Even More Obamacare Follies

[508mikey]

Iraq was a war we should've finished a decade prior.

with A Bombs

 

[Gramps]

Cheap compared to what Obamacares going to cost over the next decade.

Are you sure?

How much was each life worth that has been lost in that war? How much was each limb lost worth? What about the mental damage done to military personnel and their families?

Obamacare can be repealed or changed , nothing can be done to change what has happened in Iraq .

 

[Gramps]

Back to Obamcare, there was a Senator on one of the shows this morning talking about what the GOP may try to aaccomplish. First thing was the Keystone XL project then he said they would try to make some changes to the ACA such as moving what is considered full time work to 40 hours per week . that would be a good move, IMO.

 

[lawgator1]

Back to Obamcare, there was a Senator on one of the shows this morning talking about what the GOP may try to aaccomplish. First thing was the Keystone XL project then he said they would try to make some changes to the ACA such as moving what is considered full time work to 40 hours per week . that would be a good move, IMO.

I've seen that issue raised, as well. The theory is that the current definition of 30 hours means that some employers have cut back hours for certain employees to 29 hours a week, in order for the employer not to have to pay for the insurance for that employee.

And since the provision only applies to employers with more than 50 employees, we are talking about that universe of employers. So what would happen under this proposal is that you'd have some small subset of employers (50 + employees) that will have their employees work 39 hours a week.

The employees theoretically make more, right? But will they? I fear that what would happen is that salaries would go down so that employees were making the same amount as they are now, and employers would just cut some employees to make up the difference.

I really need to see some good study on this because I worry that it will have the effect of reducing jobs while providing no benefit to these employees, who will work longer hours to make the same money and still not get coverage through their employer.

I admit that on the front end of the discussion I'm a bit skeptical of an employer who has more than 50 employees but does not already offer health insurance.

 

[McDad]

I've seen that issue raised, as well. The theory is that the current definition of 30 hours means that some employers have cut back hours for certain employees to 29 hours a week, in order for the employer not to have to pay for the insurance for that employee.

And since the provision only applies to employers with more than 50 employees, we are talking about that universe of employers. So what would happen under this proposal is that you'd have some small subset of employers (50 + employees) that will have their employees work 39 hours a week.

The employees theoretically make more, right? But will they? I fear that what would happen is that salaries would go down so that employees were making the same amount as they are now, and employers would just cut some employees to make up the difference.

I really need to see some good study on this because I worry that it will have the effect of reducing jobs while providing no benefit to these employees, who will work longer hours to make the same money and still not get coverage through their employer.

I admit that on the front end of the discussion I'm a bit skeptical of an employer who has more than 50 employees but does not already offer health insurance.

Policy versus practice my friend.

 

[hog88]

Back to Obamcare, there was a Senator on one of the shows this morning talking about what the GOP may try to aaccomplish. First thing was the Keystone XL project then he said they would try to make some changes to the ACA such as moving what is considered full time work to 40 hours per week . that would be a good move, IMO.

Another thing that needs to be addressed is age banding. That is going to kill the 45+ year old medium/low skilled job seeker. Plus I don't see how it is legal.

 

[82_VOL_83]

I've seen that issue raised, as well. The theory is that the current definition of 30 hours means that some employers have cut back hours for certain employees to 29 hours a week, in order for the employer not to have to pay for the insurance for that employee.

And since the provision only applies to employers with more than 50 employees, we are talking about that universe of employers. So what would happen under this proposal is that you'd have some small subset of employers (50 + employees) that will have their employees work 39 hours a week.

The employees theoretically make more, right? But will they? I fear that what would happen is that salaries would go down so that employees were making the same amount as they are now, and employers would just cut some employees to make up the difference.

I really need to see some good study on this because I worry that it will have the effect of reducing jobs while providing no benefit to these employees, who will work longer hours to make the same money and still not get coverage through their employer.

I admit that on the front end of the discussion I'm a bit skeptical of an employer who has more than 50 employees but does not already offer health insurance.

Couple of thoughts...
1) companies such as Home Depot and Lowe's will simply have their employees work 39 hours instead of 29. They have very few full time employees.
2) this will be a good thing for kids that are still at home that work at places like this. It's a way of raising the minimum wage without raising it.

 

[theFallGuy]

I've seen that issue raised, as well. The theory is that the current definition of 30 hours means that some employers have cut back hours for certain employees to 29 hours a week, in order for the employer not to have to pay for the insurance for that employee.

And since the provision only applies to employers with more than 50 employees, we are talking about that universe of employers. So what would happen under this proposal is that you'd have some small subset of employers (50 + employees) that will have their employees work 39 hours a week.

The employees theoretically make more, right? But will they? I fear that what would happen is that salaries would go down so that employees were making the same amount as they are now, and employers would just cut some employees to make up the difference.

I really need to see some good study on this because I worry that it will have the effect of reducing jobs while providing no benefit to these employees, who will work longer hours to make the same money and still not get coverage through their employer.

I admit that on the front end of the discussion I'm a bit skeptical of an employer who has more than 50 employees but does not already offer health insurance.

we gotta pass that bill before we can actually figure out what it does or how it affects businesses

 

[lawgator1]

Couple of thoughts...
1) companies such as Home Depot and Lowe's will simply have their employees work 39 hours instead of 29. They have very few full time employees.
2) this will be a good thing for kids that are still at home that work at places like this. It's a way of raising the minimum wage without raising it.

The interwebz says HD offers it to full and part time employees. I don't know the details, though.

 

[82_VOL_83]

The interwebz says HD offers it to full and part time employees. I don't know the details, though.

Don't know either. Haven't approached HD about employment since 2012. They were in the process of dropping all part time people to a max of 29 hours then.

 

[lawgator1]

Don't know either. Haven't approached HD about employment since 2012. They were in the process of dropping all part time people to a max of 29 hours then.

Yeah, I get that at part time. But really if it were upped to 40 so they could have people work 39, that hardly seems "part-time" to me.

 

[82_VOL_83]

Yeah, I get that at part time. But really if it were upped to 40 so they could have people work 39, that hardly seems "part-time" to me.

Benefits people under 26 still on the rents insurance is all I can see.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

The employees theoretically make more, right? But will they? I fear that what would happen is that salaries would go down so that employees were making the same amount as they are now, and employers would just cut some employees to make up the difference.

Evil business owners. How dare they try and make a profit.... but hey, they didn't build that.

 

[volinbham]

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/01/0...s-experts-now-roil-its-faculty.html?referrer=



Hahaha

karma is a pre-existing condition not covered by Obamacare

 

[VolsNSkinsFan]

The Party of Youth is ready to fix 0bamacare

 

[508mikey]

Evil business owners. How dare they try and make a profit.... but hey, they didn't build that.

the evil ones are the ones that keep the profits to themselves and use the economy as a reason to not give raises etc.

 

[VolsNSkinsFan]

the evil ones are the ones that keep the profits to themselves and use the economy as a reason to not give raises etc.

Yea we can't have companies saving for a rainy day

 

[508mikey]

Yea we can't have companies saving for a rainy day

CEO of a big bank or insurance company are you ?

 

[VolsNSkinsFan]

CEO of a big bank or insurance company are you ?

If you haven't received a raise and complain about it, maybe you should look for a new gig instead of complaining on VN

 

[TOP]

If you haven't received a raise and complain about it, maybe you should look for a new gig instead of complaining on VN

Wow.

If only we could all use college students to make billions as we monitor their short-comings before they go pro for guaranteed millions. Are you sure you aren't a mini-version of Dan Snyder? Easy to over pay for all of your vegetables(players) when raising your crop(players) is free.

Seriously... your response is one of the most pretentious things I've heard in a while

Given what you just said to him, I know what my response to you would be. "Go **** yourself".

 

[VolsNSkinsFan]

And I'd tell him to get a better job instead of blaming the boogie man on VN

 

[82_VOL_83]

Wow.

If only we could all use college students to make billions as we monitor their short-comings before they go pro for guaranteed millions. Are you sure you aren't a mini-version of Dan Snyder? Easy to over pay for all of your vegetables(players) when raising your crop(players) is free.

Seriously... your response is one of the most pretentious things I've heard in a while

Given what you just said to him, I know what my response to you would be. "Go **** yourself".

So how did the CEOs actually get to be CEO?

 

[govols/cc]

Assembly line workers should be raking 6 figures just because the company could afford it.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

Assembly line workers should be raking 6 figures just because the company could afford it.

Given your career choice I can't tell if this is satirical or not.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

And I'd tell him to get a better job instead of blaming the boogie man on VN

I too would tell you to go **** yourself and keep pretending to contribute to the human race with your homeowner's association while your nannies raised your kids.