Another Industry Employees fall prey to Affordable Care Act.

For every business that does that, two will be hiring full-time employees thanks to the stimulus and other Obama policies that avoided another grand depression.

You're arguing people will be losing jobs. I'm arguing that people will be gaining jobs in aggregate.

I also find your argument beside the point in the first place---this fixation on jobs for a policy that saves taxpayer money, lives, and fixes many issues in insurance markets is not about jobs. Don't fixate on one cost. Look at the policy as a whole.

Are the 45,000 lives saved a year worth the jobs shed that will be re-gained elsewhere? Start there.

 

Who paid for their health insurance before? The Easter Bunny? I don't think you really understand why this is all happening.

 

I think he's saying that a significant number of people will be losing clock hours on the job in order to "lose" the full-time employment status which compels companies to provide healthcare.

On top of that, they pick up a new monthly bill-- the full price of their health insurance.

I heard a report on this kind of event just this week: my wife's niece's husband is an Assistant Manager at a local chain restaurant. They are going to cut back the hours of ~50 workers so that those workers will drop below the 30-hour standard of full-time employment, thus dodging the requirement to provide group health insurance. Then the restaurant is going to hire something like 20 new part-timers to fill the gaps in the work load.

Is that Job Creation or Income Reduction or both Is the net result better or worse?

 

The taxes that everyone has to pay. The only way it works is in the aggregate when EVERYONE pays, you should know that, but you prefer to debate straw men than engage in honest debate.

 

Tax cuts have resulted in massive deficits and debts. It is far past time to raise those taxes back to sustainable levels so that we can continue to fulfill the American Dream for future generations. The Greatest Generation sacrificed to make that dream available to all Americans, but today's greedy generation just wants to get theirs.

I know which path is nobler, why don't you?

 

wrong. a ****ty economy and unchecked spending has resulted in a massive deficit and debt. You also failed to address anything I wrote, not sure why you quoted me.

First it was we must take more peoples' money to stay 'civilized' and now it's we must take more peoples' money to 'continue to fulfill the American Dream'. Good god man, you aren't on camera. Take your trite, meaningless, bull**** somewhere else.

 

Adjunct faculty should not be working hours approaching full time faculty since by definition they are adjunct to the primary staff. The university cutting back on their hours is what they should've been doing all along.

This is a problem though with the dependence on adjunct faculty in schools. I volunteer to teach martial arts at the U of MN and have also been brought in at times to help in architecture classes all without compensation. I do it because I believe in improving society but it is an example of how poorly funded public education is that they have to rely on underpaid or even free faculty.

 

I recall that some of these people arguing about hypocrisy regarding voluntarily paying more in taxes were the same people who were supporting the invasion and occupation of Iraq yet weren't willing to voluntarily serve in the military.

 

This is the most important thing to remember and why even though I am not happy with Obamacare I think it is a step in the right direction. Ultimately I think we need someway of separating health insurance from employment whether this is through a public option or single payer.

 

I'm confused why this is any different from the situation before Obamacare.

 

I quoted you because you called my previous comment "meaningless."

I'm sorry you have bought the BS, but tax cuts are a MUCH larger component of the current deficits and debt than spending increases. I completely agree with you about the ****ty economy, but it has been tax cuts, going back to Reagan, that have brought us close to historically high Debt/GDP levels.

It isn't trite, nor is it meaningless. The only bull**** being spewed here is your endless echoes of inaccurate garbage.

Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society and at one time, taxes also assured that everyone in this country had a better shot at success than they do currently. Tax cuts have resulted in great riches for a few and stagnant wages for everyone else along with lower income mobility than most other industrialized nations.

Greed is destroying our country and the greediest are those calling for ever more tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy on top of the already historically low levels of taxation currently enjoyed by those same people.

 

I know, funny how that works, eh?

 

And they will hire new people, helping reduce unemployment.

These are people who had no health insurance before, and will now get a subsidy to help them buy their health insurance. So they are effectively getting a raise, but just being required to spend that extra money on health insurance. Given that it's shown that virtually everyone WANTS health insurance but simply can't access it, it seems like most people will be happy to have that extra money and access.

Notice it's always the businesses complaining - never the employees.

 

Exposure=marketing

 

Your comment was meaningless and you did nothing to address that fact. Your 'price of being civilized' addresses neither the amount of taxation or what taxes should be used for, making it irrelevant unless you are discussing an issue where such things don't matter (you aren't. you are debating the tax rate).

It is meaningless because again you ignore tax rate and the spending of such taxes (nobody on this board argues we don't need taxes). Your are simply muttering platitudes.

Ok; then lets all pay 100% of our earnings to the federal government and get really civilized.... See how silly it is to not mention tax rate? You know; the issue you are debating.

 

Exactly. As the article stated, they have been employing more and more temps for the past 30 years. Obamacare was just the lastest excuse.

Business have ALWAYS tried to find ways to skirt full time employees.

If this turns into some huge issue with previously unforeseen consequences, then America will tweak the law. Nobody ever expected this thing (or any new law for that matter) to be perfect the first time.

 

The potential workforce is decreasing, which should trigger recovery for those currently looking... but those who are leaving the work force must till come up with medical insurance for the individual mandate. Even with subsidies millions won't be able to afford the individual mandate.

They didn't have insurance, and they don't have insurance now... and they'll be fined if they don't get insurance now working on less hours.

Even with a subsidy these people will not be able to afford it. The businesses complain because they write the checks.

 

This is an example of why Obamacare must be just a temporary reprieve for the anachronistic private insurance middle men who add no value, just rake off their cut of health care dollars.

Twenty years ago a friend told me that his sister moved to Hawaii that required certain employers to provide health insurance if a person worked over 15 hrs. His sister a newcomer without connections had to make due with three 15 hr
jobs to support herself.

 

Very true on businesses using this tactic in the past, but now it will just affect more workers. Coming from working in IT my entire career I've worked most of my career as a contractor, without benefits. This is going to hurt a lot of people like I used to be who have their contractor hours cut down so the contracting companies don't have to pay for their health insurance.

You can't really tweak the law, because you can't force a company to make someone work more hours.

 

That depends on who is leaving the workforce. If young able bodied people are then that is a problem. If it is older people retiring anyway then they are covered already under Medicare.

The one thing you don't answer here is how do these people get insurance. I agree that the individual mandate is a problem. What is worse was the situation prior to it where people without insurance could still get emergency medical care, which is the most expensive medical care out there, without having to pay for it.