Obamacare Driving Prices Up says Forbes

[ArlJim78]

Forbes confirms they were right about Obamacare driving Insurance rates up.


Rate Shock: In California, Obamacare to Increase Individual Health Insurance Premiums by 64-146% (http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/05/30/rate-shock-in-california-obamacare-to-increase-individual-insurance-premiums-by-64-146/)


So, to summarize: Supporters of Obamacare justified passage of the law because one insurer in California raised rates on some people by as much as 39 percent. But Obamacare itself more than doubles the cost of insurance on the individual market. I can understand why Democrats in California would want to mislead the public on this point. But journalists have a professional responsibility to check out the facts for themselves.

[lamboguy]

Obama care is the same as Romney care, and in Mass. health insurance got crazy.

the guy that had health care right was probably George Bush. he wanted to spend the money on prevention instead of cure. no matter how right he was, there wasn't a thing he could do about it. the lawmakers are representing large insurance company's and large food company's that do nothing but poison people's bodies and want to keep going.

[maddog42]

Forbes confirms they were right about Obamacare driving Insurance rates up.


Rate Shock: In California, Obamacare to Increase Individual Health Insurance Premiums by 64-146% (http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/05/30/rate-shock-in-california-obamacare-to-increase-individual-insurance-premiums-by-64-146/)


It is ironic that he mentions Apples to oranges. The author of this article does
not want to compare coverage to coverage. Because it would prove him wrong.

"No, says The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/28/california-didnt-have-rate-shock-but-california-isnt-like-most-other-states/)'s Sarah Kliff, because California acts as an active purchaser that selects only the plans that meet its strict requirements. At first, 33 plans applied; only 13 that offered competitive rates and broad enough services were chosen."

I will guarantee that California rejected the cheaper insurance plans that offered virtually no coverage. This article also failed to mention that with the subsidy many poorer Californians will pay a whole lot less for insurance.
What a terrible biased article you chose to quote. Yeah, Yeah I know it is from Forbes. They probably had conservatives cancelling subcriptions after that last piece that I quoted.

I try to be open minded, so I am posting an article that shows why Obamacare may not succeed in other parts of the country. And it is because Republicans are fighting the Medicare expansion tooth and nail.

http://theweek.com/article/index/244759/californias-health-care-exchange-proof-obamacare-works

[Robert Goren]

May or not be true like the other Forbes piece cited in another thread. But at least with Obama care you will real insurance, not just a piece of paper that says you have insurance.

[maddog42]

Obamacare Rollout Is Going to Be Like a Train Getting You to Your Destination in a Timely Manner ("")




There are huge swathes of the country where public officials have been deliberately refusing to try to make the new law work well, and congressional Republicans are also doing their best to try to stymie implementation. Those efforts will succeed. Residents of California, Oregon, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, and other eager implementers will see much larger gains from the new law than residents of Texas, Florida, and Alabama. And since a very large share of uninsured Americans live in those red states, this will be a real tragedy for the country. But even in those places, people are going to end up better off than they were pre-Obamacare, and the basic logic of politics is that over time state officials in most places should put some effort into trying to make things work.

Republicans should be ashamed. This article predicts that Obamacare will succeed overall. It also points out that in Oregon the original bidders in their exchange have RESUBMITTED bids lower than their original offering.Competition is causing rates to decline!!!!

[mostpost]

Obamacare Rollout Is Going to Be Like a Train Getting You to Your Destination in a Timely Manner ("")




There are huge swathes of the country where public officials have been deliberately refusing to try to make the new law work well, and congressional Republicans are also doing their best to try to stymie implementation. Those efforts will succeed. Residents of California, Oregon, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, and other eager implementers will see much larger gains from the new law than residents of Texas, Florida, and Alabama. And since a very large share of uninsured Americans live in those red states, this will be a real tragedy for the country. But even in those places, people are going to end up better off than they were pre-Obamacare, and the basic logic of politics is that over time state officials in most places should put some effort into trying to make things work.

Republicans should be ashamed. This article predicts that Obamacare will succeed overall. It also points out that in Oregon the original bidders in their exchange have RESUBMITTED bids lower than their original offering.Competition is causing rates to decline!!!!

Your link did not work, maybe this one will
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/05/24/obamacare_implementation_good_news.html

[mostpost]

Forbes confirms they were right about Obamacare driving Insurance rates up.


Rate Shock: In California, Obamacare to Increase Individual Health Insurance Premiums by 64-146% (http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/05/30/rate-shock-in-california-obamacare-to-increase-individual-insurance-premiums-by-64-146/)
Talk about false equivalencies! The article does not prove that Individual Health Insurance Premiums will increase by 64-146%. It proves (maybe) that the cost of certain plans will be 64% to 146% higher than other plans which are vastly inferior in coverage.

I went to the eHealth Insurance website to see what I would have to pay. I lied about my age because I wanted a quote for a non senior adult. My Monthly premium would be $93.66 a month; about what was quoted in the article. HOWEVER, my deductible would be $10,000, my coinsurance would be 30% and each office visit would cost $35.

The author isn't comparing apples with oranges, he is comparing watermelons with raisins. Furthermore the exchanges are not replacing eHealth Insurance they are complementing it. If you want a $10,000 deductible, you go to eHealth Insurance. If you want to pay a little more and get real coverage you go to the exchange.

[mostpost]

Obamacare Rollout Is Going to Be Like a Train Getting You to Your Destination in a Timely Manner ("")




There are huge swathes of the country where public officials have been deliberately refusing to try to make the new law work well, and congressional Republicans are also doing their best to try to stymie implementation. Those efforts will succeed. Residents of California, Oregon, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, and other eager implementers will see much larger gains from the new law than residents of Texas, Florida, and Alabama. And since a very large share of uninsured Americans live in those red states, this will be a real tragedy for the country. But even in those places, people are going to end up better off than they were pre-Obamacare, and the basic logic of politics is that over time state officials in most places should put some effort into trying to make things work.

Republicans should be ashamed. This article predicts that Obamacare will succeed overall. It also points out that in Oregon the original bidders in their exchange have RESUBMITTED bids lower than their original offering.Competition is causing rates to decline!!!!

I think what is going to happen is Obamacare will succeed spectacularly in those states which implement it fully. When that happens, folks in the other states are going to start wondering why they aren't participating in the benefits. Then those recalcitrant Republican officials are going to have to decide if they want to go along to get along or if they want to start looking for a new job.

[johnhannibalsmith]

I think what is going to happen is Obamacare will succeed spectacularly in those states which implement it fully. ...

What percentage of the however many millions of uninsured that this bill was allegedly crafted to "help" do you speculate will never even make the effort to jump through all of the hoops required to make this meet your anticipated "spectacular" success story?

Seriously, I think some of us take certain things for granted. This whole process is so convoluted and dependent upon the individual doing a lot of legwork - just the notion of it being reliant upon some level of compliance with the IRS and working through that element precludes many of the "most needy" - that I think even if (and that's a HUGE "if") it doesn't just implode under its own weight, a large group of those that actually NEED (according to others) this coverage will simply just exist oblivious to the whole thing.

The guy under the bridge, the illegal/undocumented, the gal turning tricks and plowing a needle into her arm - good luck. They are just the extreme, obvious examples.

Why don't you just push for single payer and concede that this is just at best a big mess that will be an aggravation for most and will help some of those that it claims to benefit, but by design will never accomplish what it supposedly set out to do?

[TJDave]

But at least with Obama care you will real insurance, not just a piece of paper that says you have insurance.

These are some pretty high deductables... Especially at the bottom tier where folks will be least likely to afford them. The heathcare industry badly wants these people in the system. ;)

[TJDave]

What percentage of the however many millions of uninsured that this bill was allegedly crafted to "help" do you speculate will never even make the effort to jump through all of the hoops required to make this meet your anticipated "spectacular" success story?


By the third year the penalties become onerous. Most will be forced to comply.

[johnhannibalsmith]

By the third year the penalties become onerous. Most will be forced to comply.

I'd like to know what percentage of our citizenry has zero contact with the IRS before I buy into that notion.

Additionally, I think it's just as likely that the same most that you think will be forced to comply, will simply become permanently on the run from a tax bill that they can't pay and an agency that they have avoided for years or decades.

It makes a decent butterfly net for the IRS, but I don't think the vast majority will jump right into the net.

[TJDave]

Additionally, I think it's just as likely that the same most that you think will be forced to comply, will simply become permanently on the run from a tax bill that they can't pay and an agency that they have avoided for years or decades.


It's pointless to run from the IRS. :lol:

[johnhannibalsmith]

It's pointless to run from the IRS. :lol:

If you plan on reporting income, then yeah.

[TJDave]

If you plan on reporting income, then yeah.

The problem now is others reporting your income.

Being invisible is not as easy as it once was. It actually takes vigilant, consistant effort. One false move or slip of the tongue and...gotcha! ;)

[maddog42]

Talk about false equivalencies! The article does not prove that Individual Health Insurance Premiums will increase by 64-146%. It proves (maybe) that the cost of certain plans will be 64% to 146% higher than other plans which are vastly inferior in coverage.

I went to the eHealth Insurance website to see what I would have to pay. I lied about my age because I wanted a quote for a non senior adult. My Monthly premium would be $93.66 a month; about what was quoted in the article. HOWEVER, my deductible would be $10,000, my coinsurance would be 30% and each office visit would cost $35.

The author isn't comparing apples with oranges, he is comparing watermelons with raisins. Furthermore the exchanges are not replacing eHealth Insurance they are complementing it. If you want a $10,000 deductible, you go to eHealth Insurance. If you want to pay a little more and get real coverage you go to the exchange.

Jesus Mostie, I hate it when you use facts to destroy someone's argument.
It embarrasses people. From the other thread Forbes article:

"If you are among the many Americans who have bought into the fear and loathing that has been the campaign against Obamacare, you just might wish to reconsider. With every passing day, the various myths, legends and lies put forward by those with a political axe to grind, TV or radio rating to be raised or vote to be purchased, are falling victim to the facts."

[maddog42]

The guy under the bridge, the illegal/undocumented, the gal turning tricks and plowing a needle into her arm - good luck. They are just the extreme, obvious examples.

No system or any amount of pressure will bring these people into the mainstream. They pay no taxes and the IRS doesn't scare them one bit. They will just move to another bridge/flop house. I call them "the one percenters".
This is absolutely no argument against Obamacare or ANY government program. I have known some of these people in years past.

[fast4522]

OBAMACARE NIGHTMARE: 146% RATE HIKE IN CA...

Bend over CA.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/05/30/rate-shock-in-california-obamacare-to-increase-individual-insurance-premiums-by-64-146/

[johnhannibalsmith]

...
This is absolutely no argument against Obamacare or ANY government program. ...

I wasn't actually arguing against the program itself (though I am happy to do so), I was arguing against the characterization of the program as an inevitable "spectacular success".

I've known plenty of these people too, and I put the rate higher than you do. These people also tend to embody the type of "downtrodden" person incapable of receiving/affording insurance (as opposed to health care) that drive the need for "universal coverage" (which this program will never accomplish).

If the goal is universal coverage, lower health care costs, and "help" for those that need it most - I can't possibly imagine how even a supporter of the program could convincingly argue that it is certain to be a "spectacular success". It may be better than present on some fronts, it may be worse on others, but "spectacularly successful" on those bullet point goals of reform? Not a chance. If you want that - the goals that it was sold on - and you want overhaul, promote single payer as the means to that end and simply endorse the ACA as better than the previous system without the crazy hyperbole. I'll happily be wrong, but as someone that would figure to benefit greatly from this program if it were true, I can't begin to imagine that this can be a "spectacular success" on the merit of the intent unless you cherry pick elements and ignore the totality.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by maddog42
...
This is absolutely no argument against Obamacare or ANY government program. ...

Of course there is.
All that Obama-care will accomplish is to screw up health care for the 90% who now have it so that 10% who don't still won't.

It is a stupid program that will not improve anything other than government control over us.

[Capper Al]

Talk about false equivalencies! The article does not prove that Individual Health Insurance Premiums will increase by 64-146%. It proves (maybe) that the cost of certain plans will be 64% to 146% higher than other plans which are vastly inferior in coverage.

I went to the eHealth Insurance website to see what I would have to pay. I lied about my age because I wanted a quote for a non senior adult. My Monthly premium would be $93.66 a month; about what was quoted in the article. HOWEVER, my deductible would be $10,000, my coinsurance would be 30% and each office visit would cost $35.

The author isn't comparing apples with oranges, he is comparing watermelons with raisins. Furthermore the exchanges are not replacing eHealth Insurance they are complementing it. If you want a $10,000 deductible, you go to eHealth Insurance. If you want to pay a little more and get real coverage you go to the exchange.

Thanks again for doing the homework. From this point out in time, the conservatives will add the Affordable Healthcare Act to their list for scaring the public-- along with social security, medicare, education, and taxes. I do welcome the opposition when done in a meanfull respectful and sensible way. But the repubs haven't been working that way.

[Saratoga_Mike]

I think what is going to happen is Obamacare will succeed spectacularly in those states which implement it fully. When that happens, folks in the other states are going to start wondering why they aren't participating in the benefits. Then those recalcitrant Republican officials are going to have to decide if they want to go along to get along or if they want to start looking for a new job.

As you know, states that don't have their own exchanges will participate in a federally run exchanges. Given the federal government's flawless record of running large programs, I assume the federally run exchanges will operate more effectively than the state exchanges. I'm certain you agree.

That leaves us with Medicaid expansion. Politically speaking (put aside whether you think it's the right thing to do for a moment), you aren't going to see red states clamoring to expand Medicaid...except for the powerful hospital lobby and a few other hc-related lobbying groups. Therefore, your political analysis is incorrect.

[JustRalph]

Thanks again for doing the homework. From this point out in time, the conservatives will add the Affordable Healthcare Act to their list for scaring the public-- along with social security, medicare, education, and taxes. I do welcome the opposition when done in a meanfull respectful and sensible way. But the repubs haven't been working that way.

Let's try this for scaring people.. Yesterday my wife held a meeting for her 144 employees. They were informed that all but 21 were now part time only. Hours cut to 28 hours a week. Those cut to part time also lose their health insurance in 30 days.

Many were crying when they left the meeting, my wife has shed some tears of her own.

Several other companies having the same meetings this week and next. The penalty phase for Obamacare begins July 1. The fines will be assessed next year. But companies are being held accountable beginning July 1.

This is just the start ...........

[Capper Al]

Forbes wins either way. If you believe the article about cost going down or up.

[fast4522]

When nearly all of the employers do like JR's wife's company did, and when most of all the young people revolt to pay the fine watch out. By design the perfect storm is all set to play out.

[TJDave]

Let's try this for scaring people.. Yesterday my wife held a meeting for her 144 employees. They were informed that all but 21 were now part time only. Hours cut to 28 hours a week. Those cut to part time also lose their health insurance in 30 days.

Many were crying when they left the meeting, my wife has shed some tears of her own.

Several other companies having the same meetings this week and next. The penalty phase for Obamacare begins July 1. The fines will be assessed next year. But companies are being held accountable beginning July 1.

This is just the start ...........

If you'd be kind enough to tell us the name of the company I'll return the favor in telling everyone I possibly can not to do ANY business with them. :ThmbUp:

[fast4522]

Probably not JR's, but they are all making similar moves.

Restaurant Chain Cuts Hours to Avoid Obamacare Costs
A major restaurant group is experimenting with cutting its employees hours in the hopes of cutting the costs of healthcare.

Darden Restaurants, which owns the Red Lobster, Olive Garden, LongHorn Steakhouse, and Yard House chains has stopped offering full-time schedules to hourly workers, the Orlando Sentinel reports. The company plans to offer a maximum of 28 hours per week per employee.

Time to tell the wife no more going out TJDave

[Tom]

Unlike the government, business have to make money to keep operating.
Don't blame them blame the idiot in the White House and the scores of mental midgets in the congress, who voted for this obscenity without reading it.

If you are looking one good thing that will come from Obama-don't-care, it is this - roughly half the people that will suffer because of it do not matter - they are democrats and they deserve the crap that is about to rain down on them.
Karma.

[delayjf]

CA is introducing legislation to make it illegal to reduce your labor force due to Obamacare.

They are also running advertisement is CA advocating that all Illegals should be covered by Obamacare.

[johnhannibalsmith]

CA is introducing legislation to make it illegal to reduce your labor force due to Obamacare.

...

So, they are working on a law to make it illegal to publicly declare that you are reducing your labor force due to Obamacare?

Don't ask, don't tell.

[Tom]

California Sate song.....If Only I Had a Brain

California and New York - national book ends, or national butt cheeks?

[newtothegame]

So, they are working on a law to make it illegal to publicly declare that you are reducing your labor force due to Obamacare?

Don't ask, don't tell.
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing.......
Only thing this does is tell companies to keep their mouth shut.
And as to the law and its potential, so now the government thinks they can tell a business how to hire, whom to employ, and how many to employ???
There is a word for that...hmmmmmmmm

[Tom]

Just more proof that liberalism cannot survive in a free society.
No wonder there are more investigations going on than you can shake a tick at.

[classhandicapper]

Let's try this for scaring people.. Yesterday my wife held a meeting for her 144 employees. They were informed that all but 21 were now part time only. Hours cut to 28 hours a week. Those cut to part time also lose their health insurance in 30 days.

Many were crying when they left the meeting, my wife has shed some tears of her own.

Several other companies having the same meetings this week and next. The penalty phase for Obamacare begins July 1. The fines will be assessed next year. But companies are being held accountable beginning July 1.

This is just the start ...........

Ah yes, no shock there, except to the liberal mind.

There is nothing wrong with the idealism, liberal goals, or liberal values. In fact, I admire most of them. The problem is that they require a delusional understanding of economics, human behavior and humanity in general to think we can try to make the world that place without making a total mess of things instead.

So when these delusional nincompoops get power, gosh they can do a lot of damage the rest of us sane folks.

[JustRalph]

Darden and several others have pulled back on their part time plans publicly. While actually still doing it........under the guise of a business slow down

[Capper Al]

Let's try this for scaring people.. Yesterday my wife held a meeting for her 144 employees. They were informed that all but 21 were now part time only. Hours cut to 28 hours a week. Those cut to part time also lose their health insurance in 30 days.

Many were crying when they left the meeting, my wife has shed some tears of her own.

Several other companies having the same meetings this week and next. The penalty phase for Obamacare begins July 1. The fines will be assessed next year. But companies are being held accountable beginning July 1.

This is just the start ...........

So you are in the top two percent. Good for you. You have something at stake for posting your right wing views. Might those 28 part timers be 14 full tiimers? Your just cutting your cost which is to be expected.

[JustRalph]

So you are in the top two percent. Good for you. You have something at stake for posting your right wing views. Might those 28 part timers be 14 full tiimers? Your just cutting your cost which is to be expected.

I have no idea what the hell you are talking about...........

My wife works for a large corp.......we don't own a 21 million dollar restaurant. She runs the place

I guess when I say "her employees" you assumed that means we own the place?

[PaceAdvantage]

May or not be true like the other Forbes piece cited in another thread. But at least with Obama care you will real insurance, not just a piece of paper that says you have insurance.You're the exception, are you not? If you were the rule, we'd be seeing a lot more stories on how insurance companies routinely **** people over...

[TJDave]

Darden and several others have pulled back on their part time plans publicly. While actually still doing it........under the guise of a business slow down

Eventually, they'll be exposed for it.

It won't sit well for the majority of diners...who tend to resemble Darden's employees. ;)

[TJDave]

Only thing this does is tell companies to keep their mouth shut.


Which will do them more harm than good. Employees talk, especially when treated poorly. OTOH, those who are treated equitably generate the best publicity a company can have...Unsolicited praise.

[Robert Goren]

You're the exception, are you not? If you were the rule, we'd be seeing a lot more stories on how insurance companies routinely **** people over... My story didn't even hit the local news. This is not the kind of story that newspapers are interested in unless it involves a small child. I think if you went state insurance agencies or lawyers who handle medical cases, you would find it is not so rare. Or better yet, talk to hospitals and other medical providers. When you go to the ER, they will have sign a paper that states they will bill your insurance, but you are responsible for your bill. When you go on Medicare, you no longer get that piece of paper to sign. Why do you suppose that is?

[delayjf]

There is nothing wrong with the idealism, liberal goals, or liberal values. In fact, I admire most of them. The problem is that they require a delusional understanding of economics, human behavior and humanity in general to think we can try to make the world that place without making a total mess of things instead.

So when these delusional nincompoops get power, gosh they can do a lot of damage the rest of us sane folks.


Agree, by the way, I believe this is the first time in my life I've ever seen the word "nincompoop" in print. :ThmbUp:

[mostpost]

I have no idea what the hell you are talking about...........

My wife works for a large corp.......we don't own a 21 million dollar restaurant. She runs the place

I guess when I say "her employees" you assumed that means we own the place?
I assumed the same and I can see where RG could get that impression. The way you phrased it, we were thinking that the lovely Mrs. JustRalph was a small business owner who was suffering due to Obamacare. It turns out that we have a large, greedy corporation which is using Obamacare as an excuse to cut costs.

Despite the fear mongering there is no evidence that Obamacare will raise the cost of health insurance. In fact the first actual rates that have been filed have shown a decrease in rates. What these corporations are doing is a preemptive strike to stop offering health insurance and blame it on Obamacare. After all, no insurance is certainly cheaper than having to provide insurance.

[johnhannibalsmith]

...What these corporations are doing is a preemptive strike to stop offering health insurance and blame it on Obamacare. After all, no insurance is certainly cheaper than having to provide insurance.

What sense does this actually make? Why would they have offered insurance to employees in the first place? Why wouldn't they have done away with it long before Obamacare if they fit your statement that is the equivalent of the "you hate Obama's policies because he's black" theory?

I don't understand the mentality of suggesting that a business - mind you this isn't government where such "executive" decisions are made whimsically - would provide insurance and then for no reason other than the fact that the ACA passed, decide to strip it from employees. The logical explanations, of which yours doesn't seem to be in my eyes, are that these businesses have assessed that the new law will cause their employee coverage to become too burdensome financially. In other words, more expensive then before. But that can't be the case, can it? You've already declared that most people are wrong about rate increases. Explain to me the logic behind a "big evil company" ever offering insurance in the first place if they are merely using the ACA as an excuse to drop it... as though they needed one before the law. I don't get it.

[Ocala Mike]

When you go to the ER, they will have sign a paper that states they will bill your insurance, but you are responsible for your bill. When you go on Medicare, you no longer get that piece of paper to sign.



Robert, I understand your point about insurance company malfeasance, in general, but what you posted above isn't true in all cases. My wife is on Medicare and also covered on my excellent (Cadillac plan?) NY State Empire Plan insurance coverage. Because she's a brittle diabetic, she needs a very expensive Continuous Glucose Monitor which IS NOT COVERED BY MEDICARE, BUT COVERED IN FULL BY UNITED HEALTHCARE through my plan. Every six months or so, the provider of the monitor has us sign a paper such as you describe. They bill Medicare first, get a denial, then collect from my insurance. I NEVER SEE A BILL.

[mostpost]

What sense does this actually make? Why would they have offered insurance to employees in the first place? Why wouldn't they have done away with it long before Obamacare if they fit your statement that is the equivalent of the "you hate Obama's policies because he's black" theory?

I don't understand the mentality of suggesting that a business - mind you this isn't government where such "executive" decisions are made whimsically - would provide insurance and then for no reason other than the fact that the ACA passed, decide to strip it from employees. The logical explanations, of which yours doesn't seem to be in my eyes, are that these businesses have assessed that the new law will cause their employee coverage to become too burdensome financially. In other words, more expensive then before. But that can't be the case, can it? You've already declared that most people are wrong about rate increases. Explain to me the logic behind a "big evil company" ever offering insurance in the first place if they are merely using the ACA as an excuse to drop it... as though they needed one before the law. I don't get it.

I base my opinion on history. For the past twenty or so years companies have been cutting back on benefits. In the past companies offered those benefits to attract good employees. XYZ company was competing with ABC company for qualified workers so it offered a better health care plan. Nowadays, there are excess workers for every job. A company no longer has to offer health care to get workers.

And herein lies the problem with one of the treasured conservative tenets. The one that says the free market will ensure fair treatment of workers and potential workers. There is a free market (or semi free) operating here, but it is not a market of employers competing for workers. The market is one of workers competing for jobs. It will continue to be this way as long as their is high unemployment.

When their is great competition for few jobs, a worker must "Pay" more for his job. He doesn't do this by making a cash payment to the potential employer; he does it by accepting lower wages or fewer benefits.

There is also a difference it attitude among those who run corporations nowadays. You see that in what is posted in these forums. The attitude that the sole purpose of a business is to make a profit and everything is subordinate to that. Combine that with the attitude that every business has the right to be successful and you arrive at the (erroneous) conclusion that a business can take any action to achieve profitability. That can include underpaying employees; not offering health insurance; failing to provide a safe work environment; and not providing a pension plan.

The bottom line is important, but it is not sacrosanct. Providing fairly for your employees is just as important as turning a profit.

[Tom]

The attitude that the sole purpose of a business is to make a profit and everything is subordinate to that

No, that is not true, but a profit is required to stay in business.
This is what government and union boys do not understand.

[Robert Goren]

No, that is not true, but a profit is required to stay in business.
This is what government and union boys do not understand. Unions and employees understand it as well the head of companies understand that member of the union have themselves and often a family to take care of. Human beings are not machines that can be discarded easily. They do not disappear when they are laid off. Nothing creates a liberal democrat faster than a laid off employee who was making a decent wage with house and mortgage payment having to take a part time job at Wendys. Then CEOs wonder why people like Romney can't get elected.

[Tom]

Unions and employees understand it as well the head of companies understand that member of the union have themselves and often a family to take care of. Human beings are not machines that can be discarded easily. They do not disappear when they are laid off. Nothing creates a liberal democrat faster than a laid off employee who was making a decent wage with house and mortgage payment having to take a part time job at Wendys. Then CEOs wonder why people like Romney can't get elected.

I agree 100%
That is why the anti-business polices of Obama are choking growth.
I can tell you when money is rolling in and opportunities are out there, businesses will pay shell out. I have been those discussions for years. Believe it or not, the welfare of the employees has been a top concern wherever I have worked since 1973. And the other side of the coin is, sometimes, the welfare of the business must come first. Half the employees making a living wage is better than none of them making anything.

The only promise you get out of life is you will die someday.
All else is negotiable.

[NJ Stinks]

The only promise you get out of life is you will die someday.
All else is negotiable.

That's why employees need unions. :ThmbUp:

[Capper Al]

What none of the right wingers here in the forum believe in the free marketplace to lower costs through competition? What the exchanges do is provide three insurance policies (a basic, silver and gold). This way the companies must compete to deliver the best price and service. There's less confusion for the consumer. Really, you guys have a problem with that?

[johnhannibalsmith]

I base my opinion on history. For the past twenty or so years companies have been cutting back on benefits. In the past companies offered those benefits to attract good employees. XYZ company was competing with ABC company for qualified workers so it offered a better health care plan. Nowadays, there are excess workers for every job. A company no longer has to offer health care to get workers.

...

I guess I'll reply to this part of your post since it at least vaguely relates to what I asked originally and isn't just a spin-off tirade of clichés about private enterprise.

Thanks for giving me something, I guess. I still don't think you make a very convincing case that suddenly a vast group of businesses decided to change health coverage that they have provided by using the ACA as some kind of excuse. If your history that prompts such an opinion is to be trusted as motive, it seems far more likely that these changes in coverage, would have happened in much greater numbers long before the ACA was passed or even proposed. There may be an element of truth in your opinion, but you just haven't expressed the rationale very logically, in my opinion.

[hcap]

I agree 100%
That is why the anti-business polices of Obama are choking growth.
I can tell you when money is rolling in and opportunities are out there, businesses will pay shell out. I have been those discussions for years. Believe it or not, the welfare of the employees has been a top concern wherever I have worked since 1973. And the other side of the coin is, sometimes, the welfare of the business must come first. Half the employees making a living wage is better than none of them making anything.

The only promise you get out of life is you will die someday.
All else is negotiable.So seys you

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/corporateprofitsvswages1.png

[mostpost]

mind you this isn't government where such "executive" decisions are made whimsically
In that sentence lies your basic problem and the basic problem of every conservative. Perhaps you could tell me which government job you worked at where "executive" decisions were made whimsically. I know it was not the United States Postal Service.

The Postmaster of each office has a budget which he must adhere to. There is no magic spigot form which to draw funds. He expects his supervisor or supervisors to get the carriers on the street on time and back from their routes on time. Supervisors do not allow carriers to amble through their routes and come back anytime they please gathering overtime in the process. If the schedule says you should leave for your route at 8 AM, then you had best be on the street very close to 8 AM.

And do not think that having thirteen sick days per year means that you can use thirteen sick days. Usually after three days (Combined, not consecutive) they will tell you if you call in sick, you will need a doctors note before you can return to work.

There are a few others here who worked for the government in various fashion. NJ Stinks with the IRS and someone-sorry I don't remember who-that worked in the New York state Department of Revenue. I'm sure they will tell you it was not a day long party and their bosses did not go around feeding unicorns and making other whimsical decisions.

[Tom]

I wouldn't be using the IRS as an example of responsible government just now.....:lol:

[Tom]

So seys you

Please explain what your charts is showing and provide details of each line.

[johnhannibalsmith]

... Perhaps you could tell me which government job you worked at where "executive" decisions were made whimsically....

Sure. New York State Senate. That good enough for you?

[Tom]

Couldn't be the justice department - NO decisions are made there. :D

[mostpost]

So seys you

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/corporateprofitsvswages1.png
I think we need to explain the graph as it is a bit confusing and they are very Republican. ;)
Tom said businesses would shell out if money was rolling in and opportunities were there. I just noticed that he is indeed asking for an explanation of your graph, so here goes.
The red line (CP/GDP) is corporate profits as a percentage of GDP.
The blueline WASCUR/GDP is wage and salary accruals as a percentage of GDP.
Two things to notice from the graph. Corporate profits as a percentage of GDP have been going up overall where as wages have been dropping over all.
The second thing is that during our period of greatest prosperity, corporate profits and wages were closely entwined. As they went in opposite directions, we entered into a period of economic decline culminating in the great recession.

[Capper Al]

I wouldn't be using the IRS as an example of responsible government just now.....:lol:

What happened in the IRS was wrong. They should have gone after both right and left. The idea that these thinks are not political and are non-profits is just as bad.

When we talk about responsibility, we also don't want to include GM, Bank America, City Bank, Chrysler etc. It's just not government that has these lapses.

[hcap]

I think we need to explain the graph as it is a bit confusing and they are very Republican. ;)
Tom said businesses would shell out if money was rolling in and opportunities were there. I just noticed that he is indeed asking for an explanation of your graph, so here goes.
The red line (CP/GDP) is corporate profits as a percentage of GDP.
The blueline WASCUR/GDP is wage and salary accruals as a percentage of GDP.
Two things to notice from the graph. Corporate profits as a percentage of GDP have been going up overall where as wages have been dropping over all.
The second thing is that during our period of greatest prosperity, corporate profits and wages were closely entwined. As they went in opposite directions, we entered into a period of economic decline culminating in the great recession.I think Tom would understand it better in the middle of the night when he is outsourcing to supplers in China, not this time of day when he is on the company dime surfing the web and posting dumb and poorly researched opinions. :cool: :cool:

[RaceBookJoe]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/06/03/democrats-new-argument-its-a-good-thing-that-obamacare-doubles-individual-health-insurance-premiums/

interesting read

[PaceAdvantage]

It turns out that we have a large, greedy corporation which is using Obamacare as an excuse to cut costs. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Damn you are a hoot!

Just wait mosty. You won't be able to spin the disaster that is about to come about...

[PaceAdvantage]

Providing fairly for your employees is just as important as turning a profit.NO IT'S NOT! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Again, you are a HOOT!!!

Without PROFIT, there will be NO BUSINESS, and thus NO JOBS!

So turning a PROFIT is the most important thing...to the company...AND TO ITS EMPLOYEES!!!

And some people on this forum praise your replies? I can't fathom why after gems such as the above.

[JustRalph]

PA said it all.........

[mostpost]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/06/03/democrats-new-argument-its-a-good-thing-that-obamacare-doubles-individual-health-insurance-premiums/

interesting read
As I posted before, those Ehealth.com plans have a deductible of $3500 to $10,000 and a 30% to 50% coinsurance. That's why they are half the price. Plans with comparable benefits at EHealth are $395.00 and up.

[Tom]

What happened in the IRS was wrong. They should have gone after both right and left. The idea that these thinks are not political and are non-profits is just as bad.

NO! NO!

What the HELL is wrong with people here?
You do not EVER go after people. You do your frigging job - you follow the rules. You approve or deny the requests BASED ON THE LAW.

Do you even have a clue what the IRS did here?
I think not.

[Tom]

I think Tom would understand it better in the middle of the night when he is outsourcing to supplers in China, not this time of day when he is on the company dime surfing the web and posting dumb and poorly researched opinions.

so you are going to weasle out of an honest question on very questionable data?

I though you would.
You don't even have a clue what that chart means.
And obviously, mostie is lost in space here.

But, pretty colors, which what both of you saw here.:lol:

[Robert Goren]

NO IT'S NOT! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Again, you are a HOOT!!!

Without PROFIT, there will be NO BUSINESS, and thus NO JOBS!

So turning a PROFIT is the most important thing...to the company...AND TO ITS EMPLOYEES!!!

And some people on this forum praise your replies? I can't fathom why after gems such as the above.There is one thing I have learned over the years, A bad or a few bad employees can put a serious dent in to a business's bottom line or even put it out of business. Screw your employees over at your own risk.

[PaceAdvantage]

There is one thing I have learned over the years, A bad or a few bad employees can put a serious dent in to a business's bottom line or even put it out of business. Screw your employees over at your own risk.Nobody is saying a business should SCREW its employees over.

A business which does so won't be in business for long, unless there is no place else to work.

[mostpost]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Damn you are a hoot!

Just wait mosty. You won't be able to spin the disaster that is about to come about...
I am not the least bit worried about that. I am worried about your well being when the disaster does not occur. You seem so invested in it happening.

[mostpost]

NO IT'S NOT! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Again, you are a HOOT!!!

Without PROFIT, there will be NO BUSINESS, and thus NO JOBS!

So turning a PROFIT is the most important thing...to the company...AND TO ITS EMPLOYEES!!!

And some people on this forum praise your replies? I can't fathom why after gems such as the above.
If a business has to screw its employees to make a profit or even to stay in business it has no right to exist. What you conservatives can not seem to fathom is that the better a business treats its employees the more likely it is to be a profitable business. Its not profit or employees, its profit and employees.

The chart which hcap posted says that very clearly.

[mostpost]

so you are going to weasle out of an honest question on very questionable data?

I though you would.
You don't even have a clue what that chart means.
And obviously, mostie is lost in space here.

But, pretty colors, which what both of you saw here.:lol:
That chart says exactly what I said it does. The fact that you can't see that is evidence that you are just not interested in understanding.

[PaceAdvantage]

I am not the least bit worried about that. I am worried about your well being when the disaster does not occur. You seem so invested in it happening.Yes...I'm SO invested in it... :lol: :lol: :rolleyes:

What's wrong with you?

[PaceAdvantage]

If a business has to screw its employees to make a profit or even to stay in business it has no right to exist. What you conservatives can not seem to fathom is that the better a business treats its employees the more likely it is to be a profitable business. Its not profit or employees, its profit and employees.

The chart which hcap posted says that very clearly.You're the genius who said providing fairly for your employees is just as important as earning a profit. It is clearly NOT.

When businesses are struggling, employees most likely will NOT be treated fairly...because the number one concern at that point is the viability of the business as an ongoing enterprise.

Throwing the word "conservatives" along with all your other nonsense means nothing.

[Tom]

That chart says exactly what I said it does.

Yeah, right. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Greyfox]

When businesses are struggling, employees most likely will NOT be treated fairly...because the number one concern at that point is the viability of the business as an ongoing enterprise.


The exception being when you are employed in a Government service.

[NJ Stinks]

The exception being when you are employed in a Government service.


Federal workers haven't got a cost of living raise since 2010. But don't let that fact spoil your fantasy. :rolleyes:

[JustRalph]

Federal workers haven't got a cost of living raise since 2010. But don't let that fact spoil your fantasy. :rolleyes:

Really? What about this one?


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/28/obama-pay-raise-congress_n_2377714.html

Granted, not much......but a raise nonetheless

[NJ Stinks]

Really? What about this one?


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/28/obama-pay-raise-congress_n_2377714.html

Granted, not much......but a raise nonetheless

They didn't get it, Ralph.

Obama Signs Off On Fed Pay Freeze

By Kellie Lunney (http://www.govexec.com/voices/kellie-lunney/2348/)
March 26, 2013
President Obama on Tuesday signed into law legislation that extends the federal pay freeze through the rest of 2013 and keeps the government running until the end of the fiscal year.

Congress last week agreed on a continuing resolution (http://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/2013/03/congress-agrees-extend-pay-freeze-third-year/62002/) to fund federal agencies through Sept. 30. Lawmakers extended the current freeze on federal civilian workers’ pay and their own salaries for a third consecutive year as part of the deal to avoid a government shutdown. The previous CR expires on Wednesday....

....Obama issued an executive order in late 2012 that would have ended the two-year salary freeze on March 27 and given civilian federal workers a 0.5 percent raise in 2013. This legislation overturns that executive order.

Link:
http://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/2013/03/obama-signs-fed-pay-freeze/62103/

[Greyfox]

Federal workers haven't got a cost of living raise since 2010. But don't let that fact spoil your fantasy. :rolleyes:

Riddle me this NJ Stinks:
Who earns more, public sector employees or private sector employees doing the same job?

Who has the best job security - public sector or private sector employees?

Who has the best productivity - public or private sector employees?

And don't tell me that you don't know the answers to those three questions.

[NJ Stinks]

Riddle me this NJ Stinks:
Who earns more, public sector employees or private sector employees doing the same job?

The private sector makes a lot more in highly skilled jobs. The public sector makes a lot more in less skilled jobs.

Who has the best job security - public sector or private sector employees?
The public sector - that is one big reason why the public sector accepts less money.

Who has the best productivity - public or private sector employees?

And don't tell me that you don't know the answers to those three questions.

As for productivity, I was damn productive for the IRS. I can't speak for anybody else.

[johnhannibalsmith]

As for productivity, I was damn productive for the IRS...

And let it be known, sir, the taxpaying public salutes you for your service. :ThmbUp:




:lol:

[NJ Stinks]

And let it be known, sir, the taxpaying public salutes you for your service. :ThmbUp:




:lol:

You dirty rotten.... :D

[Tom]

As for productivity, I was damn productive for the IRS. I can't speak for anybody else.

Do you still line dance? ;)

[mostpost]

Do you still line dance? ;)
I don't understand this line dance thing. I worked for the Federal Government for twenty nine years and no one taught me to line dance. :mad: Am I some kind of incompetent klutz? Do not answer that! :rolleyes:

[Ocala Mike]

As for productivity, I was damn productive for the IRS. I can't speak for anybody else.



And I brought millions in for NY State with audit findings of residency against numerous "snowbird" tax cheats. I drew the line, however, when my bosses wanted me to find residency in cases where the taxpayers had met their burden of proof that they were not NY residents.

And, I guess I was a klutz too, because the NY State Tax Department never taught us how to "line dance." Biggest "boondoggle" I was involved in was a couple of weeks of training up in Saratoga at the Holiday Inn (but the flat track wasn't running).

[NJ Stinks]

Do you still line dance? ;)

Yea, the line dance thing is pretty pathetic.

Here's another pathetically true story. Every other year the 150 or so excise tax agents from around the country got together for a week of CPE training. One year whoever picked the site of the md-summer training session got a tremendous deal at a place in the Poconos. Some nationally syndicated writer - I think it was Robert Novak but not 100% sure - found out about it and blasted the IRS in print for lavishly picking a vacation destination. Of course, that was the end for the Poconos site.

We wound up going to a hotel across Route 3 from the Meadowlands for about double the cost per person. Apparently, that was OK because nobody considers the Jersey swampland to be a summertime vacation destination. :rolleyes:

I think I went to Meadowlands for the live harness racing twice that week! :ThmbUp:

[classhandicapper]

I think we need to explain the graph as it is a bit confusing and they are very Republican. ;)
Tom said businesses would shell out if money was rolling in and opportunities were there. I just noticed that he is indeed asking for an explanation of your graph, so here goes.
The red line (CP/GDP) is corporate profits as a percentage of GDP.
The blueline WASCUR/GDP is wage and salary accruals as a percentage of GDP.
Two things to notice from the graph. Corporate profits as a percentage of GDP have been going up overall where as wages have been dropping over all.
The second thing is that during our period of greatest prosperity, corporate profits and wages were closely entwined. As they went in opposite directions, we entered into a period of economic decline culminating in the great recession.

You should double check that data. I've seen repeated efforts to make this point with faulty data. You can't just look wages. You have to look at TOTAL COMPENSATION which includes current and accrued benefits for retirement, healthcare etc.... The real inflation in compensation is in benefits.

Second, I don't think you can't look at total corporate profits because many major companies get a large portion of their profits overseas. In many cases, they have moved operations overseas because it's a better overall value and they get higher margins.

So you'd more or less have to look at US profits and total compensation.

I think there's little question that real wages are falling, but that's because many of the inflated wage sectors (like many union manufacturing jobs) are now located in other countries, many times with foreign companies. That was a self inflicted wound.