An Admittedly Niave Question About the Affordable Health Care Act

[Amelia]

Been away from the thread for a while - wouldn't want to cheat my employer . . .

The Republican Noise Machine is in full operation these days, heaping scorn, ridicule and blame on President Obama for putting through a law that is causing employers to cut employee's work hours so they (the employers) won't have to provide health insurance for the employees.

Here's a novel thought: How about it's the EMPLOYERS that are the bad guys here, not President Obama? After all, it isn't Obama that is cutting worker's hours, it's the EMPLOYERS that are doing it. They certainly don't HAVE to cut their employee's hours, now do they?

Why don't the employers do what they are supposed to do and simply provide health insurance for all of the workers who work 30 hours a week or more? After all, that's what the law says, isn't it?

So what can we conclude when employers sidestep the law by cutting their employee's hours? That the employers are a bunch of greedy bastards who would rather throw their employees under the bus than part company with the Almighty Dollar in any way, shape or form.

That's what I'm concluding.

For one brief moment there you saw with clarity what was practical. You saw how naive it was to make sweeping legislation which depended on the generosity of employers to avoid having the legislation hurt the country. Employers who had a long time record of making sure people never got more than 39 hours, when 40 hours was the level they had to cross before they got benefits. I first learned about this practice at college because the janitor in my dorm was held to 39 hours or less so that the school wouldn't have to give him benefits.

Now it sounds like you're back to the party line of saying that legislators had no responsibility for taking reality into account when they legislated.




And yes, employers may feel they do have to cut employee hours. They might have been letting people pad their hours a little when it would cost them just a few dollars to do so. Now it could cost them thousands of dollars per employee to do that. So now they are naturally looking for places to trim the fat, which means cutting the marginal excesses in hours and doing what is needed to increase production to make up for the hours they might actually have felt they needed before. They have to up production one way or another. Whether it's to cover the reduced hours or whether it's to pay for those extra thousands of dollars per employee if they weren't able to find a way to cut hours.

 

[Smilebong]

Been away from the thread for a while - wouldn't want to cheat my employer . . .

The Republican Noise Machine is in full operation these days, heaping scorn, ridicule and blame on President Obama for putting through a law that is causing employers to cut employee's work hours so they (the employers) won't have to provide health insurance for the employees.

Herte's a novel thought: How about it's the EMPLOYERS that are the bad guys here, not President Obama? After all, it isn't Obama that is cutting worker's hours, it's the EMPLOYERS that are doing it. They certainly don't HAVE to cut their employee's hours, now do they?

Why don't the employers do what they are supposed to do and simply provide health insurance for all of the workers who work 30 hours a week or more? After all, that's what the law says, isn't it?

So what can we conclude when employers sidestep the law by cutting their employee's hours? That the employers are a bunch of greedy bastards who would rather throw their employees under the bus than part company with the Almighty Dollar in any way, shape or form.

That's what I'm concluding.

No. The employers provide jobs without benefits for people who need those jobs. They are low level, low pay, supposed to be short term jobs. People take them to get started. Then they work up to higher paying jobs with benefits.

The jobs are not productive enough to require higher pay and benefits. If they are required to give benefits, they will not make any profit and cannot stay in business. Therefore to keep those jobs available, they must cut the hours to 30 or less and still provide those jobs.

This is not what I'm talking about. The ACA does not require employers to start providing medical insurance for the job level you are talking about here. I'm talking about people who HAVE worked their way up and who are working full time, suddenly having their hours (and their pay) cut so that the employer won't have to provide medical benefits.

That makes the employer the jerk in my eyes, not the Obama administration.

"If they are required to give benefits, they will not make any profit and cannot stay in business." Really? Is that merely your opinion, or do you have some facts to back that up? Our economy is FULL of employers who provide complete benefits for all of their qualified workers. Such companies seem to be doing just fine, last time I looked.

I ran a small business for years. I was not able to provide benefits. I paid the average unskilled worker $9/hr. $360/wk. $1440/mo. Full time benefits per person would cost somewhere in the area of $500-800/month. That is at least 30% more than I could afford. I know many small business people with low skill level workers in the same boat. Landscapers, food service, etc.

Our economy has many who provide full benefits. But it also has many who cannot. And insurance benefits are just that, benefits, not requirements. I would close shop if they told me I had to provide all workers benefits.

 

[dblack]

What you guys don't get - or, more likely what you just don't want to own up to - is that the law was written the way it was (largely by lobbyists themselves) specifically for that purpose.

What makes you say this? What's your basis for this opinion?

Which part - the notion that backers of ACA won't admit it's a corporatist scam - that's just a guess. The idea that the law was largely written by corporate lobbyists is well-documented. No one even really denies it. Google Liz Fowler.

 

[LoneLaugher]

No. The employers provide jobs without benefits for people who need those jobs. They are low level, low pay, supposed to be short term jobs. People take them to get started. Then they work up to higher paying jobs with benefits.

The jobs are not productive enough to require higher pay and benefits. If they are required to give benefits, they will not make any profit and cannot stay in business. Therefore to keep those jobs available, they must cut the hours to 30 or less and still provide those jobs.

This is not what I'm talking about. The ACA does not require employers to start providing medical insurance for the job level you are talking about here. I'm talking about people who HAVE worked their way up and who are working full time, suddenly having their hours (and their pay) cut so that the employer won't have to provide medical benefits.

That makes the employer the jerk in my eyes, not the Obama administration.

"If they are required to give benefits, they will not make any profit and cannot stay in business." Really? Is that merely your opinion, or do you have some facts to back that up? Our economy is FULL of employers who provide complete benefits for all of their qualified workers. Such companies seem to be doing just fine, last time I looked.

I ran a small business for years. I was not able to provide benefits. I paid the average unskilled worker $9/hr. $360/wk. $1440/mo. Full time benefits per person would cost somewhere in the area of $500-800/month. That is at least 30% more than I could afford. I know many small business people with low skill level workers in the same boat. Landscapers, food service, etc.

Our economy has many who provide full benefits. But it also has many who cannot. And insurance benefits are just that, benefits, not requirements. I would close shop if they told me I had to provide all workers benefits.

And...if you run a small business today...you don't have to provide health insurance. Like most American businesses.

 

[emilynghiem]

What you guys don't get - or, more likely what you just don't want to own up to - is that the law was written the way it was (largely by lobbyists themselves) specifically for that purpose.

What makes you say this? What's your basis for this opinion?

Which part - the notion that backers of ACA won't admit it's a corporatist scam - that's just a guess. The idea that the law was largely written by corporate lobbyists is well-documented. No one even really denies it. Google Liz Fowler.

So corporations like Hobby Lobby CAN'T practice their "beliefs" because they are a company not a religious church.

But big corporations like insurance companies can force the PUBLIC to buy their services and push beliefs in ACA/govt health care, because they are a company not a religious church?

How come faith in one corporate system is not only allowed but FORCED on the public,
and the other company's faith system is not even allowed for them to practice by choice?

???

 

[dblack]

What makes you say this? What's your basis for this opinion?

Which part - the notion that backers of ACA won't admit it's a corporatist scam - that's just a guess. The idea that the law was largely written by corporate lobbyists is well-documented. No one even really denies it. Google Liz Fowler.

So corporations like Hobby Lobby CAN'T practice their "beliefs" because they are a company not a religious church.

But big corporations like insurance companies can force the PUBLIC to buy their services and push beliefs in ACA/govt health care, because they are a company not a religious church?

How come faith in one corporate system is not only allowed but FORCED on the public,
and the other company's faith system is not even allowed for them to practice by choice?

???

It all really comes back to the inside-out notion of the Constitution inadvertently encouraged by the Bill of Rights. Today, the common conception is that, unless it's something specifically prohibited by a line item in the Constitution, Congress can pass laws dictating pretty much anything they like. So they can't force us to join a religion, but they can force us to buy insurance.

Short of reversing a 100+ years of bad precedent and case law, the only way we can regain constitutional protection of our economic freedom is with another amendment, specifically prohibiting collusion between business and government.

 

[GHook93]

I just learned that my grandson is quitting his job as a waiter at Applebees because they have cut his hours to 30 per week. They have done the same to all of their employees. No more than 30 hours per week for anyone. Of course, this is so that Applebees will not have to provide health insurance for its employees. It would appear that Applebees is not the only corporation that is doing this.

In times of severe unemployment throughout the nation, this is obviously a very bad trend.

Why didn't the folks who drafted the current health care legislation anticipate that this would happen, and have a provision in there that would close this loophole?

Opponents did and right now the people who drafted it are denying this type of reduction in hours and force is taking place!

According to Reid everyone is a liar but him!

 

[George Costanza]

Been away from the thread for a while - wouldn't want to cheat my employer . . .

The Republican Noise Machine is in full operation these days, heaping scorn, ridicule and blame on President Obama for putting through a law that is causing employers to cut employee's work hours so they (the employers) won't have to provide health insurance for the employees.

Here's a novel thought: How about it's the EMPLOYERS that are the bad guys here, not President Obama? After all, it isn't Obama that is cutting worker's hours, it's the EMPLOYERS that are doing it. They certainly don't HAVE to cut their employee's hours, now do they?

Why don't the employers do what they are supposed to do and simply provide health insurance for all of the workers who work 30 hours a week or more? After all, that's what the law says, isn't it?

So what can we conclude when employers sidestep the law by cutting their employee's hours? That the employers are a bunch of greedy bastards who would rather throw their employees under the bus than part company with the Almighty Dollar in any way, shape or form.

That's what I'm concluding.

I liked you better on Seinfeld. Go start your own business, simply comply with the law and pay for everyone's health insurance, including your own, half of their Social Security taxes, labor insurance if they have it there (mandatory here), payroll taxes and all the rest of your overhead while keeping enough to make it all worthwhile. Then get your greedy ass back here and tell us how easy it was.

I say again - there are plenty of people (individuals and corporations) who do just that and not only manage to survive, but turn a healthy profit as well.

 

[Smilebong]

Been away from the thread for a while - wouldn't want to cheat my employer . . .

The Republican Noise Machine is in full operation these days, heaping scorn, ridicule and blame on President Obama for putting through a law that is causing employers to cut employee's work hours so they (the employers) won't have to provide health insurance for the employees.

Here's a novel thought: How about it's the EMPLOYERS that are the bad guys here, not President Obama? After all, it isn't Obama that is cutting worker's hours, it's the EMPLOYERS that are doing it. They certainly don't HAVE to cut their employee's hours, now do they?

Why don't the employers do what they are supposed to do and simply provide health insurance for all of the workers who work 30 hours a week or more? After all, that's what the law says, isn't it?

So what can we conclude when employers sidestep the law by cutting their employee's hours? That the employers are a bunch of greedy bastards who would rather throw their employees under the bus than part company with the Almighty Dollar in any way, shape or form.

That's what I'm concluding.

I liked you better on Seinfeld. Go start your own business, simply comply with the law and pay for everyone's health insurance, including your own, half of their Social Security taxes, labor insurance if they have it there (mandatory here), payroll taxes and all the rest of your overhead while keeping enough to make it all worthwhile. Then get your greedy ass back here and tell us how easy it was.

I say again - there are plenty of people (individuals and corporations) who do just that and not only manage to survive, but turn a healthy profit as well.

Does that mean that every company should be mandated to provide full benefits?

 

[George Costanza]

Been away from the thread for a while - wouldn't want to cheat my employer . . .

The Republican Noise Machine is in full operation these days, heaping scorn, ridicule and blame on President Obama for putting through a law that is causing employers to cut employee's work hours so they (the employers) won't have to provide health insurance for the employees.

Here's a novel thought: How about it's the EMPLOYERS that are the bad guys here, not President Obama? After all, it isn't Obama that is cutting worker's hours, it's the EMPLOYERS that are doing it. They certainly don't HAVE to cut their employee's hours, now do they?

Why don't the employers do what they are supposed to do and simply provide health insurance for all of the workers who work 30 hours a week or more? After all, that's what the law says, isn't it?

So what can we conclude when employers sidestep the law by cutting their employee's hours? That the employers are a bunch of greedy bastards who would rather throw their employees under the bus than part company with the Almighty Dollar in any way, shape or form.

That's what I'm concluding.

For one brief moment there you saw with clarity what was practical. You saw how naive it was to make sweeping legislation which depended on the generosity of employers to avoid having the legislation hurt the country. Employers who had a long time record of making sure people never got more than 39 hours, when 40 hours was the level they had to cross before they got benefits. I first learned about this practice at college because the janitor in my dorm was held to 39 hours or less so that the school wouldn't have to give him benefits.

Now it sounds like you're back to the party line of saying that legislators had no responsibility for taking reality into account when they legislated.




And yes, employers may feel they do have to cut employee hours. They might have been letting people pad their hours a little when it would cost them just a few dollars to do so. Now it could cost them thousands of dollars per employee to do that. So now they are naturally looking for places to trim the fat, which means cutting the marginal excesses in hours and doing what is needed to increase production to make up for the hours they might actually have felt they needed before. They have to up production one way or another. Whether it's to cover the reduced hours or whether it's to pay for those extra thousands of dollars per employee if they weren't able to find a way to cut hours.

I don't pretend to be an economist. I think that the legislators who drafted the ACA should have foreseen what would happen. I don't think they overlooked it intentionally nor do I think they drafted a law that was designed to fail. I think people who ascribe to that view are politically blind, to be charitable.

Saying that the employers are the real bad guys here is not inconsistent with any of the above.

I recognize what you are talking about with the employees who were only given 39 hours in order to avoid paying benefits under a 40-hour mandatory level. I guess an employer is free to do that if he/it wants, and employees who hire on knowing what the deal is should be deemed to consent to it, even if they would prefer otherwise.

Once again, that does not make it right.

I am hearing arguments here that if employers have to provide health insurance for their employees, they will all go broke. That sounds logical, but is it really the case? Or is it merely a case of employers who are doing just fine and who don't want to have to do just a trifle less fine, hmmmm?

 

[George Costanza]

I liked you better on Seinfeld. Go start your own business, simply comply with the law and pay for everyone's health insurance, including your own, half of their Social Security taxes, labor insurance if they have it there (mandatory here), payroll taxes and all the rest of your overhead while keeping enough to make it all worthwhile. Then get your greedy ass back here and tell us how easy it was.

I say again - there are plenty of people (individuals and corporations) who do just that and not only manage to survive, but turn a healthy profit as well.

Does that mean that every company should be mandated to provide full benefits?

Possibly - at least for full-time employees. You know, you can always adjust wages in order to compensate for having to provide benefits. You can also require the employee to shoulder a portion of the cost of benefits.

What do you have against employers providing benefits to employees?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I just learned that my grandson is quitting his job as a waiter at Applebees because they have cut his hours to 30 per week. They have done the same to all of their employees. No more than 30 hours per week for anyone. Of course, this is so that Applebees will not have to provide health insurance for its employees. It would appear that Applebees is not the only corporation that is doing this.

In times of severe unemployment throughout the nation, this is obviously a very bad trend.

Why didn't the folks who drafted the current health care legislation anticipate that this would happen, and have a provision in there that would close this loophole?

Because they see this as a benefit?

 

[Smilebong]

I say again - there are plenty of people (individuals and corporations) who do just that and not only manage to survive, but turn a healthy profit as well.

Does that mean that every company should be mandated to provide full benefits?

Possibly - at least for full-time employees. What do you have against employers providing benefits to employees?

I have nothing against it.

I have everything against mandating that they provide it.

That is socialism.

 

[syrenn]

did you miss my comments George?

 

[Politico]

Nice try slick Willy. Using the old 'why do you hate workers' to downplay the force them part.

 

[George Costanza]

Which part - the notion that backers of ACA won't admit it's a corporatist scam - that's just a guess. The idea that the law was largely written by corporate lobbyists is well-documented. No one even really denies it. Google Liz Fowler.

So corporations like Hobby Lobby CAN'T practice their "beliefs" because they are a company not a religious church.

But big corporations like insurance companies can force the PUBLIC to buy their services and push beliefs in ACA/govt health care, because they are a company not a religious church?

How come faith in one corporate system is not only allowed but FORCED on the public,
and the other company's faith system is not even allowed for them to practice by choice?

???

It all really comes back to the inside-out notion of the Constitution inadvertently encouraged by the Bill of Rights. Today, the common conception is that, unless it's something specifically prohibited by a line item in the Constitution, Congress can pass laws dictating pretty much anything they like. So they can't force us to join a religion, but they can force us to buy insurance.

Short of reversing a 100+ years of bad precedent and case law, the only way we can regain constitutional protection of our economic freedom is with another amendment, specifically prohibiting collusion between business and government.

I think there is a fine line between "collusion between business and government" and providing for the common welfare. What do you do when "constituional protection of our economic freedom" is taken advantage of by business at the expense of labor to such an extent that it threatens to erode a very significant aspect of our entire society, that being affordable health care for the citizens of our nation?

 

[George Costanza]

Does that mean that every company should be mandated to provide full benefits?

Possibly - at least for full-time employees. What do you have against employers providing benefits to employees?

I have nothing against it.

I have everything against mandating that they provide it.

That is socialism.

Sounds to me like you have nothing against it so long as YOU don't have to be the one to provide it.

 

[George Costanza]

I just learned that my grandson is quitting his job as a waiter at Applebees because they have cut his hours to 30 per week. They have done the same to all of their employees. No more than 30 hours per week for anyone. Of course, this is so that Applebees will not have to provide health insurance for its employees. It would appear that Applebees is not the only corporation that is doing this.

In times of severe unemployment throughout the nation, this is obviously a very bad trend.

Why didn't the folks who drafted the current health care legislation anticipate that this would happen, and have a provision in there that would close this loophole?

Because they see this as a benefit?

Oh, God, QW - you are smarter than this.

 

[George Costanza]

did you miss my comments George?

I guess so - what's the post number? Or could you link it for me? I don't have time to cruise through all of this thread.

 

[syrenn]

did you miss my comments George?

I guess so - what's the post number? Or could you link it for me? I don't have time to cruise through all of this thread.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/search.php?searchid=7751915