Obamacare and Jobs

[Lewdog]

I had made mention of this in another thread. In this article, it shows that companies are already getting ready for the new laws to kick in. Companies are hiring more people while cutting other employee's hours, to save themselves the money of having to provide medical insurance. Now workers will be faced with getting a second job or dealing with getting less hours and less money. This could affect a lot of low income, and middle class families.

[url="http://finance.yahoo.com/news/health-law-spurs-shift-hours-022100532.html"]http://finance.yahoo...-022100532.html[/url]

[|Montana Bengal|]

When I worked at Barnes and Noble (years ago) they were moving to hire only part-time employees (outside of management) because they didn't want to provide benefits.

I'm not sure this is a 'new' thing as much as 'we' are paying attention to it now.

[sois]

I wonder what % of companies don't have insurance options for their full timers currently. I guess I've been lucky that all the companies I've ever been full time at had insurance.

And yeah, Montana is right, shifting to mainly part-timers seems like it's been a trend before Obamacare was even an idea.

[|Montana Bengal|]

[quote name='sois' timestamp='1352151563' post='1177890']
I wonder what % of companies don't have insurance options for their full timers currently. I guess I've been lucky that all the companies I've ever been full time at had insurance.
[/quote]

[Vol_Bengal]

[quote name='Montana Bengal' timestamp='1352151395' post='1177889']
When I worked at Barnes and Noble (years ago) they were moving to hire only part-time employees (outside of management) because they didn't want to provide benefits.

I'm not sure this is a 'new' thing as much as 'we' are paying attention to it now.
[/quote]

I can't speak for everywhere else but in my neck of the woods this is becoming an increasing occurrence and the decision makers point directly at the insurance issues as the reason for doing so. In my company's line of work we deal with companies of all sizes and hear this more and more...

That said - I'm just so tired of this election cycle. So glad in 36 hours it'll be over and the "what-ifs" and "oh no's" articles can be published and linked. Feel like the Obamacare thing is a dead horse at this point.

[MichaelWeston]

Maybe these companies should worry more about doing the right thing and giving their workers health care then making the most amount of money possible.

[|Elflocko|]

Oh, and that's not even the worst of it. Many employers are "providing healthcare" to their employees.

With a $30,000 deductible for a family of 4.

No, I didn't mistype that or add that 4th '0' by mistake.

Or, they gut the prescription plan so it covers practically nothing. Have GERD and need a prescription? Tough shit. Prevacid is over the counter now. Never mind the fact that its dosage is half that of a prescription.

And Wal-Mart pioneered the "Don't let anyone get full time or we have to pay them benefits" shtick. Been doing it since the 90's at least....

[sois]

[quote name='MichaelWeston' timestamp='1352151799' post='1177893']
Maybe these companies should worry more about doing the right thing and giving their workers health care then making the most amount of money possible.
[/quote]

The Wal-Marts of the world don't have to do the right thing if their clientele doesn't even give a shit about how the company treats its employees. As longs as people shop there, they essentially endorse that behaviour.

[Lewdog]

[quote name='Montana Bengal' timestamp='1352151395' post='1177889']
When I worked at Barnes and Noble (years ago) they were moving to hire only part-time employees (outside of management) because they didn't want to provide benefits.

I'm not sure this is a 'new' thing as much as 'we' are paying attention to it now.
[/quote]

It's an issue because now even more businesses are going to do it. So now more than ever it will be hard to get a full time job that helps to pay the bills. Now more people will be forced to get a second job to supplement their income. Have you ever worked 2 jobs at once? I used to work as a manager at the GNC in the Dayton Mall and work selling cell phones in Forest Fair or whatever it is called now Mall. I lived in between the 2 next to the Towne Mall. I would get off work at one place, drive straight to my apartment, change cloths, grab a cold cut sandwich, and be off to my other job. I did that 6 days a week for about 6 months. I couldn't imagine doing that and have a family. I envy those people. Unfortunately this law will make it so people have no choice.

[sois]

The fix is easy though. If you see a company that does this, just don't use their products/services. People of course only care about themselves and would rather save a buck than try to help their fellow citizens.

[|Montana Bengal|]

[quote name='sois' timestamp='1352152193' post='1177902']
The fix is easy though. If you see a company that does this, just don't use their products/services. People of course only care about themselves and would rather save a buck than try to help their fellow citizens.
[/quote]

[Jamie_B]

The cheating that companies do how to get around paying benefits is exactly why we need a public option in healthcare

[Lewdog]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1352152254' post='1177905']
The cheating that companies do how to get around paying benefits is exactly why we need a public option in healthcare
[/quote]

Then why didn't Obama help make the law so there weren't certain loopholes? They very easily could have created a structure so that depending on how many hours a week you worked, whether at one job or another, a certain portion of you pay goes towards your medical benefits. They could base the portion on a regular 40 hour work and scale it down. By making all the responsibility on the companies, they are going to choose the easiest way out, which happens to be cutting hours and hiring new people. They could do exactly like I said, but use the government insurance that citizens will be required to get if you don't have insurance from other providers.

Damn I hate talking about this stuff, it sounds so much better in my head.

[sois]

[quote name='Lewdog' timestamp='1352152806' post='1177908']
[b]Then why didn't Obama help make the law so there weren't certain loopholes?[/b]
[/quote]

Easier said than done.

[Lewdog]

If Romney is elected does he have enough time to stop the law? I'm sure he'll try, but trying to get something done quickly in Washington is never easy. Yahoo has an article that their last game before the election has been able to predict the winning Presidential candidate 17 out of the last 18 times.

[quote]Here's what the Redskins Rule means: If the Redskins win their last home game before the presidential election, then the incumbent party retains the White House. If the Redskins lose, then the incumbent party is voted out.[/quote]

[url="http://www.thepostgame.com/features/201211/washington-redskins-world-series-presidential-election-forecast-obama-romney"]http://www.thepostgame.com/features/201211/washington-redskins-world-series-presidential-election-forecast-obama-romney[/url]

[The PatternMaster]

[quote name='Lewdog' timestamp='1352153452' post='1177912']
If Romney is elected does he have enough time to stop the law? I'm sure he'll try, but trying to get something done quickly in Washington is never easy. Yahoo has an article that their last game before the election has been able to predict the winning Presidential candidate 17 out of the last 18 times.



[url="http://www.thepostgame.com/features/201211/washington-redskins-world-series-presidential-election-forecast-obama-romney"]http://www.thepostga...st-obama-romney[/url]
[/quote]

You know that Romney did Obamacare in Mass when he was the governor, with the way he flip-flops on issues who knows what he will do if he gets in the White House. That is one of the reasons why I can't vote for the guy, one minute he's pro choice the next he's pro life. When he's governor of Mass he passes RomneyCare but when Obama does the samething it's a horrible idea that should be dismantled.

Even in his campaigning he flip flops, one minute he screaming government doesn't created jobs but 5 minutes later he says he will create 12 million jobs if he's elected president.

He's all over the place and will say anything to get elected.
[img]http://cdn.uproxx.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/sayanything.jpeg[/img]

[sois]

[quote name='The PatternMaster' timestamp='1352154505' post='1177919']
You know that Romney did Obamacare in Mass when he was the governor
[/quote]

Big difference between a state level mandate and a federal one.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Lewdog' timestamp='1352152806' post='1177908']
Then why didn't Obama help make the law so there weren't certain loopholes? They very easily could have created a structure so that depending on how many hours a week you worked, whether at one job or another, a certain portion of you pay goes towards your medical benefits. They could base the portion on a regular 40 hour work and scale it down. By making all the responsibility on the companies, they are going to choose the easiest way out, which happens to be cutting hours and hiring new people. They could do exactly like I said, but use the government insurance that citizens will be required to get if you don't have insurance from other providers.

Damn I hate talking about this stuff, it sounds so much better in my head.
[/quote]

There is actually a really good PBS thing on Obamacare and these issues, it also imo speaks to our inability to get good legislation out the door and why that is on a whole

[url="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/obamasdeal/"]http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/obamasdeal/[/url]

[The PatternMaster]

[quote name='sois' timestamp='1352152882' post='1177909']
Easier said than done.
[/quote]

Exactly, when you have a GOP lead congress that's sole focus is on making sure that Obama is a one term president and not what's best for the people of this country it's hard to get anything done. Hell the GOP congress almost let the government go bankrupt just to spite Obama, they are literally cutting off their nose to spite their face.

[quote]
Robert Draper Book: GOP's Anti-Obama Campaign Started Night Of Inauguration

Posted: 04/25/2012 2:53 pm Updated: 04/26/2012 10:09 am










[img]http://i.huffpost.com/gen/582330/thumbs/s-DO-NOT-ASK-WHAT-GOOD-WE-DO-large.jpg[/img]

WASHINGTON -- As President Barack Obama was celebrating his inauguration at various balls, top Republican lawmakers and strategists were conjuring up ways to submarine his presidency at a private dinner in Washington.

The event -- which provides a telling revelation for how quickly the post-election climate soured -- serves as the prologue of Robert Draper's much-discussed and heavily-reported new book, "Do Not Ask What Good We Do: Inside the U.S. House of Representatives."

According to Draper, the guest list that night (which was just over 15 people in total) included Republican Reps. Eric Cantor (Va.), Kevin McCarthy (Calif.), Paul Ryan (Wis.), Pete Sessions (Texas), Jeb Hensarling (Texas), Pete Hoekstra (Mich.) and Dan Lungren (Calif.), along with Republican Sens. Jim DeMint (S.C.), Jon Kyl (Ariz.), Tom Coburn (Okla.), John Ensign (Nev.) and Bob Corker (Tenn.). The non-lawmakers present included Newt Gingrich, several years removed from his presidential campaign, and Frank Luntz, the long-time Republican wordsmith. Notably absent were Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) -- who, Draper writes, had an acrimonious relationship with Luntz.

For several hours in the Caucus Room (a high-end D.C. establishment), the book says they plotted out ways to not just win back political power, but to also put the brakes on Obama's legislative platform.

"If you act like you're the minority, you're going to stay in the minority," Draper quotes McCarthy as saying. "We've gotta challenge them on every single bill and challenge them on every single campaign."

The conversation got only more specific from there, Draper reports. Kyl suggested going after incoming Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner for failing to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes while at the International Monetary Fund. Gingrich noted that House Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) had a similar tax problem. McCarthy chimed in to declare "there's a web" before arguing that Republicans could put pressure on any Democrat who accepted campaign money from Rangel to give it back. The dinner lasted nearly four hours. They parted company almost giddily.

The Republicans had agreed on a way forward: Go after Geithner. (And indeed Kyl did, the next day: ‘Would you answer my question rather than dancing around it—please?’) Show united and unyielding opposition to the president’s economic policies. (Eight days later, Minority Whip Cantor would hold the House Republicans to a unanimous No against Obama’s economic stimulus plan.)

Begin attacking vulnerable Democrats on the airwaves. (The first National Republican Congressional Committee attack ads would run in less than two months.) Win the spear point of the House in 2010. Jab Obama relentlessly in 2011. Win the White House and the Senate in 2012.

"You will remember this day," Draper reports Newt Gingrich as saying on the way out. "You’ll remember this as the day the seeds of 2012 were sown."

Draper's timeline is correct. On Jan. 21, 2009, [url="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/economy-watch/2009/01/grassley_bank_nationalization.html"]Kyl aggressively questioned[/url] Geithner during his confirmation hearings. On Jan. 28, 2009, House GOP leadership [url="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/29/us/politics/29obama.html"]held the line against[/url] the stimulus package (Senate GOP leadership would prove less successful in stopping defections).

The votes, of course, can be attributed to legitimate philosophical objection to the idea of stimulus spending as well as sincere concern that the secretary of the Treasury should personally have a clean tax-paying record. But what Draper's book makes clear is that blunt electoral-minded ambitions were the animating force.

Whether or not that's shocking depends on the degree to which one's view of politics has been jaded. What's certainly noteworthy is the timing. When Mitch McConnell said [url="http://articles.latimes.com/2010/oct/27/news/la-pn-obama-mcconnell-20101027"]in October 2010[/url] that his party's primary goal in the next Congress was to make Obama a one-term president, it was treated as remarkably candid and deeply cynical. Had he said it publicly in January 2009, it would likely have caused an uproar.

By extension, however, the Draper anecdote also negatively reflects on the Obama administration for failing to appreciate how quickly congressional Republicans would oppose the president's agenda.
[/quote]




[url="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/25/robert-draper-anti-obama-campaign_n_1452899.html"]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/25/robert-draper-anti-obama-campaign_n_1452899.html[/url]

Mitch McConnell said that the GOP strategy was to make Obama a one term president, keep in mind this is in the midst of the worst economy in our life time and the GOP is more concerned with making Obama look bad and stalemating him at every chance they get, no matter how it affects the people who voted them in office. The GOP doesn't care about anyone execpt for themselves and their WEALTHLY backers, everyone else is here for their pleasure.

[url="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&ved=0CC4QtwIwAg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DW-A09a_gHJc&ei=vjyYUMqBGujk0QHglYCYAg&usg=AFQjCNFXTf8yjMsmxCpX44QZucCsjGik5g"]http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&ved=0CC4QtwIwAg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DW-A09a_gHJc&ei=vjyYUMqBGujk0QHglYCYAg&usg=AFQjCNFXTf8yjMsmxCpX44QZucCsjGik5g[/url]

Treasonous if ask me.

[sois]

[quote name='The PatternMaster' timestamp='1352155150' post='1177924']
Exactly, when you have a GOP lead congress that's sole focus is on making sure that Obama is a one term president and not what's best for the people of this country it's hard to get anything done.
[/quote]

hahhahaa, yeah that's an issue, but even if he had 100% co-operation, it still would be a bitch to cover every scenario. Federal law covers a ton of ground.

[Lewdog]

[quote name='The PatternMaster' timestamp='1352154505' post='1177919']
You know that Romney did Obamacare in Mass when he was the governor, with the way he flip-flops on issues who knows what he will do if he gets in the White House. That is one of the reasons why I can't vote for the guy, one minute he's pro choice the next he's pro life. When he's governor of Mass he passes RomneyCare but when Obama does the samething it's a horrible idea that should be dismantled.

Even in his campaigning he flip flops, one minute he screaming government doesn't created jobs but 5 minutes later he says he will create 12 million jobs if he's elected president.

He's all over the place and will say anything to get elected.
[img]http://cdn.uproxx.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/sayanything.jpeg[/img]
[/quote]

I totally see where you are coming from. In a different discussion, me and another poster talked about how Obama isn't necessarily a politician, he is more of a representation of the liberals. Let me put it this way, Democrats decide they need to create a healthcare system where every American has insurance. Well Obama is this young and upcoming guy, and he is able to charm the stripes off a zebra. Obama then jumps to the lead of the pack for the Democratic Presidential candidate. So now the Democrats have the power of the White House and the influence that comes with it. So when Obama is President he is able to put his name officially on the healthcare promises he made in his campaign. Obama didn't pound out all the pieces of his plan, but he's the best guy the Democrats have to throw out in front a group of people. So here we are today, with Obama trying to stay in place with Democrats behind him that have agendas that will go to pot if Obama loses.

On the other side, Romney is pretty much just another Clarence Darrow. He gets things done because of how he communicates. Romney put a healthcare plan into place in Massachusetts. He might not want a law nationwide though. He is a Conservative, and generally they believe in allowing things like the health care plan or gay marriage, be dealt with at the state level, not with the federal government. If people in this country want to get cannabis legalized, I think Romney would be the best President to do it under. There is rarely very many "hands on Presidents." I know Regan was, maybe Cinton.

Both guys are nothing but spokesmen for their party. Personally my vote goes to Romney because in my opinion Obama had his time to and try and accomplish something, and he failed to get enough of his promises come true. That's just my opinion.

[Jamie_B]

[url="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/"]Has Obama kept his promises[/url]

The only thing I will hold on him are the broken ones, the in the works and stalled is still TBD, and the compromise I dont necessarily think is a bad thing

[Jim Finklestein]

I think Obamacare was a major concession to the insurance companies and others, but at least the US has [i]something[/i] and it's a start. I still think the future of healthcare in the US is a public option. I love the Canadian healthcare system and wish my family in the states had access to something like it. I just can't tell you how less stressful life is when you do not have to worry about living without health insurance.

[|Bunghole|]

I am going to share my **gasp** "controversial" opinion here in this thread. A democratically elected, taxpayer funded nation [u]owes [/u]its citizens certain things: security from foreign attack or interference, a sound infrastructure, a sound basis for a viable economy, and to care for the citizens of said country whether it be due to lack of insurance, old age, infirmity or whatever. I don't understand the meme that keeps getting passed along how people with serious long-term health issues (many of them veterans of ill-advised wars, mind you) have to jump through hoops to get the care they need. It's pretty fucking simple to me: a government in a Democracy's FIRST and PRIMARY goal is the protection of it's citizens, whether that be through health benefits, military action, whatever.

What our country recently has shown is a proclivity towards the latter. If it moves, BOMB it. I don't understand the opposition to a universal healthcare program for ALL of our citizens. Why are people opposed to government doing what should be one of it's key tenets for it's existence? Why isn't it okay to spend an enormous sum of money caring for the health of our people? You know where this is going..."Hey, we can't afford it!" Yes we fucking can! Cut the DoD budget in half. Quit starting wars. Quit policing the world and engaging in "wars of intruige" or doomed to fail foreign policy expeditions. When are we going to learn that "superpower" status means "lead by example" instead of "make everyone hate us" because we meddle, kill and otherwise interpose ourselves upon parts of the world that CLEARLY don't want us there? Oh yeah, oil and stuff and preserving status quo (gas prices). You know what? These other countries in the world like Canada and the UK make it work...why can't we?

[Lewdog]

[quote name='Jim Finklestein' timestamp='1352172064' post='1178055']
I think Obamacare was a major concession to the insurance companies and others, but at least the US has [i]something[/i] and it's a start. I still think the future of healthcare in the US is a public option. I love the Canadian healthcare system and wish my family in the states had access to something like it. I just can't tell you how less stressful life is when you do not have to worry about living without health insurance.
[/quote]

I don't live in Canada, and I have talked some Canadian people, but never for a long time. The one bad thing I was told about their health care system, is sometimes it is hard to get in for procedures like MRIs and CAT scans. Sometimes it may 2 months or more. Other than that, they said it was a good program. In the U.S., if a person doesn't have insurance, they can not be denied treatment in the emergency room at a hospital. In fact there are several hospitals out there that have pay scale programs, where a patient pays a certain percentage of their bill according to how much money they make. This goes for procedures like MRI's, colonoscopies, etc.. If you don't have insurance and you have certain medicines you have to take, there are programs out there that will get your medicine for free or at a very discounted price. One of those programs is private, while other programs are straight from the pharmaceutical companies themselves. One medicine I get is Cymbalta for skeletal muscle pain. It normal cost $100 a bottle. Another medicine I take is Neurotin. The bottles they send me would cost about $100 or more each as well. So if you need it, and you look hard enough, it's out there. Who knows if that will be true or not ones these laws take effect.