companies are lowering hours to duck the insurance and the cost of insurance is going up. That’s the reality of it.
Actual unemployment is still in double digits. Cities like Detroit are going bankrupt and the Federal Government is 17 trillion in debt. Baby boomers are starting to retire which will dip into social security. Where is the money coming from to cover the insurance?
I agree. It would be the stupid huge company that would intentionally hurt it’s own profits solely to prove a political point.
Publicly owned ones’ CEOs have even more of an incentive - they have a duty to maximize profits to the shareholders; they could very easily lose their jobs if the shareholders come to believe that they’re putting political shenanigans ahead of maximizing share value or dividends.
The shift to part time/temp labor isn’t something new that cropped up in response to Obamacare either; that’s been going on for a long time now in both blue and white collar industries.
There’s no incentive right now for companies to make the majority of positions full-time with benefits; why should they, if they can choose 2 people out of the 50 applicants to do that same job part-time at 20 hours a week each?
Stuff like Obamacare and other things that increase the cost of a worker only exacerbate the situation by making it cost more to hire and employ a full-time worker. (remember, the actual paycheck is only part of the total compensation that a full-time worker costs the company; for a person paid say… 50k, their actual compensation is usually half again that or more, for 75k or more when you include insurances and other benefits.
Social security has nothing to do with this issue.
Where is the money coming from? How about using the money spend now to cover the uninsured, which is factored into the health bills for the insured in inefficient ways? How about real competition for non-group insurance, which already seems to be producing prices on the exchange lower than forecast. And giving more companies an opportunity to get into the market. And there will be money from people who now gamble that they won’t need insurance (a rational decision) and thus skews participation to those more likely to be spenders. There is the forcing of insurance companies to be more efficient, and use more of their income for coverage, not overhead. And finally, the publication of the vastly different prices charged for the same procedures even in the same city should drive costs down. You know, good old American competition.
If all of this saves money now spent by Medicare, no worries. It is not like our insurance system is exactly lean and mean after all.
Anthem Blue Cross has long been criticized for it’s premium hikes, starting at least as far back to 2002. They’ve been up to this long before the ACA was enacted. In February 2010, Anthem’s business practices were actually used as a primary example of private health insurance running amok, marshalling support for reform.
This is not the first time Anthem CA has come under scrutiny by the CA Insurance Commission, which is why more recently, as in a couple of days ago, the current California Insurance Commissioner, Dave Jones,is seeking to bar Anthem from the exchanges. There’s also a initiative set to appear on the November ballot that would require California health insurance companies to get state regulators’ approval before hiking rates. California car and property insurance companies already are subject to rate controls via Prop 103, enacted in 1988.
Don’t get me wrong, my big gripe with the ACA is that it does not address the out of control costs in US healthcare (the 80-85% medical loss ratio does set a cap, but doesn’t go far enough) , as well as continuing to tie health insurance to employment. However, costs were already rising at unsustainable levels long before the ACA was enacted, it is disingenuous to lay the blame for the US’ high cost of healthcare solely on the ACA when the real cost drivers were already in play.
So yeah, I agree, some companies are just raising prices because the ACA makes a convenient scapegoat and allows less focus on the more pressing reform issues, which are politically unpopular - e.g. reimbursement reform and healthcare delivery.
Its like a rubber hammer to the knee, just reflex, isn’t it?
I can be the greatest business consultant that ever lived. In every industry, even ones I know nothing about, I can immediately increase profits. How? Slave labor! Kidnappings! Murders of rivals!
You see, health care is something this country has decided should be the norm for most people. Its a necessity as much as food and shelter. If people can’t afford it, the government provides it at a cost to the rest of the taxpayers.
What you want to do is simply freeze all such expenditures at an arbitrary level. “No health care by employers or government for anybody!” you say. How convenient that we stop at something you don’t like. I suppose paying minimum wage for employees a few generations ago would be met with similar cries of socialism, or having women in the workplace, and not using child labor. You don’t see that your objection to health care is any different from those who predicted the downfall of America after safety laws and worker protections were passed because you don’t like health care. But for those of us who can step outside our bubble, we can see that its the same damn thing
Some day, a new law will be proposed that affects business that you support. When that day comes, I’m simply going to say “No! Any more laws is evil and wrong! We must stop the encroachment on our rights now!”
In the real world, however, shareholders can’t even fire board members in elections. First, no one runs against them, second, the election is advisory, and third, in one case where a board member lost he was reappointed by the CEO to the vacant slot. Cuba looks like a pure democracy compared to a corporation.
CEO jobs are even safer. Piss off the board, piss off a big shareholder, and then you might be in trouble. But for improving benefits? Hardly likely to piss off a hand picked board very much.
Actually there is, and it involves managing people versus abstract hours. What kind of people are you going to be able to hire at 20 hours a week in times of reasonable employment? Not anyone going to go the extra mile for your company. Someone who does the minimum possible. Someone is going to split at the first possible moment.
From here.
I’m not saying that a company has to follow the be good to workers route - just that any decent CEO could make a case for it and not get fired. How much a worker makes absolutely is far less important than how much more he produces than he gets paid.
Obamacare just levels the playing field - it is not like WalMart would have to compete against a retailer who is not covered by it. (Well, a tiny store, but they have plenty of advantages still to make up for that.)
Hogwash. You redefine the word. Various states are deliberately not implementing their part of the program, forcing the Federal government to implement it in a less efficient form. (Hell, one state toyed with trying to criminalize anyone actually working to implement the program.) There are very definitely legislatures out there trying to cause ACA to fail, or to function less effectively than it might. This is sabotage.
Again, states are not required to implement, or help with, any federal law. Democrats knew that when they passed the bill.
Certain cities in California forbid their cops to have anything to do with immigration, or to assist in implementation of the Patriot Act. I trust you and all conservatives are good with this, considering that California had nothing to do with passing the law.
Not that I’m unhappy with Republicans showing their true stripes by refusing free money for the next few years that would improve the lives and health of many of their citizens. No wonder they are trying to keep them from voting!
It’s not free money after a few years and state budgets are already strained. California will be put under as soon as the 100% Medicaid funding expires.
As for local cities and immigration laws, of course conservatives don’t like that, but that does not mean we call it “sabotage”. Conservatives understand how our federalist system works. It is 100% the federal government’s responsibility to enforce federal laws. States can assist if they choose.
For Democrats to assume that states would help implement a partisan bill was asinine and arrogant.
Yeah, yeah, partisan. Governor Romney exploded that myth.
And, yes, state participation was intended, in order to respect state’s interests, just the same way we have state highways and state national guards. Would you really be happier if there were only one Federal highway commission, and no state guards? I scent the rich odor of hypocrisy.
The Republicans exposed their penchant for sabotage some years ago, when they publicly acknowledged that their primary goal, in governing, was the make sure that the Obama administration was a failure. The idea of governing for the good of the people was surrendered to an overt partisan purpose.
Democrats, bless 'em, still hold out the ACA as being of benefit to the people. More people will get medical care at earlier stages of their illnesses, and the overall costs to the nation will decrease.
The Republicans want this to fail. They want to taint Obama’s legacy, even at the cost of sick children, ailing elderly, reduced levels of immunization, and more people crowding the emergency rooms.
You’re barking. This is a massive unfunded project that has already hurt thousands of people who lost hours over it. There is no magic money tree to pay for it and it’s going to blow up in everybody’s face when the costs mount up. They STILL don’t have the government insurance programs in place and this starts next year. It’s going to be a complete clusterfuck.
And yes, social security has everything to do with. The money to pay for that comes from people with jobs. You cut hours and all that happens is an increase in the number of the underemployed which means a need for more food stamps and low income housing. Food stamp usage is up 140% since 1990. Who is paying for that?
In California they’re talking about 64 to 146% increases in health care rates. In Ohio it’s going to be in the 80% range. Who can afford those kind of rate increases?
Well, that’s just the difference, isn’t it? Of course both major American political parties are owned by the 1% – the difference is that the Pubs are wholly owned by those and the Dems are not.
You seem to be ignoring all those who lost hours before ACA due to the high cost of insurance and the unwillingness of retail and others to give them enough hours to qualify for insurance. But this must be the fault of the government, not employers who are making record profits. No sparrow falls that you don’t blame on the government.
Income inequality increases, the middle class and below get screwed, food stamp use is up (so they don’t have the decency to starve and eliminate the problem?) and you blame it on government, Remember, Republicans were in office for 20 o the years since 1980, and I doubt food stamp usage increased during the Clinton years.
Note that he is using highly selective ages. Yeah, the young are paying more, and are going to be paying more than they get on average - which is what the mandate is all about. He never mentions older people who get hit harder by insurance, not to mention those with pre-existing conditions. And he complains that the California decrease is relative to group plans - as if single plans will ever be cheaper, on the average, than group ones. So I’m less than impressed.
So we can expect Obama’s 17-point drop in approval among young voters to decrease a lot more once the bill comes due next year. So much for young voters remaining prominently Democrat.
Yes, it’s the fault of the government. it’s not the job of businesses to generate tax revenue. It’s not the job of employers to pay benefits. If you raise the cost of doing business then they will seek ways to lower their costs back. It’s cause and effect.
This thread has veered way off course, but can someone tell me why an employer should be responsible for providing Health Insurance to employees?
They don’t provide housing, food, clothing, schooling for the employee’s kids, car insurance, etc. But for some reason (historically related to wage and prices controls during WWII) many Americans have gotten it into their heads that if you hire someone, you must pay for their health care costs. Why?
lWhy is an employer immoral if he doesn’t provide HC Insurance, but perfectly moral if he gives the employee money so that said employee can buy his own food, housing, clothing,e etc.?
Second question: If the government imposes a new cost on employers, but gives them a fairly easy way of opting out of that cost, what do you expect the rational employer to do:
A. Ignore the easy opt out and pay up?
B. Analyze the cost benefits of paying the new costs vs using the opt out strategy?
I assume employers that currently provide health insurance do so out of self interest, not altruism. They want to keep or attract quality employees with generous benefits. So why would they opt out under Obamacare, when they haven’t opted out under the current system? Why would they resort to cold, calculated short-term economics under Obamacare, when they have an enlightened long term view now?
Because many are afraid it’s going to cost them more under the new system than they are currently paying, and that would cut their margins. It’s still an unknown as to exactly what the new costs are going to be, and whether it’s going to cost a company less to pay the penalty or to pay the purported additional costs.
And it’s not the job of the employer to provide a safe workplace also? Is Bangladesh your idea of paradise? Still regretting that the Triangle Fire justified socialist workplace rules?
Now, if conservatives got behind a government funded UHC system, it would be great. In favor of that? Willing to fight for it as the correct conservative position?
If not, I think the question in the OP is answered.