Employers and Obamacare

drinkbigredinstead

As always if you're a D then it's R fault and vice versa...Obama had no interest in an open debate nor did the GOP.

What I find amusing and typical is the fact that even if it is a crap law, it's somehow the GOP fault

Anywho, within a week of the election our company sent out a 'what if' survey'

'what if we didn't offer paid health care, would you go to another company?'

'what if we didn't offer health care but provide more paid vacation?'

'what if there was no annual performance bonus but you still had paid healthcare'

you get the idea, what's funny is the Obama supporters walked around saying 'oh I'm sure they won't change our health care!' noooo, of course not, because our board and CEO live in the land of rainbows and butterflies where all is free and the bottom line doesn't matter :roll:

Jason P

My take is that job markets that operate in tight profit margins will start drastically reducing the hours of all part-time staff by virtue of staying in business. Worker getting 35 - 37 hours will now get 27 - 29 hours per week

I assume all retail job markets will be affected by this.

And most part-time workers are usually in the lower pay bracket.

Hmm .... Forward?

:think:

aerial

Why did congress opt out of this Great Insurance program?

aerial

Jason P wrote:

My take is that job markets that operate in tight profit margins will start drastically reducing the hours of all part-time staff by virtue of staying in business. Worker getting 35 - 37 hours will now get 27 - 29 hours per week

I assume all retail job markets will be affected by this.

And most part-time workers are usually in the lower pay bracket.

Hmm .... Forward?

:think:

This has already started at my job....

JimmyV

drinkbigredinstead wrote:

As always if you're a D then it's R fault and vice versa...Obama had no interest in an open debate nor did the GOP.

What I find amusing and typical is the fact that even if it is a crap law, it's somehow the GOP fault

Anywho, within a week of the election our company sent out a 'what if' survey'

'what if we didn't offer paid health care, would you go to another company?'

'what if we didn't offer health care but provide more paid vacation?'

'what if there was no annual performance bonus but you still had paid healthcare'

you get the idea, what's funny is the Obama supporters walked around saying 'oh I'm sure they won't change our health care!' noooo, of course not, because our board and CEO live in the land of rainbows and butterflies where all is free and the bottom line doesn't matter :roll:

Again, this was a two party failure. You are sent to Washington to govern, not to beat the other party. The GOP in this instance refused to do so and the Democrats went unchecked. If the bill is shit both parties have that shit on their hands.

know1

even flow - question mark wrote:

know1 wrote:

What the proponents of having the government and our employers supposedly "supply" us with health insurance or anything for that matter fail to see is that we the people, citizens and employees will ultimately pay for whatever benefit it is. Those costs are passed along to us through higher prices, lower salaries, less open positions, etc.

We're all paying for "Obamasurance" out of our own pockets. Nobody is giving anything to any of us.

Just curious.....Don't you pay for health anyhow? And I know you do, so what difference does it really make? Or is it all about dog eat dog down there and if you can't afford insurance you lose?

Yes, I do pay some for health insurance and my employer pays some as well. I would prefer they gave me the money they spend and I could manage my own health care.

But - my point is that a lot of people think that benefits come from the government or employers at no cost. The reality is that we all foot the bill. I think individuals should take care of their own health care and not hand control for important decisions over to their employers and the government.

gimmesometruth27

EdsonNascimento wrote:

And, BTW, they've already started repealing parts of it in case y'all missed that part in the tax increase with no spending cuts kick the can down the path imaginary cliff deal they passed.

the first bill in the new congress, sublitted by michele bachmann, was to repeal obamacare.

these bills failed the first 37 times, maybe the 38th is the magic vote...

:fp:

gimmesometruth27

EdsonNascimento wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

According to MSNBC

according to everyone but fox news.



and conservative radio.

You are right - most of the media takes this stance. I wonder why. Hmmmmm....

Again - what stopped Reid and Pelosi from presenting debates to the floors of both the House and the Senate?

So what you are saying is that it is a very good outcome that they approved 2,000+ page legislation without anyone reading it. Interesting.

wow, edson putting words in peoples' mouths again, shocking...

it was 900 pages.

the republicans did not even offer a competitive plan. their plan was only "NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!"

EdsonNascimento

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

And, BTW, they've already started repealing parts of it in case y'all missed that part in the tax increase with no spending cuts kick the can down the path imaginary cliff deal they passed.

the first bill in the new congress, sublitted by michele bachmann, was to repeal obamacare.

these bills failed the first 37 times, maybe the 38th is the magic vote...

:fp:

Agreed that was stupid and purely political.

EdsonNascimento

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

wow, edson putting words in peoples' mouths again, shocking...

it was 900 pages.

the republicans did not even offer a competitive plan. their plan was only "NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!"

Oops!!! 900 pages.

How about - we have other problems to address right now like the ECONOMY, STUPID!!!!!! (not calling you stupid, just to be clear. That is one party speaking to another).

When exactly was the competitive plan supposed to be proposed and debated?

They made a bad situation worse just so they could get their names in the history books. Well, they did alrighty. But, all publicity is in fact NOT good publicity.

gimmesometruth27

EdsonNascimento wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

wow, edson putting words in peoples' mouths again, shocking...

it was 900 pages.

the republicans did not even offer a competitive plan. their plan was only "NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!"

Oops!!! 900 pages.

How about - we have other problems to address right now like the ECONOMY, STUPID!!!!!! (not calling you stupid, just to be clear. That is one party speaking to another).

When exactly was the competitive plan supposed to be proposed and debated?

They made a bad situation worse just so they could get their names in the history books. Well, they did alrighty. But, all publicity is in fact NOT good publicity.

the republicans opposed everything for the whole 4 years while offering no alternative plan or alternative legislation during most of the debates. why on earth would this bill have been any different? as if they would say "man, we have been dicks for 3 years, let's throw the president a bone and go along with this one. we can always oppose everything again next term, and we can still block his judicial nominees and stuff...."

the republicans even caused our credit rating to fall by opposing raising the debt ceiling to make a payment on the debt that they already had racked up.

you don't have to take my word for it. how else did they become known as the grand obstructionist party??

EdsonNascimento

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

the republicans even caused our credit rating to fall by opposing raising the debt ceiling to make a payment on the debt that they already had racked up.

you don't have to take my word for it. how else did they become known as the grand obstructionist party??

Classic!!! It's Bush's fault then, and the Congress fault now. The debt started piling up with a heavily Democratic/liberal Congress. The Republicans in the House are now trying to put a stop to it. You can't have it both ways. You can't blame the President when it's convenient for your narrative, then the House when it's convenient.

The deficit IS Congress' fault. 100% agree with you. Unfortunately, you have the wrong time line. Being obstructionist is not such a bad thing when the other side is completely out of control.

gimmesometruth27

EdsonNascimento wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

the republicans even caused our credit rating to fall by opposing raising the debt ceiling to make a payment on the debt that they already had racked up.

you don't have to take my word for it. how else did they become known as the grand obstructionist party??

Classic!!! It's Bush's fault then, and the Congress fault now. The debt started piling up with a heavily Democratic/liberal Congress. The Republicans in the House are now trying to put a stop to it. You can't have it both ways. You can't blame the President when it's convenient for your narrative, then the House when it's convenient.

The deficit IS Congress' fault. 100% agree with you. Unfortunately, you have the wrong time line. Being obstructionist is not such a bad thing when the other side is completely out of control.

the republicans in the house have been trying to stop any and all progress since they took the house. very few of them have voted for anything that obama supported. the ones that went along with obama got ostracized and they are gonna get primaried. they did now allow a vote on any jobs bill and they held votes on abortion and repealing obamacare more than 30 times.

these are facts.

by the way, who put 2 fucking wars on the credit card and left them out of the budget?

Jason P

I don't know why the he said / she said debate is going on. The 30 hour threshold is what we should be discussing.

This is going to have a very significant impact on low income households. Going from 37 to 27 hours a week is a big deal.

EdsonNascimento

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

the republicans even caused our credit rating to fall by opposing raising the debt ceiling to make a payment on the debt that they already had racked up.

you don't have to take my word for it. how else did they become known as the grand obstructionist party??

Classic!!! It's Bush's fault then, and the Congress fault now. The debt started piling up with a heavily Democratic/liberal Congress. The Republicans in the House are now trying to put a stop to it. You can't have it both ways. You can't blame the President when it's convenient for your narrative, then the House when it's convenient.

The deficit IS Congress' fault. 100% agree with you. Unfortunately, you have the wrong time line. Being obstructionist is not such a bad thing when the other side is completely out of control.

the republicans in the house have been trying to stop any and all progress since they took the house. very few of them have voted for anything that obama supported. the ones that went along with obama got ostracized and they are gonna get primaried. they did now allow a vote on any jobs bill and they held votes on abortion and repealing obamacare more than 30 times.

these are facts.

by the way, who put 2 fucking wars on the credit card and left them out of the budget?

The wars were pretty much unanimous. There's a board member that can probably tell you the handful of Congresspeople that didn't approve them

To your earlier point - that is our government, and quite honestly, I wouldn't want it any other way (Well, maybe slightly different, but they did a pretty damn good jobs constructing the thing a couple hundred years ago). I know you don't like hearing this, but it does fall directly at Obama's leadership skills. If he was a better leader, I'm sure he could have gotten stuff to the floor. Congress is very rarely the President's party (which is Exhibit A of how our gov't is superior to most others that elect their Prime Minister via the "ruling" party). And the parties have ALWAYS been at odds. Bush figured out how to work with the opposition. Clinton figured out how to do it. They didn't always get their way. And that ultimately is where Obama is failing. He thinks if they don't do what he wants, they are to blame. That's poor leadership 101.


EDIT: If he were a corporate CEO, we would have bailed out his company, paid him a huge bonus and fired his ass 3 years ago.

EdsonNascimento

Jason P wrote:

I don't know why the he said / she said debate is going on. The 30 hour threshold is what we should be discussing.

This is going to have a very significant impact on low income households. Going from 37 to 27 hours a week is a big deal.

Yes. And that is due to the poor construct of the bill. We are putting people out of work so our names can go down in history. :roll: 100% Foreseeable result.

Something can be worse than nothing.

drinkbigredinstead

EdsonNascimento wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

the republicans even caused our credit rating to fall by opposing raising the debt ceiling to make a payment on the debt that they already had racked up.

you don't have to take my word for it. how else did they become known as the grand obstructionist party??

Classic!!! It's Bush's fault then, and the Congress fault now. The debt started piling up with a heavily Democratic/liberal Congress. The Republicans in the House are now trying to put a stop to it. You can't have it both ways. You can't blame the President when it's convenient for your narrative, then the House when it's convenient.

The deficit IS Congress' fault. 100% agree with you. Unfortunately, you have the wrong time line. Being obstructionist is not such a bad thing when the other side is completely out of control.

The cutesy nicknames (Grand Obstructionist Party) are used when there is no other way to attack or defend.

A lot of people refer to Democrats as Rats, because of the perception that they exsist by living off of others....some do, a lot don't.

This really isn't the governments fault, it's ours. We've decided to pick a side and stick to it, not because of what they stand for but because people don't want to admit when they are wrong, or when their guy is wrong. It's easier , and that's what the 'new America' is about, fast, easy and with as little effort as possible.

gimmesometruth27

EdsonNascimento wrote:

The wars were pretty much unanimous. There's a board member that can probably tell you the handful of Congresspeople that didn't approve them

To your earlier point - that is our government, and quite honestly, I wouldn't want it any other way (Well, maybe slightly different, but they did a pretty damn good jobs constructing the thing a couple hundred years ago). I know you don't like hearing this, but it does fall directly at Obama's leadership skills. If he was a better leader, I'm sure he could have gotten stuff to the floor. Congress is very rarely the President's party (which is Exhibit A of how our gov't is superior to most others that elect their Prime Minister via the "ruling" party). And the parties have ALWAYS been at odds. Bush figured out how to work with the opposition. Clinton figured out how to do it. They didn't always get their way. And that ultimately is where Obama is failing. He thinks if they don't do what he wants, they are to blame. That's poor leadership 101.


EDIT: If he were a corporate CEO, we would have bailed out his company, paid him a huge bonus and fired his ass 3 years ago.

afghanistan was near unanimous because anyone who opposed it was labeled unpatriotic or sympathetic to the enemy. same with iraq. trust me, i was out there protesting both of them and i know from expeerience and i can't tell you how many times i was told on this very message board to get the fuck out of america. congress faced the same thing, and if someone spoke out against it they got railroaded.

the dem's problem was that they were spineless. they rolled over to whatever bush wanted to do. "you want to go to war?? i don't agree but knock yourself out" is no way for an opposition party to be.

EdsonNascimento

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

The wars were pretty much unanimous. There's a board member that can probably tell you the handful of Congresspeople that didn't approve them

To your earlier point - that is our government, and quite honestly, I wouldn't want it any other way (Well, maybe slightly different, but they did a pretty damn good jobs constructing the thing a couple hundred years ago). I know you don't like hearing this, but it does fall directly at Obama's leadership skills. If he was a better leader, I'm sure he could have gotten stuff to the floor. Congress is very rarely the President's party (which is Exhibit A of how our gov't is superior to most others that elect their Prime Minister via the "ruling" party). And the parties have ALWAYS been at odds. Bush figured out how to work with the opposition. Clinton figured out how to do it. They didn't always get their way. And that ultimately is where Obama is failing. He thinks if they don't do what he wants, they are to blame. That's poor leadership 101.


EDIT: If he were a corporate CEO, we would have bailed out his company, paid him a huge bonus and fired his ass 3 years ago.

afghanistan was near unanimous because anyone who opposed it was labeled unpatriotic or sympathetic to the enemy. same with iraq. trust me, i was out there protesting both of them and i know from expeerience and i can't tell you how many times i was told on this very message board to get the fuck out of america. congress faced the same thing, and if someone spoke out against it they got railroaded.

the dem's problem was that they were spineless. they rolled over to whatever bush wanted to do. "you want to go to war?? i don't agree but knock yourself out" is no way for an opposition party to be.

Your first paragraph is a cop out (not for you, but the Democrats or whoever SAYS they felt that way).

The 2nd part I agree with 100% - and why I'm glad the Republicans are doing what they are doing (except showing a lack of a spine in raising taxes while ALSO increasing spending. :? ).

USARAY

yeah it'll be real funny the republicans will get blamed for the failures of obamacare
classic liberals are the infant party they need to grow up and take responsibility
for themselves as individuals and for the mistakes their party makes
got some words for the elephants too I'm saving them for a rainy day