Total Posts:13|Showing Posts:1-13
Jump to topic:

Obamacare hurting companies.

MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2012 8:32:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
And the inevitable has begun: http://www.foxnews.com...

This why my mother doesn't support Obamacare, even though she's middle aged and it would be perfect for her- it would harm her job. She made minimum wage in Israel because of how socialized the medical system was, and America is also coming towards the light. Thanks, Obama!
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
slo1
Posts: 4,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2012 3:59:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/11/2012 8:32:44 AM, MouthWash wrote:
And the inevitable has begun: http://www.foxnews.com...

This why my mother doesn't support Obamacare, even though she's middle aged and it would be perfect for her- it would harm her job. She made minimum wage in Israel because of how socialized the medical system was, and America is also coming towards the light. Thanks, Obama!

$63 is why your Mom does not support Obamacare? I do find it interesting that the fee will be phased out in 2017. Any idea why that is?
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2012 9:48:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/11/2012 3:59:54 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/11/2012 8:32:44 AM, MouthWash wrote:
And the inevitable has begun: http://www.foxnews.com...

This why my mother doesn't support Obamacare, even though she's middle aged and it would be perfect for her- it would harm her job. She made minimum wage in Israel because of how socialized the medical system was, and America is also coming towards the light. Thanks, Obama!

$63 is why your Mom does not support Obamacare? I do find it interesting that the fee will be phased out in 2017. Any idea why that is?

It is a step towards socialized medicine.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
ax123man
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2012 10:45:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/11/2012 4:05:37 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Please tell me how exactly it hurts business.

- Every employer with greater than 50 employees must provide health care. Estimates are it's a 1.79$/hour cost increase per employee. This hurts companies with low paying wages. Employers will cut expansion, move employees from full time to part time, cut benefits, layoffs, etc.

- One provision says that employees can't be asked to pay more than 2-9% of their household income in health insurance premiums. An unintended consequence could be that employees hire based on higher earning spouses.

- The cost of the program hurts the economy by increasing debt and/or raising taxes.

- Random fraud testing will cost doctors & pharmacists time. This time is money and also time away from patients. I've read cases from doctors on this. Also, I will make a bold prediction here. Fraud is going to go up. Not because they are testing for fraud, but because there are people who make a living by following government regulations around and taking advantage of them in one way or another.

- If Medicare is any example of what is going to happen to other healthcare/health insurance, we are doomed.

This is just off the top of my head. In addition, things are going to get much worse. There is a reason why the act creates the Independent Payment Advisory Board in such a way that IPAB can change legislation WITHOUT ANY congressional approval. They'll need to need to raise taxes more and/or ration care.

Almost all government policy is written to favor certain interests and they sure aren't your interests. So I think the real question is what business's are being favored in the affordable care act? For example the electronic medical records industry and other health IT business were supporters. Those who think these politicians are showing benevolence by the ACA are delusional.

Quote from Keith Smith, MD:

At one point I found myself in the "members only" dining room in the Capitol, just down the stairs from the House chamber, with four U.S. Representatives. One conversational thing led to another and I found myself paraphrasing Murray Rothbard, who is considered the dean of the Austrian school of economics and the founder of libertarianism. I asked these men what their reaction was to the following: Rothbard had stated that governments are formed by men, ultimately to secure some advantage otherwise unavailable to them; and that by extension, the same was true of laws, that is, that their primary purpose is a grant of privilege to those advocating those same laws. Their reaction was interesting. These men all agreed that in the vast majority of cases, the legislation they were asked to promote or support fit this characterization.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2012 2:13:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/11/2012 10:45:42 PM, ax123man wrote:
At 12/11/2012 4:05:37 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Please tell me how exactly it hurts business.

- Every employer with greater than 50 employees must provide health care. Estimates are it's a 1.79$/hour cost increase per employee. This hurts companies with low paying wages. Employers will cut expansion, move employees from full time to part time, cut benefits, layoffs, etc.

Let me ask you something. Do you genuinely believe that this new legislation will actually harm the financial stability of these companies? As in, do you believe that everyone starting from the top is going to get a cut in pay due to a reduction in profit until the organization becomes imbalanced and is no longer able to support itself?

Or, are you telling me that the greedy people who run companies will increase their private wages to offset the reduction of the gap in overall monetary value between the managerial system and the employee system, then cut expansion, move employees around, and lay them off to ensure that it doesn't cause an instability in the company?

Because, I find it curious that you're so concerned about the exploitive fatasses that already have more money than they can spend, and are completely unconcerned about the fact that the only companies this could possibly affect in any way are those that already make it difficult for their employees to support themselves and garner healthcare.
ax123man
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2012 7:26:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/12/2012 2:13:30 AM, Ren wrote:
At 12/11/2012 10:45:42 PM, ax123man wrote:
At 12/11/2012 4:05:37 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Please tell me how exactly it hurts business.

- Every employer with greater than 50 employees must provide health care. Estimates are it's a 1.79$/hour cost increase per employee. This hurts companies with low paying wages. Employers will cut expansion, move employees from full time to part time, cut benefits, layoffs, etc.

Let me ask you something. Do you genuinely believe that this new legislation will actually harm the financial stability of these companies? As in, do you believe that everyone starting from the top is going to get a cut in pay due to a reduction in profit until the organization becomes imbalanced and is no longer able to support itself?

So your saying as long as it doesn't affect the financial stability, we can do whatever we wish to business? Your willing to allow the fed to roll the dice on health care, despite their lousy track record, as long as it doesn't bring them to the brink of instability. I like how you immediately turn this to the top wage earners. This is obviously an emotional reaction based on constant news stories of exorbitant CEO pay. If I risked my money and worked my whole life to build a business, you damn well better believe I'm going to try to keep it. Is that really any different than anyone else? This is classic marxist theory: the evil "owners of production" vs the proletariat.


Or, are you telling me that the greedy people who run companies will increase their private wages to offset the reduction of the gap in overall monetary value between the managerial system and the employee system, then cut expansion, move employees around, and lay them off to ensure that it doesn't cause an instability in the company?

Is there some sort of genetic mutation that makes business's owners greedy? If so, how do all those mutated individuals end up owning businesses? I've known at least a dozen business owners. in the last 15 years I've worked for two small (less than 100 employees) owners who got fairly wealthy from this. They happen to be some of the nicest people I've ever known. They are active and supportive in their community. They create jobs. For each one, there are a dozen who risked their own money and lost it. It's human nature to want to improve your lot in life. I'd be curious how you define greedy.


Because, I find it curious that you're so concerned about the exploitive fatasses that already have more money than they can spend, and are completely unconcerned about the fact that the only companies this could possibly affect in any way are those that already make it difficult for their employees to support themselves and garner healthcare.

Hmm. The business owners I know aren't fat and they don't exploit anyone. You appear to be a bit emotional. Are you sure it's not clouding your thinking? Can you define how business owners exploit people? Also, why do you assume I'm any more concerned about business owners than anyone else. I didn't show any concern. I only pointed out facts.

If at any time, you care to debate any of this, feel free to issue a challenge.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2012 7:30:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/11/2012 8:32:44 AM, MouthWash wrote:
And the inevitable has begun: http://www.foxnews.com...

This why my mother doesn't support Obamacare, even though she's middle aged and it would be perfect for her- it would harm her job. She made minimum wage in Israel because of how socialized the medical system was, and America is also coming towards the light. Thanks, Obama!

$63 per person comes out to only $5 per month. That means that if the company passes the ENTIRE cost on to me and my insurance costs, that is only $2.50 from each paycheck. Less than a Starbucks coffee. I think we'll survive.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2012 7:33:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/11/2012 10:45:42 PM, ax123man wrote:
At 12/11/2012 4:05:37 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Please tell me how exactly it hurts business.

- Every employer with greater than 50 employees must provide health care. Estimates are it's a 1.79$/hour cost increase per employee. This hurts companies with low paying wages. Employers will cut expansion, move employees from full time to part time, cut benefits, layoffs, etc.

Link for the $1.79/hour.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2012 8:00:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/12/2012 7:33:50 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/11/2012 10:45:42 PM, ax123man wrote:
At 12/11/2012 4:05:37 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Please tell me how exactly it hurts business.

- Every employer with greater than 50 employees must provide health care. Estimates are it's a 1.79$/hour cost increase per employee. This hurts companies with low paying wages. Employers will cut expansion, move employees from full time to part time, cut benefits, layoffs, etc.

Link for the $1.79/hour.

I don't have a link, but from the cursory knowledge I have, I think it would be fair to say that companies will spend about $300/mo on insurance. (The one job that my wife had insurance from, the company paid around $400, but the rates are supposed to drop with more people in the pool.)

$300/mo/employee divided by 40 hours/week equals $1.87/hour/employee. The math checks out, unless I am missing something.
My work here is, finally, done.
slo1
Posts: 4,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2012 8:50:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
There has to be some irony here in this big mess.

1. Republicans are against a law that requires personal responsibility. A law that requires individuals to get health insurance or be taxed so they can no longer use emergency room services and not pay a penny for it and pass it along to other consumers. Whaaaaaat?

2. Republicans are worried about the costs to companies and effects on business as they have more regulation to provide health insurance. Wouldn't it be better for business to take them completely out of the obligation of paying for health care insurance? Whaaaaat?

3. Republicans believe in the efficiency of the free market, but also believe that companies should provide health insurance which totally eliminates the end consumer from the buying decisions. Whaaaaaat?

4. Republicans had 8 years to address the seriously flawed health care market and did nothing, except give seniors prescription coverage without funding for it (AKA deficit spending). Whaaaaaaat?

I think the reality of the overall legislation is that it is so complex nobody is going to be able to predict what is going to happen, but I will predict that since it continues the anti-competition practice of employee provided group insurance that it will net out as an increase. It will not be until the end consumer has a fiscal interest to price and shop medical care that we will get a grip on medical costs.

Everything else is just blowing smoke around for ideological purposes as one can see from the delicious irony that all this brings about.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2012 9:28:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/12/2012 7:26:57 AM, ax123man wrote:
At 12/12/2012 2:13:30 AM, Ren wrote:
At 12/11/2012 10:45:42 PM, ax123man wrote:
At 12/11/2012 4:05:37 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Please tell me how exactly it hurts business.

- Every employer with greater than 50 employees must provide health care. Estimates are it's a 1.79$/hour cost increase per employee. This hurts companies with low paying wages. Employers will cut expansion, move employees from full time to part time, cut benefits, layoffs, etc.

Let me ask you something. Do you genuinely believe that this new legislation will actually harm the financial stability of these companies? As in, do you believe that everyone starting from the top is going to get a cut in pay due to a reduction in profit until the organization becomes imbalanced and is no longer able to support itself?

So your saying as long as it doesn't affect the financial stability, we can do whatever we wish to business?

This is a loaded question. How distinguishes "we" from "business," and as a separate entity from myself, why should I be more concerned for "business's" well being than my own?

Your willing to allow the fed to roll the dice on health care, despite their lousy track record, as long as it doesn't bring them to the brink of instability.

I'm not sure what you mean by "roll the dice on healthcare," nor what your referring to in terms of a "lousy track record." This legislation is brand new, belying a track record, and it isn't a random chance, but rather, a means to significantly increase the central pool of money in the medical industry to help facilitate new advances and technology currently out of reach of the layman.

I like how you immediately turn this to the top wage earners.

This thread is about "companies" as opposed to "society." Companies, in terms of people that represent them, make decisions about them, and are directly linked to their success, are the top wage earners. :\

This is obviously an emotional reaction based on constant news stories of exorbitant CEO pay. If I risked my money and worked my whole life to build a business, you damn well better believe I'm going to try to keep it. Is that really any different than anyone else? This is classic marxist theory: the evil "owners of production" vs the proletariat.

I'm not sure what you're talking about here at all (aside the absurd ad-homs). Indicating that these people may have earned some of the money they make in some capacity is not going to convince me to prioritize helping them make more money over the general healthfulness of the people in this country.

Is there some sort of genetic mutation that makes business's owners greedy?

Being a business owner, generally speaking, is not inherent. However, I'm sure you can imagine how a greedy person is more likely to realize success in our economy.

If so, how do all those mutated individuals end up owning businesses? I've known at least a dozen business owners. in the last 15 years I've worked for two small (less than 100 employees) owners who got fairly wealthy from this. They happen to be some of the nicest people I've ever known. They are active and supportive in their community. They create jobs. For each one, there are a dozen who risked their own money and lost it. It's human nature to want to improve your lot in life. I'd be curious how you define greedy.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand. Thinking they're "nice cool guys" is nowhere near leading me to believe we should detract from American's access to healthcare in a system that requires their participation for stability and success, in order to help these people make more money.

Hmm. The business owners I know aren't fat and they don't exploit anyone.

"Fat" was meant to be colloquial, and success in a capitalistic economy requires exploitation.

You appear to be a bit emotional.

Not enough to center my argument around personal anecdotes, ad-hominems, and mercantile victimization.

Are you sure it's not clouding your thinking?

Lol.

Can you define how business owners exploit people?

One example is attempting to get richer by reducing overall access to healthcare and related technology.

Also, why do you assume I'm any more concerned about business owners than anyone else. I didn't show any concern. I only pointed out facts.

LOL! Not only have you failed to point out a single fact (or even evidence a general understanding of the legislation with which you supposedly have contention), but you seem quite concerned about your personal friends, the businessmen.

If at any time, you care to debate any of this, feel free to issue a challenge.

Done.
tmar19652
Posts: 727
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2012 10:21:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
2. Republicans are worried about the costs to companies and effects on business as they have more regulation to provide health insurance. Wouldn't it be better for business to take them completely out of the obligation of paying for health care insurance? Whaaaaat?

Where did we get the idea that companies have to pay for health insurance. They pay you, so why can't you use your own money to buy healthcare. Health insurance has never been considered a "natural right".
"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." -Ronald Reagan

"The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain ex<x>pressions even certain gestures off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship." -George H.W. Bush