Sep 29, 2013 at 6:12 pm #1308188
Anyone? Checked out the exchanges yet? Excited?Sep 29, 2013 at 8:01 pm #2029432
I'll take the fine most likely. Super stoked.
If you don't like Memes skip this thread.Sep 29, 2013 at 8:27 pm #2029438
My wife's employer recently sent out an "informal" directive to all managers to no longer schedule anyone for 30 or more hours per week and/or make sure nobody overstays a shift and breaks 30 hours so as to avoid having to provide health care under the new legislation. They will be making sure they don't exceed the 50 full-time employee threshold.
My wife won't be affected as she already works under 30, but many of her co-workers are getting hours cut and are facing the prospect of finding a second shift somewhere else. They're stoked.Sep 29, 2013 at 8:44 pm #2029442
My brother-in-law and his co-workers are experiencing what Craig described.
I truly hope that something will come from all this which will make health care affordable for all but I'm doubtful.Sep 29, 2013 at 8:48 pm #2029443
I can see a reduction in hours in my future.
I'm 46 and have been uninsured for the vast majority of my life. Sucks. But this is not the answer.Sep 29, 2013 at 9:18 pm #2029449
I'm signing up
Because of Oregon regulations, when I was layed off I was put in a pool that will be replaced by Obama-care
I suspect there will be little difference. Same insurance company. About the same cost.
I'm sure there will be lots of problems initially because health care is so complicated, but eventually it will be like Medicare – people gripe about it but they really holler if you threaten to take it away.
Health care has become so expensive that it is taking a significant share of the economy and dragging everything else down. Obama Care is far from perfect but it's what was possible given politics.
I can see why the Republicans are so desperate – if it gets implemented and the world doesn't quit spinning on it's axis like the Republicans claim, they'll be screwed.Sep 30, 2013 at 4:30 am #2029476
The 30 hour rule is the stupidest part of ACA.Sep 30, 2013 at 5:09 am #2029478
The 30 hour rule?Sep 30, 2013 at 5:37 am #2029482
@jenmitolLocale: In my dreams....
I'm signing up…and frankly, many of us here in the backpacking community should be stoked as well. I HATE that my insurance has to come from my job – and it's not like you aren't paying for it there, either. I paid $215 every 2 weeks for my crappy PPO coverage at my last job…but with my health and my age there is not an insurance company on the planet who would give me an individual policy. So guess what? I ALWAYS had to have a full time job in order to have health insurance. Always.
So now I can sign up for an affordable individual plan, the insurance company can't charge me more because of any perceived medical conditions, and I don't have to work full time if I don't want to. If I want to work a little here, then go and say, hike the PCT next year, I can…WITH insurance, so that if I break my ankle or something, YOUR tax dollars won't pay for my not buying a plan.
Seriously people…what's NOT to like?
If it's the mandate…well, if you don't have health insurance then you are relying on my tax dollars to take care of you if you are seriously injured (and yes, it happens ALL the time to people who least expect it).Sep 30, 2013 at 6:12 am #2029486
I think people will gripe even with a perfect solution. It will always rub some the wrong way.
It's going to be a change for sure. Businesses and individuals will have to adapt to new new ways of doing things and, like even social security, changes will be made to minimize the cracks.
My family will be moving to the USA within the next year or so. My wife has panic attacks (nearly always denied coverage) and I'm a stay at home dad. The ACA means we will have more reasonable options for insurance.Sep 30, 2013 at 6:32 am #2029489
the 30 hour rule will be interesting to see how it pans out. If, as a business, I limit the number of hours my employees work to 30 when I'm used to getting 35 out of them then I'll have to hire more employees to cover those lost hours. At what point is it more profitable to just ensure them?
It has been argued that reducing the work week to 30 hours would be profitable for the economy precisely because it would employ more people.Sep 30, 2013 at 6:46 am #2029490
"Seriously people…what's NOT to like? "
The ACA says that employers must provide health insurance for employees if they have 50 or more "full time" employees. They define "full time" as only 30 hours/week. So many businesses are trimming the hours of their employees so as to not have to deal with the financial and procedural complexities of providing health care.
So many people that were working, say, a 38 hour work week will see their hours cut back to 29.5….which would be the equivalent of losing a full day of work and pay per week. It has already happened to people I know.
Losing a shift and having to get a second job….If this is happening to you due to this legislation, that's what's NOT to like.
"If it's the mandate…well, if you don't have health insurance then you are relying on my tax dollars to take care of you if you are seriously injured (and yes, it happens ALL the time to people who least expect it)."
I love how the dynamic is to always pit citizens against each other.
With the myriad of screwed up ways the government completely wastes billions of taxpayer dollars…Corporate welfare? Foreign military and nation building escapades? Nope, get mad at the guy without insurance for wasting your money. Meh.
If ONLY my money cold be spent on people that need health care.Sep 30, 2013 at 8:18 am #2029517
"If it's the mandate…"
The mandate and the pre-existing conditions provision are to get everyone to be insured so my health care spending doesn't go to pay for other people that don't paySep 30, 2013 at 8:25 am #2029520
Health insurance is a relatively small part of the cost of hiring people.
If an employer just considers employees a line on a spreadsheet they won't get the most productivity out of them.
If an employer wants to entice good employees with good compensation, they'll get the best people who will be more productive. They will already be providing health insurance so Obama-care won't make any difference.
I think some people are saying they're employers and they're going to cut employee hours to less than 30 hours just as an emotional reaction to change.Sep 30, 2013 at 8:47 am #2029528
"I think some people are saying they're employers and they're going to cut employee hours to less than 30 hours just as an emotional reaction to change"
I think that making health care affordable for all people should be one of the highest priorities for our country. I also don't object to a hybrid system solution which involves both the public and private sector.
As far as the 30 hour rule goes, it's not a myth and it's not hyperbole. There are people, like my brother-in-law, who have already had their hours cut in anticipation of the ACA mandate.
That's $5000 a year for someone who was previously working a 40 hour week making $10 an hour. That's $5000 less (before taxes) to put food on the table, to buy school clothes for kids, and to pay health insurance premiums.
I think Jennifer touched on something that I agree with. A large problem with our health care systems is that it is mostly associated with our jobs.
It's a very complicated topic and as I said before, I'm doubtful ACA is the solution but I also hope I'm wrong.Sep 30, 2013 at 8:52 am #2029531
@kat_pLocale: Pacific Coast
"I think Jennifer touched on something that I agree with. A large problem with our health care systems is that it is mostly associated with our jobs. "
+1.Sep 30, 2013 at 9:19 am #2029547
Well, first, OP = troll, bringing up an issue like this in a BP forum. :)
Second, this is a false argument:
"With the myriad of screwed up ways the government completely wastes billions of taxpayer dollars…Corporate welfare? Foreign military and nation building escapades? Nope, get mad at the guy without insurance for wasting your money."
Just because we end up paying for other questionable stuff does not mean that we don't pay significant costs to cover the uninsured. Because we do- COBRA and all that- and it will be nice to do something about it. We ALREADY have universal healthcare in the US- it's just a damned inefficient and somewhat callous form. Ultimately, this is more money out of everyone's pockets, thus reducing our true wages. So why not be up front about it? Put it out in the open where we can count dollars?
So, since I am unwilling to support turning life-threateningly sick people out of ERs and onto the streets to die then I sort of have to support mandatory healthcare insurance, because it is fiscally responsible. (And I'm a conservative at heart.) Costs will actually probably go down as people get more preventative care. Well, assuming that the insurance companies don't just suck that up as extra profit- which we need to take steps to prevent.
In the long run, it will all level out. I will pay less for other people's healthcare, and this will become just another cost of doing business. Ultimately, insurance is just part of pay, so avoiding the ACA is merely a scam to pay your employees a substandard wage. "MY GOD if we have mandatory healthcare coverage the ECONOMY will COLLAPSE!" Get real. Most of the first world has some sort of mandatory healthcare coverage and they somehow manage. So, I agree that cutting employee hours is scare-mongering. If someone wants to purposefully limit his company's growth no higher than 50 employees who all work less than 30-hours, let them. They are a fool. Decent employees will flee, and he will start having to hire seasonal or lower-skilled and unmotivated high-school students or something, then incur costs with high employee turnover, etc. I laugh at him.
Could the ACA have been written better? Absolutely. But this was the political reality. The holes can be patched as we gain experience with it.
I'm a right-of-center moderate, but I have to admit that the ridiculous Republican scare-mongering and generally petulant attitude (shutdown?!?) over this has put me off. And I will vote accordingly. IMO the Republicans have been systematically alienating the moderates in the country for the past decade. All that they have left are the radical wingnuts. There is no longer any such thing as a "moderate Republican" in the House, and only one or MAYBE two in the Senate.
EDIT— Hey, what's the temp in hell, today? Because I am finding myself agreeing with Jerry and the other uber-pinkos on something! Who woulda thunk it? :)Sep 30, 2013 at 9:41 am #2029552
I have a hard time sympathizing with employers who use ethically questionable employment tactics just to bump their bottom line. I have great sympathy for those employees who, for their own reasons, have to put up with these practices.Sep 30, 2013 at 9:50 am #2029559
"I'm a right-of-center moderate, but I have to admit that the ridiculous Republican scare-mongering and generally petulant attitude (shutdown?!?) over this has put me off. And I will vote accordingly."
I'm in the same boat. Fiscally conservative/independent but casting more of my votes to the DNC and third parties every year.
Unfortunately in this case, a broken clock is right twice every day and there is some truthiness to a few of the GOP arguments. My observations of my brother-in-law’s predicament are anecdotal but I'm inclined to believe that he's not alone.Sep 30, 2013 at 9:55 am #2029562
"Truthiness" is a good word- hopefully you understand what you just said, because that would be quite droll. :)
"Truthiness is a quality characterizing a "truth" that a person making an argument or assertion claims to know intuitively "from the gut" or because it "feels right" without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts."
That final phrase is the relevant one, here, and the scare quotes around "truth" are important. The only reason that any of the Republicans' predictions are coming true is because they are MAKING them come true- e.g. the employers cutting hours and total employees, etc. Not to mention, it's a pretty bald attempt to coerce employee voting by doing this and then sending emails saying "this is all because of Obamacare!" There were many news stories during the initial debate over the ACA of unscrupulous employers telling employees that they would be fired or their hours cut if it passed, and this is more of the same. And as an American I find it repugnant.
And if there is any justice in the world, the labor market will punish them.
I just wish the Republicans could actually be conservatives again, instead of… whatever the hell they are now. "The Big Corporation Party?" What?Sep 30, 2013 at 10:01 am #2029565
"I just wish the Republicans could actually be conservatives again, instead of… whatever the hell they are now. "The Big Corporation Party?" What?"
Democrats are also the Big Corporation party
we're screwed until we get rid of legalized bribes to politicians, and it'll be hard to do this because any politician that pushes this won't get re-electedSep 30, 2013 at 10:05 am #2029566
"As far as the 30 hour rule goes, it's not a myth and it's not hyperbole. There are people, like my brother-in-law, who have already had their hours cut in anticipation of the ACA mandate."
Since Obama-care hasn't taken effect yet, anyone that says they've cut people to less than 30 hours is just mything and hyperbolizing : )
Wait a year and then do a statistical analysis, not anecdotesSep 30, 2013 at 10:07 am #2029569
What the hell, Jerry? Twice in one day? Didn't I once post a huge rant in chaff about the initiative to amend the Constitution to declare that money is not free speech?
Citizens United v FEC was the worst Supreme Court decision since… hell, Plessy v Fergusun? Maybe I can bump it up to 1944: Korematsu v U.S.
Maybe that's my problem- I'm a conservative but not a corporatist, so I don't fit in anywhere. When forced to, I've occasionally described myself as a "Schwartzenegger Republican"- meaning very green, with somewhat of a libertarian streak on social issues, but fiscally conservative. It's that last- coupled with a sense of compassion that prevents me from just letting people suffer and die en mass- that bring me to support some form of universal healthcare coverage. But I admit, I have my issues with ACA. Current plan = far from perfect.Sep 30, 2013 at 10:21 am #2029574
There was a news story about Trader Joe's regarding part time employees.
And now for an anecdotal story. I have heard no one in GOP controlled congressional districts is going to sign up for ACA.Sep 30, 2013 at 10:29 am #2029576
> But I admit, I have my issues with ACA. Current plan = far from perfect.
It think it's the beauty of a democracy that the plan does not need to be perfect. It will be worked on, degraded and improved by future generations responding to whatever their needs are then. For now this is what we've got. It's a whole lot better than what was. If nothing else, it's an honest attempt to address a serious problem… that's more than has ever been done before.
Considering how difficult it is to address such far-reaching and important issues (think education) I say that we've got to give this idea a chance to play itself out.
> And now for an anecdotal story. I have heard no one in GOP controlled
> congressional districts is going to sign up for ACA.
Maybe with the monies levied from penalties there should be a Fed Owned Insurance Company to provide insurance for those who refused to buy it. That would REALLy piss them off. :D
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.