Obamacare Architect Was Right: ‘Stupid’ American Voters ‘Don’t Care About The Uninsured’
Romneycare/Obamacare architect and MIT Economics Professor Jonathan Gruber is back in the right-wing crosshairs over another recently-surfaced comment he made about the relative intelligence of the American voter, this time at a Washington University talk in St. Louis on October 4, 2013. Just yesterday morning, Gruber was apologizing for remarks he made in 2012 about the “stupidity of the American voter,” when video surfaced of Gruber explaining how the Affordable Care Act’s “Cadillac Tax” got passed. Instead of taxing individual employees’ health plans, a staffer for then-Senator John Kerry suggested taxing the companies instead:
“We said ‘Well, that’s pretty much the same thing, why does it matter?’ He said ‘You’ll see!’ And they proposed it, and that passed, because the American voter is too stupid to understand the difference.”
That quote is actually part of a longer story which, if smart guys being dicks about being smart is your thing, is worth checking out. Personally, I have no problem with the notion that the average American voter is not as smart as an MIT professor, but like “racist” and “immigration reform,” the word “stupid” is a red cape for right-wingers. In the larger context, Gruber smugly talks about how the groups he usually talks to aren’t “as intelligent” as this college crowd, and recounts a conversation with one such dullard…READ MORE
Copyright 2014 Liberaland
By: Tommy Christopher
Tommy Christopher is The Daily Banter's White House Correspondent and Political Analyst. He's been a political reporter and liberal commentator since 2007, and has covered the White House since the beginning of the Obama administration, first for PoliticsDaily, and then for Mediaite. Christopher is a frequent guest on a variety of television, radio, and online programs, and was the villain in the documentaries The Audacity of Democracy and Hating Breitbart. He's also That Guy Who Live-Tweeted His Own Heart Attack, and the only person to have ever received public apologies from both Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.
402 responses to Obamacare Architect Was Right: ‘Stupid’ American Voters ‘Don’t Care About The Uninsured’
« Previous 1 2Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
JoeTheConstitutionalist November 12th, 2014 at 22:13
Question 2: Why would OBAMACARE make it ILLEGAL (YES ILLEGAL) for employers to provide healthcare coverage to part-time employees??? Why in Gods Name would you do that?
arc99 November 12th, 2014 at 22:38
It is not illegal to provide health insurance to part time employees.
Why in gods name do you come to this forum propagating a ridiculous lie?
I would also ask why in gods name should anyone believe your unsubstantiated rants when the facts which clearly contradict your opinions are readily available.
http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20140619/NEWS/306199964
Reform Update: Nearly 60% of ACA enrollees had been uninsured, Kaiser survey finds
JoeTheConstitutionalist November 12th, 2014 at 23:00
ARC99 you need to get your facts straight…but of coursel, like I said, I expected more bulls–T from people like yourself. OK…let me play your game. Why did companies like JetBlue, WalMart, Target, and many many others discontinue healthcare for their part-time employees in 2014? Can you explain that?
arc99 November 12th, 2014 at 23:07
Clearly, you are the master of bullsh*t in this country as you still make a bunch of hysterical claims without a shred of factual information to back it up.
I am not playing any game. You made a claim about the number of previously uninsured now covered under the ACA. I provided a reference to support my opinion that your claim is false.
I am not a spokesman for JetBlue, WalMart, Target or any other company. Ask them about their employee health insurance programs.
Please cite the specific section/paragraph# of the ACA making it “illegal” to provide health insurance to part time workers. You, with the delusional fiction about it being illegal to provide insurance to part time workers, accuse me of bullsh*t
JoeTheConstitutionalist November 13th, 2014 at 00:01
Yes, I stand corrected. It is not illegal ….but with the passing of the ACA, healthcare costs have skyrocketed for the Part-time employee and those employers that want to cover them. Net-Net the outcome is the same. People cant afford their healthcare and good, hardworking people are hurt.
Margie Bateman Osgood November 13th, 2014 at 00:21
Two of my cousins were uninsured and are now paying a monthly, affordable premium, 200 bucks a piece. I am one of the uninsured in a state that did not expand Medicaid, therefore I am ineligible for any help and the full price quote was over 800 dollars for me, more than my house payment. I had to choose and since my state did not expand, I will not be penalized for not having insurance
Obewon November 13th, 2014 at 00:21
The only cheaper HC premiums were ‘Junk policies’ sold by scam artists providing very little if any HC and easily ‘capped’ leaving you uninsured. I have a Divers Alert Network (DAN) SCUBA diving HC plan for $30 per year! Free Jet back to the USA included!
Spirit of America November 12th, 2014 at 23:15
So far, I’m finding walmart dropped insurance on about 30,000+ part-time workers due to cost, not because it is illegal to give it to them.
JoeTheConstitutionalist November 12th, 2014 at 23:20
Yes, I stand corrected. It is NOT ILLEGAL. However, the issues around Part time employees receiving healthcare or now NOT receiving healthcare revolve around the sky-rocketing cost of healthcare. Please explain how the ACA has HELPED these people as these costs increases were put in place because of the ACA?
Spirit of America November 12th, 2014 at 23:26
It is/has helped some, there is no doubt about that. It is/has hurt some, there is no doubt there, either. There are some things that are out right wrong about it, and there are some very good components about it.
Muddling facts about it(such as something being illegal or not, and you did correct yourself, thank you) doesn’t help the discussion.
For me, part of the debate should center around does it do more harm or more good.
JoeTheConstitutionalist November 12th, 2014 at 23:43
SoA….I agree with you…on all counts. This is the first really OBJECTIVE thing I have seen on this site since I started reading. I too am looking for the answer to this question. As of now, I see only people paying more, people who were covered either being dropped or having to change their Dr’s….and a number of other issues which we can discuss. That said, I am open to seeing the GOOD it has done.
Spirit of America November 12th, 2014 at 23:46
Well, on its surface, 6mil newly insured people(according to acr99’s link) would be a good thing, on its surface, no? Especially if you are one of those 6mil. Just that fact standing on its own, good or bad in your eyes?
JoeTheConstitutionalist November 12th, 2014 at 23:56
SoA, according to the website http://obamacarefacts.com/ currently there are:
• 8 million Americans enrolled in a marketplace plan during openenrollment 2014 according to HHS.
• Of the 8 million about 7.2 million are expected to have paid their first months premium.
and, if i am reading the info on the website that was provided by ARC99 correctly, 60% of those signed up were uninsured. So that would mean only 4.6M were uninsured ….not 6M…or do I have my facts wrong? Or my math? However, 4.6M newly insured folk is a great stat…but at what cost?
Spirit of America November 13th, 2014 at 00:05
Lets call it 5.3 just for the he|| of it…
“at what cost” now becomes the crux of the topic/discussion. I honestly don’t know that yet…
If aca brought about a good thing(5.3mil), how many had to drop doctors/plans they liked because of aca, how many are paying more than just for them, how many got dropped down to 30 hours from 40…
I honestly haven’t tabulated those yet(started, but finding it hard to get real/honest data on that), so I can’t say if the cost or the benefit is the higher of the two.
Not to mention, there are still things that are yet to ‘come on line’ sort of speaking, and will those help or hurt even more people?
bbiaw, I need some Laphroaig….
JoeTheConstitutionalist November 13th, 2014 at 00:16
I agree with you again. That is why I am searching for answers. I appreciate and respect your outlook and opinion. I too need to see/understand what the other “still to comes’ look like and what impact they have. The issue here, in this thread is this: Did Mr. Gruber take liberties and make statements that are improper, inaccurate and inflammatory. Moreover, to me anyway, did he have the RIGHT to make the assumptions, put together the information and pass it along the way he did, in the deceptive way he did it? And if he did NEED to do this, why is that if the ACA is such a great thing? Anyway, enjoy your nightcap! Pleasure chatting….
Spirit of America November 13th, 2014 at 04:29
I did indeed enjoy the night cap & chat, thank you kindly.
As to the topic, No, he/they did not have any right to engage in deceit or deception, and I do believe they did.
“That was sometimes a misleading motivator for the Affordable Care Act. The law isn’t designed to save money.”
&
“I think what’s important to remember politically about this, is if
you’re a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your
citizens don’t get their tax credits. But your citizens still pay the
taxes that support this bill. So you’re essentially saying to your
citizens, you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states
in the country. I hope that’s a blatant enough political reality that
states will get their act together and realize there are billions of
dollars at stake here in setting up these Exchanges, and that they’ll do
it.”
(emphasis mine)
amongst others. I think it is clear he lied, period. And it doesn’t matter to me side or issue, I don’t appreciate being lied to when it comes to a law of the land.
My view.
trees November 13th, 2014 at 02:50
Laphroaig, one of my favorites, I’m also pretty partial to Ardbeg and Glenrothes…..
Spirit of America November 13th, 2014 at 04:25
We seem to have similar tastes in spirits… I have had(& enjoyed) Ardbeg. Never had Glen though, although I enjoy Cutty Sark and they use Glen as one of their mixes.
Obewon November 13th, 2014 at 00:14
7-8 M+ HC.Gov buyers doesn’t include 20M = 28 M buyers. 50% to 70% less HC premium costs without subsidies: The 2014 rates will drop an average of 53% for the highest tier plans — gold and platinum — when compared to last year’s direct-pay individual premiums, the state said. Though per capita health care costs are 18 percent higher in New York than the national average, the average rates for the silver plan would be almost 10 percent lower than the nationwide forecast made by theCongressional Budget Office. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-17/new-york-insurance-rates-said-to-drop-about-50-for-individuals.html
JoeTheConstitutionalist November 13th, 2014 at 00:30
Obewon, you had me right until the end of the Article…the section that is headed “TROUBLE AHEAD”….yea well that section pretty much confirms what Gruber stated….you know…right? The part where he says that healthy people pay for the sick …only the report states that the concern for the program comes from the fact that if the people who are well and in good health dont want to participate, it will drive the cost of the plans up. What say you???
Obewon November 13th, 2014 at 00:37
28% to 32% under age 35 ACA buyers in 2014, cited by Actuarial’s proved doom & gloomers wrong. http://acasignups.net/ & http://acasignups.net/potential-enrollments
tracey marie November 13th, 2014 at 06:44
HC is not a bad thing and should not be judged by dollar signs. what is the cost for them not having insurance and showing up at an emergency room with a simple cough that is now pnemonia or worse? We pay for the uninsured with higher costs built in, we will not after the ACA is working for a longer period and reaching more people. Why put a dollar amount on peoples health and survival?
raincheck November 13th, 2014 at 10:43
Well said…
tracey marie November 13th, 2014 at 10:51
thank you
tiredoftea November 12th, 2014 at 23:26
Yes, because they are shirking their obligation to their employees for a marginal revenue gain. But you go ahead and blame the ACA.
Spirit of America November 12th, 2014 at 23:28
To me both (aca/walmart) gets part of the blame. If no aca, walmart wouldn’t have dropped the folks. However, I truly believe walmart does have enough to not sink the company by picking up the extra cost…
JoeTheConstitutionalist November 12th, 2014 at 23:45
SoA thank you ….you beat me to it. I, again, was waiting for those who will blame the ‘capitalist, greedy, corps. But if that were the case, then why did they drop it AFTER the ACA was passed? Why were they providing it before?
Spirit of America November 12th, 2014 at 23:04
Good link, that means aca has about 6mil previously uninsured newly insured if i’m reading it correctly?
I also see towards bottom some upsetting stats, any idea if they are to be addressed w/tweaking, or just w/time?
arc99 November 12th, 2014 at 23:09
I think it will be a good 5 years before the law is working as best it can. If we had a Congress that knew how to work together, it could be shorter. But in this environment, I am not optimistic.
allison1050 November 13th, 2014 at 04:10
I’m thinking Joe’s a troll or else incredibly stupid.
allison1050 November 13th, 2014 at 04:08
Christ Joe, where the hell do you get your information? Who told you that nonsense? Or should I ask which radio station program were you listening to that gave that incorrect information? Have you at least heard of Google? At least try that Joe for pities sake! Or are you just a troll?
JoeTheConstitutionalist November 12th, 2014 at 23:13
Question 2: Why would OBAMACARE make it ILLEGAL (YES ILLEGAL) for employers to provide healthcare coverage to part-time employees??? Why in Gods Name would you do that?
arc99 November 12th, 2014 at 23:38
It is not illegal to provide health insurance to part time employees.
Why in gods name do you come to this forum propagating a ridiculous lie?
I would also ask why in gods name should anyone believe your unsubstantiated rants when the facts which clearly contradict your opinions are readily available.
http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20140619/NEWS/306199964
Reform Update: Nearly 60% of ACA enrollees had been uninsured, Kaiser survey finds
JoeTheConstitutionalist November 13th, 2014 at 00:00
ARC99 you need to get your facts straight…but of coursel, like I said, I expected more bulls–T from people like yourself. OK…let me play your game. Why did companies like JetBlue, WalMart, Target, and many many others discontinue healthcare for their part-time employees in 2014? Can you explain that?
arc99 November 13th, 2014 at 00:07
Clearly, you are the master of bullsh*t in this country as you still make a bunch of hysterical claims without a shred of factual information to back it up.
I am not playing any game. You made a claim about the number of previously uninsured now covered under the ACA. I provided a reference to support my opinion that your claim is false.
I am not a spokesman for JetBlue, WalMart, Target or any other company. Ask them about their employee health insurance programs.
Please cite the specific section/paragraph# of the ACA making it “illegal” to provide health insurance to part time workers. You, with the delusional fiction about it being illegal to provide insurance to part time workers, accuse me of bullsh*t
JoeTheConstitutionalist November 13th, 2014 at 01:01
Yes, I stand corrected. It is not illegal ….but with the passing of the ACA, healthcare costs have skyrocketed for the Part-time employee and those employers that want to cover them. Net-Net the outcome is the same. People cant afford their healthcare and good, hardworking people are hurt.
Margie Bateman Osgood November 13th, 2014 at 01:21
Two of my cousins were uninsured and are now paying a monthly, affordable premium, 200 bucks a piece. I am one of the uninsured in a state that did not expand Medicaid, therefore I am ineligible for any help and the full price quote was over 800 dollars for me, more than my house payment. I had to choose and since my state did not expand, I will not be penalized for not having insurance
Obewon November 13th, 2014 at 01:21
The only cheaper HC premiums were ‘Junk policies’ sold by scam artists providing very little if any HC and easily ‘capped’ leaving you uninsured. I have a Divers Alert Network (DAN) SCUBA diving HC plan for $30 per year! 1 free Jet back to the USA included if you get the bends or an air embolism! Max $250K.
Spirit of America November 13th, 2014 at 00:15
So far, I’m finding walmart dropped insurance on about 30,000+ part-time workers due to cost, not because it is illegal to give it to them.
JoeTheConstitutionalist November 13th, 2014 at 00:20
Yes, I stand corrected. It is NOT ILLEGAL. However, the issues around Part time employees receiving healthcare or now NOT receiving healthcare revolve around the sky-rocketing cost of healthcare. Please explain how the ACA has HELPED these people as these costs increases were put in place because of the ACA?
Spirit of America November 13th, 2014 at 00:26
It is/has helped some, there is no doubt about that. It is/has hurt some, there is no doubt there, either. There are some things that are out right wrong about it, and there are some very good components about it.
Muddling facts about it(such as something being illegal or not, and you did correct yourself, thank you) doesn’t help the discussion.
For me, part of the debate should center around does it do more harm or more good.
JoeTheConstitutionalist November 13th, 2014 at 00:43
SoA….I agree with you…on all counts. This is the first really OBJECTIVE thing I have seen on this site since I started reading. I too am looking for the answer to this question. As of now, I see only people paying more, people who were covered either being dropped or having to change their Dr’s….and a number of other issues which we can discuss. That said, I am open to seeing the GOOD it has done.
Spirit of America November 13th, 2014 at 00:46
Well, on its surface, 6mil newly insured people(according to acr99’s link) would be a good thing, on its surface, no? Especially if you are one of those 6mil. Just that fact standing on its own, good or bad in your eyes?
JoeTheConstitutionalist November 13th, 2014 at 00:56
SoA, according to the website http://obamacarefacts.com/ currently there are:
• 8 million Americans enrolled in a marketplace plan during openenrollment 2014 according to HHS.
• Of the 8 million about 7.2 million are expected to have paid their first months premium.
and, if i am reading the info on the website that was provided by ARC99 correctly, 60% of those signed up were uninsured. So that would mean only 4.6M were uninsured ….not 6M…or do I have my facts wrong? Or my math? However, 4.6M newly insured folk is a great stat…but at what cost?
Spirit of America November 13th, 2014 at 01:05
Lets call it 5.3 just for the he|| of it…
“at what cost” now becomes the crux of the topic/discussion. I honestly don’t know that yet…
If aca brought about a good thing(5.3mil), how many had to drop doctors/plans they liked because of aca, how many are paying more than just for them, how many got dropped down to 30 hours from 40…
I honestly haven’t tabulated those yet(started, but finding it hard to get real/honest data on that), so I can’t say if the cost or the benefit is the higher of the two.
Not to mention, there are still things that are yet to ‘come on line’ sort of speaking, and will those help or hurt even more people?
bbiaw, I need some Laphroaig….
JoeTheConstitutionalist November 13th, 2014 at 01:16
I agree with you again. That is why I am searching for answers. I appreciate and respect your outlook and opinion. I too need to see/understand what the other “still to comes’ look like and what impact they have. The issue here, in this thread is this: Did Mr. Gruber take liberties and make statements that are improper, inaccurate and inflammatory. Moreover, to me anyway, did he have the RIGHT to make the assumptions, put together the information and pass it along the way he did, in the deceptive way he did it? And if he did NEED to do this, why is that if the ACA is such a great thing? Anyway, enjoy your nightcap! Pleasure chatting….
Spirit of America November 13th, 2014 at 05:29
I did indeed enjoy the night cap & chat, thank you kindly.
As to the topic, No, he/they did not have any right to engage in deceit or deception, and I do believe they did.
“That was sometimes a misleading motivator for the Affordable Care Act. The law isn’t designed to save money.”
&
“I think what’s important to remember politically about this, is if
you’re a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your
citizens don’t get their tax credits. But your citizens still pay the
taxes that support this bill. So you’re essentially saying to your
citizens, you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states
in the country. I hope that’s a blatant enough political reality that
states will get their act together and realize there are billions of
dollars at stake here in setting up these Exchanges, and that they’ll do
it.”
(emphasis mine)
amongst others. I think it is clear he lied, period. And it doesn’t matter to me side or issue, I don’t appreciate being lied to when it comes to a law of the land.
My view.
trees November 13th, 2014 at 03:50
Laphroaig, one of my favorites, I’m also pretty partial to Ardbeg and Glenrothes…..
Spirit of America November 13th, 2014 at 05:25
We seem to have similar tastes in spirits… I have had(& enjoyed) Ardbeg. Never had Glen though, although I enjoy Cutty Sark and they use Glen as one of their mixes.
Obewon November 13th, 2014 at 01:14
7-8 M+ HC.Gov buyers doesn’t include 20M = 28 M buyers. 50% to 70% less HC premium costs without subsidies: The 2014 rates will drop an average of 53% for the highest tier plans — gold and platinum — when compared to last year’s direct-pay individual premiums, the state said. Though per capita health care costs are 18 percent higher in New York than the national average, the average rates for the silver plan would be almost 10 percent lower than the nationwide forecast made by theCongressional Budget Office. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-17/new-york-insurance-rates-said-to-drop-about-50-for-individuals.html
JoeTheConstitutionalist November 13th, 2014 at 01:30
Obewon, you had me right until the end of the Article…the section that is headed “TROUBLE AHEAD”….yea well that section pretty much confirms what Gruber stated….you know…right? The part where he says that healthy people pay for the sick …only the report states that the concern for the program comes from the fact that if the people who are well and in good health dont want to participate, it will drive the cost of the plans up. What say you???
Obewon November 13th, 2014 at 01:37
28% to 32% ‘under age 35 Very healthy agegroup ACA buyers in 2014’ were cited by the Actuarial’s proving doom & gloomers wrong. http://acasignups.net/ & http://acasignups.net/potential-enrollments $2 T+ surplussed Medicare begins at age 65 & SS’ $3 T+ surpluses include Disability Insurance premiums and payments.
tracey marie November 13th, 2014 at 07:44
HC is not a bad thing and should not be judged by dollar signs. what is the cost for them not having insurance and showing up at an emergency room with a simple cough that is now pnemonia or worse? We pay for the uninsured with higher costs built in, we will not after the ACA is working for a longer period and reaching more people. Why put a dollar amount on peoples health and survival?
raincheck November 13th, 2014 at 11:43
Well said…
tracey marie November 13th, 2014 at 11:51
thank you
tiredoftea November 13th, 2014 at 00:26
Yes, because they are shirking their obligation to their employees for a marginal revenue gain. But you go ahead and blame the ACA.
Spirit of America November 13th, 2014 at 00:28
To me both (aca/walmart) gets part of the blame. If no aca, walmart wouldn’t have dropped the folks. However, I truly believe walmart does have enough to not sink the company by picking up the extra cost…
JoeTheConstitutionalist November 13th, 2014 at 00:45
SoA thank you ….you beat me to it. I, again, was waiting for those who will blame the ‘capitalist, greedy, corps’. But if that were the case, then why did they drop it AFTER the ACA was passed? Why were they providing it before?
Spirit of America November 13th, 2014 at 00:04
Good link, that means aca has about 6mil previously uninsured newly insured if i’m reading it correctly?
I also see towards bottom some upsetting stats, any idea if they are to be addressed w/tweaking, or just w/time?
arc99 November 13th, 2014 at 00:09
I think it will be a good 5 years before the law is working as best it can. If we had a Congress that knew how to work together, it could be shorter. But in this environment, I am not optimistic.
allison1050 November 13th, 2014 at 05:10
I’m thinking Joe’s a troll or else incredibly stupid.
allison1050 November 13th, 2014 at 05:08
Christ Joe, where the hell do you get your information? Who told you that nonsense? Or should I ask which radio station program were you listening to that gave that incorrect information? Have you at least heard of Google? At least try that Joe for pities sake! Or are you just a troll?
JoeTheConstitutionalist November 12th, 2014 at 22:17
Many of those in the current administration keep touting that there are over 7 Million people who have signed up for OBAMACARE. Question 3: Do people really believe that these 7M people are part of those people that originally DIDN’T have or COULDN’T afford healthcare? Do people understand that the MAJORITY of these folks that have signed up for OBAMACARE are those that were FORCED out of their plan because they were PART TIME employees?
tracey marie November 12th, 2014 at 22:48
or because they are now able to afford care. Why shouldn’t all Americans have HC?
JoeTheConstitutionalist November 12th, 2014 at 22:52
Tracie Marie….THEY HAD HEALTHCARE!
Obewon November 12th, 2014 at 23:30
Any accurate information debunks your ‘sources.’
Inside the Fox News lie machine: fact-checking Sean Hannity on Obamacare finds his devotees actually Saved 50% to 70% buying on HC.Gov and state exchanges with nobody refused! http://www.salon.com/2013/10/18/inside_the_fox_news_lie_machine_i_fact_checked_sean_hannity_on_obamacare/
JoeTheConstitutionalist November 12th, 2014 at 23:47
Obewon, how do you think that people are being provided with plans that are CHEAPER???? The money has to come from somewhere…so where is it coming from?
Obewon November 12th, 2014 at 23:55
Lol! 28 m https://www.healthcare.gov/ & state exchange buyers receive quantity discounts via the HC marketplace competition. Study-up and read how any Hannity viewers were so well proven to be lied to as linked above.
JoeTheConstitutionalist November 12th, 2014 at 23:57
Can you please provide my with your source for this info?
Obewon November 13th, 2014 at 00:03
Salon linked above & here again proves ‘KYConnect’ et al saved 50% to 70% Vs Hannity’s debunked liars who never even checked HC.Gov prices! http://www.salon.com/2013/10/18/inside_the_fox_news_lie_machine_i_fact_checked_sean_hannity_on_obamacare/
FYI> “Health Plan Cost For New Yorkers Set to Fall 50 Percent.”
“Individuals in New York City who now pay $1,000 a month or more for coverage will be able to shop for health insurance for as little as $308 monthly,” Roni Caryn Rabin and Reed Abelson report. “With federal subsidies, the cost will be even lower.”
The NY Times & Alan.com posted all the insurance rates, both inside and outside the new health law marketplace, here. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/07/17/heres-why-health-insurance-premiums-are-tumbling-in-new-york/
allison1050 November 13th, 2014 at 04:05
Source?
Robert M. Snyder November 13th, 2014 at 01:38
I once knew a woman whose family lost everything when their house burned and they had no fire insurance. Why shouldn’t all Americans have homeowner’s or renter’s insurance? Do you want the government to provide that as well? Perhaps every child should have a computer so they can access the vast information resources of the internet. Is fire insurance a human right? What about access to the internet? Is there anything that the government should NOT provide to people who cannot afford it?
tracey marie November 13th, 2014 at 06:34
HC is a right so you may live, straw man
Robert M. Snyder November 13th, 2014 at 11:25
Using that logic, then I would have a right to three square meals a day at government expense. It’s pretty hard to live without food.
Spirit of America November 13th, 2014 at 09:34
Cell phones… :)
mea_mark November 13th, 2014 at 09:38
It would all be a mute point if the government would substantially raise the minimum wage and tax the extremely wealthy more heavily. Lets fix it so everybody can afford the things they need instead of letting so many resources go to people that don’t need them but just want to hoard them.
raincheck November 13th, 2014 at 10:35
Perfect!
R.J. Carter November 13th, 2014 at 11:01
How about employers stop offering health insurance and then use the money to increase the wages?
mea_mark November 13th, 2014 at 11:38
If only they would. I think raising minimum wage is a step in the right direction of achieving that goal. I wouldn’t mind seeing businesses offering funds to it’s employees to get insurance in lieu of offering insurance, as long as the funds were sufficient. This is one of those ideas that I think the republicans should be working on instead of trying to repeal or kill the ACA. Unfortunately it doesn’t make good simple sound bites for the republican base of voters to gobble up mindlessly.
Robert M. Snyder November 13th, 2014 at 12:04
When you say “resources”, are you talking about financial resources or material resources? Because 99% of all material resources go to ordinary folks.
Let’s say we raise the minimum wage to $20 per hour. Some of that extra money might go into savings accounts and college funds. But most of it will be used to purchase material goods.
When a person walks into a store and purchases material goods, they are exchanging financial wealth for material wealth. One party ends up with more money, and the other party ends up with more “stuff”. 99% of all “stuff” is owned by ordinary people.
Let’s say I buy a small farm and grow organic vegetables, and then I sell those vegetables to Walmart, and they sell them to ordinary folks. In a good year, let’s say I manage to make $1 million profit. What percentage of that $1 million should I pay in taxes? When you talk about “resources going to people that don’t need them”, what assumptions are you making about people who earn $1 million?
As a produce grower, my income is likely to be highly variable. Some years I might actually lose money, but I still have to make my mortgage payments, pay my farm hands, and carry insurance. So I need money in a bank account to carry me through the lean years (and in retirement). When I have a $1 million dollar year, my inclination would be to put a big chunk of that money into the bank. But the government’s inclination is to take a big bite out of that money based on the assumption that I “don’t need it”.
mea_mark November 13th, 2014 at 12:26
I used the term resources to include all resources.
A million dollars after all expenses and that crop insurance you bought to cover you if there is a bad year. Yeah, that should probably be taxed at a higher rate than the person that makes 20 dollars an hour. Really though, I am talking about the people that make many millions a year. When less than 1% of the population owns more than half the worlds wealth, things are out of balance. That inequality and lack of balance in the world is what is creating so many problems for people to just simply get by and cover all their necessary bills. The simplest way to begin to fix that is to raise taxes on the very wealthy and raise minimum wage.
Robert M. Snyder November 13th, 2014 at 15:37
I share your concern. I guess what gets my hackles up is when some people portray successful business owners as being greedy and uncaring. Yes, there are certainly some who fit that description. But I think there are other factors at work which are creating the present economic conditions.
I have spent my career building computer software that allows people to work more efficiently. Alan Greenspan couldn’t stop talking about the increases in efficiency that were propelling the US economy to new heights during the Clinton years.
Today we read many stories about robotics, self-parking cars, and other technologies that have demonstrated the potential to perform tasks that previously required a human.
I worked in a corrugated box factory for a year before starting college. It took a lot of people to run those machines. The majority of the workers were high school graduates who performed high-repetitive jobs. The pay wasn’t great, but it was decent and steady, and you didn’t need to know advanced Calculus to do your job.
Here in PA, we have a public service TV channel called PCN (Pennsylvania Cable Network). They have a program called PCN Factory Tours. Each 30-minute segment involves an interviewer and a camera operator following a company representative through a manufacturing facility. My wife and I love to watch this show. But we have frequently notices that there are VIRTUALLY NO PEOPLE required to run these factories.
The conventional wisdom is that American jobs have gone overseas. But the Foxcon company that assembles iPads for Apple is (I think) the biggest employer in China, and they have announced a major investment in robotics to reduce their need for workers.
Automation and robotics are happening everywhere. They are (probably) making products better and cheaper, which benefits consumers. But the money people spend on iPads and other products is now going to fewer people, because the products are now being manufactured by smart machines. So the business owners and shareholders accumulate more wealth, which is good if you are an investor. And we all benefit as consumers. But the system requires fewer workers due to those remarkable increases in efficiency that Greenspan was talking about in the nineties.
McDonald’s is now experimenting with a burger cooking machine that could reduce the need for fast food workers. From an engineering perspective, it’s kind of neat. But I have known a lot of good, honest, hard-working people who were never cut out to be computer programmers or electronics engineers. When people say that we need to provide young people with the advanced skills they will need for the new economy, I am skeptical. I encourage young people to consider entering a trade. The key thing is to have a marketable skill, hopefully doing something that you enjoy or at least don’t hate.
But as someone who creates tools that help people to work more efficiently, I can’t stop asking myself where this increasing automation is taking us. I no longer feel comfortable saying “Get a job”, because I am no longer confident that our increasingly automated economy can provide jobs for everyone.
A talented person who can leverage the new technology can probably build and run a company with very few workers. Websites now take the place of order entry and customer service people. I have purchased software products from companies that had only a few employees, yet managed to serve 10,000+ customers. Some of those people are probably very generous with their wealth, which they acquired the honest way, by providing a quality product that fulfilled a real need. I do not think we should be demonizing people who work hard and are successful. At the same time, I know that it is not realistic to expect everyone to replicate that kind of success.
I think we may be in the midst of a societal shift, and we haven’t yet figured out how to meet people’s need for meaningful work and meaningful income in a world where machines are getting smarter and faster every day. I think that wealth concentration is a SYMPTOM of this trend. I do not think it is the result of a grand conspiracy.
mea_mark November 13th, 2014 at 16:05
Whether it is a symptom of a trend or a grand conspiracy really isn’t important. Dealing with it is. Personally I think there is plenty for people to do. It will take awhile to clean up all the pollution and build all the renewable energy sources we can. Rebuilding are energy infrastructure and upgrading are housing for everyone to meet today’s standards of efficiency and functionality will take some work. The funds to do all this are there, they are just in the accounts of the wrong people. Taxation is the simplest way to get after those funds that aren’t being spent and just sitting. Tax the top 1% heavily and start cleaning up the planet and upgrade everything to help create a sustainable world.
Obewon November 12th, 2014 at 23:36
Here’s the Top 16 myths about the health care law debunked via nonpartisan Pulitzer prize winner PolitiFact. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/sep/24/top-16-myths-about-health-care-law/
allison1050 November 13th, 2014 at 03:53
I’m 1 that didn’t have healthcare coverage…and I’m 1 of many millions so what’s YOUR point if any? As far as your last question goes why not ask a Wal Mart employee that used to have a 40 hr. a week job that saw their hrs. cut to below part time? Ask them about how they are directed by Wal Mart on how to apply for government assistance.
Spirit of America November 13th, 2014 at 04:41
To be fair, the aca[§ 4980H(c)(4)] cut the work week to 30hours, not walmart.
allison1050 November 13th, 2014 at 05:21
I’ve got this crazy idea that you really need to source your statement my friend in particular since it’s so very untrue.
Spirit of America November 13th, 2014 at 05:31
Will the irs site do?
I have the law in pdf format, so that wouldn’t help you. However, if you trust the irs enough, will this do?
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-12-58.pdf
:)
allison1050 November 13th, 2014 at 06:01
Okay here I go, hours were being cut BEFORE President Obama was even elected…my question is why you don’t acknowledge that..too difficult for you I guess. I worked in a growing field that has seen hours cut several years ago (nursing), construction is another. You really should expand your reading materials my friend. You’re attempting to use irs rules that are relatively recent and that’s just not going to work for ya! ;o)) buhbye now so that you can begin reading.
Spirit of America November 13th, 2014 at 06:15
It wasn’t a history lesson, it was the final cut, due to aca, period. That regulation is nation wide, not just a few industries.
Is your bedside manner as obnoxious as your posting? I said nothing insulting or sarcastic to you, yet you get obnoxious right off the bat with me? Why?
You may want to quit posting for a bit and read up on manners and courtesy to a fellow human being.
BuhBye now so you can learn to be civil.
tracey marie November 13th, 2014 at 06:34
the only person being obnoxious and rude is you towards allison.
Spirit of America November 13th, 2014 at 06:45
Start from my reply to her, read it(nothing rude or obnoxious), then read her reply and tell me honestly she didn’t get snippy.
tracey marie November 13th, 2014 at 06:48
do you honestly not see how rude and snippy you are?
Spirit of America November 13th, 2014 at 06:52
1. “To be fair, the aca[§ 4980H(c)(4)] cut the work week to 30hours, not walmart”
Where was I rude? That is my reply to her post.
tracey marie November 13th, 2014 at 06:57
besides being untrue why would you feel it necessary to post a lie then whine when you are called out on it. At least be self aware of how rude you come accross at times.
Spirit of America November 13th, 2014 at 07:00
LOL, what lie? Read the law, aca calls 30 hours fulltime, first time 30 was called such. The repubs are trying to repeal that section, now note, if it is not in the law, they can’t repeal it.
She calls people ‘slow on the uptake’ unsolicited, she says something ‘is too difficult’ and more, and you endorse bad behavior?
Our standards are a bit different.
tracey marie November 13th, 2014 at 07:15
you are pugnacious and hate when others stand their ground. And yes, I am aware of the irony of ME calling someone pugnacious
Spirit of America November 13th, 2014 at 08:30
“I am aware of the irony of ME calling someone pugnacious”
lol, that was cute… :)
“…and hate when others stand their ground”
No, I don’t, I despise weakness and admire when people stand their ground. I don’t like it when people make ad hominid attacks, or is rude for no reason.
My view is only be rude when someone is rude first. That way, if everyone followed that, no one would ever be rude since no one can be rude first…. :)
tracey marie November 13th, 2014 at 08:32
actually you get very upset and attack, self awareness is what you need. You did it to me, of course being pugnacious I was not intimidated
Spirit of America November 13th, 2014 at 09:20
Only when they start. If they start it, I play by their rules and give back.
Take this thread for example, what is rude about:
“To be fair, the aca[§ 4980H(c)(4)] cut the work week to 30hours, not walmart”
I honestly don’t see rudeness in it.
And I don’t get upset, nothing written on the internet is worth getting upset about. I do laugh at times or shake my head in dismay, but not upset.
I have a simple philosophy w/people:
If you give me a dollar, one day I’ll give you two;
if you take from me a dollar, 1 day I’ll take 2.
As long as I’m not rude first, all is fair game if they start it.
tracey marie November 13th, 2014 at 09:24
lol,that was a childs answer…they started it. Take responsibility for your words instead of whining.
Spirit of America November 13th, 2014 at 09:29
I am taking responsibility, I said if they start it, I play by their rules. Whining has nothing to do with it, simple fact. Leave me alone or get the same in kind. What, you let people insult and punch you and never do anything in return, honestly?
Verbally I’ve seen you really lay it on, and you’re telling me not to?
tracey marie November 13th, 2014 at 09:34
lol, you seem to be the most delusional person, you have ZERO self awareness and an huge ego.
Spirit of America November 13th, 2014 at 09:35
What is delusional, be specific please. And would you please address your double standard… you insult freely initially, yet try to chastise people who only respond in kind.
tracey marie November 13th, 2014 at 09:40
lol, like I said you have zero self awareness
Spirit of America November 13th, 2014 at 09:44
LOL LOL, you didn’t answer what is rude about my sentence, you won’t answer how I’m delusional and you won’t address your double standard… you just keep changing tact to the next thing you make up or make inane statements…
Tell you what, I’m going to take a break, you enjoy the day, ciao!
Allan Kim Harrison November 13th, 2014 at 07:33
This coming from you is hilarious.
allison1050 November 13th, 2014 at 08:27
I was being civil to you as a matter of fact. You just decided to ignore the fact that I stated earlier that hours were being cut BEFORE the current president was elected silly you. But please don’t let facts get in your way sweet thing.
Spirit of America November 13th, 2014 at 09:22
LOL LOL, and there you go again….
But, you conveniently decided to ignore the fact that it was aca that codified it into law which is what we were talking about, but please don’t let the topic get in your way of being rude sweet cheeks.
allison1050 November 13th, 2014 at 11:34
You don’t read much and it shows. Try reading the dates of the PDF before spouting off… it’s telling. “But please don’t let the” facts “get in your way”.
OldLefty November 13th, 2014 at 06:24
All that do is describe the criteria for the safe harbor method of calculating full time employees ; (simply accessing the full/part status of employees for the purpose of the shared employer responsibility provisions.
“An employee is a variable hour employee if, based on the facts and circumstances at the date the employee begins providing services to the employer (the start date), it cannot be determined that the employee is reasonably expected to work on average at least 30 hours per week. (The 30 hours per week average reflects the statutory definition of full-time employee in § 4980H(c)(4) and is the definition of “full-time employee” as used in this notice.) Seasonal employee is defined in section III.D.5, below.”
How did that “cut the work week”?
Spirit of America November 13th, 2014 at 06:28
Did you look up the statute cited?
OldLefty November 13th, 2014 at 06:35
Absolutely.
Where does it “cut the work week”?
Spirit of America November 13th, 2014 at 06:46
Read the law. Or google it. If google, note the repubs even tried to repeal that section.
OldLefty November 13th, 2014 at 06:59
4) Full-time employee
(A) In general
The term “full-time employee” means, with respect to any month, an employee who is employed on average at least 30 hours of service per week
That means that even 30 hours /week qualifies as full time for insurance.
What would be the incentive to cut someone’s hours?
allison1050 November 13th, 2014 at 08:30
Try saving money pumpkin it equals profits or otherwise known at the bottom line or profitability… you’ve never owned or run a business I see so oh well if you don’t have a basic understanding of how a business operates.
Spirit of America November 13th, 2014 at 09:25
exactly
Spirit of America November 13th, 2014 at 09:25
To get under the full-time part, it saves money on benefits. When it was 40, part-time was 39 and below. Now that full-time is 30, many companies work their workers at 29, cutting 10 hours from their check and still saving them money in the benefits arena.
mea_mark November 13th, 2014 at 12:05
Maybe there should be a tax a company has to pay for every employee they have that is part-time, that would go into the ACA subsidy pool of funds. If companies like Walmart don’t want full-time employees and don’t want to offer them benefits and want the public to cover their part-timers insurance costs, then they should contribute to the public pool of funds that is doing, what they do not want to do.
Spirit of America November 13th, 2014 at 14:46
That’s a different topic, and 1 worth of discussion on its own, not a bad idea depending on set up…
mea_mark November 13th, 2014 at 15:01
Ideas have to start somewhere or we will never talk about them. Perhaps the republicans will decide fixing some of the unforeseen problems of the ACA is better than trying to kill it. They certainly can’t say we are ramming in fixes down their throats when they are in the majority. It is time for them to do something constructive or forever shut-up.
Spirit of America November 13th, 2014 at 15:53
True enough on the ideas, true enough.
Throw enough out there and something will work.
Nothing is perfect, nor will it ever be, but 1 should always strive for it. If the repubs want to abolish it but can’t, they shouldn’t throw a hissy fit and do nothing, they should come up w/real fixes to what they say is bad and present it. Oh wait, that’s the way it used to work any how, both sides.
OldLefty November 13th, 2014 at 14:47
That speaks very poorly of the employers, and of their business sense,
If
part-time workers offer an easy way to dodge an expensive mandate, why haven’t
more employers jumped on board? Christopher Ryan, a vice president of strategic
services at ADP spends a lot of
time talking to companies about this issue and says it mostly boils down to a
trade-off between having a skilled workforce and reducing benefit costs.
“If you’re operating a large restaurant in Manhattan on Valentine’s Day, you’re
probably wanting to have a highly-trained, highly-skilled wait staff,” he says.
“And it’s a question of, do you want your restaurant manager thinking about
benefit costs, and who needs to be sent home at 8 p.m. [so they don’t go over
their 30-hour week], or do you want to think about providing consumers with a
great experience?” APR
If the value of the new business is greater than the employer’s share of
an insurance plan or a fine, you go for it, right? That’s called capitalism.
So basically, they will pay and train MORE people, who have LESS invested in the business just to avoid the benefits and STILL pay a penalty?
Spirit of America November 13th, 2014 at 15:06
“That speaks very poorly of the employers, and of their business sense” – No, not always, but sometimes.
It really is a ‘type of business(what kind of work force is needed)” and who runs the business(their attitude/business style).
A, what we used to call, bean counter will crunch numbers and use them, regardless of good/bad policy or employee ‘comfort’. Others look after their employees as prime consideration. Others mix & match.
I was just saying the mechanics, not the good/bad of it.
As for the penalty, you mean the one for businesses that don’t provide ins and therefore pay so much per head to uncle sam?
OldLefty November 13th, 2014 at 15:13
As for the penalty, you mean the one for businesses that don’t provide ins and therefore pay so much per head to uncle sam?
______
Yes; the employer may be subject to an Employer Shared Responsibility payment if at least one of its full-time employees receives a premium tax credit for purchasing individual coverage on one of the new Affordable Insurance Exchanges, also called a Health Insurance Marketplace.
Since before the ACA Uncle Sam got stuck with the bill, or the cost was shifted to the insured.
Spirit of America November 13th, 2014 at 15:51
Yea, ok then, that penalty is sometimes cheaper than the ins plans a company was paying for for its employees, so some companies decided to go w/the penalty choice and dropped the ins for employees choice. Some didn’t.
OldLefty November 13th, 2014 at 15:55
Then you increase the penalty or go to single payer and take the burden off the employer altogether.
Spirit of America November 13th, 2014 at 15:58
To tell you the truth, I didn’t understand the penalty unless it was strictly to get employers to drop them. Think about it, I can come up w/no other time when a penalty was less than the offense. Usually a penalty is to make a certain behavior to costly, in any terms, than the action, no?
OldLefty November 13th, 2014 at 16:47
It is to make the insurance more attractive, and to offset the cost that the government has to pick up.
raincheck November 13th, 2014 at 07:45
Those companies were cutting back the hours BEFORE the ACA came along, so they could make more money… YOU need to do more research before you buy into the ‘Fox News BS you’ve been listening to… Allison is correct about Wal-Mart… You do realize, your taxes are paying for their employee’s ‘Public Assistance’ don’t you? It’s because they pay their employee’s such low wages/fewer hours, they qualify for P.A.
Where do you get the silly idea, it is the ACA that cut the hours?
Spirit of America November 13th, 2014 at 08:37
(sigh) Walmart can not make law… the law says 30+ is now considered full time. I never said no company cut hours before or after. I said the law made the 30 hour a week full time.
“YOU need to do more research before you buy into the ‘Fox News BS you’ve been listening to..”
No, I don’t. Does or does not the aca state that 30 hours or more is full time, yes or no?
And by the way, you have NO idea if I watch fox news or not, or even if I get fox news, do you? Did you ever see me say I get it? No, and I know you were never at my house, so why do you make stuff up to be what you want it to be? Do you have proof that I watch fox news, yes or no?
And that P.A. stuff is way off topic, so I’m not going there here.
(why is everybody so darn combative and rash before it is warranted????? rhetorical btw)
raincheck November 13th, 2014 at 10:03
Somebody correct me if I’m wrong… I’m under the impression that the law was changed (recently?) To make 30 hours a week, as full time, so the people who had their hours cut back could still get healthcare through the Company they worked for.
FACT: Cutting back the hours was something they did BEFORE Obama was elected, to avoid having to offer them healthcare.
Fox News has been ‘drumming’ it in to their viewers, it is because of the ACA, the hours were reduced (because the employers couldn’t afford it)
“And that P.A. stuff” as you so callously put it, Isn’t so “way off topic” (snarky remark) It’s all part of the same bird, which is to improve the ‘bottom line’ for the owners of ‘Wal-Mart’ by not having to pay for healthcare for their employees AND have the tax payers pick up the tab, because they pay such low wages they qualify for “Public Assistance” OF COURSE the Republicans want to repeal the law!!
“(sigh) Walmart can not make law…. You can “(sigh)” all you want, I never said Wal-Mart can “make law”
“(why is everybody so darn combative and rash before it is warranted????? rhetorical btw)” Just take a look at your own posts, and your snarky comments.
Regarding “Fox News” I’ll just ask you… Do you watch Fox? (I don’t expect an honest answer) If you don’t, then where do you get your news from?
R.J. Carter November 13th, 2014 at 10:58
Why should employers offer healthcare in the first place?
mea_mark November 13th, 2014 at 11:47
Healthy employees do a better job than sick ones. It keeps the employee motivated to stay, helping with job retention and lowering the cost of retraining or losing employees with critical skills. It used to be that offering health care helped employers get the best employees.
R.J. Carter November 13th, 2014 at 12:19
Yes, and now it’s helping them weed out the unhealthy ones, or the ones who engage in unhealthy practices, or are overweight, because of the annual health care screenings. It was an employee attractor that somewhere along the way came to be regarded as an expected right.
Foundryman November 13th, 2014 at 11:50
It’s called free market capitalism….If you want the best employees, you WILL pay them…
raincheck November 13th, 2014 at 14:41
In MOST circles, it is part of a package/wages to attract people to come and work for them.
No doubt in YOUR world, why should ANYONE get healthcare that can’t afford it… it’s called compassion for the people who get paid minimum wage, or don’t have a job… maybe their job went overseas, whatever the case may be.. It can either be paid for in the E.R… You know something… NEVER MIND. I’m SICK of people like you that only care about themselves… it’s that simple!
Spirit of America November 13th, 2014 at 14:42
I’m sighing(w/or w/out your permission btw) because people are bring in everything but what the topic of MY post is.
We were talking about the law, and when it became law, and what was in the aca. I didn’t say pro/com, or companies doing it before law, nothing like that. It is 30 hours in law in aca, the first time.
JoeTheConstitutionalist November 13th, 2014 at 09:43
My point is just that many who DID have healthcare are now having to pay more for their healthcare coverage. Or have LOST it….putting a plan in place that takes away from one group to give to another is NOT what we should be doing…at least, it isnt what I thought we were all about. But i guess if you are the recipient, it doesn’t really matter where it comes from, does it Allison. The other point is that while it is being stated that approximately 4 Million people who have signed up for OBAMACARE didnt have insurance, the other 3 Million were forced to sign up when they were dropped by their companies. and if you were being HONEST with YOURSELF you would ask the question as I have…WHY WOULD WALMART DROP the people it was covering if the plans were CHEAPER!? But they are not. Wal*mart Target, Home Depot and others dropped their part time employee coverage because the plans became so damned expensive…and the ADMINISTRATION KNEW that would happen. But in your eyes, its just greedy corporate america….isnt it Allison. Yes, Im sure that is what you are saying….has nothing to do with the fact that the new ACA has jacked up prices for many many millions of Americans and American companies. It is YOU who are slow oon the uptake my dear. If a company spends more than it makes, it doesnt have a business and everyone is out of work. It also has shareholders and employees to be concerned about. The ACA would cost WalMart and others Million and Millions of dollars with no benefit for them as a company. SO they did the business thing. The Government WANT THESE PEOPLE on the program to give it credibility. Please …dont be so ignorant.
R.J. Carter November 13th, 2014 at 10:55
I’m agreeing with the sentiment, and advising to (a) lose the caps and (b) use the paragraph markers. It will get you further with your case. I mean that constructively.
arc99 November 13th, 2014 at 11:32
what will get him further with his case is to not come to this forum, spamming fairy tales about it being illegal to provide health insurance to part time employees.
the fact that he had absolutely no idea what he was talking about is far more detrimental to his credibility than a caps lock.
allison1050 November 13th, 2014 at 11:32
I don’t really expect much from an ass but before I go just let me tell ya that the figures stand at well over a million. And yes, every year an employer does indeed drop but on a temporary basis until you check off what you want. For such a know it all as yourself Joe, you still show that you have a problem with reading and would much rather be spoon fed by teevee or the radio entertainers. Wal Mart DID drop most staff as full time and waved their WallyWorld Wand there by changing most staff from full time to part time…dummy it’s a way for the corporation/stockholders to earn M O N E Y!! Ok Ok your slow so I’ll just let it drop. Try picking up a book sometime so you don’t make yourself look so dumb.
arc99 November 13th, 2014 at 11:35
and don’t bother providing him with objective information. I have already tried with references to CBO estimates, and references to health insurance participation surveys conducted by Kaiser.
in both cases, he simply dismissed the information which contradicted his opinions as lies.
typical right wing ideologue who will believe anything, except the truth.
allison1050 November 13th, 2014 at 14:40
I’m thinking it’s a troll.
mea_mark November 13th, 2014 at 11:54
You don’t need to attack other people personally to get your point across. Please try and be more civil.
allison1050 November 13th, 2014 at 14:39
That wasn’t an attack as a matter of fact.
mea_mark November 13th, 2014 at 15:10
I know what I edited out of your comment. You were escalating things. It was time to settle down. How can I give those with opposing views a hard time about being civil when those with similar views aren’t. I am not going to be a hypocrite if I can help it. If you think someone is not being civil don’t escalate things making the mods job harder, just flag them and remain civil.
This comment should apply to everyone really. We all need to be more civil to toward one another.
allison1050 November 13th, 2014 at 15:42
I don’t mean to be “rude” but you’ve got some scrolling to do to find the “rude” and very uncivil remarks made to me that others jumped in in defense of me. Have a great day and thanks.
mea_mark November 13th, 2014 at 15:47
I read them. I wasn’t around when they were being written. I can’t go back in time, the best I can do is to try and stop things and encourage better behavior in the future.
R.J. Carter November 13th, 2014 at 10:54
Only 5% of Americans did not have insurance through their employers, and of those 5%, a majority of them had Medicare/Medicaid. We basically wrote a ginormous law to benefit the 1%.
tracey marie November 13th, 2014 at 11:18
what about the people not working or uninsurable, do we pretend they do not exist?
R.J. Carter November 13th, 2014 at 12:21
That’s the 5 % of which a majority were on Medicare/Medicaid.
tracey marie November 13th, 2014 at 11:17
spamming the same garbage. no thoughts or intelligence just cut and paste
JoeTheConstitutionalist November 12th, 2014 at 23:17
Many of those in the current administration keep touting that there are over 7 Million people who have signed up for OBAMACARE. Question 3: Do people really believe that these 7M people are part of those people that originally DIDN’T have or COULDN’T afford healthcare? Do people understand that the MAJORITY of these folks that have signed up for OBAMACARE are those that were FORCED out of their plan because they were PART TIME employees?
tracey marie November 12th, 2014 at 23:48
or because they are now able to afford care. Why shouldn’t all Americans have HC?
JoeTheConstitutionalist November 12th, 2014 at 23:52
Tracie Marie….THEY HAD HEALTHCARE!
Obewon November 13th, 2014 at 00:30
Any accurate information debunks your ‘sources.’ Inside the Fox News lie machine: fact-checking Sean Hannity on Obamacare finds his devotees actually Saved 50% to 70% buying on HC.Gov and state exchanges with nobody refused! http://www.salon.com/2013/10/18/inside_the_fox_news_lie_machine_i_fact_checked_sean_hannity_on_obamacare/
JoeTheConstitutionalist November 13th, 2014 at 00:47
Obewon, how do you think that people are being provided with plans that are CHEAPER???? The money has to come from somewhere…so where is it coming from?
Obewon November 13th, 2014 at 00:55
28 m https://www.healthcare.gov/ & state exchange buyers receive quantity discounts via the HC marketplace competition. Study-up and read how any Hannity viewers were so well proven to be lied to as linked above.
JoeTheConstitutionalist November 13th, 2014 at 00:57
Can you please provide my with your source for this info?
Obewon November 13th, 2014 at 01:03
Salon linked above & here again proves ‘KYConnect’ et al saved 50% to 70% Vs Hannity’s debunked liars who never even checked HC.Gov prices! http://www.salon.com/2013/10/18/inside_the_fox_news_lie_machine_i_fact_checked_sean_hannity_on_obamacare/
FYI> “Health Plan Cost For New Yorkers Set to Fall 50 Percent.”
“Individuals in New York City who now pay $1,000 a month or more for coverage will be able to shop for health insurance for as little as $308 monthly,” Roni Caryn Rabin and Reed Abelson report. “With federal subsidies, the cost will be even lower.”
The NY Times & Alan.com posted all the insurance rates, both inside and outside the new health law marketplace, also cited here. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/07/17/heres-why-health-insurance-premiums-are-tumbling-in-new-york/ & http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-17/new-york-insurance-rates-said-to-drop-about-50-for-individuals.html
allison1050 November 13th, 2014 at 05:05
Source?
Robert M. Snyder November 13th, 2014 at 02:38
I once knew a woman whose family lost everything when their house burned and they had no fire insurance. Why shouldn’t all Americans have homeowner’s or renter’s insurance? Do you want the government to provide that as well? Perhaps every child should have a computer so they can access the vast information resources of the internet. Is fire insurance a human right? What about access to the internet? Is there anything that the government should NOT provide to people who cannot afford it?
tracey marie November 13th, 2014 at 07:34
HC is a right so you may live, straw man
Robert M. Snyder November 13th, 2014 at 12:25
Using that logic, then I would have a right to three square meals a day at government expense. It’s pretty hard to live without food.
Spirit of America November 13th, 2014 at 10:34
Cell phones… :)
mea_mark November 13th, 2014 at 10:38
It would all be a mute point if the government would substantially raise the minimum wage and tax the extremely wealthy more heavily. Lets fix it so everybody can afford the things they need instead of letting so many resources go to people that don’t need them but just want to hoard them.
raincheck November 13th, 2014 at 11:35
Perfect!
R.J. Carter November 13th, 2014 at 12:01
How about employers stop offering health insurance and then use the money to increase the wages?
mea_mark November 13th, 2014 at 12:38
If only they would. I think raising minimum wage is a step in the right direction of achieving that goal. I wouldn’t mind seeing businesses offering funds to it’s employees to get insurance in lieu of offering insurance, as long as the funds were sufficient. This is one of those ideas that I think the republicans should be working on instead of trying to repeal or kill the ACA. Unfortunately it doesn’t make good simple sound bites for the republican base of voters to gobble up mindlessly.
Robert M. Snyder November 13th, 2014 at 13:04
When you say “resources”, are you talking about financial resources or material resources? Because 99% of all material resources go to ordinary folks.
Let’s say we raise the minimum wage to $20 per hour. Some of that extra money might go into savings accounts and college funds. But most of it will be used to purchase material goods.
When a person walks into a store and purchases material goods, they are exchanging financial wealth for material wealth. One party ends up with more money, and the other party ends up with more “stuff”. 99% of all “stuff” is owned by ordinary people.
Let’s say I buy a small farm and grow organic vegetables, and then I sell those vegetables to Walmart, and they sell them to ordinary folks. In a good year, let’s say I manage to make $1 million profit. What percentage of that $1 million should I pay in taxes? When you talk about “resources going to people that don’t need them”, what assumptions are you making about people who earn $1 million?
As a produce grower, my income is likely to be highly variable. Some years I might actually lose money, but I still have to make my mortgage payments, pay my farm hands, and carry insurance. So I need money in a bank account to carry me through the lean years (and in retirement). When I have a $1 million dollar year, my inclination would be to put a big chunk of that money into the bank. But the government’s inclination is to take a big bite out of that money based on the assumption that I “don’t need it”.
mea_mark November 13th, 2014 at 13:26
I used the term resources to include all resources.
A million dollars after all expenses and that crop insurance you bought to cover you if there is a bad year. Yeah, that should probably be taxed at a higher rate than the person that makes 20 dollars an hour. Really though, I am talking about the people that make many millions a year. When less than 1% of the population owns more than half the worlds wealth, things are out of balance. That inequality and lack of balance in the world is what is creating so many problems for people to just simply get by and cover all their necessary bills. The simplest way to begin to fix that is to raise taxes on the very wealthy and raise minimum wage.
Robert M. Snyder November 13th, 2014 at 16:37
I share your concern. I guess what gets my hackles up is when some people portray successful business owners as being greedy and uncaring. Yes, there are certainly some who fit that description. But I think there are other factors at work which are creating the present economic conditions.
I have spent my career building computer software that allows people to work more efficiently. Alan Greenspan couldn’t stop talking about the increases in efficiency that were propelling the US economy to new heights during the Clinton years.
Today we read many stories about robotics, self-parking cars, and other technologies that have demonstrated the potential to perform tasks that previously required a human.
I worked in a corrugated box factory for a year before starting college. It took a lot of people to run those machines. The majority of the workers were high school graduates who performed highly-repetitive jobs. The pay wasn’t great, but it was decent and steady, and you didn’t need to know advanced Calculus to do your job.
Here in PA, we have a public service TV channel called PCN (Pennsylvania Cable Network). They have a program called PCN Factory Tours. Each 30-minute segment involves an interviewer and a camera operator following a company representative through a manufacturing facility. My wife and I love to watch this show. But we have frequently noticed that there are VIRTUALLY NO PEOPLE required to run these modern factories.
The conventional wisdom is that American jobs have gone overseas. But the Foxcon company that assembles iPads for Apple is (I think) the biggest employer in China, and they have announced a major investment in robotics to reduce their need for workers.
Automation and robotics are happening everywhere. They are (probably) making products better and cheaper, which benefits consumers. But the money people spend on iPads and other products is now going to fewer people, because the products are now being manufactured by smart machines. So the business owners and shareholders accumulate more wealth, which is good if you are an investor. And we all benefit as consumers. But the system requires fewer workers due to those remarkable increases in efficiency that Greenspan was talking about in the nineties.
McDonald’s is now experimenting with a burger cooking machine that could reduce the need for fast food workers. From an engineering perspective, it’s kind of neat. But I have known a lot of good, honest, hard-working people who were never cut out to be computer programmers or electronics engineers. When people say that we need to provide young people with the advanced skills they will need for the new economy, I am skeptical. I encourage young people to consider entering a trade. The key thing is to have a marketable skill, hopefully doing something that you enjoy or at least don’t hate.
But as someone who creates tools that help people to work more efficiently, I can’t stop asking myself where this increasing automation is taking us. I no longer feel comfortable saying “Get a job”, because I am no longer confident that our increasingly automated economy can provide jobs for everyone.
A talented person who can leverage the new technology can probably build and run a company with very few workers. Websites now take the place of order entry and customer service people. I have purchased software products from companies that had only a few employees, yet managed to serve 10,000+ customers. Some of those people are probably very generous with their wealth, which they acquired the honest way, by providing a quality product that fulfilled a real need. I do not think we should be demonizing people who work hard and are successful. At the same time, I know that it is not realistic to expect everyone to replicate that kind of success.
I think we may be in the midst of a societal shift, and we haven’t yet figured out how to meet people’s need for meaningful work and meaningful income in a world where machines are getting smarter and faster every day. I think that wealth concentration is a SYMPTOM of this trend. I do not think it is the result of a grand conspiracy.
mea_mark November 13th, 2014 at 17:05
Whether it is a symptom of a trend or a grand conspiracy really isn’t important. Dealing with it is. Personally I think there is plenty for people to do. It will take awhile to clean up all the pollution and build all the renewable energy sources we can. Rebuilding are energy infrastructure and upgrading are housing for everyone to meet today’s standards of efficiency and functionality will take some work. The funds to do all this are there, they are just in the accounts of the wrong people. Taxation is the simplest way to get after those funds that aren’t being spent and just sitting. Tax the top 1% heavily and start cleaning up the planet and upgrade everything to help create a sustainable world.
Obewon November 13th, 2014 at 00:36
Here are the Top 16 myths about the health care law debunked via nonpartisan Pulitzer prize winner PolitiFact. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/sep/24/top-16-myths-about-health-care-law/
28 million ACA & State exchange HC buyers include 12-14 M+ new HC buyers who were uninsured: Estimated Total, all sources: appx. 28 Million
(7.1M Exchange QHPs, 8.0M Off-Exchange QHPs, 11.0M Medicaid/CHIP, 2.0M assorted) http://acasignups.net/ You know these HC buyers saved money, right?
allison1050 November 13th, 2014 at 04:53
I’m 1 that didn’t have healthcare coverage…and I’m 1 of many millions so what’s YOUR point if any? As far as your last question goes why not ask a Wal Mart employee that used to have a 40 hr. a week job that saw their hrs. cut to below part time (it saves the employer money)? Ask them about how they are directed by Wal Mart on how to apply for government assistance. You are rather slow on the up take aren’t you..sad really.
Spirit of America November 13th, 2014 at 05:41
To be fair, the aca[§ 4980H(c)(4)] cut the work week to 30hours, not walmart.
allison1050 November 13th, 2014 at 06:21
I’ve got this crazy idea that you really need to source your statement my friend in particular since it’s so very untrue.
Spirit of America November 13th, 2014 at 06:31
Will the irs site do?
I have the law in pdf format, so that wouldn’t help you. However, if you trust the irs enough, will this do?
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-12-58.pdf
:)
allison1050 November 13th, 2014 at 07:01
Okay here I go, hours were being cut BEFORE President Obama was even elected…my question is why you don’t acknowledge that..too difficult for you I guess. I worked in a growing field that has seen hours cut several years ago (nursing), construction is another. You really should expand your reading materials my friend. You’re attempting to use irs rules that are relatively recent and that’s just not going to work for ya! ;o)) buhbye now so that you can begin reading.
Spirit of America November 13th, 2014 at 07:15
It wasn’t a history lesson, it was the final cut, due to aca, period. That regulation is nation wide, not just a few industries.
Is your bedside manner as obnoxious as your posting? I said nothing insulting or sarcastic to you, yet you get obnoxious right off the bat with me? Why?
You may want to quit posting for a bit and read up on manners and courtesy to a fellow human being.
BuhBye now so you can learn to be civil.
tracey marie November 13th, 2014 at 07:34
the only person being obnoxious and rude is you towards allison.
Spirit of America November 13th, 2014 at 07:45
Start from my reply to her, read it(nothing rude or obnoxious), then read her reply and tell me honestly she didn’t get snippy.
tracey marie November 13th, 2014 at 07:48
do you honestly not see how rude and snippy you are?
Spirit of America November 13th, 2014 at 07:52
1. “To be fair, the aca[§ 4980H(c)(4)] cut the work week to 30hours, not walmart”
Where was I rude? That is my reply to her post.
tracey marie November 13th, 2014 at 07:57
besides being untrue why would you feel it necessary to post a lie then whine when you are called out on it. At least be self aware of how rude you come accross at times.
Spirit of America November 13th, 2014 at 08:00
LOL, what lie? Read the law, aca calls 30 hours fulltime, first time 30 was called such. The repubs are trying to repeal that section, now note, if it is not in the law, they can’t repeal it.
She calls people ‘slow on the uptake’ unsolicited, she says something ‘is too difficult’ and more, and you endorse bad behavior?
Our standards are a bit different.
edit: gotta run. Bad news is we don’t see eye-to-eye, good news is it won’t affect either of our lives, in any way shape or form.
Have a GREAT day!
tracey marie November 13th, 2014 at 08:15
you are pugnacious and hate when others stand their ground. And yes, I am aware of the irony of ME calling someone pugnacious
Spirit of America November 13th, 2014 at 09:30
“I am aware of the irony of ME calling someone pugnacious”
lol, that was cute… :)
“…and hate when others stand their ground”
No, I don’t, I despise weakness and admire when people stand their ground. I don’t like it when people make ad hominid attacks, or is rude for no reason.
My view is only be rude when someone is rude first. That way, if everyone followed that, no one would ever be rude since no one can be rude first…. :)
tracey marie November 13th, 2014 at 09:32
actually you get very upset and attack, self awareness is what you need. You did it to me, of course being pugnacious I was not intimidated
Spirit of America November 13th, 2014 at 10:20
Only when they start. If they start it, I play by their rules and give back.
Take this thread for example, what is rude about:
“To be fair, the aca[§ 4980H(c)(4)] cut the work week to 30hours, not walmart”
I honestly don’t see rudeness in it.
And I don’t get upset, nothing written on the internet is worth getting upset about. I do laugh at times or shake my head in dismay, but not upset.
I have a simple philosophy w/people:
If you give me a dollar, one day I’ll give you two;
if you take from me a dollar, 1 day I’ll take 2.
As long as I’m not rude first, all is fair game if they start it.
tracey marie November 13th, 2014 at 10:24
lol,that was a childs answer…they started it. Take responsibility for your words instead of whining.
Spirit of America November 13th, 2014 at 10:29
I am taking responsibility, I said if they start it, I play by their rules. Whining has nothing to do with it, simple fact. Leave me alone or get the same in kind. What, you let people insult and punch you and never do anything in return, honestly?
Verbally I’ve seen you really lay it on, and you’re telling me not to?
Spirit of America November 13th, 2014 at 10:35
What is delusional, be specific please. And would you please address your double standard… you insult freely initially, yet try to chastise people who only respond in kind.
Spirit of America November 13th, 2014 at 10:44
LOL LOL, you didn’t answer what is rude about my sentence, you won’t answer how I’m delusional and you won’t address your double standard… you just keep changing tact to the next thing you make up or make inane statements…
Tell you what, I’m going to take a break, you enjoy the day, ciao!
Ed Hamilton November 13th, 2014 at 08:33
This coming from you is hilarious.
allison1050 November 13th, 2014 at 09:27
I was being civil to you as a matter of fact. You just decided to ignore the fact that I stated earlier that hours were being cut BEFORE the current president was elected silly you. But please don’t let facts get in your way sweet thing.
Spirit of America November 13th, 2014 at 10:22
LOL LOL, and there you go again….
But, you conveniently decided to ignore the fact that it was aca that codified it into law which is what we were talking about, but please don’t let the topic get in your way of being rude sweet cheeks.
allison1050 November 13th, 2014 at 12:34
You don’t read much and it shows. Try reading the dates of the PDF before spouting off… it’s telling. “But please don’t let the” facts “get in your way”.
OldLefty November 13th, 2014 at 07:24
All that do is describe the criteria for the safe harbor method of calculating full time employees ; (simply accessing the full/part status of employees for the purpose of the shared employer responsibility provisions.
“An employee is a variable hour employee if, based on the facts and circumstances at the date the employee begins providing services to the employer (the start date), it cannot be determined that the employee is reasonably expected to work on average at least 30 hours per week. (The 30 hours per week average reflects the statutory definition of full-time employee in § 4980H(c)(4) and is the definition of “full-time employee” as used in this notice.) Seasonal employee is defined in section III.D.5, below.”
How did that “cut the work week”?
Spirit of America November 13th, 2014 at 07:28
Did you look up the statute cited?
OldLefty November 13th, 2014 at 07:35
Absolutely.
Where does it “cut the work week”?
Spirit of America November 13th, 2014 at 07:46
Read the law. Or google it. If google, note the repubs even tried to repeal that section.
OldLefty November 13th, 2014 at 07:59
4) Full-time employee
(A) In general
The term “full-time employee” means, with respect to any month, an employee who is employed on average at least 30 hours of service per week
That means that even 30 hours /week qualifies as full time for insurance.
What would be the incentive to cut someone’s hours?
allison1050 November 13th, 2014 at 09:30
Try saving money it equals profits or otherwise known at the bottom line or profitability. Full time had been a 40 hr. work week and part time had been 32 hrs or less per week.
Spirit of America November 13th, 2014 at 10:25
exactly
Spirit of America November 13th, 2014 at 10:25
To get under the full-time part, it saves money on benefits. When it was 40, part-time was 39 and below. Now that full-time is 30, many companies work their workers at 29, cutting 10 hours from their check and still saving them money in the benefits arena.
mea_mark November 13th, 2014 at 13:05
Maybe there should be a tax a company has to pay for every employee they have that is part-time, that would go into the ACA subsidy pool of funds. If companies like Walmart don’t want full-time employees and don’t want to offer them benefits and want the public to cover their part-timers insurance costs, then they should contribute to the public pool of funds that is doing, what they do not want to do.
Spirit of America November 13th, 2014 at 15:46
That’s a different topic, and 1 worth of discussion on its own, not a bad idea depending on set up…
mea_mark November 13th, 2014 at 16:01
Ideas have to start somewhere or we will never talk about them. Perhaps the republicans will decide fixing some of the unforeseen problems of the ACA is better than trying to kill it. They certainly can’t say we are ramming any fixes down their throats when they are in the majority. It is time for them to do something constructive or forever shut-up.
Spirit of America November 13th, 2014 at 16:53
True enough on the ideas, true enough.
Throw enough out there and something will work.
Nothing is perfect, nor will it ever be, but 1 should always strive for it. If the repubs want to abolish it but can’t, they shouldn’t throw a hissy fit and do nothing, they should come up w/real fixes to what they say is bad and present it. Oh wait, that’s the way it used to work any how, both sides.
OldLefty November 13th, 2014 at 15:47
That speaks very poorly of the employers, and of their business sense,
If
part-time workers offer an easy way to dodge an expensive mandate, why haven’t
more employers jumped on board? Christopher Ryan, a vice president of strategic
services at ADP spends a lot of
time talking to companies about this issue and says it mostly boils down to a
trade-off between having a skilled workforce and reducing benefit costs.
“If you’re operating a large restaurant in Manhattan on Valentine’s Day, you’re
probably wanting to have a highly-trained, highly-skilled wait staff,” he says.
“And it’s a question of, do you want your restaurant manager thinking about
benefit costs, and who needs to be sent home at 8 p.m. [so they don’t go over
their 30-hour week], or do you want to think about providing consumers with a
great experience?” APR
If the value of the new business is greater than the employer’s share of
an insurance plan or a fine, you go for it, right? That’s called capitalism.
So basically, they will pay and train MORE people, who have LESS invested in the business just to avoid the benefits and STILL pay a penalty?
Spirit of America November 13th, 2014 at 16:06
“That speaks very poorly of the employers, and of their business sense” – No, not always, but sometimes.
It really is a ‘type of business(what kind of work force is needed)” and who runs the business(their attitude/business style).
A, what we used to call, bean counter will crunch numbers and use them, regardless of good/bad policy or employee ‘comfort’. Others look after their employees as prime consideration. Others mix & match.
I was just saying the mechanics, not the good/bad of it.
As for the penalty, you mean the one for businesses that don’t provide ins and therefore pay so much per head to uncle sam?
OldLefty November 13th, 2014 at 16:13
As for the penalty, you mean the one for businesses that don’t provide ins and therefore pay so much per head to uncle sam?
______
Yes; the employer may be subject to an Employer Shared Responsibility payment if at least one of its full-time employees receives a premium tax credit for purchasing individual coverage on one of the new Affordable Insurance Exchanges, also called a Health Insurance Marketplace.
Since before the ACA Uncle Sam got stuck with the bill, or the cost was shifted to the insured.
Spirit of America November 13th, 2014 at 16:51
Yea, ok then, that penalty is sometimes cheaper than the ins plans a company was paying for for its employees, so some companies decided to go w/the penalty choice and dropped the ins for employees choice. Some didn’t.
OldLefty November 13th, 2014 at 16:55
Then you increase the penalty or go to single payer and take the burden off the employer altogether.
Spirit of America November 13th, 2014 at 16:58
To tell you the truth, I didn’t understand the penalty unless it was strictly to get employers to drop them. Think about it, I can come up w/no other time when a penalty was less than the offense. Usually a penalty is to make a certain behavior to costly, in any terms, than the action, no?
OldLefty November 13th, 2014 at 17:47
It is to make the insurance more attractive, and to offset the cost that the government has to pick up.
raincheck November 13th, 2014 at 08:45
Those companies were cutting back the hours BEFORE the ACA came along, so they could make more money… YOU need to do more research before you buy into the ‘Fox News BS you’ve been listening to… Allison is correct about Wal-Mart… You do realize, your taxes are paying for their employee’s ‘Public Assistance’ don’t you? It’s because they pay their employee’s such low wages/fewer hours, they qualify for P.A.
Where do you get the silly idea, it is the ACA that cut the hours?
Spirit of America November 13th, 2014 at 09:37
(sigh) Walmart can not make law… the law says 30+ is now considered full time. I never said no company cut hours before or after. I said the law made the 30 hour a week full time.
“YOU need to do more research before you buy into the ‘Fox News BS you’ve been listening to..”
No, I don’t. Does or does not the aca state that 30 hours or more is full time, yes or no?
And by the way, you have NO idea if I watch fox news or not, or even if I get fox news, do you? Did you ever see me say I get it? No, and I know you were never at my house, so why do you make stuff up to be what you want it to be? Do you have proof that I watch fox news, yes or no?
And that P.A. stuff is way off topic, so I’m not going there here.
(why is everybody so darn combative and rash before it is warranted????? rhetorical btw)
raincheck November 13th, 2014 at 11:03
Somebody correct me if I’m wrong… I’m under the impression that the law was changed (recently?) To make 30 hours a week, as full time, so the people who had their hours cut back could still get healthcare through the Company they worked for.
FACT: Cutting back the hours was something they did BEFORE Obama was elected, to avoid having to offer them healthcare.
Fox News has been ‘drumming’ it in to their viewers, it is because of the ACA, the hours were reduced (because the employers couldn’t afford it)
“And that P.A. stuff” as you so callously put it, Isn’t so “way off topic” (snarky remark) It’s all part of the same bird, which is to improve the ‘bottom line’ for the owners of ‘Wal-Mart’ by not having to pay for healthcare for their employees AND have the tax payers pick up the tab, because they pay such low wages they qualify for “Public Assistance” OF COURSE the Republicans want to repeal the law!!
“(sigh) Walmart can not make law…. You can “(sigh)” all you want, I never said Wal-Mart can “make law”
“(why is everybody so darn combative and rash before it is warranted????? rhetorical btw)” Just take a look at your own posts, and your snarky comments.
Regarding “Fox News” I’ll just ask you… Do you watch Fox? (I don’t expect an honest answer) If you don’t, then where do you get your news from?
R.J. Carter November 13th, 2014 at 11:58
Why should employers offer healthcare in the first place?
mea_mark November 13th, 2014 at 12:47
Healthy employees do a better job than sick ones. It keeps the employee motivated to stay, helping with job retention and lowering the cost of retraining or losing employees with critical skills. It used to be that offering health care helped employers get the best employees.
R.J. Carter November 13th, 2014 at 13:19
Yes, and now it’s helping them weed out the unhealthy ones, or the ones who engage in unhealthy practices, or are overweight, because of the annual health care screenings. It was an employee attractor that somewhere along the way came to be regarded as an expected right.
Foundryman November 13th, 2014 at 12:50
It’s called free market capitalism….If you want the best employees, you WILL pay them…
raincheck November 13th, 2014 at 15:41
In MOST circles, it is part of a package/wages to attract people to come and work for them.
No doubt in YOUR world, why should ANYONE get healthcare that can’t afford it… it’s called compassion for the people who get paid minimum wage, or don’t have a job… maybe their job went overseas, whatever the case may be.. It can either be paid for in the E.R… You know something… NEVER MIND. I’m SICK of people like you that only care about themselves… it’s that simple!
Spirit of America November 13th, 2014 at 15:42
I’m sighing(w/or w/out your permission btw) because people are bring in everything but what the topic of MY post is.
We were talking about the law, and when it became law, and what was in the aca. I didn’t say pro/com, or companies doing it before law, nothing like that. It is 30 hours in law in aca, the first time.
JoeTheConstitutionalist November 13th, 2014 at 10:43
My point is just that many who DID have healthcare are now having to pay more for their healthcare coverage. Or have LOST it….putting a plan in place that takes away from one group to give to another is NOT what we should be doing…at least, it isnt what I thought we were all about. But i guess if you are the recipient, it doesn’t really matter where it comes from, does it Allison. The other point is that while it is being stated that approximately 4 Million people who have signed up for OBAMACARE didnt have insurance, the other 3 Million were forced to sign up when they were dropped by their companies. and if you were being HONEST with YOURSELF you would ask the question as I have…WHY WOULD WALMART DROP the people it was covering if the plans were CHEAPER!? But they are not. Wal*mart Target, Home Depot and others dropped their part time employee coverage because the plans became so damned expensive…and the ADMINISTRATION KNEW that would happen. But in your eyes, its just greedy corporate america….isnt it Allison. Yes, Im sure that is what you are saying….has nothing to do with the fact that the new ACA has jacked up prices for many many millions of Americans and American companies. It is YOU who are slow oon the uptake my dear. If a company spends more than it makes, it doesnt have a business and everyone is out of work. It also has shareholders and employees to be concerned about. The ACA would cost WalMart and others Million and Millions of dollars with no benefit for them as a company. SO they did the business thing. The Government WANT THESE PEOPLE on the program to give it credibility. Please …dont be so ignorant.
R.J. Carter November 13th, 2014 at 11:55
I’m agreeing with the sentiment, and advising to (a) lose the caps and (b) use the paragraph markers. It will get you further with your case. I mean that constructively.
arc99 November 13th, 2014 at 12:32
what will get him further with his case is to not come to this forum, spamming fairy tales about it being illegal to provide health insurance to part time employees.
the fact that he had absolutely no idea what he was talking about is far more detrimental to his credibility than a caps lock.
allison1050 November 13th, 2014 at 12:32
I don’t really expect much … but before I go just let me tell ya that the figures stand at well over a million. And yes, every year an employer does indeed drop but on a temporary basis until you check off what you want. For such a know it all as yourself Joe, you still show that you have a problem with reading and would much rather be spoon fed by teevee or the radio entertainers. Wal Mart DID drop most staff as full time and waved their WallyWorld Wand there by changing most staff from full time to part time… it’s a way for the corporation/stockholders to earn M O N E Y!!
arc99 November 13th, 2014 at 12:35
and don’t bother providing him with objective information. I have already tried with references to CBO estimates, and references to health insurance participation surveys conducted by Kaiser.
in both cases, he simply dismissed the information which contradicted his opinions as lies.
typical right wing ideologue who will believe anything, except the truth.
allison1050 November 13th, 2014 at 15:40
I’m thinking it’s a troll.
mea_mark November 13th, 2014 at 12:54
You don’t need to attack other people personally to get your point across. Please try and be more civil.
allison1050 November 13th, 2014 at 15:39
That wasn’t an attack as a matter of fact. I’ve been attacked actually just this am and other people jumped in to point that out to my attacker. If you scroll down you’ll see exactly what I’m talking about. Thank you for your concern though.
mea_mark November 13th, 2014 at 16:10
I know what I edited out of your comment. You were escalating things. It was time to settle down. How can I give those with opposing views a hard time about being civil when those with similar views aren’t. I am not going to be a hypocrite if I can help it. If you think someone is not being civil don’t escalate things making the mods job harder, just flag them and remain civil.
This comment should apply to everyone really. We all need to be more civil to toward one another.
allison1050 November 13th, 2014 at 16:42
I don’t mean to be “rude” but you’ve got some scrolling to do to find the “rude” and very uncivil remarks made to me that others jumped in in defense of me. Have a great day and thanks.
mea_mark November 13th, 2014 at 16:47
I read them. I wasn’t around when they were being written. I can’t go back in time, the best I can do is to try and stop things and encourage better behavior in the future.
R.J. Carter November 13th, 2014 at 11:54
Only 5% of Americans did not have insurance through their employers, and of those 5%, a majority of them had Medicare/Medicaid. We basically wrote a ginormous law to benefit the 1%.
tracey marie November 13th, 2014 at 12:18
what about the people not working or uninsurable, do we pretend they do not exist?
R.J. Carter November 13th, 2014 at 13:21
That’s the 5 % of which a majority were on Medicare/Medicaid.
tracey marie November 13th, 2014 at 12:17
spamming the same garbage. no thoughts or intelligence just cut and paste
Wayout November 13th, 2014 at 11:01
It’s not that we don’t care about the un-insured, it’s that we care that the Constitution does not give the Federal Government the ability to provide for cradle to grave individual health care. It’s the liberal/progressives who don’t care about the un-insured, otherwise they would have gotten together and used their own monies to provide for the un-insured. But no, once again they have to force everyone to participate in another one of their ill thought out schemes.
tracey marie November 13th, 2014 at 11:17
waaaa, all you do is whine and demand the poor die and old wither away and the bible be the law
Wayout November 13th, 2014 at 11:49
And all you want to do is confiscate other people’s earnings for the things you want the government to do. Healthcare IS NOT A RIGHT that is guaranteed by the Constitution.
arc99 November 13th, 2014 at 11:56
being assured that when you buy a plane ticket, the vehicle that will transport you is in fact airworthy IS NOT A RIGHT either.
do you want to get rid of the FAA?
arc99 November 13th, 2014 at 11:21
national health insurance is an ill thought out scheme that exists in every other western democracy on the planet. we liberals are using our own monies to pay for the uninsured via the taxes we pay.
I have said for years, when I get the right to pick and choose how my tax dollars are used, I will be happy to extend the same option to you right wingers who always condone spending billions to kill people thousands of miles away, but not one red cent to help people right here at home
as for the Constitution, please show me exactly where in the authority defined in Article 1 Section 8 to levy taxes and provide for the general welfare, medical care is excluded from the general welfare.
Wayout November 13th, 2014 at 11:44
General welfare means things that benefit everybody. You know, bridges, roads, help in natural disasters, fighting communicable diseases like smallpox or TB. It was never meant to provide for a cradle to grave individual health care system that provides abortion, contraception, in-vitro fertilization, or takes care of any other individual medical malady. You want healthcare? Go get a private job that offers it as a part of your compensation or buy it yourself. Good heavens, you liberals want the Feds to provide everything.
Foundryman November 13th, 2014 at 11:47
Higher standards of living, including healthcare does benefit everyone.
arc99 November 13th, 2014 at 11:47
simply stated, it is your personal OPINION, not anything the Constitution actually says.
we are not governed by your OPINION. we are governed by the US Constitution where the authority to provide for the general welfare is delegated to Congress, as well as what will be included in that general welfare.
Obewon November 13th, 2014 at 16:26
The Constitution and our founders congresses 1792-1798 with Thomas Jefferson Also Supported Government-Run Health Care And A Tax To Pay For It! http://www.alan.com/2011/01/21/thomas-jefferson-also-supported-government-run-health-care-and-a-tax-to-pay-for-it/
Obewon November 13th, 2014 at 16:22
Wayout has no memory of our founding fathers, John Adams in particular, supported a plan that gave federally-run health care. Our second president signed into law the creation of federally-run marine hospitals with a mandated tax to support them. Historian Adam Rothman of Georgetown adds that Thomas Jefferson supported this plan as well, telling Sargent:
Alexander Hamilton supported the establishment of Marine Hospitals in a 1792 Report, and it was a Federalist congress that passed the law in 1798. But Jefferson (Hamilton’s strict constructionist nemesis) also supported federal marine hospitals, and along with his own Treasury Secretary, Albert Gallatin, took steps to improve them during his presidency. So I guess you could say it had bipartisan support.
Take that, Tea Partiers! http://www.alan.com/2011/01/21/thomas-jefferson-also-supported-government-run-health-care-and-a-tax-to-pay-for-it/
R.J. Carter November 13th, 2014 at 16:52
Did the hospital treat non-Marines?
Obewon November 13th, 2014 at 17:05
The 1790’s Seafarers government HC tax creating these government hospitals predated Government VA taxes and Hospitals for US Military Marines.
Back then most U.S. commerce involved shipping imports and exports and covered all seafarers accordingly to treat and end scurvy, etc. These efforts evolved into NIH and CDC.
Wayout November 13th, 2014 at 12:01
It’s not that we don’t care about the un-insured, it’s that we care that the Constitution does not give the Federal Government the authority to provide for cradle to grave individual health care. The government has no right to take money from me or anyone else to provides subsidies in order that someone else may have healthcare. NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER!
But really, it’s the liberal/progressives who don’t care about the un-insured, otherwise they would have gotten together and used their own monies to provide for the un-insured. But no, once again they have to force everyone to participate in another one of their ill thought out schemes.
tracey marie November 13th, 2014 at 12:17
waaaa, all you do is whine and demand the poor die and old wither away and the bible be the law
Wayout November 13th, 2014 at 12:49
And all you want to do is confiscate other people’s earnings for the things you want the government to do. Healthcare IS NOT A RIGHT that is guaranteed by the Constitution.
arc99 November 13th, 2014 at 12:56
being assured that when you buy a plane ticket, the vehicle that will transport you is in fact airworthy IS NOT A RIGHT either.
do you want to get rid of the FAA?
arc99 November 13th, 2014 at 12:21
national health insurance is an ill thought out scheme that exists in every other western democracy on the planet. we liberals are using our own monies to pay for the uninsured via the taxes we pay.
I have said for years, when I get the right to pick and choose how my tax dollars are used, I will be happy to extend the same option to you right wingers who always condone spending billions to kill people thousands of miles away, but not one red cent to help people right here at home
as for the Constitution, please show me exactly where in the authority defined in Article 1 Section 8 to levy taxes and provide for the general welfare, medical care is excluded from the general welfare.
Wayout November 13th, 2014 at 12:44
General welfare means things that benefit everybody. You know, bridges, roads, help in natural disasters, fighting communicable diseases like smallpox or TB. It was never meant to provide for a cradle to grave individual health care system that provides abortion, contraception, in-vitro fertilization, or takes care of any other individual medical malady. You want healthcare? Go get a private job that offers it as a part of your compensation or buy it yourself. Good heavens, you liberals want the Feds to provide everything.
Foundryman November 13th, 2014 at 12:47
Higher standards of living, including healthcare does benefit everyone.
arc99 November 13th, 2014 at 12:47
simply stated, it is your personal OPINION, not anything the Constitution actually says.
we are not governed by your OPINION. we are governed by the US Constitution where the authority to provide for the general welfare is delegated to Congress, as well as what will be included in that general welfare.
Obewon November 13th, 2014 at 17:26
The Constitution and our founders congresses 1792-1798 with Thomas Jefferson Also Supported Government-Run Health Care And A Tax To Pay For It! http://www.alan.com/2011/01/21/thomas-jefferson-also-supported-government-run-health-care-and-a-tax-to-pay-for-it/
Obewon November 13th, 2014 at 17:22
Wayout has no memory of our founding fathers, John Adams in particular, supported a plan that gave federally-run health care. Our second president signed into law the creation of federally-run marine hospitals with a mandated tax to support them. Historian Adam Rothman of Georgetown adds that Thomas Jefferson supported this plan as well.
Alexander Hamilton supported the establishment of Marine Hospitals in a 1792 Report, and it was a Federalist congress that passed the law in 1798. But Jefferson (Hamilton’s strict constructionist nemesis) also supported federal marine hospitals, and along with his own Treasury Secretary, Albert Gallatin, took steps to improve them during his presidency. So I guess you could say it had bipartisan support.
Take that, Tea Partiers! http://www.alan.com/2011/01/21/thomas-jefferson-also-supported-government-run-health-care-and-a-tax-to-pay-for-it/
R.J. Carter November 13th, 2014 at 17:52
Did the hospital treat non-Marines?
Obewon November 13th, 2014 at 18:05
The 1790’s Seafarers government HC tax creating these government hospitals predated Government VA taxes and VA Hospitals for U.S. Military Marines.
Back then most U.S. commerce involved shipping imports and exports and covered all seafarers accordingly to treat and end scurvy, etc. These efforts evolved into NIH and CDC.
R.J. Carter November 13th, 2014 at 16:16
He admits that the law had to be worded complexly to get past the CBO.
Why didn’t he just give the CBO his comic book?
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00B9ZCCN8/ref=rdr_ext_tmb
R.J. Carter November 13th, 2014 at 17:16
He admits that the law had to be worded complexly to get past the CBO.
Why didn’t he just give the CBO his comic book?
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00B9ZCCN8/ref=rdr_ext_tmb
Obewon November 13th, 2014 at 18:01
It’s very funny that the anti ACA repeal cons hang their hopes on two words ‘The State’ in a four word phrase in a 906 page bill providing HC to 28 Million, reducing HC costs, eliminating preexisting exclusions, lifetime care caps that reduce Federal deficits $1.5 trillion+ per CBO! Proving once again there is absolutely nothing conservative about today’s cons: “there’s really nothing in the law that would prevent a state from in effect kind of outsourcing it — that back to the federal marketplace.”–SUSAN DENTZER, Health Policy Analyst for PBS Newshour with Judy Woodruff via NPR on SCOTUS worst case scenario at the 2 minute 30 second mark http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/answer-health-care-questions-open-enrollment-nears/
Obewon November 13th, 2014 at 19:01
It’s very funny that the anti ACA repeal cons hang their hopes on two words ‘The State’ in a four word phrase in a 906 page bill providing HC to 28 Million, reducing HC costs, eliminating preexisting exclusions, lifetime care caps that reduce Federal deficits $1.5 trillion+ per CBO! Proving once again there is absolutely nothing conservative about today’s cons: “there’s really nothing in the law that would prevent a state from in effect kind of outsourcing it — that back to the federal marketplace.”–SUSAN DENTZER, Health Policy Analyst for PBS Newshour with Judy Woodruff via NPR on SCOTUS worst case scenario at the 2 minute 30 second mark http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/answer-health-care-questions-open-enrollment-nears/