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]

[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