Layoffs due to Obama care

[johnhannibalsmith]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

...To me its amazing that you guys are in such denial about this.

And acting like this is some new concept dreamed up this week. We had this same discussion seventeen trillion times before it even passed. He even ignores the loss in tax revenue that will immediately be realized by those workers that simply fall off the books but remain employed.

This is basic arithmetic, not complex algebra. There's no need to distort anything so concise and simple.

[newtothegame]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

Mostie we have had this discussion before...

Pointblank the ACA costs business money... you cannot deny that.

Its breaks own into 3 scenarios:
1) You don't offer health insurance but now you do so you have to pay part of the plan = added expense.
2) You don't offer health insurance and decide to continue not offering it and pay a $2,000 penalty for every employee you have over the 50 worker threshold = added expense.
3) You do offer health insurance (see #1) but your employee's elect not to take it for whatever reason so you pay a penalty based on the current exchange rate for health insurance in your market = added expense.

Businesses that are faced with added expenses seek to offset those by any means necessary including but not limited to cutting hours, freezing hiring, and laying people off.

To me its amazing that you guys are in such denial about this.

Because to accept it Elysian, those on the left would also have to admit that in the long run they are hurting the "worker" who they supposedly stand for....

[Donnie]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/11/11...est=latestnews

Papa Johns stripping back hours.....

[Donnie]

...and do the people who will not be covered by their employers realize that if they do not purchase insurance they will be penalized on their yearly taxes??

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by newtothegame

Because to accept it Elysian, those on the left would also have to admit that in the long run they are hurting the "worker" who they supposedly stand for....

WE ARE NOT. Under the present plan. Or should I say the previous plan. Under the almost previous plan, many workers had no health insurance, many of their plans had limits on coverage or could be cancelled without explanation. None of the plans would cover children living at home up to age 26. If a worker had a preexisting condition, that worker could not get coverage.

When Obamacare goes fully into effect, all those things will no longer be true. These improvements to our health care system will impact twenty to thirty million people positively. I think it is very doubtful that the Affordable Care Act will cause massive layoffs, and all of your anecdotal evidence will not change my opinion.

Even if there are some layoffs initially, they will soon be reversed when companies realize the benefits of the law.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by mostpost

Even if there are some layoffs initially, they will soon be reversed when companies realize the benefits of the law.

This kind of sounds like the "we have to pass the bill in order to find out what's in it" thingy...

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by mostpost

WE ARE NOT. Under the present plan. Or should I say the previous plan. Under the almost previous plan, many workers had no health insurance, many of their plans had limits on coverage or could be cancelled without explanation. None of the plans would cover children living at home up to age 26. If a worker had a preexisting condition, that worker could not get coverage.

When Obamacare goes fully into effect, all those things will no longer be true. These improvements to our health care system will impact twenty to thirty million people positively. I think it is very doubtful that the Affordable Care Act will cause massive layoffs, and all of your anecdotal evidence will not change my opinion.

You really don't know anything about the law but what you are told. All of the things you listed in your first paragraph are already implemented. As for the rest of it its not like its a surprise what is coming.

Even if there are some layoffs initially, they will soon be reversed when companies realize the benefits of the law.

Okay so now you are admitting it could be the cause for layoffs?...

Pray tell, based on your extensive understanding of the law, what benefits are these companies not 'realizing?' Here are the three basic scenario's again since you missed it last time around.

1) You don't offer health insurance but now you do so you have to pay part of the plan = added expense.
2) You don't offer health insurance and decide to continue not offering it and pay a $2,000 penalty for every employee you have over the 50 worker threshold = added expense.
3) You do offer health insurance (see #1) but your employee's elect not to take it for whatever reason so you pay a penalty based on the current exchange rate for health insurance in your market = added expense.

This will make the 3rd time I've explained, and been ignored, this law and how it affects companies on this thread. Not surprisingly you guys have gone from denial, to mitigating, to now blatant dismissiveness followed by baseless declarations such as this gem:

"Even if there are some layoffs initially, they will soon be reversed when companies realize the benefits of the law."

Are you really so arrogant to think that a mere platitude demonstrates your ability to "see through" a 2300 page piece of legislation and how it affects business better than the millions of real working business owners in this country?

[johnhannibalsmith]

Originally Posted by Donnie

...and do the people who will not be covered by their employers realize that if they do not purchase insurance they will be penalized on their yearly taxes??

This is where it gets interesting for me. I usually work a portion of the year for very little money simply to pay for my medical care. I don't want insurance, I find it to be the root problem and much prefer to pay cash for what I want, when I want it.

Now, I have the likely opportunity to take a job that I actually like this year for the first time in a couple of years. I won't make much, but it will be just enough to probably screw me to death on this deal. So, whereas I would just have automatically given it a greenlight just because I like to do it, now I really have to sit down and decide whether or not taking the job is actually going to punish me financially.

[JustRalph]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

Are you really so arrogant to think that a mere platitude demonstrates your ability to "see through" a 2300 page piece of legislation and how it affects business better than the millions of real working business owners in this country?

Thank you!

He presumes that the legal departments of all these multinational corporations, who have all come to the same conclusion, are in error. That somehow the fact that they have been saying for two years now that this would be the reality was just mindless drivel. Amazing stuff.

I mentioned this forced part time schedule to a restaurant employee tonight who told me that she is going to go on welfare if her company does it. She says she cannot afford a second commute.

[HUSKER55]

Can someone explain this to me?

Suppose you are Red Lobster, or Cracker Barrell. When this takes affect is it the local restaurants or the chain that bears the brunt of these new fees?

Also, what about franchises like Super8 and American Inns for example.

Is a child on the parents policy till age 26 for everyone or just kids going to college?

Thanks!

[johnhannibalsmith]

Slightly off-kilter, but interesting article with some amusing anecdotes.

For its most popular plan, which covers individuals, the payment per bi-weekly paycheck is going up by $2, or 13 percent. Other plans will see larger increases as the world's largest retailer, known for low prices, tries to control its own costs.
...
Wal-Mart's example could be a blueprint for other employers trying to manage their costs while also preparing to meet the requirements of President Barack Obama's U.S. Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which was passed in 2010, and is widely referred to as Obamacare.
...
"I really can't even afford it now so for it to go up even a dollar for me is a stretch," said Colby Harris, who said he makes $8.90 per hour and takes home less than $20,000 per year working in Walmart's produce department in Lancaster, Texas.

Harris, a 22-year-old smoker, was set to see his cost per paycheck rise to $29.60 from $25.40. He says he has decided not to sign up for coverage. Given his low income, as Harris foregoes coverage any major medical bills could potentially fall to taxpayers through the government's Medicaid program.

Four bucks. He's a smoker, but four bucks out of his check, that's just too much so he's dropping out.

I imagine this attitude and approach is the "blueprint" for how the meat and potato, real low-to-middle-class labor force will come to understand how this works.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...8MC18E20121112

[delayjf]

Even if there are some layoffs initially, they will soon be reversed when companies realize the benefits of the law.

The only way this could benefit businesses is to put the entire mandate on the individual and leave businesses out of the equation.

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by delayjf

The only way this could benefit businesses is to put the entire mandate on the individual and leave businesses out of the equation.

Top notch idea. That's too simple for pols to get.

[ElKabong]

Originally Posted by Donnie

...and do the people who will not be covered by their employers realize that if they do not purchase insurance they will be penalized on their yearly taxes??

They get a free ride if they don't have an income to a certain threshold, Donnie. The new Obamapho', is now free health insurance at the cost to you.

This is "the perfect union" schmucks and dumbasses talk about....You pay the freight for them. Forever

http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/feature?...ews&id=8717859

(1). The
Act, however, bars the IRS from using several of its normal enforcement tools, such as criminal prosecutions and
levies. §5000A(g)(2). And some individuals who are subject to the mandate are nonetheless exempt from the
penalty—for example, those with income below a certain
threshold and members of Indian tribes. §5000A(e).

[elysiantraveller]

So much for my Moons over my Hammy...

That sucks...