An Admittedly Niave Question About the Affordable Health Care Act

[George Costanza]

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?

Taxpayers.

 

[George Costanza]

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

Maybe it isn't, although I would find that hard to believe. One of the most established principles of human nature is self interest.

I don't think they consciously decided to do something which they knew would reduce employment . . .

Neither do I. That is simply preposterous.

. . . but the bill was pushed through with lies.

Lies or mistaken judgment? The end result of either is generally pretty much the same, but there is a world of difference between a lie and something done out of misinformation or just plain stupidity.

They just didn't think enough.

I agree with you there. That is pretty much the whole point of the OP and of this thread. They should have seen the consequences of setting a 30-hour minimum. Apparently they did not. Of course, the Right is screaming they did it intentionally, but that simply makes no sense.

it was in direct contradiction to democratic principles, and it created a big mess.

My experience has been that just about anything that offends the sensibilities of the Republican Noise Machine is going to create a "big mess," simply because of the unprecedented ability of the Right to do exactly that - create a big mess - whenever things aren't going the way the Right would like them to go.

 

[Amelia]

If Dems had followed Joe Lieberman's advice there would have been smaller, smarter legislation, which some of the centrist Republicans could had signed on to.

Whatever Republicans may have done wrong, Democrats were in charge and they chose the lazy route -- bulling through bad law against the will of the nation. At that point, just to get something done.

 

[Amelia]

And now people are losing their jobs and their hours while many on the left are calling people on the right liars for saying this is happening.

Thank you for not denying that it's happening.

And I'm sorry your grandson finds himself in this predicament.

 

[Two Thumbs]

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.

you missed the part where the gop is blamed, but yes, that is the plan.


Are you familiar with Cloward-Piven?

Their idea to break America was to destroy it from the inside, through overwhelming the system. Basically increase demand for Fed money that we collapse in on ourselves, and them the Fed steps in and takes over.

All in the name of helping us, b/c they care and know what is best for us.

 

[Two Thumbs]

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?

Taxpayers.

Taxpayers in China

 

[Mojo2]

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?

A defining characteristic of Liberals is their inability to anticipate the results of their well intentioned and often exuberant acts. And their emotional make up makes them disinclined to make the effort.

Look at this assessment of Liberal tendencies from the 1960's:

IRVING KRISTOL: If you had asked any liberal in 1960, we are going to pass these laws, these laws, these laws, and these laws, mentioning all the laws that in fact were passed in the 1960s and ‘70s, would you say crime will go up, drug addiction will go up, illegitimacy will go up, or will they get down?

Obviously, everyone would have said, they will get down.

And everyone would have been wrong.

Now, that’s not something that the liberals have been able to face up to. They’ve had their reforms, and they have led to consequences that they did not expect and they don’t know what to do about.

http://billstclair.com/nightmares/11.html

Liberals are very much like flighty women or high strung children.

They can't easily control their emotions and they can't think past tomorrow or be interested in doing so.

That is why I believe they are fundamentally, most of them, ill equipped to make important decisions for this country.

 

[PredFan]

If Obamacare is so great, why do they have to lie about it and spin all the news?

Well, we all know the answer to that.

 

[Amelia]

"Liberals are very much like flighty women or high strung children."

Oh no you di'int, Mojo!

 

[MeBelle]

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?

The folks who drafted this legislation defined the 30 hour work week as full time.

26 U.S. Code § 4980H - Shared responsibility for employers regarding health coverage | LII / Legal Information Institute

4) Full-time employee
(A) In general
The term “full-time employee” means, with respect to any month, an employee who is employed on average at least 30 hours of service per week.
~~~~
My question would be WHY change from 40 to 30?

 

[Mojo2]

Lies or mistaken judgment? The end result of either is generally pretty much the same, but there is a world of difference between a lie and something done out of misinformation or just plain stupidity.

I think the facts show it was lies AND mistaken judgment.

I will point out the deceit here:

Pelosi aide says Dems have a legislative "trick" to pass Obamacare; So why have a summit?

Washington Examiner ^ | 02/10/10 | Mark Tapscott
Posted on 2/10/2010 305 PM by Mrs. Don-o

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's senior health care advisor has told Congress Daily that congressional Democratic leaders have settled on a strategy they believe will allow them to make changes in both Senate and House Obamacare bills, then send a single, revised version to President Obama for signature.

Congress Daily is a subscription-only publication, but LifeNews.com has these details:

"In comments reported by Congress Daily, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s top health care aide Wendell Primus admitted top Democrats have already decided on the strategy to pass the Senate's pro-abortion, government-run health care bill.

"Primus explained that the Senate will use the controversial reconciliation strategy that will have the House approve the Senate bill and both the House and Senate okaying changes to the bill that the Senate will sign off on by preventing Republicans from filibustering.

“'The trick in all of this is that the president would have to sign the Senate bill first, then the reconciliation bill second, and the reconciliation bill would trump the Senate bill,' Primus said at the National Health Policy Conference hosted by Academy Health and Health Affairs.

“'There's a certain skill, there's a trick, but I think we'll get it done,' he said."

The comments from Primus raise an obvious question: Since it is inconveible that Democratic congressional leaders are moving in this direction without the knowledge of the White House, why call a health care summit and challenge congressional Republicans to come with their best ideas when the plan is already in place to use legislative trickery to pass Obamacare?

The most logical answer would seem to be that the summit is part and parcel of a White House/congressional Democratic strategy to distract attention from what is about to happen on the Hill. It's the classic magician's trick of distracting you with the left hand while the right hand does the "trick."

Pelosi aide says Dems have a legislative "trick" to pass Obamacare; So why have a summit?

Here is another view of the deceit that went into passing this awful, awful bill.

The "end run" was something called "Deem And Pass". Technically, I suppose, it wasn't Obama who did this, but rather Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House. It's hard to believe that he wasn't involved in the process or the strategy - but as the Speaker, this was her doing.

The political process that is supposed to be followed is that the bill is passed in the House of Representatives, then goes to the Senate for a vote. if the Senate approves it, it goes to the President's desk for a signature. However, if any changes are made in the Senate, these changes have to go back to the House for another vote.

So the bill passed the House the first time around by one vote; and when it got to the Senate, they didn't have enough votes to pass it. Harry Reid set out to secure these votes by tucking a bunch of additional legislation into it - all little pieces of "pork" promised to opposing Senators for their home states in exchange for changing their votes.

The most famous of these was called "The Cornhusker Kickback", which was an outright bribe to Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska. Democrats guaranteed that the federal government would pay the full price of expanded Medicaid coverage in Nebraska, in exchange for his changing his vote and allowing the bill to pass the Senate.

There were other incidents of outright bribery involved in securing the votes in the Senate; please see the article linked here -

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/gop_b...

However, changes to the bill then required that it go back to the House of Representatives - and Pelosi was not confident that she had enough votes on her side to pass the changes. She believed that some representatives may have changed their minds - and she didn't want to give them the opportunity to vote under those circumstances.

She used what many call a "procedural sleight of hand" called "Deem and Pass". Essentially, this means that instead of re-voting on the entire bill, she managed to bring only a handful of changes up for a vote - enabling them to presume that if the changes passed this time around, and the rest of the bill had passed the earlier time around, then they could "Deem" that the whole thing would have passed, and they could push it through without a full vote on the full bill.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...

Her stated reason was that it would 'politically protect lawmakers who are reluctant to publicly support the measure"

Get that? A $1.7 trillion law that will fundamentally change, and likely cause irreparable damage to our economy and our healthcare system, was pushed into being for the political expediency and protection of Representatives.

Put another way, Pelosi would not accept that members of her House of Representatives would vote against the bill because they opposed it - only because it might damage them politically if they voted for it - so she was saving them from this political embarrassment by assuming their "yes" vote, and deeming that the bill would have passed if it had come to a vote.

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130818233555AA43IXu

 

[Mojo2]

"Liberals are very much like flighty women or high strung children."

Oh no you di'int, Mojo!

I don't consider women undesireable or unattractive or unnecessary or incapable.

But flighty women?

Yes. I stand by that part of my statement.

I don't consider you or any of the female Conservatives here to be flighty.

If the shoe fits, then you'd have a beef with me.

But if that shoe fit you would likely be a Liberal.

And you aren't.

There.

(Did I manage to extricate my foot from my mouth?)

 

[Amelia]

"Pelosi aide says Dems have a legislative 'trick' to pass Obamacare; So why have a summit?"


Yes, and during that summit, Obama acknowledged that people would lose their insurance. After that he went on to say over and over that they wouldn't. Period.

And of course there was the careful avoidance of language which could be interpreted as a "tax", and Obama's denial that the mandate was a tax, after which the Justice Dept. argued that it was constitutional because it was a tax. That made what Roberts did all the more egregious, since the Congress was very deliberate about not calling the mandate a tax.

 

[Amelia]

And then there were the shenanigans used to claim that a bill which was drafted by the Senate originated in the house as required by law.

So many clever tricks. So little attention paid to what mattered.

 

[Amelia]

"Liberals are very much like flighty women or high strung children."

Oh no you di'int, Mojo!

I don't consider women undesireable or unattractive or unnecessary or incapable.

But flighty women?

Yes. I stand by that part of my statement.

I don't consider you or any of the female Conservatives here to be flighty.

If the shoe fits, then you'd have a beef with me.

But if that shoe fit you would likely be a Liberal.

And you aren't.

There.

(Did I manage to extricate my foot from my mouth?)

Nope. Sorry.

The press are now going to run with your stereotypical characterization of women and all the substance of your discussion will be disregarded.

 

[Mojo2]

If Obamacare is so great, why do they have to lie about it and spin all the news?

Well, we all know the answer to that.

Poll: Majority Believe Purpose of Obamacare Is For Government to "Control Our Lives"
Katie Pavlich | Feb 14, 2014

What exactly was the point of Obamacare again? Americans, including 60 percent of independents, say the bill isn't about healthcare, but about controlling their lives.

By a 16 percentage-point margin, people think the health care law is more about the government “controlling our lives” (56 percent) than about “helping individual Americans get the health care they want” (40 percent).

Most Republicans (80 percent) and independents (60 percent) think the health care law is about government controlling our lives. A third of Democrats agree (33 percent)​

.

Poll: Majority Believe Purpose of Obamacare Is For Government to "Control Our Lives" - Katie Pavlich

 

[Wry Catcher]

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 suppose we all must begin to anticipate such behaviors since Reagan transformed avarice (greed) from a deadly sin to a virtue. Yes, it is my money, and I'll choose to spend it on items and services offered by those providers whose values I admire.

 

[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?

I suppose we all must begin to anticipate such behaviors since Reagan transformed avarice (greed) from a deadly sin to a virtue. Yes, it is my money, and I'll choose to spend it on items and services offered by those providers whose values I admire.

so you are glad his grandson got fucked over.


Did you neg all those sexist and racist that were talking bad about Michelle Malkin?

I @'ed you, just to make sure you could do so.

 

[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 suppose we all must begin to anticipate such behaviors since Reagan transformed avarice (greed) from a deadly sin to a virtue. Yes, it is my money, and I'll choose to spend it on items and services offered by those providers whose values I admire.

so you are glad his grandson got fucked over.


Did you neg all those sexist and racist that were talking bad about Michelle Malkin?

I @'ed you, just to make sure you could do so.

Well they still don't get it. Obamacare is not about rich vs. poor, it is about the middle class vs poor. This chart is the state by state premium spikes that are being noted across the country due the mandates for coverage within Obamacare. Maternity--drug and alcohol coverage. There are NO exceptions everyone is required under Obamacare to have this coverage.

If you currently have employer based coverage and don't have coverage for maternity drug and alcohol abuse your policy will be cancelled. Democrats wisely postponed the employer mandate until after the mid term election cycle or 2015.

And people sit and there and actually believe that employers with over 50 employees will be able to afford it--LOL--and then they scratch their heads when they see lay-offs and employers cutting employee hours to no more than 29 per week--to avoid the cost of insuring them.

And here is the growing list of SCHOOLS public and private that have and are cutting back their employees hours to part-time because of Obamacare.

ObamaCare's impact on jobs is hotly debated by politicians and economists. Critics say the Affordable Care Act gives businesses an incentive to cut workers' hours below the 30-hour-per-week threshold at which the employer mandate to provide health insurance kicks in. White House economists dismiss such evidence as anecdotal, but BLS data show that the workweek in low-wage sectors sank to a record low in July — just before the Obama administration delayed enforcement of the employer mandate until 2015.

In the interest of an informed debate, we've compiled a list of job actions with strong proof that ObamaCare's employer mandate is behind cuts to work hours or staffing levels. As of Jan. 31, our ObamaCare scorecard included 401 employers with more than 100 school districts among them. Recently, IBD explained that a big minimum wage hike alongside the employer mandate would add to pressure on employers to cut workers to part-time, complicating the goal of reducing inequality.

Click here to see the list there's a ton of them.
ObamaCare Employer Mandate: A List Of Cuts To Work Hours, Jobs - Investors.com

 

[Ernie S.]

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?

Oh I don't know, but I'm going with "The people who wrote the law are assholes."