*chuckle* Instead of more coverage, you get less. Government in a nutshell...

[4est_4est_Gump]

Obamacare, officially known as the "Affordable Care Act", is quickly proving to be so unaffordable that neither businesses nor labor unions want anything to do with it.

In increasing numbers, US business complain about ‘Obamacare’ costs (but they are not the only ones).

David Dillon, chief executive of the Kroger supermarket chain, told the Financial Times that some companies might opt to pay a government-mandated penalty for not providing insurance because it was cheaper than the cost of coverage.

Nigel Travis, head of Dunkin’ Brands, said his doughnut chain was lobbying to change the definition of “full-time” employees eligible for coverage from those working at least 30 hours a week to 40 hours a week.

Some restaurants, including Wendy’s and Taco Bell franchises, have explored slashing worker hours so fewer employees qualify for health insurance, arguing that they cannot afford the additional healthcare costs. Other businesses are deliberately keeping headcounts below 50.

The penalty for not providing coverage is $2,000 per worker. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, a non-partisan policy group, the average annual cost to employers of insurance is $4,664 for a single worker and $11,429 for a family.

Companies with more than 50 workers have to pay a penalty if they do not provide full-time employees with health insurance. The employees can instead buy private coverage subsidised by the government on new insurance exchanges.

Not Even Labor Unions Want It

If it's costly for businesses, labor unions must like it. Right? Wrong.

The Washington Time reports Labor unions that pushed Obamacare through want out

Unions, or rather the professional class of union leaders, were vehement supporters of Obamacare’s federal takeover of health care. Now that they’ve had a chance to actually read the 2,801-page bill and “find out what is in it,” they are upset and want out.

Major unions like the AFL-CIO and the Teamsters are now demanding that they be allowed to stay on their current health care plans and receive government subsidies to cover the increased costs some of Obamacare’s provisions will impose on lower-income workers. They want to eat their government cake and have it too. What else is new? Who would foot the bill? You guessed it: We, the taxpayers.

The rank hypocrisy of Obamacare-backing unions began almost immediately after the passage of the bill three years ago, with hundreds of thousands of union workers being exempted from the law through waivers from the Obama administration.

In total, more than 1,200 entities were granted waivers from President Obama‘s signature legislation, the vast majority of them labor unions. In fact, unions representing 543,812 workers received waivers, while only 69,813 employees at private firms, many of them small businesses, managed to secure a waiver.

The same unions that fought tooth and nail to impose this program on all Americans used million-dollar lobbyists to make sure they didn’t have to play by the same rules as the rest of us.

Readers will recall Mr. Obama’s constant mantra: “If you like your health care, you can keep it.” Not so. According to the Congressional Budget Office, more than 7 million Americans will lose their employer-based insurance thanks to Obamacare. Unintended consequences always come back to haunt us, and try though they might, government actors are incapable of overturning economic law by mere decree.

Job Market Distortions

I have commented on the labor market distortions of Obamacare many times.

Here is a brief recap: Since the "Unaffordable Care Act" defines full-time employment at 30 hours, many businesses are cutting back the number of hours employees can work to 25. In turn, this led to more hiring, all part-time jobs of course. Some medium-sized businesses reduced employment to under 50 workers and other businesses turned to consultants to get around the act.

Now businesses are investigating opting out of the plan even for full-time employees. Other than social pressures and disgruntled employees, why not?

Arguably, every business should opt out and pay the penalty. Businesses could even give a nice subsidy to its employees and come out ahead. Let voters see for themselves just how "affordable" Obamacare is.

As a primary benefit, if enough businesses do opt out, there will be massive voter support to scrap or at least overhaul the damn program.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
Read more at http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/#uUWw3UyZIVeSPip5.99

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

That is what taxes do, they reduce activity, production and supply and the fine is a tax and the tax is fine!



Congrats! The Democrats got what they voted for, a Cloward-Piven style collapse so the demand can be made for the government to Socialize medicine. Maybe they'll stop lying to us now about their great achievement and future goals.

Ya think?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Brave New World (recommended reading)

http://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson/brave-new-world/?singlepage=true

 

[unregistered]

 

[mercury14]

We told them this was going to fail, that there wasn't enough money to make it work. Time to scrap it and start all over.

And you're a moron for believing liars such as AJ.

Kroger isn't considering dropping coverage, they're considering a switch to a defined benefit health care plan. Basically Kroger would stop offering health insurance and instead give employees a lump sum of money. Employees would then go to an exchange and use that money to buy insurance, getting an a sliding scale exchange subsidy if applicable. You two will choose to ignore this fact though because it doesn't fit your narrative. Facts don't matter to you.

 

[mercury14]

That is what taxes do, they reduce activity, production and supply and the fine is a tax and the tax is fine!

Wait, you just said businesses aren't going to be buying health care anymore. That would free up a massive amount of money for capital and/or profit. But now you're saying activity would be reduced???

You're tripping over your own narrative here. You can't have it both ways bro... pick a narrative and stick to it. If you're saying businesses aren't going to be providing health care anymore you're not allowed to claim they'll have less money for economic activity. Not in any honest way at least.

 

[GiggLeGasm]

do I really believe that nobody from the union world bothered to read the proposition until recently?
hahahaha... "listen guys.. this was A LOT of paper.. let's just vote so we can get back to our break.."
lol.. really?

 

[RobDownSouth]

And you're a moron for believing liars such as AJ.

Kroger isn't considering dropping coverage, they're considering a switch to a defined benefit health care plan. Basically Kroger would stop offering health insurance and instead give employees a lump sum of money. Employees would then go to an exchange and use that money to buy insurance, getting an a sliding scale exchange subsidy if applicable. You two will choose to ignore this fact though because it doesn't fit your narrative. Facts don't matter to you.

It's refreshing to see our Nutless (AJ) and Gutless (Vetty) Marines fixated on the plight of the working poor for a change (probably because they can both relate, having never had more than slightly-above-minimum-wage jobs their entire careers).

I've noticed that Nutless and Gutless seem to be unable or unwilling to grasp the concept of health care exchanges as well. I'm sure they'll get their talking points to address this soon.

 

[unregistered]

 

[imalickin]

And you're a moron for believing liars such as AJ.

Kroger isn't considering dropping coverage, they're considering a switch to a defined benefit health care plan. Basically Kroger would stop offering health insurance and instead give employees a lump sum of money. Employees would then go to an exchange and use that money to buy insurance, getting an a sliding scale exchange subsidy if applicable. You two will choose to ignore this fact though because it doesn't fit your narrative. Facts don't matter to you.

And if your state has opted out of the exchange bullshit, then what oh wiseass one.

 

[RobDownSouth]

You seem to have failed to grasp the fact that America didn't want your fucked up plan to begin with. Half the states are telling your clown Obama to stick it where the sun don't shine, it's so dumb. Like you.

Let's review here:

• Obamacare legislation was passed by a majority of the United States House of Representatives.
• Obamacare legislation was passed by a majority of the United States Senate.
• Obamacare legislation was signed into federal law by the President of the United States.
• Obamacare law was deemed Constitutional by the United States Supreme Court.
• Obamacare repeal legislation has failed over 30 times in Congress

Now granted, it's been a long time since I took American government back in high school, but it seems to me that the system worked as designed.

"Majority rule" is a concept you seem unwilling or unable to grasp

Kindly peddle your derpy talking points elsewhere, you stupid son of a bitch.

 

[mercury14]

And if your state has opted out of the exchange bullshit, then what oh wiseass one.

States cannot opt out of having exchanges.

 

[Wrong Element]

You seem to have failed to grasp the fact that America didn't want your fucked up plan to begin with.

..........

 

[Adre]

..........

RWCJ: *closes eyes, doesn't look*

 

[mercury14]

RWCJ: *closes eyes, doesn't look*

Either that or *look at all those GIANT red states in the middle, it's about a tie and therefore not a mandate!*

 

[RobDownSouth]

Either that or *look at all those GIANT red states in the middle, it's about a tie and therefore not a mandate!*

The proportional electoral college map gives them nightmares:

 

[LiFeNdEaTh]

~interesting~

 

[julybaby04]

Let's review here:

• 
  
  .....just curious, and feel free to correct me if I am wrong......
  
• Obamacare legislation was passed by a majority of the United States House of Representatives. Wasn't the majority completely Democratic during this vote?
  
  
• Obamacare legislation was passed by a majority of the United States Senate. Wasn't the majority completely Democratic during this vote as well?
  
  
• Obamacare legislation was signed into federal law by the President of the United States. Of course he did
  
  
• Obamacare law was deemed Constitutional by the United States Supreme Court.Wasn't this by a 5/4 majority and not that is was Constitutional, but that it was allowed because it was a tax?
  
  
• Obamacare repeal legislation has failed over 30 times in Congress Still have Democratic Senate majority and a Democratic POTUS.....would it matter at all if the House passed repeal legislation?

Like I said, I was just curious as to the actual voting on this.

To be honest, it does not matter anyway. Everyone is going to have to deal with the repercussions of this new health system.

My mom was sharing with me yesterday that her healthcare was dropped January 1 and she had just secured private health care last week. She was covered by my late dad's retirement coverage and the company (a rather large one) dropped healthcare for all retirees and is looking at doing the same for their workers. I believe the current workers are, at this time, still covered.

Glad to see she was able to keep what she had (and was paying for)....

 

[neci]

States cannot opt out of having exchanges.

Texas opted out. The feds will provide one, but the state will not.

 

[mercury14]

Texas opted out. The feds will provide one, but the state will not.

States can opt out of being the ones that run their state's exchange but they cannot opt out of having an exchange. Rick Perry apparently prefers the federal government to control as much of Texas as possible so his state's exchange will be controlled by Washington DC.

 

[neci]

States can opt out of being the ones that run their state's exchange but they cannot opt out of having an exchange. Rick Perry apparently prefers the federal government to control as much of Texas as possible so his state's exchange will be controlled by Washington DC.

texas citizens will be able to access insurance from a federal exchange, not a state exchange run by the feds.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Let's review here:

• 
  
  .....just curious, and feel free to correct me if I am wrong......
  
• Wasn't the majority completely Democratic during this vote? Yes.
• Wasn't the majority completely Democratic during this vote as well?Yes.
  
• Wasn't this by a 5/4 majority and not that is was Constitutional, but that it was allowed because it was a tax? The question was whether or not the legislation was constitutional. The Supreme Court decided that it was, in fact, a tax, and that since Congress has the power to levy taxes it was constitutional
• Still have Democratic Senate majority and a Democratic POTUS.....would it matter at all if the House passed repeal legislation?Probably not

Like I said, I was just curious as to the actual voting on this.

To be honest, it does not matter anyway. Exactly! For all the moaning and complaining the right wing does, they simply DO NOT HAVE THE VOTES to overturn Obamacare. Why? Because the majority of Americans don't feel strongly enough to repeal it to the point where they want to elect legislators and presidents to do so.

My answers in Green.

 

[julybaby04]

My answers in Green.

I think many do care. Perhaps they are doing what they can to take care of their own families, in spite of what the government is doing.

Also, I would bet if a real conservative ran for office and was not afraid to speak out against obama (for fear of making someone "feel bad"...or making themselves "look bad"....but just spoke truth), I would imagine that person would win.

Rev. Carson comes to mind.

 

[mercury14]

texas citizens will be able to access insurance from a federal exchange, not a state exchange run by the feds.

I think it's still best described as a Texas state exchange though. The insurance companies on the exchange will all be based in Texas and follow Texas regulations. The only difference is that the feds will run and control it.

 

[mercury14]

I think many do care. Perhaps they are doing what they can to take care of their own families, in spite of what the government is doing.

Also, I would bet if a real conservative ran for office and was not afraid to speak out against obama (for fear of making someone "feel bad"...or making themselves "look bad"....but just spoke truth), I would imagine that person would win.

Rev. Carson comes to mind.

Because Mitt Romney didn't speak out against Obama?

Dr. Carson... How is he different than any other conservative that says they're unhappy with health care reform? And once you're done answering that, tell me about his foreign policy credentials.