Govt cutting part time workers to avoid ObamaCare

[Soul Crusher]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/21/us/public-sector-cuts-part-time-shifts-to-duck-insurance-law.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=0


LOL

[Soul Crusher]

Just read the comments - shows how utterly whacked out most liberal communists are

[dario73]

But, but, but there is no evidence that crapcare has affected the labor force in anyway. So said the useless secretary of the HHS.

[Soul Crusher]

But, but, but there is no evidence that crapcare has affected the labor force in anyway. So said the useless secretary of the HHS.

Just read those comments - sick! 

[Necrosis]

But, but, but there is no evidence that crapcare has affected the labor force in anyway. So said the useless secretary of the HHS.

You have no idea about the law and why this is stupid.

[dario73]

SheYou has no idea about the law and why this law is so stupid.

Fixed.

[Soul Crusher]

You have no idea about the law and why this is stupid.

LOL!!!!   

[dario73]

LOL!!!!   

That is why I come to these boards.

These delusional libtards are hilarious.

[FredHayekowski]

There should be public unions in place to collectively bargain with these bureaucrats.  The individual penalty for not being insured is the higher of a couple of hundred bucks for the year or 1% of your annual income. It's better to keep these people uninsured and working less hours?  The back-end costs of emergency room coverage make this sort of thinking implausible.

The ACA is not good law but it's better than what was there before.  The country needed a Public Option for insurance and instead it got a steaming pile of this retread republican health plan.

To me, this just illustrates in spades the deplorable treatment of public workers.  They perform essential duties but can't get decent pay or insurance.  That is unconscionable today...in the richest country in the history of the world.

[dario73]

The ACA is not good law but it's better than what was there before.  The country needed a Public Option for insurance and instead it got a steaming pile of this retread republican health plan.

HEHEHEHE!!!

Better than what was before? How? When LESS people are insured now than before, HOW IS IT BETTER? How is it better when people with individual plans have to pay a higher premium for coverages they don't need, can't keep their doctor and in some instances they can't go to their local hospital?

How is it better when people have to carry a much higher deductible on their policy? Or when the only ones that could possibly benefit are people at the poverty line or earning less than 40k a year because then they can qualify for some subsidy that is paid for by all those other people that have had their premiums increase?

If you are going to say that it's better because MORE people are going to be insured then that is still not a valid reason. Why? Because you have destroyed insurance policies, policies that 85% of insured people were happy with, in order to TRY to cover the uninsured. I say TRY because by CBO calculations 30 MILLION WILL STILL BE UNINSURED UNDER CRAPCARE. 30 MILLION!! So it doesn't even accomplish what it was created to supposedly achieve.

If it's so wonderful and so much better than what existed, how come the clowninchief keeps delaying the employer mandates and keeps revising deadlines? HEHEHEHE!!

NO IT IS NOT BETTER THAN BEFORE. That is a lie. Was the health insurance system perfect before crapcare? No. It was not. But crapcare has made it A WHOLE LOT WORSE.

This is a plan created by democrats. They need to take responsibility for this trainwreck. And it is a trainwreck. There is no way around it.

[bears]

It's actually very simple.  Obamacare, from the start, was a political ploy to prey upon the weak minded people whose only true concern is gay marriage and abortion.  

I am the first to admit that I may be wrong about this but this is what I see.  

In order to combat high deductible subpar insurance policies offered by private industry, Obamacare offered a public market where people could pay another private insurance carrier (selected by Obama's cronies.  some people were made very rich by Obamacare) to offer their own shitty insurance that isn't any less expensive than their old shitty insurance policy but you buy it from a .gov website so it must be good because its offered by people who love gay people and want to go to their weddings and stuff.

someone tell me where i'm wrong.

personally, I have Blue Cross Blue Shield and the Obamacare mandates were extended so Blue Cross didn't have to raise my monthly rates by the 46% they originally told me that they were going up.....yet.  But when the Obamacare mandates kick in, my rates will most probably go up by over 50%.  I don't know what we're going to do when they do kick in.  I will probably have to go to the exchange so that I can at least save a little bit on my insurance plan for myself and my employees.  the sad part is that it won't be a whole lot cheaper and it will be a great deal more expensive than it was before this whole Obamacare shit show happened.

To the people who claimed over the last 6 years that Obama is not trying to take over the health care industry.....Obamacare's mandates jacked up all of our private health insurance premiums, then he offers policies on an exchange that are a little bit cheaper than the jacked up rates, but a good deal more expensive than the private rates were before the obamacare mandates.  what else do you call that?  

like I said before, the Republicans are allowing the Democrats to destroy this country all because they won't cave on gay marriage. If you vote Republican or Democrat this election, you're a stupid person.  plain and simple.  and when people ask me about the election, that's what im going to tell them.  I know I won't be popular.  

  

 

[FredHayekowski]

HEHEHEHE!!!

Better than what was before? How? When LESS people are insured now than before, HOW IS IT BETTER? How is it better when people with individual plans have to pay a higher premium for coverages they don't need, can't keep their doctor and in some instances they can't go to their local hospital?

How is it better when people have to carry a much higher deductible on their policy? Or when the only ones that could possibly benefit are people at the poverty line or earning less than 40k a year because then they can qualify for some subsidy that is paid for by all those other people that have had their premiums increase?

If you are going to say that it's better because MORE people are going to be insured then that is still not a valid reason. Why? Because you have destroyed insurance policies, policies that 85% of insured people were happy with, in order to TRY to cover the uninsured. I say TRY because by CBO calculations 30 MILLION WILL STILL BE UNINSURED UNDER CRAPCARE. 30 MILLION!! So it doesn't even accomplish what it was created to supposedly achieve.

If it's so wonderful and so much better than what existed, how come the clowninchief keeps delaying the employer mandates and keeps revising deadlines? HEHEHEHE!!

NO IT IS NOT BETTER THAN BEFORE. That is a lie. Was the health insurance system perfect before crapcare? No. It was not. But crapcare has made it A WHOLE LOT WORSE.

This is a plan created by democrats. They need to take responsibility for this trainwreck. And it is a trainwreck. There is no way around it.

As stated, the ACA is not good law.  Since most of the ACA's key elements have been operational for a month and some change and since open enrollment for the ACA still has about a month and a half for 2014, I'm a little bit leery of your cast iron negative projections.

But there are certainly good things about the law that you must admit:  pre-existing conditions as a basis for denying coverage is gone.  That alone is simply incredible.  Ask people with cancer, type 2 diabetes, etc., etc., the value of that.  What is it, some 14 million people have cancer in the US and 41% of the population is projected to get cancer at some point and become uninsurable under the prior regime.

Here's an even-handed list of the good things: http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/the-best-life/2013/07/15/10-good-things-about-obamacare

The ACA is a market-based program for dealing with healthcare coverage.  It was formulated by the Heritage Foundation (conservative / republican think-tank back in the 80s).  Romney implemented a version of it when he was governor of MA.

[Soul Crusher]

Obamacare is a disasater we all predicted

[FredHayekowski]

Obamacare is a disasater we all predicted

Tell that to the millions of children and adults denied coverage due to pre-existing conditions.

Can you admit some good things in the ACA?  Here's a hint, it has to do with pre-existing conditions.

[Dos Equis]

Tell that to the millions of children and adults denied coverage due to pre-existing conditions.

Can you admit some good things in the ACA?  Here's a hint, it has to do with pre-existing conditions.

That is a good part of Obamacare.  We didn't need a government takeover to address preexisting conditions. 

[FredHayekowski]

That is a good part of Obamacare.  We didn't need a government takeover to address preexisting conditions. 

Government takeover?  Takeover of what?  The government owns no insurance company.  The private big insurers that have been screwing you sideways for years with $5,000 deductibles still own the show.

No, the ACA is not good law.  But it is better than what was.

[Dos Equis]

Government takeover?  Takeover of what?  The government owns no insurance company.  The private big insurers that have been screwing you sideways for years with $5,000 deductibles still own the show.

No, the ACA is not good law.  But it is better than what was.

Government takeover of the healthcare system.  Government has now mandated that everyone obtain coverage or be taxed.  Government has caused numerous insurance companies to drop millions of people from coverage.  Government is mandating employers provide certain kinds of coverage.  Government is mandating that all insurance plans offer certain coverages.  That's a government takeover. 

No, Obamacare is not better than what he we had, particularly for those who lost their coverage, will be taxed for not obtaining coverage, have to pay higher premiums, and lost their jobs due to Obamacare. 

We used a sledgehammer to kill a flea.

[bears]

Government takeover?  Takeover of what?  The government owns no insurance company.  The private big insurers that have been screwing you sideways for years with $5,000 deductibles still own the show.

No, the ACA is not good law.  But it is better than what was.

what you mean is that there is one part of the act that improved the access to health care for a relatively large group of individuals.  but in the process it made it a lot harder for a lot larger group of people to afford the health care that they already had.

so is it better for some?  yes.  

but is it worse for most of the people?  yes.

liberals always like to talk in terms of the "greater good".  there is some good in Obamacare, but it made it worse for the country as a whole.  unfortunately no one cares as long as we cheer on gay marriage.  

and who knows what mandates they are going to put on those people with pre existing conditions.  at some point the costs of caring for them is going to become too great just like it did for the private health insurance carriers.  these new insurance carriers are going to have the same cash flow problems as the old ones.  I don't get why people don't understand that.  

[FredHayekowski]

Government takeover of the healthcare system.  Government has now mandated that everyone obtain coverage or be taxed.  Government has caused numerous insurance companies to drop millions of people from coverage.  Government is mandating employers provide certain kinds of coverage.  Government is mandating that all insurance plans offer certain coverages.  That's a government takeover. 

No, Obamacare is not better than what he we had, particularly for those who lost their coverage, will be taxed for not obtaining coverage, have to pay higher premiums, and lost their jobs due to Obamacare. 

We used a sledgehammer to kill a flea.

Get insured or pay a tax?  Sounds like a choice to me...and not a mandate.  But I'm not going to pick nits.  The fact of the matter as I see it is that the ACA is a major payoff to big insurance.  I don't see how one would portray it any other way.

Millions are being dropped from poor coverage and millions more are getting better coverage.  Again, that's not a government takeover.  The premiums will go down.  The more people buying coverage, the more the premiums will go down.  That's how insurance is supposed to work.  But frankly, I don't trust big business at all.  So who knows?

Remember, this is a market-based conservative insurance plan.  Competition between gargantuan insurance companies in the marketplace is the essence of the ACA.

The US needed universal healthcare and we got this mess instead.

[Soul Crusher]

Great talking points.

Get insured or pay a tax?  Sounds like a choice to me...and not a mandate.  But I'm not going to pick nits.  The fact of the matter as I see it is that the ACA is a major payoff to big insurance.  I don't see how one would portray it any other way.

Millions are being dropped from poor coverage and millions more are getting better coverage.  Again, that's not a government takeover.  The premiums will go down.  The more people buying coverage, the more the premiums will go down.  That's how insurance is supposed to work.  But frankly, I don't trust big business at all.  So who knows?

Remember, this is a market-based conservative insurance plan.  Competition between gargantuan insurance companies in the marketplace is the essence of the ACA.

The US needed universal healthcare and we got this mess instead.

[FredHayekowski]

what you mean is that there is one part of the act that improved the access to health care for a relatively large group of individuals.  but in the process it made it a lot harder for a lot larger group of people to afford the health care that they already had.

so is it better for some?  yes.  

but is it worse for most of the people?  yes.

liberals always like to talk in terms of the "greater good".  there is some good in Obamacare, but it made it worse for the country as a whole.  unfortunately no one cares as long as we cheer on gay marriage.  

and who knows what mandates they are going to put on those people with pre existing conditions.  at some point the costs of caring for them is going to become too great just like it did for the private health insurance carriers.  these new insurance carriers are going to have the same cash flow problems as the old ones.  I don't get why people don't understand that.  

I think you are the only person mentioning the groaning 'greater good' of utilitarianism.  And how you tie gay marriage to all this is a mystery for the ages.

[FredHayekowski]

Great talking points.

Thanks.  A man has to know where he stands in life and with insurance.  I wish I could say something was 'great' about your response.

[Dos Equis]

Get insured or pay a tax?  Sounds like a choice to me...and not a mandate.  But I'm not going to pick nits.  The fact of the matter as I see it is that the ACA is a major payoff to big insurance.  I don't see how one would portray it any other way.

Millions are being dropped from poor coverage and millions more are getting better coverage.  Again, that's not a government takeover.  The premiums will go down.  The more people buying coverage, the more the premiums will go down.  That's how insurance is supposed to work.  But frankly, I don't trust big business at all.  So who knows?

Remember, this is a market-based conservative insurance plan.  Competition between gargantuan insurance companies in the marketplace is the essence of the ACA.

The US needed universal healthcare and we got this mess instead.

The government taxing you if you don't enter the marketplace is not a choice.  

Who defines "better coverage"?  The government.  For instance, the government has decided that everyone in the individual market must have maternity coverage.  But if a person doesn't want kids?  What if they cannot have kids?  What if they're too old for kids?

A lot of people like the "crappy" coverage they had.  Who the heck is Big Brother to tell those people they're coverage isn't good enough?  

We needed to address a few things like preexisting conditions, costs, etc.  What he didn't and don't need is the government taking over and mucking everything up.  

[Roger Bacon]

LOL!!!!   

You have no idea bro..... hahahaha 

[FredHayekowski]

The government taxing you if you don't enter the marketplace is not a choice.  

Who defines "better coverage"?  The government.  For instance, the government has decided that everyone in the individual market must have maternity coverage.  But if a person doesn't want kids?  What if they cannot have kids?  What if they're too old for kids?

A lot of people like the "crappy" coverage they had.  Who the heck is Big Brother to tell those people they're coverage isn't good enough?  

We needed to address a few things like preexisting conditions, costs, etc.  What he didn't and don't need is the government taking over and mucking everything up.  

Like I said, I won't pick nitz over your idea of what a 'mandate' means.  To me, it's one course of action or the highway. To Soul Crusher, it's a dating service. (I'm goofing)  To you, it's the option of entering the marketplace or paying a minimum tax so as not to be a total moocher in the healthcare system.  Uninsured people that can afford coverage are moochers.  They cost a whole lot more in the emergency room.

The terms of the competing insurance policies define 'better coverage.'  I think that should go without saying.