Obamacare part 2

[Lumpymunk]

$2,000 is the penalty for not offering coverage... which is what we're talking about. Both by converting FTEs to PTEs (not penalized) and by just ignoring the law.

This is assessed over a period of 12 months.

Lets do pretend Maths using the fantasy of a $137 for coverage, assuming 100 employees.

$137 * 12 * 100 = $164,400

Now working backwards using the $2,000 penalty for just not offering minimum essential coverage.

100 - 30 * 2,000 = $140,000

...and thats why businesses are making people part time.
0 is less than $140,000

Even if they do offer coverage, if the coverage isn't good enough THEN comes the 3,000 hit. If the cost of that coverage exceeds 9.5% of the employees annual income the company gets blasted even harder.

Simplest solution... remove FTEs and bring on PTEs.

Zero dollars will always be cheaper than hundreds of thousands.

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

I didn't say "since 2009 the sole responsibility of the change in full timers to part timers is the ACA." Nice try putting words in my mouth though. What I've said is that RIGHT NOW over the last year those nice stable lines in your graph are no longer flat. Of course all that exists right now is first hand accounts from companies, I won't be able to make a pretty graph to translate all these first hand accounts into a pretty line for you until sometime in 2014.

[Raeven]

Ooohhh, but what happens if they employ 125 people?

125 - 30 * $2,000 = $195,000

Hmmmm. Hmmmmmmmm.

And Creed made some good points regarding worker morale and loyalty to companies that don't offer any benefits such as health insurance. Those are non-defined but very important costs of doing business. Happy employees are productive employees. No?

And let's not forget... all these rules have been deferred for employers to 2015. So... still think that's the reason for the movement on the graph through the present? Really? Are you seriously going to try and make that argument?

It is a pretty graph, isn't it? (Unless you're a part-time worker with no benefits, of course.)

[Cato]

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?

Nasty? Do I sense a prude? Seriously, I used the most versatile word int the English language once, and at that as an adverb, and I get accused of being nasty? Or, am I accused of being nasty because of my forceful employment of fact?

I am not wrong: 2k for employers that don't meet the requirement, 2.5k for individuals. I guess you didn't read all 2k pages. See, another example of corporate cow-towing. Blind and obedient Obama cock-suckers should realize that the Affordable Care Act has never been tried under the 14th Amendment. I don't think when it is, that it will last knowing that corporations and government employees are exempted at whim. I say 'at whim' since there is no exemption provision in the Act.

[Creed of Heresy]

- 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.

Nnnnooooo, YOU posted to a link written by a woman who is the president of a think tank that is staffed almost exclusively by libertarians, with an entirely libertarian bent towards the entire thought process of health care, and given how libertarianism actually goes in this country, as opposed to its ACTUAL ideologies everywhere else in the world...well, pardon me if I'm not impressed.

And here's something interesting...

http://www.factcheck.org/2013/07/gop-mis...y-results/

When FactCheck.org inquired about the survey results, a Chamber of Commerce spokeswoman told us that the percentages included in its report were based only on the responses of those businesses “impacted by the employer mandate.” And most respondents said they wouldn’t be affected by the mandate.

The health care law requires employers with 50 or more full-time workers to offer health insurance to their employees or pay a penalty. But the Chamber didn’t limit its survey to only businesses with 50 or more full-time employees. Instead, small-business executives were defined as those in an “executive level position in a company with fewer than 500 employees and annual revenue less than $25 [million],” the report said. And only “17 percent of the small-business owners surveyed responded they would be impacted by the employer mandate,” the Chamber spokeswoman told us.

In other words, that 71% she's ranting about is 71% of the ones who stated it would affect them. NOT THE ENTIRE SAMPLE SIZE, which was only 13% of the entire sample size. AND this is coming from the Chamber of Commerce, which actually SUPPORTS its repeal! They have a bias IN THE OTHER DIRECTION, and yet their numbers show only 13% of those thousands polled said it'd affect them. On top of this is the quote from the Federal Reserve which also states a low number. What, are they both colluding together to provide us with faulty low numbers??

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

smacked in the face with some evidence.

YUP. As you can see! If you're going to try to refute the evidence, make sure your own sources aren't telling half-truths themselves, eh?

...nice. That's the saddest source I've ever had to dismantle.

And what a fantastic job you did, son, what a fantastic job indeed...

It was also the only source you provided.

Well now you have another! Two sources that show this, to your one that is based on a half-truth, and mostly filled with the opinions of the author who has a clear bias, given the institution that she runs that is specifically set up to try to outright deregulate health care entirely. Don't get me wrong, their goals are noble enough but the way they want to go about them are fundamentally flawed. Of course she's going to say all that shit, it's all coming from her own opinion!

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.

Fact Checks, the US Chamber of Commerce, and the Federal Reserve. So far, the biggest one is from the USCC, the one your own source blatantly misquoted. Just so happens that the Reserve is finding similar numbers. You really think I'd trust a bank implicitly without having something else to confirm it? Please. By the way. Progressive democratic-socialist with social-libertarian ideologies. I'm not a liberal; good luck pegging me somewhere in the realm of black and white.

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

Nnnnoooooo, when you start stating that this is all happening because it's somehow completely unavoidable when the guys who will be most affected, the larger corporations, can EASILY provide for this shit and SHOULD be providing for this shit, and yet are instead talking about firing people or cutting their hours, THEN you're covering their asses. In the cases of certain small businesses I understand the concerns and agree with those concerns, too, but as far as I am aware, this is going to affect mostly low-wage positions like, say, people working at Subway, and yes, I would very much like to see this part of the bill rewritten with this among several other things to prevent this from becoming such a problem, but honestly, business owners in the last decade or so have forgotten that the most powerful investment they can make in their business is their employees. Take a hit on your own income to give them more, and they'll do more. They'll work harder, they'll be happy, they'll ensure the customers are happy, they'll pay more attention, which in turn will get more business from return customers, reviews, and word of mouth which pays off dividends. These people cutting hours and jobs? Something tells me that their business acumen isn't up to snuff, and it's not just that, either. And even then, franchise owners, for example, with 10 or less full timers [and I don't know many franchises that have that many to be honest with you; typically a McDonald's franchise in a busy area will have three shift managers and 2 full timers for each shift with four part-timers per shift], receive full credit on the health plans they instate for their full-time employees so it won't cost them, anyways, so this whole thing about Subway owners going "I HAVE TO FIRE PEOPLE" doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

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.

It's been disproportionate for decades and it's been getting worse, I agree with you there.

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

I don't think it's supposed to, though, not really. This isn't so much of a bill meant to deal with the income gap as it is to deal with the issues of healthcare and insurance costs, which ARE actually doing a hefty bit of damage to the marketplace and our society as a whole.

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.

You mean employers pay more, I assume. You are correct up to a point, but this only something that will be the case for 2014. January 2015, the multiple options open up. A year of being locked into an employer isn't what I would call torture. Rough, maybe. Torture, slave-binding? Neh.

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?

That is actually the expense AFTER credits the small business owners will receive for employee coverage. For private health plans, that's different and varies quite a bit, but as I was reading in the bill, and as I've seen from the resources for the insurance marketplace itself, you put in your info, your income, your dependents, etc., and you are given a list of coverage and costs from all providers, who are mandated to provide this information now. Honestly, if the single mom who is 45 and has multiple children doesn't have some kind of health insurance, she's setting herself up for disaster, and since I imagine she'd be working full time, and she's in one of the 83% of small businesses that say that the PPACA WON'T affect them at all, she can get it through her employer now anyway. If she IS in one of the 17%, though, well, depending on her income range, she may not even have to pay anything anyway if she is defined within the poverty level, and if she isn't, and she is instead within the 400% above poverty level, depending on what point she is at on the sliding scale, her premiums will basically be a small percent of her yearly income; 3% to start out. Less you make, the less you have to pay for your insurance on the premiums. That REALLY is not a large chunk of money, and more importantly this will mean her insurance will cover all the basics; if she had health insurance before, now she pays much less for it. If she did not, then she doesn't pay out the ass for it and now she doesn't have to pay tons of money out of pocket to get her children vaccinated or taken to the hospital for any reason. One of her kids breaks a leg? Then she doesn't need to worry about a $10,000 medical bill completely ruining the next two years.

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

lol fail again

A source, one I just tore apart. Not source after source. You posted one from Disney, one from Forbes written by a woman who doesn't know her shit. I've now got information from the Federal Reserve, the Chamber of Commerce, and clarification of it from FactChecker. The businesses aren't behaving in the exact way you're describing. A very, very paltry few of them are. Your point is built on pillars made of sand. Your argument is not holding up, is what I'm getting at, here. Again, I offer you to just surrender gracefully.

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.

Yeah, you should try reading legal documentation sometime. It becomes pretty easy, especially when you know how to peruse a table of contents, know how to skim the details that matter as opposed to the stuff that is basic legal ass-covering meant to specifically define groups, individuals, exceptions, and conditions, which can be skimmed quite easily as well without having to read everything in pinpoint detail. If I needed to sit down and read the entire thing in long-winded detail it'd take me the better part of about eight hours if I was going for memorization. I didn't lie, and don't you ever fucking accuse me of lying ever again; there's shit in legal bills that is the meat, and then there's the extraneous crap all over it that is only there to specifically define what exactly the bill will do in grand, absolute detail. Try parsing, it's really not that hard. Practice with EULAs.

So. Who is inept now?

---

$2,000 is the penalty for not offering coverage... which is what we're talking about. Both by converting FTEs to PTEs (not penalized) and by just ignoring the law.

This is assessed over a period of 12 months.

Lets do pretend Maths using the fantasy of a $137 for coverage, assuming 100 employees.

$137 * 12 * 100 = $164,400

Now working backwards using the $2,000 penalty for just not offering minimum essential coverage.

100 - 30 * 2,000 = $140,000

...and thats why businesses are making people part time.
0 is less than $140,000

Even if they do offer coverage, if the coverage isn't good enough THEN comes the 3,000 hit. If the cost of that coverage exceeds 9.5% of the employees annual income the company gets blasted even harder.

Simplest solution... remove FTEs and bring on PTEs.

Zero dollars will always be cheaper than hundreds of thousands.

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

I didn't say "since 2009 the sole responsibility of the change in full timers to part timers is the ACA." Nice try putting words in my mouth though. What I've said is that RIGHT NOW over the last year those nice stable lines in your graph are no longer flat. Of course all that exists right now is first hand accounts from companies, I won't be able to make a pretty graph to translate all these first hand accounts into a pretty line for you until sometime in 2014.

And yet, the vast majority of businesses aren't going to change a thing...

Huh.

[Raeven]

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?

Nasty? Do I sense a prude? Seriously, I used the most versatile word int the English language once, and at that as an adverb, and I get accused of being nasty? Or, am I accused of being nasty because of my forceful employment of fact?

I am not wrong: 2k for employers that don't meet the requirement, 2.5k for individuals. I guess you didn't read all 2k pages. See, another example of corporate cow-towing. Blind and obedient Obama cock-suckers should realize that the Affordable Care Act has never been tried under the 14th Amendment. I don't think when it is, that it will last knowing that corporations and government employees are exempted at whim. I say 'at whim' since there is no exemption provision in the Act.

LOL, your "forceful employment of fact" stands for itself here in this thread. I am surely not concerned over that. It's been pretty amusing, actually.

You ARE wrong. You said employers had no liability, only individuals. Wrong.

I have not mentioned the impact of the PPACA on individuals because the discussion at hand is about its impact on employers. I think you missed that. You slammed into the conversation with a whole slew of misstatements and personal attacks, and now wish to be lauded as if you were an oracle. Not looking good for that so far.

[AtheistCreed]

Actually I'm pretty sure Obamacare is satan's handiwork because I saw a lot of youtube videos of more than two people saying that Obama is the antichrist...

When that many people agree on something it probably is true.

So I'm going to err on the side of caution and decide I don't really want health care... I will just drink Nyquil when I get sick or break a leg.

Thanks

/thread