An Admittedly Niave Question About the Affordable Health Care Act

[Smilebong]

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.

Why should I? If they are worth it, they get it.

Maybe you don't appreciate capitalism. Maybe you should move to Russia.

 

[Politico]

Thought they were clear George. You're a socialist. They aren't.

 

[dblack]

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.

So why shouldn't employees be allowed to work for forty hours, and forego the benefits, 'knowing what the deal is'?

 

[Smilebong]

George, you are a liar.


The name of this thread is "An admittedly naive question..."

It is not naive. You are like poured cement in your socialistic beliefs. You aren't naive.

 

[George Costanza]

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.

Why should I? If they are worth it, they get it.

Maybe you don't appreciate capitalism. Maybe you should move to Russia.

And they say that the Republican party is divisive - where did they EVER such an idea?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

How about a not so novel thought, the problem is the government. You know the government I am talking about, it is the same one that actually encourages police to get on the witness stand and commit perjury in order to get a conviction.

The problem I have with Obama is he is giving that government more power, that makes him wrong. that doesn't make the companies that are cutting hours right, but it certainly deals with your claim that is solely their fault.

 

[Katzndogz]

If at all possible employers should just fire as many employees as they can and still function. An employer is not a charity. They have no obligation to give employees anything. Not even a parking space.

Instead of shifting the blame to obama own it. Flat say they are cutting back in protest of government mandates and will continue putting the economic screws on until the mandates end.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If an employer needs 31 man hours to complete the work load, he will hire 31 man hours to complete the work load. If he really needs just 29 hours to complete the work load but was hiring 31 hours anyway, he is an idiot.

Now...the employer who decides to divide the 31 hours between two employees will have additional costs for hiring and maintaining staff. Not to mention a higher rate of turnover.....as is the case with George Costanza's grandson's employer. Not too bright.

This is a talking point.....the idea that employers are cutting hours due to the ACA.

Pay attention to tomorrow's unemployment report. The economy has not been wrecked by the law, dummies. We are growing.

Growing at the slowest rate in decades. The only significant change since the last economic downturn is Obamacare.

 

[George Costanza]

If at all possible employers should just fire as many employees as they can and still function. An employer is not a charity. They have no obligation to give employees anything. Not even a parking space.

Instead of shifting the blame to obama own it. Flat say they are cutting back in protest of government mandates and will continue putting the economic screws on until the mandates end.

Do employees contribute nothing to the employer-employee picture? You make it sound as if the only one contributing anything is the employer. Hell, why not just get rid of ALL of these blood-sucking, free-loading employees and be done with it?

Conservative's Heaven: All management; no labor whatsoever. Think how simple life would be . . .

 

[George Costanza]

The problem I have with Obama is he is giving that government more power, that makes him wrong. that doesn't make the companies that are cutting hours right, but it certainly deals with your claim that is solely their fault.

There are times when the government SHOULD step in and exert power. That happened in the 1960's with civil rights. It has happened numerous other times over the years. Our health care situation was in a horrible mess, left to the greedy devices of private industry. Maybe, just maybe, this is yet another time when an "exertion of government power" (as you would call it) is needed.

 

[Ernie S.]

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

Why should I? If they are worth it, they get it.

Maybe you don't appreciate capitalism. Maybe you should move to Russia.

And they say that the Republican party is divisive - where did they EVER such an idea?

Divisive = not Liberal? We have different political philosophies, George. My philosophy is no more divisive than yours.

 

[George Costanza]

Why should I? If they are worth it, they get it.

Maybe you don't appreciate capitalism. Maybe you should move to Russia.

And they say that the Republican party is divisive - where did they EVER such an idea?

Divisive = not Liberal? We have different political philosophies, George. My philosophy is no more divisive than yours.

Read the post I was responding to. Telling someone, "Maybe you should move to Russia" seems pretty divisive to me. That's all I was referring to.

 

[Ernie S.]

The problem I have with Obama is he is giving that government more power, that makes him wrong. that doesn't make the companies that are cutting hours right, but it certainly deals with your claim that is solely their fault.

There are times when the government SHOULD step in and exert power. That happened in the 1960's with civil rights. It has happened numerous other times over the years. Our health care situation was in a horrible mess, left to the greedy devices of private industry. Maybe, just maybe, this is yet another time when an "exertion of government power" (as you would call it) is needed.

Our health care situation IS in a horrible mess. Worse now than in 2008 by leaps and bounds.

 

[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?

A defining characteristic of Liberals is their inability to anticipate the results of their well intentioned and often exuberant acts. And their emotional make up makes them disinclined to make the effort.

Look at this assessment of Liberal tendencies from the 1960's:

IRVING KRISTOL: If you had asked any liberal in 1960, we are going to pass these laws, these laws, these laws, and these laws, mentioning all the laws that in fact were passed in the 1960s and ‘70s, would you say crime will go up, drug addiction will go up, illegitimacy will go up, or will they get down?

Obviously, everyone would have said, they will get down.

And everyone would have been wrong.

Now, that’s not something that the liberals have been able to face up to. They’ve had their reforms, and they have led to consequences that they did not expect and they don’t know what to do about.

Silt 3.0: Baby It's Cold Outside (first half)

Liberals are very much like flighty women or high strung children.

They can't easily control their emotions and they can't think past tomorrow or be interested in doing so.

That is why I believe they are fundamentally, most of them, ill equipped to make important decisions for this country.

Thank you for your opinion. Want to here my opinion of conservatives? Greedy, self-serving, authoritarian bullies whose only desire is to acquire as much wealth as possible at the expense of those less fortunate than they. Their motto is: "Ive got mine - screw you." They are intolreant bigots whose secondary motto is: "If I don't like it, you can't have it."

Want more?

Now - do you accept my opinion about conservatives any more than I accept your opinion about liberals? Didn't think so. And for every opinionated statement you can put up by Irving Kristol or any other right-wing hack, I can match it with statements from Bill Maher, Al Franken or several dozen others.

See my point? I hope so.

 

[George Costanza]

The problem I have with Obama is he is giving that government more power, that makes him wrong. that doesn't make the companies that are cutting hours right, but it certainly deals with your claim that is solely their fault.

There are times when the government SHOULD step in and exert power. That happened in the 1960's with civil rights. It has happened numerous other times over the years. Our health care situation was in a horrible mess, left to the greedy devices of private industry. Maybe, just maybe, this is yet another time when an "exertion of government power" (as you would call it) is needed.

Our health care situation IS in a horrible mess. Worse now than in 2008 by leaps and bounds.

That all depends on how one views the health care situation, seems to me. I'm sure the Right thinks exactly that - that the health care situation is in a TERRIBLE mess, because they see where the wealth of the haves may have to be dipped into a bit for the benefit of the have-nots.

On the other hand, if you are a have-not, who has never been able to afford health insurance before, maybe you see the present situation as a pretty good deal.

 

[Andylusion]

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?

They did know about it. The major companies said openly they intended to do this.

The reason they didn't close this loop hole, is because the companies said that without it, they would simply cancel insurance all together, and pay the $96 dollar tax fee.

So either way, the results would be the same.

What people don't seem to grasp, is that companies do not have one penny that doesn't come from either lower wages, or higher prices.

When the government passes a law that drives up the cost of health care on a company like Applebees, they can't simply just increase their prices because other restaurants will not increase their prices, and then they lose customers and ultimately close. Then all those employees have no health insurance or a job at all.

So if the company must pay a higher cost for health insurance, and they can't increase their prices to customers to offset that, then the logical conclusion is that they have to drop insurance coverage. Either by reducing hours, thus avoiding the requirement, or simply not haven't insurance at all.

Say you wanted someone to mow your lawn, and a guy came and said he would mow your lawn for $30 a mow. You might do that. That is a reasonable amount.

Now say the government came along and said you have to pay that wage, but also pay a $70 health insurance program for lawn care people.

Now you have to pay $100 a mow. Would you do that? No you would not.

The only difference between you and the lawn mower guy, and you the customer and the Applebees employee, is that there is a this company between you and the employee.

But you are not going to pay $60 for a Applebees meal, just so the waiters can get a good insurance plan, anymore than you are going to pay the lawn mower guy $100 a mow, just so he can get a good health insurance plan.

The customers are not going to pay huge prices for basic meals, just because the government mandated health care coverage that is expensive.

Applebees knows this. That's why they are not going to pay it. So your grandson is screwed out of a decent job, thanks to bad government policy.

 

[Andylusion]

There are times when the government SHOULD step in and exert power. That happened in the 1960's with civil rights. It has happened numerous other times over the years. Our health care situation was in a horrible mess, left to the greedy devices of private industry. Maybe, just maybe, this is yet another time when an "exertion of government power" (as you would call it) is needed.

Our health care situation IS in a horrible mess. Worse now than in 2008 by leaps and bounds.

That all depends on how one views the health care situation, seems to me. I'm sure the Right thinks exactly that - that the health care situation is in a TERRIBLE mess, because they see where the wealth of the haves may have to be dipped into a bit for the benefit of the have-nots.

On the other hand, if you are a have-not, who has never been able to afford health insurance before, maybe you see the present situation as a pretty good deal.

But we already know that even those without any health insurance get good quality care.

Our survival rates are the highest of any country in the world, and that includes those "have nots" you refer too. I myself have gone to the hospital without insurance. They fixed me up just fine. Now I had a large bill, and I paid on it and paid on it, month after month, for over a year, and paid it off.

But the fact is, I got health care, with zero insurance. Most people without insurance still get care.

The problem with government taking over health insurance, is that right NOW.... as we speak, the private health care system, is subsidizing the cost of the public system.

A lot of people don't get this. Your insurance premiums, are subsidizing the cost of Medicare patients. Not just your medicare tax that you pay.

Medicare does not pay the full cost of health care. Hospital charge private patients high prices, to cover the loss of money to medicare patients.

When you look at your health insurance premium, what you are seeing is not just the cost of covering you, but also the cost of covering medicare and medicaid. You pay a higher price, so the medicare can pay a lower price.

Now if medicare covers everyone.... who pays the higher price? No one. So what happens then? You end up with health care rationing, like UK can Canada, where people wait years and year for basic surgeries. Where people die on waiting lists for life saving treatment.

Something has to ration care. I'd much rather get a large bill, and pay it off over time, than have rationed care, and end up waiting 36 hours in the ER, and die without ever seeing a doctor.

 

[Smilebong]

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

Why should I? If they are worth it, they get it.

Maybe you don't appreciate capitalism. Maybe you should move to Russia.

And they say that the Republican party is divisive - where did they EVER such an idea?

I was responding to your condescending "Sounds to me like..."

 

[Ernie S.]

There are times when the government SHOULD step in and exert power. That happened in the 1960's with civil rights. It has happened numerous other times over the years. Our health care situation was in a horrible mess, left to the greedy devices of private industry. Maybe, just maybe, this is yet another time when an "exertion of government power" (as you would call it) is needed.

Our health care situation IS in a horrible mess. Worse now than in 2008 by leaps and bounds.

That all depends on how one views the health care situation, seems to me. I'm sure the Right thinks exactly that - that the health care situation is in a TERRIBLE mess, because they see where the wealth of the haves may have to be dipped into a bit for the benefit of the have-nots.

On the other hand, if you are a have-not, who has never been able to afford health insurance before, maybe you see the present situation as a pretty good deal.

If you are a have not, that is your problem, not mine. The average taxpayer; the one footing the subsidies for "the have nots" has just barely enough to get by. Asking him to pay more to subsidize your health care is like asking him to pay 25% more for his Chevy so some uneducated, lazy, can't keep it in his pants, irresponsible idiot can afford a Buick.

Ya get what ya pay for, son. Yeah, I've heard the mantra that every American has a right to quality health care. What you don't understand is, every American has the right to keep and bear arms too, but people who don't want or need guns are not forced to subsidize my rather extensive collection of firearms.

Go ahead. Tell me how it's somehow "different".

 

[Grandma]

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.

Everyone knows what's really going on, Smilebong.

The average age of part-time employees is no longer 18, it's 35.

35-year-olds, most trying to support not only themselves but their families, and even extended families as well.

There simply aren't enough full-time living wage jobs to go around.

But the righties will keep denying this, sticking instead to their phony "lazy bum, welfare queen, young kid wanting handouts" fantasy.