Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Breaking: Obama Tells Companies They Can't Fire Anyone Unless IRS Gives Them Approval
- Thread starter TemplarKormac
- Start date
JimofPennsylvan
Platinum Member
- Jun 6, 2007
- 862
- 506
The Obama Administration are really a bunch of bastards and their recent behavior with respect to the Affordable Care Act clearly demonstrates this! This past week they postponed the commencement of the employer penalty in the ACA for employers not offering qualified health insurance to its employees until the beginning of 2016 for employers with 50 to 99 employees. They are clearly ignoring the ACA law here, the President's duty is to obey and enforce the law and Barack Obama time and again violates this duty. The ACA clearly says that the employer penalty is to begin on January 1 2014 and he had already postponed it to 2015 now he is extending it for another year for medium size employers and even with respect to large employers he isn't following the law. For large employers pursuant to the ACA they should be covering their employees dependents come January 1 2014 (2015 if you factor in Obama's one year postponement) but the Obama administration has ruled employers don't actually have to do this until 2016 as long as they begin the process in 2015 so employers could do as little as conduct a survey in 2015 asking how many dependents if at all each employee wants to add to their health insurance plan and the employer is compliant; the Obama administration contrary to the ACA time mandates says employers don't have to actually provide qualified health insurance to their employees in 2015 until that employer begins its annual health insurance plan for 2015 the ACA says January 1 is the deadline - America could see prudent employers end their annual plan at the end of November 2014 and begin their new one December 1 2014 so that they will not have to pay the higher health insurance expense for eleven months of 2015!
The Obama Administration is really bad because they are doing this delay to hide the negative effects of the ACA on America's employers they know this law adds a significant expense to America's employers which will hurt job creation and hurt wage growth by America's employers but instead of coming out and saying we have a problem here with the economic burden this law puts on America's employers we have to roll back some of the law's insurance mandates they try to hide the problem. It is shocking how ruthless, cunning and how bad the Obama administration is here. With all these recent ACA employer mandate postponement decisions the Obama Administration is delaying the predictable wave of employers dropping their health insurance plans that would have otherwise occurred this summer and fall if Jan. 1 2015 was the commencement date until after the 2014 mid-term elections because during this summer/early fall time period employer human resource managers and top executives have to decide whether to continue offering health insurance to their employees for the 2015 year and these postponements mean that these employers won't see the full costs of the ACA mandates for 2015. Further the Obama administration's essential postponement of the ACA law for the employer mandate until 2016 which is what is going on here means that the full negative economic effects of this law, the dropping of health insurance plans by employers the not replacing of employees that retire or leave for benefit expense reasons, won't be seen until the next President's administration, meaning future Presidential Administrations will have to clean up the huge societal mess brought on by Obamacare! The Obama Administration officials know all of this they know they are mitigating the ACA harm by postponing enforcement and they know that they are not following the ACA law in doing this and yet they are still doing it, this should make every responsible person mad with Barack Obama! What is also important to note is that the American people are smart and many of them know and more will know what the Obama Administration is doing with its cunningness here!
What is really unfortunate is that America doesn't have a person of great character in the White House at the present time! The ACA act has a lot of good about it it stops health insurance company abuses like dropping enrollees from their plan when the enrollees get sick it helps people buy health insurance that otherwise would never be able to afford it, etc. and I can understand how President Obama let it become law, but elements of it are catastrophic for America it jacked up the price of employer sponsored health insurance for employers causing them to dramatic cut back on job creation and keep many employees on part-time employment. Where is your character Mr. President that you don't even try to stop this catastrophe on America. The American people know you can't reform the law yourself you need Congress to pass a reform law but character means trying even if you don't succeed why don't you come out and say the obvious truth that the ACA mandates on health insurance plans are too costly America needs to roll them back and I will sign legislation that rolls back unaffordable unnecessary mandates like making preventive care free it is sufficient that it be excluded from the deductible, like treating psychiatric treatments equivalent to non-psychiatric treatments it is sufficient plans only reasonably cover psychiatric treatment if a person is suicidal or cannot function with their psychiatric illness, like covering dental treatments even the dental industry was shocked when that was included in the law, etc.. I would like to ask President Barack Obama and Secretary Kathleen Sebelius each to answer the following question and I would like a commitment from them that they would answer it honestly and this is the question I would ask them how can you say the ACA is good for the economy and at the same time be making extraordinary efforts to delay its implementation which these postponements of the employer mandate required by the ACA do?
Many people believe that Barack Obama and liberal Democrats have as their ultimate plan moving American to a single payer government health insurance system and the enactment of ACA role in this plan is to cause a cascading of employers dropping their health insurance which will put many Americans into the ACA entitlement program which helps people pay for health insurance. These liberal democrats thinking is that this single payer system will be just like Medicare which is a great system but it will be for all Americans not just Americans who are senior citizens. There is two major flaws in these liberal democrats thinking which is Medicare only provides a great health care system for seniors because of the private health care system; the Medicare system is a price controlled system meaning that the fees it pays medical care providers are fixed by Medicare and this is the crucial point these fees are not high enough to pay for the system seniors enjoy today private health insurance providers for the vast majority of services pay higher fees to hospital, doctors and other health care providers. The private health insurance system essentially subsidizes the Medicare system if liberal democrats get their way and essentially do away with the private health insurance system and America is left with a large Medicare type system America's health care system will deteriorate to a significantly less quality system because there will not be the money available to pay for the higher quality system. Secondly, in a single payer government system the government is the payer the government pays the claims this would be a humongous expense for the U.S. government where is the government going to get this amount of money the only place would be to tax employers and employees and they would have to be big ones, the American people would never accept this long term they would recognize that a big bureaucratic government cannot efficiently and effectively manage America's health care dollars and they would demand such a system be ended!
The Obama Administration is really bad because they are doing this delay to hide the negative effects of the ACA on America's employers they know this law adds a significant expense to America's employers which will hurt job creation and hurt wage growth by America's employers but instead of coming out and saying we have a problem here with the economic burden this law puts on America's employers we have to roll back some of the law's insurance mandates they try to hide the problem. It is shocking how ruthless, cunning and how bad the Obama administration is here. With all these recent ACA employer mandate postponement decisions the Obama Administration is delaying the predictable wave of employers dropping their health insurance plans that would have otherwise occurred this summer and fall if Jan. 1 2015 was the commencement date until after the 2014 mid-term elections because during this summer/early fall time period employer human resource managers and top executives have to decide whether to continue offering health insurance to their employees for the 2015 year and these postponements mean that these employers won't see the full costs of the ACA mandates for 2015. Further the Obama administration's essential postponement of the ACA law for the employer mandate until 2016 which is what is going on here means that the full negative economic effects of this law, the dropping of health insurance plans by employers the not replacing of employees that retire or leave for benefit expense reasons, won't be seen until the next President's administration, meaning future Presidential Administrations will have to clean up the huge societal mess brought on by Obamacare! The Obama Administration officials know all of this they know they are mitigating the ACA harm by postponing enforcement and they know that they are not following the ACA law in doing this and yet they are still doing it, this should make every responsible person mad with Barack Obama! What is also important to note is that the American people are smart and many of them know and more will know what the Obama Administration is doing with its cunningness here!
What is really unfortunate is that America doesn't have a person of great character in the White House at the present time! The ACA act has a lot of good about it it stops health insurance company abuses like dropping enrollees from their plan when the enrollees get sick it helps people buy health insurance that otherwise would never be able to afford it, etc. and I can understand how President Obama let it become law, but elements of it are catastrophic for America it jacked up the price of employer sponsored health insurance for employers causing them to dramatic cut back on job creation and keep many employees on part-time employment. Where is your character Mr. President that you don't even try to stop this catastrophe on America. The American people know you can't reform the law yourself you need Congress to pass a reform law but character means trying even if you don't succeed why don't you come out and say the obvious truth that the ACA mandates on health insurance plans are too costly America needs to roll them back and I will sign legislation that rolls back unaffordable unnecessary mandates like making preventive care free it is sufficient that it be excluded from the deductible, like treating psychiatric treatments equivalent to non-psychiatric treatments it is sufficient plans only reasonably cover psychiatric treatment if a person is suicidal or cannot function with their psychiatric illness, like covering dental treatments even the dental industry was shocked when that was included in the law, etc.. I would like to ask President Barack Obama and Secretary Kathleen Sebelius each to answer the following question and I would like a commitment from them that they would answer it honestly and this is the question I would ask them how can you say the ACA is good for the economy and at the same time be making extraordinary efforts to delay its implementation which these postponements of the employer mandate required by the ACA do?
Many people believe that Barack Obama and liberal Democrats have as their ultimate plan moving American to a single payer government health insurance system and the enactment of ACA role in this plan is to cause a cascading of employers dropping their health insurance which will put many Americans into the ACA entitlement program which helps people pay for health insurance. These liberal democrats thinking is that this single payer system will be just like Medicare which is a great system but it will be for all Americans not just Americans who are senior citizens. There is two major flaws in these liberal democrats thinking which is Medicare only provides a great health care system for seniors because of the private health care system; the Medicare system is a price controlled system meaning that the fees it pays medical care providers are fixed by Medicare and this is the crucial point these fees are not high enough to pay for the system seniors enjoy today private health insurance providers for the vast majority of services pay higher fees to hospital, doctors and other health care providers. The private health insurance system essentially subsidizes the Medicare system if liberal democrats get their way and essentially do away with the private health insurance system and America is left with a large Medicare type system America's health care system will deteriorate to a significantly less quality system because there will not be the money available to pay for the higher quality system. Secondly, in a single payer government system the government is the payer the government pays the claims this would be a humongous expense for the U.S. government where is the government going to get this amount of money the only place would be to tax employers and employees and they would have to be big ones, the American people would never accept this long term they would recognize that a big bureaucratic government cannot efficiently and effectively manage America's health care dollars and they would demand such a system be ended!
Last edited:
jon_berzerk
Platinum Member
- Mar 5, 2013
- 31,401
- 7,369
If the Obama Care law is a tax and the Supreme court said it is.
Why can't companies make adjustments to their workforce so not to take a hit on taxes.
cause the prezbo says so
william the wie
Gold Member
- Nov 18, 2009
- 16,667
- 2,402
The takings clause lawsuits should be epic.If the Obama Care law is a tax and the Supreme court said it is.
Why can't companies make adjustments to their workforce so not to take a hit on taxes.
cause the prezbo says so
jon_berzerk
Platinum Member
- Mar 5, 2013
- 31,401
- 7,369
The takings clause lawsuits should be epic.If the Obama Care law is a tax and the Supreme court said it is.
Why can't companies make adjustments to their workforce so not to take a hit on taxes.
cause the prezbo says so
sound familiar
running the unions
and
running the businesses
the collectivist model
nationalize everything
edthecynic
Censored for Cynicism
- Oct 20, 2008
- 43,044
- 6,883
The actual words from the final law:For this and for businesses with 50-100 employees, the answer is yes. Buried deep within the IRS regulations pertaining to Obamacare, section 4980H of the IRS Code seemingly tells business to affirm the reasons why they are reducing their workforces to qualify for transitive relief from Obamacare. Many businesses are cutting jobs to avoid having to comply with the employer mandate, here though, these business are being told they cannot reduce the sizes of their staff without having a "bona-fide business reason" for doing so. If they somehow fail to meet this requirement or provide a sufficient reason to the IRS, they could be seemingly slapped with perjury charges.
This law is an overreach, simply telling employers they cannot drop below the 50 employer threshold to avoid the law and qualify for an exemption is the creation of a crime, something a neither a sitting President nor any other branch of government (except for the legislative) may do.
Questions and Answers on Employer Shared Responsibility Provisions Under the Affordable Care Act(1) Limited Workforce Size. The employer must employ on average at least 50 full-time employees (including full-time equivalents) but fewer than 100 full-time employees (including full-time equivalents) on business days during 2014. (Employers with fewer than 50 full-time employees (including full-time equivalents) on business days during the previous year are not subject to the Employer Shared Responsibility provisions.) The number of full-time employees (including full-time equivalents) is determined in accordance with the otherwise applicable rules in the final regulations for determining status as an applicable large employer.
(2) Maintenance of Workforce and Aggregate Hours of Service. During the period beginning on Febr. 9, 2014 and ending on Dec. 31, 2014, the employer may not reduce the size of its workforce or the overall hours of service of its employees in order to qualify for the transition relief. However, an employer that reduces workforce size or overall hours of service for bona fide business reasons is still eligible for the relief.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2014-03082.pdf pp. 123-25
I tell you now: this is a pure act of desperation on the Obama Administration's part. Government has no right micromanaging the affairs of private businesses. So, is the Government telling you how to run your business?
http://op.bna.com/dt.nsf/id/emcy-9g7t3r/$File/TD%209655.pdf
a. Eligibility conditions for transition relief
An employer is eligible for the transition relief described in this section XV.D.6 if it satisfies the following conditions:
(1) Limited Workforce Size. The employer employs on average at least 50 full- time employees (including FTEs) but fewer than 100 full-time employees (including FTEs) on business days during 2014. For this purpose, the determination of the number of full-time employees (including FTEs) is made in accordance with the otherwise applicable rules for determining status as an applicable large employer.
(2) Maintenance of Workforce and Aggregate Hours of Service. During the period beginning on February 9, 2014, and ending on December 31, 2014, the employer does not reduce the size of its workforce or the overall hours of service of its employees in order to satisfy the workforce size condition set forth in paragraph (1) of this section XV.D.6. A reduction in workforce size or overall hours of service for bona fide business reasons will not be considered to have been made in order to satisfy the workforce size condition. For example, reductions of workforce size or overall hours of service because of business activity such as the sale of a division, changes in the economic marketplace in which the employer operates, terminations of employment for poor performance, or other similar changes unrelated to eligibility for the transition relief provided in this section XV.D.6 are for bona fide business reasons and will not affect eligibility for that transition relief.
william the wie
Gold Member
- Nov 18, 2009
- 16,667
- 2,402
So, come 2016 the terminations fly, unless the courts rule against the administration and it happens earlier.
R.C. Christian
Gold Member
- Jun 30, 2010
- 9,955
- 1,092
I'm not certain how any of that is even legal, not that it matters anymore.
william the wie
Gold Member
- Nov 18, 2009
- 16,667
- 2,402
That's one problem with this policy but take one loophole: liquidation and reopening elsewhere with contract labor. that is not technically firing anyone.I'm not certain how any of that is even legal, not that it matters anymore.
william the wie
Gold Member
- Nov 18, 2009
- 16,667
- 2,402
purportedly.one question aren't there still like 40 million left uninsured?
billyerock1991
Gold Member
- Apr 24, 2012
- 7,106
- 506
one question aren't there still like 40 million left uninsured?
the first round of sign ups is from january to the end of march... at the beginning of march starts the second sign up ....after that at the end of the year, in if you haven't sign up for health care you will be levied a fine ...how much you will be fine is based on your income ...
the prediction of the first sign up was calculated by the CBO ...that was supposed to be around 5 to 10 million people ... do to the screw up with the website the ACA got off on slow start in January ... right now they are on target for 5 million ...by the end of march they are hoping for ten million ... the 40 million will be reduced to 30 million as time goes on through out the year we expect that number to fall greatly... after this mid term election where the republicans are in a disarray right now, we dems expect to take over the house or close to it and retain the senate and maybe add 5 more ... making it next to impossible for the republicans to filibuster ... we expect all the states who refuse to take the federal health care money for medicaid, we expect to add on law to the ACA forcing( I like that word) Forcing these republican states to comply to the ACA new regulations ...in other words we will have every body sign up case closed ...end of discussion ...accept for these whining republicans here ....whining about being FORCED... TELLING US ITS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND SHIT ... did I tell you how much I like those two word ??? FORCED REPUBLICANS !!!!!
billyerock1991
Gold Member
- Apr 24, 2012
- 7,106
- 506
Hope and Change baby
wasn't this your AMERCIAN dream when electing the first black President?
Stephoney isn't there a porn site for you to go and look at ??? you know where you get hammered by some black guy president !!!!
billyerock1991
Gold Member
- Apr 24, 2012
- 7,106
- 506
The actual words from the final law:For this and for businesses with 50-100 employees, the answer is yes. Buried deep within the IRS regulations pertaining to Obamacare, section 4980H of the IRS Code seemingly tells business to affirm the reasons why they are reducing their workforces to qualify for transitive relief from Obamacare. Many businesses are cutting jobs to avoid having to comply with the employer mandate, here though, these business are being told they cannot reduce the sizes of their staff without having a "bona-fide business reason" for doing so. If they somehow fail to meet this requirement or provide a sufficient reason to the IRS, they could be seemingly slapped with perjury charges.
This law is an overreach, simply telling employers they cannot drop below the 50 employer threshold to avoid the law and qualify for an exemption is the creation of a crime, something a neither a sitting President nor any other branch of government (except for the legislative) may do.
Questions and Answers on Employer Shared Responsibility Provisions Under the Affordable Care Act(1) Limited Workforce Size. The employer must employ on average at least 50 full-time employees (including full-time equivalents) but fewer than 100 full-time employees (including full-time equivalents) on business days during 2014. (Employers with fewer than 50 full-time employees (including full-time equivalents) on business days during the previous year are not subject to the Employer Shared Responsibility provisions.) The number of full-time employees (including full-time equivalents) is determined in accordance with the otherwise applicable rules in the final regulations for determining status as an applicable large employer.
(2) Maintenance of Workforce and Aggregate Hours of Service. During the period beginning on Febr. 9, 2014 and ending on Dec. 31, 2014, the employer may not reduce the size of its workforce or the overall hours of service of its employees in order to qualify for the transition relief. However, an employer that reduces workforce size or overall hours of service for bona fide business reasons is still eligible for the relief.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2014-03082.pdf pp. 123-25
I tell you now: this is a pure act of desperation on the Obama Administration's part. Government has no right micromanaging the affairs of private businesses. So, is the Government telling you how to run your business?
http://op.bna.com/dt.nsf/id/emcy-9g7t3r/$File/TD%209655.pdf
a. Eligibility conditions for transition relief
An employer is eligible for the transition relief described in this section XV.D.6 if it satisfies the following conditions:
(1) Limited Workforce Size. The employer employs on average at least 50 full- time employees (including FTEs) but fewer than 100 full-time employees (including FTEs) on business days during 2014. For this purpose, the determination of the number of full-time employees (including FTEs) is made in accordance with the otherwise applicable rules for determining status as an applicable large employer.
(2) Maintenance of Workforce and Aggregate Hours of Service. During the period beginning on February 9, 2014, and ending on December 31, 2014, the employer does not reduce the size of its workforce or the overall hours of service of its employees in order to satisfy the workforce size condition set forth in paragraph (1) of this section XV.D.6. A reduction in workforce size or overall hours of service for bona fide business reasons will not be considered to have been made in order to satisfy the workforce size condition. For example, reductions of workforce size or overall hours of service because of business activity such as the sale of a division, changes in the economic marketplace in which the employer operates, terminations of employment for poor performance, or other similar changes unrelated to eligibility for the transition relief provided in this section XV.D.6 are for bona fide business reasons and will not affect eligibility for that transition relief.
it says it plain if you have 50 employees or more you have to have a legitimate reason for reducing your employees ... if you don't if you reduce them because you don't want to comply with the law you will still have to comply to the law ... there's nothing in the law that says you will be charged with perjury ... where every you get this crap is beyond me ... a legitimate reason is you're lslowing down in production ... you've lost in sales ...were you have to reduce your staff to stay afloat ... if thats not easy enough for you to understand I don't know what is... nobody is being charged with perjury
The actual words from the final law:For this and for businesses with 50-100 employees, the answer is yes. Buried deep within the IRS regulations pertaining to Obamacare, section 4980H of the IRS Code seemingly tells business to affirm the reasons why they are reducing their workforces to qualify for transitive relief from Obamacare. Many businesses are cutting jobs to avoid having to comply with the employer mandate, here though, these business are being told they cannot reduce the sizes of their staff without having a "bona-fide business reason" for doing so. If they somehow fail to meet this requirement or provide a sufficient reason to the IRS, they could be seemingly slapped with perjury charges.
This law is an overreach, simply telling employers they cannot drop below the 50 employer threshold to avoid the law and qualify for an exemption is the creation of a crime, something a neither a sitting President nor any other branch of government (except for the legislative) may do.
Questions and Answers on Employer Shared Responsibility Provisions Under the Affordable Care Act
https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2014-03082.pdf pp. 123-25
I tell you now: this is a pure act of desperation on the Obama Administration's part. Government has no right micromanaging the affairs of private businesses. So, is the Government telling you how to run your business?
http://op.bna.com/dt.nsf/id/emcy-9g7t3r/$File/TD%209655.pdf
a. Eligibility conditions for transition relief
An employer is eligible for the transition relief described in this section XV.D.6 if it satisfies the following conditions:
(1) Limited Workforce Size. The employer employs on average at least 50 full- time employees (including FTEs) but fewer than 100 full-time employees (including FTEs) on business days during 2014. For this purpose, the determination of the number of full-time employees (including FTEs) is made in accordance with the otherwise applicable rules for determining status as an applicable large employer.
(2) Maintenance of Workforce and Aggregate Hours of Service. During the period beginning on February 9, 2014, and ending on December 31, 2014, the employer does not reduce the size of its workforce or the overall hours of service of its employees in order to satisfy the workforce size condition set forth in paragraph (1) of this section XV.D.6. A reduction in workforce size or overall hours of service for bona fide business reasons will not be considered to have been made in order to satisfy the workforce size condition. For example, reductions of workforce size or overall hours of service because of business activity such as the sale of a division, changes in the economic marketplace in which the employer operates, terminations of employment for poor performance, or other similar changes unrelated to eligibility for the transition relief provided in this section XV.D.6 are for bona fide business reasons and will not affect eligibility for that transition relief.
it says it plain if you have 50 employees or more you have to have a legitimate reason for reducing your employees ... if you don't if you reduce them because you don't want to comply with the law you will still have to comply to the law ... there's nothing in the law that says you will be charged with perjury ... where every you get this crap is beyond me ... a legitimate reason is you're lslowing down in production ... you've lost in sales ...were you have to reduce your staff to stay afloat ... if thats not easy enough for you to understand I don't know what is... nobody is being charged with perjury
The claim of the OP is clearly overstated. Businesses can layoff whomever they want, it's just a question of whether doing so will allow them to qualify for the byzantine exemptions that permeate ACA. But it's still a disturbing trend, and the primary danger of programs like ACA in my view. It further weds government and business into a corporatist mess that will be impossible to untangle if we don't stop it now.
JimH52
Diamond Member
- Oct 14, 2007
- 47,195
- 25,375
Here is another link:
Thought Police: Firms must swear ObamaCare not a factor in firings | Fox News
the latest delay of ObamaCare regulations politically motivated? Consider what administration officials announcing the new exemption for medium-sized employers had to say about firms that might fire workers to get under the threshold and avoid hugely expensive new requirements of the law. Obama officials made clear in a press briefing that firms would not be allowed to lay off workers to get into the preferred class of those businesses with 50 to 99 employees. How will the feds know what employers were thinking when hiring and firing? Simple. Firms will be required to certify to the IRS under penalty of perjury that ObamaCare was not a motivating factor in their staffing decisions. To avoid ObamaCare costs you must swear that you are not trying to avoid ObamaCare costs. You can duck the law, but only if you promise not to say so...
[That's the good thing about being president. I can do whatever I want. President Obama joking about getting a restricted-access tour of Thomas Jeffersons Monticello.]
So the Thread title is a lie. The only thing this does is prevent companies from firing someone who has suffered major medical issues, purely to avoid the insurance costs.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 4
- Views
- 137
- Replies
- 193
- Views
- 4K
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 151
- Views
- 802
- Replies
- 19
- Views
- 38
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8513
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 483
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-