Obamacare part 2

[Creed of Heresy]

http://cantaffordobamacare.com/

manowar

Hahaha...

I am a consultant in California. I support myself and choose to not purchase health insurance. I am very interested in holistic health and natural supplements. You won’t catch me on an antibiotic unless it is in the public’s best interest that I am treated promptly.

It didn't give it away that this person might have a bias or might be a fucking are-tard by the fact he or she proudly proclaims they believe in "holistic medicine," which is just fancy speak for "handful of bullshit placebos?"

If an employer cannot afford to give basic fucking medical coverage to their employees then they shouldn't have that many employees working to provide services for the company's income that can't cover basic medical coverage. What a load of crap.

As far as not being able to afford it, even if your fines go up to $800 a year...you know how much that is monthly? That's around $67 a month. $67. A. Month.

If you're ACTUALLY hurting THAT badly for money, chances are you either are spending way too much money on stupid shit and should cut back, OR, you're below the threshold for having to pay that amount or even for paying full price! The threshold, which is, as I recall, maxed at making 400% of the established poverty line; meaning if you make up to $45,960 a year as a single individual, $62,040 with one other dependent, OR $78,120 FOR HAVING TWO DEPENDENTS, you are eligible to get health care coverage that you can basically go to a website and shop for to get whatever basic or extensive health-care you need...AND RECEIVE A FEDERAL SUBSIDY TO DO SO. In other words the government will PAY YOU BACK, to be medically insured. These aren't even government-based healthcare provisions; they're private health providers who now have to legally submit their rates and coverage information to this database so that people basically can shop out what they do or don't need and at what cost.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obamacare#I...al_mandate

This ALSO extends to small businesses who SUPPOSEDLY can't cover their employees; covering them will actually cost them jack shit since most of this shit, which should be provided anyway, will be reimbursed to them. And the mandate is ONLY TOWARDS THEIR FULL TIME EMPLOYEES, not their part-time ones! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obamacare#E...king_hours

The employer mandate is a penalty that will be incurred by employers with more than 50 employees, if they do not offer health insurance to their full-time workers.

Not to mention they're delaying the employer mandate until 2015 anyways, likely to hammer out the concerns that have been raised over it.

So people whining about small businesses not being able to cover their employees? BULLSHIT. People whining about not being able to afford the mandated health-care? BULLSHIT. The claims that this makes the impoverished suffer? ALSO BULLSHIT, because they are exempt from the requirement AND the fine for not having coverage.

You have ZERO excuses. The government is basically stating that people can no longer be medical-finance ticking time bombs waiting to blow up and fuck another hospital over, and that they're going to get you covered to prevent such possibilities, and at the same time they're going to make sure that your health care expenses are actually going to be DRASTICALLY LOWER THAN THEY WOULD HAVE OTHERWISE BEEN BECAUSE THEY'RE COVERING A LARGE PORTION OF IT THEMSELVES.

Only those completely ignorant of what they're talking about are against the PPACA. If they stopped parroting the bullshit the rich fucks who stand to start actually having to pay money to the government for once in their privileged white-bread lives scream about, and learned what this ACTUALLY does, in both the small and big picture formats, they'd realize that this is actually a REALLY good idea and it'll benefit this country ENORMOUSLY.

Fuck! It's like giving a sandwich to a person dying of starvation and he slaps it away because he heard it has trans-fats in it! hock:

[Lumpymunk]

Not to mention they're delaying the employer mandate until 2015 anyways, likely to hammer out the concerns that have been raised over it.

That isn't stopping employers in 2013 from taking full time employees and either firing them or making them part time to realign their businesses to prepare.

#unintendedconsequences
http://www.forbes.com/sites/gracemarietu...me-nation/

Not Bullshit.

[Raeven]

Lumpy... you need to do a little more homework. Employers have been moving people from full time to part time work for the past decade. The PPACA is just a convenient excuse they are using at the moment.

[Lumpymunk]

So you're trying to mitigate the fact that its strongly encouraging employers to reduce employment because its convenient.

Gotcha.

[Creed of Heresy]

Not encouraging; giving them an excuse to point to.

Having to report to investors that you're cutting back on employees' wages, hours, and benefits in an attempt to cut costs does not sound very good.

Being able to report that you're cutting those things because the big bad guvmint, however, is perfectly fine...even if it's total bullshit.

It would've happened with or without. They just have an excuse for their shareholders now. That's the only difference.

[Lumpymunk]

Sounds like you're fishing for an excuse when you have no evidence based means of explaining away an inconvenient consequence of the legislation.

Some companies are actually promoting their part timers to full time... like Disney.
http://www.doctordisney.com/2013/10/03/o...full-time/

These are in the minority.

The majority look at the $2000 penalty per employee over 30 as the motivating factor... which would not be there otherwise.
That $2000 penalty is not some fabrication.
It's not Bullshit.

Companies want to make money, and they want their business to boom. If they can do that with full-time 40 hour workers great... but if the ACA jacks up the cost of that labor instantly (as it did a few days ago) that will be the primary factor for restructuring.

Stop trying to minimize it.

[Raeven]

Lumpy... in my industry, I work closely with employers and their health care costs. Most of my clients are in California. For the past 18 years, I've watched their trials and tribulations in trying to cover their workers through employer-sponsored health insurance. I watched insurance companies heartlessly jack up rates 20, 30, 40% each year -- and when I dug into finding out why health care costs were rising so precipitously, I learned that they weren't. But profits for health insurance companies and their investors were.

States that have worked with the PPACA and taken the funding intended to offset costs of same -- and California is one -- are reflecting lower health insurance costs. My state of Oregon is the same. States that have fought with the PPACA are imposing higher costs on their residents.

In the end, companies that wish to grow will accommodate the new laws and hire full time workers. Many companies, especially small businesses, get significant tax breaks for working with the new system. For the next 2 years, small businesses can offer employees health care coverage on the Exchange and administer it as if it is company-sponsored health care coverage. Starting in 2017, large companies will be able to do the same thing.

See where this is going? I for one am pleased about it.

[Lumpymunk]

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.

and when I dug into finding out why health care costs were rising so precipitously, I learned that they weren't. But profits for health insurance companies and their investors were.

This is an attempt to substitute you as an authority for any actual evidence.

In the end, companies that wish to grow will accommodate the new laws and hire full time workers.

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...

See where this is going?

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.

[Raeven]

<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.

[Creed of Heresy]

Sounds like you're fishing for an excuse when you have no evidence based means of explaining away an inconvenient consequence of the legislation.

Sounds like you're about to get smacked in the face with some evidence. Don't accuse me of fishing, man, I do my damn research, I just quoted an entire friggin' article at Manowar on this very topic, do you really think I'm gonna be pulling shit out of my ass? If this was an issue, and if I had quoted this aspect, why didn't YOU read it? Did you not pay attention to my post?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obamacare#E...king_hours

Allow me to quote. You can read the cited sources if you would like.

As of yet, however, only a small percent of companies have shifted their workforce towards more part-time hours (4% in a survey from the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis). And labor market experts note that such shifts are not clearly attributable to the implementation of the ACA: pre-existing, long-term trends in working hours, and the effects of the Great Recession correlate with part-time working hour patterns. The impact of this provision on employer’s decision-making is partially offset by other factors: offering healthcare helps attract and retain employees, while increasing productivity and reducing absenteeism; and to trade a smaller full-time workforce for a larger part-time work force carries costs of training and administration for a business. In addition, the amount of employers with over 50 employees is relatively small, and over 90% of them already offer insurance, so changes in employer plans from this provision are expected to be small. Workers who do not receive insurance from an employer plan will still be able to purchase insurance on the exchanges.

If anything the ones who are fishing for excuses are the businesses trying to hide their teetering fiscal state, and the people who desperately want to believe Obamacare will be the straw that breaks the nation's back so that they can blame all the problems on the liberals and not the shitty, long-enduring conservative policies of the last 40 years.

Some companies are actually promoting their part timers to full time... like Disney.
http://www.doctordisney.com/2013/10/03/o...full-time/

These are in the minority.

Kind of like how the people putting full-timers to part-timers is in the minority? You know, the 4%?

The majority look at the $2000 penalty per employee over 30 as the motivating factor... which would not be there otherwise.
That $2000 penalty is not some fabrication.
It's not Bullshit.

Yeah, and you know how they can deal with it? A: If they're a small business dealing with this, cover their employees with health insurance at the final rate of about $137 a person, or, if they're a large corporation, just give their fucking employees health coverage already. Besides, it's not like this shit ever comes free anyway, the companies almost always deduct SOME of your paycheck to cover part of the insurance. So, yes, it's Bullshit.

Companies want to make money, and they want their business to boom. If they can do that with full-time 40 hour workers great... but if the ACA jacks up the cost of that labor instantly (as it did a few days ago) that will be the primary factor for restructuring.

Stop trying to minimize it.

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. If they can't afford the minimal price tag it will cost to get their employees on basic medical coverage then they're completely insolvent and on the verge of fiscal collapse. A company with 150 full timer workers will be paying to the tune of $40,000 total in medical coverage yearly at average. 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. Shed me a tear for the poor widdle corportations fow the big bayud guvunmint taking their widdle bonus checks away a bit.

Seriously, you just posted a link showing that the cost of labor HAS NOT been jacked up yet, and won't be until 2015, and yet companies are cutting people two years in advance SUPPOSEDLY in preparation for rising labor costs that not only could they EASILY handle anyway, but aren't even set in stone to happen anyway!

LET ME GUESS. Tea-party supporter?