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.
Its only as defined for the purposes of the health care law.
Overtime still starts at 40 hours.
Jeez stop being dumb.
If you have a full time employee who works over 30 hours per week, with more than 50 employees, you will be required to pay for their health care or drop the private health care they now have and have them go on the New Health Care bill. Still having to pay the penalty of 2,000.00 per employee to put them on the New Health Care bill
As many business have less than 50 employees many will not pay for the health care or the penalties because they can't afford either one.
You then have to drop some full time employees and also make some of them part time employees.
This is going to effect the restaurant business and franchises big time.
If they cut their employees hours - they will have to hire more employees. That means fewer welfare leeches that I have to pay for.
If you have a full time employee who works over 30 hours per week, with more than 50 employees, you will be required to pay for their health care or drop the private health care they now have and have them go on the New Health Care bill. Still having to pay the penalty of 2,000.00 per employee to put them on the New Health Care bill
As many business have less than 50 employees many will not pay for the health care or the penalties because they can't afford either one.
You then have to drop some full time employees and also make some of them part time employees.
This is going to effect the restaurant business and franchises big time.
If they cut their employees hours - they will have to hire more employees. That means fewer welfare leeches that I have to pay for.
What part of full time employess are going to be part time employeemnt and part time employees are going to lose their jobs are you not getting?
You can't live on just one job at part time employement.More and more people will have to work 2 or 3 jobs as part time employees, that's assuming that you can even find a 2nd or 3rd job at part time.
They can't afford to hire.
Form Mitt Romney campaign's own websiteand
Massachusetts health care reform - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Massachusetts health care reform - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Why do you think he lost?
NEWS FLASH!!!
Massachusetts is one of 50 states. What may work in Massachusetts may not work in Texas!
Yes I can
Page 157 Sec. 1513, Sec. 4 paragraph A Full Time Employment
http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf
It says;
In General as revised by Sec. 10106 (f)(1)
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.
We have always had full time employment at a 40 hours per week.
It has now changed to 30 hours per week.
Its only as defined for the purposes of the health care law.
Overtime still starts at 40 hours.
Jeez stop being dumb.
If you have a full time employee who works over 30 hours per week, with more than 50 employees, you will be required to pay for their health care or drop the private health care they now have and have them go on the New Health Care bill. Still having to pay the penalty of 2,000.00 per employee to put them on the New Health Care bill
As many business have less than 50 employees many will not pay for the health care or the penalties because they can't afford either one.
You then have to drop some full time employees and also make some of them part time employees.
This is going to effect the restaurant business and franchises big time.
Its only as defined for the purposes of the health care law.
Overtime still starts at 40 hours.
Jeez stop being dumb.
If you have a full time employee who works over 30 hours per week, with more than 50 employees, you will be required to pay for their health care or drop the private health care they now have and have them go on the New Health Care bill. Still having to pay the penalty of 2,000.00 per employee to put them on the New Health Care bill
As many business have less than 50 employees many will not pay for the health care or the penalties because they can't afford either one.
You then have to drop some full time employees and also make some of them part time employees.
This is going to effect the restaurant business and franchises big time.
Are people going to be less hungry if they are served by people with health insurance?
Most restaurants do not employ 50 or more people anyway.
Interestingly, this is an essay written by Robert Moffit from the Heritage Foundation back in 1994. It was part of the conservative effort to come up with their alternative to Hillary-care.
Robert Moffit was deputy director of domestic policy studies at The Heritage Foundation at the time.
In late January 1994 The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and Princeton University sponsored a conference entitled “Universal Coverage: How Best to Achieve It?” At that conference several prominent economists and policymakers presented papers on the pros and cons of employer and individual mandates. In response, a number of others offered comments on various aspects of the mandate question. Here Health Affairs presents the views of two respondents.
Personal Freedom, Responsibility, And Mandates
by Robert E. Moffit
Perspectives: Personal Freedom, Responsibility, and Mandates
A Snare And A Delusion
Employer-based health insurance in this country is the product of wartime economic and tax policy of the 1940s. There is no reason why health reform in the 1990s should be governed by those unique circumstances and outdated tax policies.
Uwe Reinhardt and Alan Krueger tell us that the tax treatment of employment-based health insurance now is sharply regressive. And, Mark Pauly confirms, it contributes to market distortions, high costs, and lack of portability in health insurance. Americans today get tax relief for health insurance on only one condition: that they get it from their employer. This has tied health insurance to the workplace in a way that no other insurance is treated. It means that if we lose or change a job, we lose our health coverage.
Pauly also tells us that employer-based insurance hides the true costs of health care. Thus, there is no normal collision between the forces of supply and demand on even the most basic level. Most workers do not purchase health insurance; it is purchased by somebody else, usually the company. For most workers, it is a “free good,” an extra, that automatically comes with the job. At least, we live with that comfortable illusion. But, in fact, it is not free at all, and the employer gives us nothing. Because too many people think that the employer’s contribution is the employer’s money and not theirs, the consumer’s perception is distorted (as is the provider’s), and health spending is not subject to market discipline. Likewise, because too many people still do not understand this reality, “hidden taxes” through the employer mandate are politically attractive. Such a mandate thus serves as a psychological snare and an economic delusion.
Karen Davis and Cathy Schoen suggest a payroll tax to finance reform, whereby the employer pays 8 percent and the employee pays 2 percent. If one of our tasks is to make the true costs transparent, this suggestion does not help very much.
In his otherwise enlightening paper, Reinhardt calls attention to the virtues of a “mandated purchase” of health insurance. And he warns that calling an employer’s “mandated purchase” a “tax” comes close to debasing the English language. But, in a similar context, Reinhardt uses the word contribution to describe suspiciously similar functions. Suffice it to say, the campaign for linguistic precision is hardly advanced by using the word contibution to describe the state’s forcible extraction of citizens’ money.
In another context, Reinhardt proposes perhaps the best single reform idea to date. He suggests a simple financial disclosure on the part of the nation’s employers, requiring every employer to put periodically on the pay stub of every worker in America something like the following: “We have paid you X thousand dollars in health benefits. This has reduced your wages by X thousand dollars.” We would add: “Have a nice day!„
http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/13/2/101.full.pdf
Interesting enough, you are still misrepresenting the mandate the Heritage Foundation was arguing for despite the fact that you have been corrected multiple times.
Obamacare is going to blow up in the country's face.
Ah, yes.....just like in the (former) Massachusetts, right?
Some health policy analysts and provider groups cheered last year when results from a 2010 national survey of employers showed that Massachusetts no longer had the most expensive health insurance coverage in the country. But the latest survey data show that the family plans offered through Massachusetts employers once again cost more, on average, than in any other state.
Why do you think he lost?
NEWS FLASH!!!
Massachusetts is one of 50 states. What may work in Massachusetts may not work in Texas!
The respective legislative bodies of both Massachusetts and the United States have decided that a personal responsibility mandate for health insurance should be the law.
NEWS FLASH!!!
Massachusetts is one of 50 states. What may work in Massachusetts may not work in Texas!
The respective legislative bodies of both Massachusetts and the United States have decided that a personal responsibility mandate for health insurance should be the law.
And in doing so have given the residents of the once great state of Assachusetts the highest insurance premiums in the country.
So now tell me how Obambam care won't raise rates when it is nothing but a copy of the Assachusetts plan?
Guess What State Will See Lower Health Insurance Premiums This Year? - ForbesGuess What State Will See Lower Health Insurance Premiums This Year?
It turns out that Romneycare is beginning to work out quite nicely as insurance premiums for many Massachusetts residents participating in the state’s Health Connector Commonwealth Care program are going down this year—by as much as five percent—representing the second consecutive year of reduced premium payments.
Massachusetts currently has the highest level of healthcare coverage in the country with more than 98 percent of its residents insured. As for the cost of that insurance, based on medium household income, Massachusetts ranks as the 48th lowest state in the nation in healthcare expenditures.
The respective legislative bodies of both Massachusetts and the United States have decided that a personal responsibility mandate for health insurance should be the law.
And in doing so have given the residents of the once great state of Assachusetts the highest insurance premiums in the country.
So now tell me how Obambam care won't raise rates when it is nothing but a copy of the Assachusetts plan?
Guess What State Will See Lower Health Insurance Premiums This Year? - Forbes
It turns out that Romneycare is beginning to work out quite nicely as insurance premiums for many Massachusetts residents participating in the state’s Health Connector Commonwealth Care program are going down this year—by as much as five percent—representing the second consecutive year of reduced premium payments.
Massachusetts currently has the highest level of healthcare coverage in the country with more than 98 percent of its residents insured. As for the cost of that insurance, based on medium household income, Massachusetts ranks as the 48th lowest state in the nation in healthcare expenditures.
I'm very sorry the real world facts do not correlate at all with your made up facts.
And in doing so have given the residents of the once great state of Assachusetts the highest insurance premiums in the country.
So now tell me how Obambam care won't raise rates when it is nothing but a copy of the Assachusetts plan?
Guess What State Will See Lower Health Insurance Premiums This Year? - Forbes
Massachusetts currently has the highest level of healthcare coverage in the country with more than 98 percent of its residents insured. As for the cost of that insurance, based on medium household income, Massachusetts ranks as the 48th lowest state in the nation in healthcare expenditures.
I'm very sorry the real world facts do not correlate at all with your made up facts.
Mass. insurance costs again listed as most expensive in the nation - Boston.com
I take it my source from this month trumps your 7 month old article.
Because the data are based on a survey sample of employers -- and not more complete market reporting -- the figures may not accurately reflect year to year changes in state averages and there may be little actual difference between costs in Massachusetts and other expensive states, such as New Hampshire, where the family average was $16,902. Plus, the sample is not made up of the exact same employers each year, which could account for some of the variation over time.
Guess What State Will See Lower Health Insurance Premiums This Year? - Forbes
I'm very sorry the real world facts do not correlate at all with your made up facts.
Mass. insurance costs again listed as most expensive in the nation - Boston.com
I take it my source from this month trumps your 7 month old article.
Because the data are based on a survey sample of employers -- and not more complete market reporting -- the figures may not accurately reflect year to year changes in state averages and there may be little actual difference between costs in Massachusetts and other expensive states, such as New Hampshire, where the family average was $16,902. Plus, the sample is not made up of the exact same employers each year, which could account for some of the variation over time.
lol
Applebee's just announced it will be dismissing employees due to Obamcare. let's see... how many companies is that now.. how many more to come?. This bullshit is a job killer, no matter how you look at it.
NEWSFLASH - companies blaming their failures on Obama!
Applebee's just announced it will be dismissing employees due to Obamcare. let's see... how many companies is that now.. how many more to come?. This bullshit is a job killer, no matter how you look at it.
NEWSFLASH - companies blaming their failures on Obama!
NewsFlash... ObamaCare is an extreme tax hiker, and a job killer. Look at the success rate of some of the companies laying off employees. If they want to stay a success, it won't be with ObamaCare.
NEWSFLASH - companies blaming their failures on Obama!
NewsFlash... ObamaCare is an extreme tax hiker, and a job killer. Look at the success rate of some of the companies laying off employees. If they want to stay a success, it won't be with ObamaCare.
"Success rate"?
That's pretty simple to define for heart surgeons and field goal kickers - what's the "success rate" of a company?
And how come many of these companies competitors are NOT laying off people? Because they are failures? Because it takes a true success story to lay people off and blame it on someone else?
NewsFlash... ObamaCare is an extreme tax hiker, and a job killer. Look at the success rate of some of the companies laying off employees. If they want to stay a success, it won't be with ObamaCare.
"Success rate"?
That's pretty simple to define for heart surgeons and field goal kickers - what's the "success rate" of a company?
And how come many of these companies competitors are NOT laying off people? Because they are failures? Because it takes a true success story to lay people off and blame it on someone else?
Generally, the more times it goes bankrupt, the less successful it is. How many times has GM gone bankrupt now? Chrysler?
Can anyone lay out the math on this?
When the problem is that your labor cost has gone up, you don't secure more profit by laying off people unless your labor force is not working at full productivity. Especially when your competitors face the same disadvantage! Cutting your labor force ensures you get a smaller share of the market.
On the other hand if the problem is that demand for your product is lower, then your labor force while remaining the same size has less work to do, and in that case cutting the labor force makes a lot of sense because it will actually increase your profits (from what they would have been).
This is why I think all these claims are complete bullshit. These companies were going to lay people off anyway, they just want to blame the President.
Can anyone lay out the math on this?
When the problem is that your labor cost has gone up, you don't secure more profit by laying off people unless your labor force is not working at full productivity. Especially when your competitors face the same disadvantage! Cutting your labor force ensures you get a smaller share of the market.
On the other hand if the problem is that demand for your product is lower, then your labor force while remaining the same size has less work to do, and in that case cutting the labor force makes a lot of sense because it will actually increase your profits (from what they would have been).
This is why I think all these claims are complete bullshit. These companies were going to lay people off anyway, they just want to blame the President.
I would, but you wouldn't pay attention, you don't like facts.
