Obama's position in the primary's was no individual mandate. He moved from that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The party leadership was divided between those who didn't want it and "lefties" willing to go along with kow-towing to the right-wing of the party. Regardless of individuals' personal wishes and desires, the Democrats, not the Republicans, nixed single payer.
That does, in fact, translate to "the Democrats didn't want single payer" to me. I'm sure this isn't the first time I've left you speechless.
I still think a big part of it was the defeat of Hillarycare in the 90's. They didn't acquiesce to the drug/insurance companies and were resoundingly defeated, both amongst the public and in the legislature. Rahm Emanuel was a big part of the passage of Obamacare, he had worked on the Clinton proposal as well. He sold large parts of it down the river, with the strategy of passing the bill at any cost, regardless of what was in it. Whatever his ideals are, they don't seem to take precedent when he has to deal with opposition.
Of course, he hasn't exactly endeared himself to unions lately either.
They did a bit on the Daily Show this week. On average it costs a corporation about $10,500 to insure an employee. The penalty for not providing insurance is $2,000. Unless your employee works 29 hours or less per week, in which case you don't have to provide anything under the law.
Part of the reason I think that it's bullshiznit to blame the decline of the unions on Obamacare is that the unions were much stronger during periods when workers had fewer protections. Workers had it a lot rougher back in the 1890's; the laws were much more in favor of companies.
With good leadership and adapting better to the contemporary environment, this will actually be a boon to unions. Non-union workers are going to lose their health coverage faster than union ones. Unionizing will be one of the only defenses against the bosses taking it away. The worse companies treat workers and the less the government protects the workers, the more they will unionize.
Government regulation of the workplace has actually been the biggest killer of the unions. So many protections and practices were implemented by the federal or state governments that you didn't need a union to protect you. With the erosion of those protections and companies taking advantage of it, I think it's only a matter of time until people take matters into their own hands and protect themselves.
The party leadership was divided between those who didn't want it and "lefties" willing to go along with kow-towing to the right-wing of the party. Regardless of individuals' personal wishes and desires, the Democrats, not the Republicans, nixed single payer.
That does, in fact, translate to "the Democrats didn't want single payer" to me. I'm sure this isn't the first time I've left you speechless.
Fair enough. The leadership was willing to go along to get something instead of nothing. Therefore they nixed single-payer, which didn't have a chance of passing anyway.
I think more Democrats would have swung the balance more towards single payer and more Republicans certainly wouldn't have. Probably would have killed even the little we got.
As much as it pains me to admit, I got "single payer" and "strong public option" confused in the conversation about what the union tops promised Obama was going to deliver. I'm no policy wonk.
I should probably just shut up in my shamefacedness, but I won't.
Free, quality health care for all!
Down with Obamacare!
Vive le Galt!
Isn't it
Democrats: bad cop
Republicans: worse cop
Tea party: Grenade down your pants cop.
I'll just end up paying the penalty in my state. Buying even the lowest amount per month looks like it would easily take 1/3 of my take home pay or more per month. I'll just eat the penalty like most people. Just more tax I have to pay.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll just end up paying the penalty in my state. Buying even the lowest amount per month looks like it would easily take 1/3 of my take home pay or more per month. I'll just eat the penalty like most people. Just more tax I have to pay.
Or since that means you are likely taking home less than ~10K anually, you will easily qualify for the subsidies that can completely pay for health insurance.
edit: heck, looking at some of the numbers you may qualify for medicaid, if you are under 15K
Even if it that is true, My employer is ending health insurance for everybody not of management or above and cutting us all back to less than 30 hours. The lost wages between 40 and 30 hours will end up costing me even more.
Somehow I doubt the subsidy will cover the full amount. Somehow, someway as usual the average joe will be left holding the bag as has been true since before I was born.
Even if it that is true, My employer is ending health insurance for everybody not of management or above and cutting us all back to less than 30 hours. The lost wages between 40 and 30 hours will end up costing me even more.
Somehow I doubt the subsidy will cover the full amount. Somehow, someway as usual the average joe will be left holding the bag as has been true since before I was born.
Is your employer really doing this? In response to the ACA? Why? Ideological reasons or is really going to cost that much more?
I mean they're spending on the insurance now and now they're going to have to hire more workers, since they're cutting everyone's hours back. What's the business case here?
I could see cutting back the hours to avoid the penalty if the company wasn't already providing insurance.
Was it really cheap/lousy insurance?
It was actually pretty decent. Yes, my employer is doing this. Basically it is easier for them to hire one or two additional part time people to fill in the time gaps. They could continue to pay the additional healthcare cost, or they could simply shift us onto the exchanges by cutting back hours and ending coverage. I imagine that is a huge cost savings to them.
Therefore their employees would still "have" health insurance, just not through them. I imagine I will pay an additional 50 or so dollars a month out of my lowered salary for healthcare. That still makes the 100 dollar yearly penalty much more worthwhile. In the end, yes my "out of pocket" costs are less (provided I get the subsidies) but it will be an actual severe net loss of income.
Getting another part time job would incur inefficiencies in time and transport costs, as well as probably a disincentive in the fact I would receive less subsidies the more I earned. So I'm probably not only going to be out money, but additional time as well.
The more supreme law of the land than Congress is the law of Unintended Consequences.
It could be ideological.
There's one guy in our area who hasn't hired anyone since January 2009 and says he won't until at least January 2017, and not even then "if one of those Commiecrats gets in."
But it would have been even more of cost savings, with no hassle of hiring new part timers if they had cut out the insurance years ago.
Also aren't there number of employee limits before they even have to worry about the penalties? We're not talking about a couple part timers, we're talking about adding another 1/3 your current workforce. That's just to keep the hours the same.
I don't know about limits (Although this is a large enough company to go over I would guess). I would surmise that it would allow them to reap the benefits of healthcare for their employees (More time on the job, less turnover, etc) without having to actually pay for it.
Or it could just help them to sleep easier at night knowing they are not "really" ending people's insurance. I have no idea.
|
It could be ideological.
There's one guy in our area who hasn't hired anyone since January 2009 and says he won't until at least January 2017, and not even then "if one of those Commiecrats gets in."
It could be, but more than likely it's the simple numbers.
One of the liabilities an employer has to face is covering health care for each employee - by doing a cost analysis it's a no brainer. Cut the hours and dump as much as you can onto the ACA. I know that my company is looking at this - and the core reason is cost.
So I have several people who work under me who don't make very much money as it is, most of them voted for this POTUS and now they are going to go from 40/38 hrs a week to 30 hour a week. I don't know if this was the intent of the ACA, but the math pushes it to happen so it's happening.
I know people want to inject an anti-Obama conspiracy in all this as motive, but it just boils down to the basic math of the situation. Higher end companies with a good employee rep probably won't go this route (yet at least), but companies that are in trouble, or even doing well (but not great) will have to address this as a bottom line solution and more and more will be dumped on the ACA as it becomes a common and accepted practice.
Even if it that is true, My employer is ending health insurance for everybody not of management or above and cutting us all back to less than 30 hours. The lost wages between 40 and 30 hours will end up costing me even more.
Somehow I doubt the subsidy will cover the full amount. Somehow, someway as usual the average joe will be left holding the bag as has been true since before I was born.
Just curious, prior to the ACA, what was preventing them from cutting you off from health care coverage?
|
|
Was it just worries about the poor employees who wouldn't be able to get healthcare that was keeping your company from doing this before? If they're willing to drop them now and slash hours, I doubt it.
This is part of it - they will feel less guilt/social pressure if this is accepted by society.
Now the costs of being able to provide health insurance for employees have been going up for years. Lots of companies have dropped insurance over the last decade. More have switched to worse and worse plans and made employees cover more of the costs. If companies drop coverage over the ACA, is it really anything more than an excuse? Is it anything other than a blip in a long term trend?
I don't know what industry you work in, but hours have been moving downward as a trend when things went south in 08. Many of my employees are already on a permanent furlough and have had their hours docked. The ACA is just another reason to cut more hours (since the gap is not as significant). Also prior to the ACA there was no pressure to make a financial choice beyond the straights and individual company might be in. So a crappy/bad company who cuts hours just looks bad - now with the ACA, it becomes justified and just makes more financial sense.
Also made possible by the current bad employment situation. As that improves, it'll be harder to keep good employees at part time and without insurance.
In principle I agree with this, the problem of course is that if this becomes a trend right now all it will do is drive the economy into a further recession (I say recession because for those not in the stock market it's still is a recession). Most people will have a hard time picking up second job to make up the difference in hours (due to primary job commitment, working a 6 and 1/2 hour day with breaks,commute commitment, etc), so there will be less take home money which means less people buying things.
Maybe 30 hours will be the new normal and a "good" job will be one that is 36 hours with health benefits? IDK at this point, maybe in time if things get better this will all pass. Don't honestly know. As long as it's an employers market things will continue to trend this way. Once this becomes acceptable/normalized then this will be the tolerated and expected level of employment and benefits.
Even in the short term, going to 30 hours cuts into your flexibility. Can you ask for extra hours when needed, without running into trouble. I know you can't classify someone as part-time and actually give them 40 hours.
I'm higher up the food chain so I'm ok (probably just get laid off vs. hours cut). My people that work for me are vulnerable though. If the company pulls the trigger I may just quit.
I'm a big capitalist/free market guy, but you don't treat people that work for you like garbage. You either care about your employees or you don't give a rip. And there is no social pressure to stop this, I don't see anyone making waves about companies switching their employees to 30 hours, just resigned acceptance.
Also, you can schedule people for 30, then make them work mandatory OT/not scheduled (so yeah they make more money, but under a pressure schedule) and still treat them as part-time overall with no benefits.
It could be ideological.
There's one guy in our area who hasn't hired anyone since January 2009 and says he won't until at least January 2017, and not even then "if one of those Commiecrats gets in."
It could be, but more than likely it's the simple numbers.
One of the liabilities an employer has to face is covering health care for each employee - by doing a cost analysis it's a no brainer. Cut the hours and dump as much as you can onto the ACA. I know that my company is looking at this - and the core reason is cost.
So I have several people who work under me who don't make very much money as it is, most of them voted for this POTUS and now they are going to go from 40/38 hrs a week to 30 hour a week. I don't know if this was the intent of the ACA, but the math pushes it to happen so it's happening.
I know people want to inject an anti-Obama conspiracy in all this as motive, but it just boils down to the basic math of the situation. Higher end companies with a good employee rep probably won't go this route (yet at least), but companies that are in trouble, or even doing well (but not great) will have to address this as a bottom line solution and more and more will be dumped on the ACA as it becomes a common and accepted practice.
All of this was already part of the trend before Obama even started running for president. The ACA is only highlighting it as companies feel the have a scapegoat. The law of unintended consequences, instead of protecting worker's health care, the ACA has merely set the benchmark for companies to stay below so they don't have to provide it. Companies were already dumping health care coverage as fast as they could, because it's too expensive, which is the real root of the problem.
This is part of the reason I think we need to have a public options/single payer system. In places like Europe and Japan, our primary competitive markets, companies don't have to provide health care to their employees. This reduces the complexity of hiring employees (at least on this topic), makes compensation negotiations and plans simpler and makes the workforce more flexible.
If the government takes over administering health care, businesses will be relieved of the burden freeing up more of their resources and energy to actually do what their business is supposed to do. American workers become more attractive, because the business doesn't have to provide them with everything, they need only compensate them for their time and skills.
Lower premiums, higher deductibles
So, now you've got insurance, but can you afford to use it?
"You've got to have skin in the game" or "Driving down the cost of health care...for them"
Even if it that is true, My employer is ending health insurance for everybody not of management or above and cutting us all back to less than 30 hours. The lost wages between 40 and 30 hours will end up costing me even more.
If your employer is doing this any time soon, it is not in response to the employer mandate. That mandate has been delayed and will not go into effect until 2015. He'll have to find some other excuse to blame denying you hours and insurance on.
Somehow I doubt the subsidy will cover the full amount. Somehow, someway as usual the average joe will be left holding the bag as has been true since before I was born.
Without knowing where you're from, a typical American making $15,000 annually can expect to pay $300 a year (a whopping 2% of your income) for health insurance on an ACA exchange. The subsidy will cover the other 90% of your premium costs. If your state expands Medicaid to the 138%-of-poverty-level cap, you will instead be covered by Medicaid, and will only pay the relatively minor out-of-pocket costs associated with that program.
Note that this is not the pricing for basic coverage. This is the pricing for mid-range, "Silver" tier coverage. Basic coverage will be less expensive, and highly comprehensive coverage will be more expensive.
Please, tell us again about how the average Joe will be left holding the bag.
Lower premiums, higher deductibles
So, now you've got insurance, but can you afford to use it?
"You've got to have skin in the game" or "Driving down the cost of health care...for them"
That's not an Obamacare problem. That's also the long-term trend in health insurance.
Sure, the policies you're likely to be able to afford through the exchanges will be worse than a good employer plan, but they'll be better than you could have bought before.
And even that good employer plan is probably worse than it was a few years ago.
Actually, mine's still awesome. At least until 2018...
Skeletal Steve seems to think his was pretty good, too, although, obviously I can't say.
If your employer is doing this any time soon, it is not in response to the employer mandate. That mandate has been delayed and will not go into effect until 2015. He'll have to find some other excuse to blame denying you hours and insurance on.
Actually, companies have been blaming cuts on Obamacare since at least the East Coast Verizon strike (two years ago, I think). Bullshiznit? I'm inclined to agree, but they do seem to be getting away with it.
|
The issues with higher health care costs are part and parcel of the very insurance system - whether everyone has an insurance plan or not.
When insurance isn't for catastrphic costs, but for basic health maintenance costs, then we remove competitive market forces from the point of sale interactions in the health care industry, though those same market forces are still driving underlying costs. We've removed the downward pressure on health care prices of market forces from the consumer side, while upward pressure on health care prices by market forces from the health care industry are unchanged.
Insuring everyone isn't going to change the underlying issue with rising health care costs.
The issues with higher health care costs are part and parcel of the very insurance system - whether everyone has an insurance plan or not.
When insurance isn't for catastrphic costs, but for basic health maintenance costs, then we remove competitive market forces from the point of sale interactions in the health care industry, though those same market forces are still driving underlying costs. We've removed the downward pressure on health care prices of market forces from the consumer side, while upward pressure on health care prices by market forces from the health care industry are unchanged.
Insuring everyone isn't going to change the underlying issue with rising health care costs.
That's part of it, certainly: most people don't really know how much it costs to get your arm set after it's broken cos they don't pay the medical provider directly like they do their mechanic or plumber; they're more insulated from the cost. Correspondingly, they don't do the same sort of price shopping they might do with the mechanic or plumber since they don't pay that provider directly; those providers can charge whatever the insurer will pay, regardless of what time or material investment they have, instead of hourly plus parts like the other two.
At the same time, it's decidedly impractical to comparison shop medical providers when your arm is broken. Which is where the analogy largely breaks down.
Insuring everyone isn't going to change the underlying issue with rising health care costs.
I tend to agree. But then I also tend to think that this "health care reform" has been less about providing people with decent health care and more about reigning in health care costs for them.
Hence the concomitant billions (I think, no handy-dandy article at, um, hand) in Medicare and Medicaid cuts. Hence all the talk about people "having skin in the game", i.e., shifting the costs directly onto the consumer.
But at least everyone (except for the projected 23 million who will still be uninsured) will have insurance and will be able to get check-ups.
Just pray you don't catch anything nasty.
For socialized medicine--and socialist revolution!
Vive le Galt!
The issues with higher health care costs are part and parcel of the very insurance system - whether everyone has an insurance plan or not.
When insurance isn't for catastrphic costs, but for basic health maintenance costs, then we remove competitive market forces from the point of sale interactions in the health care industry, though those same market forces are still driving underlying costs. We've removed the downward pressure on health care prices of market forces from the consumer side, while upward pressure on health care prices by market forces from the health care industry are unchanged.
Insuring everyone isn't going to change the underlying issue with rising health care costs.
That's part of it, certainly: most people don't really know how much it costs to get your arm set after it's broken cos they don't pay the medical provider directly like they do their mechanic or plumber; they're more insulated from the cost. Correspondingly, they don't do the same sort of price shopping they might do with the mechanic or plumber since they don't pay that provider directly; those providers can charge whatever the insurer will pay, regardless of what time or material investment they have, instead of hourly plus parts like the other two.
At the same time, it's decidedly impractical to comparison shop medical providers when your arm is broken. Which is where the analogy largely breaks down.
I'd argue that's where the argument all comes together, or at least where AN argument comes together, and that's the argument that health care ought to be considered a natural monopoly. All the things enumerated, such as infeasibility of comparison shopping emergency surgery, coupled with the idea that the extremely high capital cost of providing healthcare, such as MRI machines and the wages of doctors competing on an open labor market, lead one to reasonably conclude that health care ought to be handled the same way most municipalities handle power companies.
Which doesn't necessarily mean top-down, federal government controlled socialized medicine, though I would argue that is also the best way of going about things, since (for example) control of communicable diseases has far-reaching positive externalities and the government is right to subsidize behaviors with positive externalities.
This is part of the reason I think we need to have a public options/single payer system.This WAS one of the options discussed during Health care reform. Unfortunately since most of the Democrats are owned by the insurance agenies, it melted away faster than an snowball on the Sun. What got passed was a pretty lousy compromise whose saving grace is that it's an improvement on what was a declining status quo.
I like how you wrote that as if I didn't already completely agree with what you said multiple times in this thread.
Most of the Medicare cuts were cuts to the Advantage program, which was basically an early giveaway: Letting people choose private insurance plans instead of regular Medicare and paying those plans more than it would have cost to keep the people in Medicare.
The Washington Post says that Medicare Advantage cuts amount to only a third of the Medicare cuts.
Physicians for a National Health Program claim "The bill will drain about $40 billion from Medicare payments to safety-net hospitals, threatening the care of the tens of millions who will remain uninsured."
The New York Times in April of this year reported that Obama's budget cuts for this year include: "The budget would require $57 billion in higher payments by Medicare beneficiaries, cut $306 billion in projected Medicare payments to health care providers and squeeze $19 billion out of Medicaid, the program for low-income people."
How much of that is going to be Medicare Advantage, I couldn't say (and, to be honest, I haven't been following this year's budget debacle so I don't even know if that's what's still on the table), but still: defunding Medicare Advantage payments that cover seniors for the benefit of the insurance companies in order to fund subsidies of uninsured people for the benefit of the insurance companies doesn't sound like any kind of progress to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If your employer is doing this any time soon, it is not in response to the employer mandate. That mandate has been delayed and will not go into effect until 2015. He'll have to find some other excuse to blame denying you hours and insurance on.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2012/12/30/health-care-law- jobs/1785641/
" But to determine whether employees work enough hours on average to receive benefits, employers must track their schedules for three to 12 months prior to 2014 — meaning many are restructuring payrolls now or will do so early next year."
It couldn't be businesses trying to adapt early to the looming penalties, could it? No, businesses are stupid and wait until the last possible moment to shake up your entire workforce. Instead you do a piece at a time, small amounts first to figure out how to do it. Then you do a company wide cut.
Without knowing where you're from, a typical American making $15,000 annually can expect to pay $300 a year (a whopping 2% of your income) for health insurance on an ACA exchange. The subsidy will cover the other 90% of your premium costs. If your state expands Medicaid to the 138%-of-poverty-level cap, you will instead be covered by Medicaid, and will only pay the relatively minor out-of-pocket costs associated with that program.
Note that this is not the pricing for basic coverage. This is the pricing for mid-range, "Silver" tier coverage. Basic coverage will be less expensive, and highly comprehensive coverage will be more expensive.
Please, tell us again about how the average Joe will be left holding the bag.
Because as we all know, dollars magically appear out of nowhere to pay for everything. It's all free stuff that I will never have to pay for in taxes levied in another manner to make up for the massive budget shortfall.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2012/12/30/health-care-l aw-jobs/1785641/
" But to determine whether employees work enough hours on average to receive benefits, employers must track their schedules for three to 12 months prior to 2014 — meaning many are restructuring payrolls now or will do so early next year."
It couldn't be businesses trying to adapt early to the looming penalties, could it? No, businesses are stupid and wait until the last possible moment to shake up your entire workforce. Instead you do a piece at a time, small amounts first to figure out how to do it. Then you do a company wide cut.
That article is outdated. The employer mandate was delayed by a year this past July. Your article is from December of last year.
And no one is talking about the "last possible moment". We're talking about businesses cutting employee hours a year ahead of the point they are supposed to start tracking them.
You can make excuses for the company you work for all you like.
Because as we all know, dollars magically appear out of nowhere to pay for everything. It's all free stuff that I will never have to pay for in taxes levied in another manner to make up for the massive budget shortfall.
By your own admission you make so little that you should pay very little in taxes. Someone making $15,000 annually (same as in the example above) has an estimated total annual federal tax liability of $110. Less than 1% of your income. I also don't know what state you're from, but where I live someone making $15,000 annually faces an annual state tax liability of about $225, or about 1.5% of your income.
Are you sure you know what you're talking about?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That article is outdated. The employer mandate was delayed by a year this past July. Your article is from December of last year.
And no one is talking about the "last possible moment". We're talking about businesses cutting employee hours a year ahead of the point they are supposed to start tracking them.
You can make excuses for the company you work for all you like.
Because they already had a plan in place to meet the original mandate time frame. Why wait for a year and not go ahead with the cuts if you have already identified ways to do them and know that within a year you will have to do it anyways, and can experiment with temporary and part time workers to fill your labor needs instead of expensive full time employees?
And still have plenty of time to deal with the inevitable bits that don't go right at your own pace. So that you can then take the hours cuts national. At the lower end of the workspace there are far more people than there are jobs. There will be even more people now cut back to 20/30 hrs a week that you can choose from other employers to fit your business's needs.
By your own admission you make so little that you should pay very little in taxes. Someone making $15,000 annually (same as in the example above) has an estimated total annual federal tax liability of $110. Less than 1% of your income. I also don't know what state you're from, but where I live someone making $15,000 annually faces an annual state tax liability of about $225, or about 1.5% of your income.
Are you sure you know what you're talking about?
That is the thing, it's a stealth tax. I work less hours and make less actual income already BECAUSE of this. It's a 25% loss of income (More because now overtime is strictly verboten) for which I either have to get a second job to make up for, with the increased transport costs and other costs (uniform, loss of flexibility to attend school, etc) eating up yet more of that income, or simply cut my spending.
I'm not into making excuses. The primary motivation of a business is not to take care of employees, it is to make money. And if within the new parameters of the law the best way to make money is to use as few full time workers as possible and only use part time and seasonal workers for high demand then they will do that, and still reap the benefits of their employees having health insurance. Because they no longer have to offer it to appear as competitive to other jobs providers in the market.
Because Obamacare does not actually "tax" me does not mean that it does not have a negative effect on my income, and many people like me. It makes people like me who work hard to try and get ahead take another step back, and end up even more dependent on the federal/state government for basic services that before I was able to get by the sweat of my own brow.
Because Obamacare does not actually "tax" me does not mean that it does not have a negative effect on my income, and many people like me. It makes people like me who work hard to try and get ahead take another step back, and end up even more dependent on the federal/state government for basic services that before I was able to get by the sweat of my own brow.
Some would say this is not a bug, but a feature...
Because they already had a plan in place to meet the original mandate time frame. Why wait for a year and not go ahead with the cuts if you have already identified ways to do them and know that within a year you will have to do it anyways, and can experiment with temporary and part time workers to fill your labor needs instead of expensive full time employees?
So you acknowledge that your employer did not need to reduce hours in the manner that they did, but that they did so anyway because it was slightly more efficient for them to screw over their employees a year early?
I want to make sure you understand what you're defending, here.
That is the thing, it's a stealth tax. I work less hours and make less actual income already BECAUSE of this.
No, you make less actual income because your minimum wage, part-time, benefits-free employer is terrible.
Here's how you know it's not a "stealth tax": no one in your situation is paying it. You're not paying it, obviously, but more importantly neither is your employer. In fact your employer is (purportedly) cutting your hours to avoid paying it. They're not losing out! They'll just find someone else to give your lost hours to.
It's a 25% loss of income (More because now overtime is strictly verboten) for which I either have to get a second job to make up for, with the increased transport costs and other costs (uniform, loss of flexibility to attend school, etc) eating up yet more of that income, or simply cut my spending.
I'm not into making excuses.
And yet that's what you're doing.
The primary motivation of a business is not to take care of employees, it is to make money.
And yet many employers have found ways to do both! But I'm glad you've identified for us one of the primary problems with unregulated free-market capitalism.
And if within the new parameters of the law the best way to make money is to use as few full time workers as possible and only use part time and seasonal workers for high demand then they will do that, and still reap the benefits of their employees having health insurance. Because they no longer have to offer it to appear as competitive to other jobs providers in the market.
Because Obamacare does not actually "tax" me does not mean that it does not have a negative effect on my income, and many people like me. It makes people like me who work hard to try and get ahead take another step back, and end up even more dependent on the federal/state government for basic services that before I was able to get by the sweat of my own brow.
I cannot fathom how you can see this situation and imagine that the federal government is doing you harm. Your employer cut your hours so that it could deny you and nearly all of your coworkers health insurance, and it's the government's fault?
So you acknowledge that your employer did not need to reduce hours in the manner that they did, but that they did so anyway because it was slightly more efficient for them to screw over their employees a year early?
I want to make sure you understand what you're defending, here.
Yes. Of course. They would be stupid not to. I bet they only waited to see how the political and legal challenges to the law shook out, and also to make projections as to exactly how it would affect their margins.
No, you make less actual income because your minimum wage, part-time, benefits-free employer is terrible.
Here's a hilarious thing. It's a public institution.
Here's how you know it's not a "stealth tax": no one in your situation is paying it. You're not paying it, obviously, but more importantly neither is your employer. In fact your employer is (purportedly) cutting your hours to avoid paying it. They're not losing out! They'll just find someone else to give your lost hours to.
It's pretty obvious. I now take home less money and also am forced to pay even a small amount into a state mandated program, or pay a penalty
(Which I will pay, because it's a whole lot cheaper)And yet many employers have found ways to do both! But I'm glad you've identified for us one of the primary problems with unregulated free-market capitalism.
I don't even want to touch that with a ten foot pole.
I cannot fathom how you can see this situation and imagine that the federal government is doing you harm. Your employer cut your hours so that it could deny you and nearly all of your coworkers health insurance, and it's the government's fault?
Let me say this again. They gave my employer, a POWERFUL FISCAL INCENTIVE TO HAVE ME WORK LESS HOURS. To the tune of a $2,000 penalty or however much the costs would be to upgrade or change our plans to fit whatever is mandated by the exchanges in my state. It's honestly pretty simple.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What you're saying is they should have made the penalty much greater.
Here's a hilarious thing. It's a public institution.
What point is that supposed to make, exactly?
And what does "public" mean? City? County? State? Federal? Those are all very different things.
It's pretty obvious. I now take home less money and also am forced to pay even a small amount into a state mandated program, or pay a penalty
(Which I will pay, because it's a whole lot cheaper)
It's cheaper for the next year. In 2015, the penalty rises to $325 per person, which is more than you would pay. Also, you will not be required to pay any penalty if you enroll in Medicaid which you may be able to depending on the state you live in.
Let me say this again. They gave my employer, a POWERFUL FISCAL INCENTIVE TO HAVE ME WORK LESS HOURS.
Or, alternatively, a powerful fiscal incentive to provide their full time employees with health insurance. We know which route they decided to take.
To the tune of a $2,000 penalty or however much the costs would be to upgrade or change our plans to fit whatever is mandated by the exchanges in my state. It's honestly pretty simple.
Devastatingly so.
Or, alternatively, a powerful fiscal incentive to provide their full time employees with health insurance. We know which route they decided to take.
If you were at all surprised by that I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.
Or, alternatively, a powerful fiscal incentive to provide their full time employees with health insurance. We know which route they decided to take.If you were at all surprised by that I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.
Most companies are not engaging in the practice of reducing workers' hours as a result of the ACA's provisions going into effect. The few that are deserve the negative press they're getting.
Skeletal Steve,
First of, I hate Obamacare, too. To get that out of the way.
On the personal level, though, I'd encourage you to look on the websites that have the exchange info to see what you qualify for in subsidies, etc. Maybe you already have and it sucks, maybe you don't really need insurance, I don't know. But it seems kind of silly to just throw up your hands and resign yourself to paying the fine if you haven't investigated it yet.
Like I said, though, that's just personal advice. Politically, Obamacare still sucks and is vastly inadequate to meet the real health care needs of the population of this country.
Vive le Galt!
What you're saying is they should have made the penalty much greater.
I think now would be the ideal time to reintroduce the demand for a 6-hour work day.
You're going to dump hours? 30 for 40!
Vive le Galt!
What you're saying is they should have made the penalty much greater.I think now would be the ideal time to reintroduce the demand for a 6-hour work day.
You're going to dump hours? 30 for 40!
Well I'd much rather have a 10 hour work day and 4 days off a week if it's all the same to you.
And be paid 15/hr.
Then your employer is on a path towards failure
Business 101 – Organizations that give the minimum pay get the minimum effort. Organizations that are only getting the minimum will eventually lose out to organizations that are getting the maximum. This is why I don’t mind being paid less than some of my direct reports and turn the occasional blind eye when I see my people bending the rules. It is the price I pay for having a team that out performs other teams within my division.
Your company can blame their problems on Obama, liberals or whatever but at the end of the day they will have only their own failure to look after their people to blame.
Assuming that there is an actual labor market. In my area just having a job sets you apart from a lot of people my age. Nobody here has any leverage at all because there hundreds of people willing and able to take the position.
At the lower rung there is a HUGE glut of people fighting for jobs. You may not see it but businesses because of the endemic unemployment have the employee over a barrel. Work harder and faster for less money has been the tune for the last couple of years because there is always somebody there to replace you.
EDIT: And let me be clear. I actually like my employer and my job. It is what it is. I even sympathize with them a little because it was either cut my hours or have to pay a penalty or the cost of upgrading my healthcare plan, would of meant cutting services to the people who come to us.
Skeletal Steve,
First of, I hate Obamacare, too. To get that out of the way.
On the personal level, though, I'd encourage you to look on the websites that have the exchange info to see what you qualify for in subsidies, etc. Maybe you already have and it sucks, maybe you don't really need insurance, I don't know. But it seems kind of silly to just throw up your hands and resign yourself to paying the fine if you haven't investigated it yet.
Like I said, though, that's just personal advice. Politically, Obamacare still sucks and is vastly inadequate to meet the real health care needs of the population of this country.
Vive le Galt!
I would get some, yes. But the cost would still be more than paying the penalty which means I pay the penalty, quite simply. Unless I can get an exemption or the cost of the plan is cheaper. It's a tax that I have to try and figure how to pay as little of as possible.