage in the next couple years, the IRS included a safeguard: If these businesses fire workers, they must show they did so for "bona fide business reasons" in order to be eligible for the delayed mandate.

In other words, as Washington Post's Wonkblog explained, "'It's simply so they don't game the system,' one senior administration official told reporters on a phone call this afternoon. 'They have to certify they're not doing that and not dropping their coverage.'"

There's much more at the link.

Thanks for the link.

Uh, it appears to confirm the OP from its standard left wing perspective:

"To prevent employers from simply firing workers in order to avoid the obligation to provide health coverage in the next couple years, the IRS included a safeguard: If these businesses fire workers, they must show they did so for 'bona fide business reasons' in order to be eligible for the delayed mandate."

Of course, Media Matters runs with its left wing roots and refers to it as "gaming the system" if a company fires people because keeping them under the plan would be too costly. We know what the Left thinks of employers.

Yikes. Evidently this is true.

"Safeguards", they call it.

Why did you say it wasn't true?

Holy crap.

.

 

[The T]

I really do wish these right wing idiots would quit watching FOX News and start thinking for themselves.

It's becoming embarrassing.

What do you suggest? Media Matters? ABS/PBS/NBS/CNN?

Fact IS we CAN think for ourselves and aren't psychophant lemmings as YOU.

 

[Howey]

.

I'm still very much hoping that this story isn't true. This would cross a serious line. Inexcusable.

Does anyone know if this has been disproven?

.

Of course isn't true.

Conservative Media Bravely Defend Businesses' Right To Skirt Legal Obligations By Firing Workers | Blog | Media Matters for America

On February 10 the IRS announced that it would delay the health insurance employer mandate for medium-sized businesses employing between 50 and 99 people until 2016. Smaller businesses -- those with 49 employees or fewer -- are not required to provide all workers with health insurance. To prevent employers from simply firing workers in order to avoid the obligation to provide health coverage in the next couple years, the IRS included a safeguard: If these businesses fire workers, they must show they did so for "bona fide business reasons" in order to be eligible for the delayed mandate.

In other words, as Washington Post's Wonkblog explained, "'It's simply so they don't game the system,' one senior administration official told reporters on a phone call this afternoon. 'They have to certify they're not doing that and not dropping their coverage.'"

There's much more at the link.

Thanks for the link.

Uh, it appears to confirm the OP from its standard left wing perspective:

"To prevent employers from simply firing workers in order to avoid the obligation to provide health coverage in the next couple years, the IRS included a safeguard: If these businesses fire workers, they must show they did so for 'bona fide business reasons' in order to be eligible for the delayed mandate."

Of course, Media Matters runs with its left wing roots and refers to it as "gaming the system" if a company fires people because keeping them under the plan would be too costly. We know what the Left thinks of business.

Yikes. Evidently this is true.

"Safeguards", they call it.

Holy crap.

.

So what's wrong with that? It's not a conspiracy to screw you over...

I really do wish these right wing idiots would quit watching FOX News and start thinking for themselves.

It's becoming embarrassing.

What do you suggest? Media Matters? ABS/PBS/NBS/CNN?

Fact IS we CAN think for ourselves and aren't psychophant lemmings as YOU.

There's many legitimate news sources linked to in the Media Matters piece. That's why I used it as opposed to FOX, Breitbart, and other silly teabagger sites that quote themselves as the source.

And what the fuck are ABS and NBS, tard breath?

 

[Mac1958]

Of course isn't true.

Conservative Media Bravely Defend Businesses' Right To Skirt Legal Obligations By Firing Workers | Blog | Media Matters for America



There's much more at the link.

Thanks for the link.

Uh, it appears to confirm the OP from its standard left wing perspective:

"To prevent employers from simply firing workers in order to avoid the obligation to provide health coverage in the next couple years, the IRS included a safeguard: If these businesses fire workers, they must show they did so for 'bona fide business reasons' in order to be eligible for the delayed mandate."

Of course, Media Matters runs with its left wing roots and refers to it as "gaming the system" if a company fires people because keeping them under the plan would be too costly. We know what the Left thinks of business.

Yikes. Evidently this is true.

"Safeguards", they call it.

Holy crap.

.

So what's wrong with that? It's not a conspiracy to screw you over...

So you admit that you weren't being honest. Well, that's refreshing.

And I don't worry about being "screwed over". The victimhood thing doesn't appeal to me.

If I really need to explain why I find this to be terrible, well, I don't think you would understand. Or care.

.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

the Liar-in-Chief is now forcing companies to also lie....how Stalinesque of him...

 

[Mac1958]

.

Seriously, we're in uncharted territory here.

So these companies literally cannot act in their best interest, and more importantly, in the best interests of their shareholders?

And they say they're pro-business. That's a freakin' insult right there. Wow.

.

 

[Clementine]

.

I'm still very much hoping that this story isn't true. This would cross a serious line. Inexcusable.

Does anyone know if this has been disproven?

.

Of course isn't true.

Conservative Media Bravely Defend Businesses' Right To Skirt Legal Obligations By Firing Workers | Blog | Media Matters for America

On February 10 the IRS announced that it would delay the health insurance employer mandate for medium-sized businesses employing between 50 and 99 people until 2016. Smaller businesses -- those with 49 employees or fewer -- are not required to provide all workers with health insurance. To prevent employers from simply firing workers in order to avoid the obligation to provide health coverage in the next couple years, the IRS included a safeguard: If these businesses fire workers, they must show they did so for "bona fide business reasons" in order to be eligible for the delayed mandate.

In other words, as Washington Post's Wonkblog explained, "'It's simply so they don't game the system,' one senior administration official told reporters on a phone call this afternoon. 'They have to certify they're not doing that and not dropping their coverage.'"

There's much more at the link.

You're missing the real objective here.

They are saying that you cannot fire people due to Obamacare and still get the delayed mandate. If they fire people and have less than 50 employees, they don't have to worry about the stupid delay anyway, so why claim that the administration is doing them any favors by delaying it only for companies that don't fire people because of it?

Companies know that if they keep people or hire more, the mandate will eventually hit them like a brick. They aren't gaming the system, just trying to stay ahead of it so they can stay in business.

Many companies will likely keep people on as long as possible, but they will have to fire them eventually. As it stands, they cannot be honest about firing people because of Obamacare. The administration came up with this as a means to keep employers hushed about the reason they are laying people off.

The goal of the administration is to offer the delay so they can control how companies run as they try to cope with the law. That won't help in the long run because eventually, this oppressive law will be implemented and everyone will be screwed if they have too many employees.

Obama has unilaterally delayed the law many times. Now he's just dictating more conditions, so he's not delaying for everyone, only those who do as he says. It's wrong no matter how you look at it. He is dictating how they run their business and he seems to be making sure that none of them are able to escape his grasp.

It's none of the government's business why people get fired or how many get fired. No one is going to get ahead by keeping all their employees and hiring more. Obamacare will make each employee a heavy burden that a lot of companies won't be able to handle.

Why doesn't Obama just delay it for everyone and be done? Better yet, repeal it because it's nothing but a disaster?

Instead he is making more rules as he goes to trap companies into carrying a heavier burden that may sink them in the end.

 

[Clementine]

.

I'm still very much hoping that this story isn't true. This would cross a serious line. Inexcusable.

Does anyone know if this has been disproven?

.

Of course isn't true.

Conservative Media Bravely Defend Businesses' Right To Skirt Legal Obligations By Firing Workers | Blog | Media Matters for America

On February 10 the IRS announced that it would delay the health insurance employer mandate for medium-sized businesses employing between 50 and 99 people until 2016. Smaller businesses -- those with 49 employees or fewer -- are not required to provide all workers with health insurance. To prevent employers from simply firing workers in order to avoid the obligation to provide health coverage in the next couple years, the IRS included a safeguard: If these businesses fire workers, they must show they did so for "bona fide business reasons" in order to be eligible for the delayed mandate.

In other words, as Washington Post's Wonkblog explained, "'It's simply so they don't game the system,' one senior administration official told reporters on a phone call this afternoon. 'They have to certify they're not doing that and not dropping their coverage.'"

There's much more at the link.

You're missing the real objective here.

They are saying that you cannot fire people due to Obamacare and still get the delayed mandate. If they fire people and have less than 50 employees, they don't have to worry about the stupid delay anyway, so why claim that the administration is doing them any favors by delaying it only for companies that don't fire people because of it?

Companies know that if they keep people or hire more, the mandate will eventually hit them like a brick. They aren't gaming the system, just trying to stay ahead of it so they can stay in business.

Many companies will likely keep people on as long as possible, but they will have to fire them eventually. As it stands, they cannot be honest about firing people because of Obamacare. The administration came up with this as a means to keep employers hushed about the reason they are laying people off.

The goal of the administration is to offer the delay so they can control how companies run as they try to cope with the law. That won't help in the long run because eventually, this oppressive law will be implemented and everyone will be screwed if they have too many employees.

Obama has unilaterally delayed the law many times. Now he's just putting more conditions, so he's not delaying for everyone, only those who do as he says. It's wrong no matter how you look at it. He is dictating how they run their business and he seems to be making sure that none of them are able to escape his grasp.

It's none of the government's business why people get fired or how many get fired. No one is going to get ahead by keeping all their employees and hiring more. Obamacare will make each employee a heavy burden that a lot of companies won't be able to handle.

Why doesn't Obama just delay it for everyone and be done? Better yet, repeal it because it's nothing but a disaster?

Instead he is making more rules as he goes to trap companies into carrying a heavier burden that may sink them in the end.

And they don't dare speak honestly about why they make decisions on their employees future.

 

[oreo]

Okay, the left will jump in and say that it's just a rule to stop companies from laying off to avoid Obamacare costs. The truth is that many companies simply cannot survive because of Obamacare and they've been honest in telling employees that the law caused them to pare down.

Now companies have to swear to the IRS that Obamacare costs are not the reason they are laying people off or they face more fines. So, even though Obamacare is the actual cause and many small businesses have no choice, the new rule prevents them from being honest about how Obamacare is seriously hurting small businesses. They will have to either make up a lie to tell employees or tell the truth and suffer even more.

How many will be honest about it now? A lot less, I'm sure. But the administration is tired of hearing story after story about how Obama's signature legislation is killing the middle class, so they are forcing them to lie about it. Since some in the liberal media have grown tired of defending the indefensible, they have to cut the info off at the source and stop the media from having something to report to begin with.

Even though most companies aren't just trying to save money by laying people off and are doing it out of necessity so all their employees don't wind up at the unemployment office, they will be forced to swear that the layoffs are for another reason.

It's just a way to shut them up and stop the public from realizing just how bad Obamacare is for the middle class. If any of the Dems understood the private sector and how small businesses are barely surviving, they would know that Obamacare is delivering one hell of a blow to already hurting companies.

Yes, Obamacare is the sole reason that millions have lost their jobs. The CBO report showed how detrimental the law is and why millions more will be lost. The Obama administration just found a way to keep the truth from being told. They would prefer that voters remain as ignorant as possible as the midterms approach.

Thought Police: Firms must swear ObamaCare not a factor in firings | Fox News

Well--they don't have to worry about voters being ignorant. The Democrat party depends on ignorance to get elected.

However, I doubt that employers are going to lie to employees--about the reason they are getting their hours cut or getting laid off. You just can't make that kind of crap up.

This administration has continually attacked business in this country--this is just another threat in a long line of many--and I don't think it's legal, as again Obama has usurped his constitutional authority--now the 27th time just on Obamacare alone. In return business has tucked in like a turtle, and they're not going to stick their heads out until he's out of the oval office. IOW--no employer in their right mind is going to plan on expanding their business or hire more employees with this kind of threat looming in the shadows.