An Admittedly Niave Question About the Affordable Health Care Act

[HelenaHandbag]

So you are theorizing that all of this was planned out - that the drafters of the bill figured that a 30-hour per week threshold would cause employers across the county to cut the hours (and, of course, the pay as well) of their employees. And this benefits the administration how?

I guess if you have an administration that wants to be hated by everyone, then your theory would hold water. Somehow, I just don't think that's what happened here. I'm thinking it was more likely just stupidity. it's one thing to have something foreseeable, the drafters of the bill foresee it and intentionally ignore it and quite another to have something foreseeable and the drafters of the bill miss it entirely. It's the difference between intent and negligence.

You explain to me how intentionally creating a situation that will drasctically increase unemployment and loss of earnings, will benefit any political party, and I will then be willing to listen to your arguments.

Once again, I am not such a fool to believe that the obvious is unforseen. Maybe that is why you are a gullible, naive progressive and I am not.

They want chaos because they want to be the ones proposing the "solution". That is not a political party thing, that is a powerlust thing which transcends political parties.

I'm sorry - I didn't realize who I was dealing with here. Been nice chatting with you.

You are dealing with someone who isn't a gullible and naive progressive, like you are.

Sorry that you believe that the supposedly "best and brightest" progressives in Washington D.C., missed such an obviously detrimental aspect of their hostile takeover of American health care.

You may now return to stealing from your employer.

 

[George Costanza]

Once again, I am not such a fool to believe that the obvious is unforseen. Maybe that is why you are a gullible, naive progressive and I am not.

They want chaos because they want to be the ones proposing the "solution". That is not a political party thing, that is a powerlust thing which transcends political parties.

I'm sorry - I didn't realize who I was dealing with here. Been nice chatting with you.

You are dealing with someone who isn't a gullible and naive progressive, like you are.

Sorry that you believe that the supposedly "best and brightest" progressives in Washington D.C., missed such an obviously detrimental aspect of their hostile takeover of American health care.

You may now return to stealing from your employer.

Really good debaters debate the issue without getting personal. If you would like to debate this issue, I will be happy to do so. You are here to debate issues, right?

I think what you are saying is this 30-week business was foreseeable, the drafters of the legislation foresaw it and intentionally did nothing to prevent it. I am saying this 30-week business was foreseeable but the drafters of the legislation failed to see it and therefore (negligently) failed to do anything to prevent it.

I don't understand what the drafters of the legislation hoped to gain by intentionally avoiding an issue they knew about and knew would cause a worsening of the country's econmoic situation. How would that help us Dems?

There is another question - (and I, as a lawyer, should know the answer to this, but I do not): Is there any existing provision of law that would prevent the government from doing anything to close the 30-hour per week loophole?

 

[George Costanza]

They did not miss it George, they did it deliberately.
Yes it is in the Democrats best interest. The more that are on government assistance the more votes they get.

Right.

You really are naive.

We don't want this thread moved to Conspiracy Theories, do we?

 

[peach174]

George
They passed this bill knowing full well that it would fail, so that they could get their universal health care.
They knew full well that the did not have the votes at the time, to pass for a single payer health care bill.
Sen. Harry Reid admitted to this on the senate floor just a few months ago.
Dems have been trying to get Government controlled Health Care for 50 years and it has always failed, until now and only because the Dems had enough votes in the House and Senate to pass it, against the majority of the people who did not want it.

 

[Politico]

I just learned that my grandson is quitting his job as a waiter at Applebees because they have cut his hours to 30 per week. They have done the same to all of their employees. No more than 30 hours per week for anyone. Of course, this is so that Applebees will not have to provide health insurance for its employees. It would appear that Applebees is not the only corporation that is doing this.

In times of severe unemployment throughout the nation, this is obviously a very bad trend.

Why didn't the folks who drafted the current health care legislation anticipate that this would happen, and have a provision in there that would close this loophole?

Provision for what? Government control of private businesses? Gotta be a troll post.

 

[Papageorgio]

I just learned that my grandson is quitting his job as a waiter at Applebees because they have cut his hours to 30 per week. They have done the same to all of their employees. No more than 30 hours per week for anyone. Of course, this is so that Applebees will not have to provide health insurance for its employees. It would appear that Applebees is not the only corporation that is doing this.

In times of severe unemployment throughout the nation, this is obviously a very bad trend.

Why didn't the folks who drafted the current health care legislation anticipate that this would happen, and have a provision in there that would close this loophole?

We had to pass it to see what was in it, at least what the Democrats said.

I guess they were right. They wrote the legislation however failed to read it.

 

[peach174]

Think about this long an hard George.
The Dems passed this bill knowing that it would fail, so that they could get their single payer bill.
They are harming and stressing millions of Americans in order to do this.
It has affected your grandson who quit his job, my own mom and me and my husband.
When a party thinks that this is the way to go, in order to get their own way, it is not a good thing for this Nation.

 

[Smilebong]

I just learned that my grandson is quitting his job as a waiter at Applebees because they have cut his hours to 30 per week. They have done the same to all of their employees. No more than 30 hours per week for anyone. Of course, this is so that Applebees will not have to provide health insurance for its employees. It would appear that Applebees is not the only corporation that is doing this.

In times of severe unemployment throughout the nation, this is obviously a very bad trend.

Why didn't the folks who drafted the current health care legislation anticipate that this would happen, and have a provision in there that would close this loophole?

They didn't give a crap. All Obama wants is a legacy.

 

[Two Thumbs]

I just learned that my grandson is quitting his job as a waiter at Applebees because they have cut his hours to 30 per week. They have done the same to all of their employees. No more than 30 hours per week for anyone. Of course, this is so that Applebees will not have to provide health insurance for its employees. It would appear that Applebees is not the only corporation that is doing this.

In times of severe unemployment throughout the nation, this is obviously a very bad trend.

Why didn't the folks who drafted the current health care legislation anticipate that this would happen, and have a provision in there that would close this loophole?

Why do people think this has anything to do with ObamaCare? Nothing new here. Same thing has been happening ever since the laws were passed that required employers to give benefits to full time employees.

Wow, just how big are your blinders?

You're not just a member of the liars club, you're the president.

 

[Two Thumbs]

You are making the false assumptions that this was unforeseeable and that progressives give a crap about the little guy, like your grandson.

I don't think it was unforseeable at all. I think it was entirely forseeable. That's the whole point of my OP. They should have foreseen it and should have taken steps to prevent it.

You did read my OP, right?

they did forsee it, and they took the steps to achieve it.

It's on purpose, understand that, the dems did this on purpose.

 

[Two Thumbs]

They know and understand what they are doing. They simply don't care.

Their hostility to a healthy business environment is only one aspect of their powerlust. They want it all, no matter whether freedom gets crushed and regardless of whose lives they ruin.

You don't really believe that, do you? It would not be in the Democrat's best interest to intentionally foster unumployment.

Let's not forget what this thread is about. It is about how the Obama administration could miss an obvious point that, unless corrected, can and will contribute to unemployment.

go and read my post on the 1st page.

its' all about creating dependency on the government.

dems hate freedom, your leaders want everyone dependent on the government.

 

[emilynghiem]

I just learned that my grandson is quitting his job as a waiter at Applebees because they have cut his hours to 30 per week. They have done the same to all of their employees. No more than 30 hours per week for anyone. Of course, this is so that Applebees will not have to provide health insurance for its employees. It would appear that Applebees is not the only corporation that is doing this.

In times of severe unemployment throughout the nation, this is obviously a very bad trend.

Why didn't the folks who drafted the current health care legislation anticipate that this would happen, and have a provision in there that would close this loophole?

I thought they did try to insert some clause that companies had to have a reason to downsize so that it wasn't to avoid the mandate. Not sure if that applies to cutting down hours, but at least it was to cutting people from positions.

There were a lot of things they didn't anticipate.

It is not the job or function of federal govt to regulate personal health care on this level,
so this is to be expected. This is why the Constitution was written to limit federal govt to the basic functions, and leave the policies and programs to States and People.

not designed to micromanage all these details of business, especially not relationships
within companies and contracts with insurance between companies and individuals.

The last person who taught me Constitutional law formally was my eighth grade history teacher; and apparently that was enough to instill in me a better sense of the process of Constitutional government than our sitting president with a law degree from Harvard.

so sad. all these complications are why federal govt should remain limited to specified duty.
we are supposed to manage our own business policies locally, not regulate by Congress.

 

[Two Thumbs]

ok George

if it was a mistake, a mistake we pointed out 6 months ago, and has been in practice for 5 months.

Why hasn't it been fixed?

There's no chance they don't know, there's no chance they didn't know.

So why fuck us all over?

 

[emilynghiem]

I just learned that my grandson is quitting his job as a waiter at Applebees because they have cut his hours to 30 per week. They have done the same to all of their employees. No more than 30 hours per week for anyone. Of course, this is so that Applebees will not have to provide health insurance for its employees. It would appear that Applebees is not the only corporation that is doing this.

In times of severe unemployment throughout the nation, this is obviously a very bad trend.

Why didn't the folks who drafted the current health care legislation anticipate that this would happen, and have a provision in there that would close this loophole?

They didn't give a crap. All Obama wants is a legacy.

Yes he and Powell and others openly state they want Singlepayer.

Obama begged to pass this bill for the sake of his Presidency. He said HE needed this.
Not the interest of the people, but for him to use as political leverage.

This is the form that they could get passed, but they never accepted responsibility for it.
From the very beginning it was set up to push the costs on the people who didn't agree.

Their belief is to pass it first, then wait for something else to stop it or change it.
As long as they passed something, they could use that to force change,
again taking no responsibility for the policies or process in the meantime.

Playing games in Court, in the media, anything to use this ACA as a political football.
Regardless what Constitutional rules are broken, as long as the referees are on your side.

Anything is legal as long as you can get away with it. Politics by bullying at its very worst.
Historic, yes, because it will lead to reforms and solutions so this doesn't happen again.

 

[emilynghiem]

ok George

if it was a mistake, a mistake we pointed out 6 months ago, and has been in practice for 5 months.

Why hasn't it been fixed?

There's no chance they don't know, there's no chance they didn't know.

So why fuck us all over?

It hasn't been fixed because people don't agree what to change or replace it with.

One side wants to push for Singlepayer.
The other side wants free market choices restored without federal interference,
mandates or tax penalties being held over our head.

Because the two sides are not even approaching health care from the same foundation,
they will never agree at this rate; that is why I am urging all people to consider the option of separating systems by party and quit this notion of abusing majority rule to force one way.

Right to life, Right to health care, and Right to Choose should not be compromised
one for the other depending on who gets more votes. All people should have equal right to pursue and develop their own systems, without having to compete or fight fines.
Citizens should be rewarded with investing in sustainable systems, not punished for
not agreeing with what the President or ruling party believes to be the solution for everyone.

if we used govt to impose solutions that favored the Christian or Muslim faith, people would be screaming for "separation of church and state." We need to separate "party from federal govt" and quit imposing political beliefs or agenda that exclude, discriminate, or penalize people if we don't agree to follow the same beliefs.

Maybe i should take a hint from one of the officers against prohibition of marijuana.
he said whenever you ban things, you promote it instead.

So we should promote a BAN on "the right to choose health care" and push a campaign to make Singlepayer a "national religion" imposed by federal govt for all taxpayers to fund.
if you don't agree with part or all of the policies, then you should sacrifice your "right to choose" for the greater good of this national religion. And try to push a Constitutional amendment making it legal for federal govt to set up the ACA, since that step was skipped.

Maybe taking the opposite approach will help. When I explain it constitutionally, people don't get it. So maybe I should lobby for the opposite side, to get the point across?

 

[George Costanza]

I just learned that my grandson is quitting his job as a waiter at Applebees because they have cut his hours to 30 per week. They have done the same to all of their employees. No more than 30 hours per week for anyone. Of course, this is so that Applebees will not have to provide health insurance for its employees. It would appear that Applebees is not the only corporation that is doing this.

In times of severe unemployment throughout the nation, this is obviously a very bad trend.

Why didn't the folks who drafted the current health care legislation anticipate that this would happen, and have a provision in there that would close this loophole?

I thought they did try to insert some clause that companies had to have a reason to downsize so that it wasn't to avoid the mandate. Not sure if that applies to cutting down hours, but at least it was to cutting people from positions.

There were a lot of things they didn't anticipate.

It is not the job or function of federal govt to regulate personal health care on this level,
so this is to be expected. This is why the Constitution was written to limit federal govt to the basic functions, and leave the policies and programs to States and People.

not designed to micromanage all these details of business, especially not relationships
within companies and contracts with insurance between companies and individuals.

The last person who taught me Constitutional law formally was my eighth grade history teacher; and apparently that was enough to instill in me a better sense of the process of Constitutional government than our sitting president with a law degree from Harvard.

so sad. all these complications are why federal govt should remain limited to specified duty.
we are supposed to manage our own business policies locally, not regulate by Congress.

All well and good, but when the haves are screwing the have nots up one side and down the other, then it may be time for the government to step in. Of course the haves will scream "government oppression" but maybe they deserve exactly what they are getting.

I kind of think that's the theory here. Way too many people unable to afford health care under the former (privately run) system. What about those people? I think the new system is designed to help them, i.e., to make it more difficult for the haves to stick it to them.

 

[oreo]

I just learned that my grandson is quitting his job as a waiter at Applebees because they have cut his hours to 30 per week. They have done the same to all of their employees. No more than 30 hours per week for anyone. Of course, this is so that Applebees will not have to provide health insurance for its employees. It would appear that Applebees is not the only corporation that is doing this.

In times of severe unemployment throughout the nation, this is obviously a very bad trend.

Why didn't the folks who drafted the current health care legislation anticipate that this would happen, and have a provision in there that would close this loophole?

Because this bill isn't about helping people with their health care.
It's about Government controlling all of the health care system and controlling us.
Did you listen to Nancy Pelosi who thinks that it is a good thing that people work only 30 hours a week? "You have more time to be with your kids and family".
It is a lefty utopian ideology.
Look at France, Spain and Greece and their working hours for that answer. They all said the exact same thing that Pelosi said.

Yes, this is the way they think. Nancy couldn't have said it better. What these morons don't realize is most Americans depend on a 40 hour per work paycheck.

Americans with a lot free time on their hands thanks to Obamacare can spend it pursuing their happiness instead of earning a living, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said Sunday.

During an interview on CNN’s “State of the Union,” host Candy Crowley read Pelosi part of a letter signed by union goon James Hoffa Jr. that described Obamacare’s impact on employers as a way to “destroy the foundation of the 40-hour work week.”

nancypelosi “That’s pretty tough from a loyal Democratic constituency,” said Crowley, sometimes considered a pretty loyal Democratic constituency herself.

Pelosi was unfazed.

Some parts of Obamacare need to be clarified, she acknowledged, but losing that 40-hour work week will really free Americans to “pursue your happiness … follow your passion.”

Pelosi: Death of 40-hour work week means freedom to ?follow your passion? - BizPac Review

 

[George Costanza]

Let's sum up to this point . . .

So y'all are saying that the Obama administration put through a health care bill designed to force businesses and employers to cut the hours of their employees so they (the employers) would not have to provide health insurance for the employees. This, in turn, would insure that employees would NOT get any health insurance, thereby making the situation worse than it was before the passage of the AHCA.

This, in turn, would then enable the government to totally take over the health care industry (socialized medicine), since everyone would be so unhappy at what was going on there would be no objection to such governmental action.

Do I have that right? If not, please tell me where I am missing something.

 

[oreo]

I just learned that my grandson is quitting his job as a waiter at Applebees because they have cut his hours to 30 per week. They have done the same to all of their employees. No more than 30 hours per week for anyone. Of course, this is so that Applebees will not have to provide health insurance for its employees. It would appear that Applebees is not the only corporation that is doing this.

In times of severe unemployment throughout the nation, this is obviously a very bad trend.

Why didn't the folks who drafted the current health care legislation anticipate that this would happen, and have a provision in there that would close this loophole?

I thought they did try to insert some clause that companies had to have a reason to downsize so that it wasn't to avoid the mandate. Not sure if that applies to cutting down hours, but at least it was to cutting people from positions.

There were a lot of things they didn't anticipate.

It is not the job or function of federal govt to regulate personal health care on this level,
so this is to be expected. This is why the Constitution was written to limit federal govt to the basic functions, and leave the policies and programs to States and People.

not designed to micromanage all these details of business, especially not relationships
within companies and contracts with insurance between companies and individuals.

The last person who taught me Constitutional law formally was my eighth grade history teacher; and apparently that was enough to instill in me a better sense of the process of Constitutional government than our sitting president with a law degree from Harvard.

so sad. all these complications are why federal govt should remain limited to specified duty.
we are supposed to manage our own business policies locally, not regulate by Congress.

All well and good, but when the haves are screwing the have nots up one side and down the other, then it may be time for the government to step in. Of course the haves will scream "government oppression" but maybe they deserve exactly what they are getting.

I kind of think that's the theory here. Way too many people unable to afford health care under the former (privately run) system. What about those people? I think the new system is designed to help them, i.e., to make it more difficult for the haves to stick it to them.

Who in the heck do you think is paying for all of the new Medicaid enrollees and all of the people in lower incomes that are getting subsidized for their Obamacare insurance?
CLUE--it's NOT the rich--the rich can afford any premium.

This wealth redistribution is coming right out of MIDDLE CLASS WORKING Americans pockets. They're seeing their premiums double to sometimes even triple. Don't you remember Obama's promise that his health care law wouldn't add a single dime to the deficit? It's the working middle class of this country that are paying for all the people who are getting Medicaid--(the largest enrollee to-date and paying for all of the subsidized plans.) DA--DUH

The proof of that is coming right out of blue state Pennsylvania--when employees working for a small business get a first look at their new Obamacare premiums.




After watching the above video--YOU tell me what corporation--or any business with more than 50 employees--in the United States today can AFFORD to pay the total bill for all of their employees--as they are required to do under Obamacare.

 

[Amelia]

They know and understand what they are doing. They simply don't care.

Their hostility to a healthy business environment is only one aspect of their powerlust. They want it all, no matter whether freedom gets crushed and regardless of whose lives they ruin.

You don't really believe that, do you? It would not be in the Democrat's best interest to intentionally foster unumployment.

Let's not forget what this thread is about. It is about how the Obama administration could miss an obvious point that, unless corrected, can and will contribute to unemployment.

The last I heard, the administration was denying that this was happening on an appreciable scale.




I don't think they consciously decided to do something which they knew would reduce employment but the bill was pushed through with lies. They just didn't think enough. The legislators chose to bypass a process which could have resulted in a good law. When Scott Brown took his seat Democrats lost their filibuster-proof majority, so further changes were off the table and they pushed through what they had at the time by backdoor measures. It was irresponsible of them, it was in direct contradiction to democratic principles, and it created a big mess.