Obamacare's Devastating Effect on Full-Time Employment

[pricejj]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...inion_newsreel

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...ORDS=part-time

Retailers, indeed many sectors of the economy, are going to part-time labor in order to avoid Obamacare's mandate to provide insurance to full-time workers or pay a penalty.

Would you rather have a full-time job, or unecessary, over-priced health insurance? This is further evidence of the job-killing effects of Socialist Democracies in action.

Say NO to Socialism.

[Garcia Bronco]

This will give people more time for preventative health. I just hope these people realize they don't need to go to college for these jobs. I would however point out that socialism isn't always a bad thing. Roads, Police, and so on.

[cutthemdown]

Obamacare wont work well, but he will be long gone by then, and blame someone else for it.

In fact the biggest area of Obamas library will be the hall of blame!

[cutthemdown]

Under 25 can get on with parents. You wonder what that means for someone applying for a job who has 5 kids, as oppossed to someone with 1 kid, or no kids etc etc.

[pricejj]

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

This will give people more time for preventative health. I just hope these people realize they don't need to go to college for these jobs. I would however point out that socialism isn't always a bad thing. Roads, Police, and so on.

The power to collect taxes for roads rests in both the U.S. Constitution, and the state constitutions. Police power is granted by state constitutions. Providing for Defense is also granted by the U.S. Constitution.


Government is necessary to provide a basic framework, in which a free market economy can exist.

Anything beyond that, is unecessary at the federal level, and best handled by the states.

[TonyR]

The problem is we don't have a control test. In other words, we don't know whether or not companies would be doing this whether ACA was coming or not. Healthcare costs are increasing rapidly with or without it. So it would stand to reason that companies would move in this direction regardless. Is ACA causing more companies to do this, and/or causing them to do it sooner? Maybe. But we have no way to know for sure. What we do know is that in a tough economy and a competitive environment companies are always looking for ways to cut costs. And this is a clear way to do it. Which is all the more reason why we need to figure out a way for everyone to have access to affordable healthcare in this country.

[pricejj]

Originally Posted by TonyR

The problem is we don't have a control test. In other words, we don't know whether or not companies would be doing this whether ACA was coming or not. Healthcare costs are increasing rapidly with or without it. So it would stand to reason that companies would move in this direction regardless. Is ACA causing more companies to do this, and/or causing them to do it sooner? Maybe. But we have no way to know for sure. What we do know is that in a tough economy and a competitive environment companies are always looking for ways to cut costs. And this is a clear way to do it. Which is all the more reason why we need to figure out a way for everyone to have access to affordable healthcare in this country.

Companies are doing this. Tying an insurance mandate to full-time employment has VERY predictable consequences. Obamacare was supposed to make things better, not worse.

You also need to realize that, with Obamacare, the U.S. is the only country in the world that forces a large segment of the population to subsidize everyone else's healthcare, without actually being able to receive any healthcare themselves.

That is oppression...and will never last.

[TonyR]

Originally Posted by pricejj

Companies are doing this.

Yes, they are. But you failed to address my major point: would they be doing it regardless? You can't prove it either way. Healthcare costs companies huge $ and they stand to benefit by moving employees from full time to part time, just as they often stand to benefit from things like higher productivity and outsourcing. So again, we don't know for sure how much of a factor ACA is here. You can only speculate, and of course companies will use it as an excuse.

[Blart]

Originally Posted by pricejj

Say NO to Socialism.

[pricejj]

Originally Posted by TonyR

Yes, they are. But you failed to address my major point: would they be doing it regardless? You can't prove it either way. Healthcare costs companies huge $ and they stand to benefit by moving employees from full time to part time, just as they often stand to benefit from things like higher productivity and outsourcing. So again, we don't know for sure how much of a factor ACA is here. You can only speculate, and of course companies will use it as an excuse.

I work part-time at King Soopers. The rules used to be that you qualified for benefits with 20 hours per week. The new rules (effective 2013), require people to work 32 hours to qualify for benefits (which is full-time).

No, I don't think companies would be purging employees from health insurance roles without Obamacare. As an employer, you compete for employees, by offering things such as health insurance. If there is no business incentive to offer health insurance then there is no reason to offer it.

By avoiding to offer health insurance, companies can:
1. Avoid paying the Obamacare penalty.
2. Avoid paying certain large increases in future healthcare costs created by Obamacare (pre-existing condition inclusion, over-utilization).

Employees have another option now, complete subsidization from the U.S. taxpayer, instead of from their employer. Before, that option didn't exist, so companies were forced to offer health insurance to compete for good employees. Obamacare is a complete cluster**** to the nth degree.

[houghtam]

Originally Posted by TonyR

Yes, they are. But you failed to address my major point: would they be doing it regardless? You can't prove it either way. Healthcare costs companies huge $ and they stand to benefit by moving employees from full time to part time, just as they often stand to benefit from things like higher productivity and outsourcing. So again, we don't know for sure how much of a factor ACA is here. You can only speculate, and of course companies will use it as an excuse.

I've been in management for 15 years. Employers are ALWAYS attempting to cut the number of full-time employees, and it certainly has nothing to do with the ACA.

[pricejj]

Originally Posted by houghtam

I've been in management for 15 years. Employers are ALWAYS attempting to cut the number of full-time employees, and it certainly has nothing to do with the ACA.

It's more economical to pay one 40 hour employee, with benefits...than it is to pay two 20 hours employees, with benefits, at the same rate...which is what conditions were before Obamacare.

With Obamacare, it actually is more profitable to carry part-time employees without health benefits...which is disastrous for American workers.

[TonyR]

Originally Posted by pricejj

No, I don't think companies would be purging employees from health insurance roles without Obamacare. As an employer, you compete for employees, by offering things such as health insurance. If there is no business incentive to offer health insurance then there is no reason to offer it.

price, with unemployment high right now employers are in the driver's seat. Employers don't have to "compete" very hard for employees, particularly for those that have to settle for part time work. Once again, they are saving money pushing people from full to part time with or without ACA. There is no proof that ACA is driving this. Like I said, it's probably a factor. But we don't know how big of a factor. I'm a salaried professional at one of the largest employers in the country and they've been increasing our health care costs every year since I've been here. It didn't just start with ACA.

[TonyR]

Originally Posted by pricejj

With Obamacare, it actually is more profitable to carry part-time employees without health benefits...which is disastrous for American workers.

Sigh. Why are you having such a hard time with this? Benefits cost companies a fortune. They can account for around 50% of employee total compensation. It's "more profitable" (to borrow your terminology) to have part time employees without health benefits with or without ACA. Once again, we don't know how much of a factor ACA is. We do know that it's a convenient excuse.

[The Lone Bolt]

Originally Posted by pricejj

Companies are doing this. Tying an insurance mandate to full-time employment has VERY predictable consequences. Obamacare was supposed to make things better, not worse.

You also need to realize that, with Obamacare, the U.S. is the only country in the world that forces a large segment of the population to subsidize everyone else's healthcare, without actually being able to receive any healthcare themselves.

That is oppression...and will never last.

You are already subsidizing the HC of others without receiving benefit under the current (pre-ACA) system, and would continue to do so under Romney's so-called "plan."

So is Romney's plan oppressive too?

And what else do you consider "oppression?" Your tax money paying for elder care that you don't benefit from? Education of our children that you don't receive? Any time money is taken from you to care for somebody else it's "oppression?"

[pricejj]

Originally Posted by TonyR

price, with unemployment high right now employers are in the driver's seat. Employers don't have to "compete" very hard for employees, particularly for those that have to settle for part time work. Once again, they are saving money pushing people from full to part time with or without ACA. There is no proof that ACA is driving this. Like I said, it's probably a factor. But we don't know how big of a factor. I'm a salaried professional at one of the largest employers in the country and they've been increasing our health care costs every year since I've been here. It didn't just start with ACA.

I don't know that it is quantifiable...yet. But there is a shift to part-time workers without benefits, which has accelerated since Obamacare was enacted. Drug prices have doubled or tripled, and Medicare billing has become clogged with bureacracy (requiring a lot of paperwork to approve even basic diabetic prescriptions). I have worked in a retail pharmacy since 2001, so I am well aware of the rate of cost increases...the last 3 years have been epic.

To be sustainable, healthcare costs should rise no faster than inflation. Healthcare costs now, are rising at about triple the rate of inflation.

[pricejj]

Originally Posted by The Lone Bolt

You are already subsidizing the HC of others without receiving benefit under the current (pre-ACA) system, and would continue to do so under Romney's so-called "plan."

So is Romney's plan oppressive too?

And what else do you consider "oppression?" Your tax money paying for elder care that you don't benefit from? Education of our children that you don't receive? Any time money is taken from you to care for somebody else it's "oppression?"

1. Medicare/Medicaid has been in existence since 1965, they are not sustainable, and need to be reformed. That is well known.
2. With Obamacare, the U.S. became the only country in the world to force someone to subsidize someone elses healthcare without being able to receive any healthcare of their own. Medicare/Medicaid are payroll taxes. The Obamacare tax is not. It is a punitive tax on everyone, regardless of employment status.

Like I said, Obamacare is a horrible idea, and won't last, regardless of the outcome of this election.

[The Lone Bolt]

Originally Posted by pricejj

1. Medicare/Medicaid has been in existence since 1965, they are not sustainable, and need to be reformed. That is well known.
2. With Obamacare, the U.S. became the only country in the world to force someone to subsidize someone elses healthcare without being able to receive any healthcare of their own. Medicare/Medicaid are payroll taxes. The Obamacare tax is not. It is a punitive tax on everyone, regardless of employment status.

Like I said, Obamacare is a horrible idea, and won't last, regardless of the outcome of this election.

You already are subsidizing other people's HC, and would continue to do so under Romney's plan. When uninsured people present to the ER they must be cared for. When they can't pay then the cost is passed on to the rest of us. How many times do I have to point this out?

[ScottXray]

Originally Posted by pricejj

I don't know that it is quantifiable...yet. But there is a shift to part-time workers without benefits, which has accelerated since Obamacare was enacted. Drug prices have doubled or tripled, and Medicare billing has become clogged with bureacracy (requiring a lot of paperwork to approve even basic diabetic prescriptions). I have worked in a retail pharmacy since 2001, so I am well aware of the rate of cost increases...the last 3 years have been epic.

To be sustainable, healthcare costs should rise no faster than inflation. Healthcare costs now, are rising at about triple the rate of inflation.

And they were doing so BEFORE obamacare was passed, which is part of the reason it was passed in the first place, since the increasing costs were pointed to as an unsustainable cost. Health care costs were driving benefits down, in general, and have for many years. My company has pointed to health care as a reason to cut benefits for at least the last 10 years.

Employers are not hiring full time employees, in part becasue part time receives no health and other (pension) benefit. It is a way to cut cost and increase profit. In jobs where full time employees are needed to be competitive, the employers are still cutting benefits ( who gets a pension anymore) and demanding higher and higher levels of "productivity" from their employees, while telling them not to let the door hit them on the ass if they don't like it.

Due to the general economy they are getting away with it and the MBAs are trying to squeeze the employees harder and harder. When /IF the economy and unemployment turns around then benefits will rise some. And I'm sure the MBAs will use Obamacare deductions to lower the tax burden appropriately.

Overall the tax burden on small business/corporations is too high, as well as the burden on the public in general.

Whoever is elected , the main priority should be tax reform in general...and the wealthy deserve to pay a % share equal or greater to the middle class. Overall I would lower the rate and eliminate loopholes similar to Romneys plan...with the exception that ALL income over 3 million a year for any individual is taxed at the max rate ( say 30%) ( including capital gains and interest and investments), and I would set business taxes at 20-25%, with most deductions continued, but implement a Business Alternative Minimum tax that would ensure that no multi million or billion dollar company pays no taxes ( whats good for individuals is good for corporations ( aren't they the same as individuals anyway)).

[pricejj]

Originally Posted by The Lone Bolt

You already are subsidizing other people's HC, and would continue to do so under Romney's plan. When uninsured people present to the ER they must be cared for. When they can't pay then the cost is passed on to the rest of us. How many times do I have to point this out?

Emergency room costs can be contained and dealt with in a better way.

1. Medicaid patients often seek ER treatment for minor colds, because they don't have to pay anything.
2. Illegal immigrants also use the ER, because they know they won't have to pay.
3. The people who use ER's and don't pay...won't pay under Obamacare either. So if you think you are solving a problem, the simple fact is, you are not. You are making it worse.
4. Obamacare also encourages over-utilization of healthcare services...further adding to costs, and compounding the problem.


If expensive healthcare and un/underemployment is the problem, Obamacare is not the solution.

Socialist Democrats know this, and continue to support the law, no matter the consequences...which is insane.

[Blart]

You're not going to overturn the ACA, and single-payer healthcare is next.

[The Lone Bolt]

Originally Posted by pricejj

Emergency room costs can be contained and dealt with in a better way.

1. Medicaid patients often seek ER treatment for minor colds, because they don't have to pay anything.
2. Illegal immigrants also use the ER, because they know they won't have to pay.
3. The people who use ER's and don't pay...won't pay under Obamacare either. So if you think you are solving a problem, the simple fact is, you are not. You are making it worse.
4. Obamacare also encourages over-utilization of healthcare services...further adding to costs, and compounding the problem.


If expensive healthcare and un/underemployment is the problem, Obamacare is not the solution.

Socialist Democrats know this, and continue to support the law, no matter the consequences...which is insane.

If you really believe this (bolded), then you clearly have no idea how the ACA functions.

And how does Romney's plan solve the problem of uninsured people utilizing ERs and not paying?

[pricejj]

Originally Posted by The Lone Bolt

If you really believe this (bolded), then you clearly have no idea how the ACA functions.

And how does Romney's plan solve the problem of uninsured people utilizing ERs and not paying?

People on Medicaid who overutilize ER's won't pay for anything under Obamacare. Low-income people who use the ER and don't pay, because they don't care what happens to their credit report, are either added to Medicaid, or fully subsidized (by taxpayers) under Obamacare. So no, the costs DO NOT go down...they are simply SHIFTED onto taxpayers.

The primary driver behind skyrocketing healthcare costs is Medicare. Mitt Romney will reform Medicare in order to limit taxpayer liability, and therefore, decrease healthcare costs.

[mhgaffney]

Maybe -- but not nearly as devastating as

1. off shoring

2. military spending (which creates fewer jobs per dollar spent than ay other kind of investment)

[houghtam]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

Maybe -- but not nearly as devastating as

1. off shoring

2. military spending (which creates fewer jobs per dollar spent than ay other kind of investment)

According to some conservatives...coughcoughcutthemdowncough...we need to spend enough on the military to protect us from an attack by the entire world. The fact that we have 400 million people to the rest of the world's 6.6 billion notwithstanding, I suppose.