Obamacare part 2

[Lumpymunk]

The $2,000 penalty per employee ONLY applies to a) Large companies employing more than 100 full-time workers in their fiscal year; and b) who are not offering any company-sponsored group health care plan. So stop making it sound like every company in the country is going to suffer that penalty. It's fully disingenuous to imply that.

So you're fine with admitting that it is a factor and it does influence employers to make business decisions about full-time employment... but you still want to try to minimize it.

"It only matters if they employ a lot of people. It only doesn't apply to really small mom'n'pop businesses."

That's not a credit to your argument.

Basically...
"It's only going to influence most people."

[Creed of Heresy]

So in response to insurance companies jacking up rates 20, 30, and 40% the government has declared itself an insurance provider to cash in. No wonder the average premium for a young adult will increase 200-300%...

Makes perfect sense.

Based on what information? Sounds like you're just fishing for a reason to be mad at Obamacare.

What is the magic turning point where the $2000 penalty per employee becomes cheaper than...
- Avoiding the cost entirely by structuring with more part-time employees.

Clearly businesses have done the math...

This has already been disproven, before even my post just now. Either accept you've been proven wrong and admit it and have some humility or share the same disgusting lack of humility or grace most of our theistic visitors always show in "debates" around here.

Yup. I see employers continuing to make cost-effective labor decisions and hiring more part-time workers to avoid having to deal with the massive legal costs. ...Because remember, not only do you have to worry about compliance as a business, you've got to pay expensive lawyers to make sure you're staying legal... regularly audited to ensure compliance... and fend off the occasional lawsuit when someone claims you've violated the law.

Right, because the PPACA is SUPER complicated.

Seriously I read through the entire fucking bill after Raeven informed me as to how the bill works and I did it in about 30 minutes. It's not rocket science, it's shit along the lines of unemployment or medicare. They don't need to hire an entire new team of lawyers just to deal with this shit. Stop fishing for excuses, because all you're bringing up now is conjecture and speculation based on faulty information and a clear misunderstanding of the bill. You're claiming a $2000 yearly penalty for every employee as if they will get penalized no matter what, and that every small business will HAVE to pay full costs of the insurance bill, and that this is going to be happening IMMEDIATELY as opposed to two years from now when the Employer Mandate ACTUALLY takes effect.

Just realize you spoke too soon and decided to defend a cause that was losing before you even spoke in its defense and we'll forgive you, but for fuck's sake don't sit here and try to pretend like you're in-the-know on this shit when you're clearly pulling your facts up one a time from whatever source Google will spit at you without even reading the damn sources you're pulling up to begin with. It's insulting. >:/

[Raeven]

I'm saying that any company that employs more than 100 full time workers and doesn't offer any group health care coverage is a crap company to work for in the first place. And you clearly don't understand that small employers employ most of the workers in this country.

As for "admitting" it is a factor, I don't. Creed has explained to you over and over again that there is no reason for a large employer to back away from offering coverage and instead pay the fine. How come the notion of that is so repugnant to you?

One last point: A principal reason that the PPACA came into existence is to help business become competitive again in the global market. Remember, the PPACA is based on what Republicans initially proposed decades ago. Health care costs are a massive drag on our economy and our ability to compete. Employers in the global market are the first to say so. We have got to remove the yoke of that expense from all employers.

I guess your tactic is to just get nasty when the facts don't support the position you wish to espouse.

[Creed of Heresy]

So you're fine with admitting that it is a factor and it does influence employers to make business decisions about full-time employment... but you still want to try to minimize it.

"It only matters if they employ a lot of people. It only doesn't apply to really small mom'n'pop businesses."

That's not a credit to your argument.

Basically...
"It's only going to influence most people."

I just read that post. I didn't read anything in it about it being a factor or influencing anyone.

Costs more to train and maintain two separate part-timers not to mention dealing with schedule conflicts than it does to hire one full-timer who gains experience faster and provides more to the company, especially when they're happy because they have on less financial concern on the mind.

Didn't think of that whole "employee-satisfaction-driven productivity" thing, did you? I'm SURE part-timers, with their lower income and no health coverage, will totally work just as hard as the full-timers will! I mean, yeah, sure, they aren't getting as many hours, meaning less pay, and far less opportunities for advancement, and no health coverage, meaning they've got dissatisfaction with the job up the wazoo. And that will probably mean that part-timer after part-timer will come and go, and the company will have to keep paying for piss tests and background checks and training for new hires who are going to be just as unmotivated and distressed and will also likely end up leaving as well for a company that WILL hire them on full-time WITH health coverage... But hey! At least the company won't have to worry about that pesky $200 yearly health care coverage for each full-timer! Especially when they have to factor in that cheap-as-fuck lawyer whose only requirement for understanding the bill and ensuring compliance is to be able to read without bleeding from the eyeballs!

For someone arguing for business concerns, you're not very intelligent about how businesses run in regards to their employment operations, are you?

[Lumpymunk]

Sounds like you're about to get smacked in the face with some evidence.

- Proceeds to quote Wikipedia.
- Wikipedia quotes a federal reserve bank of Minneapolis

Probably need to work on that sample size before you take one source as the gospel truth. The articles I've linked have contained references to massive companies employing hundreds of thousands of people. Your link is about "percentage of companies" which would count Subway (for example) as 1 company.

You've made this too easy honestly.

Manipulating statistics is what the Federal Reserve does best... it's absolutely hilarious you would quote them as a source.

...and this was supposed to be me getting...

smacked in the face with some evidence.

...nice. That's the saddest source I've ever had to dismantle. It was also the only source you provided. So much for doing your "damn research" eh? Also it's a funny contradiction that a liberal (probably one of the 99%'er types) is quoting a source from a bank as if banks were suddenly credible and trustworthy.

Stop trying to cover the asses of a bunch of rich fuckheads who can afford to pay out tens of millions of dollars to a group of 30 executives in bonuses but start screaming hysterically at the notion of giving their workers some benefits.

So if I criticize the ACA, I'm "covering the asses of a bunch of rich fuckheads." Gotcha.

Actually, the amount of money executives make today versus the average salary of their workers is disproportionate to what it was years ago. That is an issue, but its a seperate issue... and nothing in this legislation places any incentive on employeres to compensate workers any more... they can just wash their hands of the whole thing and let them fend for themselves in the exchanges.

My point is the ACA doesn't even address the problem.

If their company REALLY can't spare $40k to treat their employees less like they're working in a developing world and more like the country where SUPPOSEDLY doing a hard day's work is supposed to reward you appropriately, then that company's about to fucking collapse.

The problem with employer provided insurance is that it takes away an employees mobility. In a market, a worker can move from job to job until they feel they're being paid what they're worth. As workers move around employees pay more in order to offset the costs of training and to achieve higher retention. When your insurance is attached to your employer you are deprived of that mobility. They "gotcha" and they know it. Growing up I'm sure a lot of people, like me, at some point heard something similar to the phrase "I'd love to quit but I need that dental insurance because I'm raising two boys." Feel free to substitute any kind of insurance, and any number of children.

The reason your "$137" insurance premium is a fantasy is because that is a low estimate for a high deductible premium (meaning 4-8 thousand dollar deductible's that low income families struggle to come up with) for a single young adult in great health that doesn't smoke. What is the cost for the 45 year old single mom with multiple children?

Pfft... I laughed when I read $137.

LET ME GUESS. Tea-party supporter?

You're having a hard time in this discussion, and I'm sure you would love to marginalize me instead of actually produce real sources with some substance and forget about this... but sadly... no.... I'm not a "tea-party supporter."

Keep fishing?

---

For someone arguing for business concerns, you're not very intelligent about how businesses run in regards to their employment operations, are you?

Except where I've linked source after source of business behaving in the exact way I'm describing.

lol fail again

[Raeven]

You keep making the Exchanges sound like a bad thing. Why? It's the same insurance offered through the same insurance companies. The only difference is who is helping to foot the bill.

Here in Oregon, two providers who wished to be included as options on the Exchange elected to lower their bids significantly in order to be competitive with other insurance companies who had also offered bids. The net result was that costs have come DOWN -- and a lot! That's how the Exchanges were meant to work. How come you view that as a bad thing?

And how come you disregard the part of the PPACA that requires insurance companies now to hold their profits and administrative costs to 20%? Seems to me that's quite a bit of cost-cutting. It's a good start, anyway.

As a sole proprietor of a small business, my own estimated premium costs are going to be reduced by more than $500 a month. I am sooo looking forward to having something other than catastrophic coverage for the first time since my husband died and I lost insurance coverage through his company.

You overlook another aspect to employer-based insurance. It discourages self-employment and start-ups of new business ventures. For the very reasons you cite, people are shit scared to let go of a job with insurance to go try their hand at self-employment. THAT I know something about from first-hand experience. I wouldn't have done it if I'd known I would end up without decent insurance coverage.

[Lumpymunk]

Seriously I read through the entire fucking bill after Raeven informed me as to how the bill works and I did it in about 30 minutes.

That's impressive...

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr...590enr.pdf

So you read a 900 page bill in 30 minutes. Not only are you a sadly inept liberal, you choose very funny things to lie about.

[Cato]

<shrug> Do your own homework on why health care costs rose so significantly in the last decade. I'm not going to go dig up all those old links again.

The $2,000 penalty per employee ONLY applies to a) Large companies employing more than 100 full-time workers in their fiscal year; and b) who are not offering any company-sponsored group health care plan. So stop making it sound like every company in the country is going to suffer that penalty. It's fully disingenuous to imply that.

You and Pelosi need to gather around a fire with marshmallows, graham crackers and chocolate and actually read the fucking bill. First off, the penaly/tax is $2500 not $2000. The threshold for businesses is 50, not 100 employees. Here's where your ignorance gets put up for full display...the penalty/tax is paid by individuals, not companies. Who fucking told you otherwise? Why did you believe them without reading the bill? As if that weren't enough....

Obamacare = healthcare = bullshit. All Obamacare does is legally require individuals to carry health insurance. That's it. If you don't, pay the government. Please note that there is nothing that says you are entitled to healthcare if you pay the penalty.

For the learning impaired: Obamacare promises revenue streams to medical insurance companies and the IRS without actually delivering healthcare to anyone.

[Lumpymunk]

As for "admitting" it is a factor, I don't. Creed has explained to you over and over again that there is no reason for a large employer to back away from offering coverage and instead pay the fine. How come the notion of that is so repugnant to you?

I guess this is the breakdown. It isn't "repugnant" to me, I'm showing you what is happening. You're acting like all of these companies aren't firing full-time workers and hiring part-time workers. You believe Its either not real... or there is another reason... It seems pretty obvious when all of the business that are doing this say that they're doing it specifically because of the ACA.

[Raeven]

I stand corrected on the 50 employees. The rules are complex and I should have double-checked before I stated 100. Here, however, is a summary of the applicable rule:

Beginning in 2014, large employers (e.g., employers that employed on average at least 50 full-time employees on business days during the preceding calendar year) may be subject to one of two "shared responsibility" penalties:

An employer that fails to offer minimum essential coverage (MEC) to its full-time employees and their dependents may be subject to a nondeductible "play or pay" penalty if any full-time employee enrolls in
Exchange coverage and receives a premium tax credit or cost-sharing reduction. The maximum annual “play or pay” penalty is $2,000 for each full-time employee of the employer, disregarding the first 30 full time
employees.

Employers that offer MEC to their full-time employees and their dependents may be subject to a nondeductible "play and pay” penalty of $3,000 for each full-time employee who enrolls in Exchange coverage and receives a premium tax credit or cost-sharing reduction because the employer overage fails to provide minimum value or is unaffordable.

And why so nasty? Will you admit you, too, were incorrect that employers won't pay the penalty, AND that the correct amount is $2,000?

ETA: Whether the threshold is 50 or 100 employees to qualify is something that is determined by either the Federal Exchange or the individual State Exchanges, so I wasn't wrong. In some cases, a small employer is defined as 50 or more full time workers, and in others, it is defined as 100 or more full time workers. So I can understand why you are confused, but maybe it's YOU who needs to go back and re-read the new rules.

---

Lumpy, of COURSE they're saying that. YOU make it sound like it's simply beyond the realm of consideration that a company might intentionally misrepresent the reasons for laying off full time workers because it sounds better than saying the truth, that they've been doing it all along over the past decade? Statistics do bear that out.

Here's a graph that depicts the trend since 2000:



Still going to say it's Obamacare that drove the changeover from full-time to part-time work?