An Admittedly Niave Question About the Affordable Health Care Act

[peach174]

George
Where were you when all of us were discussing this 30 hour work week thing before the bill was passed?

Everyone was calling their Representatives and telling them that this needed to be changed.
They just ignored our protests.

 

[LoneLaugher]

When you consider the fact that liberals want employers to have nothing to do with providing health care...and the fact that they still do is directly attributable to conservative bullshit.......most of the replies in this thread are worthless.

 

[Zoom-boing]

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.

Insurance for me and my family, worked out will all the minor stuff I paid out of pocket, yearly physical and flu bugs, broken bone ect...today I am paying $500 a month more, and have coverage for flu bugs, physicals and so on. That's great but it isn't close the old plan fit family and I well. Now, we have to budget over $800 in health care. This whole idea was not thought out. It was rammed through an irresponsible Congress that wants us to read and figure it out. Not smart for Congress to do, it hurts many Americans and Congress isn't interested in any kind of fix.

No one thought this mess through, it was irresponsible of Congress, and it gets worse every day.

The way it was set up--is just bat s... crazy. For instance we have people in this country that are retired--(younger than 65) that are considered well-off and simply because they had no real gains in their investments in 2013--they are being forced onto Medicaid--when they were simply looking for a policy that they could purchase that was affordable to them. This is happening often at the protest of the individual looking for a policy.

Obamacare is only based on "earned or investment income from the prior year." So in fact, a person could own a multi-million dollar home--have diamonds, cash and other valuables in a safety deposit box in a bank. You could have a stock account which net value exceeds several hundred thousand dollars and still because a person didn't do that well in it that year or took a capital gains loss that year--they are being forced onto Medicaid.Those that didn't file an income tax return the prior year--because they didn't "earn" that much are asked to "guess" how much they will make in 2014--to base their premium.--LOL

Here is a very good example of this happening.

The White House has repeatedly maintained that ObamaCare expands options, a mantra that White House Press Secretary Jay Carney repeated on Friday. "They'll have choices they didn't have in the past, including a range of options when it comes to levels of coverage," he said.

But those options don't apply to the millions who will be directed to Medicaid, many of them hardly impoverished.

"The system will automatically sign them up for Medicaid, even if they don't want to be on Medicaid," says James Capretta of the Ethics and Public Policy Center. "That's what's happening. So a lot of people are getting signed up for Medicaid just by virtue of what their income is."

A case in point is a Virginia family, who asked to remain anonymous, but who came to Fox News with documents that demonstrate an apparent absurdity with Medicaid selection.

A case in point is a Virginia family, who asked to remain anonymous, but who came to Fox News with documents that demonstrate an apparent absurdity with Medicaid selection.

The father owns a $5 million house - entirely paid for. His kids attend expensive private schools. He owns three cars, but because he has earned his fortune and has stopped working , and his wife's new start-up business has yet to produce an income stream, he is considered by the Healthcare.gov website to have no income.

The website put him on Medicaid. He protested in the website's chat area. A screen grab of the dialogue reads: "Let 60 minutes show up in front of my 5 million dollars paid for house and tell America that this guy is on {Medicade} and that the American people are paying {fro} it!"

A navigator replied, "I do understand your frustration, however I have no other options to offer."

ObamaCare forcing people into Medicaid | Fox News

THIS IS WHY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS ABSOLUTELY NO BUSINESS BEING INVOLVED IN NATION WIDE HEALTH CARE. [ They're stupid

Why would someone like that even go to the .gov website? The only reason to go there w/be to see if you were eligible for a subsidy -- which clearly these people aren't, regardless of what that damn website says. Once they signed up I bet trying to cancel it was more of a nightmare, if they even could.

 

[MeBelle]

When you consider the fact that liberals want employers to have nothing to do with providing health care...and the fact that they still do is directly attributable to conservative bullshit.......most of the replies in this thread are worthless.

Health Insurance or Health Care?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Thee are people here....some of them otherwise very thoughtful....who believe that the Democratic party wants a greater number of Americans to be jobless and on assistance.....so they will be thankful for said assistance and vote for Democrats.

It is really an alternate universe.

 

[LoneLaugher]

When you consider the fact that liberals want employers to have nothing to do with providing health care...and the fact that they still do is directly attributable to conservative bullshit.......most of the replies in this thread are worthless.

Health Insurance or Health Care?

Good question. I use the terms interchangeably.....but health insurance would be the most accurate.

 

[dblack]

When you consider the fact that liberals want employers to have nothing to do with providing health care...and the fact that they still do is directly attributable to conservative bullshit.......most of the replies in this thread are worthless.

Health Insurance or Health Care?

Good question. I use the terms interchangeably.....but health insurance would be the most accurate.

Why would you do that? They're not the same thing.

 

[boedicca]

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?

You're making an assumption that the people who wrote the bill actually care about the Small Folk.

 

[LoneLaugher]

[MENTION=18703]George Costanza[/MENTION]

Advise your grandson to seek employment here:

Working at Starbucks | Starbucks Coffee Company

Somehow, they manage to provide benefits at 20 hours. So they won't be cutting anyone's hours due to the ACA.

 

[MeBelle]

When you consider the fact that liberals want employers to have nothing to do with providing health care...and the fact that they still do is directly attributable to conservative bullshit.......most of the replies in this thread are worthless.

Health Insurance or Health Care?

Good question. I use the terms interchangeably.....but health insurance would be the most accurate.

Personally, unless my employer is a Doctor, I wouldn't want to receive my Health Care through my employer either.

OTOH-If my employer was a legal firm, I would most definitely want to receive Health Insurance as a benefit/part of my salary package.

Then, I'd go see my Doctor, who would provide me with Health Care, which my Health Insurance would pay for.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Health Insurance or Health Care?

Good question. I use the terms interchangeably.....but health insurance would be the most accurate.

Why would you do that? They're not the same thing.

Because when discussing what employers provide it is the same thing. You got my point, did you not? What other meaning could you have gotten?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Health Insurance or Health Care?

Good question. I use the terms interchangeably.....but health insurance would be the most accurate.

Personally, unless my employer is a Doctor, I wouldn't want to receive my Health Care through my employer either.

OTOH-If my employer was a legal firm, I would most definitely want to receive Health Insurance as a benefit/part of my salary package.

Then, I'd go see my Doctor, who would provide me with Health Care, which my Health Insurance would pay for.

Excellent. We agree. Thanks for giving dblack something to grab my ass about. He needs all he can get.

 

[MeBelle]

[MENTION=18703]George Costanza[/MENTION]

Advise your grandson to seek employment here:

Working at Starbucks | Starbucks Coffee Company

Somehow, they manage to provide benefits at 20 hours. So they won't be cutting anyone's hours due to the ACA.

They offer health insurance.
Guess who pays for the health insurance offered.
.
.
.
.
.

 

[George Costanza]

Been away from the thread for a while - wouldn't want to cheat my employer . . .

The Republican Noise Machine is in full operation these days, heaping scorn, ridicule and blame on President Obama for putting through a law that is causing employers to cut employee's work hours so they (the employers) won't have to provide health insurance for the employees.

Here's a novel thought: How about it's the EMPLOYERS that are the bad guys here, not President Obama? After all, it isn't Obama that is cutting worker's hours, it's the EMPLOYERS that are doing it. They certainly don't HAVE to cut their employee's hours, now do they?

Why don't the employers do what they are supposed to do and simply provide health insurance for all of the workers who work 30 hours a week or more? After all, that's what the law says, isn't it?

So what can we conclude when employers sidestep the law by cutting their employee's hours? That the employers are a bunch of greedy bastards who would rather throw their employees under the bus than part company with the Almighty Dollar in any way, shape or form.

That's what I'm concluding.

 

[Smilebong]

Been away from the thread for a while - wouldn't want to cheat my employer . . .

The Republican Noise Machine is in full operation these days, heaping scorn, ridicule and blame on President Obama for putting through a law that is causing employers to cut employee's work hours so they (the employers) won't have to provide health insurance for the employees.

Herte's a novel thought: How about it's the EMPLOYERS that are the bad guys here, not President Obama? After all, it isn't Obama that is cutting worker's hours, it's the EMPLOYERS that are doing it. They certainly don't HAVE to cut their employee's hours, now do they?

Why don't the employers do what they are supposed to do and simply provide health insurance for all of the workers who work 30 hours a week or more? After all, that's what the law says, isn't it?

So what can we conclude when employers sidestep the law by cutting their employee's hours? That the employers are a bunch of greedy bastards who would rather throw their employees under the bus than part company with the Almighty Dollar in any way, shape or form.

That's what I'm concluding.

No. The employers provide jobs without benefits for people who need those jobs. They are low level, low pay, supposed to be short term jobs. People take them to get started. Then they work up to higher paying jobs with benefits.

The jobs are not productive enough to require higher pay and benefits. If they are required to give benefits, they will not make any profit and cannot stay in business. Therefore to keep those jobs available, they must cut the hours to 30 or less and still provide those jobs.

 

[dblack]

Been away from the thread for a while - wouldn't want to cheat my employer . . .

The Republican Noise Machine is in full operation these days, heaping scorn, ridicule and blame on President Obama for putting through a law that is causing employers to cut employee's work hours so they (the employers) won't have to provide health insurance for the employees.

Here's a novel thought: How about it's the EMPLOYERS that are the bad guys here, not President Obama? After all, it isn't Obama that is cutting worker's hours, it's the EMPLOYERS that are doing it. They certainly don't HAVE to cut their employee's hours, now do they?

Why don't the employers do what they are supposed to do and simply provide health insurance for all of the workers who work 30 hours a week or more? After all, that's what the law says, isn't it?

So what can we conclude when employers sidestep the law by cutting their employee's hours? That the employers are a bunch of greedy bastards who would rather throw their employees under the bus than part company with the Almighty Dollar in any way, shape or form.

That's what I'm concluding.

Sure. And when we're done tutt-tutting and finger wagging at those naughty employers we can come back to the reality that the changes to the law are what is prompting them. Just like the bullshit with insurance companies cancelling policies. Sure, they're being opportunistic and taking advantage of the law to increase their profits. What you guys don't get - or, more likely what you just don't want to own up to - is that the law was written the way it was (largely by lobbyists themselves) specifically for that purpose.

 

[George Costanza]

Been away from the thread for a while - wouldn't want to cheat my employer . . .

The Republican Noise Machine is in full operation these days, heaping scorn, ridicule and blame on President Obama for putting through a law that is causing employers to cut employee's work hours so they (the employers) won't have to provide health insurance for the employees.

Herte's a novel thought: How about it's the EMPLOYERS that are the bad guys here, not President Obama? After all, it isn't Obama that is cutting worker's hours, it's the EMPLOYERS that are doing it. They certainly don't HAVE to cut their employee's hours, now do they?

Why don't the employers do what they are supposed to do and simply provide health insurance for all of the workers who work 30 hours a week or more? After all, that's what the law says, isn't it?

So what can we conclude when employers sidestep the law by cutting their employee's hours? That the employers are a bunch of greedy bastards who would rather throw their employees under the bus than part company with the Almighty Dollar in any way, shape or form.

That's what I'm concluding.

No. The employers provide jobs without benefits for people who need those jobs. They are low level, low pay, supposed to be short term jobs. People take them to get started. Then they work up to higher paying jobs with benefits.

The jobs are not productive enough to require higher pay and benefits. If they are required to give benefits, they will not make any profit and cannot stay in business. Therefore to keep those jobs available, they must cut the hours to 30 or less and still provide those jobs.

This is not what I'm talking about. The ACA does not require employers to start providing medical insurance for the job level you are talking about here. I'm talking about people who HAVE worked their way up and who are working full time, suddenly having their hours (and their pay) cut so that the employer won't have to provide medical benefits.

That makes the employer the jerk in my eyes, not the Obama administration.

"If they are required to give benefits, they will not make any profit and cannot stay in business." Really? Is that merely your opinion, or do you have some facts to back that up? Our economy is FULL of employers who provide complete benefits for all of their qualified workers. Such companies seem to be doing just fine, last time I looked.

 

[George Costanza]

What you guys don't get - or, more likely what you just don't want to own up to - is that the law was written the way it was (largely by lobbyists themselves) specifically for that purpose.

What makes you say this? What's your basis for this opinion?

 

[Iceweasel]

Been away from the thread for a while - wouldn't want to cheat my employer . . .

The Republican Noise Machine is in full operation these days, heaping scorn, ridicule and blame on President Obama for putting through a law that is causing employers to cut employee's work hours so they (the employers) won't have to provide health insurance for the employees.

Here's a novel thought: How about it's the EMPLOYERS that are the bad guys here, not President Obama? After all, it isn't Obama that is cutting worker's hours, it's the EMPLOYERS that are doing it. They certainly don't HAVE to cut their employee's hours, now do they?

Why don't the employers do what they are supposed to do and simply provide health insurance for all of the workers who work 30 hours a week or more? After all, that's what the law says, isn't it?

So what can we conclude when employers sidestep the law by cutting their employee's hours? That the employers are a bunch of greedy bastards who would rather throw their employees under the bus than part company with the Almighty Dollar in any way, shape or form.

That's what I'm concluding.

I liked you better on Seinfeld. Go start your own business, simply comply with the law and pay for everyone's health insurance, including your own, half of their Social Security taxes, labor insurance if they have it there (mandatory here), payroll taxes and all the rest of your overhead while keeping enough to make it all worthwhile. Then get your greedy ass back here and tell us how easy it was.

 

[LoneLaugher]

If an employer needs 31 man hours to complete the work load, he will hire 31 man hours to complete the work load. If he really needs just 29 hours to complete the work load but was hiring 31 hours anyway, he is an idiot.

Now...the employer who decides to divide the 31 hours between two employees will have additional costs for hiring and maintaining staff. Not to mention a higher rate of turnover.....as is the case with George Costanza's grandson's employer. Not too bright.

This is a talking point.....the idea that employers are cutting hours due to the ACA.

Pay attention to tomorrow's unemployment report. The economy has not been wrecked by the law, dummies. We are growing.