|
On October 04 2013 14:29 LuckyFool wrote:Pretty strong article from the WSJ earlier tonight, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304176904579111331134686614.htmlThe last paragraph was particularly interesting; Show nested quote +A President who really wants to limit the chance of default would take the GOP up on its Full Faith and Credit offer. Mr. Obama's refusal suggests that his real goal is to go to the edge of default, gambling that he can then either coerce total surrender or blame a default on Republicans and use it to take back control of the House in 2014. This isn't how leaders looking out for the interests of all Americans behave. apologies if this has already been linked, I looked back a little and didn't see it posted.
Jesus that link is scary.
On October 04 2013 14:37 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 14:29 Kaitlin wrote:On October 04 2013 14:27 screamingpalm wrote:On October 04 2013 14:18 Kaitlin wrote:On October 04 2013 14:15 screamingpalm wrote:
What I mean by pro rata format and gaming the system, is an incremental scale to create incentive for employers to keep their workers full-time rather than part-time (cost effective). The government would still make up the difference in subsidies and exemptions still apply.
Edit: exemptions as in the subsidies to businesses that cannot afford to offer coverage to their workers. From where would the government "make up the difference" ? As they are already, such as UPS not covering their workers and having the plans subsidized. I am suggesting a pro rata format where the employer would pay what they could and the rest would be subsidized (if eligible). If the scale was formed so that it would be more cost effective to keep employees on full-time, I think that would address the issue of employers dropping workers to part-time. And I'm asking you to present such a scenario fitting your idea so that it's not some abstract concept which can't be discussed or even contemplated. Well I don't know what the exact numbers would be obviously, but incremental in scale meaning the employer would pay into the plan based on hours/week where full-time 40/week would be the most cost effective and gradually scale down where it would be more expensive per hour. If you don't like the idea that's fine, just saying that I believe there are ways that we could address that issue.
What you would see then is employers overworking the staff they have, and rather pay overtime then hire a new employee.
|
United States24689 Posts
I think such a plan that is being discussed would need to rework several other areas as well. Employers typically only offer one or two health plans, so employees don't get much say over what plan they go on. This isn't a huge problem because employers usually cover the majority of the fees, so as least the employee isn't paying that much out of pocket for the plan they wouldn't prefer.
If your employer is offering to pay a part time worker only 20% for a plan they don't want, it now becomes very unfortunate for the worker. Maybe if you changed how employer-provided healthcare worked to have companies offer a mandated credit towards plans on the marketplace it would work better... I do not know.
|
On October 04 2013 14:39 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 14:27 Kaitlin wrote:On October 04 2013 14:23 ticklishmusic wrote:
Okay, let's tack on a clause that says citizens under 18 or currently attending high school (or maybe even up to university) do not need to receive healthcare from employers. That wasn't very difficult. Ok, so just to clarify, you're saying employers are not responsible to insure or pay the penalty for employees who are students up to age, what, 22 ? edit: I guess it doesn't matter, exactly, but if you think about it, you will realize you are creating a preference group wherein employers will favor hiring employees for whom they are not required to incur these additional costs. This will make it more difficult for non-students to find employment, and frankly, aren't the non-students the ones who really need the work and the health insurance ? I was addressing the point you raised about hiring student workers, but you're changing the topic now. There's already going to what you refer to as a "preference group" for cheap labor because of basic supply and demand with labor as the item (it's the economy, stupid.jpg). Students can't fulfill every single one of those jobs, and there will be people filling them who need health insurance. However, that's why Obamacare has other systems in place such that people can still get insurance even if their employers don't provide it. I also expect that there will be someone in the system who asks "hey, I see you work at this place, why don't you have insurance from them?".
I read back through our posts. I can't see where I've changed the topic. I was talking about employers cutting employee hours to below the threshold and you suggested removing a requirement from employers to fund insurance for employees who are students, etc. I argued that that solution would make it more difficult for people who don't fit the government defined preference group to find employment, and thus health insurance. It was simply pointing out why that solution was not a good one. There can be many reasons a potential solution to a problem doesn't work, among them is that it creates other, additional problems.
|
On October 04 2013 14:47 micronesia wrote:
I think such a plan that is being discussed would need to rework several other areas as well. Employers typically only offer one or two health plans, so employees don't get much say over what plan they go on. This isn't a huge problem because employers usually cover the majority of the fees, so as least the employee isn't paying that much out of pocket for the plan they wouldn't prefer.
If your employer is offering to pay a part time worker only 20% for a plan they don't want, it now becomes very unfortunate for the worker. Maybe if you changed how employer-provided healthcare worked to have companies offer a mandated credit towards plans on the marketplace it would work better... I do not know.
If you do not qualify for mandated health coverage from your company (meeting the rules of reasonably afforable, etc. I think it has to be under 10% of your gross pay. I have to find my notes from the convention) the government will supply you with tax incentives for the marketplace assuming you qualify there.
If an employee works under 30 hours, the employer doesn't have to provide health insurance.
If an employee works over 30 hours, he is mandated to provide health insurance that is "reasonably affordable".
To say it shortly, the cost of the health insurance will never account for more then 15% (max, i think it is more like 5%, but I am uncertain) of their gross pay.
On October 04 2013 14:49 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 14:39 ticklishmusic wrote:On October 04 2013 14:27 Kaitlin wrote:On October 04 2013 14:23 ticklishmusic wrote:
Okay, let's tack on a clause that says citizens under 18 or currently attending high school (or maybe even up to university) do not need to receive healthcare from employers. That wasn't very difficult. Ok, so just to clarify, you're saying employers are not responsible to insure or pay the penalty for employees who are students up to age, what, 22 ? edit: I guess it doesn't matter, exactly, but if you think about it, you will realize you are creating a preference group wherein employers will favor hiring employees for whom they are not required to incur these additional costs. This will make it more difficult for non-students to find employment, and frankly, aren't the non-students the ones who really need the work and the health insurance ? I was addressing the point you raised about hiring student workers, but you're changing the topic now. There's already going to what you refer to as a "preference group" for cheap labor because of basic supply and demand with labor as the item (it's the economy, stupid.jpg). Students can't fulfill every single one of those jobs, and there will be people filling them who need health insurance. However, that's why Obamacare has other systems in place such that people can still get insurance even if their employers don't provide it. I also expect that there will be someone in the system who asks "hey, I see you work at this place, why don't you have insurance from them?". I read back through our posts. I can't see where I've changed the topic. I was talking about employers cutting employee hours to below the threshold and you suggested removing a requirement from employers to fund insurance for employees who are students, etc. I argued that that solution would make it more difficult for people who don't fit the government defined preference group to find employment, and thus health insurance. It was simply pointing out why that solution was not a good one. There can be many reasons a potential solution to a problem doesn't work, among them is that it creates other, additional problems.
This is true about cutting hours back. Every fast food chain is planning on it (unsure if McDonalds is doing it, they seemed to have lobbied their way into a couple year waiver)
|
On October 04 2013 14:45 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 14:42 Mysticesper wrote:
It almost feels redundant to have an employer mandate (which was recently delayed) + individual mandate.
Why not cut out the employer mandate, and the now increased wages can go towards everyone buying their own plans that best suits them (more akin to car insurance) What increased wages ?
What currently go into your employer plan as a deduction / benefit, etc. Either directly out of your salary / wage or the employer's compensation (akin to the "hidden" half of medicare / SS that they pay on your behalf). In theory you would get that back (probably wont happen, but still) and use it on your own.
|
On October 04 2013 14:45 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 14:18 Kaitlin wrote:On October 04 2013 14:15 screamingpalm wrote:
What I mean by pro rata format and gaming the system, is an incremental scale to create incentive for employers to keep their workers full-time rather than part-time (cost effective). The government would still make up the difference in subsidies and exemptions still apply.
Edit: exemptions as in the subsidies to businesses that cannot afford to offer coverage to their workers. From where would the government "make up the difference" ? edit: Also, I've gone into detail. If you could be less abstract with your points, it would be helpful. There isn't much substance to "an incremental scale to create incentive for employers to keep their workers full-time rather than part-time." It's really the same thing with the government making up the difference. There is absolutely no substance to it. From what I gather and with some small alterations of my own what I believe is being proposed is that instead of making it all or nothing based on the 30hr line you have employers contribute based on the hours an employee works. So we'll say that for a typical full-time employee (based on 40/hpw employers typically contribute about 50% of the cost toward their employees premium costs. So instead of that or nothing (part-time) have employers contribute a minimum amount based on the hours worked. I'm not hard crunching the numbers at the moment but to give an idea it would look something like hpw=hours per week ec=employers contribution 10-14.99 hpw = 15% ec 15-19.99 hpw = 25% ec 20-24.99 hpw = 30% ec 25-29.99 hpw = 35% ec etc... Obviously it could be fine tuned but it would likely be less encouraging for businesses to cut workers to part-time and even more helpful to those that are suffering from such a business practice which does seem at least slightly separated from the humanity and dignity an employee deserves from their employer.
Ok, I'll start in reverse. The bolded part has no place in the discussion. We're discussing bottom line costs and for a small business, these are the difference between continuing to provide employment or closing your doors. It's a financial decision, keep the emotional, humanitarian, dignity arguments for your local charity.
Ok, I don't understand why we're only funding 50% of the cost and not 100%, but that's just an issue of magnitude, and since we're making up numbers, doesn't really matter too much.
Next, if the employer is paying some pro-rated amount, whatever that amount works out to, then the employee must make up the difference ? If the employee chooses to forgo insurance and elects to pay the penalty, certainly the employer wouldn't be penalized for the employee's choice. Also, this would, again, create incentive to hire employees who will not receive coverage from the employer, would it not ?
So, would the incentive to use part time workers instead of full timers really be removed ? Part timers would much less likely buy insurance with only a small portion of the cost paid by the employer.
Additionally, the cost to the employer of such a law would be detrimental to the economy due to the increase in the cost of low-skilled labor. In the current law, at least employers have a way to mitigate these burdens. Removing that burden, adding these costs, would drive many businesses out of business. You can't just raise the cost of doing business and expect businesses to be unaffected.
|
I think there's tons of derailing here... I didn't want to debate the virtues and vices of the ACA itself; I'm pretty sure this thread is on the topic of the funding of the government, not the ACA... People are getting bogged down in really strange details (like the 30hr/wk thing; people seem to forget that it also pushes employment into full-time territory. Many businesses might be better off hiring less workers at greater hours and retaining them).
Again, from the proceeds of the thread, it seems that everything keeps boiling back down to details in the ACA. Is it fair to hold government funding hostage over something that was already passed? Why do they neglect existing pathways of debate?
|
On October 04 2013 14:47 Jisall wrote:
What you would see then is employers overworking the staff they have, and rather pay overtime then hire a new employee.
Yeah that's actually spot on.
Labor Reform? Next lifetime maybe? :D
|
On October 04 2013 15:06 Mysticesper wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 14:45 Kaitlin wrote:On October 04 2013 14:42 Mysticesper wrote:
It almost feels redundant to have an employer mandate (which was recently delayed) + individual mandate.
Why not cut out the employer mandate, and the now increased wages can go towards everyone buying their own plans that best suits them (more akin to car insurance) What increased wages ? What currently go into your employer plan as a deduction / benefit, etc. In theory you would get that back (probably wont happen, but still) and use it on your own.
Ok, so we're talking only about businesses who are already providing insurance to their employees. The amount that employers pay for employee health insurance, even if it were 100% paid to employees as compensation, would be eaten up by FICA, Medicare, withholding over various levels, employer side taxes. The funds the employee would get is actually fairly significantly less than the employer is able to use to pay it. I'm not a fan of health insurance based on the employer, but the buying power for the employee, after taxes, would be significantly diluted under that scenario.
|
On October 04 2013 15:11 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 15:06 Mysticesper wrote:On October 04 2013 14:45 Kaitlin wrote:On October 04 2013 14:42 Mysticesper wrote:
It almost feels redundant to have an employer mandate (which was recently delayed) + individual mandate.
Why not cut out the employer mandate, and the now increased wages can go towards everyone buying their own plans that best suits them (more akin to car insurance) What increased wages ? What currently go into your employer plan as a deduction / benefit, etc. In theory you would get that back (probably wont happen, but still) and use it on your own. Ok, so we're talking only about businesses who are already providing insurance to their employees. The amount that employers pay for employee health insurance, even if it were 100% paid to employees as compensation, would be eaten up by FICA, Medicare, withholding over various levels, employer side taxes. The funds the employee would get is actually fairly significantly less than the employer is able to use to pay it. I'm not a fan of health insurance based on the employer, but the buying power for the employee, after taxes, would be significantly diluted under that scenario.
That's true.
Couldn't you then implement some sort of tax deduction to make up for that difference (to some hard value or percentage) that goes towards insurance? If it's mandated that you have it, surely proof of insurance wouldn't be hard to come by, along with how much it costs. If you opt not to, then you get your penalty like you do now.
|
On October 04 2013 15:07 magicmUnky wrote:
Is it fair to hold government funding hostage over something that was already passed? Why do they neglect existing pathways of debate?
That's political rhetoric. What is going on is due to the financial negligence of U.S. leaders, the event we've come to known as increasing the debt ceiling has introduced itself as an opportunity to extract concessions from the other political party. If they got their shit in order, they wouldn't have to go through this. If they increased the debt ceiling as they pass the legislation that increases the debt, they wouldn't have to go through this. Legally, a bill has to be passed through both Houses and signed by the President, so that's all there is to it.
|
On October 04 2013 15:16 Mysticesper wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 15:11 Kaitlin wrote:On October 04 2013 15:06 Mysticesper wrote:On October 04 2013 14:45 Kaitlin wrote:On October 04 2013 14:42 Mysticesper wrote:
It almost feels redundant to have an employer mandate (which was recently delayed) + individual mandate.
Why not cut out the employer mandate, and the now increased wages can go towards everyone buying their own plans that best suits them (more akin to car insurance) What increased wages ? What currently go into your employer plan as a deduction / benefit, etc. In theory you would get that back (probably wont happen, but still) and use it on your own. Ok, so we're talking only about businesses who are already providing insurance to their employees. The amount that employers pay for employee health insurance, even if it were 100% paid to employees as compensation, would be eaten up by FICA, Medicare, withholding over various levels, employer side taxes. The funds the employee would get is actually fairly significantly less than the employer is able to use to pay it. I'm not a fan of health insurance based on the employer, but the buying power for the employee, after taxes, would be significantly diluted under that scenario. That's true. Couldn't you then implement some sort of tax deduction to make up for that difference (to some hard value or percentage) that goes towards insurance? If it's mandated that you have it, surely proof of insurance wouldn't be hard to come by, along with how much it costs. If you opt not to, then you get your penalty like you do now.
It'd probably just be easier to have an employee designate to his employer who his insurance provider is and have the employer simply withhold and pay directly, with it being not taxable to the employee. But, back to the original point that this is supposed to be an alternative to the employer mandate, it's pretty much a moot point for employers who are already providing insurance for their employees, and the problem with employers who aren't, it's additional cost to the employers that they likely can't afford. I don't think the mechanics of payment are a problem.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On October 04 2013 15:16 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 15:07 magicmUnky wrote:
Is it fair to hold government funding hostage over something that was already passed? Why do they neglect existing pathways of debate? That's political rhetoric. What is going on is due to the financial negligence of U.S. leaders, the event we've come to known as increasing the debt ceiling has introduced itself as an opportunity to extract concessions from the other political party. If they got their shit in order, they wouldn't have to go through this. If they increased the debt ceiling as they pass the legislation that increases the debt, they wouldn't have to go through this. Legally, a bill has to be passed through both Houses and signed by the President, so that's all there is to it.
Yes but isn't the crux of the issue is that such a situation should not be an opportunity to fulfill a political agenda? Doesn't this lead us all the way back to the very first page? (I mean, isn't it just as abstract to say "hold hostage" as it is to say "opportunity to extract concessions"- we both know it means the same thing in this case...)
I would say that this should not have been an opportunity for obstructive politics. I'd say that blocking one bill for the sake of another is obstructionist since the bills are not closely related.
That's what I was getting at in the devil's advocate post; why can't the Republicans convince us that what they're doing is appropriate. This is a separate issue to the ACA itself, a debate which the Republicans lost when the bill was passed.
|
On October 04 2013 14:49 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 14:39 ticklishmusic wrote:On October 04 2013 14:27 Kaitlin wrote:On October 04 2013 14:23 ticklishmusic wrote:
Okay, let's tack on a clause that says citizens under 18 or currently attending high school (or maybe even up to university) do not need to receive healthcare from employers. That wasn't very difficult. Ok, so just to clarify, you're saying employers are not responsible to insure or pay the penalty for employees who are students up to age, what, 22 ? edit: I guess it doesn't matter, exactly, but if you think about it, you will realize you are creating a preference group wherein employers will favor hiring employees for whom they are not required to incur these additional costs. This will make it more difficult for non-students to find employment, and frankly, aren't the non-students the ones who really need the work and the health insurance ? I was addressing the point you raised about hiring student workers, but you're changing the topic now. There's already going to what you refer to as a "preference group" for cheap labor because of basic supply and demand with labor as the item (it's the economy, stupid.jpg). Students can't fulfill every single one of those jobs, and there will be people filling them who need health insurance. However, that's why Obamacare has other systems in place such that people can still get insurance even if their employers don't provide it. I also expect that there will be someone in the system who asks "hey, I see you work at this place, why don't you have insurance from them?". I read back through our posts. I can't see where I've changed the topic. I was talking about employers cutting employee hours to below the threshold and you suggested removing a requirement from employers to fund insurance for employees who are students, etc. I argued that that solution would make it more difficult for people who don't fit the government defined preference group to find employment, and thus health insurance. It was simply pointing out why that solution was not a good one. There can be many reasons a potential solution to a problem doesn't work, among them is that it creates other, additional problems.
You have a extremely good point about the employees cutting work hours to 30hrs in order to not provide insurance for it's employees. To be honest I do not have a good idea for that atm, namely because it's a free market. Companies will do what's best for them.
Another guy has spoken about the Social Systems once inbuilt, being extremely hard to dislodge. That is a very good point, thank you. I did not consider that angle before.
However the point of this thread is to talk about the shutdown, why did it go that far, is it necessary to go that far and how did it got to where we are now.
Maybe the ACA is the devil of all bills, but it did got through the checkpoints for it to become law in the first place. There may be issues with the ACA itself but it can be sorted out later through normal means of process by which laws are changed. It still must have good things about it to be passed in the first place.
IMO, all in all, this is a good bill in many aspects by providing insurance to everyone. It will help reduce hardship for people who do fall ill.
Right now, the major issues the shutdown is about is about how a Party is trying to change/remove a law that was already passed, by defunding portions of it. That is not the normal process to change/remove a law, it's a loophole. The other party has decided not to give in as to set a precedent for this loophole or this will never stop happening.
Many analogies were made, but i think most people agree is that the Rs have basically used the threat of a shutdown as leverage, and when the Ds didnt cave in, they carried it out. This shutdown however has led to many issues(directly affecting 800,000 people). The shutdown is seen as unnecessary in the first place as the law they are trying to defund isn't affected by the shutdown in the first place as it is under the "mandatory" list.
Can my above statement be rebutted?
|
On October 04 2013 15:23 magicmUnky wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 04 2013 15:16 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 15:07 magicmUnky wrote:
Is it fair to hold government funding hostage over something that was already passed? Why do they neglect existing pathways of debate? That's political rhetoric. What is going on is due to the financial negligence of U.S. leaders, the event we've come to known as increasing the debt ceiling has introduced itself as an opportunity to extract concessions from the other political party. If they got their shit in order, they wouldn't have to go through this. If they increased the debt ceiling as they pass the legislation that increases the debt, they wouldn't have to go through this. Legally, a bill has to be passed through both Houses and signed by the President, so that's all there is to it. Yes but isn't the crux of the issue is that such a situation should not be an opportunity to fulfill a political agenda? Doesn't this lead us all the way back to the very first page? (I mean, isn't it just as abstract to say "hold hostage" as it is to say "opportunity to extract concessions"- we both know it means the same thing in this case...) I would say that this should not have been an opportunity for obstructive politics. I'd say that blocking one bill for the sake of another is obstructionist since the bills are not closely related. That's what I was getting at in the devil's advocate post; why can't the Republicans convince us that what they're doing is appropriate. This is a separate issue to the ACA itself, a debate which the Republicans lost when the bill was passed.
I think in order to believe what the Repubs are doing is appropriate, you would have to understand their position on the ACA. Repubs believe (sincerely) that Obamacare is absolutely detrimental to the economy and the country. In addition, the manner in which it was passed has really lit a fire with constituents. Since Dems passed it after all those behind closed door lockouts, without a single Repub vote, there was no Repub buy in. They did it with total disregard for the concerns of what, at least 40% of the country ? There are certain parts that even Dems agree are bad and need to be fixed. Repubs get voted out for not holding strong against more spending. Conservatives see the ACA as an absolute monster in spending, taxation, and government intrusion, everything Conservatives reject. Since Dems rammed it down Repubs' throat without bi-partisanship, they will seek and use every opportunity to do what they can. October 17th looms large.
|
On October 04 2013 15:28 Mithhaike wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 14:49 Kaitlin wrote:On October 04 2013 14:39 ticklishmusic wrote:On October 04 2013 14:27 Kaitlin wrote:On October 04 2013 14:23 ticklishmusic wrote:
Okay, let's tack on a clause that says citizens under 18 or currently attending high school (or maybe even up to university) do not need to receive healthcare from employers. That wasn't very difficult. Ok, so just to clarify, you're saying employers are not responsible to insure or pay the penalty for employees who are students up to age, what, 22 ? edit: I guess it doesn't matter, exactly, but if you think about it, you will realize you are creating a preference group wherein employers will favor hiring employees for whom they are not required to incur these additional costs. This will make it more difficult for non-students to find employment, and frankly, aren't the non-students the ones who really need the work and the health insurance ? I was addressing the point you raised about hiring student workers, but you're changing the topic now. There's already going to what you refer to as a "preference group" for cheap labor because of basic supply and demand with labor as the item (it's the economy, stupid.jpg). Students can't fulfill every single one of those jobs, and there will be people filling them who need health insurance. However, that's why Obamacare has other systems in place such that people can still get insurance even if their employers don't provide it. I also expect that there will be someone in the system who asks "hey, I see you work at this place, why don't you have insurance from them?". I read back through our posts. I can't see where I've changed the topic. I was talking about employers cutting employee hours to below the threshold and you suggested removing a requirement from employers to fund insurance for employees who are students, etc. I argued that that solution would make it more difficult for people who don't fit the government defined preference group to find employment, and thus health insurance. It was simply pointing out why that solution was not a good one. There can be many reasons a potential solution to a problem doesn't work, among them is that it creates other, additional problems. You have a extremely good point about the employees cutting work hours to 30hrs in order to not provide insurance for it's employees. To be honest I do not have a good idea for that atm, namely because it's a free market. Companies will do what's best for them. Another guy has spoken about the Social Systems once inbuilt, being extremely hard to dislodge. That is a very good point, thank you. I did not consider that angle before. However the point of this thread is to talk about the shutdown, why did it go that far, is it necessary to go that far and how did it got to where we are now. Maybe the ACA is the devil of all bills, but it did got through the checkpoints for it to become law in the first place. There may be issues with the ACA itself but it can be sorted out later through normal means of process by which laws are changed. It still must have good things about it to be passed in the first place. IMO, all in all, this is a good bill in many aspects by providing insurance to everyone. It will help reduce hardship for people who do fall ill. Right now, the major issues the shutdown is about is about how a Party is trying to change/remove a law that was already passed, by defunding portions of it. That is not the normal process to change/remove a law, it's a loophole. The other party has decided not to give in as to set a precedent for this loophole or this will never stop happening. Many analogies were made, but i think most people agree is that the Rs have basically used the threat of a shutdown as leverage, and when the Ds didnt cave in, they carried it out. This shutdown however has led to many issues(directly affecting 800,000 people). The shutdown is seen as unnecessary in the first place as the law they are trying to defund isn't affected by the shutdown in the first place as it is under the "mandatory" list. Can my above statement be rebutted?
Well, this is a budget debate, the debt limit and all. The House is responsible for allocating funding for government programs. Not funding Obamacare is well within the House's realm. You can refer to other "normal means", but politics is about negotiating from positions of strength. Trying to get Dems to not fund Obamacare is a ridiculous idea, unless you're willing to engage in brinksmanship with the government shutdown. Having the presidency, the Dems are in position to decide what gets shutdown and what doesn't. That's why there are barriers being constructed around monuments that are normally open 24/7. Decisions are made to exacerbate the visible harm to the American people, decisions made by the Administration. They are both playing this game.
|
Well it almost funny as European since they entire thing is a big embarrassment for US. I think disbelieve would be the term to describe the discussion about it in Sweden.
Now unfortunately however has swedish banks quite a lot invested in US stocks (not stocks but notsure about the english word) and have parts of their savings in dollars, approximately ~50billion dollars. So now what happens is that due to the incompetence of the US government the dollar is close to get down rated, if it had been any other country it would already have happened, because the world does not trust US to follow a logical line of procedures to deal with this problem.
So what happens then in turn is that the pension of Swedish people are threatened to be reduced substantially because of this. Now that seems a little unfair to me, so it would be real nice if the US government could get this shit together.
Now as a second recommendation for US I would withdraw some of the army from Afghanistan and place it in Washington instead, that way they can go after the Tea party movement instead of Al Qaida. You see, I get that Al Qaida is a problem, but they mainly threatened to blow up their own people in their surroundings. Now the tea party movement on the other hand is probably the most dangerous organization on the planet, because I think they might actually be crazy enough to collapse the entire world economy in their crusade towards their dream world. I am not sure how many deaths or much damage to society an economic collapse would cause but I would guess it is more than anything Al Qaida ever managed to achieve.
|
On October 04 2013 15:07 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 14:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2013 14:18 Kaitlin wrote:On October 04 2013 14:15 screamingpalm wrote:
What I mean by pro rata format and gaming the system, is an incremental scale to create incentive for employers to keep their workers full-time rather than part-time (cost effective). The government would still make up the difference in subsidies and exemptions still apply.
Edit: exemptions as in the subsidies to businesses that cannot afford to offer coverage to their workers. From where would the government "make up the difference" ? edit: Also, I've gone into detail. If you could be less abstract with your points, it would be helpful. There isn't much substance to "an incremental scale to create incentive for employers to keep their workers full-time rather than part-time." It's really the same thing with the government making up the difference. There is absolutely no substance to it. From what I gather and with some small alterations of my own what I believe is being proposed is that instead of making it all or nothing based on the 30hr line you have employers contribute based on the hours an employee works. So we'll say that for a typical full-time employee (based on 40/hpw employers typically contribute about 50% of the cost toward their employees premium costs. So instead of that or nothing (part-time) have employers contribute a minimum amount based on the hours worked. I'm not hard crunching the numbers at the moment but to give an idea it would look something like hpw=hours per week ec=employers contribution 10-14.99 hpw = 15% ec 15-19.99 hpw = 25% ec 20-24.99 hpw = 30% ec 25-29.99 hpw = 35% ec etc... Obviously it could be fine tuned but it would likely be less encouraging for businesses to cut workers to part-time and even more helpful to those that are suffering from such a business practice which does seem at least slightly separated from the humanity and dignity an employee deserves from their employer. Ok, I'll start in reverse. The bolded part has no place in the discussion. We're discussing bottom line costs and for a small business, these are the difference between continuing to provide employment or closing your doors. It's a financial decision, keep the emotional, humanitarian, dignity arguments for your local charity. Ok, I don't understand why we're only funding 50% of the cost and not 100%, but that's just an issue of magnitude, and since we're making up numbers, doesn't really matter too much. Next, if the employer is paying some pro-rated amount, whatever that amount works out to, then the employee must make up the difference ? If the employee chooses to forgo insurance and elects to pay the penalty, certainly the employer wouldn't be penalized for the employee's choice. Also, this would, again, create incentive to hire employees who will not receive coverage from the employer, would it not ? So, would the incentive to use part time workers instead of full timers really be removed ? Part timers would much less likely buy insurance with only a small portion of the cost paid by the employer. Additionally, the cost to the employer of such a law would be detrimental to the economy due to the increase in the cost of low-skilled labor. In the current law, at least employers have a way to mitigate these burdens. Removing that burden, adding these costs, would drive many businesses out of business. You can't just raise the cost of doing business and expect businesses to be unaffected.
Ok so we'll start with... People who think business and social responsibility are not intimately connected and don't have to be considered in close proximity, have an economic and philosophical disagreement we won't settle here so I'll move on.
There is already a mechanism that raises the penalty year over year so outside of places who exclusively hire people who are 18-21 ish (haven't looked intensely at the penalty escalation portion of the law) with parents who do not have them on their own healthcare package then the pool of non-insured employees is going to rapidly diminish. Not to mention, if suddenly non-insured people are a more desired employee, supply and demand suggests the cost to employ them will go up as will their wages. So while there might still be what you say at the beginning it would rapidly drop off in popularity (although I am skeptical it would be of any significance to start).
The fine is designed so very rapidly people will lose any and all incentive to not have health insurance (The Heritage Foundation and several others spent a lot of time and money coming up with how to make that happen)
I presume we are talking about small businesses impacted by the ACA which would be businesses with 50-500 employees Presuming you're right that the net effect is an increase in the cost of doing business, businesses have been getting more out of their employees while paying them less for decades. It would only be reasonable for some of that to actually trickle down contrary to the predictions of trickle down economics and the history of employment and wages over the last few decades. Countless businesses go out of business for countless reasons so the idea that it would drive any significant amount of businesses under is unfounded. However, I would sincerely feel for those it did and would be amiable to alterations that would make that less likely (should it ever actually be realized).
And I probably should've started with this and I kind of did but... There are only anecdotal stories so far of your original premise about the PPACA even having any significant impact on jobs. (Kind of reminds me when people were blaming Obama for why they didn't tip.)
As more data come in, the law's impact can't be seen in hiring statistics, says Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody's Analytics.
"I was expecting to see it. I was looking for it, and it's not there,'' says Zandi, whose firm manages ADP's surveys of overall private-sector job creation. If the Affordable Care Act "were causing a drop, you would see meaningful slowing.'' [USA Today, 8/21/13]
|
On October 04 2013 15:43 4ZakeN87 wrote:
Well it almost funny as European since they entire thing is a big embarrassment for US. I think disbelieve would be the term to describe the discussion about it in Sweden.
Now unfortunately however has swedish banks quite a lot invested in US stocks (not stocks but notsure about the english word) and have parts of their savings in dollars, approximately ~50billion dollars. So now what happens is that due to the incompetence of the US government the dollar is close to get down rated, if it had been any other country it would already have happened, because the world does not trust US to follow a logical line of procedures to deal with this problem.
So what happens then in turn is that the pension of Swedish people are threatened to be reduced substantially because of this. Now that seems a little unfair to me, so it would be real nice if the US government could get this shit together.
Now as a second recommendation for US I would withdraw some of the army from Afghanistan and place it in Washington instead, that way they can go after the Tea party movement instead of Al Qaida. You see, I get that Al Qaida is a problem, but they mainly threatened to blow up their own people in their surroundings. Now the tea party movement on the other hand is probably the most dangerous organization on the planet, because I think they might actually be crazy enough to collapse the entire world economy in their crusade towards their dream world. I am not sure how many deaths or much damage to society an economic collapse would cause but I would guess it is more than anything Al Qaida ever managed to achieve.
I know you're not being serious, but let's see if you're willing to see your radically charged comment through to the end.
What do you mean have the army "go after" the Tea Party movement? The Tea Party isn't an army for troops to fight, so your comment really makes no sense. What, is the army going to debate the Tea Party to death? That's not what an army is good at.
|
On October 04 2013 15:55 dabom88 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 15:43 4ZakeN87 wrote:
Well it almost funny as European since they entire thing is a big embarrassment for US. I think disbelieve would be the term to describe the discussion about it in Sweden.
Now unfortunately however has swedish banks quite a lot invested in US stocks (not stocks but notsure about the english word) and have parts of their savings in dollars, approximately ~50billion dollars. So now what happens is that due to the incompetence of the US government the dollar is close to get down rated, if it had been any other country it would already have happened, because the world does not trust US to follow a logical line of procedures to deal with this problem.
So what happens then in turn is that the pension of Swedish people are threatened to be reduced substantially because of this. Now that seems a little unfair to me, so it would be real nice if the US government could get this shit together.
Now as a second recommendation for US I would withdraw some of the army from Afghanistan and place it in Washington instead, that way they can go after the Tea party movement instead of Al Qaida. You see, I get that Al Qaida is a problem, but they mainly threatened to blow up their own people in their surroundings. Now the tea party movement on the other hand is probably the most dangerous organization on the planet, because I think they might actually be crazy enough to collapse the entire world economy in their crusade towards their dream world. I am not sure how many deaths or much damage to society an economic collapse would cause but I would guess it is more than anything Al Qaida ever managed to achieve. I know you're not being serious, but let's see if you're willing to see your radically charged comment through to the end. What do you mean have the army "go after" the Tea Party movement? The Tea Party isn't an army for troops to fight, so your comment really makes no sense. What, is the army going to debate the Tea Party to death? That's not what an army is good at.
Well, at least both groups are ideological extremists that are working hard to destroy the infrastructure of their people to get rid of something they don't like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
