Republicans "fix" Obamacare

[rightwinger]

Somehow Democrats want to keep working folks limited to just 30
hours? Denying them the ability to earn enough to live on?

Who is limiting workers to 30 hours?
Democrats or employers trying to duck providing healthcare?

 

[RKMBrown]

Somehow Democrats want to keep working folks limited to just 30
hours? Denying them the ability to earn enough to live on?

Who is limiting workers to 30 hours?
Democrats or employers trying to duck providing healthcare?

Democrats.

 

[SwimExpert]

I'm sure you didn't even bother to read the link I posted that had the links did you?
God I can't stand lazy people.
ACA state exchanges
Survey of Non-Group Health Insurance Enrollees The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation
You have had two graphs supplied to you by reputable resources and you are still in denial and now you have two links. I'll put money on it that you will still be sucking in opinionated talking points and stand by them over the real world.

Nothing in any of your links supports any assertion about health care costs going down, or Obamacare in any way accomplishing anything to eliminate the rising costs of health care.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Why don't you morons want workers to have the option of working up to 40 hours a week? Why do you morons want corporations to send them home at 30 hours?

Because they're liberal morons.

 

[hadit]

In the Republican version of Obamacare, any company that cuts their full time employees one hour a week doesn't have to pay healthcare

Quite a loophole

Under obamanationcare, those full time employees (which did not have employer provided health insurance to start with) would face sharp reductions in the amount of hours they could work and thus what they would get paid. Do understand this?

Before obamanationcare:

No employer paid health insurance, 40 hours/week work.

After obamanationcare:

No employer paid health insurance, 29 hours/week work.

After first fix to obamanationcare:

No employer paid health insurance, 39 hours/week work.

I don't know about you, but as a worker I would prefer doing away with obamanationcare, but if I can't have that, I'll take the fix.

Cutting employees 11 hours a week places a burden on the employer. He must now hire 25% more workers and juggle his time schedule to provide full coverage of the workweek. What has been shown so far is that most employers have not done this

By allowing employers to just cut 40 hr/week employees by just an hour, Republicans are providing a loophole where nobody has to provide health insurance

And lay off workers or force them under 30 hours/week. You can't just slam employers with a massive increase in the cost of employment and expect nothing to happen.

 

[hadit]

By allowing employers to just cut 40 hr/week employees by just an hour, Republicans are providing a loophole where nobody has to provide health insurance

Which makes it very likely to be vetoed by the President, if it ever makes it to his desk.

Yeah there's no way democrats will let people work more hours. Those democrats are bastards that want to see kids going hungry.

There is no way the Democrats will let Republicans try to cheat Americans out of health insurance.

The 40 hour redefinition is an attempt to circumvent the employer mandate. It would have the same effect as eliminating the employer mandate, and so it will be vetoed if it makes it as far as Obama's desk.

And Obama will rightly be cast as forcing workers under 30 hours/week.

 

[hazlnut]

Here are the FACTS folks:

However, official data maintained by the Bureau of Labor Statistics finds that there has actually been no shift toward greater part-time work. In fact, the data showspart-time employment spiked with the recession, and has been decreasing since passage of Obamacare in 2010.

In addition, Democrats were quick to note that the official nonpartisan analyst for the House, the Congressional Budget Office, warned as recently as Wednesday that the measure was likely to create even more part-time workers. That's because vastly more Americans work 40-hour weeks than 30-hour weeks, and employers would have a greater incentive to reduce their hours if the threshold was 40 per week. The change would end up forcing some 1 million people off employer-backed health insurance, add up to 1 million people to government-backed insurance, and cause 500,000 to lose health insurance altogether, according to the CBO. The change would also add $53.2 billion to the deficit over 10 years, the CBO found. The GOP bill proposed no way to pay for that added expense.



In other words - the reason for the bill is false and the bill, if it becomes law will have the opposite effect, hurting American workers.

Well done House GOP !!!

 

[Siete]

Here are the FACTS folks:

However, official data maintained by the Bureau of Labor Statistics finds that there has actually been no shift toward greater part-time work. In fact, the data showspart-time employment spiked with the recession, and has been decreasing since passage of Obamacare in 2010.

In addition, Democrats were quick to note that the official nonpartisan analyst for the House, the Congressional Budget Office, warned as recently as Wednesday that the measure was likely to create even more part-time workers. That's because vastly more Americans work 40-hour weeks than 30-hour weeks, and employers would have a greater incentive to reduce their hours if the threshold was 40 per week. The change would end up forcing some 1 million people off employer-backed health insurance, add up to 1 million people to government-backed insurance, and cause 500,000 to lose health insurance altogether, according to the CBO. The change would also add $53.2 billion to the deficit over 10 years, the CBO found. The GOP bill proposed no way to pay for that added expense.



In other words - the reason for the bill is false and the bill, if it becomes law will have the opposite effect, hurting American workers.

Well done House GOP !!!

the RW idiots still won't understand it ... Republicans want to cut hours just to hurt Obamacare and the POTUS will likely veto their attempt ... you simply cant get that fact through their thick, simple-minded skulls. NOTHING effects their little world, EVER.

 

[SwimExpert]

Here are the FACTS folks:

]However, official data maintained by the Bureau of Labor Statistics finds that there has actually been no shift toward greater part-time work. In fact, the data showspart-time employment spiked with the recession, and has been decreasing since passage of Obamacare in 2010.

In addition, Democrats were quick to note that the official nonpartisan analyst for the House, the Congressional Budget Office, warned as recently as Wednesday that the measure was likely to create even more part-time workers. That's because vastly more Americans work 40-hour weeks than 30-hour weeks, and employers would have a greater incentive to reduce their hours if the threshold was 40 per week. The change would end up forcing some 1 million people off employer-backed health insurance, add up to 1 million people to government-backed insurance, and cause 500,000 to lose health insurance altogether, according to the CBO. The change would also add $53.2 billion to the deficit over 10 years, the CBO found. The GOP bill proposed no way to pay for that added expense.



In other words - the reason for the bill is false and the bill, if it becomes law will have the opposite effect, hurting American workers.

Well done House GOP !!!

Reminds me of how Bush "created" millions of manufacturing jobs by redefining a fast food worker "assembling" a burger as a manufacturing occupation. It's very easy to "reduce" the number of "part time" positions 30 hrs a week is reclassified as "full time."

 

[rightwinger]

In the Republican version of Obamacare, any company that cuts their full time employees one hour a week doesn't have to pay healthcare

Quite a loophole

Under obamanationcare, those full time employees (which did not have employer provided health insurance to start with) would face sharp reductions in the amount of hours they could work and thus what they would get paid. Do understand this?

Before obamanationcare:

No employer paid health insurance, 40 hours/week work.

After obamanationcare:

No employer paid health insurance, 29 hours/week work.

After first fix to obamanationcare:

No employer paid health insurance, 39 hours/week work.

I don't know about you, but as a worker I would prefer doing away with obamanationcare, but if I can't have that, I'll take the fix.

Cutting employees 11 hours a week places a burden on the employer. He must now hire 25% more workers and juggle his time schedule to provide full coverage of the workweek. What has been shown so far is that most employers have not done this

By allowing employers to just cut 40 hr/week employees by just an hour, Republicans are providing a loophole where nobody has to provide health insurance

And lay off workers or force them under 30 hours/week. You can't just slam employers with a massive increase in the cost of employment and expect nothing to happen.

If that were the case, you would expect the number of part time employees to have skyrocketed in the last two years

In fact, that number has gone down

 

[g5000]

Hack media outlets depend on their rubes blindly parroting bullshit claims like how health care costs have "skyrocketed" since ObamaCare was passed, because they know it takes more work to debunk a claim than it does to just spew one out of your ass.

Is this the argument, that the cost of healthcare skyrocketed because not everyone had healthcare insurance?

What time period are you speaking of? And we should avoid the use of "skyrocketed". It's bogus.

If you are speaking about the per capita cost of health care prior to ObamaCare, and the fact that it was outpacing inflation for decades, the reasons for that are many. Too many fools try to pin blame for our incredibly complex system on this one thing or that one thing. It was a combination of many things.

 

[g5000]

Somehow Democrats want to keep working folks limited to just 30
hours? Denying them the ability to earn enough to live on?

Who is limiting workers to 30 hours?
Democrats or employers trying to duck providing healthcare?

For an employer, adding a health insurance benefit is very costly. If an employer cannot afford that cost, are they really a rat bastard for trying to find ways out of having to eat it?

They may be faced with only two choices. Go out of business and everyone loses their jobs, or cut back the hours to avoid the cost they cannot afford.

 

[Freewill]

Hack media outlets depend on their rubes blindly parroting bullshit claims like how health care costs have "skyrocketed" since ObamaCare was passed, because they know it takes more work to debunk a claim than it does to just spew one out of your ass.

Is this the argument, that the cost of healthcare skyrocketed because not everyone had healthcare insurance?

What time period are you speaking of? And we should avoid the use of "skyrocketed". It's bogus.

If you are speaking about the per capita cost of health care prior to ObamaCare, and the fact that it was outpacing inflation for decades, the reasons for that are many. Too many fools try to pin blame for our incredibly complex system on this one thing or that one thing. It was a combination of many things.

Ok, skyrocket or outpacing inflation big dif. No, what is the reasoning for, simply stated, and what did Obamacare do to contain cost, other then arbitrarily dropping medicare and medicaid payments?

 

[Freewill]

Here are the FACTS folks:

However, official data maintained by the Bureau of Labor Statistics finds that there has actually been no shift toward greater part-time work. In fact, the data showspart-time employment spiked with the recession, and has been decreasing since passage of Obamacare in 2010.

In addition, Democrats were quick to note that the official nonpartisan analyst for the House, the Congressional Budget Office, warned as recently as Wednesday that the measure was likely to create even more part-time workers. That's because vastly more Americans work 40-hour weeks than 30-hour weeks, and employers would have a greater incentive to reduce their hours if the threshold was 40 per week. The change would end up forcing some 1 million people off employer-backed health insurance, add up to 1 million people to government-backed insurance, and cause 500,000 to lose health insurance altogether, according to the CBO. The change would also add $53.2 billion to the deficit over 10 years, the CBO found. The GOP bill proposed no way to pay for that added expense.



In other words - the reason for the bill is false and the bill, if it becomes law will have the opposite effect, hurting American workers.

Well done House GOP !!!

The effects have only kicked in 8 days ago, give it time.

 

[g5000]

Hack media outlets depend on their rubes blindly parroting bullshit claims like how health care costs have "skyrocketed" since ObamaCare was passed, because they know it takes more work to debunk a claim than it does to just spew one out of your ass.

Is this the argument, that the cost of healthcare skyrocketed because not everyone had healthcare insurance?

What time period are you speaking of? And we should avoid the use of "skyrocketed". It's bogus.

If you are speaking about the per capita cost of health care prior to ObamaCare, and the fact that it was outpacing inflation for decades, the reasons for that are many. Too many fools try to pin blame for our incredibly complex system on this one thing or that one thing. It was a combination of many things.

Ok, skyrocket or outpacing inflation big dif. No, what is the reasoning for, simply stated, and what did Obamacare do to contain cost, other then arbitrarily dropping medicare and medicaid payments?

ObamaCare did not drop Medicare or Medicaid payments. In fact, Medicaid was greatly expanded. There was a cut to Medicare Advantage to pay for an expansion of regular Medicare.

I personally don't believe ObamaCare did anything to contain costs. ObamaCare actually more deeply embedded one of the very things which bends the cost curve up: employer-sponsored health insurance. He did this because he is in the pocket of labor unions and that benefit is a big union boondoggle. It was this very thing which told me ObamaCare had nothing to do with making health care cheaper.

The whole thing was a bait-and-switch con job.

 

[kiwiman127]

I'm sure you didn't even bother to read the link I posted that had the links did you?
God I can't stand lazy people.
ACA state exchanges
Survey of Non-Group Health Insurance Enrollees The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation
You have had two graphs supplied to you by reputable resources and you are still in denial and now you have two links. I'll put money on it that you will still be sucking in opinionated talking points and stand by them over the real world.

Nothing in any of your links supports any assertion about health care costs going down, or Obamacare in any way accomplishing anything to eliminate the rising costs of health care.

Oh, another link I forgot.
EHBS 2014 8211 Section One Cost of Health Insurance 8211 8625 The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation
Now compare the numbers to the chart posted earlier.
Secondly, I never said the rates went down, I said they hadn't grown as quickly, actually I haven't seen anyone make the claim that "health care costs going down, or Obamacare in any way accomplishing anything to eliminate the rising costs of health care."
I want to remind you that I am no fan of Obamacare because of the mandate, which I have been saying since the get-go. I just get sick of the exaggerations and the desire to stay with the status quo, that plays right into the most expensive healthcare system in the world's hands.
A huge majority of economists say the the US can't sustained the cost growth of healthcare. But let's keep the status quo anyway, right?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I personally don't believe ObamaCare did anything to contain costs. .

1) he put 12 million on Medicaid which should increase costs since 12 million people will now use ER's and private MD's more

2) Exchange policies seem to come with $5000 deductibles so that will lower costs a great deal it seems

3) THere are now many incentives for providers to reduce costs by reducing readmissions, for example so that should help.

4) probably companies will eliminate their low deductible plans and cadilliac plans pushing people onto high deductible exchanges. That should reduce costs.

But, simply switching to capitalism would reduce costs by 80% and add 10--20 years to our life spans so that is the way to go.

 

[rightwinger]

Somehow Democrats want to keep working folks limited to just 30
hours? Denying them the ability to earn enough to live on?

Who is limiting workers to 30 hours?
Democrats or employers trying to duck providing healthcare?

For an employer, adding a health insurance benefit is very costly. If an employer cannot afford that cost, are they really a rat bastard for trying to find ways out of having to eat it?

They may be faced with only two choices. Go out of business and everyone loses their jobs, or cut back the hours to avoid the cost they cannot afford.

Imagine if we had universal healthcare? No employer would be stuck with the burden of their employees health

But that would be........SOCIALISM

 

[g5000]

Somehow Democrats want to keep working folks limited to just 30
hours? Denying them the ability to earn enough to live on?

Who is limiting workers to 30 hours?
Democrats or employers trying to duck providing healthcare?

For an employer, adding a health insurance benefit is very costly. If an employer cannot afford that cost, are they really a rat bastard for trying to find ways out of having to eat it?

They may be faced with only two choices. Go out of business and everyone loses their jobs, or cut back the hours to avoid the cost they cannot afford.

Imagine if we had universal healthcare? No employer would be stuck with the burden of their employees health

But that would be........SOCIALISM

Yep. Which is why it is called socialized medicine.

And the fact is that taxpayers would be stuck with the burden. Health care does not magically become free just because someone else is paying your bill.

 

[regent]

Republicans now have a problem: carrying out their programs to disable Social Security, Obama-Care and other social programs, and risk future voter backlash or make excuses that Obama would veto or what? Be interesting to see how they handle it.

You people always make so much shit that isn't true?

If you had used terms such as improve you might have something,other than that it is the same old evil repubs want to push granny off the clif,your all so child like.

"Improve" is in the eyes of the beholder.